dorjeshugden.com
General Buddhism => General Buddhism => Topic started by: RedLantern on February 16, 2014, 04:32:00 PM
-
Like wisdom,compassion is uniquely human quality.All the best in human beings,all the Buddha-like qualities like sharing,readiness to give comfort,sympathy,concern and caring-all these things are manifestations of compassion.You will notice also that in the compassionate person,care and love towards others has it's origins in care and love for oneself.We can best understand others when we really understand ourselves.
We will know what is best for others if we know what is best for ourselves.In Buddhism,one's spiritual development blossoms quite naturally into concern for the welfare of others.The Buddha's life illustrate this
principle very well.
So, are we selfish to say that we are best able to help others,after we have helped ourselves?
-
To me compassion is the what you have described. But in order to best help others we have be enlightened first. That is not to say that we do not help others until we are enlightened. Compassion is defined as not wanting others to suffer but altruism is a step up in that we want to take the responsibility ourself to make sure of that. Further we should have the motivation of not wanting suffering for ourselves and developing renunciation ie the desire to leave samsara and knowing that the best method to help others is to become a fully enlightened Buddha ie developing Boddhicitta and in order to do that we must directly see Emptiness and Omniscience. Further one is to rely on the Guru in the path to achieve Buddhahood.
So compassion is a very important step in the path to enlightenment.
-
Buddhism is really a beautiful philosophy because it is practical.
While it is considered simple philosophy... it is actually not all that direct once we practice, and often the meaning of compassion in blinded by the unwise. People use the word compassion, or being selfless for all the wrong reason, twisting it to gain their own personal desires.
So when someone asks us the questions "is it selfish to help ourselves before others...?" then that question truly shows their lack of wisdom in decided what is right and wrong. The sense of right and wrong is not something that can be so clear cut like how it is in human law... it is something one acquires with the growth of wisdom.
-
Like wisdom,compassion is uniquely human quality.
Not true. Animals have compassion, often much more than humans, and actually often putting humans to shame. By the way, the compassion shown by animals is precisely taken as an evidence of their buddha-nature, or buddha-lineage, which is their potential to achieve enlightenment.
The recognition of the potential of animals (and actually of every sentient being) to eventually achieve the highest level of development is one key element which sets Buddhism apart from Abrahamic religions (Judaism, and its branches for non-Jews, also known as Christianity and Islam).
According to Judaism and its branches, Christianity and Islam, animals are just ”soulless” objects of use by humans. According to the Jewish Talmud, even non-Jewish humans are just animals under the guise of humans, in order to better serve the Jews, and therefore not deserving any compassion, which is therefore discouraged, and even forbidden by such scripture.
Christianity, which started as a Jewish sect, for a long time viewed humans such as American Native Indians, Aboriginals Peoples, etc. as animals deprived of any soul, and therefore not worth any compassion. Islam does nor see any human who refuses converting as worth compassion, thus deserving only death by decapitation or otherwise, according to the Sharia law.
Therefore, according to such views, animals, and often humans, are neither capable of, nor a proper object for, compassion. The compassionate view of animals being worth compassion, held by St. Francis of Assisi, is officially rejected by the Church, including by the new pope, the Jesuit Francis (who took the skin of St. Francis like the wolf who takes the skin of the lamb).
Thus, we should never confound such cruel, brutalizing, Abrahamic view, which does not see animals, and often even humans, as capable of, and worth any compassion, with the pure Dharma of our compassionate teacher the Buddha, according to whom, may I repeat, animals are not only worth, but also capable of compassion.
-
If we really wanna benefit others, we need to strive to become as close to a Buddha as possible. That would mean not just helping ourselves but simultaneously helping others. We develop higher levels of compassion not just by physical acts of kindness but by contemplation, meditation and training of the mind. Don't get caught up with the helping yourself thingy because helping ourselves can be a long drawn out process that may never come to an end. The reason is our selfishness is quite ingrained in us as well and we may fool ourselves that we are helping others when we are really just helping ourselves. With effort, practice and determination, we can develop real compassion and skillful means to help others as well. In the end, nothing beats the abilities of a Buddha in helping others.
-
So, are we selfish to say that we are best able to help others,after we have helped ourselves?
The point is, how could we ever help ourselves without helping others? The very method of helping ourselves is helping others. Buddhas become buddhas helping others, not otherwise.
