Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive? There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke? Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

The following story comes in Udana 1.8 . It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son." The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman. We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna). In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding ", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this: > The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably > upekkha. **The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference > in the sense of unconcern for others.** As a spiritual virtue, upekkha > means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. > It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner > equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, > praise and blame, pleasure and pain. **Upekkha is freedom from all > points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of > the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the > well-being of one's fellow human beings.** True equanimity is the > pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the > "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic > joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the > preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji? Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering? The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

Does a person cultivating bodhicitta qualify as a bodhisattva? Or to qualify as a bodhisattva, does one need to have levelled-up to some degree in the perfection of the great perfections. I have seen/heard this discussed before, but it was a while ago and I can't remember where I would find the references. I'm not sure any answers to this question would have a major impact on the actual application of cultivating bodhicitta, but I would enjoy exploring the concepts around it. This is my first question on Stack Exchange, so I am open to feedback about whether the format and content of my question is suitable for this forum.

What should you do about someone who cannot be reasoned with about their behaviour. I say "this is hurting me, please talk with me about it" but they keep doing the same amoral behaviour. It isn't an evil behaviour, but it is destructive and scary. What is skillful and compassionate, in this context, for the laity? There's nothing I can do about how they behave, and I cannot escape them, so do I just go with it, allow myself to be mistreated? Does anything in the Buddhist canon talk about advice for destructive friends, e.g. what sort of friends to keep and what to do if a friend slips up, etc.?

I have been practicing different kinds of meditation for a long time, mostly open meditation (somewhat like Vipassana). I recall that when I practiced compassion meditation, I experienced one of the worst periods of my life. Now, I began anew to practice a form of compassion in meditating on self-compassion, as I read about it. Yet, I wonder if this is not more unwholesome than not for me. 1) Is it possible for a person to be averse to compassion, or for whom compassion is a element of struggle and difficulty? 2) Is it perhaps easier for some people to meditate on emptiness or wisdom in order to indirectly generate compassion? Would such a possibility be less 'wholesome' than actual compassion meditation or even than compassionate acts? 3. Is it possible to forego compassion meditation completely and solely rely on compassionate action to develop this quality?

I often find that in real life people I know are doing things in a "wrong" way. By this I not only mean profound things related to Dhamma, but also small everyday things. Because of these small things, which are most often due to a small gap in their understanding, they keep suffering in a worldly manner. Example clip I feel compassion for them and I feel that only if they could simply know the right thing their particular problem would go away and they will get some peace of mind. With this in mind (mostly) I try to gently tell them what the cause of the problem is... but I have found it unfortunately that 99% of them not only not act, but even not think about my words. It has caused me suffering, I'm not sure how... maybe because I'm not being taken seriously even though I'm telling something very important to them... anyways so I wanted to ask if what I am doing is incorrect, or maybe it is correct but it is impractical, or I'm doing something wrong somewhere? I feel like I should stop helping but then I think even if it makes me lesser in others' eyes, it is worth it if it helps them. Do you experience this situation in people surrounding you? How do you find a middle ground... like have you stopped helping thinking that they cannot comprehend at once deep insights? Any responses are appreciated. PS: Sorry, if my english is bad.

This is a practice-related question. In Buddhism the goal is to not suffer, but empathy seems to mean suffering because someone else is suffering. In several places in the Pali Canon and elsewhere, compassion, loving-kindness, and sympathetic joy are mentioned, but so is equanimity. [Here](Https://suttacentral.net/vb13/en/thittila) is an instance. I assume this means one should feel free from malice towards someone while also being unpained by this, but how does one deal with the wrong empathy that emerges, which is an energetic pull towards even codependency (If I were to say it in psychological terms)? In the moment, empathy seems very blinding, so how does one extricate from it without losing the non-violence, happiness, and positive feelings? It seems from the fetter view that empathy is at least one of the 3 forms of craving, or perhaps it is some form of restlessness. I wonder if there is an antidote for this particular complex.

