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?
Fair enough for myself. I obviously have the ability to intuitively understand these truths even if I'm without the capacity to write a map there.
What about for those aspiring scientists I know who think that there ought to be a genocide for the dogmatic populace? Their rules are strictly logical. I doubt words can convict them to live a tolerant life, but I'd imagine if one were clever enough the words for convincing them that compassion is a superior volition to at least contemplate in the beginning stages than supreme hatred. I'm trying to piece a map together, I have a lot of ideas that I'm not discussing here, especially regarding the development of emotions in humans which besides the neo-cortex operates as the main division between human development and the otherwise animal kingdom, however these ideas are no ace in the hole. I need that to glue everything together, to have a sound philosophy that I can work with for the intolerant logicians by the time I'm in my mid or late twenties so that I'll be able to function as a compassion convincer for those who (all implicit conceit aside) need it while their minds are still open in their youth. These people on average will hold a lot of weight in society along with politicians, I feel it's wise to try and help. Minds usually attract like minded ones, that's why I can locate so many intensely methodical and overbearingly stubborn logicians who each themselves possess a network of such friends. If a few can be thoroughly changed like pulling on the end of that Hoberman sphere maybe a lot of good will ricochet from my actions like observing the rows of ripples emit from a finger poking a pond.
Joshua, animals have an equally complex emotional life to humans. They simply lack human cognition to rationalist their emotions.
What science does show us, however, is that human beings without emotions (due to traumatic brain injury, for instance) become incapable of making the most basic decision. Which is the polar opposite of all the assumptions made in science fiction, from Mr Spock onwards.
So before you start over-complicating everything, I feel you need to check a few of your assumptions, and maybe have a look at some of the stuff neuroscience is discovering. I'd recommend books by Oliver Sachs as a good starting point.
As for philosophy, the first principle of developing a "coherent philosophy" is to ensure you have accurate premises. Without that, whilst your arguments will be sound, your conclusions will be wrong. (I'm a philosophy student, by the way )
I was simplifying things, you're correct in the necessity to organize my own sound philosophy. That's what I stated a few posts ago, in fact.
I've been known to argue about the hierarchy of thought regarding the reptilian, limbic and neo-cortex brains. You're correct that the limbic has given rise to most of the more complicated emotions and thus on some level at least most mammals ought to experience a wide spectrum of emotion.
You pause in headlights and panic: reptilian You resolve to move after it's too late: neo-cortex
..
Let me share a quote with you by Frank Zappa: "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."
Sometimes I forget that wisdom comes with age, apologies. I really do appreciate the help, I just don't think that being a "student" gives someone a superior résumé, I also think that feeling compelled to state such amounts to nothing more than over-compensation. I felt that what I said was nothing more than what you did, maybe a little humbling as I'm not sure whose conceit is greater, though I did say I was having an abnormally bad week compassion-wise. I don't want you to feel unable to and unwilling to post on my threads in the future, a resolve I haven't well fulfilled, obviously.
Because I think you're making it a whole lot more complicated than it is.
I agree, Josh. An enlightened being, or semi-enlightened being doesn't have (in your words) a neurotic drive to be compassionate. That's, as you indicated, totally your projection. Why neurotic? It's natural and spontaneous, no attachment. One can't be apathetic, because one feels others' suffering as one's own. Apathy is impossible for anyone approaching enlightenment. maybe you're overthinking this?
Because I think you're making it a whole lot more complicated than it is.
I agree, Josh. An enlightened being, or semi-enlightened being doesn't have (in your words) a neurotic drive to be compassionate. That's, as you indicated, totally your projection. Why neurotic? It's natural and spontaneous, no attachment. One can't be apathetic, because one feels others' suffering as one's own. Apathy is impossible for anyone approaching enlightenment. maybe you're overthinking this?
To use the words of a person that prompted me to make this thread: "We have to use the scientific method and begin at zero". I feel that even as lovely as compassion is it is nevertheless a presupposition that the subtle consciousness rests upon the truth of compassion.
