Compassion

[phetaroi]

Although it is one of the ten perfections, I don't often notice compassion discussed much in this forum.

I wonder how some of you who are seriously seeking enlightenment practice the art (and I do think it's an art) of compassion.

[Xangsamhua]

Although it is one of the ten perfections, I don't often notice compassion discussed much in this forum.

I wonder how some of you who are seriously seeking enlightenment practice the art (and I do think it's an art) of compassion.

My first reaction to your question was that this is a mainly Theravada forum and, hence, gives less emphasis to compassion.

Mahayana emphasizes compassion more than the Theravada and recommends that we universalize it. http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Misc...%20Buddhism.htm

However, I note:

Nowhere among Mahayana practices is concern for other beings expressed more

clearly than in the metta practice of loving kindness in Theravada Buddhism. One

begins with a focus upon the self:

May I be free from danger.

May I have mental happiness.

May I have physical happiness.

May I have the ease of well-being.

Metta then is directed to those near and dear—may they be free from danger, and so on—then to those about whom one feels neutral, then to enemies, and so on to all beings. Under the guidance of a seasoned teacher, the resistance one feels to this compassionate practice is faced squarely and allowed to wither and disappear.

"Formal Practice: Buddhist or Christian" - Buddhist-Christian Studies 22 (2002)

I have the idea that Theravada does give less emphasis to compassion as a core practice, but as the above quote indicates, I may well be wrong.

Compassion towards women would seem to be more lacking in Theravada than the Mahayana traditions I've had (limited) experience with.

I think your question is a good one and would like to hear responses from forum participants.

[phetaroi]

Although it is one of the ten perfections, I don't often notice compassion discussed much in this forum.

I wonder how some of you who are seriously seeking enlightenment practice the art (and I do think it's an art) of compassion.

My first reaction to your question was that this is a mainly Theravada forum and, hence, gives less emphasis to compassion.

Mahayana emphasizes compassion more than the Theravada and recommends that we universalize it. http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Misc...%20Buddhism.htm

However, I note:

Nowhere among Mahayana practices is concern for other beings expressed more

clearly than in the metta practice of loving kindness in Theravada Buddhism. One

begins with a focus upon the self:

May I be free from danger.

May I have mental happiness.

May I have physical happiness.

May I have the ease of well-being.

Metta then is directed to those near and dear—may they be free from danger, and so on—then to those about whom one feels neutral, then to enemies, and so on to all beings. Under the guidance of a seasoned teacher, the resistance one feels to this compassionate practice is faced squarely and allowed to wither and disappear.

"Formal Practice: Buddhist or Christian" - Buddhist-Christian Studies 22 (2002)

I have the idea that Theravada does give less emphasis to compassion as a core practice, but as the above quote indicates, I may well be wrong.

Compassion towards women would seem to be more lacking in Theravada than the Mahayana traditions I've had (limited) experience with.

I think your question is a good one and would like to hear responses from forum participants.

Interestingly, you and I were looking at the exact same source.

I thought it was a very good article.

[rockyysdt]

I wonder how some of you who are seriously seeking enlightenment practice the art (and I do think it's an art) of compassion.

Apart from initially giving selflessly both in suppoer & monetarily, I think that regular silent meditation & continuous practice of self awareness naturally leads you towards being compassionate.

Studying it is not the same as the knowing you gain through self experience.

[Brucenkhamen]

My understanding is that Mahayana talks of Wisdom and Compassion as it's two pillars. I don't think Theravada ever talks in terms of pillars. If it did then I'm sure wisdom would be one, I'm not sure why there needs to be two though.

I think in Theravada Compassion is generally seen as something that comes naturally from Wisdom, not something that needs to be cultivated on it's own. I think true Compassion arises from true Wisdom, Compassion that doesn't arise from Wisdom will be tainted to some degree by greed, aversion, and delusion.

So while it's a good thing to do compassionate acts, if they arise from an emotional response or a sense of duty or obligation then that's not true compassion. That doesn't mean to say you shouldn't do it, it's just not something to blow ones religious trumpet about.

