Back from Buddhaland

[Roger O'Keeffe]

Haven't time to read five pages, but I love Jon Stewart's take on Buddhism:

"What kind of a pussy religion is that, that they don't kill people in its name?"

[Nanohedron]

Please: Compare and contrast the buddhist and Christian ways of compassion. I am prepared to smack you with this Low D I'm holding whatever your answer may be.

Just some rambling thoughts:

I think it's a matter of focus, possibly emphasis. I don't think you can properly speak of the ultimate Christian example of compassion without bringing love into the question: Christ went to his death as an act of love; compassion is inextricable from love expressed like that. Compassion is a "ground", I think: an observing and understanding of the sentient being's condition, and seeing what there is that can be done -if anything- about it, but it's at something of a remove; love is more of an involvement, a verb. It is that love that set in motion, through an awe-worthy and horrific self-sacrifice, the offer and promise of salvation for the sinner. It also stands as the example against which the Christian measures himself or herself.

My gut sense is that Buddhist compassion and love are not appreciably different from the Christian phenomenon; what is different are the underpinnings. Christianity speaks of love first, and rightly, in my opinion; in Buddhism there is the matter of "detachment" that changes the emphasis and dynamics, and so compassion is more to the fore. I don't think you can properly speak of love in Buddhism without the idea that compassion gives rise to it. I could be wrong about that, though, as I'm not a scholar on the subject.

*whack*

Thank you sir, may I have another?

[Walden]

I think Christianity and Buddhism both have philosophical underpinnings. Perhaps philosophy is an important part of all religions.

[Nanohedron]

I think Christianity and Buddhism both have philosophical underpinnings. Perhaps philosophy is an important part of all religions.

Perhaps.

[jim stone]

This (the end of an article by yours truly) concerns the nature of Buddhist compassion. 'Eliminativism' is the view that the universe is entirely impersonal--no persons, no selves. The question is how
eliminativism and morality can be reconciled.
.......................................................................

Why, then, is it so hard to accept the consequences of an impersonal universe? There is, of course, the bafflement of our self-concern. In short, what becomes of me? Of course, given what will happen to the 'self-cherishing I' pretty soon anyway, the idea that it never existed has its consolations. As human life is largely a bafflement of our self-concern, these increase the more the idea is accepted. We're now fishing in the right waters, at any rate. What makes Eliminativism really hard to swallow is that morality is destroyed. Right and wrong cannot exist in an utterly impersonal universe. Who was harmed by the Holocaust, after all? None of it happened to anybody! It would be crazy to accept such consequences, surely.

Perhaps Buddhism contains an answer. The Buddha knew that the universe is impersonal through and through; he wasn't deluded at all. Yet he attacked the caste system because he recognized its injustice. How was he able to do this? The delusion of self is an artifact of craving, attachment, and inattention; it dissolves as they do. In their place a powerful compassion arises--at least for those 'well established in virtue.' Suppose my paranoid friend believes himself to be the object of a conspiracy. If I'm compassionate I will enter into that delusion, until it becomes sufficiently real that he knows that I know what it's like for him. A natural activity of compassion is to enter into the delusion that causes pain; it takes up the point of view of delusion, investing its intentional object with a vivacity that makes it emotionally real. As that object's emotional reality flows from the activity of compassion, not from the perception or cognition that the object is real, it is consistent with recognizing the delusion as delusion. Compassion can create its own object.

An awakening Buddha finds herself surrounded by transient minds and bodies possessed of the delusion that they contain persons, which involves a cycle of pleasure and pain. Compassion enters into the delusion, investing it with emotional reality, thereby creating persons whom compassion loves. The Buddha spent most of his life bringing to people he knew didn't exist the liberating news that they never were. He did this from compassion for them. Compassion enabled him to recognize the caste system's unfairness to people he knew didn't exist.

According to Buddhism, wisdom and compassion support each other 'like two hands that wash one another.' The realization that my brother is a bag of bones finds its complete expression in compassion for my brother. Conversely, to care for somebody all the way down to her metaphysical ground is to recognize her emptiness. From the perspective of compassion, the world is full of suffering beings crying out for protection and for justice. From the perspective of wisdom, while the natural order contains terrific pain, no one suffers it. Without compassion, wisdom would be other-worldly, less than wise. Without wisdom the compassionate heart would be broken. From the perspective of compassion, knowing the universe is impersonal is a reason to be kindly and fair. A Buddhist saying goes: "Ultimately there is neither right nor wrong, but right is right and wrong is wrong."

