Conducive to purpose

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

Are you trying to to argue that people need to know Buddhist philosophy to understand that compassion is conducive to resolving suffering?

No I am not arguing just pointing out that first of all this Section is for Buddhism, and Buddhists value Buddhist Suttas/Sutras, they are very important to them. As I said not everyone understands that compassion is conducive to resolving suffering and if Suttas/Sutras, the Bible or other Scriptures help them that's good, whatever works for each individual . Whatever philosophy works, use it. Yet again this is a Section for Buddhism and Buddhists use Suttas/Sutras.... Why do they use/believe they will help because they have been proven over and over again, we even have Scientific evidence that Buddha's teachings enhance peoples lives, the evidence the Scientist have comes from people who have used Buddha's teachings which are found in Suttas/Sutras....

[Rain95]

.

Originally Posted by JustBe

What are you feelings about the sharing in the OP? Don't be too distracted by my sharing.

Thanks for adding a few more lines from that DL quote. Now I understand what it was about. The OP, well there is a heck of a lot of stuff in there to unpack. Would be easier to discuss if it was one sentence or idea. I see 10 ideas presented for discussion:

1. Self-awareness and loving kindness is how 'Buddhism' operates subjectively,

2. This topic is not prescriptively defined,.

3. A kindly disposition and appropriate intent will generate the thoughts and feelings of mutually beneficial discourse.

4. The purpose is made clear in Buddha's teachings:

5. The resolution of suffering, and compassionate intent is conducive to that purpose.

6. People do not need to study reams of Canons to know it.

7. I state the obvious, for the heart is extended to the suffering child with subliminal empathy.

8. These levels are not instilled by religious text.

9. Texts arose from the pure intent that suffering cease and all beings be happy.

10. If this wish is true of our hearts, noble discourse shall arise here.

So far in this thread the discussion has been about only #6. People do not need to study reams of Canons to know it. A few of my observations about this sentence are one, the word "reams" in this sentence vastly alters it's meaning. By inclusion of the word "reams," the sentence acknowledges some knowledge of Canons content can be helpful for the intended realization to occur. Another inference that can be drawn from this sentence is that the focus should not be the Canons but what they are pointing at. This is inferred by the words "study" and the word "it" at the end. Basically stating , focus on the "it," realization or actualization of what the words of the Canon point to, instead of focusing on "study," the words or conceptual knowledge.

Within the discussion of #6, new topics have been added one of which is, is it appropriate to advocate no need for Buddhist texts for realization within a Buddhist section of the forums? To me that idea reflects more on #8: These levels are not instilled by religious text, than #6. But even #8 can be understood and interpreted in many ways. Do religious texts lead to realization? It's not the texts themselves, it's the realization of what the texts are pointing at and this is assuming the texts being discussed are actually pointing to something spiritual. Not all religious texts do. Religious texts cover a lot of topics and have a lot of different purposes. For example, some religious texts are used to judge and hate others.

I would also add that Zen Buddhism focuses on meditation practice and constant detached self awareness as the means to self realization and not intense study of scripture. But then one can study scripture in a contemplative reflective way and achieve realization and self insights though that activity as well.

Really a post is scripture or a "religious text" in a sense if it points to a spiritual truth that can be actualized as lived experience and self realization.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

No I am not arguing just pointing out that first of all this Section is for Buddhism, and Buddhists value Buddhist Suttas/Sutras, they are very important to them. As I said not everyone understands that compassion is conducive to resolving suffering and if Suttas/Sutras, the Bible or other Scriptures help them that's good, whatever works for each individual . Whatever philosophy works, use it. Yet again this is a Section for Buddhism and Buddhists use Suttas/Sutras.... Why do they use/believe they will help because they have been proven over and over again, we even have Scientific evidence that Buddha's teachings enhance peoples lives, the evidence the Scientist have comes from people who have used Buddha's teachings which are found in Suttas/Sutras....

I'm approaching dhamma as true for all people as the way of nature, and I'm not confining that to the narrow discursive confines of Buddhist literature, because I don't want people to be excluded on the grounds that they haven't read Buddhist philosophy. When I say things like you don't need Buddhist philosophy to understand that compassion is conducive to the resolution of suffering, I am stating the obvious to point out that dhamma is intrinsically inclusive rather than exclusively Buddhist.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

.

