"Compassion means skillful action" - huh?

[Birch]

Social darwinism is a constructed inaccurate term, yes.

And it won't get more profound than fear-based. ... Well, you could get more specific: fear of death. The root of all fears.

Pursuing ideas that don't benefit society as a whole can be seen as rooted in the belief that there's so much competition out there that not standing out will not ensure a satisfying existence. It's an inadequacy issue, which most likely is a combination of rational and irrational fears so to speak. Rational fears meaning those threatening conditions in society that are created by everybody's fear-based behavior.

This points to the saying: There's nothing to fear but fear itself.

Fear is not easy to deal with, but if noone does, it only gets worse. What society needs is motivation to have courage, not guides on how to live comfortably with our fears - because they significantly shape our behavior, our perception of reality and thus our society. It is OK if we can't overcome all our fears. I'm just saying that the easy path should not be glorified. Following a guide on how to be rich is an admission of weakness, of failure, and thus not related to "being successful" in terms of being productive to society.

People give clear feedback about socially inacceptable behavior. Things like the term "banksters" and common opinion about criminal politicians and all. It's just that the power that fear awards to people nourishing it makes them not having to care for those opinions, so that (social) standpoint won't represent an incentive to change. Those who make themselves agents of fear are running a pain-avoidance scheme, and thus only pain can give them an incentive to change. I don't mean by creating empathy. Those people are usually way beyond help like that. But the initial means for turning things around for an agent of fear is the removal of the comfort zone.

I've seen some examples of that. I tried to encourage someone with great compassion and positivity to free himself of his obsession, but it was housed in a castle he erected for it, and I didn't have the means (or intention) to tear it down. If you try to help those people, you might believe you've gotten through to them, but then they come back and haven't changed one bit.

Yeah I read Becker on the 'Denial of Death'. There are reasons I would have to learn how to make money other than the ways I've been taught and that have been modelled for me. Because I don't know how. I don't admit failure because I haven't tried the things that work (some of them I don't want to try either but whether that's fear of failure or ethics is up for grabs.)

 

Geez, I had to learn to breathe properly:-)

 

Anyway, I agree with Turtleshell (added to make it back to topic, but still, I do).

[Aaron]

Okay, so this is the last I'll say on this topic. I think the problem that the majority of people in this thread have is that they're talking about compassion, rather than practicing it. If you practice compassion then there is no question about relative or absolute, you understand what compassion is through the act itself.

 

The other problem is that you're defining it by intention and not outcome. If a guy gives a sandwich to a homeless guy to impress the girl he's with, does it matter why he did it, or is it more important that the homeless guy got something to eat? Yes it would be nice if everyone practiced compassion for the right reasons, but the fact is, we probably do a lot of compassionate things without knowing it. Perhaps we should stop examining our motives regarding compassion and just PRACTICE compassion.

 

So if you want to nitpick about compassion, feel free to continue, but if you're in this thread talking out your ass about compassion, but doing nothing compassionate for other people, then maybe you need to stop talking and start doing? When you start doing, then you can come back and talk about it. Or of course you can just be a closet hypocrite.

 

Aaron

[Aetherous]

You're accusing me of being uncompassionate? Why?

[thetaoiseasy]

^^^

Edited January 22, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[Birch]

Hmm, it's a forum for discussion. Why not discuss what it is and what it isn't? How about giving examples to illustrate? Then everyone can judge each other based on their own understanding? Which happens anyway, I'd add.

 

If you'd rather show than tell, go ahead Aaron.

[zerostao]

i dont classify giving food to the hungry or giving a coat to a homeless guy on a winter day compassion.

that is just basic common humanity and nothing noteworthy.

for compassion, one will have to penetrate much deeper than that, requiring skilful action.

[Aetherous]

I like where you're going with that zerostao...what would be an example of more skillful action?

[Owledge]

The other problem is that you're defining it by intention and not outcome. If a guy gives a sandwich to a homeless guy to impress the girl he's with, does it matter why he did it, or is it more important that the homeless guy got something to eat?

It's not a problem, but the right definition, because the chain of resulting outcomes is infinite and increasingly unforseeable. Apart from this being kinda wacky, it would move compassion into the realm of calculated action. It's sad that you get so worked up about the definition of compassion while getting it so wrong. Your own writing advocates 'everyday compassionate action', but based on that I have to say: Sorry, it's not for you to decide whether your actions are compassionate. It depends on the outcome. ... Kinda sucks to see it that way, no?

If you give a homeless guy a sandwich to impress your girlfriend, it says nothing about your capacity for compassion. Either you would have done the same under other circumstances and thus are compassionate, or you just know that it impresses people and are insincere and manipulative.

 

No moral highground there that would justify your righteous indignation.

