Others' suffering = our own?

DT Strain

DT Strain

Spiritual Naturalist
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
United States. www.SpiritualNaturalistSociety.org
I think I understand how the lessons of no-self, mindfulness, and meditation can lead to a relief of our own suffering, and also make us more compassionate because we then have room to be more in tune with the suffering of others.

However, once we become more perceptive to the suffering of others, how do we keep from experiencing suffering ourselves, out of an empathetic feeling for them?

Thanks :)
-Daniel
 
Thanks Seattlegal,

That is certainly a good suggestion. But I'm not sure it speaks to the element of Buddhism I'm trying to understand. The very purpose of Buddhist practice should be to end suffering. Yet, given that there will always be ongoing suffering of others (even if we do try to help them), then making ourselves more aware and empathetic of the suffering of others would seem to increase our suffering - unless there is some other component of the teaching I'm missing.

I suspect it may have to do with detachment. Yet, it is the juxtaposition of detachment on the one hand with compassion and caring on the other that I'm not sure I fully understand the Buddhist take on.

Thanks :)
 
DT Strain said:
Thanks Seattlegal,

That is certainly a good suggestion. But I'm not sure it speaks to the element of Buddhism I'm trying to understand. The very purpose of Buddhist practice should be to end suffering. Yet, given that there will always be ongoing suffering of others (even if we do try to help them), then making ourselves more aware and empathetic of the suffering of others would seem to increase our suffering - unless there is some other component of the teaching I'm missing.
Click to expand...
A bodhisattva compassionately refrains from entering nibbana in order to save others.

I suspect it may have to do with detachment. Yet, it is the juxtaposition of detachment on the one hand with compassion and caring on the other that I'm not sure I fully understand the Buddhist take on.

Thanks :)
Click to expand...
This is where the differences between the different Buddhist schools come forward. The Bodhisattva path is more Mahayanan, whereas I suspect the detachment path is probably more Theravadan.

Is one path more attached to self than the other? (Sounds like a nice koan to wrestle with! :D )
 
seattlegal said:
A bodhisattva compassionately refrains from entering nibbana in order to save others.
Click to expand...
This is controversial.
It is frequently said in textbooks that the compassion of Bodhisattvas is so great that they postpone nirvana, or turn back form nir-vana, in order to place all other sentient beings in nirvana first. . . . I asked the late Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, head abbot of Drepung Monastery and one of the most learned Tibetan scholars, about this while he was on a visit to Britain. ​

I explained that it was widely asserted in books available in the West that the Bodhisattva does not become enlightened until he [or she] has helped all other sentient beings to enlightenment. The eminent Lama seemed to find this most amusing since, as he put it, all those who had become Bodhisattvas would not become enlightened, while those who had not become Bodhisattvas would! ​
He stated quite categorically that this is not how Bodhisattvas behave. In Tibetan practice the merit from virtuous deeds is always directed towards obtaining full Buddhahood in order to be able to help beings most effectively. There is never any mention of postponing or turning back from Buddhahood. Otherwise any Bodhisattva would be presumably either deficient in compassion or have broken his [or her] vow.​
Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal ... - Google Book Search


The view you cite about "refraining from entering nibbana" appears to be a degradation of the original teachings, which depict the Bodhisattva as foregoing lower levels of Nirvanna and going for full enlightenment in order to be effective in the Bodhisattva mission.

Considering the basic meaning of nirvanna, I don't think it's too much to expect the Bodhisattva to be enlightened in order to be able share that enlightenment with others.

Allusions to the Bodhisattva postponing enlightment can be seen as figurative, serving to communicate a high level of aspiration and dedication. Practically speaking, there is no value in postponing attainment of nirvana. One needs to be fully equiped and constitutionally prepared to help others.

This is where the differences between the different Buddhist schools come forward. The Bodhisattva path is more Mahayanan, whereas I suspect the detachment path is probably more Theravadan.
Click to expand...
The Buddhist service ethic is unclear and the renderings are at times contradictory. Some Buddhist texts encourage a fairly solitary (and downright antisocial) ascetic approach that tends to exclude relationships with other beings. This is puzzling because the deepening of compassion occurs within the context of relationships.

From what I've seen, the antisocial aspect is quite prominent in the Mahayana teachings. Contempt for women especially.
 
Netti-Netti said:
The view you cite about "refraining from entering nibbana" appears to be a degradation of the original teachings, which depict the Bodhisattva as foregoing lower levels of Nirvanna and going for full enlightenment in order to be effective in the Bodhisattva mission.

