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.
I like this quote and for me it answers your query quite well, but it may not relate so for you. I don't know, I just like the quote also x].
(Is Buddhism not about experiencing things for yourself as opposed to just listening to what others tell you? )
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him." Buddha
I see that you are thinking, but if a person strips down to their core through every impurity, and arrives at the face of themselves, quite literally imagine standing before yourself. If all impurities are stripped away, what evil could possibly be left behind that one would find at their core? You wouldn't greet yourself with hatred or greed, but with loving kindness. As Buddhists, are we not all riding boats down the stream of life trying to better ourselves in some way? The fact that you are here shows you have an honest effort within you, to be kind before yourself and make and reach that stage, where you may sit, meditate, and find not hatred sitting before you, but pure loving compassion.
If a free mind truly "lets go", how does it retain love and compassion?
An enlightened mind hasn't "let go" of everything. (That would be nihilistic.)
An enlightened mind has let go only of the emotional and/or cognitive obscurations which condition and accompany the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as samsara. Note: not every emotion is an obscuration. Only disturbing emotions are obscurations; compassion, love, and the like are NOT obscurations, so they are not removed and accompany as conditions the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as nirvana.
That Buddha retained his compassion suggests to me that, despite seeing the true amoral nature of phenomena, he chose propagate one state of being and the related set of actions over letting things be as they were. I find it difficult to reconcile that.
You would be correct. Or, rather, you might say, these states (more than one; see below) "chose the Buddha", so to speak. Let me explain what I mean:
Compassion ("karuna" in Pali) is one of the four "brahmaviharas" (the "divine abodes" or the "best homes"). The other three are metta (lovingkindness, lit. "friendliness"), mudita (sympathetic joy, or the ability to rejoice in another's good fortune), and upekkha (equanimity, lit. "balance"). In the Vissudhimagga ("The Path of Purification"), the most influential commentary on the Pali canon, the monk Buddhaghosa writes that the brahmaviharas are called such because they are the "best attitude to hold in regard to other beings." In terms of the Buddha's message, this means that these are the best attitudes for maintaining the cessation of suffering.
The word nibbana in Pali (nirvana in Sanskrit) literally means "extinguishing" as in the extinguishing of fire. It doesn't mean "obliterating a sense of self" (a doctrine, coincidentally, that the Buddha actually argued against; he called it "annihilationism" and a dead-end on the path to the end of suffering). Rather nibbana means simply the extinguishment of the flames of craving or attachment, aligning one's mind and actions towards the realities of this world, resulting in freedom from suffering. This freedom from suffering cannot exist unless you're free from hatred or ill-will (the opposite of lovingkindness), aversion or the refusal to bear witness to suffering (the opposite of compassion), jealousy and selfishness (the opposite of sympathetic joy), or anxiety and greed (the opposites of equanimity). It was, after all, the wish to be happy and free from suffering (lovingkindness and compassion) that drove the Buddha to undertake his spiritual journey in the first place. They were his initial motivation, his fuel during the journey, and what sustained him afterward. If these states were to be abandoned, the Buddha would have sunk back into the conditioned (habitual/base) mind, with its consequent reactivity and he would be back where he began.
Some people will say that the brahmaviharas are your "true nature." I've never understood it that way, and the Buddha didn't really couch it in those terms. What people might mean when they say this is that these attitudes are your "true potential." Etymologically, this makes the most sense: these states represent our potential for happiness and the freedom from suffering.
No offense to anyone, but this thread is a prime example of just how much people dislike questioning things to the fullest.
That Buddha retained his compassion suggests to me that, despite seeing the true amoral nature of phenomena, he chose propagate one state of being and the related set of actions over letting things be as they were.
Yeah, I think it was basically a conscious choice or maybe just part of his personality up until he was 29. Maybe he was inherently somewhat empathic towards other people's sufferings.
But yeah, I don't buy into that bull that we are all essentially compassionate deep down inside. Guess what, if you go deep down inside you'll find other things as well, not just compassion.
The Buddha set out to discover a solution for the problem of suffering. Since he realized that at the end of the day, the human species is a social species, and that if you fight fire with fire things tend to snowball into chaos...he probably concluded that lack of suffering for the human race would have to include a notion of caring for other people's suffering too...lest we ourselves fall pray to the karmic consequences of not being compassionate towards others.
