Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is compassion axiomatically good/ethical?
matthewmartin
Amateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
I read this recently and now it annoys me that I'm not sure why compassion is a good thing.
ref: http://secularbuddhism.org/2011/10/28/the-ethics-of-impermanence/
I think it is not controversial that compassion is a big theme in Buddhism (feel peoples pain, do good for them because you feel their pain, too). I think that compassion is one of the foundation of Buddhist ethics (maybe one of the others is skillfulness-- evil is what gets in the way of Buddhist practice, such as getting stoned or stuck in jail and so on)
Is compassion axiomatically good (i.e. one of those things we take as true without further consideration), or is it derivable from other Buddhist themes? Ethics based on how they affect practice-- that's obvious-- if you're drunk you can't meditate, you can't escape samsara. If I ignore the suffering of others, doesn't seem like it would perturb meditation, in fact, it's much easier to practice if you can put out of your head thoughts of how miserable everyone else is-- I don't want to start a vegetarian thread, but those hamburgers are tastier if you don't think about the the cows eating chicken litter day after day, that wool carpet feels nicer on the feet if you don't have to think about the hacking cough of the 6 year old slave that wove it.
So I'm rooting for compassion, but still don't have a good retort for Flanagan's observation.
... If I were a Buddhist, I would be troubled by not understanding how Buddhist ethics follows from Buddhist metaphysics and epistemology.from The Bodhisattva’s Brain, philosopher Owen Flanagan.
ref: http://secularbuddhism.org/2011/10/28/the-ethics-of-impermanence/
I think it is not controversial that compassion is a big theme in Buddhism (feel peoples pain, do good for them because you feel their pain, too). I think that compassion is one of the foundation of Buddhist ethics (maybe one of the others is skillfulness-- evil is what gets in the way of Buddhist practice, such as getting stoned or stuck in jail and so on)
Is compassion axiomatically good (i.e. one of those things we take as true without further consideration), or is it derivable from other Buddhist themes? Ethics based on how they affect practice-- that's obvious-- if you're drunk you can't meditate, you can't escape samsara. If I ignore the suffering of others, doesn't seem like it would perturb meditation, in fact, it's much easier to practice if you can put out of your head thoughts of how miserable everyone else is-- I don't want to start a vegetarian thread, but those hamburgers are tastier if you don't think about the the cows eating chicken litter day after day, that wool carpet feels nicer on the feet if you don't have to think about the hacking cough of the 6 year old slave that wove it.
So I'm rooting for compassion, but still don't have a good retort for Flanagan's observation.
0
Comments
Yes, it's nice to make nice.
But compassion in Buddhism is sometimes described as the other edge of a two-edged sword. One edge is penetrating wisdom, sharp as a scalpel; the other edge is clear-eyed, no-mumbling compassion. It's one sword, not two different swords. Both sides cut and penetrate right down to the bone.
OK, it's nice to make nice ... way nicer than not making nice. But is this necessarily compassion? I doubt it. In Buddhism, the notion of altruism (with which compassion is sometimes conflated) runs into a problem. The word "alter," with which "altruism" attains linguistic liftoff, means "other" in Latin. Altruism is an expression of separation of one thing or person from another.
Buddhism does not teach separation. (It doesn't teach oneness either, but let's set that aside for the moment). Separation -- imagined or otherwise -- is one of the cornerstones of suffering or unsatisfactoriness. So it hardly seems likely that Buddhism would encourage one of the very tripstones it seeks to dismantle (see the Four Noble Truths).
If this argument holds any water, then I think "compassion" as it is used intellectually or emotionally -- the super-altruistic stuff -- fails to accord entirely with Buddhist teaching. Not that it's bad or naughty ... it just seems to be incomplete and likely to extend the tenure of something that sounds good, but lacks fulfillment.
OK ... if it ain't exactly making nice and if it ain't exactly sounding sweet and if it ain't exactly altruistic ethics ... what is it that brings home the compassionate bacon ... what is it that imbues it with a sharpness and appropriateness that 'matches' the 'other' edge of the sword?
My own feeling is that compassion exhibits itself with practice. It's not some sort of reward or gold star or brass ring. It just grows up naturally out of an attentive and responsible practice. Compassion is good not so much because everyone runs around calling it good but more because it is what works and what works makes life happier and more sane.
