Compassion in Buddhist, Hinduism and Other Religions

[benedictus2]

There’s a story from the Mahabharata, a key Hindu sacred text. The story is about King Yudhisthira who is offered Heaven by Shakra, the Lord of Deities. Yudhisthira sees that his brother have died in battle, and he tells Shakra that he will not enter Heaven without his siblings. Shakra (who is also called “Indra”) agrees, and tells him that his brothers are already in Heaven. Then Yudhisthira, who is also called “Bharata”, brings up his dog, who has been faithful to him throughout life. He wants his canine friend to join him in Heaven:V
V

"Yudhishthira said, ‘It has been said that the abandonment of one that is devoted is infinitely sinful. It is equal to the sin that one incurs by slaying a Brahmana. Hence, O great Indra,* I shall not abandon this dog today from desire of my happiness. Even this is my vow steadily pursued, that I never give up a person that is terrified, nor one that is devoted to me, nor one that seeks my protection, saying that he is destitute, nor one that is afflicted, nor one that has come to me, nor one that is weak in protecting oneself, nor one that is solicitous of life. I shall never give up such a one till my own life is at an end.’*

“Dharma, the Deity of Righteousness, said: ‘Thou art well born, O king of kings, and possessed of the intelligence and the good conduct of Pandu. Thou hast compassion for all creatures, O Bharata, of which this is a bright example…On the present occasion, thinking the dog to be devoted to thee, thou hast renounced the very state of the celestials instead of renouncing him. Hence. O king, there is no one in Heaven that is equal to thee. Hence, O Bharata, regions of inexhaustible felicity are thine. Thou hast won them, O chief of the Bharatas, and thine is a celestial and high goal.’”
Yudhisthira was willing to suffer life without Heaven, without his family, for the sake of the happiness of his dog.

I think in the case of the dog it can be called compassion (if the dog suffers from being left behind). I suppose this is just something that does not make sense to me because it is just a dog. The text I highlighted comes close but I think this still falls under mercy and sympathy.

 

[Ahimsa]

I think in the case of the dog it can be called compassion (if the dog suffers from being left behind). I suppose this is just something that does not make sense to me because it is just a dog. The text I highlighted comes close but I think this still falls under mercy and sympathy.

I think the point is that Yudhisthira also would suffer from not being allowed into Heaven, and yet he is willing to undergo that suffering for the sake of his canine friend, who will also suffer. So, Yudhisthira would be “suffering with the other”, “enduring” his friend’s pain.

In Hinduism, a dog is not just a dog. A dog is a being loved by God.

 

[benedictus2]

You may want to give a concrete example of what you mean by “suffering with the other”, “enduring someone else’s pain”, “walking the extra mile”, since they can mean many things to many different people.

Okay suffering with the other. I think for the most part of the missionaries who abandon their good lives to work with the poor in the poor countries. Mother Theresa and her sisters come to mind.

Another is when you stay with the sick and terminally ill and there is nothing you can do about it. Some would advocate that their lives be terminated but the Christian approach is to be there to suffer with them rather than practice Euthanasia.

The Christian model is not just Jesus Christ but also His Mother who suffered with Him.

My mention of the extra mile pertains to Jesus’s teaching about giving one’s cloak and walking the extra mile if someone asks you to walk with them.

However, “turning the other cheek” is pretty clear. And a good example of that can be found in the Buddhist Suttas, in which a Buddhist monk is about to go spread the Dhamma (the Teachings of the Buddha) into a region of the world (somewhere in India, perhaps, or a neighboring land) that could be very dangerous to Buddhist missionaries. The Buddhist monk, named Punna, addresses the Buddha, as Buddhists do, as “Lord” here:“Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live there.”

“Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?”

“If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, ‘These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don’t hit me with their hands.’ That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone.”

“But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?”

“…I will think, ‘These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don’t hit me with a clod.’…”

“But if they hit you with a clod…?”

“…I will think, ‘These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don’t hit me with a stick.’…”

“But if they hit you with a stick…?”

“…I will think, ‘These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don’t hit me with a knife.’…”

“But if they hit you with a knife…?”

“…I will think, ‘These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don’t take my life with a sharp knife.’…”

“But if they take your life with a sharp knife…?”