The Noble Eightfold Path along with all of the dharma has an ETHICAL component to it. The nature of phenomena is indeed amoral. So there had to be an ethical inclination from the get go, whether it was in the form of a logical conclusion that other people's suffering might lead to my suffering or just Gautama's natural empathy and wanting to help people.
Given the claim that we are all part of a singular consciousness or greater awareness, I still believe that each and everyone of us is an individual expression of that consciousness. I don't want to call it a "soul" because that is not really how I perceive it. I believe every person has their own energy that is unique to them and their consciousness is one special expression of the universe. So..yeah, to put it differently, we all have different inherent personalities or predilections and urges.
The buddah made a life goal out of trying to end suffering. That was his expression. But other people are on different life paths, make their moral and ethical codes slightly different.
Chrysalid, I can understand where you are coming from. I've been there too.
As I got more and more into meditation, study and reflection, the dualisms began to dissolve and it seemed to me that there was no difference between what we called 'good' and 'evil'. Why, then, choose 'good' when 'evil' seemed to assure greater success in the world - despite what the teachers were saying: the rich were more comfortable, powerful and generally in a better place.
This is a point at which, for a time, I rested in a sort of post-Nietzschean nihilism, akin (IMO) to the "American dream".
Hit by personal tragedies, I turned back to meditation, study and reflection. Quite suddenly, my experience changed. I can't give you all the beautiful texts that have been quoted, nor do I find reference to dusty texts made any difference: it was a personal experience which has not left me since. It was an awareness that I have difficulty putting into words. A sense, if you will, that, beyond all the apparent self-centredness, the underpinnings of all that is are compassion.
Sorry I can't convince anyone else, nor can I teach how to gain this insight except that it is, in my experience, there for anyone to access. As one of the Hebrew prophets put it: "I set before you life and death. Choose life."
It might sound like a stupid question, but bear with me.
If a Buddha is a person who sees reality for what it really is. Who lacks a sense of permanent self, who sees and knows the origin of suffering etc etc. I can understand why s/he'd be serene and content, but why have compassion and loving kindness for other sentient beings as opposed to indifference?
If s/he sees the world as it truly is, they see that love and compassion are concepts generated by human beings, that the universe by nature is amoral and lacking in compassion/love, why would they still identify with human emotional concepts based on empathy?
But yeah, I don't buy into that bull that we are all essentially compassionate deep down inside. Guess what, if you go deep down inside you'll find other things as well, not just compassion.
The Buddha set out to discover a solution for the problem of suffering. Since he realized that at the end of the day, the human species is a social species, and that if you fight fire with fire things tend to snowball into chaos...he probably concluded that lack of suffering for the human race would have to include a notion of caring for other people's suffering too...lest we ourselves fall pray to the karmic consequences of not being compassionate towards others.
The Noble Eightfold Path along with all of the dharma has an ETHICAL component to it. The nature of phenomena is indeed amoral. So there had to be an ethical inclination from the get go, whether it was in the form of a logical conclusion that other people's suffering might lead to my suffering or just Gautama's natural empathy and wanting to help people.
No, no, no. You're intellectualizing too much. Compassion is not a thing that is carried around in our heads and used or not according to our inclinations. It is not a tool used to make people live happy with each other. Compassion is not sitting in your mind behind some mental wall you need to break down, and neither is hate.
Compassion is the result of putting aside your own sense of self and looking at other people with a clear mind. It is a felt connection to the world and people in it that moves you to action on their behalf. Most people are capable of this to a small extent, in the right circumstance. A few people cling so firmly to their own selfish desires that they will never have one second of compassion for others.
Asking why be compassionate is not a bad question, but it's like asking why stop suffering. It's not a matter of what is and isn't natural for people. Suffering is the most natural thing in the world. So is hatred and anger. If you want to suffer, then Buddhism has nothing to offer you. If you refuse to let go of your desires or refuse to believe that is the cause of your suffering, then Buddhism cannot help you.
People can learn to look at the world with a clear mind, putting aside our own wants and needs. Looking around at other people without holding onto our own wants and needs results in compassion. It's the prescription Buddha came up with for suffering, that's all.
An enlightened mind hasn't "let go" of everything. (That would be nihilistic.)
An enlightened mind has let go only of the emotional and/or cognitive obscurations which condition and accompany the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as samsara. Note: not every emotion is an obscuration. Only disturbing emotions are obscurations; compassion, love, and the like are NOT obscurations, so they are not removed and accompany as conditions the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as nirvana.
