The importance of Bodhichitta and compassion

[Spotless]

Spotless, on 27 Oct 2013 - 16:41, said:

Also: some practices may appear not to teach bodhichitta while in fact they are entirely focused upon it.

Neutrality and practices of non-judgement may seem to lie on the shelf of general practice and discipline - they are entirely practices of bodhichitta.

 

Jetsun:

 

Yes often it seems that just allowing things to be as they are is one of the most compassionate things you can do. Allow yourself to be as you are, allow others to be as they are, without arguing in your mind that things should be different.

 

Spotless:

 

Neutrality / non- judgement is not "allowing", it is not "refraining from" and it is not an activity. This is a fine point.

It is somewhat like "stopping thoughts". One does not stop thoughts, but one can achieve a state of no thought, and it is not achieved by trying to stop thoughts, the primary function of that exercise is to realize the difficulting in trying to "do"- ( though it is sort of a wiggle in the right direction along with a whole host of other practices that more or less tumble you along toward your goal)

 

If anyone wishes to hang me out to dry on this - please refrain from quotes and speak from experience - I do not respond to quotes.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Spotless

[C T]

Indeed, neutrality (or equanimity) and non-judgement are vital aspects in the development of bodhicitta, from what i have observed. Without this basis, it is easy to get caught up in a self, which in the teachings it says that the self is biggest obstacle en route to bodhisattvahood.

 

Whether or not states of non-thought are primary in the same development is questionable (in my limited understanding only), although it could be said that when the self is absent, there is thinking, but no thinker, so in that sense, maybe its ok to equate that with non-thought since the thinker cannot be found. Again, this sort of enquiry is bordering on the level of high attainment, one which i have yet to glimpse. Its mere speculation on my part at this juncture.

[Cheshire Cat]

It is necessary.

 

 

 

Nothing else is safe. No other approach to those who harm us is safe.

 

Are you sure?

 

"Love your enemies"

 

This is what you get...

 

[C T]

Are you sure?

 

"Love your enemies"

 

This is what you get...

 

there are some (albeit rare) individuals who would, literally, rather die on the feet than live on their knees just so a principle is not compromised.

 

moreover, there are a lot of people, even to this day, who would have no hesitation to lay their life down just so others could live.

 

when others are seen as more important as self, then losing one's life becomes a noble necessity where there are no more options. in the name of truth perhaps. for sure there are a few other reasons, just as noble.

 

this is the true light of bodhicitta.

 

it shines still.

 

even when the body is no more.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Compassion is good...

but compassion for those who cause harm to us... it is safe?

I think there's a difference between having compassion for someone who wishes to harm you, and allowing them to harm you.

 

A bodhisattva could have compassion for someone who tries to kill them, hoping for them to be free of their mental afflictions of malice and anger; at the same time using the force necessary to trip them over and kick away the knife.

 

Hate the mental affliction, have compassion for the afflicted, defend yourself from the action.

[Jeff]

I think there's a difference between having compassion for someone who wishes to harm you, and allowing them to harm you.

A bodhisattva could have compassion for someone who tries to kill them, hoping for them to be free of their mental afflictions of malice and anger; at the same time using the force necessary to trip them over and kick away the knife.

Hate the mental affliction, have compassion for the afflicted, defend yourself from the action.

Good advice, but why "hate" a mental affliction? If one experiences hate, it is not true compassion.

[三江源]

Are you sure?

 

"Love your enemies"

 

This is what you get...

 

Well.. what is it then, that you get? To be one with christ?

[Cheshire Cat]

Well.. what is it then, that you get? To be one with christ?

 

No, a cruel death....

[Cheshire Cat]

It seems that compassion in buddhism assumes different meanings in dependence of the subject:

 

for example, compassion for your dharma friends means loving-kindness, but compassion for those who harm you means the strong "will" to save them from Nirvana.

 

The loving-kindness compassion imply a flow of power: while it's good to exchange power with your friends and relatives, it may be very bad to do so with those who are opposed to you (enemies, or just people who flourish with your disadvantages).

 

At least, ime.

[Jeff]

It seems that compassion in buddhism assumes different meanings in dependence of the subject:

 

for example, compassion for your dharma friends means loving-kindness, but compassion for those who harm you means the strong "will" to save them from Nirvana.

 

The loving-kindness compassion imply a flow of power: while it's good to exchange power with your friends and relatives, it may be very bad to do so with those who are opposed to you (enemies, or just people who flourish with your disadvantages).

 

At least, ime.

 

Hi Dao,

 

I would disagree with your definition on compassion. True compassion is an outward flowing/sharing. There is no shift whether dealing with friends or those who are "opposed to you". True compassion is unconditional. If one picks and chooses (makes judgements), it is not true (Buddhist) compassion. Right (or appropriate) action can still be taken while flowing with compassion.

