Monday, February 21, 2011

Buddhism, Part 2

I continue to be surprised by Buddhism's similarities and differences from my monotheistic background.  Morally, the ideas are nearly identical.  One of the central virtues of Buddhism is compassion, a value extolled in many passages of both the Old and New Testaments.  I am reminded of the parable of the good Samaritan and of God's compassion toward Jacob.  However, the reasons for the virtues are a bit different.

Here, a bit on Buddhist compassion from viewsonbuddhism.org:
An enthusiastic student asks his teacher: "Master, what can I do to help all the suffering beings in this world?" The teacher answers: "Indeed, what can you do?"
So, even if I am genuinely concerned about the welfare of others, when  I am hopelessly lost in my own problems, trying to deal with the world, how can I help others? I would be like jumping into a river where someone is drowning, when I cannot swim myself...
Therefore, I should first learn to swim myself, learn to deal with my problems, learn how to become liberated from my problems, or at best, become all-knowing or enlightened. The realization comes: "change the world, start with myself".
This idea is called Bodhicitta: the wish to become an omniscient Buddha so I can be of  perfect help for others. 

What I like about this belief is its root in others.  One improves oneself in order to help others, not in hope of some eternal reward.  At this point in my understanding, one main difference between Buddhism from the "big three" seems to be the potential of the human: at best, in the monotheistic tradition, one can find favor with God and end up in Heaven.  The Buddhist tradition believes in the possibility of humanity ascending to the level of omniscience, in the hope "so I can be of perfect help for others."  The only way to attain absolute knowledge is to not want it for oneself.  It's like the problem of the Mirror of Erised in the first Harry Potter: only one who wants to find the stone, not use it, can gain the power of the Sorcerer's Stone.

I will begin, with this post, a practice of posting a quote for thought as the sign-off.  As the discussion was on Buddhism, I thought a quote from the Historical Buddha would be appropriate:

-I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act.


2 comments:

  1. I'm cufused about the differenc between (in order to help others) and (some eternal reward)
    1. Hinayana is not based on compassion but self-emancipation
    2. From personal perspective, I like your idea before- it is possible that help others is a way to reach self-emancipation.
    And eternal is a complicate word. Concrete place can be heaven in monotheistic religion or nirvana/Sukhavāti in Buddhism. Or maybe it's just the symbol of alaya-vijnana. I think at that time, the difference between object and subjuct is not existed. So, who helps who?
    3. But why most of religions emphasizes being kind and good? I think because it's a self-transcendence experience. It opens people's heart and make people get ready of being enlightened.

    ReplyDelete