Considering the basic meaning of nirvanna, I don't think it's too much to expect the Bodhisattva to be enlightened in order to be able share that enlightenment with others.

Allusions to the Bodhisattva postponing enlightment can be seen as figurative, serving to communicate a high level of aspiration and dedication. Practically speaking, there is no value in postponing attainment of nirvana. One needs to be fully equiped and constitutionally prepared to help others.
Click to expand...
Alright, Bodhisattvas postpone the complete ending of their own suffering (Nibbana) in order to help others end their suffering. :)

The Buddhist service ethic is unclear and the renderings are at times contradictory. Some Buddhist texts encourage a fairly solitary (and downright antisocial) ascetic approach that tends to exclude relationships with other beings. This is puzzling because the deepening of compassion occurs within the context of relationships.

From what I've seen, the antisocial aspect is quite prominent in the Mahayana teachings. Contempt for women especially.
Click to expand...
I did mention that this is where the differences in the schools come forward. The Buddha taught about the ending of suffering. It's interesting how much other stuff is now attached to it.
 
DT Strain said:
I think I understand how the lessons of no-self, mindfulness, and meditation can lead to a relief of our own suffering, and also make us more compassionate because we then have room to be more in tune with the suffering of others.

However, once we become more perceptive to the suffering of others, how do we keep from experiencing suffering ourselves, out of an empathetic feeling for them?

Thanks :)
-Daniel
Click to expand...

This is a really good quetion. I've strugged with this a lot. When you work for the welfare of others, you see how much they still suffer -- basically how we all still dwell in ignorance -- and your heart breaks. This is very useful to help us drum up aspiration to practice and to help others. It's good, I think, to remember that the compassion you develop as a bodhisattva is not based on your needs, especially on your own ignorance or confusion, but by being concerned only about the welfare of others. Aspiring to be selflessly compassionate without clinging to your own suffering or need not to suffer is very helpful to both your practice and to being able to really help other people. The other thing I've found helpful is to remember that suffering, no matter how apparently real, is actually empty of inherent existence. So, relatively, beings suffer but in an absolute sense, beings are never separated from their inherent nature; they just don't realize it.

Does that help at all?
 
DT Strain said:
I think I understand how the lessons of no-self, mindfulness, and meditation can lead to a relief of our own suffering, and also make us more compassionate because we then have room to be more in tune with the suffering of others.
Click to expand...
Which lessons are these, Daniel? Since this is the Eastern Thought section, are you referring to specific practices?
 
Zenda71 said:
This is a really good quetion. I've strugged with this a lot. When you work for the welfare of others, you see how much they still suffer -- basically how we all still dwell in ignorance -- and your heart breaks.
Click to expand...
That's a very empathic view of it.

Opening oneself up the suffering of the word is a compelling Buddhist principle. It is facilitated by seeing oneself as the other. Recognizing one's own suffering in the suffering of another being is an empathetic process. That empathy can be used to deepen compassion - even compassion toward oneself.

One thing that is not always discussed in this connection is that compassion toward others can involve a certain degree of personal vulnerability. Seeing oneself as the other implies being potentially confronted with one's own ignorance and confusion. This can be very threatening, if for no other reason that one may have relatively little control of the process. It is understandable if someone might want to run and hide avoid the challenge of self-responsibility that can get highlighted in some of these threateneing situations.

Also potentially threatening is the possibility of failure. I recently came across a Buddhist monk's account of an inability to get results even when trying to help people with very basic things. Obviously failure is that much harder to take if you're attached to the results of your actions and need to see evidence of success.

Another thing not always discussed in connection with compassion: The sense of responsibility can be hard to handle. As the Dalai Lama points out in Compassion for the Individual, once you've decided to respond to the call of universal altruism, you realize that wishing for others' happiness is not selective: "it applies equally to all."

The self-protective/defensive coping responses that can arise in connection with a sense of vulnerability and responsibility can make it very hard to maintain the essential level of openness. It is important to be alert to situations that are likely to lead to closed off or non-empathic response styles. It is also important to be alert to the need to manage one's feelings.
 
Hi Netti-Netti.

There's no doubt that it's really difficult to be compassionate and open without being a masochist or a doormat. Can't say that I have that one down... :)
 
Yes, thank you Zenda71 for your response. These are good points.

I suppose we can address our 'empathetic' suffering in the same way we address our own direct suffering. Perhaps part of the key lies in the fact that, once we open our hearts to the suffering of others, and then feel empathetic suffering as a result, that internalized suffering has now become 'ours' - not theirs. As such, to be succumbed by it is selfish and small minded, just as we become obsessed with our own suffering when it comes in more direct forms.