 

Regards.

[Cheshire Cat]

@ r v

 

that instruction is for monks who have no possessions.

 

@ jeff

 

To have compassion for all sentient beings will make impossible to have possessions. One will give away everything.

Imho, this ideal compassion is just for monks.

 

We lay people should balance this "extreme" thing a little bit...

 

but this is true if we are cultivating compassion seriously: if we are happy with just talking about how compassionate we are, then there's no risk in loving enemies.

 

imho.

[Simple_Jack]

The term "internet Buddhists" is just typical Jetsun. This is like the time when said 'internet Buddhists' belittle the eight lower Nyingma yanas.

 

While true, that's because that's the standard Nyingma view from the ancient times to Dudjom Rinpoche

 

I first saw durkhrod chogori aka. Gerard use that term, which other posters then started using. It's a taobums catchphrase used as a means to belittle a group that is seen as not engaging in the actual practice of the [buddhist] path.

 

Its strange that both of you like Tsongkhapa.

 

CT, should be familiar with Tsongkhapa's innovations, but Jetsun as far as I know, doesn't seem to be familiar with Tsongkhapa's works or the general Gelugpa presentation of relative and ultimate truth. I think he would shit a brick, if he knew what the Gelugpa stance on the role of logic and analysis was, on the path.

 

@ Jetsun: have you read/received explanation/watched or listened to video/audio commentaries on Tsongkhapa's seminal works?

[Jeff]

 

 

 

@ jeff

 

To have compassion for all sentient beings will make impossible to have possessions. One will give away everything.

Imho, this ideal compassion is just for monks.

 

We lay people should balance this "extreme" thing a little bit...

 

but this is true if we are cultivating compassion seriously: if we are happy with just talking about how compassionate we are, then there's no risk in loving enemies.

 

imho.

 

Hi Dao,

 

Why would compassion require one to give everything away? The compassion (or unconditional love) is directed towards the deeper truth of the person, not material. Is it your belief that one cannot spiritually advance while being a householder?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[Cheshire Cat]

Hi Dao,

 

Why would compassion require one to give everything away? The compassion (or unconditional love) is directed towards the deeper truth of the person, not material. Is it your belief that one cannot spiritually advance while being a householder?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

 

I cultivated compassion on an extensive way for a period of my life (not very long).

I was extremely happy, but I lost a lot of money... I could not restrain myself from giving away to those in need.

Words like "deeper truth of a person" makes no sense in certain situations...

 

My opinions are strongly influenced by tantric vows: this one especially

 

(10) Being loving toward malevolent people

Malevolent people are those who despise our personal teachers, spiritual masters in general, or the Buddhas, Dharma, or the Sangha, or who, in addition, cause harm or damage to any of them. Although it is inappropriate to forsake the wish for such persons to be happy and have the causes for happiness, we commit a root downfall by acting or speaking lovingly toward them. Such action includes being friendly with them, supporting them by buying goods they produce, books that they write, and so on. If we are motivated purely by love and compassion, and possess the means to stop their destructive behavior and transfer them to a more positive state, we would certainly try to do so, even if it means resorting to forceful methods. If we lack these qualifications, however, we incur no fault in simply boycotting such persons.

from http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/practice_material/vows/general_tantra/common_root_tantric_pledges.html

Edited October 28, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Simple_Jack]

Reposting this, from the "internet Buddhist" Loppon Namdrol, on TTB's:

 

Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person.

The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on.

The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom.

...

 

Real bodhicitta comes from realizing your nature. The rest is just contrived bullshit conceptual bodhicitta that is of no use at all.

 

 

...

 

None. Completely inauthentic and not connected at all to sentient beings real situation, which is that they are suffering because they do not know their own nature.

All the contrived conceptual wishful thinking about how nice it would be to save sentient beings does not help them, or oneself, even one little bit.

I am not saying "don't be nice to people" -- of course one should be nice. But one shouldn't paint being decent with religious fantasies.

...

 

Uncontrived bodhicitta is based on one's personal experience of the nature of the mind, and from that stems limitless compassion for others.

What I am saying is that intellectually cultivated bodhicitta is next to useless.

...

 

Basically, intellectually contrived bodhicitta is just a facsimile, since it does not have actual compassion as its basis...

 

we are not talking about mind training -- at least I am not. I am talking about fake bodhicitta. It is better for people to admit that they don't want to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings if in fact they really do not have that kind of compassion.

Otherewise, bodhicitta just turns into a bunch pious foppery.

[RongzomFan]

CT, should be familiar with Tsongkhapa's innovations, but Jetsun as far as I know, doesn't seem to be familiar with Tsongkhapa's works or the general Gelugpa presentation of relative and ultimate truth. I think he would shit a brick, if he knew what the Gelugpa stance on the role of logic and analysis was, on the path.

