I ran across a story in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which scientists are studying the brains of Buddhist nuns and monks in order to see what “compassion” looks like. But Buddhism isn’t about compassion, properly understood. Buddhists seek to become detached from, that is non reactive to, the dualities of pleasure and pain, good and bad, etc., in order to escape suffering. In contrast, the root meaning of compassion is to “suffer with.” To experience compassion is to become profoundly reactive by taking another’s suffering into yourself in order ease the other’s load.
In this sense, Mother Teresa was compassionate and Buddha was not. More thoughts on this over at Secondhand Smoke.
July 7th, 2012 | 2:54 pm
Wesley, you don’t know what you are talking about. Who is your teacher? I suggest you read the Buddhist suttas. Or better yet, meditate. Maybe your judgmental mind will become compassionate.
July 7th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
The word “compassion” is not an accurate translation of the word, “karuna”. From the buddhist perspective, our basic nature is of selfless “compassion”. Getting caught in the cultural translations and then assigning one culture’s definition, is not an understanding of Buddhism.
July 7th, 2012 | 3:21 pm
I repeatedly see Dalai Lama`s tweets recommending the practice of compassion. Can anybody explain this to me? I don’t know much about Buddhism, but the explanation above doesn’t make it clear enough to me. Thank you!
July 7th, 2012 | 4:42 pm
Sam: I think I do. Here is a good description of compassion:
“By definition from the original Latin stem, we see in the word compassion the ability for a person to feel what the other person is feeling ( sometimes considered empathy or even sympathy). Yet more so, we see in the word compassion the ability for a person to fully feel the emotional grief and suffering of another with them in the present moment. This is a key and vital definition of compassion that distinguishes it from many other words. The second definition “suffering together” implies a physical facing and sharing of suffering; not remote control empathy via letters, faxes, phones or television. It is the physical synchronization of two people (or more) in the presence of one another in the present moment.” http://www.ucadia.com/concepts_emotions/concept_emotions_pos_compassion.htm
That isn’t a Buddhist approach is it? That embraces the duality, doesn’t it? That accepts the reality of the suffering as opposed to its illusury nature, right? That is to intentionally feel pain, when Buddhism is about escaping pain. Indeed, that is what set the prince off on his quest.
I am a bit surprised by the defensiveness here, which isn’t very Buddhist. But I wasn’t criticizing. I was demonstrating that compassion is not what Buddhist “compassion” is about. I think the other commenter’s point about a mistranslation is probably right.
July 7th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
Wesley, you are clearly pushing an agenda – it’s painfully obvious to others, and the tone is terribly judgmental. You can do better.
You also said “I am a bit surprised by the defensiveness here, which isn’t very Buddhist.” More judgement – how lovely, and how un-Christian (see what it feels like?).
You really do not understand what you are talking about and it’s obvious that you are way, way out of your depth. I suggest you meet with several practicing Buddhists, preferably those who lead a sangha (which is like a congregation, in your terms), and try to approach a clearer understanding of what you are trying to say.
Please, you owe it to your readers and yourself on this one. You really are way off base with this feeble comparison. What’s your point here anyway? Are you trying to say Mother Theresa was truly compassionate and Buddhists are not, so they get to go to your heaven? Come on, you can do better than this half-baked idea you threw out here.
The reason you are receiving such feedback is that your idea is not clearly thought out. Study up, meet with some Buddhist, read some more, THEN put your fingers on the keyboard and hit publish.
July 7th, 2012 | 5:56 pm
No, you are finding one where none exists. If anything, I am concerned here with semantics, not salvation. Buddhism is not “compassionate” in the proper definition of that word. Why is that so threatening?
Once again: Here is a good description of compassion:
“By definition from the original Latin stem, we see in the word compassion the ability for a person to feel what the other person is feeling ( sometimes considered empathy or even sympathy). Yet more so, we see in the word compassion the ability for a person to fully feel the emotional grief and suffering of another with them in the present moment. This is a key and vital definition of compassion that distinguishes it from many other words. The second definition “suffering together” implies a physical facing and sharing of suffering; not remote control empathy via letters, faxes, phones or television. It is the physical synchronization of two people (or more) in the presence of one another in the present moment.” http://www.ucadia.com/concepts_emotions/concept_emotions_pos_compassion.htm
That isn’t a Buddhist approach is it? Indeed, compassion is what sent Guatama off on his quest. He so felt the suffering of the people he wanted to find a way out. And part of that way is to not feel compassion.
July 7th, 2012 | 8:06 pm
It is years since I studied Buddhism in graduate school (at McMaster University in my day, those majoring in biblical studies or Western religions had to minor in Eastern religions and vice versa), but the concept of the Bodhisattva seems to me to be based precisely on a concept of compassion as you have described it Mr. Smith. I am willing to be corrected regarding Buddhism, but I thought the Bodhisattva, at least in some schools of Buddhism, was said to delay enlightenment in order to help others along the path to Buddhahood and so relieve their suffering. The reason for the delay was exactly because they shared in the suffering of those who were not as far along the path to enlightenment.
July 7th, 2012 | 8:28 pm
Very cool. That would indeed. I find the differences among religions and their differing responses to human need and suffering fascinating.
