Why should I care about anyone?

music

Buddhists often speak of metta, which annoys me. They make it sound like Buddhism is some kind of 'do gooder' religion where everybody is charitable like Teresa. But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation? Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? Wouldn't that dilute our energy, make us worldly? Wouldn't that time and energy be better spent in reading, meditating etc.? Worldly activities, however noble, aren't salvific. So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred. So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

vinlyn

I'll be interested to see what responses you get on this.

DaftChris

By this point, I think you are TRYING to get a negative reaction from people, just for the sake of being a troll (for lack of a better word).

Inc88

That's because liberation cant be achieved with a closed heart. Kick a kitten and try to meditate...bet it wont work out well for you. Its not about pushing people away form you or grasping to them too tightly either.

I assume your not a monk so for a layperson i recommend learning more about karma, rebirth, and how the monks rely on the lay people during alms rounds

andyrobyn

DaftChris said:

By this point, I think you are TRYING to get a negative reaction from people, just for the sake of being a troll (for lack of a better word).

I think it is a genuine question and one which I find useful to contemplate my answer to ... I am doing so and will return with my answer when time permits.

DaftChris

andyrobyn said:

DaftChris said:

By this point, I think you are TRYING to get a negative reaction from people, just for the sake of being a troll (for lack of a better word).

I think it is a genuine question and one which I find useful to contemplate my answer to ... I am doing so and will return with my answer when time permits.

Alright. Fair enough. Here is my answer.

Are we dead yet? As we are not, why would we NOT want to be compassionate to others around us. Why would we want to alienate them? Since our time would be spent helping others, I don't think it would be a form of attachment. In fact, couldn't the acts of kindness themselves be our way to our liberation?

robot

andyrobyn said:

DaftChris said:

By this point, I think you are TRYING to get a negative reaction from people, just for the sake of being a troll (for lack of a better word).

I think it is a genuine question and one which I find useful to contemplate my answer to ... I am doing so and will return with my answer when time permits.

It does seem to have an antagonistic bent to it. I mean, why doesn't @music study some Buddhist material online or in books instead of asking this type of question over again here?
@music why not find out these things for yourself? Is this your only source of information?

driedleaf

I believe that we are all interconnected. When we hurt ourselves, we could also hurt others, and when we hurt others, we also end up hurting ourselves.

vinlyn

DaftChris said:

By this point, I think you are TRYING to get a negative reaction from people, just for the sake of being a troll (for lack of a better word).

I understand why you say this; sometimes I feel the same way about Music's posts.

But sometimes he also asks very good questions. I'm not always clear what his motivations are.

I have to admit, that I sometimes toy with the idea that Buddhism is primarily about liberation from suffering...BUT...that is not all that life is about.

vinlyn

DaftChris said:

...In fact, couldn't the acts of kindness themselves be our way to our liberation?

Hmmm. Isn't that sort of selfish? The ends justify the means (though in this case they are good)?

robot

I guess it seems obvious. What goes around, comes around.

DaftChris

vinlyn said:

DaftChris said:

...In fact, couldn't the acts of kindness themselves be our way to our liberation?

Hmmm. Isn't that sort of selfish? The ends justify the means (though in this case they are good)?

I don't think so. Sure, you could argue that the ends justify the means; but only if one is actively doing such a thing. Being kind just for the sake of being such a thing and expecting something good to come their way is not what I'm really referring to.

I'm referring to genuine acts of kindness. When are people genuinely compassionate and kind, I think that is when people's liberation will come. Not when it is forced or used as an "ends to justify the means".

These are just my thoughts.

Patr

Genuine or not, acts of kindness beats doing nothing.

Amelia

I have taken a vow to do my best to save all beings.

jcuest

Buddha himself taught his doctrine a lot of years for to help people, it isn't to care people? And metta, I believe, is one of his teachings. So if you hate metta, you aren't a true Buddhist. It's true that Buddhism have many techniques for achieve liberation, according to our diverse temperaments. But a true Buddhist, I think, can't dispraise any of such ways of liberation.

I'm specially interested in metta, I introduced it in my daily meditation since last weekend, advised by a member of this site. I'm not "saint Teresa", but in only three days I have noticed the beneficial effects. But it isn't recommendable for all, and obviously it is not for you, @music.

Anyway, it isn't important which way we choose, only matters to choose well, according to our temperament. For all the ways of Buddhism drive us to nirvana.

lobster

So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred.

