Compassion as an 'Off Topic'

[Vmarco]

Compassion in the Pit? Actually, this may be the only place on TTB where compassion can be discussed honestly,...the crap folder.

 

"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

 

Nearly all faith-based folks take great offense with that definition of compassion, and thus the subject cannot really be discussed in a general forum, amid all the negative feedback of those seeking to defend their various faiths. But in the Pit,...away from the sens-abilities of a majority that demand their beliefs not be discussed, looked at, or critiqued, as if they were their beliefs,...we can perhaps shine light in places that are traditionally kept in the dark by our anti-society.

 

IMO, the best way to discuss compassion is by way of what it is not.

 

Eckhart Tolle said "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

Such is the best, and often only way to breakthrough to truth. Truth is uncovered through the realization of the false. To realize the false, we do not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds.

 

However, shining light specifically on the shit (aka crap) will set (those able to do so) free,...in a much shorter time.

[Vmarco]

My own responses/contributions in this thread will pivot from a Buddhist point of view of Compassion.

 

"Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." Robert Thurman commentary on the Dalai Lama's The Four Noble Truth's.

 

"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 Bodhicharyvatara

 

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real"...Buddha

 

Lao Tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?"

 

What is suffering in the world? The attachment to any belief system for one’s identity.

 

Is Lao Tzu suggesting that enlightenment and the Tao is a belief system? Absolutely not.

 

Real compassion is intolerant of all belief systems.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Vmarco

[Flolfolil]

you can't escape belief systems. what is that? you think you can? smells like a belief system to me...

[Marblehead]

To me compassion is having empathy and then acting upon it. To do a good deed just because you can.

[Songtsan]

I pretty much agree with everything you posted here at this time. I may change my mind later, but it sounds so right, right now.

[rene]

Real compassion is intolerant of all belief systems.

 

It's not that 'real compassion' is intolerant of all belief systems... it's that 'real compassion' is beyond belief systems.

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

I like your version better Rene. Sorry Vmarco.

[Vmarco]

 

It's not that 'real compassion' is intolerant of all belief systems... it's that 'real compassion' is beyond belief systems.

 

warm regards

Yes,...sort of. Real Compassion is surely beyond belief,...however real compassion, as Buddhism instructs, also has empathy for the suffering of sentient beings.

 

If you could see suffering, and the cause of suffering, even though you understand it to be just a dream, would you as Lao Tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?"

 

In a way however, we are getting tripped up on the sequence here. First we must understand the nature of compassion,...before we can really discuss in any depth, how it responds to suffering,...in other words,...before one can honestly argue if compassion is tolerant or intolerant of that which steps between a sentient being and their direct experience,...we should understand compassion itself,...of which, as stated in post #2,...I will be discussing from a Buddhist point of view,...not society's point of view as espoused by Marblehead.

 

What is the good deed that Marblehead recommended? Do not Christian and Muslin evangelists perform good deeds everyday?

 

Flolfolil's comment is too sophomoric to respond to,...yet if you watch, one that the overwhelming majority share. It's sort of, if you're in the box, and the box is sustained by beliefs, then anything outside the box must also be a belief.

[idiot_stimpy]

What is the good deed that Marblehead recommended? Do not Christian and Muslin evangelists perform good deeds everyday?

 

One important factor might be that evangelists have something to get out of performing the good deeds.

 

Beyond belief, beyond the idea of me, so deeds are truly selfless.

[Vmarco]

Sharon Salzberg said, "Sometimes we think that to develop an open heart, to be truly loving and compassionate, means that we need to be passive, to allow others to abuse us, to smile and let anyone do what they want with us. Yet this is not what is meant by compassion. Quite the contrary. Compassion is not at all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly, with all the skill at our disposal. To develop this mind state of compassion...is to learn to live, as the Buddha put it, with sympathy for all living beings, without exception."

[Vmarco]

One important factor might be that evangelists have something to get out of performing the good deeds.

 

Beyond belief, beyond the idea of me, so deeds are truly selfless.

 

Truly Selfless? Elaborate. Abrahamic evangelists are not selfless,...they are acting from a belief.

 

Beyond the belief of me, is simultaneously beyond the belief of other. Is it not?

[idiot_stimpy]

Truly Selfless? Elaborate. Abrahamic evangelists are not selfless,...they are acting from a belief.

 

Yes, maybe my wording was off.

 

Doing a good deed to get into heaven, or doing a good deed to improve your karma or a favorable rebirth is not selfless.

[Marblehead]

Do not Christian and Muslin evangelists perform good deeds everyday?

 

 

I'm not sure they all do. I doubt it. And I do know that some do some pretty evil deeds at times.

[idiot_stimpy]

Beyond the belief of me, is simultaneously beyond the belief of other. Is it not?