I usually think of love etc as unconditioned and ungraspable as a concept. At least as I was taught within the tradition of buddhism. Nirvana is known in scripture as the unconditioned. Since we didn't create it it is not impermanent, suffering, etc..
I think you could have some positive conditioned concepts that could be part of your path, but the danger is that they are ultimately unreliable. They could lead to a god realm in which you have no motivation to practice and an uncertain rebirth when the god realm collapses due to conditions which you have no control over changing
In this I feel I am agreeing with what was already said...
Love and compassion aren't concepts. They are real.
The idea of how to express compassion, that is a concept. The thought "I must be compassionate because I'm a buddha" is a concept.
But if one IS compassionate, that isn't a concept. See my point?
There are differences in the description of complete enlightenment within the various traditions of Buddhism. Some schools assert that nirvana is the snuffing out of ALL. (This, IMO, can approach the extreme of nihilism.) Other schools maintain that nirvana is the snuffing out of the conditions for subjectively experiencing samsara: the 5, the 3, etc. The "clear light mind" of an individual is not snuffed out in the Mahayana traditions. It maintains the subjectively experiencing of reality as nirvana by the impetus and power of great compassion and bodhicitta.
Nirvana itself might very well be unconditioned, as it is the basal state, the primal ground. But the experiencing of nirvana, the attainment of that unconditioned state (by an individual being) is conditioned by the true stopping of those causes and conditions associated with subjectively experiencing reality as samsara.
To quibble over words like 'concept' and 'conditioned', 'non-conceptual' and 'unconditioned' is to defeat the argument before it has even been begun. As we exist in a state of subjectively experiencing samsara, concepts are unavoidable. To deny the validity of the conceptually imputed in favor of the non-conceptual can lead one into the Advaita Trap. (And in fact, an attachment to the non-conceptual will probably result in rebirth in one of the formless realms.)
I think you could have some positive conditioned concepts that could be part of your path, but the danger is that they are ultimately unreliable.
Compassion (and bodhicitta) is the particular concept that I am describing as validly imputed upon the mental continuum of a being. It maintains the further existence of that being in a manner that is not detrimental; that is, it does not lead one toward uncontrollable rebirth, but away from uncontrollable rebirth. It is my understanding that rebirth in the "higher" realms is a result of attachment to such states as joy, delight, and some of the jhanas. But, I am talking about the maintenance by compassion of the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality.
It seems like you are saying that compassion is "ultimately unreliable". This seems an absurd notion. Compassion and bodhicitta are the very things that all enlightened beings rely upon.
Also, it is not the abandoning of the conceptual that enables one to experience enlightenment; it is the abandoning of attachment -- attachment to the conceptual, attachment to the non-conceptual.
Well, any offence will rick a person... And being indifferent can cause trouble as we don't know how the others take things.. So metta is the solution..
It might sound like a stupid question, but bear with me.
If a Buddha is a person who sees reality for what it really is. Who lacks a sense of permanent self, who sees and knows the origin of suffering etc etc. I can understand why s/he'd be serene and content, but why have compassion and loving kindness for other sentient beings as opposed to indifference?
If s/he sees the world as it truly is, they see that love and compassion are concepts generated by human beings, that the universe by nature is amoral and lacking in compassion/love, why would they still identify with human emotional concepts based on empathy?
I disagree, in my experience humans are fundamentally the same as any other animal
Bold words are the key here. Now the question to ask is "Does your expirence reflect the essence of the truth of reality? Or does it reflect your own karma and your own ideas, that may be clouded by your own karma?
I can understand that a Buddha could eliminate hate, anger, etc, but I can't quite grasp why the process wouldn't also eliminate empathy and compassion. It seems odd to me.
Perhaps because hate and anger cause suffering and empathy and compassion don't? If empathy and compassion don't cause suffering, then what need is there to remove them?
Well as you said there are different traditions in the Mahayana. My teacher says that ultimate bodhicitta is unconditioned. And relative bodhicitta is unreal in some sense perhaps due to emptyness of self/other. Perhaps because you can reduce it with Madyamaka logic. Whereas ultimate bodhicitta never comes and never goes and is real.
I think she uses the word 'real' not as a direct translation of Tibetan or Sanskrit to English but within the context of her talks to make a certain point that is within her lineage tradition. It is difficult for me to be understanding of the talks, that I parrot, enough to the point that I can have a meaningful dialogue I am afraid. Oh well.