Thanks for adding a few more lines from that DL quote. Now I understand what it was about. The OP, well there is a heck of a lot of stuff in there to unpack. Would be easier to discuss if it was one sentence or idea. I see 10 ideas presented for discussion:

1. Self-awareness and loving kindness is how 'Buddhism' operates subjectively,

2. This topic is not prescriptively defined,.

3. A kindly disposition and appropriate intent will generate the thoughts and feelings of mutually beneficial discourse.

4. The purpose is made clear in Buddha's teachings:

5. The resolution of suffering, and compassionate intent is conducive to that purpose.

6. People do not need to study reams of Canons to know it.

7. I state the obvious, for the heart is extended to the suffering child with subliminal empathy.

8. These levels are not instilled by religious text.

9. Texts arose from the pure intent that suffering cease and all beings be happy.

10. If this wish is true of our hearts, noble discourse shall arise here.

Thank you for the excellent summary. You are a good listener.

So far in this thread the discussion has been about only #6. People do not need to study reams of Canons to know it. A few of my observations about this sentence are one, the word "reams" in this sentence vastly alters it's meaning. By inclusion of the word "reams," the sentence acknowledges some knowledge of Canons content can be helpful for the intended realization to occur. Another inference that can be drawn from this sentence is that the focus should not be the Canons but what they are pointing at. This is inferred by the words "study" and the word "it" at the end. Basically stating , focus on the "it," realization or actualization of what the words of the Canon point to, instead of focusing on "study," the words or conceptual knowledge.

I used reams to emphasise the shear volume of Buddhist text, and indeed, it pertains to what the literature points at, which is fundamentally the Buddha: the quality of enlightenment in oneself.

Within the discussion of #6, new topics have been added one of which is, is it appropriate to advocate no need for Buddhist texts for realization within a Buddhist section of the forums? To me that idea reflects more on #8: These levels are not instilled by religious text, than #6. But even #8 can be understood and interpreted in many ways. Do religious texts lead to realization? It's not the texts themselves, it's the realization of what the texts are pointing at and this is assuming the texts being discussed are actually pointing to something spiritual. Not all religious texts do. Religious texts cover a lot of topics and have a lot of different purposes. For example, some religious texts are used to judge and hate others.

Indeed. Religious text is used for all sorts of things depending on the intent with which it is used.

I would also add that Zen Buddhism focuses on meditation practice and constant detached self awareness as the means to self realization and not intense study of scripture. But then one can study scripture in a contemplative reflective way and achieve realization and self insights though that activity as well.

Really a post is scripture or a "religious text" in a sense if it points to a spiritual truth that can be actualized as lived experience and self realization.

The way I was taught about this is, when you first hear Buddhas teaching you get the gist of it intellectually because it seems to fit together, it adds up quite well, it makes some sense. If a person has that inkling, they observe their own life and see the way in which it is pertinent to themselves.

[JustBe]

Really a post is scripture or a "religious text" in a sense if it points to a spiritual truth that can be actualized as lived experience and self realization.

Thanks for sharing what you perceived through the OP and what you added further.

As for you comment above, I would agree. Often the discussion itself has the potential for those realizations, if people are open to them.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

compassion is conducive to the resolution of suffering,

I'll discuss this one a little. The obvious meaning here would be if one has compassion (and empathy) they will help and care for others thus suffering is reduced. But then in this way of defining it, suffering is actually increased in the compassionate one. If I have compassion and empathy, and encounter others suffering, I suffer. So I'll discuss different interpretations. Compassion's formal definition is this:

Definition of compassion

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

Yea this is not how I would define the word compassion as it relates in the phrase above as suffering does not come to any form of resolution through these definitions.

In English, I would simply define Buddhist "compassion" as love. In Early Buddhism, mettā/maitrī (Pāḷi/Sanskrit), is often translated as “loving kindness,” later it was translated as "compassion." In my opinion, the concept loses it's original meaning when loving kindness was changed to compassion. The reason is loving kindness has no expectations no desired outcome where compassion does.

Compassion is about me encountering suffering, identifying with it, then trying to help.