“If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, ‘There are disciples of the Blessed One who…have sought for an assassin [that is, they mistakenly actively sought to become martyrs for Buddhism], but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.’ That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone.”

“Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see fit.”

I am not quite sure if this is quite the same as turning the other cheek. This is more a case of attributing good motives to one who is doing you ill, or seeing the possitive in the negative.

I don’t think turning the other cheek as Jesus taught is quite like that.

Another thought that occured to me is that it makes it is compassionate if you turn the other cheek if someone is hitting you because of a deep felt pain. But that sort of becomes more complicated.

Something like allowing someone’s anger to be spent on you, (if that makes sense).

 

[benedictus2]

I think the point is that Yudhisthira also would suffer from not being allowed into Heaven, and yet he is willing to undergo that suffering for the sake of his canine friend, who will also suffer. So, Yudhisthira would be “suffering with the other”, “enduring” his friend’s pain.

In Hinduism, a dog is not just a dog. A dog is a being loved by God.

From that perspective, I suppose yes.

There’s a reservation I can’t quite formulate clearly. I think it still has to do with the fact that it is just a dog. We put dog’s to sleep when they suffer but we don’t do that to human beings {except for Dr Kevorkian.}

And another thing, if in Hinduism, all is one, then how come the dog was barred from heaven?

Sufjon explained earlier that the only suffering with the other than one sort of makes is when one has been united to the other so the other suffering becomes one’s suffering but then that can be said to be a suffering with the other because there no longer is an other.

 

[Ahimsa]

Okay suffering with the other. I think for the most part of the missionaries who abandon their good lives to work with the poor in the poor countries. Mother Theresa and her sisters come to mind.

The story of Punna the monk is a story of someone abandoning a safe life to work with those who are spiritually poor in another, dangerous country.

Now, if you want to say that “suffering with the other” can only involve someone who is materially wealthy suffering with someone who is materially poorer, that’s exactly what Siddhartha Gautama did when He gave up his royal wealth, for the sake of finding the True Wealth that woiuld be available to all beings.

Another is when you stay with the sick and terminally ill and there is nothing you can do about it.

There’s always “something” you can do about it, even if the sickness is terminal.
On another occasion the Buddha discovered a monk whose body was covered with sores, his robe sticking to the body with pus oozing from the sores. Unable to look after him, his fellow monks had abandoned him. On discovering this monk, the Buddha boiled water and washed the monk with his own hands, then cleaned and dried his robes. When the monk felt comforted the Buddha preached to him and he became an arahant, soon after which he passed away (DhpA.i,319).

My mention of the extra mile pertains to Jesus’s teaching about giving one’s cloak and walking the extra mile if someone asks you to walk with them.

OK, in other words, be extra generous, beyond what someone asks of you. There’s a story about the Buddha in one of His past lives, in which He gives much more than was required:
In one of his previous lives, the Buddha was born as the youngest of three princes. When he was only five years old, the three princes were in a forest playing together at hide-and-seek and other games. As they were walking in the forest, they came to a cave where they saw a wounded female tiger with five cubs. The mother tiger was very weak and was unable to provide food for the baby tigers. The Buddha’s older brothers went to search for some food, and they asked the young prince to stay near the cave to take care of the mother tiger and the five cubs.

While the Buddha was taking care of the wounded tiger and her five cubs, he began to think that it was not proper to kill other beings and give their flesh to the tiger. He found some large thorns and pressed them into neck, and as the blood came out, he let the cubs and their mother suck the blood. In fact, he gave his whole body to the five cubs and their mother as an act of generosity. As he did this, the Buddha prayed, “Right now I am only able to give temporary help to these starving beings, just removing their hunger. May these tigers who are enjoying my flesh, blood, and bones be reborn to a higher realm, and may I be able to teach them and lead them out of cyclic existence.”

I am not quite sure if this is quite the same as turning the other cheek. This is more a case of attributing good motives to one who is doing you ill, or seeing the possitive in the negative.

I don’t think turning the other cheek as Jesus taught is quite like that.

It seems to me that attributing good-but-misguided motives to someone who strikes you, is one way of “turning the other cheek”. And I don’t see how you can say that Punna the monk did not in fact “turn the other cheek” when he allowed continued violence to occur to him, without striking back and while exhibiting compassion for the internal suffering of those who were striking him.

