David's compassion

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

David's compassion

Post by clyde »

David;

This question may have been overlooked in another thread, so here is a new thread for you:
David Quinn wrote:
clyde wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What is compassion, exactly?
Are you certain that you studied the teachings of Buddha and consider him a "spiritual brother"?
It is one of those words that can interpreted in a wide variety of ways, just like "God". I have my own understanding of compassion, which I believe accords with the Buddha's understanding. But I asking for samadhi's understanding, which I suspect is very different.
Fair enough, but what is your understanding of compassion?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by David Quinn »

Any action generated out of enlightened understanding. Compassion is the active aspect of enlightenment and usually manifests as the attempt to awaken people out of samsara (the illusion of life and death).

-
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: David's compassion

Post by brokenhead »

But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:
Mother Teresa needed poor, broken-spirited people in order for her compassion to come into play. If there were no poor, broken-spirited people to begin with, then her compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, her Christian teachings encouraged the kind of passive, helpless mindset which so easily leads to poverty and broken-spiritedness in the first place. Her attachment to compassion literally helped to create the very problem that she believed she was addressing.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: David's compassion

Post by Shardrol »

True compassion cannot be separated from wisdom. One needs to have the wisdom to know what is needed in a given situation, but it's not a question of figuring it out or developing expertise or anything like that. True compassionate activity is automatically elicited from a Buddha by the existence of deluded beings. The relationship between a Buddha & deluded beings is for the Buddha to facilitate their awakening to their own Buddhahood. This is what is meant by bodhicitta - Buddha-mind, the active manifestation of the enlightened state of wisdom, and it cannot be separated from that wisdom. It is not possible to have wisdom & not manifest compassionate activity just like it is not possible to manifest true compassion if one is not wise.

Then there is what Trungpa Rinpoche refers to as 'idiot compassion', which means giving people what one thinks they need from the deluded point of view of needing to feel like a good person. It has also been described as the feeling of wishing to give all sentient beings a cookie, which is pretty close to the conventional meaning of the word compassion.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: David's compassion

Post by clyde »

This is meant to add, not to disagree with what has been written here. Compassion is not limited to facilitating the awakening of ourselves and others; it also includes alleviating the actual pain and suffering we and others experience (e.g. - to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to tend the sick, etc.).
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: David's compassion

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Shardrol wrote: the feeling of wishing to give all sentient beings a cookie, which is pretty close to the conventional meaning of the word compassion.
"I'd like to buy the world a Coke"
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: David's compassion

Post by Shardrol »

Oh thanks. I'd forgotten about that. I'm actually old enough to have seen it back when it was made & it was just as ridiculous then as it is now.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by David Quinn »

brokenhead wrote:But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:
Mother Teresa needed poor, broken-spirited people in order for her compassion to come into play. If there were no poor, broken-spirited people to begin with, then her compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, her Christian teachings encouraged the kind of passive, helpless mindset which so easily leads to poverty and broken-spiritedness in the first place. Her attachment to compassion literally helped to create the very problem that she believed she was addressing.
That isn't compassion. It is pure self-indulgence, which, through her Christian teachings and values, she happily fostered. Pity the people who were caught in the loop!

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by David Quinn »

clyde wrote:This is meant to add, not to disagree with what has been written here. Compassion is not limited to facilitating the awakening of ourselves and others; it also includes alleviating the actual pain and suffering we and others experience (e.g. - to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to tend the sick, etc.).
The former is a preventative cure, while the latter is merely a band-aid solution applied after the problem has already blossomed. The trouble is, nearly everyone associates compassion with the latter, and hardly ever with the former. Because of this, as a species, we are forever playing catch-up.

-
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: David's compassion

Post by brokenhead »

David Quinn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:
Mother Teresa needed poor, broken-spirited people in order for her compassion to come into play. If there were no poor, broken-spirited people to begin with, then her compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, her Christian teachings encouraged the kind of passive, helpless mindset which so easily leads to poverty and broken-spiritedness in the first place. Her attachment to compassion literally helped to create the very problem that she believed she was addressing.
That isn't compassion. It is pure self-indulgence, which, through her Christian teachings and values, she happily fostered. Pity the people who were caught in the loop!