July 7th, 2012 | 11:11 pm
Wesley – Your understanding is very limited and your semantic argument doesn’t reflect well on you or those that practice this time honoured belief. You may be deluding yourself thinking you are smart but your actions cause more discomfort to others and besides this is not a very contemporary issue or one that advances human evolution. It is good of you to think and right thinking is more constructive. I hope you can take many of the comments here as persuasive so that you continue learning and questioning. Maybe start with the concept of karma and how central it is to this belief system.
All the best.
July 7th, 2012 | 11:27 pm
I am not putting down Buddhism. I think people are looking for slights not intended or implied. I am pointing out that Buddhism doesn’t approach suffering generally in a way that can be accurately called compassionate, at least as that term is properly applied. Perhaps those who have reacted to this should go within to find out why it disturbs. My point is that the Buddha and M T’s approaches to the problem of suffering are very different. Why does that cause hurt when it is true?
July 8th, 2012 | 1:01 am
[...] Mother Theresa Was Compassionate, Buddha Was Not – Wesley J. Smith, First Things [...]
July 8th, 2012 | 3:25 am
I suspect Wesley isn’t listening to anyone who doesn’t support his idea.
Wesley: I hear what you are saying regarding semantics, but you have accidentally hit upon a couple of other issues that it’s clear you were not intending to bring up. I see where you are sitting, but please recognize that the way you stated your argument has created some responses that you were not expecting. The way in which you posited your thoughts was slightly inflammatory – if it were not, you wouldn’t have received so much oppositional feedback.
Take a breather, step back, don’t respond right away. Go for a walk, take a nap, garden, drink some wine. Let’s see if we can toss this one around awhile, dialogue and get some others chatting about your statements. Let’s see what others have to say.
July 8th, 2012 | 6:40 am
First, Buddhism is not at all about “escaping” pain but facing it squarely and realizing, personally and intimately, why it’s there; where it’s coming from. It is only through realization that one may be liberated from it. There is no escape from it.
Second, having been both Christian and Buddhist in my life, I assure you that Buddhism emphasizes compassion ten times more than Christianity. Karuna usually is defined as an active sympathy and a willingness to bear the pain of others, which is precisely the way you are defining compassion. The ideal of practice in Buddhism is to selflessly act to alleviate suffering wherever it appears.
That you feel compelled to smear Buddhism with false accusations does not speak well for you, and it certainly isn’t what Jesus taught.
July 8th, 2012 | 8:33 am
May you find happiness Wesley.
July 8th, 2012 | 11:15 am
This is a misperception of what Buddhism is about, even when one considers the wide variety of schools — *none* of them teaches you to ignore the suffering of others, compassion is a key attribute of the practitioner.
As others have said, it is recommended that you go meet with leaders in a sangha and ask questions, ensuring a better and more accurate understanding. They should be able to help clarify the role of compassion as an active and indeed critical part of what we as Buddhists do.
July 8th, 2012 | 11:37 am
I have some strong disagreements with your writing here. First, your post is titled, “Mother Theresa was compassionate, Buddha was not.” Are you really going to pretend to be perplexed that people would find that offensive? It is possible to address differences in the understanding of what compassion means without insulting anyone. You didn’t bother.
Second, Buddhists define compassion as “concern for the suffering of beings,” and the Buddha’s entire mission (after enlightenment) was to relieve the suffering of his fellow humans. That’s not compassionate? Buddhists understand that compassion is a kind of love that always includes suffering.
Third, “attaching,” in the Buddhist sense,is different than caring, liking, or loving. If we are attached to something it, means that we don’t accept it’s impermanent, changing nature. I can love my children without having to control them or insist that they not change.
July 8th, 2012 | 12:27 pm
I’m afraid Mother Theresa fails the test, too. She devoted her life to helping the poor. I doubt she wasted her time “suffering” with them. One’s suffering on behalf of another helps no one.
You can’t define the modern meaning of a word by looking only at it’s ancient etymology. A modern definition of compassion might be, “The desire to alleviate the suffering of others.”
And that is one of the most prominent goals of Buddhist practice.
Unfortunately, your misunderstanding of Buddhist equanimity is a very common one; but easily remedied with a little scholarship. I would urge your to do more careful research before writing, especially with such hot button issues as religion.
July 8th, 2012 | 12:35 pm
I can see where you’re coming from, confusing detachment with selflessness. Emptiness, in Buddhism, is a concept that is very difficult for the Western mind to understand. You can not actually “think” your way into what it is. Refining the mind through Shamatha meditation, to the point that focused awareness is possible, then enables you to fully experience suffering and emotions, through Vipassana meditation, without being engulfed by them. This refined awareness makes it possible to fully embrace suffering and emotions and to feel deep compassion for all sentient beings. This loving, compassionate awareness is something all can experience and was shared by both Buddha and Jesus. Detaching from suffering is something we all do through distracting ourselves with TV, Internet, etc. Facing suffering, actually including ALL experience, is the starting point for Buddhist practice.
July 8th, 2012 | 12:55 pm
My understanding is that Buddhists are aiming to transcend emmotions. Its not they they don’t get them – compassion – its that they don’t get too caught by them. Respond to feelings and not react. So in that sense of course buddhists are just as compassionate as any other religion, and that very compassion drives them towards further training in Meditation, but the aim is to transcend the reactions to feelings and emmotions.
