What is " compassion" to you with regards to Buddhism ?

It will be interesting to read Csee's response to this because it seems very consistent to what he has written, much of which I find highly repetitive.


So Csee, I said I would not answer your posts anymore, and yet here I am doing so. That is no great surprise to me, I am often inconsistent. I believe there are very few, truly consistent people on the planet, that is, beings who are able to act in perfect accord with what they advise. I do know a few though, and it happens that they are all Buddhist teachers of great repute. Many people might refer to them as Masters, but I have never liked the term, Master. For me it has rather negative connotations. Certainly, though, these are people I find remarkable, rare and highly realized, but what is really amazing to me is not so much their level of realization, but rather their profound and effortless humility. I am sorry if I have been impolite to you in the past. I can't think of any good reason to be impolite to you or anyone, but then again, like I said, I am not terribly consistent with my own ideals.

So I am going to begin with areas where there seems to be some overlap between your and my present understanding of Buddhism. I like that you say, "my present understanding," this is how I think of it also, because my understanding is always changing gradually and that is how it should be in my opinion. I say overlap, very deliberately, because I know you have no interest in agreement, and in fact prefer disagreement. As to that, I agree with the others, it really is impossible to have debate without common and agreed upon terms. So I haven't seen you disagreeing or debating with anyone on this forum, because you are deliberately using your own terminology and peculiar phrasing. For all we know you may be in complete agreement, or disagreement or as I suspect is often the case, talking about entirely different subjects with people here. I was on a very successful debate team in high school, and the rule we learned applies to our discussions: If there is no clash, then there is no debate, and without common and agreed upon terms, there can be no clash of ideas. People can talk all they want to, but it just amounts to so much rhetoric without clash, and rhetoric is not debate.

Now I have read your answer to this many times, we both speak English, if there is anything we are uncertain of, we can ask for clarity. I am sorry, but that still will not produce debate. That is how 2 or more people practice rhetoric in the same room or format, not how debate occurs. There has never been any debate that I have seen between you and other folks here. There simply is no meaningful clash of ideas. Now don't let my use of the term idea throw you. I know you most often refer to realization, not concepts, but even if we are referring to genuine realization (a big if) then we are dealing with ideas, because all language involves concepts-ideas. Everything we write here is conceptual in nature. But can it refer to non-conceptual or direct experience? Yes, those are both valid Buddhist terms. So when you refer to your realization not being about culture, language, thought or emotion, then I would say you are attempting to describe a non-conceptual experience. This is a class of experience that I find perfectly valid, if somewhat rare. Nonconceptual or direct experience is something I whole-heartedly believe in. But any time we talk about it, even to say what it is not, i.e. cultural, etc. then we are by definition involved in conceptualism, which means thought, language, culture and probably emotion. It is never the same thing to experience something as it is to describe it, discuss it or argue about it. They are two entirely different processes.

Buddhist that I know, especially the teachers, are very very aware of this distinction. They know there are profound limitations on language and its uses.

Another way of putting this is there is a big difference between Ultimate Truth and Relative Truth, just as there is a gulf of experience between the dual and the non-dual, and direct versus conceptual experience or perception.

These are then six more extremely useful Buddhist terms, that you claim no interest in learning about, because to you they are merely jargon. How many times I have seen you beat around the bush of these terms, only to balk when someone suggests they might be what you are attempting to describe? To me that is a terrible kind of pride, Csee, that you are so impressed with your own present understanding and your own realization that you can not consider for a moment that Buddhism might actually have words for what you are trying to say. Words that would allow you to communicate with other people. Even disagree with them when you want to, instead of merely repeating yourself endlessly in the vaguest possible way.

I know from experience, if I describe the meaning of these terms, you will complain I am trying to teach you. You will again repeat that you have no interest in ideas, terminology, culture, thought or emotion, completely overlooking two important points, 1. Buddhism has words to describe accurately what you are trying to say, and 2. any thing you say will involve language, culture, thought and emotion, even if you are trying to describe or refer to experience which is beyond those things. As long as we are writing here, we are immersed in language, culture, thought and emotion. In other words writing, talking, thinking, feeling are forms of cognition. Cognition is sentience, ordinary consciousness. Sentience has different qualities than clear light, or Rigpa, or Wisdom Conciousness or whatever you call the outcome of the realization of emptiness. But the Ultimate nature of ordinary consciousness, sentience, is clear light. This is basic Buddhist philosophy. We are all familiar with these distinctions.