-
Humbug.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: David's compassion

Post by clyde »

David Quinn wrote:
clyde wrote:This is meant to add, not to disagree with what has been written here. Compassion is not limited to facilitating the awakening of ourselves and others; it also includes alleviating the actual pain and suffering we and others experience (e.g. - to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to tend the sick, etc.).
The former is a preventative cure, while the latter is merely a band-aid solution applied after the problem has already blossomed. The trouble is, nearly everyone associates compassion with the latter, and hardly ever with the former. Because of this, as a species, we are forever playing catch-up.
The POINT, if ever there were a point, is to realize both and manifest both.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: David's compassion

Post by brokenhead »

David Quinn on Mother Teresa:
That isn't compassion. It is pure self-indulgence, which, through her Christian teachings and values, she happily fostered. Pity the people who were caught in the loop!
You speak, I take it, for those to whom she ministered?

What's wrong, are you jealous of her Nobel Prize?

You just cannot see that reducing compassion to something as superfluous as a sentiment is incorrect, can you?

Yes, let's pity those starving people she traumatized by trying to get them some food.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: David's compassion

Post by Sapius »

Shardrol wrote:It is not possible to have wisdom & not manifest compassionate activity just like it is not possible to manifest true compassion if one is not wise.
Sure enough, but the real issue as I see it, is the personal interpretations of “true”, which ultimately depends on personal values, which can’t have an ultimate or absolute justification. Hence, compassion is exactly what one makes of it; nothing more, nothing less. Basically, it is personal values projected and acted upon, and only such values can be compared or discussed, not compassion itself; neither David’s, nor anybody else’s.

Compassion itself, in any which way is egoistical in any case, since it begins and ends with being compassionate to ones self, rest is history…

PS: No offence to anybody’s manifestations of true compassion.
---------
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: David's compassion

Post by Sapius »

brokenhead wrote:But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:
Mother Teresa needed poor, broken-spirited people in order for her compassion to come into play. If there were no poor, broken-spirited people to begin with, then her compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, her Christian teachings encouraged the kind of passive, helpless mindset which so easily leads to poverty and broken-spiritedness in the first place. Her attachment to compassion literally helped to create the very problem that she believed she was addressing.
You mean to say that this should remain true in case of David too? Do you mean something like this…

“David needs deluded, broken-spirited people in order for his compassion to come into play. If there were no deluded, broken-spirited people to begin with, then his compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, his philosophy encourages that kind of feminine, helpless mindset which so easily leads to deluded-ness and broken-spiritedness in the first place. His attachment to compassion literally helps to create the very problem that he believes he is addressing.”

Or say…

“That isn't compassion. It is pure self-indulgence, which, through his personal philosophy and values, he happily fosters. Pity the people who are caught in the loop!" (of Samsara? Maya?)

Hummm... interesting.
---------
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: David's compassion

Post by samadhi »

David Quinn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:
Mother Teresa needed poor, broken-spirited people in order for her compassion to come into play. If there were no poor, broken-spirited people to begin with, then her compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, her Christian teachings encouraged the kind of passive, helpless mindset which so easily leads to poverty and broken-spiritedness in the first place. Her attachment to compassion literally helped to create the very problem that she believed she was addressing.
That isn't compassion. It is pure self-indulgence, which, through her Christian teachings and values, she happily fostered. Pity the people who were caught in the loop!

-
So, finding people who are dying on the street, giving them some dignity and comfort in their last hours, is self-indulgent? And someone who receives such aid is to be pitied for accepting it?

What about this parable of the Buddha?
Now, at that time a certain monk was suffering from dysentery and lay where he had fallen down in his own excrement. As the Buddha was walking about he came to the lodging of that monk. When he saw that monk lying where he had fallen in his own excrement, he went over to him and said, "Brother, what ails you?"

"I have dysentery, Lord,"

"But is there anyone taking care of you, brother?"

"No, Lord."

"Why is it, brother, that the monks do not take care of you?"

"I am useless to the monks, Lord, therefore the monks do not care for me."

