Carl, Alleviation of suffering is NOT a path to enlightenment (though some Buddhist sects mistakenly claim it is). True compassion is the RESULT of enlightenment (realization is the term I prefer). Because realization includes the realization of the sufferings of all other beings as well as one's 'self' and a natural inclination to diminish unnecessary suffering.
Yes, obviously all beings don't suffer all the time. I never implied that. For almost all beings life is a various mixture of happiness and suffering and other feelings as well. My point was that the natural design of the web of life that IS the biosphere necessarily incorporates suffering of some beings for the good of other beings. Thus physical suffering (pain) is part of nature's design and without it the biosphere and the web of life on earth would fall apart and it is questionable where life itself would survive... Edgar On Feb 24, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Carl wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know that I agree with that view of nature, there are predators and > there are herbivores, the former inflict suffering and fear the latter do not > (in fact some plant life even "wants" to be consumed in order to propagate). > There are the hunting parent and the nurturing parent. > > I also don't agree with the view that everyone who is not enlightened is > suffering. In fact I think there are plenty who are enjoying their lives and > seek every means to prolong it, who are even morally suspect. There are of > course also plenty who are suffering materially, but I would not in general > call them less enlightened. > > Since suffering and enlightenment are conceptually unrelated in my view, > alleviation of the suffering of others is one path but not the only path to > enlightenment to me. > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > Hi Carl, > > > > I agree that nature is not what I'd call compassionate. In fact it is just > > the opposite. The basic principle of most life is to feed on other life and > > since most life is imbued with an instinctual pain reflex to motivate it to > > preserve itself that inevitably leads to suffering. Thus the basic dynamic > > cycle of life, the redistribution of protein and nutrients among individual > > life forms, is fundamentally based on suffering. > > > > If we define compassion as action towards the alleviation of suffering > > where does this leave us? It seems to say that compassion is in opposition > > to the fundamental design of nature. > > > > But this is not quite true because there is plenty of suffering that is not > > necessary to the basic life processes which sustain the biosphere. It is > > THAT suffering to which compassion should be directed.. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:18 AM, Carl wrote: > > > > > I would suggest the true nature is not compassionate. If we take a > > > pantheistic view and consider the true nature to be a reflection of the > > > world as it is, then there is not a whole lot of compassion in the world. > > > To me it seems as if there are instead opposite principles in contention, > > > and compassion is one such principle. > > > > > > I do believe in some kind of deity, but not one that is interventionist > > > or the prerequisite of interventionist compassionate. I can agree that > > > when one takes baby steps towards awakening there can be a relative > > > increase of contentment, but I would argue that is not full awakening. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" wrote: > > >> > > >> Howdy, Carl, > > >> > > >> Some training traditions emphasize and exercise practices that involve > > >> expression of deliberate compassion, ...which is not true compassion. > > >> > > >> You are, I think, well justified in considering this particular sort of > > >> bestowment of concern and consideration for others and *deliberate* > > >> placing of others FIRST to be a sort of attachment (although it's all > > >> "for a good cause", no?). > > >> > > >> But all practices are Means, Methods, of or for coming to awakening. At > > >> least in Zen practice they are; and, for maintaining awakening. > > >> > > >> At awakening, Wisdom and Compassion arise spontaneously and > > >> simultaneously, and there is no "I" available to be attached to > > >> anything, so I would say that attachment in that condition is moot. > > >> > > >> Attachment there and then is not even "impossible", but is simply MOOT. > > >> > > >> Different practices can lead to the same (empty, awakened) state because > > >> the practices do not yield a "training-effect" -- as the Psychologists > > >> would call it -- but they allow body and mind to fall away. This leaves > > >> only our original nature, our original state, our basic Human > > >> inheritance. > > >> > > >> Awakening is not an aquirement. > > >> > > >> It's nothing added. > > >> > > >> This is why, when awakening is genuine, it does not differ, and why Zen > > >> teachers can always identify it and confirm it. We share this condition > > >> even now with all beings. We just don't sense it, perhaps, because of > > >> what we call the feeling of movements of our "mind" (not the true Mind). > > >> Those movements and other illusions distract us from the ground, which > > >> is our nature. > > >> > > >> So, different practices can and do lead to the same condition/"place": > > >> For example, in Zen practice, the very different methods of (1.) Koan > > >> practice; and, (2.) Shikantaza, both lead to awakening. > > >> > > >> Other paths like Vipassana and Tibetan practice, employ Metta practice, > > >> *AS* a *practice*, and, again, that practice is an expression of > > >> 'compassion' by -- or as -- a deliberate exertion of effort. I put that > > >> 'compassion' in inverted commas JUST to distinguish it from Karuna, or > > >> the true compassion that arises spontaneously in the awakened person > > >> (and not at all to denigrate it). Karuna is a tool! (in those paths). > > >> > > >> A Carpenter does not denigrate his hammer and say, "Yeah, but it's not a > > >> HOUSE!" > > >> > > >> In paths where Metta is used as a practice, Metta is not the ONLY > > >> practice. It seems that all wisdom-traditions are cocktails of methods. > > >> > > >> In Zen practice, about 12 or 13 practices come to mind readily, but if I > > >> were to put my mind to it I think I could recall and name a few more. ;-) > > >> > > >> Actually, the number is infinite, but let's not go there. ;-) > > >> > > >> A lot of things are imputed to Mysticism, and I suppose a component > > >> *may* be involvement of emotions. But have you ever seen a newly > > >> awakened Zen practitioner, or been one? The "Dharma-joy" is *extremely* > > >> powerfully felt, and publicly visible, there's just no doubt about it at > > >> all. ;-) > > >> > > >> With regards!, > > >> > > >> --Joe > > >> > > >>> "Carl" wrote: > > >>> > > >>> One difference between mysticism and Zen that I see is the former tends > > >>> to have an emotional/devotional aspect while Zen has a balancing or > > >>> even negative approach. If the practises are completely different, how > > >>> can they be expected to lead to the same result? (For the record I > > >>> consider compassion as also having dualistic/attachment aspects to it.) > > >>> > > >>> --- In [email protected], "salik888" wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Joe > > >>>> > > >>>> Interesting . . . this corresponds to roughly to the stations in > > >>>> Sufism, Fana being the final stage, empty, burned up . . . of course > > >>>> Sufism as has a so-called sober school. Hallaj would be an example of > > >>>> Fana. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