[zerostao]

to help one find peace, turtle shell

[Owledge]

i dont classify giving food to the hungry or giving a coat to a homeless guy on a winter day compassion.

that is just basic common humanity and nothing noteworthy.

for compassion, one will have to penetrate much deeper than that, requiring skilful action.

Why do you draw a line in the definition? So there's a threshold? Isn't basic common humanity compassionate? Maybe it's simply flying under the radar of society, not considered exceptional, and thus easily handwaved, while it's just the massive basis of compassion happening all the time?

[deci belle]

yay!!!❤ yes~ there is a threshold!! It's not society. It's your own mind before the first thought… This is the threshold of nonpsychological awareness where you see without cogitative and emotional habit awareness.

 

This is the threshold of knowledge without bias or inclination where one can respond without conventional reifications clouding action.

 

Wonderful. It is your own mind after all.

[JustARandomPanda]

Just clearing up the terminology...if you doubt what I just said is true, google fu it.

 

 

Duly noted.

 

But for me that action would still amount to believing if what I read was true or not (which is true even of the Buddhist Sutras and Tao te Ching for me when reading them). Which...uses the ordinary mind.

 

Somehow I rather doubt the Mind of Clear Light is the same mind I'm operating with right now.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

A little something on why my current tendency (google fu-ing and reading books has not yet let me settle the matter personally once and for all)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hint: up until a few years ago I was in the "contented" category (Gurunath's 2nd category of people).

Edited January 22, 2013 by SereneBlue

[Vmarco]

Okay, so this is the last I'll say on this topic. I think the problem that the majority of people in this thread have is that they're talking about compassion, rather than practicing it. If you practice compassion then there is no question about relative or absolute, you understand what compassion is through the act itself.

 

Aaron

 

 

Let's consider HH Dalai Lama for a moment,...again.

 

"If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" HH Dalai Lama

 

"The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." The Way of the Bodhisattva

 

The above is why the internationally recognized student of HH Dalai Lama, Robert Thurman stated, "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible."

 

So,...back to Aaron's supposition,...how does one practice real compassion without a direct realization of emptiness (or, the awareness of the world as it really is, which cannot be understood through sentience?

 

The prajnaparamita's are quite specific regarding what is real compassion,...and using that as a guide, I can guarantee that Aaron has not a clue about real compassion, as shown by his last 1400 posts. Of course, you (Aaron) are free to practice any illusion of your perceived choice,...or, we could discuss the Heart Sutra, especially by way of the easy to read commentary 'Heart Attack Sutra' by Karl Brunnholzl, who is recognized as one of the foremost scholars of the prajnaparamitas.

 

From what I've read on TTB, that is, through all the threads I've been involved with, I am the only one here that sees like a bodhisattva, and thus, the compassion to which I, HH Dalai Lama, Shantideva, and Robert Thurman are pointing to, is so far unrecognizable here. If anyone here wishes to actually practice real compassion, versus relative, man-devised compassion, I suggest the above mentioned Heart Attack Sutra as a favorable beginning point.

[Owledge]

From what I've read on TTB, that is, through all the threads I've been involved with, I am the only one here that sees like a bodhisattva, and thus, the compassion to which I, HH Dalai Lama, Shantideva, and Robert Thurman are pointing to, is so far unrecognizable here.

Yeah, I know the frustration. I am an incarnation of a Daoist deity, but nobody can even perceive my huge divine aura. It's almost impairing my mundane vision, all over the place, but non-deities just can't see it. Bummer.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Owledge

[Vmarco]

A little something on why my current tendency (google fu-ing and reading books has not yet let me settle the matter personally once and for all)

 

 

Hint: up until a few years ago I was in the "contented" category (Gurunath's 2nd category of people).

 

There is no god. Undivided Light is proof that there is no god. However, people are not going to let go of this debilitating belief in "divinity" until they are either convinced otherwise, or become an authentic Buddhist or Taoist.

 

Sakyamuni said, that dukkha is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are. Buddha did not say do not desire. He said, do not desire for things other than they are. What that implies, is that truth of the 4 Noble Truths is uncovered by seeing the way things are. The Bodhisattva of Compassion implied that a Bodhisattvas compassion arises from seeing the way things are. There is no real compassion without seeing the way things are.

 

The way things really are, cannot be understood through the 6 senses or consciousness'. In other words, unless one has transcended the lower 6 consciousness', real compassion is impossible. For those who wish to argue this point, please don't argue with me,....argue with Avalokitesvara, Shantideva, Sakyamuni, or HH Dalai Lama.

 

Desire is not a bad thing. A burning desire to realize the way things really are, is the path to enlightenment. Buddha's desire to understand dukkha, led him to enlightenment. A desire to understand a god, could equally lead to enlightenment.

 

Keep in mind that I did not say a desire for god, as if a predisposition that a god exists,...but an understanding of god,...which will ultimately show that no god exists.