Then the Buddha said to the venerable Ananda, "Go, Ananda, and fetch water. We will wash brother."

When Ananda had fetched water, the Buddha poured it out, and the venerable Ananda washed that brother all over. Then the Buddha taking him by the head and the venerable Ananda taking him by the feet, together they laid him on a bed.

The the Buddha, in this connection and on this occasion, gathered the order of monks together, and questioned them, saying, "Monks, is there in such a lodging a brother who is sick?"

"There is, Lord."

"And what ails that brother?"

"Lord, that brother has dysentery."

"But, brethren, is there anyone taking care of him?"

"No, Lord."

"Why not? Why do the monks not take care of him?"

That brother is useless to the order of monks, Lord. That is why the monks do not take care of him."

"Monks, you have no mother and no father to take care of you. If you will not take care of each other, who else will do so? Monks, those who would attend to me, let them attend to the sick."


Adapted from the Theravada Vinaya, translated by F.L. Woodward.
Was the Buddha teaching self-indulgence too?
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: David's compassion

Post by brokenhead »

Sapius wrote:
brokenhead wrote:But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:
Mother Teresa needed poor, broken-spirited people in order for her compassion to come into play. If there were no poor, broken-spirited people to begin with, then her compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, her Christian teachings encouraged the kind of passive, helpless mindset which so easily leads to poverty and broken-spiritedness in the first place. Her attachment to compassion literally helped to create the very problem that she believed she was addressing.
You mean to say that this should remain true in case of David too? Do you mean something like this…

“David needs deluded, broken-spirited people in order for his compassion to come into play. If there were no deluded, broken-spirited people to begin with, then his compassion would become superfluous. It would be robbed of the very fuel which sustains it. And interestingly enough, his philosophy encourages that kind of feminine, helpless mindset which so easily leads to deluded-ness and broken-spiritedness in the first place. His attachment to compassion literally helps to create the very problem that he believes he is addressing.”

Or say…

“That isn't compassion. It is pure self-indulgence, which, through his personal philosophy and values, he happily fosters. Pity the people who are caught in the loop!" (of Samsara? Maya?)

Hummm... interesting.
Of course that's not what I'm saying. But you knew that. I'm pointing out that David is implying that somehow Mother Teresa's compassion is less than - in fact, pitiable -an enlightened person's compassion would be. Since David speaks so forthrightly about enlightenment, it's clear we are supposed to infer he is enlightened and any compassion he would show would not be deluded.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: David's compassion

Post by brokenhead »

Sapius writes:
Basically, it is personal values projected and acted upon, and only such values can be compared or discussed, not compassion itself; neither David’s, nor anybody else’s.
Well, fucking duh. That is exactly the point of this thread - to point out how the QRS philosophy leads to such absurd statements like David is making about Mother Teresa.

But, in fact, you are not entirely correct. There is no a priori reason why subjective values can't be discussed. If you mean making claims like "This person's love is greater than that person's," I tend to agree. But actions speak the loudest. Don't forget this quote :"No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for a friend."

My point is Mother Teresa's actions speak way louder than David's words.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by David Quinn »

brokenhead wrote:Sapius writes:
Basically, it is personal values projected and acted upon, and only such values can be compared or discussed, not compassion itself; neither David’s, nor anybody else’s.
Well, fucking duh. That is exactly the point of this thread - to point out how the QRS philosophy leads to such absurd statements like David is making about Mother Teresa.

But, in fact, you are not entirely correct. There is no a priori reason why subjective values can't be discussed. If you mean making claims like "This person's love is greater than that person's," I tend to agree. But actions speak the loudest. Don't forget this quote :"No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for a friend."

My point is Mother Teresa's actions speak way louder than David's words.
They surely do.

I have far more respect for doctors and nurses who provide a similar service. For them, it has nothing to do with compassion or serving a spiritual ideal or anything like that. It is simply their job, for which they are rewarded both financially and emotionally.

