Saturday, November 16, 2013

Compassion Means "Suffering With"


     When we feel compassion for another person, we feel what the other person is feeling. We don't simply intellectualize with thoughts like, "Oh, this person is unhappy. I should be more patient and considerate." We really feel what they are feeling, at least to some extent. A barrier has evaporated between us, and instead of "That person is experiencing unhappiness," it's more a matter of We are experiencing unhappiness. It is an experience of us-ness, in this case with another person who is suffering. This is not a particularly controversial idea.
     In Buddhism, one of the most common definitions of enlightenment is the cessation of suffering. An Arahant may feel physical pain, but he or she no longer has craving, and since craving is the cause of all suffering (in accordance with the Second Noble Truth), an Arahant no longer experiences suffering. This also is not a particularly controversial idea, at least in Buddhism.
     The controversial idea may rear its knuckled head, however, when these two uncontroversial ones are joined together: An Arahant feels compassion—and therefore an Arahant experiences suffering. But Arahants aren't supposed to experience suffering.
     It may even be hypothesized that a hypothetical fully enlightened being feels universal compassion; all (ultimately illusory) barriers whatsoever have evaporated, and the Arahant experiences the suffering of the entire world, and of all worlds. If this is true, then, ironically, an enlightened being would feel much, much more suffering than, say, a teenage girl who was molested by her father, ran away, became a prostitute, is addicted to heroin, is regularly beaten by the men who use her, and furthermore has killed her own newborn baby. The hypothetical enlightened being would experience infinitely more suffering than her. With universal compassion, it would seem that a fully enlightened being, like the Buddha for example, would experience infinite suffering. What is wrong with this picture?
     A possible solution to this apparent problem may be found in a book that I read long ago in a cave in Burma. It was given to me by a friend, and was one of those things that happened right when it needed to happen, to help me see what I needed to see at the time. The book is In Each Moment by Paul Lowe; and if I were required to make a guess and name an enlightened being alive in this world today, I would probably guess him. Anyway, whether he is enlightened or not, at one point in the book he is discussing "the system" of body, emotions, and thinking mind: 
"If the system wants to cry—let it cry. There is no need to get involved. That is not you. If it wants to laugh, let it laugh. That is not you." 
     In other words, the system of body, feelings, and thinking mind is irrelevant to Enlightenment.
     There have been times in my life when I have had a rush of heightened awareness, in which I saw the world very clearly, yet from a point of view that was somehow more real than what I was seeing. These experiences have occurred in unpredictable flashes—as a layperson they tended to occur when I was in a near-death situation, like when the car I was driving was sliding out of control (and as a young man I often drove like a maniac, so it happened more than once), or else when I was under the influence of certain "consciousness expanding" drugs, and later, after being a meditating monk for several years, as a result of formal contemplation. These experiences could be called mystical; and as William James points out in his classic book The Varieties of Religious Experience, one very common feature of mystical experiences is that those who have them are quite sure that they are at least as real and valid as ordinary waking consciousness. I would guess that a highly spiritually advanced being, like an Arahant for example, would be in such a state pretty much all the time. Such a being would see the world from a vantage point of higher reality, in which what most of us consider real is a kind of mirage, dream, or miracle play.
     Consider a masterpiece of dramatic tragedy—my favorite example is King Lear. Here we have a story in which three-fourths of the main characters die gruesome deaths, including Cordelia, an innocent young woman who has done nothing to deserve such a fate. One character gets his eyes gouged out ("Out, vile jelly! Where is thy lustre now?"), and King Lear himself is driven raving mad with grief and outrage, accompanied by a severely depressed court jester and a homeless man who seems to be even more insane than the king and claims to live on a diet which includes rats, tadpoles, newts, and pond scum. Yet despite all this bleakness, darkness, and misery, it is considered to be one of the greatest masterpieces of dramatic art, considered by many to be "too immense" to be effectively played upon a stage. It is a horrible tragedy, and a beautiful masterpiece. It is the tale of a betrayed King and the deaths of his friends and his betrayers, and it is actors strutting around on a stage speaking in bombastic poetry. What it is depends on how you look at it.
     So the hypothetical enlightened being experiences the suffering of others very clearly, not even attributing it to an "other," since interpersonal distinctions and distances have been outgrown—yet also experiences it from a higher perspective, a higher reality, in which the tragedy may even be viewed as a divine masterpiece, or perhaps just as ultimately perfect Emptiness. Presumably an Arahant would operate on both these levels simultaneously. Compassion may be appropriate for the character getting his eyes gouged out, but not for the actor playing the role, much less for the underlying Emptiness.
     One reason why American Buddhists rarely make very deep progress in Dhamma is that, due to their scientific, materialistic Western conditioning, they consider Samsara to be reality. They are convinced of it. Thus they essentially try to straighten out their lives within the context of an illusion. In other words, they try to wake up within the context of the dream they are dreaming, the tragic or comic play in which they are players. To see through the illusion, the make believe, to transcend it and experience a deeper reality, is called insight.
     I will conclude this week's installment of words with one more quote from In Each Moment:
You do not need to identify with your emotions and behaviour. You may say, "I am depressed," yet, you are not depressed. You cannot be depressed. What you are saying is that there is an imbalance in your mind that affects your body and emotions. But that is not you.     





8 comments:

  1. Hi David,

    Thinking about your last two posts I wonder if you are reconsidering the whole business of being a monk. Even though I am a scientific, materialistic Western conditioned layperson I think that your experiences here back in your native land has left you longing for "life" outside of a cave in Burma, a woman to wake up with each morning, and a JOB.

