Short answer to your question is no. I am incapable of providing a brief explanation as to why.
The book "Beyond Religion " by the present Dalai Lama gives an in depth answer to your question, if you’re willing to take the time.
I know Buddhism is not what I’m about to describe, but I can’t help thinking that the tenet all suffering is caused by desire and to pursue detachment is simply practicing not giving a shit about anything. In my book, that’s chronic depression, and certainly not worth pursuing.
That’s what I was going to say.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Siddhartha Gautama himself went around giving lectures, teaching disciples, etc., even though he was “enlightened”, a super yoga master (including advanced meditation to the point of being able to eliminate all perception, feelings, and consciousness), in a state of nirvana, and anything else you can think of. All because he did not feel that the point of Buddhism was, as explained above, “every man for himself”. This is even associated to the very concept of a bodhisattva.
I’m not a Buddhist, but keep a miniature copy of the bust of the Bodhisttva Kanon (Kwan Yin) erected in Kamakura, Japan because it reminds me of my years living there and as a symbol of someone giving all of themselves for the sake of others.
I guess I am specifically referring to Mahayana which seems to advocate for both compassion and wisdom. To me it just doesn’t seem like compassion fits. Sure everything is connected and we are not separate, independent individuals (or no man is an island), but that doesn’t exactly mean that I should care about the suffering of others.
Those are all interesting claims, though there is no way to prove he did such things with meditation or that he was “enlightened”.
I think the man might have been mistaken with what he was teaching. Because from where I sit he doesn’t really say why one should care about others or their suffering. If everything is empty and value is something we create, by extension compassion doesn’t have a place there nor loving-kindness. He sought to eliminate suffering, but to me that doesn’t mean he found the truth of reality. If he says the goal is to eliminate suffering and he chose to do so then that is more of a man made goal, not something in the universe or a trait of reality. It somewhat contradicts the idea of emptiness.
The Dali Lama is just a man, to me I don’t think he actually answers any of the concerns behind Buddhism. Many of them seem to hide behind direct experience, which just seems like a cop out answer. What makes such an experience reliable and how do they know it isn’t just the mind still influencing them?
Also it’s hard to take seriously a man who preaches about “universal ethics”.
Where do you get this notion that they are incompatible? The Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path seem to be filled with calls to compassion. Metta meditation seems to me to be the epitome of compassion.
It seems you’re using the tenets (as you understand/perceive them) of Mahayana Buddhism as an excuse for your lack of compassion for others. I’m a true believer in my religion, but don’t feel the desire or need to actively bring others to accept my beliefs to save them, unlike some who do. Does that mean I lack compassion for others?
Gautama Buddha didn’t seek out followers nor did he shun them. By not shunning them and speaking about how HE attained enlightenment, he showed compassion for others. Remember, throughout history, there are countless other enlightened or seeking enlightenment people who we don’t hear about, possibly because they actually shunned followers.
So you don’t think compassion “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others” isn’t a “universal ethic”? The only people I know that are completely incapable of any type of compassion are sociopaths. Even animals have compassion for others of their kind.
I don’t know if you’ve read many of the OP’s other threads but it’s clear that he doesn’t understand Buddhism, as well as many of the other concepts he wishes to discuss.
qft x 1000
+1
I came back to post because I realized that his/her statement, “I guess I am specifically referring to Mahayana…” makes it clear that he/she probably just read passages and said “I didn’t read what I wanted to read, so it must not be there”. Developing an opinion without fully reading or understanding the context is always dangerous as evidenced by people pulling select passages from the Koran to vilify all Muslims.
In my study of Il Won Buddhism there are 2 ‘end game’ things to strive for (and two minor goals that some people also strive for), the first is enlightenment, This ‘can’ involve limited compassion, but some appears to be needed to achieve enlightenment, though it can be receiving compassion. This can be the every man for himself, I’m out of here, bat out of hell sort of thing, but doesn’t have to be. But the more noble goal is to commit, after being enlightened, to dedicate one’s existence to help others achieve it, and actually to keep coming back (reincarnation), till everyone is enlightened. The other 2 ‘minor goals’, one is a sense of inner peace and I forgot the other.
That doesn’t make it universal. It’s fine to preach that but to call it universal would be false. The case with animals is iffy, as you stated it’s others of their kind, which is hardly universal. You could make the case about most people in first world countries as they only show it when disaster strikes but don’t really mind the perpetual starvation. even the sociopaths show it still isn’t a universal ethic.
Still doesn’t answer the why though.
It is obvious to anyone who looks at Buddhism that it does involve compassion and loving kindness, but I can understand the confusion as to why. To the lay person, lack of attachment sounds like aloofness. And certain branches which focus on technical practice like zen can seem emotionless. But that’s just because of the incorrect idea that love is about control.
If you actually are in tune with the nature of suffering in yourself enough to resolve it than it becomes impossible to believe there is any reality to the idea that there is a distinction between suffering inside you and suffering outside you. In advanced stages, even the idea of self versus other stops making sense.
If you love yourself and don’t see the self as distinct, compassion is just a natural consequence. Think of the absurdity of your index finger trying to injure your pinky. That only makes sense if you don’t see your whole hand.
Well allegedly enlightenment. I don’t really think it’s compassion when you answer a question someone asks you.
I would think the one’s who shunned followers might be closer to IT than the Buddha was.
It’s not obvious though, you are just told it’s obvious.
Me resolving my own suffering does not, by extension mean I have to do anything about others. I can recognize their is no distinction between my suffering and others, that still doesn’t explain why I have to do something about others suffering or even my own. If one is to “gaze at reality” as it is, then they would see that nothing matters. The value we assign to things is just a mental creation not something that exists outside our heads. It’s just as absurd to injure yourself as it is to not do so. To see reality as it is they have to realize that suffering isn’t bad or good, something to avoid or encourage. Those are values, which they claim don’t really exist.
It can even be argued that you don’t have to love yourself to be free of suffering. Plus their notion of self is something that is changing but not independent and permanent. If there were no self and other they wouldn’t be working to help others.
If they want to preach compassion I can’t stop them, but to say they see things as they are and still preach loving-kindness and compassion would be incorrect.
I do, that’s why I can’t seriously follow it knowing their contradictions. Considering the one’s who keep pointing out that I don’t understand don’t explicitly state how I can only assume they are the one’s who don’t understand and just believe what they want because Buddhism is the religion of kindness (very loosely).