Compassion in Buddhist, Hinduism and Other Religions

[rossum]

I have pointed out to you repeatedly that this radically misrepresents the “Abrahamic” (if by that you mean Judaeo-Christian-Islamic) conception of God.

It is no more legitimate for you to engage in straw-man caricatures of our religion than for us to engage in straw-man caricatures of yours.

I do my best to avoid the latter. I wish you would put some effort into avoiding the former.

Edwin

To quote:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

• Brhamajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1
  This God is omniscient (“all-seeing”), omnipotent, creator, supreme, father to all. He sounds to me like the Abrahamic God.

The Buddhist attitude to this God is certainly very different to the Christian attitude, but the God is indeed there, along with many others (which is one of the differences).

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

Beautiful post, Sufjon.

Your friend,
Xuan

Thanks Xuan - it’s good to hear from you again after so long.

Your friend
sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

It is not prudent to take verses out of the bible out of context. In those same verses Jesus says: (25:46) And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Now, if you really believed in what Jesus was saying then you would believe that Jesus is our judge and that he will send us into eternal hell or to eternal life.

The bible is NOT a book of pithy sayings. I recommend Marcus Aurelius for a book of pithy sayings.

And since you reject the bible as the word of God, and since you reject Jesus as the only means to salvation, how is it that you use his words to judge others? Do you judge others by a different standard than you judge yourself? Why would you not also hold yourself up to the same standard that you judge Christians by?

Because if you did, you would have to judge yourself as being condemned to eternal hell.

So you see you make no sense. You do not condemn yourself to eternal hell for rejecting Jesus, but you will condemn Christians with the same book that you yourself reject.

 

[Xuan]

Thanks Xuan - it’s good to hear from you again after so long.

Your friend
sufjon

Thanks. I do a lot more reading than posting. There’s a wealth of information here and I’m constantly trying to absorb it… I’m learning.

Your friend,
Xuan

 

[Contarini]

To quote:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

• Brhamajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1This God is omniscient (“all-seeing”), omnipotent, creator, supreme, father to all. He sounds to me like the Abrahamic God.

The Buddhist attitude to this God is certainly very different to the Christian attitude, but the God is indeed there, along with many others (which is one of the differences).

rossum

Rossum,

I understand that this sounds like the God of popular “Abrahamic” piety.

But if you look at something like Aquinas’s Five Ways, you see one classical philosophical basis for the Christian conception of God. Granted, this philosophy allows Christians to believe in something like a personal God of the kind you describe. But my point is that if Buddhists want to critique the Christian understanding of God, they need to take on the serious philosophical forms of that understanding and not just its popular expressions.

Similarly, Christians might say “Buddhas and bodhisattvas look no different from pagan gods to us,” focusing only on the way they function in popular Mahayana piety and not taking seriously the philosophical underpinnings of that piety. I think you and I would agree that such a Christian approach would be highly unfair.

If you look at the basic metaphysical claims, it becomes clear that Buddhists either do not believe in the existence of what we call “God” or speak of God in terms of Buddha nature (though this matches only the most thoroughly apophatic Christian understandings of God).

I’ve been reading a description of Nagarjuna’s philosophy (in *Asian Philosophies, *ed. John M. Koller and Patricia Joyce Koller, 3rd ed.) in preparation for teaching Mahayana Buddhism in my Religions of the World class (which I just finished doing), and it struck me that a major difference between Nagarjuna and a Christian philosopher like Aquinas is in their respective understandings of causality (which, if I understand him rightly, Nagarjuna denies, speaking instead of “conditions”).

Oh, and I hope you don’t mind that I quoted your tag line to my students as a way of explaining “emptiness is empty.”

Edwin

 

[rossum]

I understand that this sounds like the God of popular “Abrahamic” piety.

But if you look at something like Aquinas’s Five Ways, you see one classical philosophical basis for the Christian conception of God. Granted, this philosophy allows Christians to believe in something like a personal God of the kind you describe. But my point is that if Buddhists want to critique the Christian understanding of God, they need to take on the serious philosophical forms of that understanding and not just its popular expressions.

There is not just one “Christian understanding of God”, there are many. Running all the way from the ‘Old man in the clouds’ to the serious philosophical forms.

Similarly, Christians might say “Buddhas and bodhisattvas look no different from pagan gods to us,” focusing only on the way they function in popular Mahayana piety and not taking seriously the philosophical underpinnings of that piety. I think you and I would agree that such a Christian approach would be highly unfair.

Not completely. At the popular level it is indeed difficult to distinguish between ‘Old man in the clouds’ and ‘Multi-armed man in the clouds’. The philosophical versions of both are less similar, but do have some overlaps.