July 8th, 2012 | 1:35 pm
I suggest the critics of Wesley read the article more carefully. He clearly states, “In THIS SENSE, Mother Theresa was compassionate and Buddha was not.” It is a reach to deduce that neither the Buddha nor Buddhists are not compassionate in another sense of the word.
I agree with Wesley in his initial critique. To qualify I am degreed in World Religions. I know a bit about Eastern thought. I studied under Dr. James Santucci one of the most emminent scholars of Eastern Philosophy and Mysticism in the Western Hemisphere.
Modern day Buddhism has evolved over the centuries from a basically philosophical expression to a devotional practice. The Buddha himself was an athiest in the sense he did not adhere to a personal god. I would submit that the Buddha would discourage his followers today from the devotion or idolization of his being (i.e. Buddha statues at temples).
Wesley is right when he implies that the Buddha “detaches” from suffering. In fact the goal for him was to detach from anything that controls human attitudes (Samara). Christianity on the other hand fully embraces human suffering, imperfection and sinn order to fully redeem.
July 8th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
You say, “Buddhists seek to become detached from, that is non reactive to, the dualities of pleasure and pain … in order to escape suffering.”
Now that part is true (I’ll leave out the part about being non-reactice “good and bad” since I have no idea what you might mean there). This is true in the sense that the words are correct, but I think you misunderstand what they mean. Being non-reactive in this context means that a Buddhist endeavors to experience pleasant or unpleasant vedanas (or feelings) and fully accept them. To react in a Buddhist sense would mean to proliferate aversion or craving in response to those vedanas. For example I see someone in pain, that feels unpleasant, and I turn away aversively. Being non-reactive means that I mindfully stay with the pain, so that I can then break out of pure self-regard and empathize with the other person’s pain. It’s non-reactivity that allows us to experience compassion.
You say, “To experience compassion is to become profoundly reactive by taking another’s suffering into yourself in order ease the other’s load.” This is a completely different sense of the word “reactive” to how it would be used in Buddhism. Buddhist practice involves, as in the example above, empathetically taking on board the reality of the other’s suffering. Buddhists want to abstain from reacting to pain, but they do aim to respond to others’ pain. In fact recognizing the reality of others’ suffering is the basis of Buddhist compassion. You’ll find this in the Dhammapada, for example:
All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
July 8th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Oops. Typo. That should read non-reactive to “good and bad”.
July 8th, 2012 | 3:40 pm
As a Buddhist I made a vow to end the suffering of all living creatures. My life in thought, deed and actions are selfless. In my opinion that is showing compassion.
July 8th, 2012 | 3:41 pm
Thank you. May you achieve oneness.
July 8th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
There is no concept of “oneness” in the Buddha’s original teaching. Some late schools, possibly under the influence of Taoism and other non-Buddhist philosophies, have adopted this terminology, but the Buddha himself was very explicit in saying that his teaching was not about oneness. For example in the Lokayatika Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya he had an exchange with a Brahmin who asked, “Is everything a Oneness?” and then, “Is everything a Manyness?”
The Buddha’s reply was:
“Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.”
Contrary to the popular joke, the Buddha would not walk up to a hot dog vendor and say “Make me one with everything.” :)
July 8th, 2012 | 4:37 pm
Wesley, you say that you are not “putting down” Buddhism, but that’s not the issue. You have, in your original post, established a most invidious distinction between Mother Theresa and Gotama Buddha: the one, you said, was compassionate, and the other not. Sounds pretty judgmental to me.
I teach classes in Buddhism and will be starting a ‘sangha’ in October (http://dhammanow.org), and I feel qualified to comment here. The reader who explained that the Pali word ‘karuna’ is not exactly equivalent to “compassion” was correct, but it’s close enough. In fact, ‘karuna’ meant to the Buddha very much what the latinate “compassion” means in your semantic analysis, and one of the cardinal teachings of the Buddha is that the state of ‘karuna’ is one of the four ‘brahma viharas’, “divine abidings”, the cultivation of which was the highest goal of Buddhist living. (The other three ‘brahma viharas’ were ‘metta’, which can be translated as “loving friendship”, ‘mudita’, “joy in the accomplishment of others”, and ‘uppekkha’, “equanimity”.
July 8th, 2012 | 4:40 pm
So many of us know everything – except our own minds.
July 8th, 2012 | 6:17 pm
Since we’re talking definitions, a traditional definition of karuna, from Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga, runs like this: “When there is suffering in others it causes good people’s hearts to be moved; it combats others’ suffering, attacks and demolishes it; [it] is characterized as promoting the the aspect of allaying suffering; its function resides in not bearing others’ suffering.”
This seems very close to the contemporary understanding of what compassion is (e.g. “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others”), except that there’s more emphasis on acting rather than (merely) feeling.
