Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Maybe I read it a little different. I read that ram peswani says that compassion comes from ego, whereas I am saying that true compassion cannot be found within the sense of self, because it is too confining. I am saying that we need to let go of self-centredness in order to express true compassion. Happiness, for example, can be found in conditioned existence but true happiness born of equanimity takes one beyond (transcends) conditioned existence. In the same way compassion (or compassionate acts) can manifest via the ego (I can feel compassion for somebody I like) but true compassion born of equanimity (ie feeling compassion for all beings) is beyond the confines of self-centeredness. The compassion of a Buddha is not identical to the compassion of somebody that continues to cling to dualistic notions, a Buddhas compassion has transcended dualism and (in the process) ego-centredness. I cannot even begin to conceive of how a being that has transcended dualism can still be trapped in ego-centredness.
Yes. Final thought - language is tricky. "Self-centered" usually means "selfish". Are all "dualisms" "selfish"? And does "ego" therefore always mean "selfish"? Is there such a thing as a "self" that is not "centered" and which can therefore be "compassionate"? Does a bodhisattva need to return
to dualism in order
to exercise compassion? It seems to me this may be part of what our puppy is so desperate to convey. Prajnaparamita is full of paradoxes like this about compassion which I can't begin to understand. Since I likewise "cannot begin to conceive", I have evidently said too much already.
all and All,
"cannot begin to conceive" is about as good as it gets. This is progress.
Thank you Greg and KDT for rescuing the thread by elucidating issues that are meaningful and understandable, though perhaps, they cannot be conceived. Hurrah for dialog.
My 2 cents, is that one who is "Thus Gone" is beyond ego or any sense of self, or no-self, and that spontaneous acts of compassion can arise without any sense of duality / doer, doing or recipient of action.
How this happens, I cannot begin to conceive.
Trolls give me the opportunity to see my ego at work. In slicing and dicing the trolligiisms (coming up with a beautiful but irrelevant text citation; faulty logic; circular reasoning; true statement, true statement, false statement; playing victim, etc.) I can ALWAYS have my view win, but something does not feel right about this.
Troll-wacking is just not Buddhist - it is not kindly.
This in NOT what I want to be about. It should NOT be what DW is about.
For a troll, having a dialog, about an issue, is not what it is about and this MUST be recognized: by the trolls, by the troll-wackers and by the mods.
For trolls, I think that troll slaps, and rejection, are a source of ego - perhaps a kind of S&M game. We all need to recognize that this is not healthy and that it takes two to play.
I think the mods need to really be attentive to when someone is acting in a troll-like manner - and gently call them on this, in a PM.
It is telling the troll that they do NOT have permission to get troll slapped, and rejected, AND that that they do NOT have permission to disrupt a dialog.
This is a mod PM thing. I think Greg, and the other mods, could do this very well. Maybe make up several standard troll warning messages that wouldn't take too much time to super-copy and send.
Please PM me if anyone wants to see some sample troll warning messages.
The key point is that trolls AND troll wackers, should NOT be allowed to disrupt discussion forums for the benefit of their EGO.
Perhaps there can be a thread where trolls and troll wackers can relate to each other without making problems for anyone: "Troll land."