If you look at the basic metaphysical claims, it becomes clear that Buddhists either do not believe in the existence of what we call “God” or speak of God in terms of Buddha nature (though this matches only the most thoroughly apophatic Christian understandings of God).

The Theravada mostly tends to ignore God, and to leave the gods to lay people. Since Nagarjuna, the Mahayana has been extremely apophatic: “nada, nada, nada…”

I’ve been reading a description of Nagarjuna’s philosophy (in *Asian Philosophies, *ed. John M. Koller and Patricia Joyce Koller, 3rd ed.) in preparation for teaching Mahayana Buddhism in my Religions of the World class (which I just finished doing)

The IEP has a good piece on Nagarjuna as well.

it struck me that a major difference between Nagarjuna and a Christian philosopher like Aquinas is in their respective understandings of causality (which, if I understand him rightly, Nagarjuna denies, speaking instead of “conditions”).

Correct. Nagarjuna is arguing against the Realist position. If a cause is (Realist-style) real then the effect is the same (Realist-style) as the cause. Hence there can be no causation - the effect was already ‘really’ there.

Oh, and I hope you don’t mind that I quoted your tag line to my students as a way of explaining “emptiness is empty.”

Not a problem, I cribbed it from Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

You might find Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought interesting. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article.

If you are studying Nagarjuna then I would recommend the Garfield translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way” and the Huntington/Wangchen translation of Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, “The Emptiness of Emptiness”.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

And I think you just blew your whole argument into little bits.

Not only have you been shown an example of compassion in a non-Christian (probably pre-Christian, though the Mahabharata was composed over a long period of time) text, but you yourself admit that it’s such an extreme example of compassion that it makes no sense to you. So perhaps not only do Eastern religions have real compassion, but we Christians have something to learn from them in that regard.

At least so it appears from your own words

Edwin

No, because compassion necessarily means that one is “suffering with” someone. I don’t think compassion means suffering with animals.

The example still does not hold unless the King became a dog and thus is able to suffer like a dog.

As a friend of mine said when meditating on the incarnation, I love my hens but I would not become a hen to take away their suffering.

Also, the example does not mean that the king suffered. He still remained king.

 

[benedictus2]

I think the idea of compassion as “shared suffering” has been around as long as humanity has. When the mother who loves her small child sees him suffering, she suffers right along with him. Sometimes she suffers even more than the child does. This kind of compassion stems from selfless love.

Christ encouraged this kind of compassion when He said “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Buddha also encouraged this kind of compassion when he said “Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra 91.

These are the same teachings.

This thread draws a distinction between different meanings assigned to the word “compassion.” We should also draw a distinction between different meanings assigned to the word “suffering,” without conflating them. When the Buddha talked about avoiding suffering, he was talking specifically about the kind of suffering (anxiety, angst, anguish) that results from giving in to selfish craving, desiring.

Loving compassion is high on the list of Buddhist virtues. Buddhist charities have been especially visible in helping and tending to victims of the tsunamis over the past few years.

I’m not a Buddhist, but I’ve been learning about Buddhism for a few years now, and I have a great deal of respect for it. If I’ve mis-stated Buddhist teachings at all, I would welcome corrections from rossum or Ahimsa.

Xuan

As I said earlier, love, mercy, pity - all that you will find as a teaching in the other religions.

But to suffer with another - that is, to choose to suffer - with another is not exactly taught in the other religions.

Even the example that was given of the King “suffering” by not going to heaven, could hardly be called suffering. And it is interesting that in the Mahabharata story it is the human who is “compassionate” not the deity.

Also we are not talking about different meanings attached to the word compassion. Compassion derivess from compatere - to suffer with.

This has come to be misinterpreted and mistranslated. Most of the time we say “compassion” when we mean sympathy or pity.

The Buddhist concept is not about embracing suffering but the avoidance of it.

Loving compassion may be listed as a Buddhist virtue but I wonder if the original word has been translated to compassion when that is not what it means at all. Somewhat similar to what Meltzer wrote about the word “rachamin” in Hebrew.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m sorry you feel that way.

There is no need to be sorry.

As much as I believe in being good stewards and carers of all creation, we all draw the line somewhere.

I was watching an interview of a former rock star who became an Orthodox priest and he ministers to people in Africa who have been maimed in the internecine battles.

So many men, women and children without limbs.

And then he goes to say how upside down the wold is: at the same time that these people are suffering, (and so many more are suffering) so many people in Australia were more concerned about a beached up whale.

We have pet owners who treat their pets as if they are human and treat other human beings as if they were animals.

 

[benedictus2]

To quote:
“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

• Brhamajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1
  This God is omniscient (“all-seeing”), omnipotent, creator, supreme, father to all. He sounds to me like the Abrahamic God.

