Charter For Compassion

[Xangsamhua]

Not specifically Buddhist, but may be of interest to Forum members and visitors.

The point is the essential centrality of compassion in world religions and the need to keep it centre.

[/url]

Charter for Compassion

One can affirm the Charter on the website. Seattle is the first city to have affirmed it.

[eggomaniac]

If it was not so sad, it would be funny. While Good strives for 'universality', Evil had no trouble getting there. All of the major religions of the World, and minor ones, are so confusing with their differing origins, beliefs, sects, rituals, customs, interpretations and so on, rules, attitudes, philosophies.

However, theft anywhere in the World, same thing; rape anywhere in the World, same thing; murder anywhere in the World, same thing; dishonesty, jealousy, mindlessness anyhwhere in the World, same thing.

Good is 'complicated' eat pork, yes or no; face the East 5 times a day, yes or no; let go of Self, yes or no; born again, yes or no.

Evil is 'simple', lie, cheat, steal, insult, burn, stab, torture, molest, become a banker.

You would need ten doctorates and/or 10 lives to quantify all of the religions on Earth, while the Not Religion could be clearly summed up on and a 8 by 10 sheet.

[camerata]

As far as I can see, the Charter states that compassion is considered a Good Thing by everyone, but the problem is people don't all practice it because of selfishness. This is crystal clear to any Buddhist. No need to sign any charter. Also, "good" is not that complicated for a Buddhist: Don't harm others or yourself. Letting go of self is a means to an end, not a choice between good and evil.

[phetaroi]

As far as I can see, the Charter states that compassion is considered a Good Thing by everyone, but the problem is people don't all practice it because of selfishness. This is crystal clear to any Buddhist. No need to sign any charter. Also, "good" is not that complicated for a Buddhist: Don't harm others or yourself. Letting go of self is a means to an end, not a choice between good and evil.

I don't see it being so clear to lots of Buddhists, since I don't personally see putting a few baht in the collection box as being compassionate. Maybe I just missed it in my year in Thailand, but I didn't see acts of compassion as a significant part of Thai life, even at temples.

But, I'm open-minded. Convince me!

[Xangsamhua]

As far as I can see, the Charter states that compassion is considered a Good Thing by everyone, but the problem is people don't all practice it because of selfishness. This is crystal clear to any Buddhist. No need to sign any charter. Also, "good" is not that complicated for a Buddhist: Don't harm others or yourself. Letting go of self is a means to an end, not a choice between good and evil.

Yes, it seems a focus on self is a/the core barrier to compassion. In some cases this self-focus is pathological to the extent that one might be psychotic and capable of great callousness. However, there are cases in the heat and aftermath of battle where otherwise "normal" human beings commit acts of great cruelty, and these would not seem to arise from mere selfishness.

And what of narcissism, in which one may act with great affection and care for another, but the act is really an extension of self-love projected onto the other and bound by it?

Both of these conditions - psychosis and narcissism - arise from self-centredness, though the latter is perhaps more common and generally less malignant.

Nevertheless, I think Camerata is right that a focus on - clinging to - self is in most people a barrier to real compassion. Most of us, because we can empathize, a capacity we normally attribute to our "self" fuelled by memory, are able to genuinely feel for someone who is really suffering, such as a mother who has lost her child, or a man whose wife has left him without warning. However, we tend not to feel a lot of compassion for those who are suffering the banal slings and arrows of everyday life, because these mundane sufferings don't really impact on us, i.e. our sense of that space in which the self is found. How, then, does the reduction and elimination of "self", the awareness of anatta, anicca and sunyata - the self as non-real, impermanent and empty - help us to be more compassionate. We may be more aware of the causes of suffering in ourselves and the pathway to cessation of suffering, but how does that give rise to compassion for others? It doesn't.