It is all this extra "spiritual" layering projected onto these activities that I have issue with. This is where the self-indulgence comes into play. Creating the pretence that Mother Teresa's activities have something to do with God or wisdom or virtue, coupled with the sheer denial that their very beliefs and values are contributing causes of the sorry plight of those they are dealing with, is not something that should be respected or admired. On the contrary, it should be condemned very strongly.

If we saw a heroin-dealer working on the streets at night giving blankets and food to suffering drug addicts, we would immediately think that he was either a hypocrite of the first-order, or else has more than a few screws loose. When someone like Mother Teresa does the same thing (her Christians beliefs being her preferred drug of choice), we see nothing amiss and praise her to the skies. There is something terribly wrong there.

-
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: David's compassion

Post by brokenhead »

DQ writes:
I have far more respect for doctors and nurses who provide a similar service. For them, it has nothing to do with compassion or serving a spiritual ideal or anything like that. It is simply their job, for which they are rewarded both financially and emotionally.
I used to believe as you do, believing I was the only one who saw this. This belief lasted about five minutes, due to its inherent inanity.

Doctors and nurses arguably provide a superior service, based on their training and resources available to them. This I agree with. In fact, I laud "Doctors Without Borders" efforts. But what the hell does this have to do with Mother Teresa?
It is all this extra "spiritual" layering projected onto these activities that I have issue with. This is where the self-indulgence comes into play.
Projected by whom? Not by me, certainly. You object to all the fuss spent on adulation of the Mother Teresas of the world - not that there are so many. Well, so do I. But again, what does this have to do with her or her mission? You can say, "Stop with the fucking Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremonies and spend that money on constructive activities if you want to help the poor." I would agree with that as well. But first, let's get rid of the other awards ceremonies. There are plenty of self-congratulatory spectacles to condemn in this world.
Creating the pretence that Mother Teresa's activities have something to do with God or wisdom or virtue, coupled with the sheer denial that their very beliefs and values are contributing causes of the sorry plight of those they are dealing with, is not something that should be respected or admired. On the contrary, it should be condemned very strongly.
Calm down, Florence Nightingale. Again, there are enough things in this world to condemn. It obviously rubs you the wrong way that Mother Tersea got the press she did. It says volumes more about you than it does about her. To suppose that giving a thirsty person a glass of water is somehow enabling him to be thirsty is unforgivably twisted thinking. You are so far removed from M.T.'s activities, you are not thinking straight. How do you know what her motives were? How do you know she didn't labor in concert with doctors and nurses? I wonder what these doctors and nurses would say about her?
If we saw a heroin-dealer working on the streets at night giving blankets and food to suffering drug addicts, we would immediately think that he was either a hypocrite of the first-order, or else has more than a few screws loose.
Who is this "we"? If I saw someone I knew to be a heroin dealer (never mind how I came to know that!) feeding a hungry person, not in front of news cameras or reporters, just doing it, I in no way would think him a hypocrite. What - he has to be consistently heinous for your benefit? Just so he doesn't ruffle your feathers about what drug dealers are all supposed to be like? No. I would think he had at least one screw very tightly screwed in, indeed.
When someone like Mother Teresa does the same thing (her Christians beliefs being her preferred drug of choice), we see nothing amiss and praise her to the skies. There is something terribly wrong there.
My, how terribly sophisticated you are, recognizing that Christian beliefs are a drug.

So everyone who devotes a life to unselfish works of charity is really exhibiting symptoms of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

This displays a level of "enlightenment" that surely must be somewhere out in the stratosphere. Excuse me, I'm wanted back down on Planet Earth.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: David's compassion

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

brokenhead, David took good care of his Mum during the end of her life, as long as he possibly could, eventually turning her over to a facility when his mother needed more resources than he and his father could provide. David did not do this in secret, so to the best of my knowledge I am not betraying any confidences, and fully believe that David will not be displeased with me for sharing his story here because I believe that it is highly appropriate, and instructional, for me to do so at this time.

David did not broadcast to the forum what good works he was doing. He did not breathe a word to the forum when his very own mother died - because he works toward spreading wisdom, not toward promoting himself as some kind of saint - as Mother Teresa seemed to do.