Loving kindness is about me embodying love. Love is what I am, as I am not identifying with anything that is not love. Love in this sense is what I project. My way of understanding this is that love is a natural quality of the source. Love is a natural quality of our consciousness. So I am not talking about worldly ego or thought based love here at all. Romance, spouses, all of that. I am talking about a quality of a person who is no longer creating an ego by identifying with selfish self centered thought.

So we have this quality at our core, as our essence, but it is covered up when we create a ego using thought and memory etc. It is not experienced or actualized unless we clear away all this other stuff. But if we have become this trait, am embodying it, then this is "conducive to the resolution of suffering."

This eliminates self caused suffering in myself as I am free of thought and thinking. It eliminates suffering in others as I don't project any. I am fully at ease to whatever is without desires or expectations (as thoughts) that it should be different. But then I still act and react and actions occur as I am doing these things out of what I am, not out of what I am thinking. So if I see another suffering, I help, but I don't suffer. I feel, very deeply, but this feeling is not suffering. It is love.

See the English definitions of the word compassion includes: desire to, and concern for....self centered attributes.

So the assumption of a thought based consciousness is inherent in the definition of compassion.

There is no resolution to suffering if we have desires and concerns.

Loving kindness is like a "mood" it is a state of being one is or carries as their nature. This nature has inherent qualities as a part of it's energy. It naturally cares for others and seeks to eliminate suffering in itself and others. See desire to, concern for....needs ego. Someone has to be there to desire, to have concerns. This someone is a thought based awareness, If the awareness is not on thought and is free of thoughts content, then natural qualities of self, like love, operate.

So I would change the original sentence, take out mettā/maitrī (compassion) translation and put in mettā/maitrī (loving kindness) translation.

The embodiment or actualization of loving kindness is conducive to the resolution of suffering.

[sky]

What we Westerners call compassion in Buddhism is Karuna and is different as it is ' Action ' based rather than feeling sadness or pity for others. Buddha called it a ' Quivering of the heart '




Metta is the development of mindstates of limitless good-will for all beings. This doesn't require a "subject" or something actually happening to arise. The Main purpose of practicing Metta is to eradicate ill-will in your mind. Metta is about you.

Karuna is compassion that arises when you see someone suffering. Karuna requires a "subject" or situation, as opposed to Metta, which doesn't.



Suttas/Sutras explain it better than I can.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

I'll discuss this one a little. The obvious meaning here would be if one has compassion (and empathy) they will help and care for others thus suffering is reduced. But then in this way of defining it, suffering is actually increased in the compassionate one. If I have compassion and empathy, and encounter others suffering, I suffer. So I'll discuss different interpretations. Compassion's formal definition is this:


Yea this is not how I would define the word compassion as it relates in the phrase above as suffering does not come to any form of resolution through these definitions.

In English, I would simply define Buddhist "compassion" as love. In Early Buddhism, mettā/maitrī (Pāḷi/Sanskrit), is often translated as “loving kindness,” later it was translated as "compassion." In my opinion, the concept loses it's original meaning when loving kindness was changed to compassion. The reason is loving kindness has no expectations no desired outcome where compassion does.

Compassion is about me encountering suffering, identifying with it, then trying to help.

Loving kindness is about me embodying love. Love is what I am, as I am not identifying with anything that is not love. Love in this sense is what I project. My way of understanding this is that love is a natural quality of the source. Love is a natural quality of our consciousness. So I am not talking about worldly ego or thought based love here at all. Romance, spouses, all of that. I am talking about a quality of a person who is no longer creating an ego by identifying with selfish self centered thought.

So we have this quality at our core, as our essence, but it is covered up when we create a ego using thought and memory etc. It is not experienced or actualized unless we clear away all this other stuff. But if we have become this trait, am embodying it, then this is "conducive to the resolution of suffering."

This eliminates self caused suffering in myself as I am free of thought and thinking. It eliminates suffering in others as I don't project any. I am fully at ease to whatever is without desires or expectations (as thoughts) that it should be different. But then I still act and react and actions occur as I am doing these things out of what I am, not out of what I am thinking. So if I see another suffering, I help, but I don't suffer. I feel, very deeply, but this feeling is not suffering. It is love.

See the English definitions of the word compassion includes: desire to, and concern for....self centered attributes.

So the assumption of a thought based consciousness is inherent in the definition of compassion.

There is no resolution to suffering if we have desires and concerns.