That's my take on it, whether that's at the root of theravada not emphasising compassion I'm not sure.

[sabaijai]

Compassion (karuna, not be be confused with metta or loving-kindness) is a large part of Theravada theory and practice.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search.php?...sion&Realm=

That the topic hasn't been seen in this subforum much, so far, probably says more about the participants (and I include myself ) than about Theravada.

[Xangsamhua]

Compassion (karuna, not be be confused with metta or loving-kindness) is a large part of Theravada theory and practice.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search.php?...sion&Realm=

That the topic hasn't been seen in this subforum much, so far, probably says more about the participants (and I include myself ) than about Theravada.

Thank you. I read the Elizabeth Harris article. Very interesting (really need to read it again). I have a question though.

Does compassion follow understanding or inform it? In other words, how much can one really understand without compassion?

If the Buddha's teaching is not a system of metaphysics, but a path to be followed by unceasing practice, then understanding is about conscious beings - their desires, fears and suffering. To understand these things, I suggest, requires compassion as a pre-requisite. Or are they so intertwined that there can be no sequence?

My wife and I were discussing this recently in regard to responding to someone who is angry. She said that she would need to try to understand the person in order for compassion to emerge. I thought compassion was needed at the beginning, but she disagreed quite firmly with me and that's where we left it. I wonder who is right or is it a matter of individual method?

Looking at the four bodhisattva vows, the first (I vow to liberate all beings without number) could be a recipe for interference, as Elizabeth Harris points out, if uninformed by real understanding (as opposed to false consciousness) and could lead to a loss of freedom, as so many "liberation" movements have shown us. Nevertheless, it is the first of the vows, before uprooting blind passion, penetrating the dharma gates and attaining the way of the Buddha, which suggests that active compassion has priority, at least in the Mahayana tradition.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

My first reaction to your question was that this is a mainly Theravada forum and, hence, gives less emphasis to compassion.

Wiki has a good article on this:

Karuṇā is important in all schools of Buddhism. For Theravāda Buddhists, dwelling in karuṇā is a means for attaining a happy present life and heavenly rebirth. For Mahāyāna Buddhists, karuṇā is a co-requisite for becoming a bodhisattva.

Theravada Buddhism

In Theravāda Buddhism, karuṇā is one of the four "divine abodes" (brahmavihāra), along with loving kindness (Pāli: mettā), sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha).[2] In the Pali canon, the Buddha recommends cultivating these four virtuous mental states to both householders and monastics.[3] When one develops these four states, the Buddha counsels radiating them in all directions, as in the following stock canonical phrase regarding karuṇā:

He keeps pervading the first direction—as well as the second direction, the third, and the fourth—with an awareness imbued with compassion. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with compassion: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.[4]

Such a practice purifies one's mind, avoids evil-induced consequences, leads to happiness in one's present life and, if there is a future karmic rebirth, rebirth in a heavenly realm.[5]

[camerata]

Although it is one of the ten perfections, I don't often notice compassion discussed much in this forum.

I wonder how some of you who are seriously seeking enlightenment practice the art (and I do think it's an art) of compassion.

Although there is a difference, I think in everyday life it's often indistinguishable from metta.

The Pali commentaries distinguish between karuṇā and mettā in the following complementary manner: Karuna is the desire to remove harm and suffering (ahita-dukkha-apanaya-kāmatā) from others; while mettā is the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness (hita-sukha-upanaya-kāmatā) of others.

I give money to beggars and also donate to charities, which seems to vary between karuna and metta or be a combination of both. I have also given food to stray dogs and saw to it that one with cancer was caught and treated. Karuna seems to be the desire to help beings that are already in obvious trouble. Perhaps since this is more "proactive" it suits the bodhisattva path and is therefore pushed more in Mahayana.

I believe in the Buddha's original Sangha, teaching the Dhamma (which to be done effectively should be done by someone enlightened) was the purest form of karuna. By the same token, if we make an effort to pass on the Dhamma through this forum and it helps a member out of his problems, that's also karuna.