[halyshitzob]

I was reflecting on love and compassion, both in the wider sense and also in the more personal relationship sense. Buddha taught the Four Immeasurables and in Theravada chants we have the Buddha's words on loving- kindness from the Karaniya Metta Sutta.

In Mahayana there is also the Bodhisattva vow.

Do we get too clingy and romantic about it all ? I guess we have to do the best we can and develop with our practice, but it seems to me that compassion and loving kindness walk hand in hand with patience and equanimity rather than being dewy- eyed, clingy, romanticism. In the past I've experienced the greater view going down the pan big time with others, and with myself, when situations inevitably collided with dealing with some of the hasher realities of life in one way or another.

I found a Thich Nhat Hahn quote :


"The essence of love and compassion is understanding, the ability to recognize the physical, material, and psychological suffering of others, to put ourselves "inside the skin" of the other.

We "go inside" their body, feelings, and mental formations, and witness for ourselves their suffering. Shallow observation as an outsider is not enough to see their suffering. We must become one with the subject of our observation. When we are in contact with another's suffering, a feeling of compassion is born in us. Compassion means, literally, "to suffer with."

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibe...nh-love-q.html
i'm sure TNH is a truly wonderful person and obviously far more advanced than myself -and I do understand this approach ....but it also seems very romantic and unrealistic. It appears to me that one needs to be a fairly advanced practitioner to have the penetrating awareness that encompasses a deeper non-emotional understanding of another person and their needs

How many people are able to actually "go inside" another? Is there in the meantime a likelihood that we will be projecting our own ideas of how that person appears to us through the mist of our own emotions rather than the way that they actually are?

As for compassion being to 'suffer with'...in the past, I've spent some of my time crying in private and ''suffering with'' others with difficulties of one kind or another when I've been working with them in a professional role,.. but that's not really compassion, its emotional attachment. Indeed personal suffering of that nature is the kind which surely we need to understand and overcome whilst still having the abiity to empathise with others.

Additionally, in more personal relationships, if there is emotional (and maybe physical) abuse, sometimes one just needs to recognise and walk away from it rather than try to 'get inside' the other person and allow it to continue under the umbrella of "love". Through making the mistake of once wanting to 'help' and 'save' another in an abusive relationship I was involved in myself, I got dangerously near to losing my life.... which was a bit of a bummer whilst it was all happening!

So do we need careful word choices, definitions and practice strategies in these areas ? I think so. Otherwise we're just swapping one kind of emotional activity for another. Additionally, if 'helping' others is clouded with emotional obscurations then we become a 'do-gooder' without wisdom - and then we're not helping others at all and even harming ourselves, because of our own ignorance.


I'd be interested in hearing your own thoughts about love and compassion.

[bromgeksan]

I'm sure TNH is a truly wonderful person and obviously far more advanced than myself -and I do understand this approach ....but it also seems very romantic and unrealistic. It appears to me that one needs to be a fairly advanced practitioner to have the penetrating awareness that encompasses a deeper non-emotional understanding of another person and their needs

I agree here... it speaks with what has been guiding Thich's personal doctrine... "Interbeing". It is rooted in some Zen schools that are near the Chinese Cha'an version. It is an important doctrine because it points to something that can be experienced in the day to day world but it has became, too, a very odd stuff of all the New Age mysticism and can end in the kind of interpretations about love and compassion quoted here.

but that's not really compassion, its emotional attachment. Indeed personal suffering of that nature is the kind which surely we need to understand and overcome whilst still having the ability to empathise with others.

Very true Aloka...

I feel that there is no need and it is no right to "suffer with" even at the sight of interbeing. Every person is responsible of her/his suffering and "suffering with" do not help by any means... In my own experience, when people suffers and is aware of her/his suffering... then she or he asks for help... and the way to help is to show them the way to overcome her or his suffering... with the aproach of what Buddha taught.

Buddha taught the Four Immeasurables

I have found that dispassion is the best way to understand and to reach love and compassion in its truest nature. To practice dispassion is to practice love and compassion.

Good issue Aloka,

Thanks

[Patamuta]

I think that if TNH's "going inside" practice weren't so unfamiliar and bizarre and idealistic-seeming, it wouldn't be work. What I mean to say is... if it came as naturally to us as our other habits of looking at people, then we would indeed be far more advanced in our personal practice and personal work than I think most people probably are (myself included).