Do you have a more precise definition of “turning the other cheek”?

 

[Ahimsa]

From that perspective, I suppose yes.

There’s a reservation I can’t quite formulate clearly. I think it still has to do with the fact that it is just a dog. We put dog’s to sleep when they suffer but we don’t do that to human beings {except for Dr Kevorkian.}

If a dog is just a dog, then why are Christians blessing dogs today?

And another thing, if in Hinduism, all is one, then how come the dog was barred from heaven?

The existence of Heaven and beings who are barred from Heaven, doesn’t negate the idea that “all is One”. That’s another topic, involving discussion of Hindu cosmology.

Sufjon explained earlier that the only suffering with the other than one sort of makes is when one has been united to the other so the other suffering becomes one’s suffering but then that can be said to be a suffering with the other because there no longer is an other.

Sufjon is speaking from non-dualist perspective, in which there is “no other”.

Non-dualism is a particular perspective found in Hinduism. (Some see non-dualism as the highest perspective.) It is not the only perspective in Hinduism. Many Hindus hold a position that is “modified non-dualism”, in which “the other” is both “the same” and “not the same”; and many Hindus are dualists in the sense of believing in a radical difference between persons. For these non-non-dualist Hindus, one can speak of “suffering with the other who is not exactly the same as oneself”.

 

[benedictus2]

If a dog is just a dog, then why are Christians blessing dogs today?

I have to go to bed so I will reply with a quick one.

Christian bless everything, even inanimate objects : house, cars, crucifixes, etc.

Christians also put dogs to sleep when they suffer. They wouldn’t suffer with the dog.

 

[Ahimsa]

Christians also put dogs to sleep when they suffer. They wouldn’t suffer with the dog.

I’m sure St. Francis would:
St. Francis of Assisi addressed creatures as “sisters” and “brothers,” that is, as equals, not as subjects to be dominated. And that is why the humble figure of St. Francis standing on the birdbath or among the shrubs is so right for our day. He truly saw himself as a simple servant and caretaker of creation—little brother to the birds and the fish and the lowly ivy.

Pope John Paul II proclaimed St. Francis of Assisi the patron of ecology in 1979. The pope cited him for being “an example of genuine and deep respect for the integrity of creation…

“St. Francis,” he added, “invited all creation—animals, plants, natural forces, even Brother Sun and Sister Moon— to give honor and praise to the Lord.”

 

[Lisa44]

…It seems to me that attributing good-but-misguided motives to someone who strikes you, is one way of “turning the other cheek”. And I don’t see how you can say that Punna the monk did not in fact “turn the other cheek” when he allowed continued violence to occur to him, without striking back and while exhibiting compassion for the internal suffering of those who were striking him.

Do you have a more precise definition of “turning the other cheek”?

I think the difference is that the Buddhist person has to practice until they reach enlightenment (or some level of it) before they go off to evangelize (if I can use that word) which means they will be waiting forever!

Whereas, the Christian will “turn the other cheek” even though they FEEL anger or rage towards this unjust person who is threatening their life for no reason…ect.

What disturbed me about that story you gave was that this person who attains a level of realization, then goes off to teach Buddhism, and when threatened with his life he doesn’t mind giving it over to a barbaric person.

What is the point of gaining enlightenment if it means you don’t care about your life?

A Christian cares about their own life as well as the life of others. They don’t want to be martyred and they certainly don’t have an insoucient attitude about being martyred or murdered.

I find it disturbing that this monk or practioner says they would give up their life so glibly.

To me, that is not understanding what compassion is in the Christian sense. That is simply wanting your SELF to be enlightened so that the SELF doesn’t suffer or care anymore.

Clearly this man didn’t care about anything, not even his own life.

That is disturbing. Sorry, I just find that sort of self-negation to be disturbing.

Because if you don’t care about your own life how can you care about another’s life?

 

[Lisa44]

Well, I also don’t think G-d suffers in the human sense, or feels any other emotion the way humans do. However, since we are made in the image of G-d, there must be a connection between our feelings of compassion–as well as our other feelings–and those of G-d.