Compassion, like other mental states, arises existentially from nowhere. Like any thought, feeling, perception or mental formation compassion arises interdependently from a combination of conditions germinated by the dispositions favourable to its arising. In the case of compassion, where the seeds of compassion have been nurtured they can take root when favourable conditions arise. Essential for the seeds of compassion to arise is a continuing practice of removing the barrier, i.e. belief in and focus on one's self and its needs and entitlements. So a disposition to compassion does not necessarily arise with awareness of the non-reality of the self, but by a concerted and continuing effort to nurture compassion as a result of teaching and training. We are taught to be compassionate, so we practise in such a way that compassion is integrated into our response to life, our environment and those who/that dwell in it, especially if they are animate.

Whereas a focus on self may be a distraction from authentic understanding of the reality of interdependent arising and "inter-being" among all phenomena, understanding of true reality, on the other hand, may distract us in a wholesome, enlightening way from the delusion of self and its centrality to us. However, it could also lead to nihilism, despair and suicide, or even, once the truly, pathologically selfish person understands that there is no self, to anomism, criminality and, possibly, violence. After all, Raskolnikov did not murder the pawnbroker because he was selfish, but because he had a "noble mission" in life for which he needed funds. Selflessness, in his case, led to murder for altruistic reasons. Unfortunately, his delusion of himself as a "great man" (a Nietzchean ubermensch) was still grotequely self-centred.

Of course, Camerata doesn't say that letting go of self is the be-all and end-all, but a means to an end, and it is only one means. The other is the cultivation of a disposition to generosity over time, through reflection, meditation and application. Giving others the benefit of the doubt is a good start. Trying to see things through others' eyes; assuming that others have reasons or some justification for their actions - these may be also be helpful ways to see life and live it more compassionately, though one will sometimes be taken for a sucker or seen to be. I think this way of approaching compassion, i.e. from a non-self assertive approach is a helpful adjunct to radical (ontological) self-denial, and one that would sit with teachings on charity, compassion and empathy in the world religions.

Ifyou've read this far, you've been very patient – compassionate even. Thank you. It takes me a while sometimes to figure out what I'm trying to say.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

1. As far as I can see, the Charter states that compassion is considered a Good Thing by everyone, but the problem is people don't all practice it because of selfishness. This is crystal clear to any Buddhist. No need to sign any charter.

2. Also, "good" is not that complicated for a Buddhist: Don't harm others or yourself. Letting go of self is a means to an end, not a choice between good and evil.

I think I confused things by putting replies to two posts in one paragraph. The first part was an attempt to pull the OP onto the topic of Buddhism ( ) by stating the obvious: all Buddhists know about compassion from the teachings or at least the Jataka Tales they heard as a kid, so if they don't practice it, it's because immediate selfish considerations are uppermost in their minds. Signing the charter won't make any difference to that. I think the charter would perhaps be of more use to people who had a secular upbringing and don't see the value of compassion.

My second comment was a reply to Eggo to keep him on the straight and narrow too. From a Buddhist perspective I don't see that "good" is any more complicated to define than "bad." That's really the beauty of Buddhism - anything that takes you towards nibbana is skillful (good), anything that doesn't is unskillful (bad).

Perhaps the benefits of compassion are not that obvious to a lot of people. Anyone can see that if you murder, steal, screw the neighbour's wife, etc, you're likely to get into trouble with the law and the people you know. But if you lack compassion with strangers there isn't any obvious repercussion. In fact, it must seem more like the opposite: getting involved in a stranger's problems could cause you all kinds of grief.

[eggomaniac]

1. As far as I can see, the Charter states that compassion is considered a Good Thing by everyone, but the problem is people don't all practice it because of selfishness. This is crystal clear to any Buddhist. No need to sign any charter.

2. Also, "good" is not that complicated for a Buddhist: Don't harm others or yourself. Letting go of self is a means to an end, not a choice between good and evil.

I think I confused things by putting replies to two posts in one paragraph. The first part was an attempt to pull the OP onto the topic of Buddhism ( ) by stating the obvious: all Buddhists know about compassion from the teachings or at least the Jataka Tales they heard as a kid, so if they don't practice it, it's because immediate selfish considerations are uppermost in their minds. Signing the charter won't make any difference to that. I think the charter would perhaps be of more use to people who had a secular upbringing and don't see the value of compassion.