In that respect, I suppose we can compassionately 'take it on', and then diffuse it by meditating on enlightened perspectives. Indeed, there are meditation practices that visualize just this process of taking on the worlds suffering and then, like a filter, dissolving it. I am not at all skilled in these, so that may explain the existence of my questions :)

-Daniel


Zenda71 said:
This is a really good question. I've struggled with this a lot. When you work for the welfare of others, you see how much they still suffer -- basically how we all still dwell in ignorance -- and your heart breaks. This is very useful to help us drum up aspiration to practice and to help others. It's good, I think, to remember that the compassion you develop as a bodhisattva is not based on your needs, especially on your own ignorance or confusion, but by being concerned only about the welfare of others. Aspiring to be selflessly compassionate without clinging to your own suffering or need not to suffer is very helpful to both your practice and to being able to really help other people. The other thing I've found helpful is to remember that suffering, no matter how apparently real, is actually empty of inherent existence. So, relatively, beings suffer but in an absolute sense, beings are never separated from their inherent nature; they just don't realize it.

Does that help at all?
Click to expand...
 
namaste all,
from my personal understanding and the way it has been taught to me by my various teachers, when you understand emptiness fully, then one leaves the self behind. at that point all sufferring is ended. however, that doesnt mean that one is no longer compassionate or able to feel empathy. but that does mean that it doesnt cause sufferring because now the person sees the truth and knows that the persons sufferring is an illusion, so he/she knows that the person isnt truely sufferring, just experiencing a delusion. then the awakened individual can then explain to the "sufferring" person the truth of empitness and then relieve said person from their delusions.

that is my understanding of it through my practice. i have experienced a small example of this in my own life. i have always been very empathetic, even to the point of taking on the sufferring of others physicallymentally/and emotionally. it made me deal with much sufferring. it wasnt until my meditation teacher taught me about emptiness and working with empathy that i stopped sufferring that way. it didnt decrease my empathy towards other, simply my own experience of sufferring. i hope this helps.

be well in peace
 
Namaste Daniel,

thank you for the post.

DT Strain said:
However, once we become more perceptive to the suffering of others, how do we keep from experiencing suffering ourselves, out of an empathetic feeling for them?

Thanks :)
-Daniel
Click to expand...

there are several answers that could be offered to such a query and you've gotten some good ones already so mine will be a bit different.

provided that you have not currently put an end to dukkha (suffering is one aspect of it) there doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that you would not experience dukkha.

i have a friend that decided that he couldn't be a Buddhist due to this very conflict. to frame it in Buddhist terms, he developed his compassion but did not develop his wisdom and thus could not handle the expansive compassion which awoke within him.

the Buddha recommended the development of Wisdom prior to the development of Compassion for this very reason, in my estimation. the development of these qualities is dependent upon the individual being, naturally, and there are many cases where the recommended order is reversed or where both Compassion and Wisdom are taught and practiced interdependently.

so the succinct answer to the question is thus: the development of Wisdom.

metta,

~v
 
toujour_333 said:
.....when you understand emptiness fully, then one leaves the self behind. at that point all sufferring is ended.
Click to expand...
My sense is that an important goal in Buddhism is to withdraw desire in order to minimize the impact of uncontrollable situations in terms of stress and disappointment. The idea is to get rid of dukhka by getting rid of desire. It is unclear whether we ever achieve this in any final 100% way.

We need desire to function. The key, it seems to me, is to morph the basic drive into something creative, constructive, and helpful. This is a challenge principally because we live in an evolutionary world and situations can be very complex. My hunch is that ambiguous situations tend to contribute to ego-clinging, which interferes with the realization of the emptiness of self and phenomena. Accordingly, I see Nirvana as more of an existential trajectory rather than an end state. Practically speaking, it is unclear whether one needs to be 100% enlightened in order to be compassionate.

be well in peace
Click to expand...
You too!
 
Netti-Netti said:
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Click to expand...
Hehehe! I should have known better!
Originally Posted by Netti-Netti
Practically speaking, it is unclear whether one needs to be 100% enlightened in order to be compassionate.​

This could probably make Buddha's short list of "Unconjecturables" that would bring madness and vexation to to those who conjecture about them. Nevermind.
 
seattlegal said:
Hehehe! I should have known better!
Originally Posted by Netti-Netti
Practically speaking, it is unclear whether one needs to be 100% enlightened in order to be compassionate.​
This could probably make Buddha's short list of "Unconjecturables" that would bring madness and vexation to to those who conjecture about them. Nevermind.
Click to expand...

Aww, not having a question answered makes the list longer! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top