Author Topic: does a buddha feel compassion for mens deeds or just his suffering or neither?  (Read 1068 times)

Offline 9tigers

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
im new to buddhism and have a question i'm having difficulty trying to resolve so far.

In Robert Thurmans book "essential tibetan buddhism" on page 21 he writes..."thus a buddha embodiment was supposed to be a manifestation of compassion with no other purpose than to open people up to their own higher potential"

in contemplating compassion and a buddha's compassion for men...i wonder, is a buddha's compassion strictly a compassion for the suffering of men and NOT a compassion for the deeds of men or neither? am i just not getting that statement?

the reason i ask is, to me there is a profound difference between the two.

i seem to have come to the belief that a buddhist practitioner and a buddha has a general compassion for the misdeeds and suffering of men but the above statement leads me to believe it may be neither, and that a buddha is a vehicle of sorts that simply opens up the minds of men, thats all.

i can imagine prince siddhartha alone as a young man contemplating such things. one day he reaches the raw essence of truth. in that essence i cant help but to imagine that ultimate truth being that, there is no right and there is no wrong. there just is.

the actions of another man "just is". i may feel it to be wrong but he may not so who is right and who is wrong?   who is to say i am right in my interpretation of the order of things in the cosmos?

i cant help but wonder how a buddha would interpret circumstances such as this? wouldn't it be arrogant to feel compassion for the deeds of another man whom i feel was wrong in his actions? am i not arrogant in my compassion for what i consider to be the misdeeds of another man? in doing so i am assuming i am right in my interpretation of lifes events and have created a personal bias of right and wrong, and i have positioned myself within the framework of that bias.

if it turns out the ultimate truth is that there is no right, there is no wrong, there just is, would a buddha, interpreted by buddhist practitioners, ever consider the deeds of a man right or wrong? would he feel compassion for a mans deeds, or simply just his suffering?

that wasn't clear to me by this statement alone and i wonder.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 06:50:32 pm by 9tigers »

Offline Lobster

  • Member
  • Posts: 1341
    • View Profile
im new to buddhism and have a question i'm having difficulty trying to resolve so far.

Dear Friends of Neo-buddhism,
Even those of us having studied for decades or imaginary lifetimes in parallel dimensions are new to Buddhism . . .
I really need to become aware of the answers I do have as a start . . .
 :r4wheel:
Quote
in contemplating compassion and a Buddha's compassion for men...i wonder, is a buddha's compassion strictly a compassion for the suffering of men and NOT a compassion for the deeds of men or neither? am i just not getting that statement?

Well must of can not speak for exalted idealizations such as the Buddhas booty, so I will speak as compassionately as possible . . .
There are degrees of compassion. <3
The ordinary non-dakini is only aware of her own bikini and what looks good for her.
The Buddha Babe (young bodhisattva) attempts to alleviate suffering in herself and all sentient being. Who can forget the story of the young Bodhisattva who fed a hungry tigress on their own body, so that she could feed her cubs. Such selfish disregard for parents and siblings is all very well for trainee man munching felines but causes untold suffering for those more karmically savvy.
Now we move onto the radiance of the Buddha, who manifest good karma for all concerned. This shines out to all concerned from the hell realms all the way down to the human realm and lower yet . . . This is compassion without attachment to deeds, nature or worth. It is non discriminatory.
Now we come to the realm of the Bodhisattva, who goes beyond radiance and takes on the task of enabling negative karma to prepare all sentients to benefit from their potential radiance.

This is why the Mahayana is considered more compassionate at least in my circle.
 
It is also possible to consider the humane compassion of those willing to take on the karma of others. A very saintly ideal. First we have to walk before crawling for others.

Quote
if it turns out the ultimate truth is that there is no right, there is no wrong, there just is, would a Buddha, interpreted by Buddhist practitioners, ever consider the deeds of a man right or wrong? would he feel compassion for a mans deeds, or simply just his suffering?

