The Compassionate Daoist vs. the Compassionate buddhist

[Bearded Dragon]

I don't particularly like the word compassion by definition. It binds the awareness of the issue with the desire to resolve it. As Harmonious Emptiness mentioned, practicing compassion can rob someone of living their own life and learning from their experiences. I would much rather ditch compassion and have a profound awareness of the suffering of others, and maintain the position to act if I believe it to be in the best interest of the person or situation.

 

Semantics are a pain in the butt.

 

"Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion

 

"Sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it." - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

[Rara]

New Kapampa ... well my lips are sealed ... plenty of other stuff in North of England I know an excellent teacher in Manchester.

 

Kadampa you mean? But yes, we're on the same wavelength then.

 

Is the teacher you speak of at a specific temple? If so, I'd like to know which one as my girlfriend may have done some volunteering for them actually.

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread, will move to PMs if preferred.

[Apech]

Kadampa you mean? But yes, we're on the same wavelength then.

 

Is the teacher you speak of at a specific temple? If so, I'd like to know which one as my girlfriend may have done some volunteering for them actually.

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread, will move to PMs if preferred.

 

Yep sorry Kadampa ... (and I can't go back an edit )

 

I'll PM you the link.

[forestofclarity]

To offer a different opinion, there are actually many words that point to compassion. Metta, dana, karuna. Some of these things DO have to do with feelings, specifically warm feelings.

 

In the Metta Sutta, which I have chanted at both Theravada and Zen centers:

 

Even as a mother protects with her life

Her child, her only child,

So with a boundless heart

Should one cherish all living beings.

 

Pretty strong stuff.

 

I think the unfortunate thing about 'compassion' as an idea is that it generates a lot of strangeness in people. By this I mean false attitudes and feelings. This is because it is misunderstood.

 

In Buddhism the word is bodhicitta which actually means being awake. That is awake to reality. This means you recognise the true nature of things and because of this you become compassionate to others (and yourself). It is not really to do with feelings and certainly not sentiment ... it is to do with understanding. As soon as you understand the true situation for yourself and others you become compassionate.

[Jetsun]

"One day in Mino province I observed a cicada casting its skin in the shade. It managed to get its head free, and then its hands and its feet emerged one after the other. Only its left wing remained inside, still caught to the old skin. It didn't look as though it would ever get that wing unstuck. Watching it struggling to free itself, I was moved by feelings of compassion to assist it with my fingernail. Excellent, I thought, now you are free to go on your way. But the wing that I had touched remained shut and would not open. That cicada never was able to fly as it should have. Looking at it, I felt ashamed of myself and regretted deeply what I had done."

- Master Hakuin

[ChiDragon]

It's not nice to fool with mother Nature. This is a classic example of not being Wu Wei.

Edited September 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[doc benway]

It's not nice to fool with mother Nature. The is a classic example of not being Wu Wei.

Should one save a drowning child who falls into a river?

[ChiDragon]

Should one save a drowning child who falls into a river?

 

This question has been addressed to me many times. Is natural to see a baby drowning in the river....???

 

It is a matter of how people understand the definition of "Wu Wei". If people have understood the true meaning of Wu Wei, then this question would have had been asked again and again.

 

Wu Wei(無為) is to let Nature take its course without any interference to cause her any harm.

Now, let's ask ourselves two logical questions:

1. If we've saved the baby from drowning in the river, are we causing any harm to Nature....???

2. If we have not save the baby from drowning, are we causing any harm to Nature......???

 

What are your thoughts based on the above definition of "Wu Wei"........???

 

 

[doc benway]

 

This question has been addressed to me many times. Is natural to see a baby drowning in the river....???

 

It is a matter of how people understand the definition of "Wu Wei". If people have understood the true meaning of Wu Wei, then this question would have had been asked again and again.

 

Wu Wei(無為) is to let Nature take its course without any interference to cause her any harm.

Now, let's ask ourselves two logical questions:

1. If we've saved the baby from drowning in the river, are we causing any harm to Nature....???

2. If we have not save the baby from drowning, are we causing any harm to Nature......???

 

What are your thoughts based on the above definition of "Wu Wei"........???