It sounds as if you pretty much have your mind made up about this issue. Are you basically saying that suffering in the human sense is something that only the Person and Passion of Jesus is capable of on such an immense scale? I would then want to know whether you are referring to Jesus as a fully human being or Jesus as G-d Incarnate who suffers, or both, since they are regarded as a hypostatic union? Who actually suffers, dies, and is resurrected for the sins of humanity?

Benedictus 2 - would you please answer this question because I think it is an important one.
(and as an aside, please don’t say “it is just a dog”. That is very disturbing to me as a Catholic). I really like your thread and your questions are highly pertinant. Excellent questions.

 

[Ahimsa]

I think the difference is that the Buddhist person has to practice until they reach enlightenment (or some level of it) before they go off to evangelize (if I can use that word) which means they will be waiting forever!

Actually, the Buddhist person practices “turning the other cheek” as soon as she becomes Buddhist. She doesn’t wait until she is Awakened/Enlightened. In fact, “turning the other cheek” is a pre-condition for being Enlightened: you can’t be Enlightened unless and until you practice that.

Whereas, the Christian will “turn the other cheek” even though they FEEL anger or rage towards this unjust person who is threatening their life for no reason…ect.

Buddhists feel rage and anger too; Buddhists are human just like Christians are.

What disturbed me about that story you gave was that this person who attains a level of realization, then goes off to teach Buddhism, and when threatened with his life he doesn’t mind giving it over to a barbaric person.

What is the point of gaining enlightenment if it means you don’t care about your life?

A Christian cares about their own life as well as the life of others. They don’t want to be martyred and they certainly don’t have an insoucient attitude about being martyred or murdered.

I find it disturbing that this monk or practioner says they would give up their life so glibly.

To me, that is not understanding what compassion is in the Christian sense. That is simply wanting your SELF to be enlightened so that the SELF doesn’t suffer or care anymore.

Clearly this man didn’t care about anything, not even his own life.

That is disturbing. Sorry, I just find that sort of self-negation to be disturbing.

Because if you don’t care about your own life how can you care about another’s life?

So, the early Christian martyrs who gave up their lives in the Roman Coliseum, just did not care about their lives, giving up their lives to the barbaric Romans? Punna the monk did not want to be martyred; but if, in the process of spreading the Teaching of the Buddha, he ended upon in a situation where martyrdom was likely, then he was ready for it.

Enlightenment doesn’t mean you don’t care or suffer. Enlightenment means that your care and suffering-with-the-other has reach such a level of intensity that the true nature of all beings becomes obvious.

(And, I should point out that the Buddhist goal of “ending suffering” does not refer to “ending caring” or “ending concern” or “ending suffering-with-others” – it means “ending the suffering-that-is-a-product-of-lust-hatred-and-delusion”.)

 

[Lisa44]

Actually, the Buddhist person practices “turning the other cheek” as soon as she becomes Buddhist. She doesn’t wait until she is Awakened/Enlightened. In fact, “turning the other cheek” is a pre-condition for being Enlightened: you can’t be Enlightened unless and until you practice that.

Buddhists feel rage and anger too; Buddhists are human just like Christians are.So, the early Christian martyrs who gave up their lives in the Roman Coliseum, just did not care about their lives, giving up their lives to the barbaric Romans? Punna the monk did not want to be martyred; but if, in the process of spreading the Teaching of the Buddha, he ended upon in a situation where martyrdom was likely, then he was ready for it.

Enlightenment doesn’t mean you don’t care or suffer. Enlightenment means that your care and suffering-with-the-other has reach such a level of intensity that the true nature of all beings becomes obvious.

(And, I should point out that the Buddhist goal of “ending suffering” does not refer to “ending caring” or “ending concern” or “ending suffering-with-others” – it means “ending the suffering-that-is-a-product-of-lust-hatred-and-delusion”.)

There is a difference between boasting that you don’t care if someone kills you, and a person who is taken against their will and slaughtered. No person in their right mind wants to be brutally murdered. And most sane people would do anything to avoid it including fleeing and hiding.
The only reason Jesus gave himself up to die was because he knew that it was going to happen (he could see the future) and he knew that it must happen.
No mortal would go through such an ordeal if they could avoid it.
I find the insoucience of that monk disturbing. No one should have a flippant attitude about death and human suffering.