Kant believed that morality must be founded on respect for persons. I suggest that morality is better founded on compassion. The sentiment of respect overly narrows the moral community--it excludes infants, fetuses, and non-human animals. Compassion populates the universe with moral objects. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Bodhisattva vows to be reborn for the sake of all sentient beings--'yea, until the last blade of grass is liberated!' Of the two sentiments, compassion is less fragile ontologically: it motivates a satisfying morality even in an impersonal universe like ours.

[BillChin]

I have a question concerning Buddhism and altruisism. In Jim's original points he says something to effect that he feels his job as a Philosophy Professor isn't doing much good and is very hard.

I am having a difficult time with both concepts. I don't think they use the words hard or easy much in Buddhist practice. However, the point about doing good seems quite out of place for a Buddhist. Isn't that concept mostly a Western one, and one that mostly involves ego and outer approval? Isn't teaching, one of the most highly regarded professions in Buddhist societies? There is a disconnect somewhere, comments please.

I did a brief search and found this blurb and it seems to reinforce what I wrote above.

from
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc001.htm

HOW WE VIEW OURSELVES is reflected in how we see the world and how we treat others. The less sure we are of ourselves, the more we become fixed on ourselves while disregarding others and the world around us. Selfishness is often the flip side of a lack of self-identity. Even when those who are not really sure of themselves try to do something for others, they are often motivated by selfishness.

They may be attempting either to make themselves feel needed by others, or seeking some sort of praise, recognition or even the salvation of their souls for their “altruism.” Buddhism views altruism as an expression of one’s awakening to one’s true self and explains that it stems from compassion, appreciation and a sense of interconnection rather than insecurity. The notion of the “four virtues of the Buddha” describes and encourages a holistic view of self, a view that transcends selfishness.

[djm]

However, the point about doing good seems quite out of place for a Buddhist. Isn't that concept mostly a Western one, and one that mostly involves ego and outer approval? Isn't teaching, one of the most highly regarded professions in Buddhist societies? There is a disconnect somewhere, comments please.

I don't know what planet you are from, but here on Earth, charitable acts of compassion are the very essence of Buddhism. These acts are done as a matter of course. You see a problem for others and you work to rectify it. The difference from "Western concepts" is that you would work to rectify the problem in your own way, without tipping off the press, or your publicity agent, and you wouldn't claim it to avoid paying income tax. You would just do it. It is the right thing to do. Right thought. Right action. Nothing to discuss.

Teaching is done by example.

djm

[jim stone]

I think teaching is valued in Buddhist societies,
especially dharma teaching. And I also agree that teaching
is generally good for humanity. I retired from teaching
five years ago--I just do research and write.
The main benefit of my work to humanity is
as a soporific.

[JS]

I've read a couple of your articles, Jim, and had no problems staying awake. I also found them useful, in that they moved my thinking out of its usual rut. (Snyder says in an interview that one value of meditation is that it makes you aware of the tapes that play over and over in your head so you can move past them. I don't practice, but I do value activities that have that effect.) So what puts a well-crafted essay in philosophy in a different category (useful/useless) than a painting or a piece of ceramics or any piece of work created with attention to how the materials and processes interact in the moments in which it is produced? I guess I'm wondering whether you really think your work is useless (your, er, use of it to address issues such as medical ethics would seem to suggest otherwise), or whether this is really a rhetorical standpoint for you to try to understand what seem irreconcilable impulses in your life? No disrespect intended by this question, and none taken, I hope.

[jim stone]

I've read a couple of your articles, Jim, and had no problems staying awake. I also found them useful, in that they moved my thinking out of its usual rut. (Snyder says in an interview that one value of meditation is that it makes you aware of the tapes that play over and over in your head so you can move past them. I don't practice, but I do value activities that have that effect.) So what puts a well-crafted essay in philosophy in a different category (useful/useless) than a painting or a piece of ceramics or any piece of work created with attention to how the materials and processes interact in the moments in which it is produced? I guess I'm wondering whether you really think your work is useless (your, er, use of it to address issues such as medical ethics would seem to suggest otherwise), or whether this is really a rhetorical standpoint for you to try to understand what seem irreconcilable impulses in your life? No disrespect intended by this question, and none taken, I hope.