My second comment was a reply to Eggo to keep him on the straight and narrow too. From a Buddhist perspective I don't see that "good" is any more complicated to define than "bad." That's really the beauty of Buddhism - anything that takes you towards nibbana is skillful (good), anything that doesn't is unskillful (bad).

Perhaps the benefits of compassion are not that obvious to a lot of people. Anyone can see that if you murder, steal, screw the neighbour's wife, etc, you're likely to get into trouble with the law and the people you know. But if you lack compassion with strangers there isn't any obvious repercussion. In fact, it must seem more like the opposite: getting involved in a stranger's problems could cause you all kinds of grief.

Cam,

I was discussing this Charter with a good friend and describing my Post. He brought up the same point as you, that being 'good' is not complicated, 'either'. I believe him and me were saying the same thing, 6 is a 1/2 dozen.

Knowing the difference between good and evil is not complicated. Everbody's blood is red and the basic concepts of right and wrong are the same all over the World. It's just there are myriad ways of teaching, intsilling, preaching, mentoring. There is even a difference whereas Buddhism seems to inspire to do good, Judeo/Christian seems to admonish against being bad. It's like divided and conquered when it comes to World religions. What is the problem with trying to get all of the diverging views to look at common 'agreed' principals; especially when it included that religions should recognise where wars have been fought under the banner of the ones they belong to, including yours, truly. [my friend also happens to think of the same first thing as me, when he thniks of 'religions', that is 'coffers'. There is Universality on that aspect!]

I also think I agree with V, that your claim 'all Buddhist....' know the score, is possibly roseate. Maybe I am not allowed to comment, but a noted Monk just had an article in the TV News Forum tiltled [sic] Buddhists have Lost Their Faith.[sic] There have been many times Notable Figures in Thailand have becried the losing of the Paths among the Siamese.

Can I ask you if there is anything in the Charter that could not be ascribed to Buddhist ideals and practices?

'anything that takes you towards nibanna is [good]... How would making an affirmation, a commitment, a public reminder be counter productive? How would it not increase a Buddhist's skill. It would have a better affect, in my opinion than some superstitious amulet. Did Buddha wear amulets?

[[[[ If any Buddhist have signed it, which surely the less enlightened ones might have, do we run in and say they are off the tracks? ]]]

[camerata]

I also think I agree with V, that your claim 'all Buddhist....' know the score, is possibly roseate. Maybe I am not allowed to comment, but a noted Monk just had an article in the TV News Forum tiltled [sic] Buddhists have Lost Their Faith.[sic] There have been many times Notable Figures in Thailand have becried the losing of the Paths among the Siamese.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this. What I said was that Buddhists know about compassion. It is central to Buddhism, especially Mahayana. It's one of the Four Sublime States. It's featured over and over in the Jataka Tales. I pointed out that some may not practice it even though they know it is part of their religion. In the words of Nyanaponika Thera:

"The world suffers. But most men have their eyes and ears closed. They do not see the unbroken stream of tears flowing through life; they do not hear the cry of distress continually pervading the world. Their own little grief or joy bars their sight, deafens their ears. Bound by selfishness, their hearts turn stiff and narrow. Being stiff and narrow, how should they be able to strive for any higher goal, to realize that only release from selfish craving will effect their own freedom from suffering?"

Can I ask you if there is anything in the Charter that could not be ascribed to Buddhist ideals and practices?

'anything that takes you towards nibanna is [good]... How would making an affirmation, a commitment, a public reminder be counter productive? How would it not increase a Buddhist's skill. It would have a better affect, in my opinion than some superstitious amulet. Did Buddha wear amulets?

[[[[ If any Buddhist have signed it, which surely the less enlightened ones might have, do we run in and say they are off the tracks? ]]]

I didn't say that signing the charter would be counter-productive. It looks OK to me. But there are more relevant texts on compassion than this for a Buddhist to read, ones that emphasize the place of compassion in personal mental development, the value of compassion meditation and the place of compassion in understanding suffering as per the First Noble Truth.