I'll admit to laziness for not looking up the stories I've read before about how Mother Teresa's "compassion" was more hype than reality, but if anyone else is willing to link some of those stories, it would be nice.

The difference that is being highlighted here is that Mother Teresa made a big noise about whatever it was that she was doing, but the wise person just does the right thing at the right time and for the right reasons - not for the glory of it.

If you fish through David's history, you will find that he did publish that he was on the carer's pension while caring for a sick friend when he was younger. It's wonderful that Australia is magnanimous enough to have a carer's pension (America just has "the sandwich generation" that has to take care of children and the elderly while working, or one spouse works and the other cares for everyone else). Nevertheless, not only was there no real obligation (especially in David's case as a philosopher) to care for his mother, I doubt there was any perceived obligation to care for this sick friend when he was younger - although he never spoke of the specifics of it. Not speaking of either of these is the contrast. There is no reason to do it in secret - medical personnel don't hide their jobs. Okay, medical personnel do it for compassion and money. Mother Teresa did it for compassion and glory. There are a lot more nuns than Mother Teresa, and they all have to do something with their lives, but you don't hear about any of the rest of them.

David didn't have to take care of his mother - he was already on disability pension, and as a philosopher, he knew that he had no more obligation to his own mother than to anyone else - yet he took care of her for the right reasons.

When I was not doing well, Kevin came and helped me as best as he could. Not only did he not get any kind of glory for it, he got a lot of flak. And much of the flak did come from David.

I see both sides of this post. David does do a much more noble compassion than Mother Teresa did, but he also does not give credit where credit is due very well all of the time. Newsflash: Although David is good, he is not perfect.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by Dan Rowden »

brokenhead wrote:That is exactly the point of this thread - to point out how the QRS philosophy leads to such absurd statements like David is making about Mother Teresa.
Seemingly you are unaware of the multitudes of people who have opened their minds to the possibility that the Mother Teresa Cult is not all it's cracked up to be? For those who can afford it and are interested, this book might be "enlightening":

The Missionary Position

Religious dogma came first with her. There is nothing compassionate about spreading that kind of rubbish, even if certain superficial benefits temporarily accrue for some people.

From another site:
She Wasn't My Mother

William J. Bennetta

She never met a dollar she didn't like. She was ignorant and superstitious, but she never lacked for craftiness or cunning. She spouted slogans about compassion and humility while she built a commercial empire and a personal cult by exploiting the poorest of the poor. With help from publicity agents and a phony "miracle," she became an international celebrity and used her fame to promote the Vatican's political aims. She was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Mother T died in 1997, but the mythic persona which she and her handlers had so assiduously cultivated is still alive. It is even being promoted in McDougal Littell's high-school textbook World History: Patterns of Interaction (1999). Look at this:

One of the most highly respected activists who attended [the United Nations' 1995 conference on the status of women] was the Albanian missionary Mother Teresa. She devoted her life to caring for the poor and sick. In 1979, Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts on behalf of the homeless on the streets of Calcutta, India. Although she died in 1997, her mission continues to reach more than 25 countries worldwide. [page 955]

For shame! If students need to learn anything about Mother T in a world-history course, they need to learn some truth -- not some claptrap copied from a devotional press release.

Teachers who want to inform their students about Mother T should consult Christopher Hitchens's delectable little book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, published in 1995 by Verso (180 Varick Street, New York City, New York 10014). Hitchens describes what really happened to destitute people who fell under the "care" of Mother T and her Missionaries of Charity. He also exposes Mother T's commercial methods and operations, in some detail, and he describes her connections with such scoundrels as Charles Keating, Robert Maxwell, the Duvalier family, and John-Roger. (John-Roger was the proprietor of a cult called the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness, and he was fond of declaring that he possessed a "spiritual consciousness" superior to that of Jesus Christ. This might have rendered him repellent to many Catholic nuns, but it didn't faze Mother T or keep her from relieving John-Roger of $10,000.)

Hitchens's account of Mother T's alliance with Charles Keating is particularly illuminating. In the early 1980s Keating ran a bogus thrift institution -- Lincoln Savings and Loan -- and specialized in swindling small investors. During the heyday of that operation, Keating gave more than $1 million to Mother T her and organization, while Mother T, in return, allowed Keating to exploit her fame and prestige in his public-relations maneuvers.

