I'm afraid I don't see any "true compassion" other than what has been discussed already. The way it's being used here (other than Bill's definition of it) it seems like a mystical concept itself, so does not interest me greatly to discuss it. I'm not a Buddhist so I won't debate those creeds.
--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