Let it be known, as I said, I feel this intuitively, and I like my Hoberman sphere analogy that was inspired by many of the posts before this to elucidate more scientifically why compassion is supreme. But it's for a certain dialectic paradigm, nothing more. Not for me, but them. When I become the object of this conversation, à la getting my ducks in a line, it is nothing more than intellectualizing an already intuitively understood fact in order to better help them.
..
I really appreciate the help, but I feel very sick and as a consequence I cannot think straight, it is diluting my ability to communicate properly and to be level headed, ergo this conversation will be going nowhere. The posts were not in vain, they have certainly helped. Thanks again.
Let's pray I don't have food poisoning, the only odd thing I've been doing is eating chicken bone marrow. I'm suddenly drained of energy, nauseous, fighting vomiting and with a bit of a headache; this is obviously not typical at all. Or maybe it's Mother Earth reminding me that it's spring in Indiana, as opposed to the three feet of lake effect snow we had last week.
Maybe it was precocious, maybe if I'm fine tomorrow I'll try harder to think rationally. I don't know much of anything right now. I do know I'm about to walk home and watch some Dragon Ball Z.
Food poisoning blows over in 24 hrs. Chicken bone marrow isn't a problem unless the chicken hasn't been refrigerated properly. Does sound like food poisoning, though.
.. wait the chicken was in the fridge for like five or six days uncooked, but covered. I'm the only one who ate the marrow, and I ate quite a bit, I also ate a lot of the chicken bone. I'm the only one that feels like this.
.. wait the chicken was in the fridge for like five or six days uncooked, but covered. I'm the only one who ate the marrow, and I ate quite a bit, I also ate a lot of the chicken bone. I'm the only one that feels like this.
Drink water and wait for hell. I hope you get better man.
I have had food poisoning twice, the first was when I was a lot younger a lot more stupid. I had left a bowl of ice cream out in the sun by mistake and it melted, so I decided to refreeze it. The next day I went to the freezer and it was solid, way too hard to eat, so I put it in the microwave for about 30 seconds and then consumed the lot. Then later that day came the violent vomiting every 10-15 minutes for around 15 hours, I enjoyed the vomiting because that was when you felt less sick, it was the feeling leading up to it. I had a crazy fever where i was hallucinating a friend of mine was playing golf in my room at one point, I was telling him to get out and that he could not do that here lol...
The second time I gained food poisoning was about 2 monhts ago in bangkok when I ate 8 raw oysters. That time I had stuff flying out of both ends and I was at my partners families house, where they speak no english, people who I had just met and it was all a bit crazy. I could not drink water as it would just come back up and as it was 30 degrees plus Celsius, I was dehydrating fast, so I subsequently headed to the hospital trying not to make a mess in the taxi there which took 40 minutes.
The only thing you can do for food poisoning is drink a lot of water and ride it out. It is hell for a short while, but everything is impermanent I wish you all the best and get well soon, Tom
seeker, this isn't for me. It's to help others, mostly atheists who rationalize the ego and conceit. I don't understand how the kalama sutta is going to wake them up. I didn't say I was proselytizing with Buddhism but rather with the logic of compassion.
Thank you everybody.
Compassion isn't based on logic, that's the problem. I think it is for you because it seems you are trying to rely on logic in order to justify having or practicing compassion, which is something that the Buddha specifically advised against doing.
Then the question is: why would we want to understand this? “How fascinating. This is how you get into samsara; this is how you get out of samsara. How interesting.” Well, just because it’s interesting is not a sufficient reason and is not going to give us a very profound result for studying this material. So what is one of the most basic fundamental axioms of Buddhism? It’s that everybody wants to be happy, nobody wants to be unhappy. And there’s no reason why that is so; that’s just the way things are.
