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.
Compassion without Buddhism
Sorry for all these topics I've been making; I just have a lot of questions and don't want to jumble them all into one topic.
The ultimate goal of Buddhism and meditation is to develop yourself to help others. But is it really necessary? The most philanthropic humans in history were not Buddhist, nor did they meditate. Isn't meditation a waste of time if you can reason your way to helping others? I understand meditation has its place and CAN certainly help, but I don't see how it necessarily ALWAYS does. I think most would be better reading a few books on ethics and then devoting ALL their time to helping others. It's not that hard to snuff out habits and selfish thoughts without thousands of hours of meditation.
Isn't it a bit selfish to wish to reach whatever state (enlightenment?) Buddhism may bring you when you could be spending that time for action in helping others? It's not like Buddhism is necessary. What's the point?
If this sounds like an attack, it certainly isn't. I just wanted to really elaborate and make my question as clear as possible
The ultimate goal of Buddhism and meditation is to develop yourself to help others. But is it really necessary? The most philanthropic humans in history were not Buddhist, nor did they meditate. Isn't meditation a waste of time if you can reason your way to helping others? I understand meditation has its place and CAN certainly help, but I don't see how it necessarily ALWAYS does. I think most would be better reading a few books on ethics and then devoting ALL their time to helping others. It's not that hard to snuff out habits and selfish thoughts without thousands of hours of meditation.
Isn't it a bit selfish to wish to reach whatever state (enlightenment?) Buddhism may bring you when you could be spending that time for action in helping others? It's not like Buddhism is necessary. What's the point?
If this sounds like an attack, it certainly isn't. I just wanted to really elaborate and make my question as clear as possible
0
Comments
At least some sort of framework, some correct view of reality, should be gathered by someone. One can follow the guidelines shown in Buddhism to act skillfully in many more situations than they otherwise might, regardless of enlightenment. Enlightenment does help, though.
The greater the degree of selfless view, the more potent the compassionate actions. Jesus would seem to have been awakened to some degree whether he was a Buddhist or not. Take it for what it's worth.
Each person must choose thier own path. None is , in truth, better as a whole but might be better for a specific person.
I do say sometimes true and uncorrupted Christian teachings are great benefits to alot of people to at least make sure they still come back as humans next time around.
interesting question
i think the question is "to what level can we be of benefit to others?"
if you just want to feed someone for a day then fine
no need to develop ones mind
but i think most come to meditation and buddha's teachings
because they are wanting to be happy and free themselves from suffering
then after study and practice they realise that all sentient beings are equal in their struggle to be happy and free from suffering
so the study of compassion begins
and according to buddhist philosophy
we should view all sentient beings as being our mother (in a past life)
and once we begin a serious path of compassion for all sentient beings
we then learn the benefit of this compassion
it is two fold
1. the obvious benefit for others
2. the vast benefit for self
- ones mind is more peaceful
- ones own body is healthier
i think the degree at which one can be of benefit to others when one is confused is limited
I see your point, but consider this. People can't reason their way to compassion. In fact, reason gets in the way. For every reason you can come up with to help a stranger, there is a reason not to help. Throw in having compassion for people you don't like? Reason utterly fails you.
But, Buddhism certainly doesn't hold the patent on compassion. The most compassionate person I ever met was my Grandmother, who happened to be an olde time Christian minister. It's not just my bias. To this day, when I'm introduced anywhere in that part of the state and it's made known I'm her Grandson, someone will tell me about something she did for them.
And, she had the wisdom to do the right thing in trying to help people. It's not just a desire to help others. Misguided actions that are stained by your own fears and desires can hurt, no matter what the intention. In the past few years, some Christian missionaries were only trying to help when they set up churches and schools in an African country. Their preaching of their brand of fundamentalism combined with an already present distrust for homosexuals, and sparked a hate campaign so that laws were passed, so being homosexual is a crime punished by death. All because some Christians who didn't know what they were doing tried to "help".
So it's not just trying to help. It's developing the clear mind so compassion motivates you to do the correct thing in the situation.
I believe I, in fact, have reasoned my way to compassion, not as an emotional state but an ethical stance. I follow utilitarianism. It is purely reasoned.
This I definitely understand as being a benefit of meditation, but at the same time I think I could certainly reason that it would be a bad idea to set up churches in an African country. Schools I think would be a good idea.
Take a situation such as this.
Person A without the wisdom of impermanence cures cancer.
Person B with the wisdom of impermanence feeds one person.
I think we all know who has contributed more to helping humans.
While even great ch'an masters in the past have indeed said things like "What need is thereto meditate?"
He is referring to highly cultivated individuals who have already seen their intrinsic nature who are practicing the "Sudden awakening" Ch'an school. Those people already have developed deep good karmic roots over many life times to be able to awaken to the teachings.
Most of us are unfortunetly truly begainners and hence must start from the begainning with discipline, meditative concentration and wisdom.
Buddhism is hardwork that requires effort.
I do not believe in rebirth, nor ever will whether or not I follow Buddhism.
Mind and brain are connected, not the same but are an absolutely connected entity. To change the brain is to change the mind and is not "outside" the mind.
This seems to assume that anyone who hasn't studied the Dharma is "confused". I think it's possible to act compassionately and effectively without being a student of the Dharma. Some people are gifted that way. Christian missionaries have messed up all over the world, because they were culture-bound and also were pushing their own agenda. Not everyone has an agenda to push, they're open to learning first, studying a situation and getting to know the people or culture or individual involved, then devising an appropriate strategy to address whatever conditions need improvement. The key, I think, is to be free of any agenda or preconceptions, so as to see a given situation clearly. One doesn't necessarily need Dharma training for that. Or any religion. A sound sense of ethics is key, as voyaging mentioned.
If voyaging consults with a teacher at a Dharma center, he or she will get the teacher's point of view. While that may be informative, it won't be impartial or objective. Possibly voyaging turned to us in search of an objective response...? But I'm sure voyaging is perfectly capable of evaluating a teacher's response and reaching a reasoned conclusion. Welcome aboard, voyaging.
Cancer will always get cured, one person will always get fed, cancer always never gets cured, one person always never gets fed.
The question is not only to get it done, but to ensure that you keep doing it forever.
Actually, utilitarianism is not as reasoned and free from emotional bias as you would think. But that's a topic for another thread. You still have to start by choosing some ethical rules that are entirely subjective. It's kindness as a means to an end, not compassion as Buddhism defines it. Reason means you weigh the pros and cons of your kindness. Compassion is only giving.
But beyond that, people are of course blind to their own bias toward a desire for a specific outcome to their giving. The missionaries would argue passionately that churches are exactly what Africa needs, to counter a growing Muslim influence. They would be horrified if you wanted to pass out free condoms and preach the gospel of safe sex to help keep aids and unwanted pregnancies down. Two compassionate people with an entirely different way of seeing the problem.
And if you asked the people in that area, they might say what they really needed was more wells so they could have fresh water and a generator so they could have some electricity once in a while.
Buddhism certainly doesn't have the patent on compassion or even wisdom. I would never discourage anyone from acts of kindness for whatever reason. That's why charitable donations come with a tax break in most cases. That's fine.
Thank you for the very helpful response.
Could you answer me, then, why should I practice Buddhism when I have a sound ethical stance?
Person A saves many lives. One of those lives might be a brutal dictator that goes on to kill thousands of people.
Person B saves one life. That life might be the person who goes on to discover the cure for cancer.
And so it goes. It's not a contest or a matter of counting bodies saved. Compassion is not greatest good for the greatest number of people. It's just helping people, one at a time.
Interesting example, I'll ponder that.
But shouldn't it be greatest good for the greatest number? If I have the option of saving 100 random people over one, I'd save the 100 and risk that one of them would become a dictator.
Well, what I was implying is that you may not need Buddhism, to be honest. But the goal of Buddhism isn't as narrow as you state it at the outset: to develop yourself to help others. If that's all it is, you may be able to do that effectively without Buddhism. Enlightenment is the ultimate goal, I think, and freedom from afflictive emotions. Meditation and Dharma study can help reach those goals. Perhaps other participants could clarify or state additional goals. Really, to answer your questions effectively, we would first have to examine your statement as to what the goal of Buddhist study is, and then discuss from there, IMHO. If the nature of your question is more along the lines of "Why do I need Buddhism", rather than "If it's about helping others, why do I need it", then that's a very different question.
Some make the point that the development of wisdom is one goal of Buddhism, wisdom to guide one in the application of skillful means to the expression of one's compassion, but my perspective is that some people have sufficient innate wisdom to be able to be effective in the exercise of compassion. (I realize this is debatable.) So that leaves us to look at Buddhism's other goals.
I don't believe in rebirth. I don't think enlightenment lasts after physical death. Does this affect anything?
Whether or not one needs to believe in rebirth to be a Buddhist has been debated several times on this site, even in the short time since I've been a member, probably has been debated before, and will again. And there's a debate as to whether the Buddha actually believed in rebirth himself, or did he put that gloss on his teachings because he was teaching to an audience that had been steeped in that belief, but his own true belief was that karma functioned as a principle within a single lifetime, no rebirth. What people have said is that Buddhism isn't a dogma so you don't have to believe in rebirth, plus; the Buddha said to question everything, and submit it to your own analysis, so my personal position is that there's flexibility there. You could review old threads on this site if you want to see others' responses to the rebirth question. But nobody gets rejected as a Buddhist just because they don't believe in rebirth. At least, not here. But you're right; there does seem to be an acceptance by many of the idea that reaching enlightenment can take many lifetimes.
This site is a place where you can explore questions like that. You're not required to buy into anything in order to participate, but to just show an interest in Buddhism, as I understand. See the current thread under "Buddhism for Beginners", titled "Dubious Buddhist Beliefs".
That is one of the entirely subjective ethical rules you must decide on with any list of moral actions. I don't think there is one right answer, and I certainly refuse to make that decision ahead of time.
Reason tells you the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few, or the one (thank you Star Trek). It sounds great in theory. In practice, a majority is always reluctant to share with a minority. In practice, there's no reason against just getting rid of the disabled, the few people who take up resources that the many could be using. Reason has always been misused, so I don't trust it.
You also have to decide on the relative worth of individual life, if you follow reason. Is the happiness of one doctor worth more than the welfare of two healthy people with no skills? How about the head of a government, or a business? Why should they be expected to sacrifice for the sake of people who don't contribute? So reason says that sometimes the needs of the few trump the needs of the many, if it's a special few. Guess who gets to decide what makes someone special? It's not the people without a voice, for sure.
Just pointing out some of the thoughts that went through my head when I first studied utilatarianism. I'm not saying it can't work. I just need more convincing.
Firstly, I realize that my ethical stance is a subjective stance, and does not hold objectively true under any conditions. Same goes for Buddhist ethics.
I treat all people as ends in themselves and as equal value no matter what person they are. This hopefully clears up a few problems.
No need to believe it. But then there is the question ... is the person who reads these words the same or different from the person who wrote the words above. Without any philosophical or religious or belief-strewn fidgeting, isn't it simply true -- the past is unalterably out of reach; the future cannot be known; and the present, no matter how we chatter about it, cannot be grasped. So ... if this is simply true, what the hell is going on here?
Buddhism isn't something that tries to get believers by debating. Buddhism accepts and happily uses science to help sentient beings.
Well, the idea, I think, is that it's not an either-or proposition; it's both-and. You can practice Buddhism and help others at the same time. And the deeper you get into examining your own mind via meditation, the more skillful your methods of helping will be. But as I said before, you may already be skillful enough to make a positive difference in the world. May I ask, what projects you've accomplished? Just curious.
To be frank, I do agree with you that practicing Buddhism and meditating to reach enlightenment, without compassionate action in one's life, is a bit selfish. That's my personal view. I've heard that Thai monks take on charitable projects, like running orphanages. And I think many practitioners practice compassion in their day-to-day lives. I don't know how many take on the sort of global projects that you were suggesting. And I don't think that's really necessary, it's just one option. One can help individuals or work at charities closer to home, as well. One can commit random acts of kindness every day.
And there's more to it than just developing yourself to help others. Members--anyone want to share thoughts on what Buddhism's goals are?
I think I will follow Buddhism's meditation teachings, while not adopting any of its metaphysical or conceptual beliefs. I only have one reservation, and that is that I am afraid meditation will lead me to less ambition in whatever my moral goal is. For example, attachment to the drive to learn and help others is, I think, important.
You won't become detached from the drive to learn and to work to help others. I'm still as driven to learn and work to empower others to improve their lives as ever. (We're not trying to turn you into some kind of thrall, here; fear not.
Good luck, voyaging; I've enjoyed discussing with you. Please drop in from time to time to let us know how you're doing, and what you're up to.
Something I like from 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, and so on.
The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom.
I agree with this only up to a point. It seems a bit cold. Ignore all the suffering around us? I can't do that. What about the Boddhisattva way of life? Where does HHDL's "religion of kindness" fit in, here? I think one can work toward the eventual goal of overcoming afflictions and attaining freedom while at the same time skillfully practicing compassion towards others along the way.
Buddhism's 'Mahayana' compassion is to strive for the liberation of sentient beings, nothing less.
Most of us can't even stop resenting "ignorant people", let along talking about real compassion. I am sorry for making it sound confrontational. But yeah, just putting it out there.