July 8th, 2012 | 6:28 pm
Richard. Thanks for that. At this point, I almost hesitate to respond. I am told to shut up on one hand, that I am attacking Buddhism on the other, and that I don’t understand compassion on another. But I find this conversation fascinating. So, please do not misconstrue what I am about to write:
Let’s look at the differing reactions of Guatama and Mother T to the same input–the terrible suffering of the poor in India. Guatama was shocked at seeing the afflictions of old age, illness, death, etc., and he became scared for himself and filled with compassion for the sufferers. Right? He suffered with them, did he not? But then he saw a serene monk, and what did he do? He fled the suffering that so hurt and alarmed him, that is, he fled from his compassion, in order to find the serenity he had found in the monk. He even left his wife and son for they were impediments to his own enlightenment. And so he quested for the way to understand and overcome the cycle of life and death and suffering. Isn’t that so? Here’s how one Buddhist site put it: Then one day, desiring to see how the people in his town were living, he managed to get out of his walled enclosure accompanied by his servant, Channa. He came upon a decrepit old man, a sick man, and a corpse and he was shocked! Seeing their mortality, he realized that he also would one day become prey to old age, disease and death. He then met a monk who impressed him with his serenity and beauty. It was at this time that Siddhartha decided to renounce the material world with its luxuries and comforts, as well as suffering and pain, and take up a monastic life, realizing that “Worldly happiness is transitory.” http://www.thewildrose.net/the_buddha.html
What did Mother Theresa do? She stayed in her compassion, indeed dived into its very core, and acted out of it. She established her hospice and brought in the dying, living in the stink of destitution, and helped all she could to alleviate their thralls and share in their passion.
So, Buddha overcame suffering by losing his passion, e.g., dispassion, while Mother Thresa lessened the suffering of those in its thrall by entering into theirs. That is why I believe she was compassionate and Buddha was not. That isn’t saying he didn’t care. Obviously, that isn’t true. But he chose an other than compassionate path to trying to overcome the same evils.
What does Buddha achieve? Nirvana. Again, quoting the site: Going deep into meditation, he contemplated his journey with its temptations and desires but did not yield to them. The legends tell us that he came out of the meditation victorious, his face shining with illumination and splendor, having attained Nirvana. (Nirvana is the completion of the path of Buddhism in which the person has achieved self-enlightenment and all delusion and anguish are permanently ended). He got up and danced in divine ecstasy for seven days and nights around the sacred Bo-tree, after which he returned to a normal state of consciousness filled with incredible compassion for all. He had an overwhelming desire to share his illumination with humanity.
Here too, I think, the word compassion is used wrongly. He isn’t sharing their pain, he isn’t experiencing their pain, he has trascended it. One could certainly say he loves humanity and seeks to help others attain the same release that he has, and that is laudible. It might even do more good over the long haul. But it isn’t compassionate, which it seems to me is a different concept altogether. Hence, what does he do? The Buddha” (enlightened one) left his wondrous Bo-tree behind, venturing out into the world to teach others who were seeking Wisdom and Enlightenment. The subsequent teachings of The Buddha are the foundation of Buddhism.
What did Mother T do? After experiencing visions of the living Christ, she entered into what Christian mystics call the dark night of the soul. And she stayed there in her agony, performing her charitable works, and speaking up for the faith. She wasn’t striving to not be in pain. She wasn’t seeking to escape suffering. She embraced it and absorbed pain into her own being as a gift to Christ and humanity. That, it seems to me, is the true meaning of conpassion. It isn’t just “caring.” It isn’t just sympathizing or empathizing. It isn’t even just, loving–although it certainly contains all those attributes. It is active and self sacrificing, often putting the other before self.
What did Christ do, who Buddhists would agree was an enlightened one? He didn’t flee, but entered into the suffering of life. He healed the sick, reanimated the dead, and took the sins of humanity upon Himself, even willingly experiencing separation from God the Father durng an ignominious and unjust execution.
Buddhism and Christianity are great religions. Their approaches to suffering are different, as are their ultimate purposes. To be sure, these are not hard edged boundaries. As one commenter noted, sometimes Buddhist monks will delay their own enlightenment to help others. That would be compassion. Orthodox monks also seek dispassion. But not by rejecting suffering or seeking to overcome it. They embrace it, see it as a tool of redemption, cry holy tears, and pray for the world.
The San Francico story I commented on in more detail over at my own site said that scientists were studying a nun in meditation as she sent her compassion out to all of existence, describing that as altruism, the effect on the brain of which, they sought to measure. My point was that the nun’s meditation was not compassion. It was a step taken in her own path toward overcoming suffering by attaining enlightenment. But she did not enter into the suffering of the world, or if she did, actively engage it in an act of altruism or charity. That isn’t putting down the nun in the slightest. Her goal is to destoy suffering for herself and the universe. But the method is not one of compassion. Why that upsets is beyond me.
July 8th, 2012 | 7:41 pm
The story you recount “from a website” isn’t about Gautama at all. It’s found in the Pali canon all right, but it’s about an earlier, mythical figure. There were no “four sights” in the Buddha’s life. This is a common error, even among Buddhists.
Your comparison between the lives of Mother Teresa and the Buddha is really very inapt. The Buddha’s concerns were simply different from Mother Teresa’s, and one might as well compare MT with Alexander Fleming and say that she wasn’t really compassionate because she didn’t come up with a discovery that saved tens of millions of lives. There are many ways to live a compassionate life.
