GENIUS FORUMS

From “A Talk On The Vimalakirti Sutra” by Hisamatsu Shin'ichi

True compassion does not discriminate between Buddha and living beings, between saver and saved. Compassion, which still leaves an element of duality between living beings who are saved and the Buddha who saves them, cannot be called ultimate compassion. As I have said earlier, true compassion is nothing other than the unhindered self-abiding functioning of the empty Self.

http://purifymind.com/TalkVimalakirti.htm

In truth, true compassion does not discriminate between living beings and non-living beings.

True compassion does not discriminate between Buddha and living beings, between saver and saved. Compassion, which still leaves an element of duality between living beings who are saved and the Buddha who saves them, cannot be called ultimate compassion. As I have said earlier, true compassion is nothing other than the unhindered self-abiding functioning of the empty Self.

I am not a Buddhist nor claim enough knowledge about the religion to really be involved in the argument. However, this "idea" falls into a category of something else I'm trying to work out...so, to that end: This statements veracity would seem to revolve around his definition of "true" and "ultimate," for it seems to me that the two are synonymous. Does this mean that ultimate is not true?

If we take Jesus Christ, who has been declared an enlightened being on this forum, who had compassion based on New Testament scripture, then it appears he had Hin'ichi's version of "true compassion" versus that of "Ultimate Compassion," would he not? Does it then follow he was not God but an empty self ( ask this question with great caution in that you are using capital S and a word that is dangerously fraught with many meanings to different people).

If this is true, can then only God give Ultimate Compassion AND further, can it only be given to those who save? Why would one who was saved and/or a Buddha need compassion? Is it considered say on a higher level, such as a gift, so that by understanding Ultimate Compassion, those who are saviors can imitate the Ultimate by a lower form of compassion, what he terms "true compassion," in order to save others?

Frankly, I think this thinking is backwards. If this requires major background in Buddhist thought, then just let me know.

He's really just saying that if you help others you are really only helping yourself - since all others are literally connected to you (just as connected as your arm is to you body). If ever you think you are helping someone who exists separately and independently from yourself, then you are deluding yourself.

Kevin;

Well said. I would only add that he notes that such compassion naturually arises from no belief in a self.

clyde

Yes, it would have to.

clyde wrote:Kevin;

Well said. I would only add that he notes that such compassion naturually arises from no belief in a self.

clyde

Um what? Since compassion is selfish, it would seem that it does arise from a belief in a self.


from Was Jesus a woman?

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html


I challenge you to examine the character of Jesus. Do not think for a minute that he had any of our crude worldly virtues. Jesus was definitely not a Christian, and it is a crime to suggest he has anything to do with such a farce. Jesus was more of a man than the most manly of men, for he had gone beyond both the masculine and the feminine, beyond fear, love, and compassion.


Alot of times, compassion is a compromise not only for you but to others. When do you think is it possible for compassion to be 'noble'?

Some of you guys go too far with the minefields, poisons, venom, danger, etc. It becomes quite clear that it less about spiritual teachings and more about establishing the "crazy wisdom" Zen self-image by turning everything around 180 degrees and dumping acid all over it. While there's certainly a place for the unconventional, throwing everything out wholesale is indicative of other psychological motivations.

Faust13 wrote:. . . he [Jesus] had gone beyond . . . and compassion.

Luke 23:34

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Beyond compassion?

Unidian wrote:Some of you guys go too far with the minefields, poisons, venom, danger, etc. It becomes quite clear that it less about spiritual teachings and more about establishing the "crazy wisdom" Zen self-image by turning everything around 180 degrees and dumping acid all over it. While there's certainly a place for the unconventional, throwing everything out wholesale is indicative of other psychological motivations.

And what are those psychological motivations?

I quoted Poison because it's directly from Kevin Solway, yet in this thread his replies are totally the opposite of what he wrote, that is, him being in favour of "true compassion" whatever that is. I'm looking for consistency and I find many times that compassion is very difficult to be consistent with.

clyde wrote:

Faust13 wrote:. . . he [Jesus] had gone beyond . . . and compassion.

Luke 23:34

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Beyond compassion?

"forgiving" someone IS compassion, not beyond it.


Also, some people DO know about what they do.

Faust13;

You wrote that Jesus was beyond compassion. Are you now admitting that Jesus was compassionate?

clyde

clyde wrote:Faust13;

You wrote that Jesus was beyond compassion. Are you now admitting that Jesus was compassionate?

clyde

As I already said in my other reply, I wrote how KEVIN SOLWAY wrote that Jesus was beyond compassion, I never stated such a thing myself, only quoted Kevin.


What I don't get is the difference between compassion and "true compassion" what the hell is that? There is no such thing as compassion arising from a lack of self, simply because there is no such thing as altruism.



What's hard about compassion is that it's very difficult to be consistent with it. There is a time for it, and there is a time for the lack of it, but it is this grouping that we have to focus on I think.

Faust;

My error. I thought you were commenting on Kevin's writings, but I did not check. I should have been more diligent. (It would have been helpful if the quote had been enclosed in quote marks or a quote box.)

clyde

"Compassion", as it is commonly used in worldly as well as religious circles, has at least something to do with emotional feeling, sympathy, pity, etc. The false "I" is central to it.

That is the kind of compassion that the wise man goes beyond.

But when he does go beyond all that he still has an understanding of other people and a wish to help them. So that is compassion in a higher sense.

Compassion should be understood as understanding itself, but in our world it isn't.