    What do you think? Am I in the ballpark?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Remonster,

      I'm not sure how you get the impression from the latest two posts that I long for lay life in America. "Life at a Burmese Cultural Center" had a tinge of sadness to it, but the sadness came mainly from the fact that I don't fit in American culture. This appears to be more of a personality thing than a monk thing. This most recent post is mainly just about the seeming paradox of enlightened compassion. I am openminded to the idea of someday dropping out of the monkhood, but I'm certainly not considering it as much as I was two years ago, or maybe even five years ago, before even coming back to the US. So you may be in the ballpark, but it may be a different ballpark than I am in.

      I do not envy American laypeople. Most seem to be "crazy busy," and Burmese villagers seem happier on average. I do like America though. Do you know of any job openings for a lazy, cynical Buddhist philosopher?

      Delete
  2. "One reason why American Buddhists rarely make very deep progress in Dhamma is that, due to their scientific, materialistic Western conditioning, they consider Samsara to be reality. They are convinced of it. Thus they essentially try to straighten out their lives within the context of an illusion. In other words, they try to wake up within the context of the dream they are dreaming, the tragic or comic play in which they are players. To see through the illusion, the make believe, to transcend it and experience a deeper reality, is called insight."

    ~ I don't think you have all the information to make such a sweeping, limited statement. People are more vast and unique than the largest collection of snowflakes even the causes for their negative, resistant behaviors. Be it American Buddhist, Christian, Asian, etc,. most people don't make very much progress on the path of Dhamma Period, including many famous religious or political figures.

    "I will conclude this week's installment of words with one more quote from In Each Moment:
    You do not need to identify with your emotions and behaviour. You may say, "I am depressed," yet, you are not depressed. You cannot be depressed. What you are saying is that there is an imbalance in your mind that affects your body and emotions. But that is not you."

    ~ Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire. Many masters say, "know thy Self." By knowing the limitations of ones mind (thus using their own unique illusion in order to wake up) they can become free. This is another possibility among possibilities. Taking responsibility for one's negative behavior by seeing it is another way of waking up.

    ~ I don't think developing universal compassion, feeling another's suffering as if it is his/her own has any contradiction. The Enlightened being, in the moment he/she feels another's suffering is like drawing a line on water. Because there is no attachment, no story, no judgment, no need for it to be different ,this frees the Enlightened person up to just be in the moment as deeply as the line drawn on the water and to change it as quickly as a line on water disappears.

    But to be fully with the other, without any separation is the key. A non-suffering being so able to be in a largely suffering world without negativity or resistance, is the brilliance. This is non-duality. The very namesake of your website.

    Many Blessings,

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nicely written Bhante. Luckily for the Arahant he feels no mental pain. Maybe he sees the workings of kamma and accepts what he cannot change but certainly he would not be sucked in by the actions of mind that we mortals do which cause us mental pain.

    In contrast to the lives of monks of old you have experienced the progression in complexity of life to the modern times where sense pleasures are the aim of life and we work slavishly to collect them.

    So somewhere is this middle path which is noble and peaceful. It is maybe closer to your cave than in the realm of sense pleasures. Good luck but dont for one minute think you can walk both at once or that anyone else will think it worthwhile.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Arahants have annihilated desire, and thus attachment, why would they have any concern for the suffering of others? Doesn't such a concern imply desire and its associated suffering, which would be contrary to the very definition of an Arahant? The only way I can resolve this contradiction is to say that the Arahant's extinguishment means there is no longer any identification with the concern for others-- only an awareness of naturally working for the welfare of the world without 'choosing' (choice being dependent on individual identity) to do so remains.

    I think there is also a distinction to be made between the objective knowledge of suffering that the Arahant has, and the subjective experience of suffering of everyone else. The latter being dependent on a personal identity, while the former is not; not all 'suffering' is equal. The Arahant can peruse the suffering of others as if casually reading National Geographic magazine, and the behaviour necessary to reduce that suffering occurs spontaneously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is "the objective knowledge of suffering" really compassion? I doubt that perusing the suffering of others as if casually reading National Geographic magazine could be called true compassion. If one has no more conceptual separation of self and other, and if one really feels what "others" feel, then it would seem that an arahant really does experience suffering. My solution to the apparent paradox (which isn't really contradictory since it apparently really happens) is that the arahant has transcended the illusion, he/she has torn the veil, has Woken Up, and thus sees that unenlightened beings are living in a dream. He feels the suffering, but at the same time fully realizes that it is dream suffering.

      Delete
    2. If I were to have a nightmare, I would suffer. I would mistake that which causes me horror in the nightmare as truly real. I would be ignorant of the fact that the content of the nightmare is ultimately innocuous. When I wake up and reflect upon that horror, I would be able to empathize with being in a nightmare, but in that reflection I would not suffer in the same way as when asleep as I understand that experiences which are unreal are incapable of causing genuine harm. If I were to again have a nightmare, but with this knowledge in mind, and again encounter that which causes me horror, I would not have the identical experience as I did before. The knowledge I have gained of the illusoriness of harm would dispel any suffering that may have otherwise arisen. So too, would the Arahant's knowledge of the illusoriness of suffering not be identical to the suffering of one who is ignorant of that illusoriness. We cannot say that the two encounters of suffering are identical, because the knowledge of illusoriness pervades the entirety of enlightened experience.

      Delete