Be Still. The answer is very simple. It is to be still
and stop trying to work out what others from Buddha upward are doing . . .  :teehee:
Do your best. That is good for everyone.
As I said to the Buddha only this morning
OM MANI PEME HUNG (translation: hang loose buddha dude)

Hope that helps  ;D

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5081
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
i seem to have come to the belief that a buddhist practitioner and a buddha has a general compassion for the misdeeds and suffering of men but the above statement leads me to believe it may be neither, and that a buddha is a vehicle of sorts that simply opens up the minds of men, thats all.

I think if you meet somebody who is really wise, then in a way they reflect back to you who/what you really are - which can be a basis for developing wisdom and therefore compassion.

GoGet

  • Guest


Because a Buddha has fully realized the emptiness of phenomena, his/her compqassion is non-referential.


im new to buddhism and have a question i'm having difficulty trying to resolve so far.

In Robert Thurmans book "essential tibetan buddhism" on page 21 he writes..."thus a buddha embodiment was supposed to be a manifestation of compassion with no other purpose than to open people up to their own higher potential"

in contemplating compassion and a buddha's compassion for men...i wonder, is a buddha's compassion strictly a compassion for the suffering of men and NOT a compassion for the deeds of men or neither? am i just not getting that statement?

the reason i ask is, to me there is a profound difference between the two.

i seem to have come to the belief that a buddhist practitioner and a buddha has a general compassion for the misdeeds and suffering of men but the above statement leads me to believe it may be neither, and that a buddha is a vehicle of sorts that simply opens up the minds of men, thats all.

i can imagine prince siddhartha alone as a young man contemplating such things. one day he reaches the raw essence of truth. in that essence i cant help but to imagine that ultimate truth being that, there is no right and there is no wrong. there just is.

the actions of another man "just is". i may feel it to be wrong but he may not so who is right and who is wrong?   who is to say i am right in my interpretation of the order of things in the cosmos?

i cant help but wonder how a buddha would interpret circumstances such as this? wouldn't it be arrogant to feel compassion for the deeds of another man whom i feel was wrong in his actions? am i not arrogant in my compassion for what i consider to be the misdeeds of another man? in doing so i am assuming i am right in my interpretation of lifes events and have created a personal bias of right and wrong, and i have positioned myself within the framework of that bias.

if it turns out the ultimate truth is that there is no right, there is no wrong, there just is, would a buddha, interpreted by buddhist practitioners, ever consider the deeds of a man right or wrong? would he feel compassion for a mans deeds, or simply just his suffering?

that wasn't clear to me by this statement alone and i wonder.

Offline santamonicacj

  • Member
  • Posts: 2271
    • View Profile
Because a Buddha has fully realized the emptiness of phenomena, his/her compqassion is non-referential.
I find this thread remarkable in that I pretty much agree with everything that everybody has said so far. Considering how opinionated I can be that is truly amazing.

I'll have my own two cents to add later, but I'd like to hijack the thread for a moment and point out that the above statement, which is a 100% accurate traditional teaching, sounds very theistic.

So there I've done it, the 21st century Buddha Dharma internet no-no. I've said something that isn't politically correct. I've used the word "theistic". I guess that makes me a bit of a troll, right?

My apologies if I have upset anyone. I just want to  :stir:. So feel free to ignore this post and continue on if it annoys you.
:hijack:   :teehee:
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 12:17:10 pm by santamonicacj »
Warning: I'm enough of a fundamentalist Tibet style Buddhist to believe that for the last 1,000 years Tibet has produced a handful of enlightened masters in every generation. I do not ask that YOU believe it, but it will greatly simplify conversations if you understand that about me. Thanks.

GoGet

  • Guest
I'll have my own two cents to add later, but I'd like to hijack the thread for a moment and point out that the above statement, which is a 100% accurate traditional teaching, sounds very theistic.