I thought people searched for enlightenment because they want to be happy, not because they truly want to suffer because if that was the case then those countries would have human rights for the poor and oppressed but instead they just say - ‘oh you are poor and destitute because you have bad karma and you did something bad in your past life.’

You will never be without human emotions because you are a human.
I am sorry to tell you this. I know you want to be enlightened. Truly, I am sorry. I know Buddhists have great hopes in their own enlightenment. You will never find an enlightened person because they don’t exist. You are searching in the wrong place.
You can only find what you are looking for in God.

 

[rossum]

You will never find an enlightened person because they don’t exist.

They do:
[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

What are you saying Rossum?

 

[Ahimsa]

There is a difference between boasting that you don’t care if someone kills you, and a person who is taken against their will and slaughtered. No person in their right mind wants to be brutally murdered. And most sane people would do anything to avoid it including fleeing and hiding.

On St. Polycarp’s acceptance of martyrdom:
In 167, persecution broke out in Smyrna. When Polycarp heard that his pursuers were at the door, he said, "The will of God be done; " and meeting them, he begged to be left alone for a little time, which he spent in prayer for “the Catholic Church throughout the world.” He was brought to Smyrna early on Holy Saturday; and, as he entered, a voice was heard from heaven, “Polycarp, be strong.” When the proconsul besought him to curse Christ and go free, Polycarp answered, “Eighty-six years I have served Him, and He never did me wrong; how can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” When he threatened him with fire, Polycarp told him this fire of his lasted but a little, while the fire prepared for the wicked lasted forever. At the stake he thanked God aloud for letting him drink of Christ’s chalice. The fire was lighted, but it did him no hurt; so he was stabbed to the heart, and his dead body was burnt. “Then,” say the writers of his acts, “we took up the bones, more precious than the richest jewels or gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, at which may God grant us to assemble with joy to celebrate the birthday of the martyr to his life in heaven!”

 

[Lisa44]

On St. Polycarp’s acceptance of martyrdom:
In 167, persecution broke out in Smyrna. When Polycarp heard that his pursuers were at the door, he said, "The will of God be done; " and meeting them, he begged to be left alone for a little time, which he spent in prayer for “the Catholic Church throughout the world.” He was brought to Smyrna early on Holy Saturday; and, as he entered, a voice was heard from heaven, “Polycarp, be strong.” When the proconsul besought him to curse Christ and go free, Polycarp answered, “Eighty-six years I have served Him, and He never did me wrong; how can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” When he threatened him with fire, Polycarp told him this fire of his lasted but a little, while the fire prepared for the wicked lasted forever. At the stake he thanked God aloud for letting him drink of Christ’s chalice. The fire was lighted, but it did him no hurt; so he was stabbed to the heart, and his dead body was burnt. “Then,” say the writers of his acts, “we took up the bones, more precious than the richest jewels or gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, at which may God grant us to assemble with joy to celebrate the birthday of the martyr to his life in heaven!”

They are at his house and he is being taken prisoner.

I don’t think this is the same thing as a person who is not in harm’s way stating that he doesn’t mind being murdered in the future.

One is facing death and not being afraid, the other is saying “I’m not afraid to die!” When he is not actually facing any danger. (ie: boasting).

 

[Debera_Bennett]

Compassion is the cornerstone of Judaism and regarded as both the emulation of G-d’s own compassion for His creation and a sacred and righteous responsibility rather than merely a voluntary action. In Scripture (Hebrew Bible), instances of compassion are cited in numerous passages in Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Psalms, etc. referring to neighbors, strangers, enemies, as well as animals. The inability to find joy in one’s own life knowing that others suffer is likewise expressed. However, according to Judaism, it is also vital to act on one’s feelings of compassion and empathy by feeding the poor, clothing the naked, tending to the sick, comforting the bereaved, educating the young, supporting the elderly, and so forth. Specific teaching with regard to animals is noteworthy. For example, one’s pets must be fed first before feeding oneself or one’s human family. There is also a rather strong case for vegetarianism in Judaism although this is a debatable issue. If an animal must be killed for food, however, there are definite ethical guidelines concerning how it is to be done, all in order to inflict the least pain possible (similar to Islamic Law). The Hebrew word for compassion is rachamim (a plural noun), which is thought to be derived from the Hebrew word rechem, meaning womb. There is the concept of motherly love, protection, and comfort associated with compassion.