Edit: reliable is perhaps what is meant by real. Example (or just my thoughts rather).. If you go to Haiti you wouldn't immediately develope the relative (conditional) bodhicitta ie methods to help the suffering people there. But you would have the nature of awareness to be clear open and sensitive (ultimate bodhicitta). Another example where relative bodhicitta would have to change: rebirth, a railway spike driven in your brain causing a personality change or a stroke, become a paraplegic. Perhaps Helen Keller or Temple Granden may be a bodhisattva (or buddha) who was reborn (emanated) in order to help autistic or Blind/deaf/mute people.
It might sound like a stupid question, but bear with me.
If a Buddha is a person who sees reality for what it really is. Who lacks a sense of permanent self, who sees and knows the origin of suffering etc etc. I can understand why s/he'd be serene and content, but why have compassion and loving kindness for other sentient beings as opposed to indifference?
If s/he sees the world as it truly is, they see that love and compassion are concepts generated by human beings, that the universe by nature is amoral and lacking in compassion/love, why would they still identify with human emotional concepts based on empathy?
One cannot become a Buddha without developing compassion, It is Impossible, Compassion is required to develop Bodhichitta and It is means by Bodhichitta and training in the Bodhisattvas grounds that one accomplishes the path of no more learning or enlightenment.
Enlightenment isnt about sitting on your arse blissed out without a care for others, The continous great bliss experienced by Buddhas is a direct effect of their enlightenment but it is not the only thing they accomplish they do not loose the intentions or precious minds they cultivated in becoming a Buddha, The Bodhisattvas promise is to become a Buddha for the benifit of all this would be impossible to accomplish without great compassion.
One cannot become a Buddha without developing compassion, It is Impossible, Compassion is required to develop Bodhichitta and It is means by Bodhichitta and training in the Bodhisattvas grounds that one accomplishes the path of no more learning or enlightenment.
Enlightenment isnt about sitting on your arse blissed out without a care for others, The continous great bliss experienced by Buddhas is a direct effect of their enlightenment but it is not the only thing they accomplish they do not loose the intentions or precious minds they cultivated in becoming a Buddha, The Bodhisattvas promise is to become a Buddha for the benifit of all this would be impossible to accomplish without great compassion.
using the term developing can be beneficial in some context to help students learn and understand, but In my opinion this is detrimental and inaccurate in this context.
you are Buddha already.
You are love, it's in you. You do not need to develop it, you only need to take out the trash that blocks it.
An enlightened mind hasn't "let go" of everything. (That would be nihilistic.)
An enlightened mind has let go only of the emotional and/or cognitive obscurations which condition and accompany the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as samsara. Note: not every emotion is an obscuration. Only disturbing emotions are obscurations; compassion, love, and the like are NOT obscurations, so they are not removed and accompany as conditions the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as nirvana.
This answers my question. Although it requires re-assessing what I imagined enlightenment to be, it makes far more sense than saying we're all luvvy duvvy care bears at the core.
Epicurus, I think you and I are on the same page with our thinking.
using the term developing can be beneficial in some context to help students learn and understand, but In my opinion this is detrimental and inaccurate in this context.
you are Buddha already.
You are love, it's in you. You do not need to develop it, you only need to take out the trash that blocks it.
I want to thank you, upalabhava, for sharing this "Advaita Trap" video. It led me to watch a few videos by Jeff Foster and read what he has to say. The way he uses words to point to 'the truth' was very helpful for me. I actually was/am in this big slump of rejection/depression atm, so it was quite well timed.
Since this helped me, I thought it might help others to watch this video:<object height="385" width="480"><object height="385" width="480"></object>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IBFDAbgoaoI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>
Compassion is the result of putting aside your own sense of self and looking at other people with a clear mind. It is a felt connection to the world and people in it that moves you to action on their behalf. Most people are capable of this to a small extent, in the right circumstance. A few people cling so firmly to their own selfish desires that they will never have one second of compassion for others.
Asking why be compassionate is not a bad question, but it's like asking why stop suffering. It's not a matter of what is and isn't natural for people. Suffering is the most natural thing in the world. So is hatred and anger. If you want to suffer, then Buddhism has nothing to offer you. If you refuse to let go of your desires or refuse to believe that is the cause of your suffering, then Buddhism cannot help you.
People can learn to look at the world with a clear mind, putting aside our own wants and needs. Looking around at other people without holding onto our own wants and needs results in compassion. It's the prescription Buddha came up with for suffering, that's all.
I wouldn't know, i only speak from my experience and insights.
Many do. Chances are Caz is coming from a different perspective. The mainstream Gelug philosophical view is less likely to agree with the assertion of a underlying Buddhahood. They approach the path very much from the point of view of development. Their reasonings and approaches in this manner are quite sophisticated and effective.
An enlightened mind hasn't "let go" of everything. (That would be nihilistic.)
An enlightened mind has let go only of the emotional and/or cognitive obscurations which condition and accompany the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as samsara. Note: not every emotion is an obscuration. Only disturbing emotions are obscurations; compassion, love, and the like are NOT obscurations, so they are not removed and accompany as conditions the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as nirvana.
It has nothing to do with nihilism of course, this idea come from a wrong interpretation of letting go that has been addressed a thousand times.
To "let go" means to let it be.
If you do not let go it means you are holding on to something.
It means 'want", "want" mean craving and suffering etc...
I think I experience the suffering of holding onto things. But also the benefit of planting seeds for tomorrow. Which sounds like building up.
I think investigating experience relates to a teaching I have heard of looking deeply into your deep wishes and seeing where they come from. I want understanding and agreement, but why do I want that? What is the deeper goal? And so on until you reach some pretty good stuff.
Both letting go and planting 'good' seeds are part of investigating experience, the active and passive part
Comments
(Is Buddhism not about experiencing things for yourself as opposed to just listening to what others tell you?
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him." Buddha
I see that you are thinking, but if a person strips down to their core through every impurity, and arrives at the face of themselves, quite literally imagine standing before yourself. If all impurities are stripped away, what evil could possibly be left behind that one would find at their core? You wouldn't greet yourself with hatred or greed, but with loving kindness. As Buddhists, are we not all riding boats down the stream of life trying to better ourselves in some way? The fact that you are here shows you have an honest effort within you, to be kind before yourself and make and reach that stage, where you may sit, meditate, and find not hatred sitting before you, but pure loving compassion.
An enlightened mind hasn't "let go" of everything. (That would be nihilistic.)
An enlightened mind has let go only of the emotional and/or cognitive obscurations which condition and accompany the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as samsara. Note: not every emotion is an obscuration. Only disturbing emotions are obscurations; compassion, love, and the like are NOT obscurations, so they are not removed and accompany as conditions the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality as nirvana.
I think he gave the best possible answer.
Compassion ("karuna" in Pali) is one of the four "brahmaviharas" (the "divine abodes" or the "best homes"). The other three are metta (lovingkindness, lit. "friendliness"), mudita (sympathetic joy, or the ability to rejoice in another's good fortune), and upekkha (equanimity, lit. "balance"). In the Vissudhimagga ("The Path of Purification"), the most influential commentary on the Pali canon, the monk Buddhaghosa writes that the brahmaviharas are called such because they are the "best attitude to hold in regard to other beings." In terms of the Buddha's message, this means that these are the best attitudes for maintaining the cessation of suffering.
The word nibbana in Pali (nirvana in Sanskrit) literally means "extinguishing" as in the extinguishing of fire. It doesn't mean "obliterating a sense of self" (a doctrine, coincidentally, that the Buddha actually argued against; he called it "annihilationism" and a dead-end on the path to the end of suffering). Rather nibbana means simply the extinguishment of the flames of craving or attachment, aligning one's mind and actions towards the realities of this world, resulting in freedom from suffering. This freedom from suffering cannot exist unless you're free from hatred or ill-will (the opposite of lovingkindness), aversion or the refusal to bear witness to suffering (the opposite of compassion), jealousy and selfishness (the opposite of sympathetic joy), or anxiety and greed (the opposites of equanimity). It was, after all, the wish to be happy and free from suffering (lovingkindness and compassion) that drove the Buddha to undertake his spiritual journey in the first place. They were his initial motivation, his fuel during the journey, and what sustained him afterward. If these states were to be abandoned, the Buddha would have sunk back into the conditioned (habitual/base) mind, with its consequent reactivity and he would be back where he began.
Some people will say that the brahmaviharas are your "true nature." I've never understood it that way, and the Buddha didn't really couch it in those terms. What people might mean when they say this is that these attitudes are your "true potential." Etymologically, this makes the most sense: these states represent our potential for happiness and the freedom from suffering.