 

 

I do like your answer to the baby question and how it arose from your definition of Wu Wei.

Thanks for the reply.

 

Although I will add that if a baby jumps into the river and you save her, you have interfered with nature, have you not?

[ChiDragon]

I do like your answer to the baby question and how it arose from your definition of Wu Wei.

Thanks for the reply.

 

Although I will add that if a baby jumps into the river and you save her, you have interfered with nature, have you not?

 

Yes, I had interfered with no harm but good. Have I violated the concept of Wu Wei.....???

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Although I will add that if a baby jumps into the river and you save her, you have interfered with nature, have you not?

Yeah. Maybe she is an excellent swimmer and jumped in to get some pratice. If you jumpin and pull her out she would be pissed at you.

[Apech]

Although I will add that if a baby jumps into the river and you save her, you have interfered with nature, have you not?

 

Is everyone assuming that we as the potential rescuer are not part of nature also ... if we are saving her is natural ...

 

Yeah. Maybe she is an excellent swimmer and jumped in to get some pratice. If you jumpin and pull her out she would be pissed at you.

 

Good thinking.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Apech

[doc benway]

 

Yes, I did interfered with no harm but good. Have I violated the concept of Wu Wei.....???

So then your definition doesn't hold up anymore, you have to do away with the non-interference part...

 

I look at it differently. If I see a baby in the river, it is in my nature to save it. I AM Nature. I am not other than Nature.

So when I save the baby, Nature is saving the baby using me as a vehicle. I am not interfering at all.

 

Is everyone assuming that we as the potential rescuer are not part of nature also ... if we are saving her is natural ...

That's what I was leading up to... you beat me to the punch line by ~ 3 seconds...

 

So I'd like to add, ChiDragon, that the problem I have with your definition of Wu Wei is the invocation of "harm." Once you bring that into it, you are making value judgements and Nature doesn't do that. There is plenty of harm in nature. It's all a matter of perspective. When the lion eats a gazelle, to the lion there is no harm done but it's different for a gazelle. If a baby falls in the river and you and I aren't there to save it you can bet the mom has been deeply harmed. When I make a shelter and kill a few plants - I'm harming nature. When a hurricane blows through New Orleans - enormous harm...

 

The definition I can get behind is that of non-interference. But for that definition to work you've got to recognize yourself as just another extension of Nature. The tricky part is to know when you are interfering and when you are not. That's what the sage has figured out and the rest of us are working on.

[ChiDragon]

So then your definition doesn't hold up anymore, you have to do away with the non-interference part...

 

I look at it differently. If I see a baby in the river, it is in my nature to save it. I AM Nature. I am not other than Nature.

So when I save the baby, Nature is saving the baby using me as a vehicle. I am not interfering at all.

 

I know it is hard to get the point across.

 

Lao Tze was putting emphasis on "interfere with harm". I had been flagged "harm", with red many many times, and you still miss the point. If you think you are part of Nature, then there would be no Wu Wei to begin with. It is because there was no one, here, to interfere nor non-interfere with Nature.

 

In the TTC, Lao Tze was treating that all humans are not part of Nature. He was suggesting that humans have to be coped with Nature. Humans are wearing clothes during cold weathers. If humans were stay naked and died(due to cold temperature) was considered to be part of Nature, then no human will be left on earth.

 

If a madman built an atomic bomb to blow up the whole world, is it natural because he is part of Nature.....???

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

the problem I have with your definition of Wu Wei is the invocation of "harm." Once you bring that into it, you are making value judgements and Nature doesn't do that. There is plenty of harm in nature. It's all a matter of perspective. When the lion eats a gazelle, to the lion there is no harm done but it's different for a gazelle. If a baby falls in the river and you and I aren't there to save it you can bet the mom has been deeply harmed. When I make a shelter and kill a few plants - I'm harming nature. When a hurricane blows through New Orleans - enormous harm...

 

The definition I can get behind is that of non-interference. But for that definition to work you've got to recognize yourself as just another extension of Nature. The tricky part is to know when you are interfering and when you are not. That's what the sage has figured out and the rest of us are working on.