Often I really do have trouble truly putting myself in someone else's shoes. Often this is because they're experiencing something I feel I just flat-out cannot understand well enough to properly empathize with. For example, the fear that racial minorities feel when confronted with white supremacy is monstrous on a level that I can only connect symbolically to the fear that I feel when confronted with gross misogyny. However, it's hard for me to really get inside where they're sitting.

Sometimes that's enough, though. As long as we can honestly admit that we don't understand a pain which is too great or too (thankfully for us) alien to our own experience, we can say that somebody is going through something beyond our proper imagining. I think that's a good first step to being there for them in what ways we can.

So yeah, there's a lot of suffering that I just don't "get" well enough to be inside those feelings TNH's way. That's just where I am, and that's okay. It shouldn't stop me from making the recognition that what's happening is bad on a level that should cause me concern as a fellow human being.

Bit of a ramble, but that's sort of how my thoughts run on this one.

[Kimmitmelvirm]

Bit of a ramble

Hi dear Cobalt,

No I do not think is a ramble... is the way you have expressed your opinion and it is a good one

Often I really do have trouble truly putting myself in someone else's shoes.

I think it is important to develop some skills so to have an understanding about what, why and how has a person gone through suffering. This understanding, I feel, has to be develop with the discipline of dispassion so to avoid what has pointed out Aloka (#1) where she tells about the useless of "suffering with", which also can feed victimization feelings that do nothing to the development of the Right View about suffeing (Four Noble Truths).
"Suffering with" occurs because the lack of this skill (dispassion) and then we found ourselves ill attached to that suffering. Dispassion can give us a wide understanding about the others suffering so to consider many more elements that are involved and contribute to that suffering. The simple fact of that wide understanding can give us a clear or Right View of what is going on and to avoid an ill attachment ending in "suffering with" and then, if our interest is in helping, that help can be better.

For example, the fear that racial minorities feel when confronted with white supremacy is monstrous on a level that I can only connect symbolically to the fear that I feel when confronted with gross misogyny.

It is important drop out our own cultural conceptions so to "look at" others cultural conceptions with the less possible distortion and, again, get the Right Understanding of what is happening. Again, this can be done with the practice of dispassion, one of the Four Immeasurable. And through that you can reach the other three.

So yeah, there's a lot of suffering that I just don't "get" well enough to be inside those feelings TNH's way. That's just where I am, and that's okay. It shouldn't stop me from making the recognition that what's happening is bad on a level that should cause me concern as a fellow human being.

Just great Cobalt dear...

[exchpaypalgold]

Heh. I'm just glad it made sense!

[chuecfafresslds]

Heh. I'm just glad it made sense!

[stuck_in_WA]

A close friend is going through a messy end to a relationship and I'm trying to support him as much as I can. This has got thinking about my role in his life just now. Could you please explain dispassion and maybe give an example of where one could become attached to another's suffering?
With gratitude
Gary

[compiit]

Hi there Gary ,

Dispassion (I think 'viraga' in Pali) means the fading and finally the absence of desire and clinging which can happen gradually with correct practice.

Sorry I haven't said more, I'm going out for the day. Back later !


D.

[aceriscoolon]

A close friend is going through a messy end to a relationship and I'm trying to support him as much as I can. This has got thinking about my role in his life just now. Could you please explain dispassion and maybe give an example of where one could become attached to another's suffering?
With gratitude
Gary

Hi Gary, I like your post. It is very good to have compassion with a friend and feel his pain. Cherish that (and then get on, and cherish etc.). You would become attached to it, if you tried to escape from the responsibility, or suppress it, and it would become fake stuff, sentimentalism, losing touch. You can be very glad with and proud of what you have. Compassion and dispassion are very close.

BW, jan


PS never mind what you read or think that others find good for you.

Good koan: http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/28...surehouse.html

[tabcdyop]

Could you please explain dispassion and maybe give an example of where one could become attached to another's suffering?
With gratitude
Gary

Hello Gary dear,

Zazen can bring you some tools for the development of dispassion in such a way that you can listen to your friend not judging what he is telling you. Not judging as good or bad. Maybe this is a good way to understand and practice dispassion. Through dispassion you can reach a compassionate attitude toward her/his situation. After a while, while listening her/him with a dispassionate attitude, not judging her/his feelings or her/his circumstances she/he will feel better with you presence.