It’s quite interesting, when we study Buddhism, many of us are struck at how rational the system is and how it gives explanations for everything. But in fact, even within Buddhism there are certain things that are explained as, “This is just the way things are. There is no reason.” One of these, which is really fundamental, is: “Everybody wants to be happy and nobody wants to be unhappy.” This is actually a very profound point. Because we don’t want to be unhappy, therefore we want to eliminate unhappiness, don’t we?
I wonder if the real problem is seeing compassion as equivalent to true altruism i.e. doing things for others without any positive results to yourself.
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!
Taking pleasure is "sinful" in Buddhism as well. One acts compassionately without any attachment to the results, and without expecting gratitude or without attachment to pleasure taken in the act.
I speak a bit of thai yes, after being here almost one year I have picked up a few things. However, it is quite hard as it is such a different language and tongue from a western one. They have sounds that are complex to create, their structure of sentencing is all backwards to us, and in many cases if you take for example the word 'clean', it is hardly ever the same in different contexts. If I clean the table, the word clean will not be the same as in if I were to clean my clothes. Also the word 'meningitis' is 9 words long in thai lol...
Sorry to go off topic there but to get back to the thread, i think that to keep in mind that the vast majority of people in this world act under sheer ignorance. There is no evil, (I am quoting a monk here, so I am not certain) but in buddhism there is no evil, just people who act under ignorance and do stupid things. How can you really find fault when somebody does something through ignorance. It is like shouting at a child when they answer a question wrong on an exam to which they have never been taught.
well... if the goal of any buddhist is to be free from suffering, and if an eternal ego is understood as non-existant... then it follows that any buddhist goal is really to free anyone/everyone from suffering.
Renunciation and compassion seem to me to have a common root in that they are both a result of encounters with suffering. Renunciation is the response to suffering confronted in our own individual experience and compassion is a response to suffering we are able to see in the lives of others. Clearly both need to be cultivated .... depending on our own temperament and circumstances more work may be needed in one area than another, however it appears to me that both are complementary strengthening to the other in our practice.
Yeah I can relate to this ... though for me what was spontaneous was a long time coming really - lol and I see it now as the result of becoming willing to distance myself from the outer circumstances that I came to understand differently
Immeasurable compassion in buddhism is unconditioned (1). My teacher says that relative compassion is a product of unconditioned, but that like everything conditioned relative compassion has no essence. Relative compassion is unreliable because it must change in new conditions. Whereas unconditional compassion is openness to whatever arises. With accompanying clarity and sensitivity. Living truth.
Unconditioned compassion is the heart that can bare all the pain in the world and still hold and comfort (someone). It is unconditioned so it is neither created nor destroyed. It is indestructible heart essence. Impossible to grasp or nail down with a theory. Clarity, openness, and sensitivity.
Attachment is when you rely on unreliable impermanent things (materials, beliefs, and states of mind) rather than the openness clarity and sensitivity. When you rely on the mandala of awakening symbolized by the triple gem that is a reliable refuge that will lead you to something beyond time, non-compound, and satisfying. Nirvana.
Comments
What about for those aspiring scientists I know who think that there ought to be a genocide for the dogmatic populace? Their rules are strictly logical. I doubt words can convict them to live a tolerant life, but I'd imagine if one were clever enough the words for convincing them that compassion is a superior volition to at least contemplate in the beginning stages than supreme hatred. I'm trying to piece a map together, I have a lot of ideas that I'm not discussing here, especially regarding the development of emotions in humans which besides the neo-cortex operates as the main division between human development and the otherwise animal kingdom, however these ideas are no ace in the hole. I need that to glue everything together, to have a sound philosophy that I can work with for the intolerant logicians by the time I'm in my mid or late twenties so that I'll be able to function as a compassion convincer for those who (all implicit conceit aside) need it while their minds are still open in their youth. These people on average will hold a lot of weight in society along with politicians, I feel it's wise to try and help. Minds usually attract like minded ones, that's why I can locate so many intensely methodical and overbearingly stubborn logicians who each themselves possess a network of such friends. If a few can be thoroughly changed like pulling on the end of that Hoberman sphere maybe a lot of good will ricochet from my actions like observing the rows of ripples emit from a finger poking a pond.