Feel free to sign the Charter if you want, Eggo, but I prefer to read what the Buddha said about practising compassion.

[eggomaniac]

I also think I agree with V, that your claim 'all Buddhist....' know the score, is possibly roseate. Maybe I am not allowed to comment, but a noted Monk just had an article in the TV News Forum tiltled [sic] Buddhists have Lost Their Faith.[sic] There have been many times Notable Figures in Thailand have becried the losing of the Paths among the Siamese.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this. What I said was that Buddhists know about compassion. It is central to Buddhism, especially Mahayana. It's one of the Four Sublime States. It's featured over and over in the Jataka Tales. I pointed out that some may not practice it even though they know it is part of their religion. In the words of Nyanaponika Thera:

"The world suffers. But most men have their eyes and ears closed. They do not see the unbroken stream of tears flowing through life; they do not hear the cry of distress continually pervading the world. Their own little grief or joy bars their sight, deafens their ears. Bound by selfishness, their hearts turn stiff and narrow. Being stiff and narrow, how should they be able to strive for any higher goal, to realize that only release from selfish craving will effect their own freedom from suffering?"

Yes, I completely agree with NT and you; while very few would NOT be able to describe/define generosity, good will, compassion; the search for those not practicing it would not be quite as difficult.

Can I ask you if there is anything in the Charter that could not be ascribed to Buddhist ideals and practices?

'anything that takes you towards nibanna is [good]... How would making an affirmation, a commitment, a public reminder be counter productive? How would it not increase a Buddhist's skill. It would have a better affect, in my opinion than some superstitious amulet. Did Buddha wear amulets?

[[[[ If any Buddhist have signed it, which surely the less enlightened ones might have, do we run in and say they are off the tracks? ]]]

I didn't say that signing the charter would be counter-productive. It looks OK to me. But there are more relevant texts on compassion than this for a Buddhist to read, ones that emphasize the place of compassion in personal mental development, the value of compassion meditation and the place of compassion in understanding suffering as per the First Noble Truth.

Feel free to sign the Charter if you want, Eggo, but I prefer to read what the Buddha said about practising compassion.

can't figure out the Quote Buttons.

>>> This was in the Reply, but looks like a quote?

Yes, I completely agree with NT and you; while very few would NOT be able to describe/define generosity, good will, compassion; the search for those not practicing it would not be quite as difficult.

-----------------------------------------------------

hmmm... Let me put it this way. Maybe the thread should be moved out of this subforum and into General, then!? [Maybe some will say, similar to you, " pray to Allah 5 times a day,"or " I live with Jesus in my heart" so there is no need to ascribe to this attempt to bring some sanity and peace into the World]

I did sign and had some problems with lack of privacy, but felt okay with that. I had no problem thinking it could remind myself to try to live my life more compassionately and, possibly, encourage others to do the same, live that way, not sign, that is their choice.

One could hope this Charter will produce some good in World, though it probably won't get much drift from the ones carting around in private jets making life miserable for so many.

Edited June 9, 2010 by eggomaniac

[sabaijai]

As far as I can see, the Charter states that compassion is considered a Good Thing by everyone, but the problem is people don't all practice it because of selfishness. This is crystal clear to any Buddhist. No need to sign any charter. Also, "good" is not that complicated for a Buddhist: Don't harm others or yourself. Letting go of self is a means to an end, not a choice between good and evil.

I don't see it being so clear to lots of Buddhists, since I don't personally see putting a few baht in the collection box as being compassionate. Maybe I just missed it in my year in Thailand, but I didn't see acts of compassion as a significant part of Thai life, even at temples.

But, I'm open-minded. Convince me!

Was anyone suggesting the Thais are more compassionate than any other nationality? I believe that all Camerata meant was that Buddhists know what compassion is about.

Whether they practice it is another thing entirely. Perhaps reading and signing the charter could be an act of reaffirmation. Temporarily, that is.