|
|
Post by lcl1qp1 on Jun 6, 2024 22:29:12 GMT
Greetings!
I recently came across a discussion about the role of compassion in Zen. Some have said we don't hear much about compassion in historic Chan literature because it's stripped down to the basics. Hence, compassion would be tossed in the the bin of cultivation/gradual practice. I'd be interested in opinions on this subject.
How do you define relative bodhicitta? Do Bodhisattva vows make sense in the context of Zen?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustaWhistleStop on Jun 7, 2024 17:09:37 GMT
A quick search of Zen Marrow shows up the obvious answer to your question.
Here are three answers to your question (though this is by no means a complete one);
practice the compassion of arhats
practice the compassion of bodhisattvas
practice the compassion of Buddhas
If we don’t fully understand the earlier part of the case where he says
then we should continue practicing compassion. “If not, for now practice the compassion of arhats…”
The second case listed on the zenmarrow.com site is this.
Notice the words in brackets. These are just commentary by the authors of Zen Marrow, not part of the original text. It’s a logical fallacy. It makes sense, but isn’t true. How do I know it’s not true? Because everywhere in the Zen literature, as in the sutras, compassion is mentioned as a prime requirement of the practice.
My rule of thumb is anytime someone leads with Zen Masters as their answer, be wary. I understand it as the invention of a certain group of zen zealots who believe in zen masters as an entity. To them, Zen Masters are the same as God to a Christian—the last authority on any question.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Lotus on Jun 8, 2024 0:53:15 GMT
My personal study with bodhicitta and Bodhisattva is pretty limited right now to the works of Shantideva. To my understanding relative bodhicitta is like a training period. Comprised of developing one's aspirations of compassion through various practices which focus on considering the suffering of others as your own, and on the other hand learning about application of that compassion for the sake of helping others who are suffering.
As one matures these sorts of practices they will naturally realize the limitations of the relative view, just how often one is wrong about how to apply and manage their compassionate views to fit real life circumstances. For example, one's perspective might change from being compelled to help the most obvious needs of the community, into a broader sense of equanimity and equality to all beings everywhere. From working within relative views of helping a specific demographic for example, to sharing compassion impartially with skill and matured experience.
For most participants with Zen, Bodhisattva vows probably don't make a lot of sense. At least in modern times and within the culture I know of. I can't speak much beyond western culture. Much of Zen focuses on the personal enlightenment and liberation work. In my personal view, Bodhisattva work would come after that experience if at all, and only with those who naturally have a deep sense of compassion for other beings. I would think that spirit very much makes up the motivates of just about every Zen master.
Thank you for the great questions!
|
|
|
|
Post by lcl1qp1 on Jun 8, 2024 1:49:39 GMT
This is a nice quote. I read this as describing the transition from relative bodhicitta (compassion toward individuals) to absolute bodhicitta (nondual awareness). |
|
|
|
Post by lcl1qp1 on Jun 8, 2024 2:03:08 GMT
As one matures these sorts of practices they will naturally realize the limitations of the relative view, just how often one is wrong about how to apply and manage their compassionate views to fit real life circumstances. For example, one's perspective might change from being compelled to help the most obvious needs of the community, into a broader sense of equanimity and equality to all beings everywhere. From working within relative views of helping a specific demographic for example, to sharing compassion impartially with skill and matured experience. Excellent point! Relative views function on the differentiated aspect, so we could expect our compassion would broaden with nondual awareness... ultimately losing even the characteristic of 'compassion.' |
|
|
|
Post by White Lotus on Jun 8, 2024 3:13:03 GMT
Excellent point! Relative views function on the differentiated aspect, so we could expect our compassion would broaden with nondual awareness... ultimately losing even the characteristic of 'compassion.' |
|
|
|
Post by JustaWhistleStop on Jun 8, 2024 14:54:54 GMT
For most participants with Zen, Bodhisattva vows probably don't make a lot of sense. At least in modern times and within the culture I know of. I can't speak much beyond western culture. Much of Zen focuses on the personal enlightenment and liberation work. In my personal view, Bodhisattva work would come after that experience if at all, and only with those who naturally have a deep sense of compassion for other beings. I would think that spirit very much makes up the motivates of just about every Zen master. Thank you for the great questions! I agree that we have to first free ourselves before we can extend compassion to others, especially the idea that we would expand that to encompass all sentient beings. Here in the West, it’s been appropriated so much by christian religions, that a person often overemphasizes how compassionate they are, and that compassion is related to the reward they’ll receive in heaven. Buddha definitely speaks against this mindset for bodhisattvas in the Diamond Sutra. |
|
|
|
Post by White Lotus on Jun 8, 2024 19:11:27 GMT
I agree that we have to first free ourselves before we can extend compassion to others, especially the idea that we would expand that to encompass all sentient beings. Here in the West, it’s been appropriated so much by christian religions, that a person often overemphasizes how compassionate they are, and that compassion is related to the reward they’ll receive in heaven. Buddha definitely speaks against this mindset for bodhisattvas in the Diamond Sutra.
