Compassion ain't what ya think it is

Acceding to the god Brahma Sahampati’s request, the Buddha exercised compassion (karuna) by deciding to teach his recondite Dharma.  This act of his finds its way into the life of the Bodhisattva.  Emulating the Buddha who elects to teach beings out of compassion, the Bodhisattva likewise vows to liberate beings out of compassion, although the Bodhisattva’s compassion is not as complete and developed as the Buddha's compassion.  On the same thread, both the Buddha and the Bodhisattva fundamentally realize that teaching Dharma, which logically follows from compassion, entails both skillful means (upaya) and correct discernment (prajñâ) knowing precisely what is true Dharma and what is not.

However, modern interpretations of the Buddha’s compassion, including that of the Bodhisattva, I would argue, appear to slide more towards the direction of fellow-feeling or sympathy, hence, away from compassion as regards the effort to teach, skillfully, the Dharma (i.e., access to ultimate reality).  Modern Buddhism may, in fact, suffer from an inability to distinguish between fellow-feeling and proper compassion.  A good example of fellow-feeling, and the problem being addressed, is to be found in Thich Nhat Hanh’s book, Peace Is Every Step.  He writes:

“The essence of love and compassion is understanding, the ability to recognize the physical, material, and psychological suffering of others, to put ourselves ‘inside the skin’ of the other” (p. 81).

It may sound strange to our modern ears to say this, but as Thich Nhat Hanh defines these terms, we need not act in the way the Buddha acted whose compassion was not so much fellow-feeling but, instead, benevolence.  As evidence, we can love someone so as to put ourselves inside the skin of the other without exercising Buddhist compassion in the way of benevolence.  In love, we feel no compulsion to benefit the other by turning their attention towards the Buddha’s Dharma, in other words.  In addition, we can love music or art, or even wisdom in the form of philosophy.  And yes, we can love God.  But in loving music, art or God, for example, one seldom feels compelled to be compassionate or benevolent towards music, art or God!  On this same score, I can love humanity.  But does such love require of me to be benevolent (karuna)?

I think it is more accurate to think of Buddhist compassion or karuna as being closer to the idea of benevolence in which there is a voluntary activity, in the example of the Buddha with Brahma Sahampati, to promote the good of beings by teaching Dharma.  We can even imagine the Buddha and the Bodhisattva as being benevolists—but not lovers!  Overall, the newly awakened Buddha’s response to Brahma Sahampati was strictly one of profound benevolence in deciding to teach Dharma.  From that moment on, the Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching Dharma.  We have the canon as proof.

Comments

[guido]

I agree, and I even find it difficult to put myself in the skin of s.o. who suffers from things that I don't know or haven't experienced yet. Actually, for example, I would have to induce cancer into me to know how it feels - and still, the doctors would say each case is different and an "individual" one.

On the other hand, at my booth at a fair - I publish Buddhist books and some novels in German - once a woman in her forties came to talk about Buddhism and its basic teachings. When asked, I started talking about the Dharma - but soon she was exhausted. Wenn she left for a neighbouring booth of Tibetan Buddhists, I felt that she wasn't really looking for the Dharma but for other answers.

[King Sidharth]

So true!
people went on to think of Compassion as pity but it is not at all pity. for Buddha cannot uplift from feeling of pity.
Compassion is seeing and arousing the ability to recover - is it not?