-
If what RedLantern has described is compassion according to Buddhism then I find the description lacking depth. I think if there is one philosophy that could possibly explain what compassion is, it should be Buddhism. The whole essence of Buddhism in my opinion revolves around compassion and wisdom.
Is loving and caring and kindness and sympathy an act of compassion, I don't necessary think so. I think a compassionate person is kind but a kind person is not necessary compassionate. Having sympathy for someone is not compassion if it is not coupled with a courageous act to do something that will change the other person life. Compassion goes beyond the call of "standard" human duty to take away the suffering of another being.
-
For me, in helping others sometimes you get to help yourself. Not necessary that we can only help others after we have helped ourselves. Of course, you gotta want to help others before you can really help them, but sometimes, we can't help ourselves in the situation we are in, but by helping someone else out, it may work out into helping yourself eventually.
I don't believe in having to achieve something before helping others... it can be simultaneous. The Buddha taught it so that we can perfect our practise as we get by our daily lives. What if you never really achieve the state or situation you desire to, and when you really want to help, it's too late? So start before its too late!
-
A praise of compassion by Lama Zopa Rinpoche:
"Live with compassion
Work with compassion
Die with compassion
Meditate with compassion
Enjoy with compassion
When problems come,
Experience them with compassion."
The definition of compassion is: wanting sentient beings to be free from suffering. So compassion is the definition of the highest scope of motivation.
It is said that to generate genuine compassion, one needs to realise that oneself is suffering, that an end to suffering is possible, and that other beings similarly want to be free from suffering.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama:
"Nirvana liberation from the cycle of uncontrolled rebirth] may be the final object of attainment, but at the moment it is difficult to reach. Thus the practical and realistic aim is compassion, a warm heart, serving other people, helping others, respecting others, being less selfish. By practising these, you can gain benefit and happiness that remain longer. If you investigate the purpose of life and, with the motivation that results from this inquiry, develop a good heart - compassion and love. Using your whole life this way, each day will become useful and meaningful."
"Every human being has the same potential for compassion; the only question is whether we really take any care of that potential, and develop and implement it in our daily life. My hope is that more and more people will realise the value of compassion, and so follow the path of altruism. As for myself, ever since I became a Buddhist monk, that has been my real destiny - for usually I think of myself as just one simple Buddhist monk, no more and no less."
-
Is loving and caring and kindness and sympathy an act of compassion, I don't necessary think so. I think a compassionate person is kind but a kind person is not necessary compassionate. Having sympathy for someone is not compassion if it is not coupled with a courageous act to do something that will change the other person life.
Sympathy, loving, caring, and kindness all share the same nature of compassion. They are all courageous acts, and are all capable of changing the other person's life. They are all causes of the precious bodhichitta, they are the root of the path which leads to enlightenment, and thus nothing to despise or trivialize.
Besides, depending on having generated bodhichitta, even having the mere thought of alleviating someone else's mere headache becomes a powerful source of infinite goodness, as so eloquently remarked by Shantideva, whose reading is recommended to those interested in the topic of compassion.
Compassion goes beyond the call of "standard" human duty to take away the suffering of another being.
There are degrees of compassion, but its nature is always the same, which is the wish to remove the suffering of others, which again is nothing to despise or trivialize. Besides, not only humans are capable of compassion: even animals, hungry ghosts, and hell beings are capable of compassion, according to the Sutras.
Actually, trying to depict compassion as a kind of super-human exclusive virtue serves only the evil purpose of dissociating compassion from our everyday experience and capabilities, and of making people believe that compassion is beyond their reach, something that only some specially gifted, fantasized superhero or prophet is capable of.
Buddhism is not about creating or feeding idealized myths beyond our reality, but about cultivating our potential in a graded way, step by step, recognizing and appreciating the value even of small achievements, which are the very and necessary foundation for the great achievements, such as liberation and enlightenment.
-
Compassion is a nice concept. Real compassion is non-conceptual. It is pure action and motivation without the doer. When we are egoless, then, compassion is just not a word.
-
I tend to agree that before we label ourself of having compassion, we need to have courage to be kind, generous, think of others, benefit them without asking anything in return.
-
Compassion is a nice concept.
You confound compassion with the mere concept of compassion.
Confounding something with its mere concept is such a gross mistake that even the lower Buddhist schools, such as the Sautrantika, identified it as the root ignorance, binding one to samsara.