Wow! I had no idea the bible (The part we share ) spoke so wonderfully about animals. I have always felt that if I was to own a pet (which I have done my whole life lol) that I was obligated to that pet no matter what. For example I had a rabbit and she was… Well… Evil! I have witnesses to verify haha but anyways, I really disliked her and she really disliked me. But I always changed her cage every 2 days, got her fresh alfalfa everyday, a salt lick, toys, and so on. People would tell me to stop wasting money & time on her but I would say “No! I should have never adopted her if I wasn’t prepared to take care of her.” I am so glad to know that our G-d agrees with me!.. I can’t quite explain how I missed that in the Bible but I glad to know it’s there!! Thanks for sharing!!

 

[benedictus2]

Well, I also don’t think G-d suffers in the human sense, or feels any other emotion the way humans do. However, since we are made in the image of G-d, there must be a connection between our feelings of compassion–as well as our other feelings–and those of G-d.

It sounds as if you pretty much have your mind made up about this issue. Are you basically saying that suffering in the human sense is something that only the Person and Passion of Jesus is capable of on such an immense scale? I would then want to know whether you are referring to Jesus as a fully human being or Jesus as G-d Incarnate who suffers, or both, since they are regarded as a hypostatic union? Who actually suffers, dies, and is resurrected for the sins of humanity?

No I have not made up my mind about this issue. I have been pondering this for a over a year now due to some comments some priests made.

I think God understands our suffering but I don’t think one can say that He suffers. But having been incarnated then He did indeed suffer.

We need to bear in mind that suffering is a result of the fall. Minus the fall, no suffering. God is outside of this suffering, outside of time, until He became man. Suffering is part of the human condition. As St Paul said: Christ did not regard equality with God as a thing to be grasped. So He emptied Himself and in this emptying He allowed Himself to suffer as we did. For me that is what is so incredible about the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection - that God became man to suffer with us and in doing so, bring an end to suffering.

I think of a little scene of a someone destitute, alone and hungry curled up in a dingy, stinky corner of a deserted building and God comes and sits with him and comforts him. There in that dingy, stench filled coner of the world God suffers with him.

I think God in the OT sees our pain, knows our pain and is moved by our pain and knows that unless He joins us and suffers with us then we will continue on inflicting suffering on ourselves.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus 2 - would you please answer this question because I think it is an important one.
(and as an aside, please don’t say “it is just a dog”. That is very disturbing to me as a Catholic). I really like your thread and your questions are highly pertinant. Excellent questions.

Sorry I missed Meltzer’s earlier reply. I have responded.

As to it is just a dog, well, it is just a dog. A dog is not a human being. We should tend and care for all creation but one cannot say that people and animals are the same. We must not confuse proper treatment of animals with how we should care for people.

If there was a burning building and you can save only one, you would not go for the dog, you would go for the human being.

As I have said before, when animals suffer we put them down. But only Kevorkian and his ilk would suggest the same be done for human beings

 

[Ahimsa]

One is facing death and not being afraid, the other is saying “I’m not afraid to die!” When he is not actually facing any danger. (ie: boasting).

Actually, Punna the monk was simply obeying what the Buddha told His disciples to do: to spread the Teaching far and wide. When Punna told the Buddha to what region he was headed, the Buddha expressed concern. Punna then communicated to the Buddha how he would handle any potential dangers; rather than “boasting”, Punna was assuring the Buddha that he would follow the Buddha’s teaching on “ahimsa”, or “non-violence”. It was the Buddha who wanted Punna to tell Him how he would act; Punna did not seek to be “boastful” about how he would act:
“Well then, Punna. Now that I have instructed you with a brief instruction, in which country are you going to live?”

“Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live there.”

“Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?”…
After affirming to the Buddha his devotion to non-violence, the Buddha blessed and approved of Punna’s missionary plan. Punna traveled to the region, and converted a thousand inhabitants to the Teaching of the Buddha.
“Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see fit.”

Then Ven. Punna, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One’s words, rising from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One and left, keeping him on his right side. Setting his dwelling in order and taking his robe and bowl, he set out for the Sunaparanta country and, after wandering stage by stage, he arrived there. There he lived. During that Rains retreat he established 500 male and 500 female lay followers in the practice…