In the Kakacupama Sutta, the Buddha says the following > "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." I always believe in the value of 'healthy anger' as a way of defending yourself and protecting your boundaries. Many times, abusers will keep abusing you and escalate if you remain unaffected. They see your lack of retaliation as a sign of weakness, or a signal to escalate the abuse. The only thing they respond to is consequence. Yet this teaching seems to imply that you should remain unaffected 'even if bandits were to carve you up savagely'. Shouldn't I demonstrate some aggression or anger to make the abuser back off, rather than allowing him to accrue even more negative karma by abusing me? Isn't it a lose-lose scenario to allow myself to be 'carved up savagely'? I know there is also the parable of the Buddha giving up his body to feed a starving tiger out of compassion in one of his past lives. I'm far from reaching the Buddha's level of compassion. This means I still suffer, even if a bit, from the abuser's words and actions. In such a situation, shouldn't I retaliate (skillfully)?

Compassion seems to be a central insight in Buddhist thought. When someone truly grasps Buddhist ideas they find themselves de-emphasizing their own ego, and understanding that they're interconnected with the world and everything in it. I've lived this way for a long time and have become very effective at helping others, serving others, cultivating meaning in the lives of others. However, lately I'm realizing that this compassion is often not reciprocated, and at worst is taken advantage of as others know they can count on me to help them. So I'm wondering if Buddhist thought has ever touched on this issue? How do we reconcile striving for unconditional compassion toward others, when many of those around us are happy to cheat, steal, and take from us?

If I am with someone in person or talking over the phone, they are engaged and care about me. But what happens when I am not with them? Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at all? Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care? Little Background: I have never been a compassionate person, I don't understand compassion. (edit) Or like why would a Buddha care about me? I provided nothing to them, they even never met me, but I feel still they will care about me. Why? How? (will this question suit better in any other StackExchange?)

**Dear friends**, I am looking for references pertaining to the notion of the *Four Stages of Compassion* in the Mahayana traditions. Thank you for your kind and generous help, may you all be well and safe. > If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion. > > The Buddha (Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in Ten Thousand Lines) > > Tweet by The Buddhist Society

I'm wondering about older sources for some of what Ven. Nyanaponika Thera says in this essay: - [The Four Sublime States: Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html) . For some of the claims, it's easy for me to realize what older text he's referencing - for instance his claims about why they are called sublime you can trace to Vism. IX 105. But specifically for his claims about how the four sublime abidings all suffuse each other, I'm having a harder time thinking of an older reference. Anyone know one? Or should these be categorized as his own claims? The passages I'm thinking of are these ones: > "How, then, do these four sublime states pervade and suffuse each > other? > > Unbounded love guards compassion against turning into partiality, > prevents it from making discriminations by selecting and excluding and > thus protects it from falling into partiality or aversion against the > excluded side. > > Love imparts to equanimity its selflessness, its boundless nature and > even its fervor. For fervor, too, transformed and controlled, is part > of perfect equanimity, strengthening its power of keen penetration and > wise restraint. > > Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from forgetting that, > while both are enjoying or giving temporary and limited happiness, > there still exist at that time most dreadful states of suffering in > the world. It reminds them that their happiness coexists with > measureless misery, perhaps at the next doorstep. It is a reminder to > love and sympathetic joy that there is more suffering in the world > than they are able to mitigate; that, after the effect of such > mitigation has vanished, sorrow and pain are sure to arise anew until > suffering is uprooted entirely at the attainment of Nibbana." etc.

Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally. On the one hand, my question is a little facetious (if only because, at least within the laity, not doing so is impractical in the extreme: why would spiritual help be any different?). On the other, it may raise some interesting riddles. What does "the one taste of the dharmadhatu" mean except that? And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells, at least if the suffering in them is, like I believe it kinda is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that virtue is loved, via granting us "free will" (don't quote me on that).

What is Buddhism view on this? **Spiritual Intelligence (SQ)** SQ may be defined as: “The ability to behave with wisdom and compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the situation.” Wisdom and compassion being the pillars of SQ. 1. Deeper understanding of one’s own world view, life purpose, value hierarchy and controlling personal ego to consider the higher self. 2. Self-mastery of one’s spiritual growth, living your purpose, values and vision, sustaining faith in and seeking guidance from a higher power. 3. Universal awareness of world view of others, limitations and power of human perception, awareness of spiritual laws and transcendental oneness 4. Social Mastery/Spiritual Presence: wise and effective mentor of spiritual principles; leadership change agent; making wise and compassionate decisions; and being aligned with the ebb and flow of life. Does Buddhism agrees on this statement below or there are more pillars? > Wisdom and compassion being the pillars of SQ. Source - TRUE LEADERSHIP - SQ+EQ+IQ+PQ = SUCCESS

Where is the right channel to escalate or feedback the Buddhism matters via email writing ? I am thinking write to The World Fellowship of Buddhists (The WFB) via email.