[Vmarco]

Yeah, I know the frustration. I am an incarnation of a Daoist deity, but nobody can even perceive my huge dinine aura. It's almost impairing my mundane vision, all over the place, but non-deities just can't see it. Bummer.

 

Saying you know, when you obviously don't, is dishonesty,...even when you're being sarcastic.

 

For example, your response to:

 

please define the difference between a thesis and a truth. Can you give an example? For instance,...."there is no singularity because there is no time" is a thesis; whereas "there is no present in time" is an absolute truth.

 

was:

 

"Wow, you actually don't know the difference. Your lack of confusion is real."

 

The question of what is the difference between a thesis and the truth was answered in my question,...thus your response was most ignorant and confrontational,...like your above post.

 

Of course, because I'm shinning light upon your bullying nature means to you that I'm without compassion. While others would say otherwise.

 

"Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces." Chögyam Trungpa

[zerostao]

vmarco, you have probably elaborated on this elsewhere, can you direct me to where ?

Undivided Light is proof that there is no god.

[Vmarco]

I am an incarnation of a Daoist deity, but nobody can even perceive my huge dinine aura.

 

It is interesting that a Daoist Deity would use an owl as a name. Scientific evidence shows that owls not only have the smallest brains per size than all birds, but it is also the dumbest of all birds. To be told you are as wise as an owl is actually an insult,...which in todays new age is seen as a compliment.

 

Of course, I never heard of a Daoist Deity,...such a phrase is an oxymoron invented by western theists who cling to their belief in a god while espousing a practice of Daoism.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Do not go about worshipping deities and religious institutions as the source of the subtle truth. To do so is to place intermediaries between yourself and source, and to make youself a beggar who looks outside for a treasure that is hidden inside his own breast. If you want to worship the Tao, first discover it in your own heart."

[Vmarco]

vmarco, you have probably elaborated on this elsewhere, can you direct me to where ?

Undivided Light is proof that there is no god.

 

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19803-what-is-light/

[Owledge]

It is interesting that a Daoist Deity would use an owl as a name. Scientific evidence shows that owls not only have the smallest brains per size than all birds, but it is also the dumbest of all birds. To be told you are as wise as an owl is actually an insult,...which in todays new age is seen as a compliment.

 

Of course, I never heard of a Daoist Deity,...such a phrase is an oxymoron invented by western theists who cling to their belief in a god while espousing a practice of Daoism.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Do not go about worshipping deities and religious institutions as the source of the subtle truth. To do so is to place intermediaries between yourself and source, and to make youself a beggar who looks outside for a treasure that is hidden inside his own breast. If you want to worship the Tao, first discover it in your own heart."

 

Very unskillful trolling. You lack phantasy.

Also, the I-know-more-quotes-than-you game is boring. Lack of original thought leads to intellectual materialism, hiding behind supposed authorities.

You might be suffering from a severe case of academia.

 

...

 

P.S.: Guys, who was that deluded preacher a while ago who thought he's super-ascended and on a mission to liberate everybody and that sex is evil? I was just reminded of him but forgot his name.

[Apech]

It is interesting that a Daoist Deity would use an owl as a name. Scientific evidence shows that owls not only have the smallest brains per size than all birds, but it is also the dumbest of all birds. To be told you are as wise as an owl is actually an insult,...which in todays new age is seen as a compliment.

 

Of course, I never heard of a Daoist Deity,...such a phrase is an oxymoron invented by western theists who cling to their belief in a god while espousing a practice of Daoism.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Do not go about worshipping deities and religious institutions as the source of the subtle truth. To do so is to place intermediaries between yourself and source, and to make youself a beggar who looks outside for a treasure that is hidden inside his own breast. If you want to worship the Tao, first discover it in your own heart."

 

I thought you were keen on goddesses. The owl has an ancient association with wisdom through Athena Greek Goddess of wisdom and Egyptian sign for letter 'm' = the mysteries. It means the wisdom of secret initiation, that about which one keeps silent ... why? because the Sophic wisdom cannot be expressed in words. The small brain is actually an indicator of heart-mind wisdom and not brain knowledge, gnowledge not knowledge in your own terminology I think.

[Marblehead]

Weird, huh? One can also become powerful by telling other people how and why to live.

Hehehe, You have had your share of that, haven't you? That stuff used to be a part of my life too. Not so good.

[Marblehead]

Talking about what is compassion doesn't help one to see if there is such a thing as Absolute vs Relative compassion or whether they're related or not.

I will suggest that all compassion is relative unless you are someone like Mother Teresa.

[Marblehead]

to help one find peace, turtle shell

I agree with these few words. Thing is though, the concept goes way down into the extreme depths of the ocean's waters.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Marblehead