Lincoln Savings and Loan eventually collapsed, and in 1992 Keating was brought to trial in Los Angeles. Mother T then sent to the trial judge a letter in which she sought clemency for Keating and exhorted the judge to "do what Jesus would do." The judge didn't reply, but a deputy district attorney, Paul Turley, did. After Keating was convicted of fraud, Turley wrote to Mother T and pointed out that the money which she had received from Keating was, in fact, money that Keating had stolen. Turley then urged Mother T to ask herself what Jesus would do in such a situation, and he offered to help her return the money to its rightful owners. He never got an answer.

William J. Bennetta is a professional editor, a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences, the president of The Textbook League, and the editor of The Textbook Letter. He writes often about the propagation of quackery, false "science" and false "history" in schoolbooks.
Another review of that book.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: David's compassion

Post by samadhi »

The point people seem to be missing by harping on Mother Teresa is that compassion can't just be sidestepped for wisdom. Whether MT was an actual saint or not hardly matters, what she represents however is the capacity for sacrifice and putting the needs of others above oneself. That capacity is genuine and not, as David would characterize it, ego-involved or co-dependent. Dismissing it out of hand is to display a breath-taking ignorance with regard to how humans support and care for each other in times of suffering.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by Dan Rowden »

She put others above herself? Don't be ridiculous, Sam.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: David's compassion

Post by David Quinn »

brokenhead wrote:
If we saw a heroin-dealer working on the streets at night giving blankets and food to suffering drug addicts, we would immediately think that he was either a hypocrite of the first-order, or else has more than a few screws loose.
Who is this "we"? If I saw someone I knew to be a heroin dealer (never mind how I came to know that!) feeding a hungry person, not in front of news cameras or reporters, just doing it, I in no way would think him a hypocrite. What - he has to be consistently heinous for your benefit? Just so he doesn't ruffle your feathers about what drug dealers are all supposed to be like? No. I would think he had at least one screw very tightly screwed in, indeed.

I thought I was making my point very clearly, but obviously not clearly enough!

To debilitate people by getting them addicted to heroin and then mopping up the damage by comforting them in their addiction is obviously a very flawed policy. That is what I object to with Mother Teresa and her kind - namely, that she debilitates people by getting them addicted to irrational fantasies and then mops up the damaging consequences of this - all done, mind you, in the name of God. This is not compassion. It is seriously deluded behaviour.

To illustrate this point in another way: Imagine an arsonist starting bushfires across the length and breadth of the country and then picking up a hose to put a few spot-fires out. If we simply focused on the hosing part and ignored everything else, then we could easily conclude that the fellow is doing a good work. After all, he is helping to put the fire out and possibly saving property and lives in the process. Who could possibly speak against this? However, if we take a larger perspective and see how he himself played a part in creating the fires to begin with, then our perception of him instantly changes.

Which is the greater form of compassion? Ensuring that no fires are lit in the first place? Or hosing down the fires that you yourself have created through your own negligence and mindlessness? To my mind, it's no contest.

This is one of the major problems with the generic spiritual teaching of "focusing on the present" or "living in the moment". It blinds you to the existence of larger karmic realities.

-
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: David's compassion

Post by divine focus »

Yes, but knowledge doesn't happen all at once. There is a process to wisdom. Mother Teresa was a very caring individual who wasn't at any supreme level of wisdom. If she were wiser, she may have professed through her beliefs a little differently. She was doing what she felt to be the right thing, even though she had an ego like everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're getting mad at or berating a lot of spiritual talk for having certain misconceptions surrounding it, you're really condemning everyone for not having **Supreme Wisdom**. It's not as if we could possibly do away with all preconceptions and enlighten everybody immediately. It doesn't work that way. Let it happen how it'll happen. It will happen eventually, and gradually. The earth didn't blow up during the Cold War, so the need for drastic growth is behind us. (Even then, the need may only have been for the leaders to grow fast enough to avert imminent doom.)
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Locked