On several posts, including some in this thread. You describe equanimity. There are levels of realization in equanimity. There is the understanding that all beings want to be happy, and avoid suffering, like me. This is a conceptual level, merely an understanding. There is the understanding that all living beings will die. This is on the cusp of realization, because even though it is merely an understanding, it can be suddenly felt so strongly that it can change the direction of a person's life, and completely overhaul their attitude to others. Then there is the realization that all things are empty. This is something that can be understood in ordinary ways or experienced as realization. The former is only ideas, but the latter is a powerful and non-conceptual, life changing experience. Once this occurs one can know, any time one penetrates phenomena, that all phenomena, good, bad or indifferent, have precisely the same flavor. The Dalai Lama has precisely the same flavor as my pen, etc. All Buddhist teachers I know are very aware of this. They understand it at least, and most of them experience it daily. These are fairly basic Buddhist teachings. I would be surprised if this is new to anyone here.

So you are not really giving us any new information when you say that the Dalai Lama, and Osama Bin Laden are the same. We all know they have the same ultimate nature (voidness), we all know that. It just seems a little ignorant to say they are the same, because when you don't point out you are talking about their ultimate nature, their ultimate flavor, that anyone with the capacity can experience through non-duality, then you are confusing Relative Truth, with Ultimate Truth, which is clearly contradicting basic Buddhist teachings. We all know that is ultimate truth, we just don't confuse it with the conceptual world we all share through language and culture. We all know they are the same, we just don't run around saying it trying to shock people or impress them with our brilliance, because it so basic it is obvious, and it is really rude to say it.

Csee, I am not trying to be unkind, but if you were not so proud of your present understanding and realization, if you had spent 1/100 of the time you have devoted in the last eight years trying to debate people like us using your own terms and phrases, on learning a little actual Buddhist teaching, then you would have realized this about us the first five minutes you spent on this forum. We are all familiar with what you have been saying, over and over again. Further more, we have common language and terms to discuss it if and when we want to, and because of this, we learn more quickly, which believe it or not, even enhances realization.

About compassion, Buddha taught love and compassion as skillful methods for living a good life and eventually becoming enlightened. Learning about and practicing compassion does not lengthen the path to enlightenment at all. That is a really weird assumption you have made that is nowhere to be found in realization, rather it is just an idea, a concept you have, and it is wrong. First of all, by the time a being becomes fully enlightened, they are no longer having the experience of an individual, but having the realization you are the only being is not full enlightenment, it is just a step on the path. Once you have this realization, then time is seen as something illusory, an artifact of cognition, so long, short have no more meaning than near or far. You could not lengthen your path to enlightenment if you wanted to. Length, time, will not apply long before you are fully enlightened.

Secondly, Compassion helps realization. As a practice it brings people closer to realization. Once you realize emptiness, then compassion makes the realization more powerful. Both of these could be said to bring us closer to or speed our way to enlightenment if close and speed, or far and slow, had any meaning in the context of enlightenment, but they do not.

The experience that there is only one being and it is you is a very old one, had by millions over the centuries. Some of them are Buddhists, most probably are or were something else. It is just one step on the path to enlightenment to suddenly realize, in the most mind blowing and powerful way, that you are everything. So who do we have compassion for? Well, Buddhists have been talking about and teaching about this since the time of Buddha. Shantideva said in answer to the question, who should we have compassion for if there is no other?--then have compassion for one imagined. Why? because it helps you spread the realization of the ultimate nature of phenomena to other beings through your non duality with them more effectively. It does not matter if you understand there is only you, or even if you have experienced it, a desire to end the suffering of others will make your realizations more powerful, more influential in the lives of these projections we call other beings.
Finally as a Buddhist I have to point out, you, or I for that matter, have no more reality than anyone else. We are all perfectly empty. Never-the-less, compassion helps, it augments, it enhances the transformative experience of emptiness.

Now that is on the ultimate level, what we Buddhists, people who follow the teachings of Buddha, call Ultimate Compassion. Most of what others have written about here is relative compassion. Buddha taught both relative and ultimate compassion. Practicing relative compassion, which can include deliberately inducing feeling, positive emotion, does not in any way lengthen one's journey to that wakeful state we call enlightenment. In truth it does not speed it up either, for reasons already discussed, but it would if that had any meaning in the context of enlightenment. It eases the way, it is for countless reasons an important part of the path Buddha taught.

Csee wrote: "To me , enlightenment is a condition of a person closes to emptiness ...a person with great reduction of any emotion even the will to talk , to eat , to walk etc have you seen such person lately"

Interesting, no I haven't seen anyone like that lately. The man who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, went through a period like that. He just sat, apparently comatose. He was committed to an insane asylum, where he was eventually given shock treatments. I don't believe he was enlightened, but he did think he had realized something and he was very angry at the people who hurt his brain with the shock treatments. This anger troubled him for decades.

