Buddhist compassion

Jared

Hello,

How would you compare and contrast the concepts of Buddhist compassion and Christian charity?

Thank you.

Jeffrey

Compassion isn't an obligation that you grudgingly do. It is breaking down the barriers and experiencing another being's hurt. There is no giver, no gift, and no receiver. http://www.lamrim.com/hhdl/heartsutra.html

It is sometimes the same but not always.

federica

Jared wrote: »

Hello,

How would you compare and contrast the concepts of Buddhist compassion and Christian charity?

Thank you.

Christian Charity does things for other people. It's a prop.
Buddhist Compassion enables people to do for themselves. It's support.

Cinorjer

Jared wrote: »

Hello,

How would you compare and contrast the concepts of Buddhist compassion and Christian charity?

Thank you.

I agree with the above posters that they are two different things, but add that charity is not an unknown concept in Buddhism. We call it dana, or the act of giving. It is one of the virtues.

Buddhist concept of compassion, metta, is more comparible to the Christian concept of unconditional love, but even that isn't exactly what we call compassion, not as most Christians understand it. It's difficult to cultivate true compassion for all, when the worldview is that you're waging a battle against evil.

Jared

Thank you for your responses. To clarify, I am referring to the Christian idea of love, not just charitable giving. I look forward to more perspectives.

Cinorjer

Jared wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. To clarify, I am referring to the Christian idea of love, not just charitable giving. I look forward to more perspectives.

Here is the problem. Christian love is bound by the concept of good and evil, while Buddhism teaches compassion has no bounds. I don't know how many times I've heard Christians say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner!" and that's so wrong from a Buddhist point of view. First of all, it's a copout. A person is defined by their actions, so if you hate the action, you hate the person doing it. That's human nature.

Supposedly, Christianity of today insists that God has unconditional love or is unconditional love. That's not how it evolved over the centuries, as it became a tool of conquest and power. A Buddhist would point out that no conscious being, divine or otherwise, who decrees that a large portion of humanity must be tortured for eternity has any understanding of the concept.

I have known some very compassionate Christians, but I suspect that is in spite of, instead of because of the doctrine that the churches teach. If the seeds of hate weren't buried in the teachings to begin with, Christians wouldn't be holding up signs saying "God hates fags!" and a good portion of mainstream Christians agree with the sentiment, if not the publicity.

SherabDorje

Jared wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. To clarify, I am referring to the Christian idea of love, not just charitable giving. I look forward to more perspectives.

I think in order for this discussion to proceed intelligibly, you need to define the Christian idea of love. Otherwise how can we make a clear comparison?

Jared

SherabDorje wrote: »

I think in order for this discussion to proceed intelligibly, you need to define the Christian idea of love. Otherwise how can we make a clear comparison?

Good idea. Here is a definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia, to let Christianity speak for itself: "A divinely infused habit, inclining the human will to cherish God for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm).

This expanded definition may help us:

(1) Its origin, by Divine infusion. "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost" (Romans 5:5). It is, therefore, distinct from, and superior to, the inborn inclination or the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order. Theologians agree in saying that it is infused together with sanctifying grace, to which it is closely related either by way of real identity, as some few hold, or, according to the more common view, by way of connatural emanation.

(2) Its seat, in the human will. Although charity is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue.

(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship. To love God is to wish Him all honour and glory and every good, and to endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain it for Him. St. John (14:23; 15:14) emphasizes the feature of reciprocity which makes charity a veritable friendship of man with God.

(4) Its motive, i.e., the Divine goodness or amiability taken absolutely and as made known to us by faith. It matters not whether that goodness be viewed in one, or several, or all of the Divine attributes, but, in all cases, it must be adhered to, not as a source of help, or reward, or happiness for ourselves, but as a good in itself infinitely worthy of our love, in this sense alone is God loved for His own sake. However, the distinction of the two loves: concupiscence, which prompts hope; and benevolence, which animates charity, should not be forced into a sort of mutual exclusion, as the Church has repeatedly condemned any attempts at discrediting the workings of Christian hope.

(5) Its range, i.e., both God and man. While God alone is all lovable, yet, inasmuch as all men, by grace and glory, either actually share or at least are capable of sharing in the Divine goodness, it follows that supernatural love rather includes than excludes them, according to Matthew 22:39, and Luke 10:27. Hence one and the same virtue of charity terminates in both God and man, God primarily and man secondarily.