What is compassion?

Epicurus

Is compassion merely the alleviation of suffering in a superficial way?

Say a person is suffering "for all the wrong reasons" (I realize judging is not the point, but bear with me). Maybe the person is asking you if she looks fat in that dress, maybe you can clearly see the person is tangled up in an unhealthy way of thinking, maybe they need money for booze because they are suffering extreme withdrawal symptoms or whatever other scenario you can think of........where alleviating the suffering isn't going to promote long-lasting happiness or healing in anyway. When it's just gonna postpone suffering.

What is one to do? Is tough love a part of compassion?


I've always been one to be sort of harsh with people. I don't tend to help them with superficial things....if they need someone to talk to about something deep, so to speak, I'm all there. I usually say what I think and despise social niceties or façades to conform to what is expected. I can be kind, and I'm usually good-willed but I'm not polite in the sense that I'm ever PC.

I would like to be more compassionate than I am, but I don't know what compassion actually entails in every day small stuff. Thoughts?

Jeffrey

Me too. Then when I have something to say they get revenge. Sometimes. But it always has a twist.

Cloud

Compassion includes the superficial; it is the alleviation of suffering in all its forms. Teaching is the rough stuff at times, and it's not always welcome by the recipient.

ShiftPlusOne

Compassion is understanding and the drive to help. When you see someone suffering 'for the wrong reasons', you can probably see a reflection of self. It may be a small part of you, who you were or who you might have been. I can see situations where my life could've been completely derailed. It wasn't because I am so much better than everyone less fortunate than me... it was simply a matter of luck.

So, if someone asks you if she looks fat in a dress.... it's easy to understand. It's the comparative mind at work... surely you can understand the insecurity the person is going through and all the suffering associated with it. I know I used to be self-conscious about myself all the time... it sucked.

I think compassion isn't always translated into action. It can simply be a mindset. It's the desire to help in any way you can. If you can't help, then it's as simple as that, you can't help. Many people wouldn't even consider helping an option, even when it's easy to do.

So, to sum up and get right back to the start, compassion is understanding and empathy related to the suffering. It doesn't have to translate to action, but if you really feel the suffering as your own, you'll probably find a way to help.

genkaku

I once had an email exchange with a longtime Zen monk in Japan about compassion. We batted it back and forth, trying to nail it down, agreeing, disagreeing ... the discussion went on an on.

Finally, I thought he hit the nail on the head when he suggested that perhaps compassion was like the U.S. Supreme Court justice's observation about pornography: "I may not know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

Anything else seems to be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.

Don't define it, just do it.

Epicurus

ShiftPlusOne wrote: »

Compassion is understanding and the drive to help. When you see someone suffering 'for the wrong reasons', you can probably see a reflection of self. It may be a small part of you, who you were or who you might have been. I can see situations where my life could've been completely derailed. It wasn't because I am so much better than everyone less fortunate than me... it was simply a matter of luck.

So, if someone asks you if she looks fat in a dress.... it's easy to understand. It's the comparative mind at work... surely you can understand the insecurity the person is going through and all the suffering associated with it. I know I used to be self-conscious about myself all the time... it sucked.

I think compassion isn't always translated into action. It can simply be a mindset. It's the desire to help in any way you can. If you can't help, then it's as simple as that, you can't help. Many people wouldn't even consider helping an option, even when it's easy to do.

So, to sum up and get right back to the start, compassion is understanding and empathy related to the suffering. It doesn't have to translate to action, but if you really feel the suffering as your own, you'll probably find a way to help.

Just to give some context by what I mean by tough love and my harshness towards people despite good-will....in the do I look fat in this dress....I might take that opportunity to ask the person "why exactly should it matter?".

But at the end of the day, what would be the compassionate thing to do, I wonder? I do empathize with suffering, that's why I tend to try and make people let go of stupid things that will never make them happy.

genkaku wrote: »

I once had an email exchange with a longtime Zen monk in Japan about compassion. We batted it back and forth, trying to nail it down, agreeing, disagreeing ... the discussion went on an on.

Finally, I thought he hit the nail on the head when he suggested that perhaps compassion was like the U.S. Supreme Court justice's observation about pornography: "I may not know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

Anything else seems to be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.

Don't define it, just do it.

I think I already do, and always have. But I'm open to being deluded.

ShiftPlusOne

Epicirus, from what I've gathered about Buddhism so far is that it's about intent. Keeping that in mind, I think it's clear that compassion can take different forms. What you might consider the compassionate thing to do may differ from what other's might think. At the end of the day what matter is whether you were truthful, helpful and acted with the right intent. It's pretty hard to nail all three every time.

Bardodream

Compassion is the nature of buddha mind and nirvana. To us, in the cycle of samsara, it simply seems like an emotional response to suffering. It is not. It is the natural state.