Loving kindness is like a "mood" it is a state of being one is or carries as their nature. This nature has inherent qualities as a part of it's energy. It naturally cares for others and seeks to eliminate suffering in itself and others. See desire to, concern for....needs ego. Someone has to be there to desire, to have concerns. This someone is a thought based awareness, If the awareness is not on thought and is free of thoughts content, then natural qualities of self, like love, operate.

So I would change the original sentence, take out mettā/maitrī (compassion) translation and put in mettā/maitrī (loving kindness) translation.

The embodiment or actualization of loving kindness is conducive to the resolution of suffering.

' See the English definitions of the word compassion includes: desire to, and concern for....self centered attributes '


That's why it helps to read Buddhist teachings if you are discussing Buddhism
Karuna has no self centered attributes.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

I'll discuss this one a little. The obvious meaning here would be if one has compassion (and empathy) they will help and care for others thus suffering is reduced. But then in this way of defining it, suffering is actually increased in the compassionate one. If I have compassion and empathy, and encounter others suffering, I suffer. So I'll discuss different interpretations. Compassion's formal definition is this:


Yea this is not how I would define the word compassion as it relates in the phrase above as suffering does not come to any form of resolution through these definitions.

Yes, the way I differentiate between pity and empathy is pity is what you feel for another, whereas empathy is feeling with them.

In English, I would simply define Buddhist "compassion" as love. In Early Buddhism, mettā/maitrī (Pāḷi/Sanskrit), is often translated as “loving kindness,” later it was translated as "compassion." In my opinion, the concept loses it's original meaning when loving kindness was changed to compassion. The reason is loving kindness has no expectations no desired outcome where compassion does.

Compassion is about me encountering suffering, identifying with it, then trying to help.

In the way you've explained it, I understand what you mean and it makes a lot of sense.

Loving kindness is about me embodying love. Love is what I am, as I am not identifying with anything that is not love. Love in this sense is what I project. My way of understanding this is that love is a natural quality of the source. Love is a natural quality of our consciousness. So I am not talking about worldly ego or thought based love here at all. Romance, spouses, all of that. I am talking about a quality of a person who is no longer creating an ego by identifying with selfish self centered thought.

So we have this quality at our core, as our essence, but it is covered up when we create a ego using thought and memory etc. It is not experienced or actualized unless we clear away all this other stuff. But if we have become this trait, am embodying it, then this is "conducive to the resolution of suffering."

Yes, this really gets to the heart of it right here.

This eliminates self caused suffering in myself as I am free of thought and thinking. It eliminates suffering in others as I don't project any. I am fully at ease to whatever is without desires or expectations (as thoughts) that it should be different. But then I still act and react and actions occur as I am doing these things out of what I am, not out of what I am thinking. So if I see another suffering, I help, but I don't suffer. I feel, very deeply, but this feeling is not suffering. It is love.

See the English definitions of the word compassion includes: desire to, and concern for....self centered attributes.

Yes, I see that.

So the assumption of a thought based consciousness is inherent in the definition of compassion.

There is no resolution to suffering if we have desires and concerns.

Loving kindness is like a "mood" it is a state of being one is or carries as their nature. This nature has inherent qualities as a part of it's energy. It naturally cares for others and seeks to eliminate suffering in itself and others. See desire to, concern for....needs ego. Someone has to be there to desire, to have concerns. This someone is a thought based awareness, If the awareness is not on thought and is free of thoughts content, then natural qualities of self, like love, operate.

So I would change the original sentence, take out mettā/maitrī (compassion) translation and put in mettā/maitrī (loving kindness) translation.

Totally!

The embodiment or actualization of loving kindness is conducive to the resolution of suffering.

That was all so well said.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

That's why it helps to read Buddhist teachings if you are discussing Buddhism

Some "Buddhist" teachings are good and some bad. It is made up of flawed human beings after all. Human's come in all types, within all organizations and groups. One can find any point of view they want within religious writings.

Truths are not owned by Buddhism. It's in everyone. Lot's of people have taught it, discovered it. Tolle, Mooji, Watts, Merton, Krishnamurti, Ram Dass, Yogananda, Castenada, Rajneesh, Ramana Maharshi, Bede Griffith, Khandro Rinpoche, it's everywhere in movies, music, and on and on...one could argue most of those were influenced by Buddha's teachings though. And lets not forget Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.