To wear a mask in the covid pandemic is not a precept in Buddhism. I noticed many lay person and even many high level monks not wearing mask when talking to a stranger. Q1) How do i politely persuade them to wear a mask ? Bhante said since i already double masked with a face shield then Bhante not require to wear mask. Some Bhante will say can we move from outdoor to indoor so nobody noticed we're not wearing mask and no police catching. Indoor infectivity rate is about 20 times higher. I am trying to have conversation with Bhante at outdoor to reduce the infectivity rate. Q2) I am thinking always keep extra high quality mask to offer to someone or Bhante when i need to talk to them. How if they refuse to wear it then what should i do? Q3) In Buddhism, precepts are so difficult to practice but can follow, vice versa i don't understand why simple SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) or simple wisdom and compassion cannot do like a wearing mask. Isn't Buddhism fundamental is a path of wisdom and compassion with good deed for well being even not written in any Sutta ? Isn't not wearing a mask may against the precept #1 in Buddhism yet cause and effect may multiples to a billion people in very short period of time? Cause of infection found very frequent and high at Temple/Church/Mosque.

I have been following Buddhism and mindfulness for a while now. I have a 5 year old son and want to teach him to be sympathetic/empathetic and grateful but im struggle to reconcile some of the Buddhist ideals. In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life. This is easy to say since I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc. But when I look at the less fortunate people, homeless, poor, addicted, etc., I struggle. To tell them to just trust the unfolding of their life or to see the silver lining in what they have seems insensitive or even wrong. Ive also taught my son to feel lucky that he is fortunate to have things like a home, toys, opportunity, etc., and usually compare his life to those who are less fortunate in order to make the point that he is lucky and that he should be sensitive to other's misfortune. I don't want to teach him that we are any better than they are, but I want him to understand the difference between his luck and others. Although I am not religious (deity), I find myself wanting to pray for those people as I feel like i was simply lucky to be born into a family with opportunity, money, education, etc., whereas they were not. I guess I am a determinist for a lack of a better word. I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism when Buddhism teaches that you should accept life for what it is and not to desire more? I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory? Even to be motivated to help others, comes down to wanting more for them but Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us... Im confused and having trouble reconciling my desire to be grateful, empathetic, help others, etc., when Buddhism says just sit still and accept life for what it is (rich, poor, good, evil, etc.).

In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments). However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate? Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant? Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as: > Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings > in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of > suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected > in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid > where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of > reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is > Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when > one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two > enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is > cruelty.

In a recent version of the Buddhist Geeks podcast Rick Hanson said that recent academic research is showing that in the Pali Canon there were teachings indicating that compassion is enough to progress all the way on the Buddhist path. He further states that this foreshadows the Mahayana developments and if this has been emphasised within the early schools it would have negated the need for Mahayana at all. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Has anyone heard anything of this research or more broadly has anyone got any references where the Buddha really emphasises compassion and indicates that compassion alone is enough. Note: if anyone is interested Rick Hanson says this in the last 10 minutes of the podcast. --- It's at about time 29:55 through 30:48 in the podcast. Rick Hanson starts by saying (I paraphrase) that: - The Buddha talked about the three poisons: ignorance, anger, greed - Anger and greed map to the brain's two 'red-zone' behaviours, i.e. the 'aversion' and 'approaching' systems of the brain. Rick goes on to say that the brain has a third need or drive i.e. "heart-ache" for which the antidote is "love", and, > recent scholarship has shown that for him [the Buddha] love is a fully-sufficient path to complete awakening, and scholarship today has shown that maybe if there was a better understanding at the time that that's what he taught, after he died, there might not have been a need for the Mahayana revision if you will in terms of bringing more heart back into Dhamma practice." He goes on to say that there's a social brain, that love and social skills are the primary evolutionary driver of the brain, etc., that we need to honour heart-ache and pay attention to the attachment system. He thinks of "heartache" as a "fourth poison".

Is compassion really a good translation for *Karuna*? I've been fooled by "patience " before, now I'm sort of suspicious of the other common translations for the paramitas. Does karuna in addition to feeling other people's pain also entail regret? In "A Few Good Men" by Nattier, she talks about people on the Bodhisattva path developing karuna by doing a 3 part ritual that is a repentance ritual. This seems far removed from imaginatively feeling the pain of others. Could it be that Karuna and English compassion, don't cover the same semantic ground?