Epicurus

Epicirus, from what I've gathered about Buddhism so far is that it's about intent. Keeping that in mind, I think it's clear that compassion can take different forms. What you might consider the compassionate thing to do may differ from what other's might think. At the end of the day what matter is whether you were truthful, helpful and acted with the right intent. It's pretty hard to nail all three every time.

Yeah. I guess what I'm hinting at, is whether or not long-term alleviation of suffering, something that sticks, is better to aim for than short-term alleviation.

Rmurray1985

... Simply holding the door open for someone can be the basis of developing bodhicitta in another person...

You need only concern yourself with what situations are present. In every situation you have to simply think "How can I bring bodhicitta into this situation?"

From pushing a child out of the way from being hit by a car, to smiling at a stranger for no particular reason... If you do it with bodhicitta at heart it's a good thing.

Epicurus

So where does that leave me with the "do I look fat in this dress?" scenario. Come on people lets make this very concrete!

Rmurray1985

So where does that leave me with the "do I look fat in this dress?" scenario. Come on people lets make this very concrete!

It's just not clear cut... If she does look fat in the dress I would tell her "yes, but you're still very beautiful to me" or something along those lines. If it's a woman with fragile confidence I would lead them to a mirror make them look at themselves and tell them "you're a beautiful woman, but this dress doesn't bring that out very well"

If the problem of course simply lies in a dress being ugly and unflattering it's simple to find a solution. But, if it's simply the woman's body... That's a whole other problem.

Epicurus

I agree. Yeah I guess the topic kinda started in my head as a way to measure how "white lies" fit in buddhism.

I definitely have a very hard time lying. But sometimes I wonder if that's not what people expect and what truly alleviates their suffering...in the moment.

Rmurray1985

That's where skillful means comes into practice... There's just a time and a place for that kind of thing.

I imagined myself once as a teacher of the Dharma... And I thought, if I were to come before a group of people wanting to hear me teach the first thing I would say is "Hello everyone, I just want you to know that before I came out I had to blow my nose. When I did, I missed the tissue and got snot all over my lips" Or something along those lines to break people from their preconceptions.

It just depends on all the factors of a given circumstance. "White lie"... I'm not sure... There may be situations where a white lie would be the best solution. But I think there'd always be a better way

ShiftPlusOne

You need to know the person involved. If there was one single right answer, it would be chiselled in stone and given to every man.

In my case, she never looks fat, so an honest "no, you look great" is fine.

However if you're implying that the fact that she's asking the question in the first place is a sign of suffering, then fair enough. In that case, you can add a "but why do you ask?" to start a discussion. It's simply a matter of offering your opinion/insight/help. If it sticks, great. If not, try to understand why.

Dakini

What do you all think about this post on the "Compassion without Buddhism" thread" This is from a teacher named Loppon Namdrol:

"Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person.

The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion...

The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom."

The commentator says, "The greatest help you can give others is to permanently free them from all sufferings via enlightenment, nirvana. (not temporary solutions to aspects of suffering in their lives.)"

This seems a little like wrong view. Either that, or I've been wasting a lot of time and energy in my life helping others.

Epicurus

Could you explain what you mean a little bit better? What seems like wrong view? Short-term superficial alleviation of suffering?

Dakini

Yeah. It seems to be saying that we're not supposed to concern ourselves with suffering in this lifetime, but to take the long view, over multiple lifetimes, and work to help beings reach nirvana. Not that most of us are qualified to do that, other than turning people on to the Dharma...

Or do you read it differently?

Chrysalid

I think it's saying that the purpose of the dharma isn't to make you feel less fat in a dress, but to reach a point where the idea of looking fat in a dress doesn't worry you.

Back to the OP. The truth hurts. Why? Because it bashes our egos and forces us to consider our negative character traits. There are plenty of people willing to placate the egos of others by dismissing their anxieties. There are fewer people willing you tell people the "ugly" truth, whether it is compassionate or not depends entirely on what is driving you to speak the truth, kindness or spite.

Epicurus

Dakini : Basically my view of it is exactly like Chrysalid.

Chrysalid : Exactly. I don't concern myself with the superficial side of the problem usually. I've always been one to go deeper into the problem.

Well, this thread has been good for my ego.

Dazron

I agree. Yeah I guess the topic kinda started in my head as a way to measure how "white lies" fit in buddhism.

I definitely have a very hard time lying. But sometimes I wonder if that's not what people expect and what truly alleviates their suffering...in the moment.

I took the question to be asking 'is it better to lie to alleviate suffering, or tell the truth and cause more'. The problem here is that the example you used is one of those things that is un-ponderable - a bit like a thought experiment.

My take is, I don't like becoming too attached to any kind of truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. Reality is just what we perceive and through mindfulness we should be aware of what we are experiencing. Still doesn't help your question get answered though right? The answer I would give to "does this dress make me look fat?' would always depend on the lady! Not because of how she looked one way or another, but more to do with their personality, why they are asking the question, and how they'd take my answer!

Epicurus

I can't even tell white lies most of the time lol. It's kind of against my principles, dharma or no dharma.

Chrysalid

I can't even tell white lies most of the time lol. It's kind of against my principles, dharma or no dharma.

I guess at least you don't have to deal with your lies unravelling later on. Me, I'm so used to lying that sometimes I don't even know I'm doing it.

Dakini

I think it's saying that the purpose of the dharma isn't to make you feel less fat in a dress, but to reach a point where the idea of looking fat in a dress doesn't worry you.end quote.

This doesn't address my question or the quote. It's not about our own personal problems, it's about how we relate to others. The passage says we should be working to help people reach nirvana, not alleviate suffering they're experiencing in this lifetime. So...if we see an injustice happen, should we just keep going and not speak out? Were all those Freedom Riders from the North wrong to join the bus boycotts, etc. in the South during the Civil Rights Movement? If we have a friend whom we can help find direction in his/her life, should we not bother? Should we forgo the small kindnesses we do to friends and strangers on a daily/weekly basis? This is what the quotes seem to be saying. That all that is small potatoes, and we should instead dedicate ourselves to the bigger picture (exclusively): helping people reach Nirvana.

I don't know why it has to be an either-or question. Why not both the micro and the macro?

To address the OP's narrower question, I always give an honest answer, and then I tell people that if that's not what they wanted, they shouldn't have come to me for an opinion, because an honest one is the only kind I know how to give. That said, I do, depending on the situation, try to phrase my response diplomatically. But at least people who do want an honest opinion about anything know I'm the go-to person for that.

Freethinker_23

With the whole point of compassion/loving kindness being "the alleviating of suffering", in whatever form, I don't think whether a method is a "white lie" or not is quite the point. A lie, a true lie, is a deception for personal gain. If what you are doing is designed to help another person and can hurt in no way, then it isn't a lie. You say your code of ethics won't allow a white lie? Sounds like you are attached to surface definitions and not the "spirit" or intent.

Epicurus

I'm attached to the intent of brutal truthfulness. Because true happiness can't be based on anything else right?

compassionate_warrior

"The purpose of the dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion." This seems strange, I'd like to get some opinions from other qualified teachers on this. What it's saying is all this fuss about how to answer the question posited by the OP--how to answer his friend's request for his opinion regarding her dress, is beside the point. We're not supposed to be applying our compassion to mundane issues, nor to seek solutions to others' suffering in the current lifetime. The implication is we're supposed to let all that be as it is, not get involved, and a) devote ourselves to our own liberation and b) dedicate ourselves to the liberation of others. I read this as saying that all our focus should be on liberation of ourselves and others, and that we are not to expend our energy on the mundane, whether it's debating how to answer a friend's question, or setting up a soup kitchen for the homeless, or some other charitable act. Energy spent on charity (whether towards a friend or toward a larger community) is better applied to our own liberation and that of others.

ShiftPlusOne

Epicurus, read about the elements of right speech. Brutal truthfulness is not right speech, unless the timing is right... which may be never.

seeker242

Epicurus, read about the elements of right speech. Brutal truthfulness is not right speech, unless the timing is right... which may be never.

This is my favorite quote regarding right speech.


The criteria for deciding what is worth saying

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

— MN 58

ShiftPlusOne

Yup, that's what I was looking for. I was referring to points 3 and maybe 2 pasted above.

I never quite understood what the last line was about though

"Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

compassionate_warrior

Because sometimes silence is best? Rather than idle chatter, even if it fits the criteria?

But back to the OP's question, what if giving an "endearing and agreeable" response means telling a lie? If it's a lie, then it's not factual or true, and doesn't meet all the criteria of "right speech", so ... one should say nothing at all, in the OP's situation? Or he should just find a tactful way out of responding directly?

Dakini

Wuji, on the "BUddhism: Religion or Philosophy" thread came up with the same criteria, but rephrased a little, and "agreeable" isn't included. So there's more flexibility. Words should be spoken with a "kind heart", rather than be agreeable. Spoken gently and they must be beneficial, as well as truthful. So this leaves the OP open to speaking the truth, but gently and with a kind heart, phrasing his response in such a way that it's beneficial to the listener.

Jeffrey

What is knowledge of beneficial? Is it clicking? Or stretching? Truth is what it is. Appearance not truth, but it could be or anything else, but not fore!