Real compassion is non-conceptual.
Since you cannot tell something from its mere concept, you are not qualified to decide what is ”conceptual” or ”non-conceptual” either.
Besides, since you mix a mere concept with that which is conceived, it follows that your very conception of ”non-conceptual” is itself a wrong conception, which makes your above statement useless.
Furthermore, since even ordinary beings, although afflicted by conceptuality, are capable of compassion, it follows that compassion does not need to be ”non-conceptual” in order to be real.
To sum up, your ”real compassion” is just an uncooked concoction of your own conceptual mind.
It is pure action and motivation without the doer.
If there is no doer, then, by the same token, there is no deed either, whereby your ”real compassion” lacks any action and motivation, let alone ”pure” ones, and therefore is just a frozen inutility.
When we are egoless, then, compassion is just not a word.
Then, according to your logic, and since an ego has never existed, compassion has never been just a word either, and thus the whole of your pompous discourse is just useless even according to you.
You obviously cannot tell the egoless (which we all are) from the realizer of egolessness (which only arya beings are), which makes of your argument a non-starter.
Besides, since compassion is the very root of the path to realize egolessness, it must exist, or be real, before such realization.
Furthermore, even the mere word ”compassion”, correctly explained and understood, may be immensely beneficial, because it serves as the very and necessary basis for the gradual development of actual compassion in our minds. Indeed, if the word ”compassion”, together with its conceptual meaning, were not useful, the Buddha would not have uttered such a word or explained its meaning in the Sutras.
On the other hand, your whole discourse about ”real, non-conceptual compassion”, full of bloated words and gross misconceptions -- words and conceptions, but wrong ones -- brings no benefit at all, and actually brings much harm, as it portrays the conceptual compassion in the mind of ordinary beings, which is the very sign of our buddha lineage, and the root of the path, as something inferior, and bereft of any value.
-
I tend to agree that before we label ourself of having compassion, we need to have courage to be kind, generous, think of others, benefit them without asking anything in return.
It's all the same, and it's all the nature of compassion. The only mistake is the obsession with labeling oneself as having this or that.
-
Specifically, compassion is a mental factor that wishes others to be free of suffering, and has various types. It can be biased or unbiased, either mixed with the two obstructions or free from these, and either mere compassion or Great Compassion.
We need to become a Buddha to help all living beings to the greatest extent, and as jspitanga says, we become a Buddha by acting like one. Yes we need to get out of samsara ourselves but we must refine our motivation for getting out until it is bodhichitta, and not just sutra bodhichitta, but the proactive maintenance of tantric experience that is resultant renunciation, resultant bodhichitta. By gaining some good experience of renunciation, there is a much stronger foundation for developing the compassion of a bodhisattva, so while not neglecting the intermediate scope training, we must absorb that experience into a much bigger context. One in which our own welfare is automatically taken care of. The story of Geshe Langri Tangpa is a perfect example - he constantly gave everything away and in the process he received so much wealth (he was taken care of) he was able to take care of many people.
The presence of compassion however does not necessarily result in compassionate action. It is especially through developing the unbiased determination to liberate others from suffering that we accomplish a higher form of compassion - Universal Compassion.
Through following the Lamrim we refine our compassion, but until we have eliminated self-grasping and self-cherishing completely, our virtue is stained by these to some extent. That is why it is recommended we combine our virtue with wisdom understanding emptiness such as the recognition of the three spheres.
Sometimes it is important not to over-complicate our training. Every time we see others, hear others, see things made or operated by others and so on, just generate the determination to liberate them from suffering. Imagine the vibration of our compassion if we did this consciously all day long!
-
Compassion. It is just a word people offer misunderstood the real meaning of it. When we help someone we think we have compassion. When we do something great for someone willingly we think it is compassion.
According to Buddhism, compassion should be an act of selflessness. Helping people without any condition
Without expecting anything back from others.
But most people think kindness is compassion.
-
When we help someone we think we have compassion.
Which is a correct thought. Merely wishing to help others is already compassion, let alone actually helping others.
When we do something great for someone willingly we think it is compassion.
Even if we do something small, and even if we merely wish doing something small for the benefit of others, it is already compassion, and such compassion is the very root of the path. One should not despise it.
But most people think kindness is compassion.
Kindness and compassion share the same nature, which is the wish to benefit others. If you despise kindness, you despise compassion, and despise the very root of the path.