How can he be like the Abrahamic God if He split into different parts and became us.

The Abrahamic God is separate from His creatures and does not self combust.

The Buddhist attitude to this God is certainly very different to the Christian attitude, but the God is indeed there, along with many others (which is one of the differences).

It should be different since if I am also god then that puts us in equal footing don’t you think.

Not so witht he Abrahamic God.

 

[benedictus2]

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.”

That I think is to misinterpret St Francis. While St Francis loved all creation, he didn’t equate the other creatures with man.

If he were not able t miraculously cure a dog, he would put the dog to sleep. He would not do the same to a human being.

 

[rossum]

How can he be like the Abrahamic God if He split into different parts and became us.

Three points. First, that is a Buddhist Brahma, not the Hindu Brahman. The “-n” is extremely important.

Secondly, since the Abrahamic God is omnipotent, you have no basis to say that He didn’t do anything - He can do anything He wants to, including splitting into parts and becoming us.

Thirdly, the Abrahamic God is in three parts, and one of those parts did “become us”. At least for the Christian version of that God. The Jewish and Muslim versions only have one part, not three.

The Abrahamic God is separate from His creatures and does not self combust.

The Buddhist Brahma is also separate from other living beings. I do not know if there is an equivalent of the burning bush in Buddhist stories about that god.

It should be different since if I am also god then that puts us in equal footing don’t you think.

I think you are confusing the Hindu Brahman with the Buddhist Brahma, who is much closer to the Hindu Brahma (no “-n”).

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

The Abrahamic God is separate from His creatures and does not self combust.

Combust? Are you referring to the Big Bang?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

If he were not able t miraculously cure a dog, he would put the dog to sleep. He would not do the same to a human being.

Is there an account of St. Francis euthanizing a dog, or did you surmise that this is what he would have done based on something else he said or reportedly did?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

Combust? Are you referring to the Big Bang?

Your friend,
Sufjon

No. Someone ( I think maybe Rossum) said in another thread that how we came to be (i.e. material world) is when God split into different parts.

 

[benedictus2]

Is there an account of St. Francis euthanizing a dog, or did you surmise that this is what he would have done based on something else he said or reportedly did?

Your friend,
Sufjon

No, just an application of St Francis’s very Christian beliefs. If he is unable to heal the dog, I think he would have euthanized the dog. I don’t think he would have advocated for euthanizing a human being. St Francis at the very core is Christian.

 

[Ayushsinghdelhi]

To members of other religions or Christians who have studied other religions:

Can you cite explicit teaching about compassion in your/ these religions?

When I say compassion, I mean in its etymological sense : compatere - to suffer with.

Thanks for your responses.

Peace and Joy of Christ!

Compassion is not a religious tenet. Perhaps you are searching for the etymological history. The origin of the word may be Christian. Compassion i believe is a defining human quality. Compassion, defined as ‘suffering with others,’ is inherent, in that a human naturally feels the sufferings of others, whether they be human or otherwise. In hinduism the focus is primarily on the alleviation of suffering rather than participation in it. Suffering is not glorified. But if others suffering cannot be eliminated, then a human takes part in it, either through sympathy, empathy, or otherwise inevitably through direct participation. To have none of these is called, maybe, betrayal?

 

[Candescent]

But to suffer with another - that is, to choose to suffer - with another is not exactly taught in the other religions.

Please read the story of Kapotheswara in the Mahabharata. ( Nothing I found on the internet gives the story in anything but a severely truncated form.)

This King learns a deep lesson on the nature of suffering and duty. He cuts the flesh from his own body to appease the hunger of a hawk/eagle. The eagle had been about to eat a dove when it took refuge with the King…the King realizes that in stopping the suffering of the dove- he has now caused the eagle and her young to starve.

A scale is brought and he agrees to place the same weight of his own flesh as the dove weighs…but no matter how much he cuts off of himself, the scale never moves. In the version I was taught- he finally climbs onto the scale.

I have seen this story acted out, it is horrifying and very moving, and has many levels of messages about the nature of compassion.

 

[rossum]

Please read the story of Kapotheswara in the Mahabharata. ( Nothing I found on the internet gives the story in anything but a severely truncated form.)

This King learns a deep lesson on the nature of suffering and duty. He cuts the flesh from his own body to appease the hunger of a hawk/eagle. The eagle had been about to eat a dove when it took refuge with the King…the King realizes that in stopping the suffering of the dove- he has now caused the eagle and her young to starve.

The same story is found in the Buddhist Jataka stories: The Eagle and the Dove.

The story is presumably part of the general background of Indian lore. I would suspect that there is probably a Jain version as well as the Hindu and Buddhist versions.

rossum