Yeah, I think it was basically a conscious choice or maybe just part of his personality up until he was 29. Maybe he was inherently somewhat empathic towards other people's sufferings.
But yeah, I don't buy into that bull that we are all essentially compassionate deep down inside. Guess what, if you go deep down inside you'll find other things as well, not just compassion.
The Buddha set out to discover a solution for the problem of suffering. Since he realized that at the end of the day, the human species is a social species, and that if you fight fire with fire things tend to snowball into chaos...he probably concluded that lack of suffering for the human race would have to include a notion of caring for other people's suffering too...lest we ourselves fall pray to the karmic consequences of not being compassionate towards others.
The Noble Eightfold Path along with all of the dharma has an ETHICAL component to it. The nature of phenomena is indeed amoral. So there had to be an ethical inclination from the get go, whether it was in the form of a logical conclusion that other people's suffering might lead to my suffering or just Gautama's natural empathy and wanting to help people.
Given the claim that we are all part of a singular consciousness or greater awareness, I still believe that each and everyone of us is an individual expression of that consciousness. I don't want to call it a "soul" because that is not really how I perceive it. I believe every person has their own energy that is unique to them and their consciousness is one special expression of the universe. So..yeah, to put it differently, we all have different inherent personalities or predilections and urges.
The buddah made a life goal out of trying to end suffering. That was his expression. But other people are on different life paths, make their moral and ethical codes slightly different.
As I got more and more into meditation, study and reflection, the dualisms began to dissolve and it seemed to me that there was no difference between what we called 'good' and 'evil'. Why, then, choose 'good' when 'evil' seemed to assure greater success in the world - despite what the teachers were saying: the rich were more comfortable, powerful and generally in a better place.
This is a point at which, for a time, I rested in a sort of post-Nietzschean nihilism, akin (IMO) to the "American dream".
Hit by personal tragedies, I turned back to meditation, study and reflection. Quite suddenly, my experience changed. I can't give you all the beautiful texts that have been quoted, nor do I find reference to dusty texts made any difference: it was a personal experience which has not left me since. It was an awareness that I have difficulty putting into words. A sense, if you will, that, beyond all the apparent self-centredness, the underpinnings of all that is are compassion.
Sorry I can't convince anyone else, nor can I teach how to gain this insight except that it is, in my experience, there for anyone to access. As one of the Hebrew prophets put it: "I set before you life and death. Choose life."
Except Bodhisattvas whom choose to come back to help out, I believe.
An old friend muga used to say we are born in original innocence but I don't know.
It's the nature of love IMO.
No, no, no. You're intellectualizing too much. Compassion is not a thing that is carried around in our heads and used or not according to our inclinations. It is not a tool used to make people live happy with each other. Compassion is not sitting in your mind behind some mental wall you need to break down, and neither is hate.
Compassion is the result of putting aside your own sense of self and looking at other people with a clear mind. It is a felt connection to the world and people in it that moves you to action on their behalf. Most people are capable of this to a small extent, in the right circumstance. A few people cling so firmly to their own selfish desires that they will never have one second of compassion for others.
Asking why be compassionate is not a bad question, but it's like asking why stop suffering. It's not a matter of what is and isn't natural for people. Suffering is the most natural thing in the world. So is hatred and anger. If you want to suffer, then Buddhism has nothing to offer you. If you refuse to let go of your desires or refuse to believe that is the cause of your suffering, then Buddhism cannot help you.
People can learn to look at the world with a clear mind, putting aside our own wants and needs. Looking around at other people without holding onto our own wants and needs results in compassion. It's the prescription Buddha came up with for suffering, that's all.
I usually think of love etc as unconditioned and ungraspable as a concept. At least as I was taught within the tradition of buddhism. Nirvana is known in scripture as the unconditioned. Since we didn't create it it is not impermanent, suffering, etc..
I think you could have some positive conditioned concepts that could be part of your path, but the danger is that they are ultimately unreliable. They could lead to a god realm in which you have no motivation to practice and an uncertain rebirth when the god realm collapses due to conditions which you have no control over changing
In this I feel I am agreeing with what was already said...
Nirvana itself might very well be unconditioned, as it is the basal state, the primal ground. But the experiencing of nirvana, the attainment of that unconditioned state (by an individual being) is conditioned by the true stopping of those causes and conditions associated with subjectively experiencing reality as samsara.
