"I have become rather fond of the term 'unskillful'. It assumes being kind and loving, is a skill that can be learned. Lots of hope there . . . It also helps in relating with those not blessed with the skills of right speech and right acting. When confronted with such a person, I now think, oh! he (or she) suffers from wrong speech, and does not know any better. And I end up feeling for him, and wishing him well.
Another gift from the Dharma!"
Do you see where this attitude turns from compassion to pity? Perhaps the most glaringly obvious is the statement 'those not blessed with the skills of right speech and right acting.' I don't mean to point this person out as bad or someone to be judged or to make myself appear better in anyway to this person, but just to show that everyone falls victim to this sort of hidden pride that one can encounter in all of their endeavors. Chogyam Trungpa, a very influential Lama in the popularization of Tibetan Buddhism in the U.S. would have called this Spiritual Materialism. That term means when one takes up a spiritual practice that is intended to play down the self and turns it into an exercise in self-aggrandizement by gaining a sense of greatness or worth from the depth or commitment to said practice. In the case of Marguerite, if the man she spoke with is not blessed, it may be safe to assume that she considers herself blessed. She is blessed with the 'skills'(her use of this word is something I would also like to discuss) of 'right speech' and 'right acting,' whereas the man she is conversing with is 'unskillful,' as she might put it. From her account of her experience with the man who was 'not blessed' she is trying to bridge the gap('in relating with those not blessed') of her dichotomy(those blessed and those not blessed) by making another dichotomy, that is, he suffers(since he is not blessed or skillful) and she doesn't(since she is blessed).
Now in my own experiences, I've been able to feel bad for people who are poor or down on their luck, but I can't speak to their experiences at all because I'm not poor nor have I ever been. All I can do is offer spare change or a few dollars so they can eat something, sure it may be a humbling and uplifting experience in ways but I can never truly know the depth of the poor person's strife - there's just no way I can truly relate. Now how exactly does she hope to feel anything more than a detached pity for this suffering man if she contends that she herself isn't suffering? This suffering in Buddhist terms that we all experience is something I can very well relate to with everyone I meet by virtue everyone experiences it, and I know I am very deeply immersed in it, which brings into what compassion or co-suffering love means.
Co-suffering love put into to Buddhist terms would be Dai Hi Shin which translates into 'the Great Heart of Sorrow.' Often Dai Hi Shin is translated as 'the Great Heart of Compassion,' but I don't think that translation is accurate nor does it capture the nuance of the word. The Hi (悲)of Dai Hi Shin means sadness, sorrow, lamentation, mourning. Dai Hi Shin is often associated with the imperative of the Bodhisattva to bring all beings to enlightenment. This sorrow that the Bodhisattva has is not like a pity of the not blessed by the blessed, but is the Bodhisattva's total immersion in samsara and 'not blessedness' that is a part of the Bodhisattva vows to reject final enlightenment until all beings enter before them. When one experiences Dai Hi Shin(it's an accessory to aspiration for realization of nirvana), they no longer judge others actions, this is not because they see others as stupid or not being capable of knowing any better. Rather, they know that they are just as foolish as everyone else and totally capable of causing the same kind of harm to others. Holding no pretense to their own place as a spiritual person, or even a good person at that, they find no justification in judging others for things they are equally likely of doing. They can forgive others and easily admit to their own errs. That's where real compassion, mercy and selflessness come from - the heart of co-suffering love that endures along with all beings, the Dai Hi Shin.
Do you see where this attitude turns from compassion to pity? Perhaps the most glaringly obvious is the statement 'those not blessed with the skills of right speech and right acting.' I don't mean to point this person out as bad or someone to be judged or to make myself appear better in anyway to this person, but just to show that everyone falls victim to this sort of hidden pride that one can encounter in all of their endeavors. Chogyam Trungpa, a very influential Lama in the popularization of Tibetan Buddhism in the U.S. would have called this Spiritual Materialism. That term means when one takes up a spiritual practice that is intended to play down the self and turns it into an exercise in self-aggrandizement by gaining a sense of greatness or worth from the depth or commitment to said practice. In the case of Marguerite, if the man she spoke with is not blessed, it may be safe to assume that she considers herself blessed. She is blessed with the 'skills'(her use of this word is something I would also like to discuss) of 'right speech' and 'right acting,' whereas the man she is conversing with is 'unskillful,' as she might put it. From her account of her experience with the man who was 'not blessed' she is trying to bridge the gap('in relating with those not blessed') of her dichotomy(those blessed and those not blessed) by making another dichotomy, that is, he suffers(since he is not blessed or skillful) and she doesn't(since she is blessed).
Now in my own experiences, I've been able to feel bad for people who are poor or down on their luck, but I can't speak to their experiences at all because I'm not poor nor have I ever been. All I can do is offer spare change or a few dollars so they can eat something, sure it may be a humbling and uplifting experience in ways but I can never truly know the depth of the poor person's strife - there's just no way I can truly relate. Now how exactly does she hope to feel anything more than a detached pity for this suffering man if she contends that she herself isn't suffering? This suffering in Buddhist terms that we all experience is something I can very well relate to with everyone I meet by virtue everyone experiences it, and I know I am very deeply immersed in it, which brings into what compassion or co-suffering love means.
Co-suffering love put into to Buddhist terms would be Dai Hi Shin which translates into 'the Great Heart of Sorrow.' Often Dai Hi Shin is translated as 'the Great Heart of Compassion,' but I don't think that translation is accurate nor does it capture the nuance of the word. The Hi (悲)of Dai Hi Shin means sadness, sorrow, lamentation, mourning. Dai Hi Shin is often associated with the imperative of the Bodhisattva to bring all beings to enlightenment. This sorrow that the Bodhisattva has is not like a pity of the not blessed by the blessed, but is the Bodhisattva's total immersion in samsara and 'not blessedness' that is a part of the Bodhisattva vows to reject final enlightenment until all beings enter before them. When one experiences Dai Hi Shin(it's an accessory to aspiration for realization of nirvana), they no longer judge others actions, this is not because they see others as stupid or not being capable of knowing any better. Rather, they know that they are just as foolish as everyone else and totally capable of causing the same kind of harm to others. Holding no pretense to their own place as a spiritual person, or even a good person at that, they find no justification in judging others for things they are equally likely of doing. They can forgive others and easily admit to their own errs. That's where real compassion, mercy and selflessness come from - the heart of co-suffering love that endures along with all beings, the Dai Hi Shin.
Finally, I'd like discuss Marguerite's use of the word 'skill' when dealing with kindness and love. While the word 'skill' is appropriate in some sense(it fits the definition but doesn't catch the nuance), in dealing with kindness and love, I think this 'skill' is a round peg in a square hole. Skill, to me at least, seems rather cold and calculating, implying that there is a point of perfection to be had. When you're applying for a desk job at a cooperate office of a company, they require that you have typing skills, phone skills, computer skills, and communication skills. Skills in carpentry, metal work, or constructions are things one might put on a résumé, but not skills in kindness or love. Skill to me implies technical virtuosity, but technical virtuosity can't be applied to kindness or love. Kindness and love are not skills we should ascertain but are attitudes we have towards others. Again skill implies a perfection and I think within that is implied the need for one to impress others with the skill. Pianists perform to not only delight their audience with music but to impress them with their technical ability, although kindness and love can be admirable qualities of one's personality they don't impress others in the way that the pianist does with his musical prowess. Do you see my point here? I'm more apt to think of kindness and love as virtues of one's character, something that arises naturally from one's character - original and unprovoked. When kindness and love come about in this manner it is called Jinen.
So are you blessed or not blessed?
No comments:
Post a Comment