Buddha did not lose the will to talk, eat or walk. He did these things for 40 years after enlightenment, and by all accounts enjoyed them a great deal. I think the reason is obvious, will can be selfless. He no longer had what we would commonly call emotion, because it was continuously realized to be clear light, which is omniscient, boundless and selfless. This is what seems to be a big difference in our views. You seem to imagine a being who once enlightened has no more earthly purpose, because the self needs nothing more. This shapes everything you say about what you call Buddhism. It shapes how you see yourself and how you talk to others, how you regard them. To me it seems a very self-centered vision of enlightenment.

There is no problem in letting the self become exhausted, it was always illusion, and one hallmark of enlightenment is the complete absence of fatigue.

Much of what you describe as Buddhism is what we call Nihilism. Much is what we call eternal-ism. I believe realization is precisely between these two conceptual poles.

Csee wrote: "To me , enlightenment is a condition of a person closes to emptiness ...a person with great reduction of any emotion even the will to talk , to eat , to walk etc have you seen such person lately"

Matt replied: "Buddha did not lose the will to talk, eat or walk. He did these things for 40 years after enlightenment, and by all accounts enjoyed them a great deal. I think the reason is obvious, will can be selfless. He no longer had what we would commonly call emotion, because it was continuously realized to be clear light, which is omniscient, boundless and selfless. This is what seems to be a big difference in our views."

Csee Replide:" Dear sir , sorry in advance , you seems living in Siddharta's life ......where are "you" ? ...is Buddhism about you or for you to live in " Buddha" life ?......to me , Buddhism is all about own emotion , realization on own existence / cause of own existence ."

Interesting reply! We have a very different understanding and relationship with Buddha, I would say. First of all, I never mentioned Siddhartha. Sidshartha is the name attributed to the individual who at one point in his life became AWAKE, enlightened, and so became what we call the historical Buddha, or Buddha Shakyamuni. So yes, after enlightenment we have a record, what he did before he passed, and that is very helpful information if you know how to use it, but Buddha is here now. He/She is everywhere at once, the ultimate nature of all things. He is my own true nature, your own true nature, our full potential waiting to be realized. I think it would be wrong to get too involved in describing where I am at in that process. That is usually a mistake. But I can tell you If I think of Buddha and look within or without, then there is definitely a difference in what I experience. To me he seems present. It is the same with my teacher, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and a few other male or female teachers I have met. But all of these are just symbols of my own Buddha nature.

I actually spend a great deal of time every day, concentrating on emotion. I have done this for decades. I don't think it is entirely inaccurate to say this is the cause of our existence. One thing you never mention, though, is the ultimate nature of these thoughts and feelings. What is their true nature? Experiencing that is what I call liberation, and that is not simply nothing. In a way it is everything, but strictly speaking, if we really want a reliable way to get to that experience, then we have to be accurate. It is not something, nor is it nothing, nor is it not something, nor is it not nothing. It is found between these concepts. It can not be defined. Anything that can be is a concept, just words or thoughts or feelings, ordinary mind. Your saying, "Awaken to emotion!" means nothing to me. Awaken how? Awaken to what? Saying, "Realize the ultimate nature of emotion," that means something to me, that is what I live for, it is how I will die, and it is really wonderful. Gets better all the time.

Csee:How do you realize as " ultimate nature" of emotion ?...........by experiencing ? By knowledge ? by expectation ?.......I cant find any reason to agree with you on any way to identify anything as " the truth" or " the ultimate nature"......as I currently realized , Buddhism is a constant moving process and by having faith on any awareness it will lead into more creation of emotion.........and this is not means that I am avoiding to create emotion , I just forget there is any need for that

Well, I certainly would not ask you to take my word for it. For me it is a matter of experience, mostly. I have gotten a lot of benefit from study and practice, but to be honest most of that worked in a way that simply helped me trust what I have discovered on my own or realized in heightened states or was going through spontaneously. I am not saying it is effortless, by any means, but I respond to challenges my path has presented. It sounds to me like we have very different experiences and very different understanding. I have a hard time understanding why someone like yourself who is so committed to a path without volition of any kind, other than perhaps to avoid teachings and jargon, would spend so much time online attempting dialogue or debate, whatever this is, with Buddhists. How exactly does this help you? Can you help me understand that?

Dear Matt , thanks alot for the learning lesson , I have learned but I have to tell you my secret , my shortcoming ......I cant read long sentences as I will forget easily so I am sorry if I have not reply you completely , I hope if you need my explanation you will are most welcome to ask me ........Yes indeed I have problem in expressing my understanding not only because of the language itself but Buddhism is not something that known so it is almost impossible to explain my realization ....
I hope you could challenge my understanding more by asking a short -easy to understand question .
Thks

Oh, I think you understand me just fine, and I have had no trouble understanding you, your realizations as you call them, seem very clear to me. You settled all of my questions Csee, thank you for taking the time to talk with me.