The Buddha may not have seen four sights, but he describes in the Attadanda Sutta how he was appalled by the strife and violence around him, and resolved to find a way to “pluck out the thorn” that caused it. And having plucked the thorn from his own heart he tirelessly walked over India helping others to free themselves from fear and hatred.
You say that compassion “isn’t just sympathizing or empathizing … It is active and self sacrificing, often putting the other before self.” Well, self-sacrificing and putting others before himself is what the Buddha did. It just looks different from what MT did (at least some of the time — he’s recorded as having taken care of sick monks when the need arose). He helped those who were afraid and confused. He helped those who had trouble controlling their anger and violence. He challenged the caste system. He helped the bereaved deal with their loss. Forty five years of service to others. This is compassion in action.
You wrote: “My point was that the nun’s meditation was not compassion.” That’s actually a shocking thing to say. You do not know that individual. You know nothing of her life or her motivations. You have no special insight into her mind, and you cannot know what she felt. To say that what she felt is not compassion is merely a prejudicial judgment on your part, and one I find rather ugly.
July 8th, 2012 | 8:58 pm
Get your history of Buddhism from a little Googling? If it’s on the internet, it must be true?
The Buddha did not run from suffering, he was so moved by suffering that he began a journey to discover the nature of suffering, and he worked to discover how suffering could be ended. And yes, that includes helping the those that are in physical and mental pain.
Your long post is just a smoke screen. Let’s get back to the issue, your misguided and mean-spirited attempt to reinvent the word “compassion” so it only applies to Christians.
In fact, let’s throw out the word compassion, because the word doesn’t matter. What matters are deeds – the deeds which come from the desire to help others. I don’t care why someone wants to help me after I’ve been hit by a car. I don’t care if they’re Christian or Buddhist. I’m just thankful they decided to help. And I’d prefer if they took me to the hospital, rather than “cry holy tears, and pray for the world.”
July 8th, 2012 | 9:25 pm
There can never be compassion with a belief in god. Why? Because the moment that there is God, there is separation, therefore and end to compassion… there can be empathy but that is not compassion. Only in non-duality can you suffer with. Though Buddhism is not the only study of non-duality, it’s dedication to non-duality is dedication to compassion. I suggest you study the Bodhisatva path to see the extend that this path is compassionate, and then question the compassion of people like HH Dalai Lama, HH Dilgo Kheyentse Rinpoche etc.
July 8th, 2012 | 10:01 pm
G’day Wesley, greetings from South Australia. Good of you to kick up such an interesting hornets’ nest!
I’m a bit wary of the way you’re defining compassion. Basically, I don’t think it is possible to ‘feel another’s suffering’. We can only feel our own suffering, or imagine what another person’s suffering might feel like. That’s why I dislike the nasty modern notion of ‘empathy’ meaning ‘in-feeling’. We should stick to ‘sympathy’ which means ‘together-feeling’…same as ‘compassion’.
I don’t ‘feel your pain’…I either feel my own pain, or I feel what I *imagine* your pain might be like.
In your original post you defined ‘compassion’ as ‘to suffer with’. But this definition is a little misleading (or at least, leading), because ‘suffer’ is an imperfect rendering of ‘passion’ in a modern context. People regard ‘suffer’ in an entirely negative context these days. But the significance of ‘passion’ is far greater than that.
Basically, human beings can be active, or passive. Hence, we perform actions, and we undergo ‘passions’. Passions denote transformations that take place in you. For example: you recall that you did indeed visit South Australia a few years back, and accordingly you experience either joy or sorrow at the memory. Joy (or sorrow) is not something you are *doing*. It is not an action. It is instead a change you are undergoing, a transformation to which you are *passive*, hence it is a passion.
The trusty Catholic encyclopedia states: “By passions we are to understand here motions of the sensitive appetite in man which tend towards the attainment of some real or apparent good, or the avoidance of some evil.” Or in simpler terms: your feelings in response to good or bad things.
So ‘sympathy’ and ‘compassion’ are the intriguing phenomena of you and I having the same feeling or passion. Hence the sense of sympathy as ‘affinity’: two or more people having the same feeling (presumably in the presence of the same environmental cues).
Obviously compassion and sympathy can accrue additional meanings. Hence the development of Christian thought surrounding compassion. Personally, I do not think it is possible to literally take another person’s suffering onto oneself. I would prefer to say that out of Charity/Love, we are willing to endure our own suffering in order to help another. The compassion element comes into it (and on a brief detour I recall hearing Christians argue vis a vis Buddhism that ‘compassion is all very well, but Love/Charity is superior’. eg compassion is passive, Love is active); anyhow, the compassion element comes into it because without compassion/sympathy we are not really treating each other as equals.
Good friends are often sympathetic (affinity) because they feel the same way about the same things. Likewise, a person who helps the sick would surely be in sympathy with them: feeling sorrow at their ailments, hope for their recovery etc. I don’t see that compassion should be different from this. When you meet someone who does not have sympathy or compassion for the sick or the poor, the difference is stark.
If I see someone trip and fall, I might feel (passion) joy at their predicament for a variety of reasons; but if I am compassionate, I will experience the same/similar passions to the unfortunate person: surprise, concern/fear for their wellbeing, and even imagined pain at their possible injury.