To quibble over words like 'concept' and 'conditioned', 'non-conceptual' and 'unconditioned' is to defeat the argument before it has even been begun. As we exist in a state of subjectively experiencing samsara, concepts are unavoidable. To deny the validity of the conceptually imputed in favor of the non-conceptual can lead one into the Advaita Trap. (And in fact, an attachment to the non-conceptual will probably result in rebirth in one of the formless realms.)
<object width="480" height="385">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4KXidr0z1RY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>
Compassion (and bodhicitta) is the particular concept that I am describing as validly imputed upon the mental continuum of a being. It maintains the further existence of that being in a manner that is not detrimental; that is, it does not lead one toward uncontrollable rebirth, but away from uncontrollable rebirth. It is my understanding that rebirth in the "higher" realms is a result of attachment to such states as joy, delight, and some of the jhanas. But, I am talking about the maintenance by compassion of the continuum of subjectively experiencing reality.
It seems like you are saying that compassion is "ultimately unreliable". This seems an absurd notion. Compassion and bodhicitta are the very things that all enlightened beings rely upon.
Also, it is not the abandoning of the conceptual that enables one to experience enlightenment; it is the abandoning of attachment -- attachment to the conceptual, attachment to the non-conceptual.
Why does a bear poo in the woods?
Bold words are the key here. Now the question to ask is "Does your expirence reflect the essence of the truth of reality? Or does it reflect your own karma and your own ideas, that may be clouded by your own karma?
Perhaps because hate and anger cause suffering and empathy and compassion don't? If empathy and compassion don't cause suffering, then what need is there to remove them?
Well as you said there are different traditions in the Mahayana. My teacher says that ultimate bodhicitta is unconditioned. And relative bodhicitta is unreal in some sense perhaps due to emptyness of self/other. Perhaps because you can reduce it with Madyamaka logic. Whereas ultimate bodhicitta never comes and never goes and is real.
I think she uses the word 'real' not as a direct translation of Tibetan or Sanskrit to English but within the context of her talks to make a certain point that is within her lineage tradition. It is difficult for me to be understanding of the talks, that I parrot, enough to the point that I can have a meaningful dialogue I am afraid. Oh well.
Edit: reliable is perhaps what is meant by real. Example (or just my thoughts rather).. If you go to Haiti you wouldn't immediately develope the relative (conditional) bodhicitta ie methods to help the suffering people there. But you would have the nature of awareness to be clear open and sensitive (ultimate bodhicitta). Another example where relative bodhicitta would have to change: rebirth, a railway spike driven in your brain causing a personality change or a stroke, become a paraplegic. Perhaps Helen Keller or Temple Granden may be a bodhisattva (or buddha) who was reborn (emanated) in order to help autistic or Blind/deaf/mute people.
One cannot become a Buddha without developing compassion, It is Impossible, Compassion is required to develop Bodhichitta and It is means by Bodhichitta and training in the Bodhisattvas grounds that one accomplishes the path of no more learning or enlightenment.
Enlightenment isnt about sitting on your arse blissed out without a care for others, The continous great bliss experienced by Buddhas is a direct effect of their enlightenment but it is not the only thing they accomplish they do not loose the intentions or precious minds they cultivated in becoming a Buddha, The Bodhisattvas promise is to become a Buddha for the benifit of all this would be impossible to accomplish without great compassion.
you are Buddha already.
You are love, it's in you. You do not need to develop it, you only need to take out the trash that blocks it.
This is what is meant by "developing".
you cannot lose it even if you tried.
Epicurus, I think you and I are on the same page with our thinking.
Not all Buddhist schools accept this.
Since this helped me, I thought it might help others to watch this video:<object height="385" width="480"><object height="385" width="480"></object>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IBFDAbgoaoI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>
And read http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/dialogues_19.html
I wouldn't know, i only speak from my experience and insights.
Very well put Cinorjer.
To "let go" means to let it be.
If you do not let go it means you are holding on to something.
It means 'want", "want" mean craving and suffering etc...
I think investigating experience relates to a teaching I have heard of looking deeply into your deep wishes and seeing where they come from. I want understanding and agreement, but why do I want that? What is the deeper goal? And so on until you reach some pretty good stuff.
Both letting go and planting 'good' seeds are part of investigating experience, the active and passive part