It is interesting that some people, such as the fundamentalist Christians, sometimes try to remove their "I" from the equation, and at that time even their false compassion disappears - for example, when they rejoice in the fact that all non-believers will be going to hell for eternity.

passthrough wrote:

True compassion does not discriminate between Buddha and living beings, between saver and saved. Compassion, which still leaves an element of duality between living beings who are saved and the Buddha who saves them, cannot be called ultimate compassion. As I have said earlier, true compassion is nothing other than the unhindered self-abiding functioning of the empty Self.

I am not a Buddhist nor claim enough knowledge about the religion to really be involved in the argument. However, this "idea" falls into a category of something else I'm trying to work out...so, to that end: This statements veracity would seem to revolve around his definition of "true" and "ultimate," for it seems to me that the two are synonymous. Does this mean that ultimate is not true?

If we take Jesus Christ, who has been declared an enlightened being on this forum, who had compassion based on New Testament scripture, then it appears he had Hin'ichi's version of "true compassion" versus that of "Ultimate Compassion," would he not? Does it then follow he was not God but an empty self ( ask this question with great caution in that you are using capital S and a word that is dangerously fraught with many meanings to different people).

If this is true, can then only God give Ultimate Compassion AND further, can it only be given to those who save? Why would one who was saved and/or a Buddha need compassion? Is it considered say on a higher level, such as a gift, so that by understanding Ultimate Compassion, those who are saviors can imitate the Ultimate by a lower form of compassion, what he terms "true compassion," in order to save others?

Frankly, I think this thinking is backwards. If this requires major background in Buddhist thought, then just let me know.

The way I read it, true and ultimate here in the scripture are pointing to the same idea, distinct from everyday compassion.
If it's genuine Buddhist thought, from a Buddha, then NO, God has nought to do with it since there is no god in original true Buddhism.
And YES, Jesus was an "empty self" judging from thoughts attributed to him in the gospels. Id say any wise person can be regarded as so. That simply means having overcome a belief in self existence.
Give it a reread and see if you've got it all now.

Kevin Solway wrote:But when he does go beyond all that he still has an understanding of other people and a wish to help them. So that is compassion in a higher sense.

But that is not "true compassion" which sees "other people", as you wrote

Kevin Solway wrote:If ever you think you are helping someone who exists separately and independently from yourself, then you are deluding yourself.

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:But when he does go beyond all that he still has an understanding of other people and a wish to help them. So that is compassion in a higher sense.

But that is not "true compassion" which sees "other people", as you wrote

Kevin Solway wrote:If ever you think you are helping someone who exists separately and independently from yourself, then you are deluding yourself.

Exactly Clyde, it seems that Kevin wants to appear altruistic to boost his ego.

I think this is getting mixed up with empathy.

clyde wrote:But that is not "true compassion" which sees "other people"

There's nothing wrong with perceiving "other people", so long as they are not perceived as existing separately and independently from oneself.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:But that is not "true compassion" which sees "other people"

There's nothing wrong with perceiving "other people", so long as they are not perceived as existing separately and independently from oneself.

Ok. We're talking about compassion here, and you have contradicting views on it Kevin. First you say how Jesus is feminized into being compassionate, and then here you talk of "true compassion."


Also, if you don't believe in a self, how do you believe in independance?

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:But that is not "true compassion" which sees "other people"

There's nothing wrong with perceiving "other people", so long as they are not perceived as existing separately and independently from oneself.

yet here

Kevin Solway wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:would you describe for us what your ordinary life is like?.

In short, I consider myself to be entirely alone. And I mean entirely alone. Even if I'm in a crowd I have the feeling that I'm far out in the desert, or in remote space.

A thousand people will be telling me what to do or how I should behave, but it's as though they're not even there, because I will make up my own mind, in my own good time.

I am alone as the creator of the Universe.

(bold added)
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:But that is not "true compassion" which sees "other people"

There's nothing wrong with perceiving "other people", so long as they are not perceived as existing separately and independently from oneself.

yet here

Kevin Solway wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:would you describe for us what your ordinary life is like?.

In short, I consider myself to be entirely alone. And I mean entirely alone. Even if I'm in a crowd I have the feeling that I'm far out in the desert, or in remote space.

A thousand people will be telling me what to do or how I should behave, but it's as though they're not even there, because I will make up my own mind, in my own good time.

I am alone as the creator of the Universe.

(bold added)
.

the creator of the universe what?! Sounds awefully egotistical to me.

Faust13 wrote:the creator of the universe what?! Sounds awefully egotistical to me.

Not just the universe, but the Universe. I'm hoping he was speaking poetically at that point, otherwise that is quite pathological.

What I meant to point out is the contradiction of being alone even in a crowd with others telling him what to do, yet not seeing himself separate. On the one hand if one were One with the Universe, the Universe being Everything, we would, in a sense, be alone - but there wouldn't be others to tell us what to do because they would be Us. Either Kevin's henids on this point are inconsistent, or he is not communicating his thoughts well here.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Faust13 wrote:the creator of the universe what?! Sounds awefully egotistical to me.

Not just the universe, but the Universe. I'm hoping he was speaking poetically at that point, otherwise that is quite pathological.

What I meant to point out is the contradiction of being alone even in a crowd with others telling him what to do, yet not seeing himself separate. On the one hand if one were One with the Universe, the Universe being Everything, we would, in a sense, be alone - but there wouldn't be others to tell us what to do because they would be Us. Either Kevin's henids on this point are inconsistent, or he is not communicating his thoughts well here.
.

If we were one with the universe then how would we be alone?

Faust13 wrote:If we were one with the universe then how would we be alone?

Not the universe but the Universe, meaning absolutely everything. The only thing we could be is alone because by definition of "absolutely everything" there could be no other to be "with."
.