Not sure I agree. How it it theistic?  It doesn't mention or imply God, so ........
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 12:58:12 pm by GoGet »

Offline santamonicacj

  • Member
  • Posts: 2271
    • View Profile
I'll have my own two cents to add later, but I'd like to hijack the thread for a moment and point out that the above statement, which is a 100% accurate traditional teaching, sounds very theistic.
Not sure I agree. How it it theistic?  It doesn't mention or imply God, so ........
Remember the old adage, "God is Love"? Plus a Dharmakaya Buddha is said to be omniscient and ever-present. That gets very theistic, probably the most obvious case of which would be Pure Land Buddhism. However NO Buddhist tradition ever postulates an omnipotent creator God, which thankfully avoids a huge number of philosophical problems.
*****

So back to the OP using what little I know about Pure Land as an example:
Quote
i seem to have come to the belief that a buddhist practitioner and a buddha has a general compassion for the misdeeds and suffering of men but the above statement leads me to believe it may be neither, and that a buddha is a vehicle of sorts that simply opens up the minds of men, thats all.
Short answer?: Yeah, sorta.

Longer answer?: The First Noble Truth is of dukha, which is the unsatisfactory nature of life from the crudeness of physical agony to subtle forms like boredom. According to Sakyamuni there is no utopia, either societal or individual. So the Buddha's compassion is oriented towards the REAL answer to dukha, which is cultivating awareness.

In (my limited understanding of) Pure Land Buddhism you aspire to be reborn in a land where there are ideal circumstances for Dharma practice. Through the practitioner's faith the Buddha helps one be reborn there, but even there it is up to oneself to practice the Dharma. Being reborn in the Pure Land is not the objective. Practicing Dharma is.

There is a famous quote from Milarepa that says something to the effect that asking the deities to tend to the affairs of samsaric people is like asking a king to get down off his thrown and sweep the hall. The deities of Vajrayana, like Pure Land Buddhism, are there to help with practice, the only real answer to the problem of dukha.
*****
Quote
i cant help but wonder how a buddha would interpret circumstances such as this? wouldn't it be arrogant to feel compassion for the deeds of another man whom i feel was wrong in his actions? am i not arrogant in my compassion for what i consider to be the misdeeds of another man? in doing so i am assuming i am right in my interpretation of lifes events and have created a personal bias of right and wrong, and i have positioned myself within the framework of that bias.
That's a whole other question, maybe even another thread.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 08:27:02 pm by santamonicacj »
Warning: I'm enough of a fundamentalist Tibet style Buddhist to believe that for the last 1,000 years Tibet has produced a handful of enlightened masters in every generation. I do not ask that YOU believe it, but it will greatly simplify conversations if you understand that about me. Thanks.

Offline Lobster

  • Member
  • Posts: 1341
    • View Profile
Quote
there is no right, there is no wrong

Sometimes we have to be where we are. We do right to the best of our understanding and capacity. So for example the Dharma protectors will stomp heads to defend and from where thay are as previous demons, this is right.

I expect a level of rightness the universe, I and the gods of all traditions can not live up to. As an Idealist that is were I head to. That is were the Buddha lectured to the gods from.

As we develop our compassion for dukkha in its myriad forms. We develop the discrimination to know what to do and when. That is only right.  :)

Offline former monk john

  • Member
  • Posts: 977
  • My teacher and I in 1995
    • View Profile
in my understanding the buddha practised and taught us to have love and compassion for all beings, but im not sure he intended us to have compassion for peoples misdeeds, whether you like it or not the buddha taught right and wrong just not the same right and wrong as we may have been taught as christians

while he might not call it right, the buddha taught following the precepts was the "right" thing to do, meditating on love and compassion was "right". eliminating suffering was a "good" or "right" thing to do

devout asian buddhists are very conservative, moral people to a large degree, the buddhism anything goes movement is pretty much a recent western invention, not respective of traditional asian buddhism
to me, the signs of a successful practice are happiness and a cessation of suffering, buddhism often gives me this; not all the answers.

Offline J. McKenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 1503
  • X X o o X X 137 45' 32" 67 33' 41"
    • View Profile
true buddha feels nothing
 
they are love compassion and understanding free from coloration or taint
 
 
love is without conditions such as a human's beliefs    behavior     lifestyle   
 
love for all regardless     love     love
...i found there was no "i" anywhere.....

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal