Enlightenment and Compassion

“Enlightenment brings about compassion,” “An infinite amount of compassion spontaneously arises upon enlightenment,” and “Compassion is enlightenment.” – these are some of the most popular statements in many Buddhist cultures, especially in the Mahayana traditions of East Asia. Enlightenment is no doubt of paramount importance to all Buddhists of any tradition, and compassion is an absolutely required virtue for all Mahayanist Buddhists, enlightened or not. Enlightenment and (acts of) compassion are probably the two most important goals in Mahayana traditions. We will in this chapter clarify the concepts of enlightenment and compassion; and we will then examine the nature of their relation. I propose the principle of enlightenment-conduciveness as the guiding principle that leads enlightened ones to the path of compassion.

1. Does compassion arise out of enlightenment?

The principal teaching of Mahayana traditions has been typically characterized by the idealized paths of Bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas are enlightened ones who are devoted to helping other suffering beings and to continuously assisting them on their way to enlightenment and nirvana. As with other enlightened ones, Bodhisattvas also remain in nirvana, but their achievement of nirvana is not without the remainder of their bodies. They choose to continue their existence with physical states so that they can use them as tools to help people and other sentient beings. The goal of Bodhisattvas is to save all suffering beings of the world and to help them achieve enlightenment and obtain nirvana. Bodhisattvas will enter parinirvana (nirvana without remainder) only after this final goal of universal liberation is achieved.

We may wonder how these Bodhisattvas can keep their calm, peace, and composure while remaining in nirvana when they must place on their shoulders the goal of saving the whole world of suffering beings. It must be a most overwhelming task. Our 21st Century counselors would strongly advise us against taking on this daunting job because most of us would be absolutely stressed out by its job description. This issue of ‘too much burden’ on Bodhisattvas has been discussed in the history of Buddhism.

Buddhists in Mahayana traditions usually respond to this problem with analogies. For instance, Bodhisattvas are like much experienced elephant trainers. These trainers can tame huge wild elephants with ease, care, calm, and smiles. They would then comfortably ride these tamed elephants and guide them to their destinations with no forceful measure. Bodhisattvas obtain wide-ranging knowledge and master a variety of skills to help people and other sentient beings with ease and comfort in the various contexts of their lives. Bodhisattvas, as they are enlightened ones remaining in nirvana, will do all these with the unbreakable calm and composure that they achieve on their journey to enlightenment.^[1]

Helping sentient beings with compassion is unquestionably required of all Bodhisattvas. What is puzzling about the story and legend of the Buddha’s life is, though, that it is not clear in early scriptures whether Siddhartha Gautama – the historical Buddha– had a great compassion for all sentient beings and whether this compassion motivated him to leave his family and everything else to find a way to achieve enlightenment. Some scholars even claim, quite straightforwardly, that compassion was not Gautama’s motivation that drove him out to the life of a mendicant monk. He was concerned about his life, his suffering, and his enlightenment and nirvana, but his compassionate concern for other suffering beings was not mentioned among the reasons that made him tread on the path to enlightenment.

In contrast, there are many Mahayana scriptures that have the stories of Bodhisattvas, who were previous incarnations of Gautama, who performed incredible acts of compassion for innumerably many lifetimes. For instance, a prince, who was one of these previous incarnations of the Buddha, jumped off a cliff and killed himself so that hungry tiger cubs could eat his body and survive. All these incredible acts of compassion conducted for eons gave Gautama wonderful karmas, and he could finally achieve enlightenment in the lifetime he lived in Nepal and India by dint of these karmas. For most of our contemporaries who do not literally accept transmigration, however, these incredible stories cannot really present any plausible evidence of young Gautama’s compassionate motives. What we need is the stories of young Gautama’s compassion during the lifetime he lived in Nepal and India.

In Mahayana traditions, the Buddha – the Enlightened One – is said to be full of compassion. He cares about people with his infinite compassion. But we have also referred to young Gautama’s primary motives when he decided to become a monk. He was much concerned with his life, his suffering, and his enlightenment and nirvana. I believe we now need to ask a potentially provocative question. Before his enlightenment, Gautama did not seem to have many chances to show great compassion for other beings. At least this is the way the early Buddhist scriptures were written. But the Buddha – the enlightened Gautama – decided with his infinite compassion to teach people the truth that he realized, and he helped them on their way to achieving enlightenment.

What happened between young Gautama and the enlightened Gautama is of course his enlightenment. Should we then conclude that his enlightenment was somehow responsible for the arising of his compassion that he might not have had much opportunity to present before the enlightenment? Are Mahayana traditions correct, after all, in their claim that enlightenment brings about compassion? If compassion arises from enlightenment, exactly how does it arise?

As the following famous story about the moment of the Buddha’s enlightenment tells us, however, it might not be so easy or simple to identify such a necessary connection between his enlightenment and the arising of his compassion. Legend has it that right after the Buddha achieved enlightenment he initially hesitated when he needed to decide what to do next, weighing between the following two options: (1) He could stay in this secular world of transmigration and try to teach and help other suffering beings reach their enlightenment and nirvana, or (2) he could depart from his physical form (body), leave behind this world of transmigration once and for all, and enter parinirvana (nirvana without remainder). He was concerned that his teaching would be too difficult and subtle for people to understand and that there might be no point for him to spend any more time in this world, especially after he achieved his own enlightenment.

By the request and persuasion of a deity,^[2] and out of compassion, the Buddha decided to stay in the world and eventually spent the following 45 years to convey to people the truth that he was enlightened of. It is not clear whether this compassion arose upon his enlightenment, or if it had existed in his mind all along from before his enlightenment. The standard interpretation of this story in all Mahayana traditions is, though, that the Buddha set in motion the wheel of truth – in other words, he began to teach suffering beings – out of the infinite compassion he had for sentient beings and their sufferings. For our current discussion, it suffices to note that the Buddha had, after he achieved enlightenment, great compassion for all suffering beings so much as to spend the rest of his life tirelessly teaching and saving them.

2. Yes, enlightenment brings about compassion.

We are going to discuss in this chapter where, why, and how this ‘infinite’ compassion arises. Did the Buddha have it as a child to begin with? He surely was a precocious child with many philosophical speculations and spiritual concerns, but there is no clear record that he had infinite compassion for all people and other suffering beings. Did he then come to have such compassion when he was a young man? Was this the very reason that he decided to become a monk and help others? As I have discussed in the previous section, scholars by and large agree that if we consider from the way the Buddhist scriptures describe, young Gautama did not really have occasions in which he explicitly showed great concern for the suffering of other sentient beings. His primary concern seemed to be his own suffering, his enlightenment, and his nirvana.

Mahayana traditions interpret his decision to leave his family and kingdom and become a mendicant monk in such a way that he needed to leave his loved ones behind only to return to them, after enlightenment, to save them all from their sufferings. The Buddha tried to save not only his loved ones but also all the other sentient beings in the world with his infinite compassion. But this is how Mahayanists choose to understand what the Buddha did, and it is an interpretation of hindsight. Did infinite compassion then somehow spontaneously arise in the Buddha’s mind when he achieved enlightenment? I believe this might very well have been the case for the following reasons. Siddhartha Gautama did not really have opportunities to show much compassion for others while he was a prince. He was the only son of an overprotective father. The young prince was constantly cared for by everyone around, and he did not have to care about anyone but himself. This is the way his father raised him so that the young prince would not have a chance to contemplate any negative aspects of life and the world. His father was worried that his only son might want to leave the family and kingdom to become a monk.

However, there is much undeniable evidence that the enlightened Gautama had such great compassion as to make him devote the rest of his life to teaching and saving suffering beings. The truly major event that occurred between young Gautama and the Buddha – the enlightened one – is enlightenment. Then, it seems reasonable to believe that enlightenment did somehow bring about great compassion in the Buddha’s mind or that enlightenment at least was causally responsible for having his underlying compassion surface in his mind. Otherwise, we cannot explain the presence of infinite compassion in this enlightened one’s mind. The popular beliefs of Mahayana traditions mentioned above – “Enlightenment brings about compassion,” and “Infinite compassion arises upon enlightenment” – seem acceptable, after all.^[3]

Mahayana Buddhists are much encouraged to have bodhicitta, a mind wishing to achieve enlightenment to save suffering beings. As the emphasis on bodhicitta shows us, having compassion and saving sentient beings is regarded as a crucial motive to try to achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment is often regarded as a tool used to better help suffering beings. On the other hand, having compassion and engaging in secular affairs with compassionate motives may be accepted as one of the best ways to achieve enlightenment. If one comes to have compassion and selfless concern for other suffering people, she can more easily lose her stubborn attachment to her sense of self and effectively realize the Buddha’s teaching of non-self. And if she can understand with her genuine compassion that her own existence is interconnected with the existence and conditions of other people, she will have much better chances of understanding and accepting the Buddha’s dependent arising. As I discuss in “Chapter 4 Concepts of Enlightenment,” the realization and internalization of the truth of non-self and dependent arising constitute the philosophical achievement of enlightenment.

Compassion helps us achieve enlightenment. And, as we saw above with the case of Gautama Buddha, enlightenment can bring about compassion. It seems that enlightenment and compassion can facilitate the process of each other’s achievement. The understanding of the relation between compassion and enlightenment might have been the origin of one of the popular beliefs in Mahayana traditions that I introduced above: “Compassion is enlightenment.” Having compassion must be as good as obtaining enlightenment because compassion may well lead one to the path of enlightenment most effectively. And, as I will argue in the later part of this chapter, enlightenment requires Buddhists to act with compassion.

3. Enlightenment is not too difficult.

Enlightenment must not be too difficult to achieve. At the time of the Buddha in Nepal and India, there were five followers of the Buddha who had seminars and workshops with him for several days and were recognized as enlightened by the Buddha himself. These followers spent years with Gautama while he was pursuing enlightenment by way of self-mortification. In the end, however, it was only several days of the Buddha’s teaching that guided them to their enlightenment. Also, there were other groups of people who listened to the Buddha’s lectures and achieved enlightenment during the lectures. Again, the Buddha himself recognized their enlightenment. These ancient people achieved enlightenment when they came to understand the Buddha’s early teachings on, say, the Noble Fourfold Truth, non-self, and dependent arising. Enlightenment was not such a difficult task to accomplish. In the 21st Century, I bet anyone with an appropriate level of education would be able to understand these basic teachings of the Buddha with no difficulty.

Scholars believe that the Buddha was entertaining in his mind the truth of dependent arising at the very moment of his enlightenment. The truth of dependent arising – the truth that everything comes to exist, abides, and ceases to exist depending on conditions – is arguably the most important teaching in Buddhism. The Mahayanist view of emptiness (śūnyatā 空), which is the representative philosophical teaching of their traditions, also derives from dependent arising.^[4] Since everything arises only depending on its conditions, nothing can exist on its own. If nothing can have independent existence, nothing can have intrinsic nature. Hence, everything is empty of intrinsic nature. Also, the Buddha’s thesis of non-self (anātman 無我) could easily be shown to derive from dependent arising.^[5] If there exists a self, it must be an independent existence that gives a given person her own essence. But dependent arising and emptiness demonstrate to us that there exists no such an entity. Hence, there is no self.

Since the truth of dependent arising implies the truths of other crucially important Buddhist teachings such as non-self and emptiness, I believe that it is only fair to say that the concept of dependent arising constitutes the philosophical core of enlightenment. Enlightenment lies in the realization of the truth of dependent arising. Those who wish to achieve enlightenment must try to understand and accept dependent arising. To be enlightened is to view life and everything in the world in terms of dependent arising, that is, in terms of changes and relations. This is not too difficult to accomplish. Any intelligent person with an appropriate level of education should be able to achieve enlightenment without too much difficulty. It is easier than you think.

Enlightened ones need to stay free from all suffering to remain enlightened.^[6] Enlightenment is no longer just a matter of epistemic or cognitive achievement. It requires moral and spiritual cultivation so that enlightened ones should not bring about suffering not just to others but also to themselves. Enlightened ones should be able to remain in nirvana, that is, in a state in which all the fire of burning desires and suffering is blown out. Although remaining in nirvana might be a more challenging task to accomplish than attaining epistemic enlightenment, we would not like to believe that staying free from suffering is an impossible goal to reach in one lifetime. There have been in history many good Buddhists who have lived their lives free of all the sufferings enumerated in the Buddhist scriptures. Enlightened ones may well remain free from suffering, and this is not too difficult to do.

Any good Buddhist can achieve enlightenment without too much difficulty if they are willing to invest their time and efforts to study the basic teachings of the Buddha and try to cultivate their moral and spiritual characters and stay free from suffering. Now that we know we can achieve enlightenment in this lifetime with reasonable efforts, we also know we can have more time and energy to invest for the benefit of other suffering people who have yet to get more opportunities for their enlightenment. Since we can efficiently accomplish our enlightenment project, more important for the rest of our life is to devote our time and efforts to helping other suffering beings and to leading them to the path of their enlightenment and nirvana. Enlightened ones who choose to remain in this world to help others actively and proactively are called Bodhisattvas. The way of Mahayana schools is characterized as the way of Bodhisattvas.

4. Does enlightenment necessarily bring about compassion?^[7] No.

Enlightenment is fundamentally an epistemic achievement. One obtains enlightenment when she understands the truth on self and the world. Enlightenment is based on one’s realization of the truth of dependent arising. Suppose somebody realizes this truth of dependent arising and achieves her enlightenment. Does this realization necessarily bring about compassion for her? Upon her enlightenment of the truth of dependent arising, will she necessarily begin to act compassionately towards other suffering beings? I believe the answer must be no. The truth of dependent arising is about the way things are in the world. Compassion is a virtue that Mahayana traditions require of us about the way we should act with other sentient beings. One’s virtue of compassion does not necessarily arise out of her realization of the fact that everything arises and ceases depending on its conditions. For there is an unbridgeable logical gap in between the way things are and the way we should act.

Let me explain this point with an example. It may be the fact of the natural world, if Darwin’s evolutionary theory is correct, that it is the fittest that has the best chance to survive. It does not derive from this fact of nature, however, that only the fittest ought to survive in nature or in human society. Also, the stronger tend to eat the flesh of the weaker in wild nature, but this does not teach us that we should let the same kind of rule govern human society.^[8] Simply put, ought does not derive from is. Likewise, the virtue of compassion, which is about the way we should act, does not necessarily arise from one’s realization of the truth of dependent arising, which is about the way things are. Seeing erroneously a necessary relation between ought and is has been named ‘the naturalistic fallacy’ in the early 20th Century.^[9] There is no necessary relation between enlightenment and compassion.

In Mahayana traditions, however, enlightenment is supposed to bring about compassion. How should we then understand the nature of relation between enlightenment and compassion?

5. Compassion arises contingently out of self-concern upon enlightenment.

The absence of necessary relation between enlightenment and compassion does not have to frustrate the Buddhists in Mahayana traditions who want to see compassion arising upon enlightenment. I believe that compassion may be shown to arise out of enlightenment in a rather unexpected way: Compassion can arise due to the empirical fact that everybody is concerned about oneself so dearly. If this is somehow shown, we may conclude that enlightenment brings about compassion under the given conditions of human nature. That is, enlightenment generates compassion contingently, though not necessarily.^[10] Let me show below how we can confirm the Mahayanist claim that compassion arises out of enlightenment:

1. 1. Every human action is generated by either self-concern or selfless concern.
   2. We devote almost all our time and efforts to taking care of ourselves. Everybody has lived so far with enormous self-concern.
   3. Compassion may well be defined as selfless concern for others.
   4. Enlightenment is achieved by realizing and internalizing in one’s mind the truth of non-self and dependent arising.
   5. Enlightened ones accept that there is no self. They lose their sense of self. All that is left in their minds is now selfless concern, which is self-concern minus self.
   6. Mahayana schools interpret the truth of dependent arising in such a way that everything (everyone) is interconnected with everything (everyone) else.
   7. The selfless concern of enlightened ones, which is compassion, will naturally be used to help other suffering beings in this dependently arising world.

Therefore, enlightenment brings about compassion.

Due to the contingent fact of nature that sentient beings spend almost all their time taking care of themselves with almost inexhaustible self-concern, enlightened ones, who have by now lost their sense of self, come to be filled with virtually unlimited selfless concern (compassion). Enlightenment may well be said to cause compassion to arise with the fortuitous presence of self-concern, however ironic it may sound. I believe that this is what might happen to enlightened ones. This causal process may be formulated as follows:

{self-concern + enlightenment (of the truth of non-self and dependent arising)}

→ selfless concern for others (= compassion)

Devout Buddhists may find this argument offending. Placing the origin of revered compassion in the egoistic brand of self-concern would be to these Buddhists not just ridiculous but impious. But I am not saying that self-concern is the only origin of compassion. Every society constantly tries to instill compassion and altruism in people’s minds because they believe society will be by and large better off if people act compassionately towards each other. Families do the same. Churches and other religious institutions also try the same. The evolutionary theory has it that species with many individuals of altruistic behaviors have better chances to survive as species.

Compassion has many different origins. But what I believe is, when we try to understand the relation between enlightenment and compassion, the relevant origin of compassion is our natural and instinctive self-concern. I do not think we should be ashamed of this discovery. Humans have created great cultures and arts in the process of satisfying their basic physiological needs – a variety of foods to eat, fashionable clothes to wear, and impressive architecture for their shelters. We are not ashamed of any of these. Likewise, there is nothing wrong or impious in believing that compassion –selfless concern – arises out of self-concern upon our enlightenment of the truth of non-self and dependent arising.

  6. Why should the enlightened ones in nirvana be compassionate?

We have discussed for a while only the philosophical aspect of enlightenment and its relation to compassion. The discussion has been about the relation between the realization of the philosophical truth of non-self and dependent arising and the Buddhist virtue of compassion. But I also showed earlier that enlightened ones should be able to remain free from all suffering. This nirvanic aspect of enlightenment has also been included as a part of the concept of enlightenment that we have had for the past millennium or two. Simply understanding the philosophical truth of the Buddha’s teaching is no longer sufficient for enlightenment. If we want to see the relation between enlightenment and compassion, therefore, we should also discuss how enlightened ones come to have great compassion due to their capacity to stay free from suffering. But the difficulty of showing why anyone who is completely content and lacks nothing should be moral or virtuous has been known to us from ancient times.^[11] Let me elaborate on this problem below.

Enlightened ones remain in nirvana free from all sufferings. We now need to ask a rather unusual but crucially important philosophical question to the advocates of Mahayana traditions: Why should these enlightened ones be compassionate for other suffering beings and keep trying to liberate them from their sufferings? The enlightened ones are in nirvana remaining free from any suffering, and their happiness is simply complete by itself. Then, why should they bother themselves and go out and help other sentient beings from their suffering? What more happiness can these compassionate acts add to these already completely happy ones who lack nothing? Apparently, there is no immediately satisfactory answer to this question. Śāntideva, an Indian Buddhist monk in the 8th Century, had the following famous response to the basically same question:

“… It is just because they are suffering that they are to be prevented… If it were asked why suffering is to be prevented, everyone without exception agrees that it is. Thus if it is to be prevented, then all of it is to be prevented; if not, then one’s own case is also like that of other persons.” [The Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva with the Commentary Pañjika of Prajñākaramati, ed. P.L. Vaidya (Dharbanga: Mithila Institute, 1960), 8, 102-103.]