Kind words much appreciated. I agree that a well-crafted philosophy
essay is aesthetically pleasing. Craftsmanship, while it is part
of successful art (as you know, I'm sure, from your own work)
is available to non-artists too. We both know that it is a pleasure
to write beautifully. The elegance of simplicity is available
to philosophers writing in the analytic tradition, so that
some articles, though not art, are more beautiful than
much art.

I've made it my business to become a voice for individuals
who cannot speak for themselves, and, yes, I do think that
work is useful. The social and economic forces that will
decide these issues do not include my work, but i'm really
glad I've done it.

As to the metaphysics and epistemology, these very abstruse
and technical
issues are beautiful to people whose minds work in a certain
way. And in a way (that I won't go into here), they are
important, because they address features of reality so
deeply important that we take them for granted--for example,
that things persist through change, that Socrates sitting
and Socrates standing are identical, the nature of time,
and so on. There is sometimes the feeling that we would
be none the poorer without this sort of philosophizing,
it's so abstract; and like
many other philosophers, I feel my work hasn't been
sufficiently read by other philosophers--though it's been
published in excellent places. But these philosophers
are busy writing their own articles....

I've had an opportunity to do my best, for which
I'm thankful. Judy and I had lunch the other day with
one of the best philosophers in the world, an epistemologist
who edits two leading journals. Later I sent him my vita,
to show him what I've been up to. He e mailed me:
'What a wonderful record.' It seems I've accomplished
a good deal.

But it's better to write poems, or novels.

The problem that writing philosophy poses for Buddhist practice is that doing research in philosophy results in a very busy mind.
It can make for a very ragged and neurotic life. You see
the truth, if you're going to see it, just before you
go a bit crazy.

Does writing poetry do this?

[BillChin]

However, the point about doing good seems quite out of place for a Buddhist. Isn't that concept mostly a Western one, and one that mostly involves ego and outer approval? Isn't teaching, one of the most highly regarded professions in Buddhist societies? There is a disconnect somewhere, comments please.

I don't know what planet you are from, but here on Earth, charitable acts of compassion are the very essence of Buddhism. These acts are done as a matter of course. You see a problem for others and you work to rectify it. The difference from "Western concepts" is that you would work to rectify the problem in your own way, without tipping off the press, or your publicity agent, and you wouldn't claim it to avoid paying income tax. You would just do it. It is the right thing to do. Right thought. Right action. Nothing to discuss.

Teaching is done by example.

djm

You seem to be agreeing with me that a Buddhist complaining to the world, that they aren't doing enough good, doesn't seem to fit, and yet you gratituously insult me with the what planet remark. Excellent teaching by example, if you are a Buddhist.

To me, the very nature of this kind of complaint is focused on ego, on outer approval, on society saying so-and-so is doing good. It would seem to me, a Buddhist wouldn't care what anyone else thinks, that he/she would do the right thing, and if they weren't they would endeavor to do so.

I will share a personal experience with a devout Buddhist. He was active at his temple, meditated and chanted every day, a very nice generous fellow. What I remember most is that he very much wanted a Mercedes Benz and eventually got one. I'm not sure what I learned by his example. By the way, I'm sure he did claim his donations on his income tax. His profession is doing taxes, keeping books, and while very generous, he did claim his deductions. His wanting and buying an expensive car, did make me think of all the criticism some religous folks get when they buy a nice home or expensive car.

[BillChin]

I think teaching is valued in Buddhist societies,
especially dharma teaching. And I also agree that teaching
is generally good for humanity. I retired from teaching
five years ago--I just do research and write.
The main benefit of my work to humanity is
as a soporific.

Sounds like you are blessed with a very flexible schedule. I'm sure you can find some activities that are rewarding and enriching for all. Again, I will suggest the tithing of time, giving 10% of your time, 4 hours a week or a weekend a month. That means you don't have to give up being a professor, and it will open up new horizons to you.

[jim stone]

Thanks for the helpful suggestion.

[Jerry Freeman]

The discussion of compassion and joy raises some interesting points, I think.