My guess is that those who have a Buddhist practice that they actually practice can relax. No need to go chasing around herding cats and 'trying' to be compassionate. Sure, be nice and polite and helpful the way mom said. But also, make room for compassion to exhibit itself in its own time in its way ... the way that happens to work better. Sometimes things turn out a lot better when people stop trying to be good.
Practice.
Patience.
See what happens.
I'd add my understanding of "threefold purity". I found this taught in Mahayana and boils down to this:
Not being caught up with ideas about yourself, not being caught up with ideas about the practice, and not being caught up with ideas about the result
Put another way - no practitioner, no practice, no result.
Or yet another way, No Gift, No Giver, No recipent.
I think the last example is appropriate for discussion of "practicing" compassion. It teaches that complete purity of something such as compassion is empty of practitioner, practice, or result. We can certainly "practice" compassion and that's nice. It's good to work on being nice (or compassionate). The thing is, with that approach there's still something to practice someone who's practicing and someone on the recieving end. So, while it may be "nice" and certainly worth doing, it's far from the pure compassion of a Boddhisattva. That kind of compassion is compassion "without reference". It's just compassion.
That doesn't mean we should work on being compassionate - doing altuisic things for the sake of beings. What it does mean we shouldn't be kidding ourselves about just what that means. It can turn into an ego trip (as in "'I" am being compassionate) and defeat the cultivation of pure, non-referential compassion.
That's the easy way out....
IMO...virtue/compassion/the good thing gets a bad rep just
bec of the lack of further explanation and understanding....
Suddenly, two or three steps ahead, just beyond your reach, an elderly person falls down. Without explanation or understanding, you take the two or three steps that separate you from the fallen person, assess the damage without really thinking, and then help him/her up. The whole thing is over before you know it. Everyone parts as friends. No biggie.
How could further explanation or understanding improve this scene? Isn't it as natural as falling out of bed? Only later does anyone sit down and make up something called "compassion" or "virtue" ... and perhaps confuse a scene which is/was purely natural.
I don't think virtue/compassion get a bad rep because there is a need for further explanation or understanding. I think it gets a bad rep -- when it does -- because of the attachment that can be affixed to it.
Just my take.
walking ?? Isn't that why it's something to practice...so
it does become natural? .... I sure know alot of people
that it seems to NOT be natural...and then...yes, the other side...
people who think their shit doesn't stink....I dunno...
This red flag of virtue topic
gets me everytime....gets me= confuses the hell out of
me...hahaha
I'm going to chalk it up as a raft toy...:)
for instance out of "compassion" when a child dies we feel we need to make a law to try and stop it from ever happening again, which is silly because you can't legislate life and there are many unforeseen consequences that come from these "compassionate" acts.
compassion is nothing without wisdom, wisdom and compassion together is what the Buddha had, compassion is a good thing, when used via wise action.
" Head & Heart Together: Bringing Wisdom to the Brahma-viharas by Thanissaro Bhikkhu"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/headandheart.html
But you also have to realize that no matter how unlimited the scope of these positive emotions, their effect is going to run into limits. In other words, regardless of how strong your goodwill or compassion may be, there are bound to be people whose past actions are unskillful and who cannot or will not change their ways in the present. This is why you need equanimity as your reality check. When you encounter areas where you can't be of help, you learn not to get upset. Think about the universality of the principle of karma: it applies to everyone regardless of whether you like them or not. That puts you in a position where you can see more clearly what can be changed, where you can be of help. In other words, equanimity isn't a blanket acceptance of things as they are. It's a tool for helping you to develop discernment as to which kinds of suffering you have to accept and which ones you don't.
"Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/harris/bl141.html
My take is ... don't allow the solemnity others may lavish on something called "virtue" to slow your own footsteps. Be attentive and patient and responsible and leave "virtue" to the play-by-play announcers.
Basically the author of the article Mark Nickelbine thought that the philosopher he quoted Owen Flanagan was coming at the question purely from a classical western "individual" point of view. That OF was missing the part of Buddhist teachings that seeks to reduce and eliminate an individuated self.
In my own words, we all seek to lessen our own suffering. When we also begin to lessen our self identity empathy increases. When we have empathy another's suffering feels like our own, we then naturally act to reduce suffering, a feeling and an act we call compassion.
I usually think that fostering compassion means fostering empathy & sympathy for all life.
It is a manifestation of selflessness beyond the delusion of self and other.