What science does show us, however, is that human beings without emotions (due to traumatic brain injury, for instance) become incapable of making the most basic decision. Which is the polar opposite of all the assumptions made in science fiction, from Mr Spock onwards.
So before you start over-complicating everything, I feel you need to check a few of your assumptions, and maybe have a look at some of the stuff neuroscience is discovering. I'd recommend books by Oliver Sachs as a good starting point.
As for philosophy, the first principle of developing a "coherent philosophy" is to ensure you have accurate premises. Without that, whilst your arguments will be sound, your conclusions will be wrong. (I'm a philosophy student, by the way
I've been known to argue about the hierarchy of thought regarding the reptilian, limbic and neo-cortex brains. You're correct that the limbic has given rise to most of the more complicated emotions and thus on some level at least most mammals ought to experience a wide spectrum of emotion.
You pause in headlights and panic: reptilian
You resolve to move after it's too late: neo-cortex
..
Let me share a quote with you by Frank Zappa: "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."
Let it be known, as I said, I feel this intuitively, and I like my Hoberman sphere analogy that was inspired by many of the posts before this to elucidate more scientifically why compassion is supreme. But it's for a certain dialectic paradigm, nothing more. Not for me, but them. When I become the object of this conversation, à la getting my ducks in a line, it is nothing more than intellectualizing an already intuitively understood fact in order to better help them.
..
I really appreciate the help, but I feel very sick and as a consequence I cannot think straight, it is diluting my ability to communicate properly and to be level headed, ergo this conversation will be going nowhere. The posts were not in vain, they have certainly helped. Thanks again.
Maybe it was precocious, maybe if I'm fine tomorrow I'll try harder to think rationally. I don't know much of anything right now. I do know I'm about to walk home and watch some Dragon Ball Z.
.. wait the chicken was in the fridge for like five or six days uncooked, but covered. I'm the only one who ate the marrow, and I ate quite a bit, I also ate a lot of the chicken bone. I'm the only one that feels like this.
I hope you get better man.
The second time I gained food poisoning was about 2 monhts ago in bangkok when I ate 8 raw oysters. That time I had stuff flying out of both ends and I was at my partners families house, where they speak no english, people who I had just met and it was all a bit crazy. I could not drink water as it would just come back up and as it was 30 degrees plus Celsius, I was dehydrating fast, so I subsequently headed to the hospital trying not to make a mess in the taxi there which took 40 minutes.
The only thing you can do for food poisoning is drink a lot of water and ride it out. It is hell for a short while, but everything is impermanent
Sorry to go off topic there but to get back to the thread, i think that to keep in mind that the vast majority of people in this world act under sheer ignorance. There is no evil, (I am quoting a monk here, so I am not certain) but in buddhism there is no evil, just people who act under ignorance and do stupid things. How can you really find fault when somebody does something through ignorance. It is like shouting at a child when they answer a question wrong on an exam to which they have never been taught.
Clearly both need to be cultivated .... depending on our own temperament and circumstances more work may be needed in one area than another, however it appears to me that both are complementary strengthening to the other in our practice.
Unconditioned compassion is the heart that can bare all the pain in the world and still hold and comfort (someone). It is unconditioned so it is neither created nor destroyed. It is indestructible heart essence. Impossible to grasp or nail down with a theory. Clarity, openness, and sensitivity.
Attachment is when you rely on unreliable impermanent things (materials, beliefs, and states of mind) rather than the openness clarity and sensitivity. When you rely on the mandala of awakening symbolized by the triple gem that is a reliable refuge that will lead you to something beyond time, non-compound, and satisfying. Nirvana.
(1) therefore attachment is impossible