Of course nothing sacred. Just looking out for number one . . .
What you want to know about is genuine and secret altuism? Well anyone is able to send me metta and boddhicitta in any quantity. This is a free service . . .

music

Patr said:

Genuine or not, acts of kindness beats doing nothing.

But aren't such acts essentially a farce? Humans are by nature violent, so any 'kind' act is simply a case of reciprocal altruism.

Wisdom23

I see your point and i too have pondered this point. i thought i could give all my time and all my money and i still wouldnt eliviate much suffering but saying this whenever i go home or end the day knowing i have made soneone smile and paused the suffering button for even a second i can sleep well i probably dont know how many people enjoy having me around lol and dont you feel warm and fuzzy inside when you know you have made a significant difference to someones day. so to conclude no its not the be all and end all but being charitable is deffo something we should be mindful of as we go about our day.

Cinorjer

music said:

Buddhists often speak of metta, which annoys me. They make it sound like Buddhism is some kind of 'do gooder' religion where everybody is charitable like Teresa. But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation? Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? Wouldn't that dilute our energy, make us worldly? Wouldn't that time and energy be better spent in reading, meditating etc.? Worldly activities, however noble, aren't salvific. So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred. So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

Ah, the paradox. In one way, you are right. If your Buddhism is only about your own personal salvation, then of course you don't need or want to care about other people. So don't. Go find some isolated mountain cave and set up shop as a hermit. Meditate until moss grows out of your ears. I wish you success.

But was the Dharma as taught by Buddha only about you escaping the cycle of birth and death? Hardly. If that is enlightenment, then once Buddha became Awakened, he'd have spent the rest of his life gazing at his navel and to heck with anyone else. Instead he looked around at the world, and with a clear mind saw the terrible suffering of the people and was moved to compassion.

Instead of staying in his forest and spending the rest of his life in meditation, he spent the rest of his life teaching us how to eliminate suffering by creating the Dharma and Sangha for us. That was hard, frustrating, unrewarding work.

The Buddha started off like all of us, with selfish desires, including the desire to find the secret to happiness. Once you strip away selfish desires, what is left? Simple compassion. But you can't teach someone compassion. Compassion and charity are not the same thing. You can fake compassion by donating, but that doesn't help you at all. Bodhidharma was once asked by a King how much good karma all those temples the King ordered to be built brought, and the reply was "None whatsoever!" So again, you are right that forcing someone to act as if they have compassion is useless.

But you can point someone to compassion and let their Buddha Nature take over. The Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are designed to strip away the selfish desires that block you from connecting to life. When you act from compassion, you are being a Buddha. We recognize that. But we all start out like the Buddha before his Awakening, on a personal, selfish quest for our own happiness. We recognize that, also.

Thus, in a nutshell, there is a paradox. But it's only a paradox if you don't look at the Dharma as a whole. Is all this what you're looking for?

Zero

music said:

So why waste time pretending...

Very good point... if you're pretending!

Only you know honestly what your motivations are.

I am confident that if I saw you fall in the street, I'd help you up - If I fell in the street, I wouldn't look for you to help me up - I'm not sure what that is but it doesnt feel like pretence.

Personally, I can't see how time may be wasted - that view seems to me to be rooted in ownership.

caz

music said:

Buddhists often speak of metta, which annoys me. They make it sound like Buddhism is some kind of 'do gooder' religion where everybody is charitable like Teresa. But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation? Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? Wouldn't that dilute our energy, make us worldly? Wouldn't that time and energy be better spent in reading, meditating etc.? Worldly activities, however noble, aren't salvific. So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred. So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

Buddhism is about eliminating our delusions which are are primary cause of suffering, Practising Loving kindness/Metta is a way of increasing our virtuous minds which are actually a cause of liberation. Loving kindness helps steady our concentration and ripens our virtues in a way that is helpful to accomplishing Liberation.

If one is not well practised in a self-less attitude like Metta it will be much harder for you to abandon Self grasping and its associated Delusional minds simply because the force of it is very strong.

Tosh

Cinorjer said:

Thus, in a nutshell, there is a paradox. But it's only a paradox if you don't look at the Dharma as a whole. Is all this what you're looking for?

I was an active alcoholic for a lot of years and I made my happiness more important than anyone else's. I ended up near suicidal and in A.A..

Funny that innit?

A.A. teaches us that if we want to be happy and stay sober we have to help others stay sober, and by helping others I have found some measure of happiness.

I love the paradoxes.

BhanteLucky

music said:

He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

Weird, where did you get that idea from?
I found this teaching on charity by the Buddha, after just a 30 second search on Access To Insight...

"What is the accomplishment of charity?

"Herein a householder dwells at home with heart free from the stain of avarice, devoted to charity, open-handed, delighting in generosity, attending to the needy, delighting in the distribution of alms. This is called the accomplishment of charity.

Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare

BhanteLucky

Here's some more...

"Now what, bhikkhus, is the kind of person who rains everywhere? Here, a certain person gives to all. He gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, lodging, and lamps to all recluses and brahmans, to the poor, destitute, and needy. This is the kind of person who rains everywhere.

And some more... I like this one best...

Just as a pot filled with water
if overturned by anyone,
pours out all its water
and does not hold any back.

Even so, when you see those in need,
whether low, middle or high,
then give like the overturned pot,
holding nothing back.

Generosity, kind words,
doing a good turn for others,
and treating all people alike:
these bonds of sympathy are to the world
what the lynch-pin is to the chariot wheel.

Generosity, kind words,
doing a good turn for others,
and treating all people alike:
these bonds of sympathy are to the world
what the lynch-pin is to the chariot wheel.

That's nice eh!

music

Zero said:

music said:

So why waste time pretending...

Very good point... if you're pretending!

Only you know honestly what your motivations are.

I am confident that if I saw you fall in the street, I'd help you up - If I fell in the street, I wouldn't look for you to help me up - I'm not sure what that is but it doesnt feel like pretence.

Personally, I can't see how time may be wasted - that view seems to me to be rooted in ownership.

Helping is okay, never said we must be ruthless. I just object to making this metta stuff as some kind of salvific doctrine.

David

vinlyn said:

DaftChris said:

...In fact, couldn't the acts of kindness themselves be our way to our liberation?

Hmmm. Isn't that sort of selfish? The ends justify the means (though in this case they are good)?

It is selfish but it nurtures the absolute self as well as the subjective self. Compassion isn't just some sort of ideal born out of some sort of desire, it is common sense when the truth of interconnectedness hits home.

If Metta isn't a logical path then I'm not so sure the heart of the dharma has been revealed.

lamaramadingdong

"If you want others to be happy, be compassionate.
If you want to be happy yourself, be compassionate."
HHDL

poptart

music said:

But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation? Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

True, but liberation does not mean separating yourself from the world but escaping the illusion of separateness. Once you achieve that it becomes clear that all sentient beings are one and compassion arises naturally for all creatures.

music said:

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

There is no forcing involved. Compassion is the natural state whenever we overcome conditioned thinking. If you are pretending you are not really practising Buddhism, nor are you becoming liberated for that matter.

seeker242

music said:

Buddhists often speak of metta, which annoys me. They make it sound like Buddhism is some kind of 'do gooder' religion where everybody is charitable like Teresa.

Because it is!

But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation?

Yes, and Metta is an intrinsic part of that.

Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

Yes, he did advocate those things.

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? Wouldn't that dilute our energy, make us worldly? Wouldn't that time and energy be better spent in reading, meditating etc.? Worldly activities, however noble, aren't salvific. So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred. So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

A person who is actually wise, does not need to pretend.

Whatever meritorious action one performs, all these together are not worth
1/16th part of a mind released into friendliness, since the mind released into
friendliness blazes forth, & outshines all with an unsurpassable brilliance...

So did the Lord Buddha state this matter, and he further added:
For the Noble friend, who by will, who fully aware and deliberately brings
infinite, boundless and endless friendliness into being, this mountain-like
limitless goodwill makes all evil substrate evaporate, & the chains of mind,
these mental fetters become thin, slender and slack.

Because infinite friendliness releases your mind thereby helping to cause liberation. Practicing good is an intrinsic part of trying to attain liberation. The Buddha did not call Metta one of the 4 divine abodes for no reason. He did not call it one of the ten perfections, for no reason. It's not Buddhists speaking of Metta which annoys you, it's the words of Buddha himself which annoys you. If you continue to think Metta is not part of Buddhism, you will never be liberated.

maarten

You will have to find out for yourself, but I think metta is part of our true nature.
If we resist our natural tendency to care for others, then we are shutting other people out. As a result, we feel separation, which means suffering, and meditation will become more difficult.

taiyaki

That is a very interesting yet typical dualistic vision of Buddhism.

The Mahayana reacted against this positing of Buddhism.

Individual freedom is great, but what is left is the world after ones own attainment of cessation.

From the vantage point of Mahayana there is only progression of ones own path when we help others. This isn't done in the extroverted, theistic vision of compassion. This is done with the wisdom of emptiness (self and phenomena). So this cuts the whole do gooder mentality ego. It's all an empty illusion and whats left is to create more illusion because hey there is nothing but the illusion and in fact this illusion is enlightenment itself.

From the vantage point of the gradual path cultivate the positive in ones life inside and outside create good conditions for a peaceful and calm mind. This becomes the ground for investigation and further penetration into the voidness of reality. Which ironically brings more compassion and love.

Lol.

But in the beginning its useful to have this type of mindset. It is useful to be selfish and narcissistic in ones own suffering. With time this evolves into the Mahayana aspiration.

Just another stage on the path.

driedleaf

"A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a wise person. Which three? Good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct. A person endowed with these three things is to be recognized as a wise person.

"Monks, there are these three roots of what is unskillful. Which three? Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of what is unskillful, delusion is a root of what is unskillful.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.002.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.069.than.html

tmottes

Access to Insight: SN 3.8

[The Blessed One was at Saavatthii]

At this time King Pasenadi of Kosala was on the upper terrace of the palace with Queen Mallikaa. And the king asked her: "Mallikaa, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"[1]

"Your Majesty, there is no one dearer to me than myself. And you, sire, is anyone dearer to you than yourself?"

"Nor is there anyone dearer to me, Mallikaa, than myself."

Then the king went down from the palace and visited the Blessed One [and told him the whole story.] And the Blessed One, understanding, thereupon uttered this verse:


Though in thought we range throughout the world,
We'll nowhere find a thing more dear than self.
So, since others hold the self so dear,
He who loves himself should injure none.

RebeccaS

@music It's perfectly possible to live a life not caring about anyone if that's what you want. Many people do it. People with narcissistic personality disorder often say that not caring about others is an asset to their lives and allows them to make what others would consider to be difficult decisions. Of course... They do have a serious mental illness...

But nobody is forcing you to do anything :shrug:

music

RebeccaS said:

@music It's perfectly possible to live a life not caring about anyone if that's what you want. Many people do it. People with narcissistic personality disorder often say that not caring about others is an asset to their lives and allows them to make what others would consider to be difficult decisions.

So nobody is forcing you to do anything :shrug:

I meant in the buddhist context. It is condescending to care about others (as if they are below us) - and pride goes against Buddhism.

RebeccaS

Caring and kindness have nothing to do with condescension, especially when you remember all the times people have acted kindly toward you. We all need a hand sometimes. Pride is being unable to admit it.

If you think that when someone is being kind to you they're looking down on you, it's your own pride telling you that you're above help. Classic projection.

Jeffrey

It's because the world is opposite of what a selfish person thinks.

Think of others and you will be happy.
Think of yourself and you will be unhappy.

For example consider two couples. One couple only cares about themselves. The other couple loves each other. Which will be happier?

Consider two people. One only cares about himself. The other is caring of others. Now how many good friends will each have?

how

I have seen much obsequious ego supposedly transmitted under the title of metta.

I think that to the degree one is able to soften one's ego.....real compassion, empathy, tenderness, sympathy, love and wisdom manifests.
To the degree that one is not able to soften ones ego...such graces remain an empty, feel good, Buddhist platitude that doge the real job at hand..

It's usually when metta is offered as some form of directed postal service, that I tread very carefully.

taiyaki

When we clear away our shit. Our projections, our reactions, our karmic pushes and pulls.

We start to see people as they are. We start to see their confidence. We start to see their misery. We dig a little deeper and we find nothing solid.

We open the aperture towards others because we finally realize that we can step over ourselves. Our problems are in a large way irrelevant in comparison to everyone elses.

And its not like we solve all our problems or anyone elses problems.

We out of seeing the world come to a tenderness within us. This tenderness has been hardened, solidified, covered by our aggression, fear, and ignorance. With practice we touch this dimension and we find a tremendous inspiration and surge of confidence. Such inspiration is a basic kindness we have towards the suffering people in our lives. And from this we respond. We smile, we hold the door, etc. Our lives no longer become ours but rather we live for others.

This isn't a forced idea or some idealistic notion. This is a down to earth practical stage in ones spiritual life. When the muddy waters of our shit is clear and the ground of meditation and meditative insight takes root in our life the nature outcomes is to move outwards. No longer is personal liberation valid when there is the wailing screams of everyone else in this burning ship we called our world. Bodhisattvas do not wish to have individual nirvana or the attainment of Arhatship. Bodhisattvas desire nothing short of complete Buddhahood and all the Bhumis shall be traversed so that we can all be of use to this broken world.

This is possible only because the emptiness of self and of phenomena are realized. Without this there is no clear inspiration. Without this then this path is utter madness.

And a naked Bodhisattva is lower than the sentient being. Lower, more vulnerable, naked and feels everything the sentient being feels but even more clearer. This is not a fun path, it is work. Dirty work.

So I understand the repulsion of working with others. With helping other beings. With caring for others. If the basic inspiration is not present well then don't force it. Your experience and life is calling for the winter. For you to take refuge in your life, in your practice and study to figure out your shit, your suffering.

Then one day once that antic is over, then you'll envision the Mahayana in your heart.

Anyways I am in a very melodramatic mood today. Best wishes friends.

vinlyn

jcuest said:

...So if you hate metta, you aren't a true Buddhist...

Every once in a while we have to fight this battle:

No one made you the authority to decide who is or who is not a "true Buddhist".

karasti

I don't think human beings are, at their core, violent. Far from it. Just because we all have the potential to be violent and have plenty of violence in our history doesn't mean that is what we are destined to be or anything. Everyone has the same potential to be a Buddha, or a Ted Bundy. Which path they take is up to them.

We are all connected, every last one of us living beings on the planet, and our bodies are made up of the same materials. The only real way to feel that interconnectedness is to be able to care for others, and it most certainly is not condescending to care about others. If that is how you feel when you care for someone, well, then that is too bad. Compassion and pity are not the same thing.

If liberation of yourself is your only goal, that is your choice. Many Buddhists work to attain enlightenment or practice as a Bodhisattva to bring liberation to others as well. If you think Buddhism is entirely only about yourself, then you are free to believe that, but that is not what my practice is about.

Jason

music said:

Helping is okay, never said we must be ruthless. I just object to making this metta stuff as some kind of salvific doctrine.

Buddhists aren't forced to cultivate metta; but metta itself is a wholesome mental state that brightens the mind, helps counter anger, and can be salvific in the proper context. Personally, I don't see why one wouldn't want to cultivate it.

music said:

Buddhists often speak of metta, which annoys me. They make it sound like Buddhism is some kind of 'do gooder' religion where everybody is charitable like Teresa. But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation? Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? Wouldn't that dilute our energy, make us worldly? Wouldn't that time and energy be better spent in reading, meditating etc.? Worldly activities, however noble, aren't salvific. So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred. So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

In my opinion, this exhibits a slightly misinformed understanding about what the Buddha taught. It should be noted, for example, that even though the cessation of suffering is the goal of the path, that doesn't mean one should ignore the suffering of others while on it or even at the end. The Buddha himself taught the path out of compassion for the world even though it was often times troublesome for him to teach a path of renunciation in a world that "delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment" (MN 26).

Furthermore, the path itself is often described by the Buddha as a gradual path, which usually begins with teachings about the importance and benefits of generosity (dana) and morality (sila), with the latter itself being described as a gift to others "not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests" (AN 8.39), and then moves on to more and more refined aspects, including things like developing the four brahma-viharas. So to say that the Buddha didn't advocate charity, either as "benevolent goodwill toward humanity" or "generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering," isn't really accurate.

Developing dispassion towards the world doesn't mean forsaking our humanity and becoming cold to the sufferings of the world. The way I see it, the path is a holistic one, not an inhuman one where we become unfeeling robots immune to compassion and kindness.

Jeffrey

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]

"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

Gui

I think seeing others and yourself as separate is a mistake. This mistake then fertilizes patterns of thinking which make it impossible to realize even the idea of liberation.

genkaku

Thanks @music. I think some of the threads woven into your question are appropriate. If compassion were nothing more than a kind of super-duper altruism, we could all run around shining our halos and patting each other on the back.