 

Yes... I don't know of anyone yet to agree with this 'harm' angle.

 

If viewed from entropy: Nature is the natural process of harm... From another point of view, it is the natural process of generation. It is less about opposites than the natural ebb and flow of transformations.

 

I always liked James Wang's view that Wu Wei was the negative sense of Zi Ran; and I can't think to add 'harm' in any defition of Zi Ran either.

 

The closest I have seen to having 'harm' in a definition of Wu Wei is Blofeld who said it is:

"No action out of HARMony with Nature's Laws"

[doc benway]

 

I know it is hard to get the point across.

 

Lao Tze was putting emphasis on "interfere with harm". I had been flagged "harm", with red many many times, and you still miss the point. If you think you are part of Nature, then there would be no Wu Wei to begin with. It is because there was no one, here, to interfere nor non-interfere with Nature.

 

In the TTC, Lao Tze was treating that all humans are not part of Nature. He was suggesting that humans have to be coped with Nature. Humans are wearing clothes during cold weathers. If humans were stay naked and died(due to cold temperature) was considered to be part of Nature, then no human will be left on earth.

 

If a madman built an atomic bomb to blow up the whole world, is it natural because he is part of Nature.....???

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's not that I miss the point. I simply think that you are misguided in your interpretation.

 

Lao Zi absolutely understood that humans are a part of nature. Do you believe that everything alive is a part of nature except humans? Then what are humans? Are we a technological creation? All life is part of nature. This is why the place to look for answers is inside yourself, not in a book. This is why the Daoists practice meditation and qigong.

 

Lao Zi recognized that humans had lost touch with their true nature through conditioning, through social engineering, and political manipulation. The entire message of Daoism can be summed up in helping people to reconnect with and embrace their original nature. That's what Wu Wei is all about. That's what Zi Ran is all about.

 

Our dependence on technology (like clothing) seems to be an adaptation. It is a natural response to our progressive technological advancement. Or perhaps not, that's just the most plausible explanation I can come up with offhand. Maybe there is another explanation altogether. And maybe you're right and we are not a part of nature. If that's the case, what are we?

 

The madman is an aberration, that's why we call him a madman. Nevertheless, if that happens someday, yes - it is in fact an act of nature. If an asteroid hits the earth and wipes out humanity, is that not nature? This is the whole meaning of Zhuang Zi's Empty Boat parable. An empty boat bumps into you, no problem - it's nature. Just because a person is steering the boat, it is no different than the empty boat... the wise man does not get angry. And the sage is so skillful, he disappears altogether, he is as nature - empty of intent, wu wei.

 

But I don't think I will convince you of anything. That's fine. We can agree to disagree on this.

[ChiDragon]

The tricky part is to know when you are interfering and when you are not. That's what the sage has figured out and the rest of us are working on.

 

Okay! just from the philosophical point of view, when you are interfering and when you are not....??? Can you give me some examples.....??? Thanks...!!!

Edited September 9, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Dagon]

 

Okay! just from the philosophical point of view, when you are interfering and when you are not....??? Can you give me some examples.....??? Thanks...!!!

 

 

Is taking antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection considered interfering?

 

What about treating your head for lice?

 

What about putting someone on life support until they can get an organ transplant?

 

What about using chi to heal someone, if healing them has to eradicate a virus?

 

What about mowing the yard or starting a campfire?

 

What about removing a tick from your dogs ear?

 

I can think of a bunch more if you would like.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Dagon

[ChiDragon]

1. Is taking antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection considered interfering?

The bacterial infection is causing you harm, it is natural for you to save yourself. Therefore, it is not interfering because no harm was done. However, it would be debatable if you say killing the bacteria is interfering with its life.

 

2. What about treating your head for lice?

Are you cause harm to your head.....???

 

3. What about putting someone on life support until they can get an organ transplant?

it was interfering for the good with no harm done. Therefore, it did not violate the concept of Wu Wei.

 

4. What about using chi to heal someone, if healing them has to eradicate a virus?

Again, it was interfering with no harm done. Therefore, it did not violate the concept of Wu Wei.