Giving our presence without judgments is very compassionate and needs dispassion.

Usually we tend to think that our suffering is because something or someone makes us suffer. Dispassion makes us understand that suffering is not about someone or something but our own disposition to that. Dispassion help to avoid taking a position in favour or against so to focus in the mental process here and now. Realeasing form thinking in favour or against gives us room to heal that suffering and to act properly with the Right Understanding (View) about a situation.

Hope this lines can be helpfull for you Gary dear... this is about my stage of practice... nothing more.

My best wishes for you and your friend...

[Zarekylin75]

If you are unable to emphasise and "to suffer with" or as in Mahayana Buddhism, to "take over another's suffering" you will not be able to recognise that other people are the same as you, they all want happiness and its causes, they all have buddha nature. Without real compassion you cannot realise the interdependence of one being with another and will be trapped into thinking there is something inherently permanent about ourselves insead of realising the emptiness of phenomena. Perhaps it's the difference between the Theravada motivation and the Mahayana motivation we are talking about here.

[MizzDaizzy]

Perhaps it's the difference between the Theravada motivation and the Mahayana motivation we are talking about here.

Hi londonerabroad.

I would be very interested in you giving some detailed information about what you feel the difference is between "the Theravada motivation and the Mahayana motivation,"

I have recently returned from a two and a half hour talk and discussion with Ajahn Sumedho, a highly respected abbot within the Theravada Forest Tradition.

Amongst other things, he spoke about the Brahma Viharas and unconditioned love for all sentient beings. He also mentioned that operating out of emptiness with an attitude of non-aversion and metta, allows non-reaction and the arising of compassion, wisdom and equanimity towards conditioned phenomena .

Could you explain how this is essentially different from Mahayana, please ?

[geniusxs81]

Hi londonerabroad.

I would be very interested in you giving some detailed information about what you feel the difference is between "the Theravada motivation and the Mahayana motivation,"

I have recently returned from a two and a half hour talk and discussion with Ajahn Sumedho, a highly respected abbot within the Theravada Forest Tradition.

Amongst other things, he spoke about the Brahma Viharas and unconditioned love for all sentient beings. He also mentioned that operating out of emptiness with an attitude of non-aversion and metta, allows non-reaction and the arising of compassion, wisdom and equanimity towards conditioned phenomena .

Could you explain how this is essentially different from Mahayana, please ?



hands

Maybe he means the difference between HINAYANA & Mahayana motivation. In my understanding Theravadin Buddhism is not one of the original schools that were (unfortunately) referred to as Hinayana, but actually holds views more similar to the Mahayana.

[Snweyuag]

Thank you all, Kaarine I understand now what you are saying, in fact just today I judged my friend's actions and motives ( I kept my judgments to myself ).
Now I understand dispassion I will judge him no longer, but let him find his own way and just be there.
With kind regards
Gary

[ppaelkos]

With kind regards
Gary

:hug:

[MarythePuppy6]

Maybe he means the difference between HINAYANA & Mahayana motivation. In my understanding Theravadin Buddhism is not one of the original schools that were (unfortunately) referred to as Hinayana, but actually holds views more similar to the Mahayana.

"We must not confuse Hinayana with Theravada because the terms are not synonymous. Theravada Buddhism went to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C. when there was no Mahayana at all. Hinayana sects developed in India and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka. Today there is no Hinayana sect in existence anywhere in the world. Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc"


http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.htm

[drgshmcm]

From the forum of Lama Shenpen Rinpoche's Dharmaling Congregation:

smokey, on 13 June 2010 - 10:25 PM, said:

What is the Difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regards to Meditation, Doctrine - Dhamma/Dharma and Discipline - Vinaya?

The difference is mainly in the motivation. Bodhicitta is often translated as "compassion", but it's much more than that. It's about reaching Enlightenment for the sake of the others. Therefore, the methods also differ. Theravada practitioners will focus on reaching Nirvana, Emptiness, and once reached, will remain in it for eons! Mahayana practitioners will focus on helping others, wishing to reach omniscience for the sake of the others, reaching Emptiness as a means, not a goal.

So, Mahayana teaches that there is an equal importance in practicing the skilful means and the Wisdom, included in the 6 Perfections (ie. Generosity, Patience, Ethics, Enthusiastic perseverance, Concentration, and Wisdom).
As regard to Vinaya/Code of ethics, the vows and commitments are nearly the same. Without Ethics, no progress, no accumulation of merits.

The Vajrayana Path is based on Mahayana. It adds some specific practices to transform every moment in practice, transforming the perceptions, the energies directly into the pristine nature of the Buddha practiced.

Lama Shenpen Rinpoche
---
"For as long as space endures, And as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide, To dispel the misery of the world." (Arya Shantideva)

[horoshevapola]

The difference is mainly in the motivation. Bodhicitta is often translated as "compassion", but it's much more than that. It's about reaching Enlightenment for the sake of the others. Therefore, the methods also differ. Theravada practitioners will focus on reaching Nirvana, Emptiness, and once reached, will remain in it for eons! Mahayana practitioners will focus on helping others, wishing to reach omniscience for the sake of the others, reaching Emptiness as a means, not a goal.

Whilst not meaning to show disrespect to the lama, this quote sounds like sectarian "Greater Vehicle" promotional talk to me, I'm afraid.

I was involved with Tibetan Buddhism for most of my life until I started investigating the Buddha's core teachings and Theravada, and this type of pushing of some higher ideal existing only in Mahayana, is quite frankly ridiculous because it isn't evident if one actually bothers to investigate offline as I have done with the Theravada Forest Tradition. As for the above comment about Theravada practitioners, ....do people actually take that kind of statement seriously ?

Quite apart from that, does anyone ever consider how on earth someone can "save all sentient beings" ? What about the actual grass-roots practicalities of such a goal?....quite apart from the fact that maybe all beings dont want to be 'saved' !

First one needs to learn to use the methods outlined by the Buddha to remove one's own numerous misperceptions, before one can even get anywhere near to acquiring any skills to aid others on the path.

In addition to what I was saying #11, Ajahn Sumedho said (in connection with the Unborn/ Unconditioned) "Unconditioned love is the basis of everything"

The talk and following discussion from which some excerpts have been taken and mentioned here (I took notes) was recorded, and I will put a link to it at BWB when the podcast goes online.

[katespepach]

The Mahayana ideal can be seen in the Bodhisattva vows:

All being, without number, I vow to liberate
Endless blind passions I vow to uproot
Dharma gates beyond measure I vow to penetrate
The way of the Buddha I vow to attain

Beings are numberless; I vow to awaken with them.
Delusions are inexhaustible; I vow to end them.
Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to enter them.
Buddha's way is unsurpassable; I vow to become it.

The Therevada vehicle tends to rely only on Shakyamuni and his teachings whereas the Mahayana way takes into account Bodhisattvas and other Buddhas and their teachings and help.

From Tibetan Buddhism:

"If we can attain nondual, nonconceptual awareness in meditation, we are engaged in profound political activity, . . .
While our nondualistic, nonconceptual meditation is purifying our own obscurations and afflictions and thereby transforming our personal experience of others, it is also becoming a spark of buddha activity in those others. As our meditation becomes effective, the attitude of others towards us begins to change, and they themselves begin to turn inward and to search with greater conscientiousness through the stuff of their own minds and lives for spiritual solutions to their own problems. And as the power of our meditation increases, this effect reaches ever-widening concentric circles of sentient beings with whom we have karmic interdependence, which in this day and age includes not only our immediate family and friends, working associates, and local communities, but also everyone with whom we are connected through all the media of our lives.

--from The Ninth Karmapa's Ocean of Definitive Meaning by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, edited, introduced and annotated by Lama Tashi Namgyal "


Or as the Zen master Sazuki Roshi said - "When I meditate my spouse also meditates"

[bQXHsKzS]

Yes I've heard all of that offline in the past, thanks Londonerabroad.

Theravada does indeed focus on the core teachings of the historical Buddha... and for me, later add-ons and fairy tales about other buddhas, bodhisattvas and deities giving teachings from other realms or whatever, are completely irrelevant to me at this point in my practice and understanding.


Or as the Zen master Sazuki Roshi said - "When I meditate my spouse also meditates" Can't quite see how that relates to anything being discussed , to be honest!


Please give URL links to you quotes, by the way, thanks.