If I feel joy, it implies that I perceive your fall as a good thing! But if I perceive it (rightly) as an evil thing, then I will feel sorrow etc.
This is the kind of compassion seemingly advocated by the Buddhists (though Buddhism is quite diverse). Consider for example this 8th Century quotation from an Indo-Tibetan Buddhist:
“Strive at first to meditate upon the sameness of yourself and others. In joy and sorrow all are equal; Thus be guardian of all, as of yourself. The hand and other limbs are many and distinct, But all are one–the body to kept and guarded. Likewise, different beings, in their joys and sorrows, are, like me, all one in wanting happiness. This pain of mine does not afflict or cause discomfort to another’s body, and yet this pain is hard for me to bear because I cling and take it for my own. And other beings’ pain I do not feel, and yet, because I take them for myself, their suffering is mine and therefore hard to bear. And therefore I’ll dispel the pain of others, for it is simply pain, just like my own. And others I will aid and benefit, for they are living beings, like my body. Since I and other beings both, in wanting happiness, are equal and alike, what difference is there to distinguish us, that I should strive to have my bliss alone?”
July 9th, 2012 | 3:58 am
Mother Theresa was like scratching a wound to make the patient comfortable for the moment. But Lord Budhha is like giving the definete cure for the wound to heal the patient forever.
Life is an embodiment of suffering and impermanace. Lord Buddha preached the noble way to get rid of the suffering forever.
Mother Theresa’s compassion is merely an ant infront of the extent of compassion of Lord Buddha. That Compassion is not only towards human but towards all living beings. Mother Theresa is a nun of a religion which says killing animals for consumption is sinless.
God is an assumption, but your wisdom is not. Believe your wisdom.
July 9th, 2012 | 8:49 am
Be careful all you Buddhists out there. Your overwrought reactions to this article might demonstrate to others that Buddhism does not do for you what you claim it does.
July 9th, 2012 | 10:30 am
In my world religion class, I understood that Buddhism seeks to escape suffering. It doesn’t believe it to be a good thing. At some point they want to be liberated which is the same as distancing oneself from it or escaping it. Christians believe that suffering and pain is always there, you’ll always have it. You can never escape/liberate yourself from it since it has redeeming value. Suffering, if it does not lead into bitterness, can transform the person from looking at oneself to giving of oneself to others which, strangely enough can lead to joy amidst suffering–this is what the Catholic saints talk about.
July 9th, 2012 | 10:52 am
Bodhipaksa — Mahayana doesn’t teach “oneness,” either, although it does seem to on a superficial level. Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika philosophy that is the foundation of Mahayana teaches that beings and phenomena are neither one nor many. This is sometimes expressed as all things being “not two.” Subtle stuff, but wonderful.
Norma — Whoever taught your world religion class didn’t know what he was talking about.
July 9th, 2012 | 10:56 am
“Yet more so, we see in the word compassion the ability for a person to fully feel the emotional grief and suffering of another with them in the present moment.”
I didn’t have time to read all of the comments. But let me say this: Not very often, but on a few occasions in my life, I have felt psychological pain that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. I bounce back quickly and have not let it interfere with my education or employment (others aren’t so lucky). I look to Buddhism/Christianity/psychiatry, or whatever as a way to get better, to lift myself out of that abyss. This definition of compassion seems to drag the compassionate person there. I don’t see that as good. Was Mother Teresa a clinically depressed person? This understanding of compassion would suggest she was.
July 9th, 2012 | 10:57 am
Mother Teresa had Christ Crucified to lead and guide her. Buddha did not.
July 9th, 2012 | 10:57 am
Mark — Buddhist practice doesn’t teach us to be numb, smiling idiots in the face of ignorance. If that’s what you thought, you are mistaken.
July 9th, 2012 | 11:45 am
Norma,
Thank you for talking about pain and suffering.
The Buddha defines them as two different things. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is unnecessary. Let’s say you burn your hand on a pot – that is pain. Immediately you get angry, swear, and feel sorry for yourself, mope around the house, complain, blame others, and dwell on your misfortune – that’s suffering.
The Buddha taught that remarkably little of our discomfort is caused by pain. Almost all of it is caused by suffering. Yes, it is possible feel the pain of leprosy and not suffer, and even to be happy. We’ve all met or read about amazing people who are happy and don’t suffer in spite of tremendous pain.
The Buddha said suffering is unnecessary and undesirable. For the Buddha, it certainly didn’t have any redeeming qualities, temporally or spiritually. In fact, someone in the throes of suffering is pretty useless to the world; they would likely to sources of harm to themselves and others. This is why I find it difficult to believe that Mother Theresa, for example, would find it necessary to “suffer” in order to help people. That is not a criticism of Mother Theresa.
Buddha likened suffering to choosing to hold burning, red hot coals in your bare hands, and refusing, through ignorance, to simply drop them on the ground, to let go.
Learning to drop the coals, and to dispel the ignorance that prompts you to hold on to them, is difficult. It is, in fact, not fully achieved until enlightenment. On the Buddhist path you must help people, not only to relieve their physical pain, but to teach them that choosing to suffer is an unnecessary mistake.