The precepts are the fruits of compassion, as are love and wisdom.
If the path towards the sufferings extinction is "good", then so is compassion.
My first thought was "depends on how you define compassion", which is probably a strong relative truth. A person's capacity for compassion is something that matures and grows more inclusive, and can look different at different times in one's life, depending upon circumstances.
When I ended the abusive marriage, I often day-dreamed pleasant scenarios where my ex fell off the side of the mountain we lived on, or where terrible things happened to him to make him suffer. I was beyond angry and humiliated. The compassion I had for him as a suffering human had seemed to TURN on me, and had led me into enduring years of humiliation in hopes my love for him would help heal him. What happened was that I was being consumed by him. I realized that, finally, and spent a few years believing *some* people were so damaged that compassion for them was dangerous and self-destructive.
But what IS compassion? What does it DO with people who are so damaged they can't NOT damage you, too, just by being nearby? @Jayantha's bolded part above is something I wish I'd known long ago. In the trenches of my life, it is the truth, not just a nice intellectual thing to think about. Compassion in action sometimes doesn't look a lot like ''nice" or "sympathy" or "empathy".
In particular, having had an 'empathic' breakthrough regarding my ex husband, where I saw him without my innocent/ignorant/naivety, there was nothing to do for him at all but to save myself
I can have compassion for the humanity of such destructive people, and when in action, not provide them with anything by which they can work destruction upon. In that way, I *can* do something "good" for them, if that makes sense?
Gassho
Being nice is bad? (somehow automatically insincere, motivated by a desire to move up in rank in status?)
Personally, I lean towards Chinese Buddhism, where merit making is a good thing & isn't so controversial. Hmm. Seems like a metaphysical realization about the self (I don't exist, in some sense), could go either way-- I don't exist, you don't exist, so no harm if you die, and no merit if I help or don't help you.
Monism (everything is in some sense the same, aka everything is empty) seems more promising- if we're all the same somehow, then ordinary selfishness would account for why compassion is good-- we do good because in some sense, if monism is true, we're just helping some emanation of ourself (maybe sort of how it would be silly to favor my left hand over my right since in a way, they are both part of me).
I think Flanagan would be happy if he found a metaphysical realization that led to ethics, I'm kind of hoping a good case can be made for ethics without an abstruse metaphysical revelation. If the metaphysical "ah-ha!" is a prerequisite to merit & virtue & ethics, then it seems there is no point in bothering with ethics until one is enlightened, since action would just be like non-stop evil, unskillful acts and we just wouldn't know it.
The way I interpret emptiness is closer to your monism than nothing exists. There isn't isolated, individuated existence ultimately but that doesn't mean that nothing exists at all.
I like to use the analogy of a bleeding finger. We don't put on salve or a band-aid because of an ideal born of emotion... We do it because a part of us is in need of healing.
My take is ... don't allow the solemnity others may lavish on something called "virtue" to slow your own footsteps. Be attentive and patient and responsible and leave "virtue" to the play-by-play announcers.
The quote...really? Not anything unknown....too much of anything
can make you crazy...hahaha. Easy realization....
ok...the second part...here comes in the further explanation....
how would it slow your steps? In what ways?....
And...who are the announcers.....?
It's my experience, right? Who is announcing
my stuff...? hahaha
I think I actually agree with what your sayin'...just
for different reasons...
.and I would be lying if I said
I didn't think it was good/compassionate of you
to further take the teaching into explaining the
whys....
I used to be so hung up on not getting anything
back/return/worrying about ego/payoff....here
is where that extreme thinking got me....I have been
giving blood for years and years...I never took
anything they gave....drink, shirt....I caught myself
judging those who did.....I still can't even bring
myself to claim charitable contributions....bec I
got obsessed about getting a tax break is getting
a return....you see what I'm trying to say?...
What if your name does appear on the side
of the building after saying...
no, no...that's ok...see? the lessons must
continue on.....it's not
the virtue that got me crazy over thinking everything....
It was me not understanding how to receive.
How to meet in the middle....
is always....we can overdo...out think anything...but
I'm still standing by yes, good is nice, and doing good
things leads to good realizations and good states of
minds...which is good and nice for all beings...
And keep an eye on it: "Good" things are sometimes peculiar in their fallout.
( I got muffins in the oven and refuse to burn
anything again bec of not paying attention...hahaha)....
That would be a fallout, for sure! hahaha