 

This is a tricky one. Even though 'objects' might be seen though, if there is still a sense of 'me', the duality still exists. If the 'me' is seen through, but objects are still seen to exist, the duality still exists.

 

Because by default, if there is an inside there must be an outside, and if there is an outside there has to be an inside.

 

It is quite powerful when it is seen that the inside (subject), and outside (object) are empty, and 'that' which is directing this observation is also empty.

[rene]

This is a tricky one. ..

 

Tricky to explain, yes. For me, rather than ideas of 'empty', when natural actions originate from the true heart - what benefits me also benefits others; what benefits others also benefits me - so ideas about compassion, self or selfless are not even defined.

 

And I recognize what you're referring to. (-:

 

warm regards

[idiot_stimpy]

What I mean by empty, is empty of a label. The mind discriminates by separating and labeling different parts of the awareness.

 

When language is taken away, the discrimination falls into a burning heap.

[Songtsan]

Truly Selfless? Elaborate. Abrahamic evangelists are not selfless,...they are acting from a belief.

 

Beyond the belief of me, is simultaneously beyond the belief of other. Is it not?

 

hmmm...that is basically the coolest thing I read today.

[Songtsan]

This is a tricky one. Even though 'objects' might be seen though, if there is still a sense of 'me', the duality still exists. If the 'me' is seen through, but objects are still seen to exist, the duality still exists.

 

Because by default, if there is an inside there must be an outside, and if there is an outside there has to be an inside.

 

It is quite powerful when it is seen that the inside (subject), and outside (object) are empty, and 'that' which is directing this observation is also empty.

 

I wonder though - it would seem if loss of 'me' occurred, then there would be no 'me' that categorizes objects into separate pieces. There might simply be thisness.

[idiot_stimpy]

I wonder though - it would seem if loss of 'me' occurred, then there would be no 'me' that categorizes objects into separate pieces. There might simply be thisness.

 

 

You can look for yourself.

 

But you must find out what is looking.

 

If you have the thought, 'I am looking'

 

Find out what was looking at the thought 'I am looking'.

[Marblehead]

When language is taken away, the discrimination falls into a burning heap.

If language didn't exist we would have died away just like the Neanderthal.

[Vmarco]

This is a tricky one. Even though 'objects' might be seen though, if there is still a sense of 'me', the duality still exists. If the 'me' is seen through, but objects are still seen to exist, the duality still exists.

 

Because by default, if there is an inside there must be an outside, and if there is an outside there has to be an inside.

 

It is quite powerful when it is seen that the inside (subject), and outside (object) are empty, and 'that' which is directing this observation is also empty.

 

Isn't it though,...that's why many shouldn't even visit this stuff. It really, really begins to challenge ego,...but if you stick with it, you cease working for ego, and ego starts working for you,...the you that you really are.

 

What many get told is to let go of the you,...which is sort of correct,...you let go of the you that you think you are, that you sense you are,...and in so doing, you become aware, even if only in glimpses, which you may have already experienced, the you that you are.

 

You will recognize the you that you really are, when such is being realized from beyond the 6 senses. Again, you may have already experienced it,...or as me, have had the experiences, but was years before it was even recognized,...as it just sort of blended in with the illusory stuff.

 

As for inside and outside,...I assure you that this is a thread unto itself,...and a very worth while at that.

[Vmarco]

I wonder though - it would seem if loss of 'me' occurred, then there would be no 'me' that categorizes objects into separate pieces. There might simply be thisness.

 

There you go,....the path to Suchness.

 

"those desiring speedily to be

A refuge for themselves and other beings,

Should interchange the terms of I and Other,

And thus embrace a sacred mystery."

Shantideva

[Songtsan]

You can look for yourself.

 

But you must find out what is looking.

 

If you have the thought, 'I am looking'

 

Find out what was looking at the thought 'I am looking'.

 

but wouldn't loss of 'me' basically be equivalent to loss of 'I am looking'? That to me is exactly the same - just thisness - no 'I' 'me' or 'mine'

[Basher]

People seem to have more Compassion for kids / animals, than for other adults.

Maybe it has to do with how "helpless" / defenceless thay seem.

 

But are we compassionate because it's just our own nature....we like helping others / especially those less fortunate than ourselves ?

 

or is it, how we were brought up by our parents / family ......what society expects ?

 

Is it because it's the "right thing to do"....?

 

or because we'd like to earn a few brownie points towards eternal salvation ? (if we believe in that)

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

compassion is never exclusive; if you have compassion for "this but not that" you have no genuine compassion, but merely a passionate opinion.

To which I can only admit, I have no compassion for civility as it has come to be... maybe once upon a time 300 years ago... I could be compassionate of the civil pursuits... but today, it is a perversion and desecration of its former noble pursuits.

I've a passionate opinion that humane compassion is destroyed by civil convenience.