The Buddha spent his life teaching. The truth of suffering – how to drop the red hot coals and thereby make oneself better able to serve others – was one of his most important lessons. But of course, there was much more that he taught.
July 9th, 2012 | 11:50 am
There is suffering in this world. There is a cause for this suffering. There is an ending to this suffering. There is a path leading to the ending of this suffering. Believe nothing I say unless you can prove it true for yourself. – Lord Buddha
July 9th, 2012 | 11:51 am
The root of the many difficulties that arise in comparing Buddhism and Christianity with respect to compassion, as with so many other points of comparison, is this question of the so-called atheism of Buddhism. I for one do not believe it’s quite so simple as saying that the Budddha was an atheist full stop. The Buddha was a reformer, I think. One of the tasks confronting him was the need for reforming all religious concepts prevalent in India in the Sixth Century BC: soul, sin, reincarnation, suffering, salvation, even God. What I take away from Buddhism is that Buddha are extremely reticent on all such subjects because in the millennium or so of Vedic religion in India, the words themselves, as opposed to whatever they might be referring to, had become obstacles to what eh called Enlightenment. In sum, even the concept of God had become an attachment, and as with all attachments, speaking positively about so transcendent a being would only lead to confusion. The Buddha thus did not so much deny that there was a God such as Indra or Vishnu as decline to talk about them. His famous parable about the traveler seriously wounded by an arrow illustrates. The traveller wants to learn as much about his attacker as possible before the arrow is withdrawn. His surgeon, who happens to be the Buddha himself, remonstrates with him to no avail. The point of the tale being that, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, long before an Enlightened One may explain to him what God is or what the soul is, an Unenlightened One will be dead. In my opinion, many modern adherents of Buddhism have wrongly exaggerated the Buddha’s reticence concerning such entities into a doctrinal denial of their existence. Though given the fact that even “existence” is problematic in Buddhism it is by no means easy to discern exactly what is being asserted by a statement that Buddhism teaches that there is, for example, no soul. Why are modern Buddhists so taken with the approach I’ve outlined? I think as an historical matter it is because of the influence of Zen, one of the first forms of Buddhism to become popular here in the West, but which also fosters a delight in paradox that, in my opinion, the Buddha himself would find far from delightful, being simply a novel form of an old vice. Now put God as ineffable Brahman (to use Vedantic terminology) to one side, the notion of a personal God is rejected emphatically by most modern Buddhists partly because they see sanction for such a view in the Buddhist scriptures, but just as importantly, because they’re as ashamed as any rank materialist at so crude a conception of the Deity, in other words, from a sort of spiritual smugness that prevents them from actually praying, like a child to his father, to a personal God.
What has this to do with the present discussion? Just this: Christianity has never felt a doctrinal need for utter reticence about God. In Christianity God is an unashamedly personal being, while at the same time He is a being of whom little or nothing definite can be affirmed. Is Christianity confused here? Possibly. But I don’t think so. It’s just that, as with the wounded traveler tended to by the Buddha, we will all be dead before it may be explained to our satisfaction how a transcendent God may be a loving father. So then, because the compassion of Christianity is a direct response — namely an obligation that derives from — the personhood of God, the second personhood to be precise (i.e., the Christ), whereas the notion of divine personhood is largely absent in Buddhism, for whatever reason or reasons, communicating each faith’s understanding of compassion, each to each, will always be difficult, perhaps even impossible.
July 9th, 2012 | 11:58 am
An interesting hornet’s nest, indeed. Correct me if I’m wrong, Wesley, but I think you’re criticizing the scientists for confusing compassion with mediation, not Buddhism for not being Catholicism.
Indeed, if Gautama was compassionate when out healing the world (and from the descriptions above it does seem to apply) then shouldn’t the scientists be out seeking to measure that’s nun’s reactions when out doing the same. Do Buddhist nuns follow Gautama’s example here? I simply don’t know.
Now, if those scientists are seeking to learn what happens during meditation maybe “compassion” is the not the right word to express what they are measuring.
July 9th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
Hi Joe Sansonese,
I’m thinking you are making things way too complicated.
Compassion is compassion. Buddhism and Christianity teach that one should cultivate and practice compassion. It’s that simple. Sure, your reasons for becoming compassionate may be different from the next guy, but that doesn’t cause your compassion to be different.
The point of the sutra about the arrow is also simple. The Buddha believed that we all have plenty of important things to do in life, and speculating, arguing and wondering about the metaphysical was a waste of time, and no good would ever come of it. He was a practical person.
I realize his view on the metaphysical is very hard for Christians to understand, and usually causes them to declare Buddhism a non-religion. But that’s OK.
I think the problem with Mr Smith’s article is also simple. His definition of compassion is wrong, which results in a ridiculous conclusion, which he uses for the article title.
July 9th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
George
Greetings! Compassion is compassion, who could argue with a tautology; but Mr. Smith was distinguishing between Latin compassio and Prakrit karuna and was doing it in English. There are bound to be pitfalls here. All three tongues being Indo-European dialects notwithstanding, there may well be critical semantical distinctions that need to accounted for; as, for example, the fact that in Latin passus is the past participle of a verb (patior) whose core meaning is “to be patient” or “to endure [without complaint],” means but “to suffer” only in a sense that is now practically obsolete in English. My Sanskrit’s a bit rusty (and I never did study Pali), yet I seem to recall that some roots in “krn” give rise to words that indeed denote pain or suffering in the ordinary sense. So there is that.