But isn't it the case of pretty much all of spiritual endeavor ... acting like kids who try on their parents' shoes and then pretend to be "grown-ups?" We galumph around with "enlightenment" or "compassion" or "emptiness" or "liberation" or whatever other fifty-cent word without slowing down long enough to admit we're not entirely sure what it means to be a grown-up. (And by the time we are grown-ups, of course it's too late. )

So, OK ... let's say for a moment we're fakin' it. It may not be very attractive, but it's what we can manage at the moment. Those who claim to have a better mouse trap are not doing much better but, what the hell, it's a better mouse trap... so, galumph at will.

But a little at a time, with practice, I think the dime begins to drop: "Compassion" (to pick one example) is not good because a hundred people join in a group hug and proclaim it good. It is good because it is what WORKS. It works in the sense that a peaceful life simply isn't possible without it. It's like a hammer ... not good, not bad ... it's just what works if you want to drive a nail.

And that is the case with the rest of what people may use ungodly amounts of time praising ... eg. the precepts. These are things that work in a peaceful life, irrespective of the hot air others may heap on them.

If something works, I use it. If it doesn't, I don't.

If it works, practice. If it doesn't, practice.

See what happens.

David

music said:

RebeccaS said:

@music It's perfectly possible to live a life not caring about anyone if that's what you want. Many people do it. People with narcissistic personality disorder often say that not caring about others is an asset to their lives and allows them to make what others would consider to be difficult decisions.

So nobody is forcing you to do anything :shrug:

I meant in the buddhist context. It is condescending to care about others (as if they are below us) - and pride goes against Buddhism.

Simply, you are confusing sympathy with compassion and/or empathy.

There is a big difference between feeling and/or trying to understand another's feelings and feeling sorry for them.

still_learning

I do think Buddhism is a "do gooder" religion, and that's okay. But actually Buddhism isn't exactly a religion (though some people treat it as such). Also no one is really forcing you to anything in Buddhism. There's no punishment to not following all the rules. Buddhism only works if you WANT to do good or care about someone. If you are Buddhist and a teacher or someone is forcing something on you, that isn't Buddhism, and something is wrong, and you need to get out of there.

If you were able to live in isolation and meditate to reach liberation, then yeah, you don't need to care about anyone because no one is physically there.

If you live around people, then liberation cannot be achieved without caring. When someone is need of care or compassion, and you don't give it altruistically, then it weighs on your conscience. With that weight, it wouldn't be technically possible meditate properly and achieve liberation. It would be hard to truly have a clear mind.

Again, no one in Buddhism is forcing you to be like Mother Theresa. It would be nice if we all aimed to be like her. If you don't WANT to care for others (generally speaking), then you're not ready for Buddhism, and not ready to be on the road to liberation.

Also, sounds like you need to do more reading on what Buddhism is and isn't. Not trying to be confrontational, it's just that if you think you are forced to do anything in Buddhism, then you probably have other misconceptions of what Buddhism actually is.

FullCircle

Music- buddhists speaking of metta "annoys" you?
You think humans are by nature violent?

Are you truly deeply sincere? Are your intentions here sincere? Do you have a teacher?

Jeffrey

Looking at it a different way:

No there is no obligation to care for others. Just stay out of trouble. Be happy by yourself! You don't have to make a big project of being different from how you are. Things may change or maybe not. Be good to yourself.

note: should substitute 'one' for 'you' 'oneself' for 'yourself'

There is no 'one-size fits all' way to live. Serva Mangalam.

vinlyn

FullCircle said:

Music- buddhists speaking of metta "annoys" you?
You think humans are by nature violent?

Are you truly deeply sincere? Are your intentions here sincere? Do you have a teacher?

These are fair questions, @Music.

I don't think humans are by nature violent, but I certainly think they can be violent.

footiam

music said:

Buddhists often speak of metta, which annoys me. They make it sound like Buddhism is some kind of 'do gooder' religion where everybody is charitable like Teresa. But isn't Buddhism about liberation and only liberation? Buddha made it clear that getting out of this cycle of birth and death is all that matters. He never advocated charity, humanism, or any of those things.

So why is it Buddhists force you to care about everyone? Wouldn't that dilute our energy, make us worldly? Wouldn't that time and energy be better spent in reading, meditating etc.? Worldly activities, however noble, aren't salvific. So-called noble activities are simply a form of reciprocal altruism, nothing sacred. So why waste time pretending to be good when liberation is more important?

There is nothing wrong about being a 'do gooder'; in fact, it should be encouraged. But if you are not into it, then don't. There's no point in forcing yourself and getting annoyed. Just get yourself liberated first! Then, perhaps, you'll think differently.