I come from a different tradition (in fact, it is the tradition that Buddha himself came from), but one that shares many of the same concepts and aspirations as the Buddhist tradition.

The biggest difference, as far as I can tell (and I apologize in advance for whatever extent I get this wrong), is that Buddhism seems to be saying there's nothing beyond the temporal manifestations that bind us in the world of appearances. Buddhism seems to be saying that we must realize it's all void and nothing, and by so doing, we will be liberated. That the fact of our liberation will create a sense of freedom, of lightness, such that we will be able to live in a state of joy. Certainly, the descriptions of enlightened or advanced practitioners of Buddhism often include examples of spontaneous, bubbling joyfulness.

In other words, the joy of liberation/enlightenment is a joy that comes from the absence of bondage.

In the tradition from which I was taught, the idea is that there's something behind all the temporal manifestations. There's a transcendent field of SOMETHING (not nothing), from which every manifestion emerges, of which everything is fundamentally made, and ultimately, it is all that there is.

"I am That. Thou art That. All this is That, and That alone is."

This is significant in the consideration of both joy and compassion.

That underlying, unmanifest, infinite field from which the universe springs and of which it is made is said to be a field of fullness, with the characteristics of sat, chit and ananda (existence, consciousness and bliss). As such, stripping away the illusions that mask one's essential nature as That gives the experience that "I am made of joy, I am made of happiness (ananda), happiness is my essential nature, and happiness is the nature of all existance."

There are many descriptions of this insight in literature from various traditions.

For example, from a Native American chant:

"All is beautiful before me. All is beautiful behind me. All is beautiful to the right of me. All is beautiful to the left of me. All is beautiful above me. All is beautiful below me. I'm on the pollen path."

From Vedanta, in the Hindu tradition:

"The enlightened Brahman drinks nectar from every particle of the universe."

Ultimately, one sees/knows/senses that not only one's own innermost nature, but all things everywhere are That, are all the same, all connected at the source.

Then, one doesn't see any other, doesn't see any stranger, doesn't see any distance ("To the enlightened, all the Earth is no more than a calf's footprint").

All things are seen as being the same as oneself, and indeed, all things are seen as part of oneself, since the essential Self of all things is one and the same, and it is my own Self (my essential, unbounded Self, not my small ego sense). I am the whole universe (and so are you, so is she, so is every soul and every particle that exists).

From that standpoint, compassion is automatic. I do not wish suffering for myself; I only wish happiness for myself. Everyone and everything in the universe is as dear to me as myself. In fact, it is seen as being my own Self in actual reality.

Although this insight must be cultivated through all aspects of the personality, intellect, emotions, etc., and the direct experience of transendental pure consciousness must be cultivated to support the insight, it becomes a spontaneous perception at all times and in all places.

There's no intention to do good, no decision to act compassionately.

Another's suffering is one's own suffering. Another's joy is one's own joy. One acts spontaneously from that reality and the outcome appears as "compassion."

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Loren]

The discussion of compassion and joy raises some interesting points, I think.

I come from a different tradition (in fact, it is the tradition that Buddha himself came from), but one that shares many of the same concepts and aspirations as the Buddhist tradition.

The biggest difference, as far as I can tell (and I apologize in advance for whatever extent I get this wrong), is that Buddhism seems to be saying there's nothing beyond the temporal manifestations that bind us in the world of appearances. Buddhism seems to be saying that we must realize it's all void and nothing, and by so doing, we will be liberated. That the fact of our liberation will create a sense of freedom, of lightness, such that we will be able to live in a state of joy. Certainly, the descriptions of enlightened or advanced practitioners of Buddhism often include examples of spontaneous, bubbling joyfulness.

No, I believe you misunderstand Jerry. To quote Suzuki again:

"You are living in the world as an individual, but before you take the form of a human being, you are already there, always there. We are always here. Do you understand? You think before you were born you were not here. But how is it possible for you to appear in this world, when there is no you? Because you are already there, you can appear in the world. Also, it is not possible for something to vanish which does not exist. Because something is there something can vanish. You may think that when you die, you disappear, you no longer exist. But even though you vanish, something which is existent cannot be non-existent."

And so, you see, Buddhism is not about realizing all is void and nothing.

Loren