The larger point, however, is that theology matters, whether the theologian is metaphysically prolix or reticent. The notion of God’s personhood is quite unavoidable here. His mercy towards the wretched of the earth is undeniably personal in Christianity. As Jesus Himself says “What you do for the least of these, you do for me,” the verse that Mother Teresa herself often cited as the source of her repeated claim on our attention that the unfortunate man is “Christ in terrible guise.”
It almost seems that what is being signaled here is that absent divine personhood, there is no human personhood. Differentiation out of the (Brahmanic) One, as is accomplished in the Trinity, may be the precondition, or at least a precondition, for there even being such a thing as an “individual” exhibiting a personality, i.e., a soul, a further vexed notion in Buddhism. The alternative, I submit, is Sabellianism, the heresy that the doctrine of the Trinity particularly confounds. Moreover, the doctrine of the Trinity is itself wholly a matter of revelation, having nothing to do with natural reason, as Aquinas stresses. Personhood, therefore, whether divine or human is a true mystery.
But that is all metaphysics. What is important to note, however, is that most of the above remarks would translate only very, very poorly into Buddhist parlance, which may be all that Mr. Smith is saying in the end.
July 9th, 2012 | 5:58 pm
What I’d like to see from Firstthings and others is more in depth discussion of the Christian mystical tradition that not only teaches similar theories of detachment as Buddhism but grounds it in a biblical, Christian understanding. It’s there in the Bible too, if you know where to look. For instance, Psalm 46:10. There is a way to be at peace with the inevitable loss that we all face. It has something to do with mystical stillness. This is what both Buddhism and Christian mysticism teach.
July 9th, 2012 | 6:06 pm
George, I almost forgot. You write:
“The point of the sutra about the arrow is also simple. The Buddha believed that we all have plenty of important things to do in life, and speculating, arguing and wondering about the metaphysical was a waste of time, and no good would ever come of it. He was a practical person.”
I agree with everything except your inexplicable resort to the words “”a waste of time.” The Buddha nowhere says these words, which are clearly pejorative in intention. He does not even imply them, in my opinion. Because he was a practical man as regards the possibility of answering such satisfactorily certainly does NOT mean that he thought that inquiring into those things such as God or soul or salvation, which may properly be said to be metaphysical inquiries, is unimportant or foolish. Animals are concerned with none of those matters, yet animals have concerns. Would the Buddha account that a virtue in the beasts?
No. Your almost reflexive dismissal of such notions is but another example of what I have called the “metaphysical smugness” of many modern Buddhists — though, I think, such dismissiveness is not a characteristic of the Buddha Himself, who would see such inquiries as a waste of time ONLY if one limited oneself to them as the wounded traveler seems bent on doing.
July 10th, 2012 | 1:44 pm
Joe Sansonese — the Buddha’s teachings on many things clearly negates the possibility of a creator god or any sort of intelligence directing fate. He was clear that even karma is not directed by any cosmic intelligence but follows its own natural law. There is no place in Buddhist metaphysics for God as monotheistic religions understand God.
However, if you are willing to wander outside standard Abrahamic God concepts you might have an argument that Buddhism might include something like God, albeit a God few Christians would recognize as such. It’s closer to Paul Tillich’s “god as ground of being.” This is a huge topic, however, and not one I have the energy to go into at the moment.
If you are interested in this topic, there’s an excellent essay by the Theravadin monk and scholar Nyanaponika Thera called “Buddhism and the God-idea” that I recommend. Theravada is the oldest school of Buddhism and tends to be more conservative than Zen.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
July 12th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
An interesting discussion, although one which, like so many others, confirms the impression I have that many Christians understand very little about other religions; also, that they often seem to claim what they perceive as “moral” and “good” for their own faith, while denying it to others, even if only implicitly.
While I realise that the author of the initial comment did not really intend to imply that Buddhists lack compassion per se, his use of language and definition of the word “compassion” were poorly chosen to convey that idea. Much about Buddhism and the Buddha himself is misunderstood in the West, even by Buddhists. While there are some excellent courses in Buddhism, a purely academic study of it (which I have undertaken) is not really enough to qualify one to claim an understanding of its principles, any more that such a study would of any religious belief.
Rather than comparing an historical figure like Gautama Siddhartha (coupled with an academic reading of his teachings) with a recent figure like Mother Teresa, it would be better, I think to compare Mother Teresa with recent well-known Buddhists such as Ayya Khema, or to look into the charitable works that are performed by Buddhist centres and in prisons and so forth. That would give a clearer indication of how the concept of compassion actually operates in current Buddhist practice.
The issue here is surely not about which religious belief “owns” the true nature of compassion, but about identifying those attitudes and actions that display it. In regard to this, it seems clear that no specific religion can lay exclusive claim to this behaviour; rather, it is something that is the common heritage of humanity – that which expresses the best in human nature. The religious belief (or lack of it) of those who practice it is entirely irrelevant.
July 14th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
How many people have been killed over history in the name of God? The Abrahamic religions talk a good story but the proof is always in the pudding.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact