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.
How exactly does one go from renunciation to compassion?
Joshua
Veteran
Hello,
I understand how Buddhism leads to a refined happiness, though it seems here that happiness is without many of the semantical parallels one would expect. It then follows that one would be without jealousy, greed and all the other forms of attachment. It, however, seems that compassion is a form of attachment and is also itself quite relative in the network of samsara. It doesn't follow that an enlightened being ought to have a (my own words here) neurotic drive to be compassionate, it seems rather that an enlightened being should be completely apathetic in absolute terms. Yet something tells me intuitively that compassion is right, but I cannot pinpoint it methodologically. I've asked myself this question before and I've been asked this question before from a variety of abolutist or nihilistic perspectives. It seems now that I've a bridge to cross, or a river if I'm to be proverbial, and this question has become very urgent.
Can anybody help?
I understand how Buddhism leads to a refined happiness, though it seems here that happiness is without many of the semantical parallels one would expect. It then follows that one would be without jealousy, greed and all the other forms of attachment. It, however, seems that compassion is a form of attachment and is also itself quite relative in the network of samsara. It doesn't follow that an enlightened being ought to have a (my own words here) neurotic drive to be compassionate, it seems rather that an enlightened being should be completely apathetic in absolute terms. Yet something tells me intuitively that compassion is right, but I cannot pinpoint it methodologically. I've asked myself this question before and I've been asked this question before from a variety of abolutist or nihilistic perspectives. It seems now that I've a bridge to cross, or a river if I'm to be proverbial, and this question has become very urgent.
Can anybody help?
0
Comments
Yet it seems pleasant.
Still, the raft to be abandoned in the end I take it?
I'm asking why this is so?
It's a presupposition that is just accepted without any ground, the problem is this Buddhist philosophy requires the abandonment of relativity. I'm not talking about what makes a human happy, this is beyond humanity. A Tibetan would say beyond our universe. Even happiness is relative. It really helps, it's really nice, sure. We can even flirt with the eschewed concept of merit here. My real question is from the perspective of an enlightened being. The enlightened being is beyond relativity.
Still, I was hoping somebody might be able to be a bit more technical about it. Maybe some Prasangikin showdown would help, it doesn't really matter. It's really that when in debate on Buddhism with myself or another, or especially when in debate about the greater truth and why compassion should be sought after that I find myself proselytizing often on Facebook or such I'd like a better argument than something which boils down to: "That's just the way it is."
A clever person can stiff out the trail of bullshit.
The clever person can lead an army.
I know a number of clever, angry people.
All things are mutually dependent. There is no separate self in existence. It is a self-evident truth that happiness, and not suffering, is what we desire. So, therefore, we pursue that individually. And yet you cannot say that you are separate from anyone you meet, and so you act compassionately towards them, because them being happy is the same thing as you being happy, since you're not separate.
Some views:
1. An enlightened being is required to interact with the world. For example, a monk must go on alms round to collect food. The (enlightened) monk must eat. If follows, in return for what the monk is given, he has a natural obligation to return something if he is asked a question. If asked a question, the monk simply needs to share his knowledge; to share his path.
2. An enlightened being need not neurtically search for people to help. For example, if an enlightened being, needing to earn a livelihood, establishes a meditation centre, they simply need to demonstrate meditation & share the path. Those who need help will visit the meditation centre.
The Buddha included Right Livelihood in his path beceause every human being must earn a living to acquire their requisites of food, clothing, shelter & medicine.
So one never really escapes 'relativity'.
To end, we can struggle with compassion because we can separate compassion from our own practise of the path and we can believe we must offer more than simply sharing what we are practising.
Kind regards
What seems to puzzle me is the compulsory attitude that an enlightened being, especially those Mahayanist ideals, ought to neurotically achieve some sort of a "messiah complex" when the very philosophy of orthodox Buddhism seems to eliminate this very behavior that is too often proselytized at least on the English speaking internet as if to turn its adherents into modern day Jesus' or something not dissimilar. I was hoping that the compassion was something that is offered but not sought after--again, from an enlightened perspective, not some layperson or monk under stream-entry status who just feels a compulsive need to earn merit while telling those he's helping that merit is against Buddhism's tenets.
It's not neurotic, it's not a complex. It's a spontaneous and very natural wish to end or alleviate the suffering of others.
My father used to refer to certain negative patterns as "hitting yourself over the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop." If one stops hitting themself over the head with the hammer of neurotic grasping, pure tendencies arise.
Just that simple.
In practice, I think what is called "compassion" is just what turns out to be true. It is just what works. And it isn't always kissy-face nice.
So if the question really gets under your skin, I suggest you keep on doing your preferred practice. Don't worry about compassion. And don't stop practicing until you have an answer that satisfies you. I simply cannot think of another empirical path that makes much sense.
But that's just my take.
Personally, I believe in orthodox Buddhism for myself. What this means is the EFFORT for ending one's suffering or solving one's problems principly comes from the seeker rather than the teacher. The teacher simply imparts method for the seeker to apply themselves. This is the orthodox position of the Buddha, who said: "I only point the way, you must walk the way".
As for Mahayana & Vajrayana, imo, it is a different way. I sense the Mahayana ideals are not often lived up to because they are difficult to actualise.
However, there are occassions when one sits in the presence of a guru or teacher and the manner of their voice melts away the burdens & sufferings of their audience.
For me, this level of cultivation of parami is the fruition of the Mahayana & Vajrayana paths.
I think only few individuals can reach this level of compassion.
Kind regards
In my experience, when I began to practise, renunciation formed to basis of practise. Afterwards, compassion manifested itself naturally when my mind felt very satisfied with the fruits of practise & naturally wished to share those fruits.
So, I think, at times, there can be a time lag between renunciation & compassion.
Warm regards
If things are empty they can change. If one understands emptiness then compassion will automatically arise. The only way for me to want you to suffer is through negative thinking. There's really three ways you can go... from here. You can be angry (I want you to suffer), jealous (your suffering makes me happy), or ignorant (your suffering has nothing to do with me). These three things will prevent you from being compassionate (I want the causes and conditions of your suffering to end). All of your understanding of emptiness will automatically arise compassion. Suffering is empty. Suffering is dependent on causes and conditions. If one understands the causes and conditions one can change the suffering. Basically if one reduces their negative thinking (anger, jealously, and ignorance) and understands emptiness then compassion will automatically arise.
Hope this helps. Much love.
I think there are semantical differences between karuna and compassion.
I think the pluralities do paint a picture of a messianic enlightened person, for example the entire Mahayanist branch. However, pluralities and orthodoxy rarely go hand in hand. Without a personal master how ought I sift through the bullshit? You'll notice the many I's I've written, directly proportional to how muddied my views often are.
The Gelugpas have shown me that everything can be demonstrated with logic in at least a Prasangikin style. This is why I'm looking for some ontological argument or an otherwise reductio ad absurdum anecdote. It is to help others which also demands that I get my own ducks in a line. The sorts I communicate with are typically rigorously methodical, the "that's the way it is" philosophy won't cut it.
I said some lead armies, even when they've the potential to love whereas some don't. This is an important topic for those with the potential.
However, the problem with this kind of compassion is it often does not have a "home" because the solution of emptiness to "our" former problems may not be the solution for the problems of others.
If the mind does not have EMPATHY, it if does not understand the ordinary problems of ordinary people & the world, then the compassion arising from emptiness may not have a home. It wishes to help others but cannot truely empathise with others. Instead, it only knows emptiness as the solution to ills but emptiness may not be the appropriate solution to everyday problems.
Kind regards
Compassion needs no home. Compassion needs no conditions.
When you see everyone as empty. Naturally compassion arises. You do what is most obvious in that situation. Whether you help them or not.
With love.
One could become enlightened and realize that everyone is already doing their own thing to wake up to enlightenment.
If people want to sleep, let them. Who am I to wake people up from their sleep? Though I can point the way to enlightenment, they have to do the walking and seeking.
You could call this a Pratyekabuddha. Why teach? They are going to wake up sooner or later.
Thought I personally don't agree with the Pratyekabuddha, I understand their view point. To them the most compassion thing you can do is to let them be.
I like the bodhisattva's way! Save all beings a million times a million. Keep saving.
If people are sleeping, consider they're sleeping at the wheel. Is it not wiser to wake them up? How can they follow your pointing the way to enlightenment, if they are 'sleeping' in ignorance?
The most compassionate thing you can do is give them the map. But they need to be taught how to read it.
The Buddha was persuaded to share his discovery with others. initially, he wasn't intending to.
Would we be having this discussion now, if he hadn't?
If you slowly start to see the emptiness of your ego (wisdom), it's only logical you are more kind to others (compassion).
So an enlightened being does not see himself distinct from any others and just has no choice. He has to be compassionate. This is not an attachment, this is due to a non-attachment to the self. Now however he chooses to act on this compassion may be depending on his personal experiences and culture etc, I don't know.
If you try to 'force' other people to follow the path, you aren't reaching anything. You can only show the way, give them a slight push in the right direction. To people who totally aren't into Buddhism the best thing to do is just be kind and not talk about it if they don't ask because it will just scare them off.
That's also why you will never see an enlightened being advertising Buddhism like for example some churches do.
All problems come from ignorance or not-knowing.
Not all human beings with problems are looking for emptiness.
For example, a simple browse of this chatsite sees folks with work problems, family problems, relationship problems, drug problems, etc.
Generally, the way to fix these problems is unrelated to ego & emptiness.
Many people are simply searching for skilful means. These skilful means are on the level of morality or skilful karma rather than emptiness.
Kind regards
It was not my intention to go against anybody in particular, just pointing out my view on things.
And nowhere did I suggest in my post that such instruction should be forced upon people. But I did mention the wisdom of indicating a better way. Even in indication, someone has a choice of whether to listen or not. Which is precisely what I was saying. Best leave the church out of this discussion.
We really don't want to be dragged off topic, do we.
Communication without actually hearing and seeing someone has always been hard for me to be honest.
What it seems is not what it actually is. What reason is there to not enter in and abide in compassion? Specious reasoning? Specious: apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false.
If a baby falls down and hurts itself and starts crying, do you just walk past it and not help it up or comfort it? If you do help it up and comfort it so it stops crying, does that mean you have unnecessary attachment? I don't see how that can be the case. The natural response of any normal human being is to help the baby. Why, because of empathy for the baby's suffering. Another reason is because there is no reason to just walk past it. Are you saying that it is unnecessary to help the baby? You could argue that in the sense of ultimate emptiness, etc. However, even still, that not a reason to just walk past it.
Thank you everybody.
From the faith I've developed through my own experiences, I've learned that compassion is not an attachment or something that I strive for. It's just there when I have really let go of every other thing that I attach to in order to protect my self. When I can embrace nonself and impermanence, then compassion is naturally there. This leads me to believe that compassion and love are the core of our nature. Not human nature, but the nature that creates all that we see.
Compassion is never something I could strive to attain. If I tried to be compassionate, it was fake. Only after letting go of other clingings and attachments have I opened up, quite naturally, to reveal that my deepest core truly does care about others and about us as a whole.
I am sorry if this isn't an answer that will help you scientifically defend or oppose anything. The biggest liberation for me is learning that while it's nice to embrace other perspectives, religious and philosophical debate are almost completely worthless in my life. I love gaining insight from others' ideas, however when dealing with my spirituality, I have never found much outside of myself that kept me on a path that feels right. This was all found within, as part of the compassionate nature that has created this body. It really doesn't matter if someone thinks that your views aren't logical. It only matters how you think of your own views, friend.
That's something I've been finding too, though not so much as you. I struggle with conceit too much to be truly compassionate. Some days are glorious and Buddhism springs forth like a blossoming Corpse flower only to disappear as fast as it came.
It seems true that only some have the capacity to experiment with compassion while most preach empiricism in the west, for some odd reason nobody ever wants to be an empiricist. Why though must they believe they are?
As you can see, the flower isn't even close to blossoming this week.
Let me be as clear as I can: I think this reductio ad absurdum argument truly is the only methodologically sound argument that can be made for the arising of compassion in this context. That is, remove obscurations, such as conceit, and compassion arises naturally. This is, for example, why Buddhist striving is often described with metaphors such as cleaning a dirty mirror or finding the wish-fulfilling gem in a trash-heap. People drink and eat, therefore they urinate and defecate. It's that basic. People remove obscurations such as incorrect view of self, and compassion arises naturally. Or, to repeat myself, as my father said, "it's like hitting yourself over the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop". That is your "reductio ad absurdum".
It's just that easy, and the methodology for arriving at that conclusion is sound.
IMHO this is a view that comes from a lot of Christian traditions, which teach that taking pleasure in something is sinful, even if that thing you're taking pleasure in is being nice to people!
Compassion is the natural tendency of human beings, because fundamentally, there is no difference between them and us, you and me: we are all connected. Hence, there is no difference between wanting to end our personal suffering, and wanting to relieve the suffering of others. And when we do good to others and feel pleasure, that is fine. Compassion isn't something that should make us feel bad! And feeling proud of doing good doesn't take away from the compassion - although the more compassion we feel, and the less ego, the greater the benefit of that compassion.
Watch a little child show compassion. Like the child who gave my dog a flower to make him happy (the dog sniffed the flower, curiously, which the child took to be a sign of appreciation). Little kids don't have any ego about it. They don't agonise about whether they are doing it for the right reasons, they just do it, unselfconsciously. That child wanted to make my dog happy because he wanted to make my dog happy - simple as that. And it worked, because my dog loves attention, even if he wouldn't know what to do with a flower that wasn't edible.
Imagine if we could show compassion that easily and that lacking in Self? It's a wonderful, life-enriching thing. If you want to see the true nature of things, there is it. So when a Buddha becomes enlightened he becomes truly compassionate.
What stops us from being compassionate? Fear of being thought strange, fear of other people, of being taken advantage of, of the other person rejecting our kindness and making us feel bad, fear of being vulnerable... this is all Ego, Self protecting its existence. True compassion knows no fear and no emotional self-preservation, it is Enlightenment.
It makes me sad to read of people who feel that compassion is somehow a separate issue to Enlightenment. It makes me sadder still to hear of people avoiding compassion, going into their shells, regarding others as a hindrance to their spiritual progress, or even outright rejecting others. Rejecting other people, being un-compassionate towards them is rather like rejecting your own arm! (which is not to say there is anything wrong with people living alone, just don't do so out of aversion to others).
The Buddha Shakyamuni showed us by example, because when he realised Nirvanna, under the Bodhi tree, he didn't stay there in Bliss, enjoying himself forever. He got up and went to teach the people what he had learned and tried to show them the way to Enlightenment too. He wrote scriptures and passed teachings on to his disciples so that thousands of years later, we still have the opportunity to know the Dharma.
No one can be truly happy, even a Buddha, when others suffer.
Could you say that because we are all so co-dependently and symbiotically arisen on account of ultimately sharing the same unified, common universal karma (ctrl + f 'big bang') that one person's samskaric impulses impute the universe much like the manipulation of a Hoberman sphere?
It's all Greek to me...
Thank you for the elucidation, Sherab, if you have nothing helpful to post then why?