-
A quote from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from The Compassionate Life"
"Compassion without attachment is possible. Therefore, we need to clarify the distinctions between compassion and attachment. True compassion is not just an emotional response but a firm commitment founded on reason. Because of this firm foundation, a truly compassionate attitude toward others does not change even if they behave negatively. Genuine compassion is based not on our own projections and expectations, but rather on the needs of the other: irrespective of whether another person is a close friend or an enemy, as long as that person wishes for peace and happiness and wishes to overcome suffering, then on that basis we develop genuine concern for their problem. This is genuine compassion.
For a Buddhist practitioner, the goal is to develop this genuine compassion, this genuine wish for the well-being of another, in fact for every living being throughout the universe."
The way I see it to put it very very brief it's unconditional kindness to all sentient beings
-
A quote from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from The Compassionate Life"
The evil dalai, having broken his relationship with his own root gurus, lacks any authoritativeness on Buddhist subjects, and anyway Buddhist subjects are not supposed to be approached on the basis of mere authority, but rather on the basis of direct perception and inference.
"Compassion without attachment is possible. Therefore, we need to clarify the distinctions between compassion and attachment. True compassion is not just an emotional response but a firm commitment founded on reason.
There is no such thing as ”true compassion”. Every compassion, being a deceptive truth, is necessarily a falsity. Besides, even animals do have compassion, although they do lack ”a firm commitment based on reason”, which shows that the thoughtless statement of the evil dalai is just un-Buddhistic mumbo-jumbo.
Because of this firm foundation, a truly compassionate attitude toward others does not change even if they behave negatively.
Even if someone's compassion seems to be flickering, it is always there, otherwise one would lack the buddha potential. And, although there are degrees of compassion, there is no such thing as ”true” and ”untrue” compassionate attitude. For any sentient beings, compassion is always a reality, and always untrue.
Genuine compassion is based not on our own projections and expectations, but rather on the needs of the other: irrespective of whether another person is a close friend or an enemy, as long as that person wishes for peace and happiness and wishes to overcome suffering, then on that basis we develop genuine concern for their problem. This is genuine compassion.
Compassion, or the wish to alleviate the suffering of others, even if mixed with lack of equanimity, and even if mixed with projections and expectations, is still compassion. It may not be infinite compassion, or great compassion, but it is still compassion, and never ”genuine”, but always false, anyway.
The evil dalai is obviously trying to imply that people whose compassion is mixed, which applies to almost everyone, lack the buddha potential, and thus should be dependent on him, the evil dalai, just as Christians are induced to feel guilty and incapable, and thus to rely on a ”savior”.
Therefore, one should be wary of misguided, un-Buddhistic teachings passed on by charlatans such as the evil dalai, lacking any Buddhist lineage, and aimed at inducing people into the belief that we lack the buddha-potential, and into the evil belief in ”true”, ”genuine”, or intrinsic existence.
For a Buddhist practitioner, the goal is to develop this genuine compassion, this genuine wish for the well-being of another, in fact for every living being throughout the universe."
The evil dalai proposes that people develop what does not and cannot exist, such as a ”true” or ”genuine” compassion. As above, there is no such distinction between ”true” and ”false” compassion, because compassion, being a deceptive reality, is necessarily false.
And such compassion, false as it is, and whether or not it extends to ”every living being throughout the universe”, is always compassion, and is always present in sentient beings, even hell beings, hungry ghosts, or animals, because it is the sign of the very buddha potential the evil dalai wants to deny.
The way I see it to put it very very brief it's unconditional kindness to all sentient beings
Maybe in dalaite, non-Buddhistic, evil teachings, not according to Buddhadharma.
”Unconditional kindneess to all sentient beings” is great compassion, but infinite compassion and mere compassion are compassion too, which the evil dalai wants to devaluate, in order to promote himself as the new ”savior” of his own devious personality cult.
-
Where it reads
Every compassion, being a deceptive truth, is necessarily a falsity.
Please read, ”Every compassion, being a deceptive reality, is necessarily a falsity”.
-
HH Dalai Lama long being regarded as the Chenrizig, Buddha of Compassion. Why is he still not lifting the banning of Dorje Shugden practitioners? It bothers me quite a lot seeing a lot of the practitioners suffering from the discrimination and hardships from HH Dalai Lama's banning of Dorje Shugden. So tell me what is compassion...