That is pretty spot on from my observations. It also reminds me of the Bodhidharma story about Wu asking if all his temple building efforts has earned him great merit. It has always been a very strange ideology to me. In my view my benefit is directly the benefit I freely offer to others. When they benefit, I have received my reward. If they do not benefit, I need to adjust my efforts. Beyond that, the treasure of heaven isn't something like merit, and isn't something you add to. The treasure is the very love and compassion that one gives out to others. Like a deep well we draw water from to give out to the thirsty. Over time we may even encourage them to open up their well, and by doing so they can share their treasure with others in a similar way. In a way, when I share my treasure with others, I share it with myself in a sort of vicarious way. The benefits they receive from that exchange is the only reward that seems to matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustaWhistleStop on Jun 8, 2024 19:47:05 GMT
I agree that we have to first free ourselves before we can extend compassion to others, especially the idea that we would expand that to encompass all sentient beings. Here in the West, it’s been appropriated so much by christian religions, that a person often overemphasizes how compassionate they are, and that compassion is related to the reward they’ll receive in heaven. Buddha definitely speaks against this mindset for bodhisattvas in the Diamond Sutra.
That is pretty spot on from my observations. It also reminds me of the Bodhidharma story about Wu asking if all his temple building efforts has earned him great merit. It has always been a very strange ideology to me. In my view my benefit is directly the benefit I freely offer to others. When they benefit, I have received my reward. If they do not benefit, I need to adjust my efforts. Beyond that, the treasure of heaven isn't something like merit, and isn't something you add to. The treasure is the very love and compassion that one gives out to others. Like a deep well we draw water from to give out to the thirsty. Over time we may even encourage them to open up their well, and by doing so they can share their treasure with others in a similar way. In a way, when I share my treasure with others, I share it with myself in a sort of vicarious way. The benefits they receive from that exchange is the only reward that seems to matter.
I played around with the idea of metta. Giving the feel of all encompassing love to someone close to you is easy. Find a person who's wronged you, and suddenly it's a different story. But I found that when I pour metta at someone I totally dislike for good reason, it's not the same as an act of forgiveness, What happens is I soften up inside, and feel the peace I'm projecting to them. I benefit. They have no idea that I'm using them as a means of finding peace. I don't have to forgive them, but I sure don't have to forget what they've done, either. |
|
|
|
Post by lcl1qp1 on Jun 9, 2024 2:27:40 GMT
JustaWhistleStop said:
"Giving the feel of all encompassing love to someone close to you is easy. Find a person who's wronged you, and suddenly it's a different story."
A very different story indeed. It's an excellent practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustaWhistleStop on Jun 9, 2024 8:36:00 GMT
Going on pilgrimages in seatch of enlightened teachers, going beyond convention—basically, this is done because of the importance of the great matter of birth and death.
Contacting people to help them is being a good spiritual friend. Bringing to light the causal conditions of the great matter operates on the principle of mutual seeking and mutual aid.
-Yuanwu
|
|
|
|
Post by CoalBucket on Jun 18, 2024 10:39:01 GMT
How do you define relative bodhicitta? Do Bodhisattva vows make sense in the context of Zen? I could probably post something about my ideas on compassion in Zen. I should quote Zen Masters, even I am not an expert. Edit: I just wrote something here. |
|