 

@ Jetsun: have you read/received explanation/watched or listened to video/audio commentaries on Tsongkhapa's seminal works?

 

There is a whole chapter, chapter 6, on Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka" in Center of the Sunlit Sky.

Edited October 28, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

Please say more.

 

Read Maitreya's Abhisamayalankara aka. "Ornament of Clear Realization" w/ commentary.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[9th]

Reposting this, from the "internet Buddhist" Loppon Namdrol, on TTB's:

 

Uncontrived bodhicitta is based on one's personal experience of the nature of the mind, and from that stems limitless compassion for others.

 

What I am saying is that intellectually cultivated bodhicitta is next to useless.

...

 

Basically, intellectually contrived bodhicitta is just a facsimile, since it does not have actual compassion as its basis...

 

we are not talking about mind training -- at least I am not. I am talking about fake bodhicitta. It is better for people to admit that they don't want to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings if in fact they really do not have that kind of compassion.

 

Otherewise, bodhicitta just turns into a bunch pious foppery.

 

 

Yes I would have to agree with this. Real compassion is the great equalizer of all relationships. It is a simultaneous arising of "self" and "other", where the inseparability of action and consequence is fully revealed. It is the living realization of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", from the inside out, rather than as an external imposition or "rule" of morality. It has nothing to do with letting murderers and rapists walk the streets unhindered, or other ideas such as this. It is so much more "big picture" than that. Taking into account a "greater good" is something that cannot be fathomed at an individual level unless the truth of dependent origination is entirely realized. You cannot explain that kind of perspective to someone who cannot see past themselves.

 

People must work through their own psychology before they encounter the work of relationship, and thereby enter the realm of "service". It is not really possible to serve others until you have served yourself to a certain degree. At a certain point the work of self-cultivation becomes universal and reaches beyond the personal sphere, (although that does not mean it is complete). When the work is truly universal, then it is not a danger to anyone (especially the practitioner). False ideas of service can certainly be dangerous, however - so it is advisable to focus on small steps of working with yourself instead of subscribing to big ideas of saving the world and becoming a crusader and so forth.

 

At all levels, the practice of "service" becomes further and further internalized, more and more instantaneous - until the hindrances of the self-image are entirely overcome. Compassion is a natural consequence of the real practice of returning to source.

[Jetsun]

@ Jetsun: have you read/received explanation/watched or listened to video/audio commentaries on Tsongkhapa's seminal works?

 

I have read Tsongkhapa's Abridged Stages of the Path to Enlightenment and some of his Great Trieste series, but for my Buddhist interest I am more of a follower of the Dalai Lama than anyone else as I have seen he is someone with real wisdom and compassion. Sure logic and analysis has it's place but when you get overly concerned with it then it is just another case of being fixated on the finger rather than what it is pointing at.

[Simple_Jack]

Compassion is a natural consequence of the real practice of returning to source.

 

I have a feeling that this is viewed within a Vedanta framework.

 

I have read Tsongkhapa's Abridged Stages of the Path to Enlightenment and some of his Great Trieste series, but for my Buddhist interest I am more of a follower of the Dalai Lama than anyone else as I have seen he is someone with real wisdom and compassion. Sure logic and analysis has it's place but when you get overly concerned with it then it is just another case of being fixated on the finger rather than what it is pointing at.

 

The Dalai Lama follows Tsongkhapa's presentation verbatim: which is why I think you would, figuratively speaking, shit a brick if you learned more in depth about the Gelugpa sects position on relative and ultimate levels of emptiness.

[9th]

I have a feeling that this is viewed within a Vedanta framework.

 

I have a feeling that this is not a feeling for you, but rather a very specific concept derived from other very specific concepts.

[Simple_Jack]

I have a feeling that this is not a feeling for you, but rather a very specific concept derived from other very specific concepts.

 

Uh huh, just like how yours are derived from clinging to signs and characteristics i.e. conceptual elaborations.

[Apech]

Bodhicitta is not a feeling (although it may link to feeling of course). It is the inseparability of the realisation of emptiness and compassion. The realisation is at an absolute level and compassion at the relative level. Compassion arises primarily from understanding.

[三江源]

Bodhicitta is not a feeling (although it may link to feeling of course). It is the inseparability of the realisation of emptiness and compassion. The realisation is at an absolute level and compassion at the relative level. Compassion arises primarily from understanding.

Understanding of the heartmind, not a conceptual understanding.

So yeh, it is a feeling.

[Apech]

Understanding of the heartmind, not a conceptual understanding.

So yeh, it is a feeling.

 

Its more than a feeling its the awakened mind.