 

5. What about mowing the yard or starting a campfire?

Mowing the yard cause no harm to Nature. However, if one starting a campfire to cause a forest fire, then in would be considered to be interfering because there was harm done to Nature.

 

6. What about removing a tick from your dogs ear?

It caused no harm but a good deed for the dog, therefore, it was not interfering. Again, debatable.

 

I can think of a bunch more if you would like.

Keep coming....if you would like...!!!

 

[Dagon]

ChiDragon, you are considering man's perspective, what about the perspective of the microbes? They are only doing what is natural for them and we kill them for it.

 

I am surprised you answered so quickly though!

 

The wood you burn in a campfire is food for termites and fungus, which become food or other plants and animals.

 

Also, that the firewood could be the home to an array of insects which will be killed, and all for your personal benefit.

 

moving the yard prevents nature from taking it's course, you are cutting down flowers and tree's, that if allowed to grow would take over the property. That's why there is a tall-grass prairie, from people interfering and burning the forests down.

 

What about the tick in the dogs ear, it is just doing what it was naturally programmed to do.

 

So are you saying that the no-harm rule only apply's to sentient beings and we can kill all the animals and insects that we want to?

 

I personally look at it in the term of rights, if something is harming you, like a parasite, it has a right to do that, but you also have a right to prevent yourself from harm. I think you are right and agree with your conclusion, but slightly disagree with your logic. By looking at it in the terms of rights, you can include the microbes/insects perspective as well in the logic.

 

 

 

I think this whole thing goes along with the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Dagon

[Marblehead]

"No action out of HARMony with Nature's Laws"

Even though that doesn't say much, I like it! (Forget capping the HARM.)

 

Nice discussion guys! I'm keeping out of this one though. Hehehe.

[doc benway]

 

Okay! just from the philosophical point of view, when you are interfering and when you are not....??? Can you give me some examples.....??? Thanks...!!!

Sorry, I'm waiting for an answer to my question first...

If humans are not a direct manifestation of Nature, what are we?

 

 

Before it is worthwhile to consider how are actions relate to Nature, we need to establish what we are relative to Nature.

 

Edited for grammar

Edited September 9, 2013 by steve

[Marblehead]

If humans are not a direct manifestation of Nature, what are we?

A question I have spoken to a number of times. I have never had a discussion where the end was total agreement. Best wishes.

[Stosh]

^{Nature has no compassion , it doesnt care one whit whether every human or microbe disappears ,.}

^{Humans on the other hand have concerns and can try to intentionally address them , but}

^{What we call 'harm' is a subjective assessment ( whether it is a predictable equation or not. )}

^{Not bringing headaches on ourselves in terms of a depleted environment , or hostile re-actions to our own actions}

^{tends in the long run, to be a wise view , dont look for trouble , dont butt in where you dont have to , dont}

^{waste energy on stuff that has nothing to do with you because you have bigger fish to fry.}

^{Leave the other stuff to take care of itself as it will.}

 

^{Guy A says to guy B ,"Your pain is not objectively true ".}

^{Guy B says to guy A , "Oh yeah !"}

^{and stomps on guy A 's foot ."See, ? Hows that for objectively true? hurts you as much as it would me!}

^{it is too, objectively true !"}

^{Guy A then stomps on Guy B's foot ,}

^{"Well I didnt feel that one bit ! So , Its still only subjectively true !"}

^{Guy B stomps on Guy A's foot again and says , "Hey Youre right !"}

[Cheshire Cat]

"One day in Mino province I observed a cicada casting its skin in the shade. It managed to get its head free, and then its hands and its feet emerged one after the other. Only its left wing remained inside, still caught to the old skin. It didn't look as though it would ever get that wing unstuck. Watching it struggling to free itself, I was moved by feelings of compassion to assist it with my fingernail. Excellent, I thought, now you are free to go on your way. But the wing that I had touched remained shut and would not open. That cicada never was able to fly as it should have. Looking at it, I felt ashamed of myself and regretted deeply what I had done."

- Master Hakuin

 

This is like a cramp, imho.