The second sentence of this quote, “If it were asked why suffering is to be prevented, everyone without exception agrees that it is” may have been the best answer available. It is, though, unsatisfactory from the philosophical point of view. This answer clearly commits the fallacy of appealing to people. We need a different answer to this question.

Let me try a new answer as follows. It is a law of nature that sentient beings try to continue their existence by protecting themselves physically and psychologically. It is also a law of nature that suffering takes place when there is injury to their bodies or when their psychological well-being is undermined. These are all damaging to the body and mind and thus had better be prevented or cured. Perhaps this might have been what Śāntideva had in mind with the first sentence of this quote, “It is just because they are suffering that they are to be prevented.” However, the third sentence of this quote “Thus if it is to be prevented, then all of it is to be prevented; if not, then one’s own case is also like that of other persons” does not derive from the other two sentences.

Śāntideva discussed this issue in the context of his points on non-self, and Buddhists would bring in the Buddha’s teaching of non-self and dependent arising to support this third sentence. Since one has no self, after all, and since we are all interconnected to each other, there should be no difference in eliminating one’s own suffering and eliminating others’ sufferings. This is why one should try to eliminate suffering, whether in her own case or in the cases of others, or one should not eliminate any suffering – even her own suffering – at all. For many Buddhists, Śāntideva’s view is good enough to explain the necessity of the Bodhisattva’s way of universal compassion. But this view cannot really answer all the questions of curious philosophers.

Enlightened ones remain in space and time as long as they maintain their physical existence in this world. It is only reasonable to assume that normally any person knows more and better about her own suffering than about any other person’s. Even if the given person is enlightened with the knowledge that she has no self, she is in many ways in the best position to solve the problems that she has, say, bodily injuries or illness. She is usually the best person who can eliminate these sufferings most efficiently – primarily because of the spatial contiguity and also of the immediate availability of the information on the nature of the suffering. After all, you know your suffering best and you know how to end it effectively.

Other things being equal, that is, if other people’s sufferings and problems are not more serious, even the enlightened ones should be justified in taking care of their own problems with priority simply because this is the best way to reduce the total amount of suffering in this world. This justification should be further extended to the cases of helping their family members, friends, and people in their local society with priority. Other things being equal, we know and understand these people and their problems better than the problems of total strangers, and we can more efficiently help eliminate the sufferings of the people closer to us. The Bodhisattvas’ universal compassion is a great ideal, but in reality its practical applicability needs to be reevaluated. After all, even the enlightened ones have only limited time, stamina, and other resources available that they can use to solve the problems of other suffering beings. The use of our compassionate efforts had better be prioritized.

What is it, then, if there is anything, that can make enlightened ones motivated and devoted enough to want to go beyond the circle of their family and close friends and reach out to larger societies that will theoretically include the entire realm of sentient beings? Selfless concern, which I believe is generated by the realization and internalization of the truth of non-self and dependent arising, can surely motivate Bodhisattvas to try to devote their entire lifetime to saving other suffering beings as much as possible. But I am not sure how much and for how long we can rely on this selfless concern, which is a kind of disposition or habit originally based on the biological instinct of self-concern. For good reasons, Buddhists and philosophers have always believed that we cannot rely on instincts or dispositions for anything genuinely important. To ground the universal compassion on a firm foundation, therefore, we need a different principle which is not about our instincts, dispositions, or habits. I believe we can find this principle when we consider what Buddhism is about to begin with: Buddhism is a system of teaching for enlightenment and nirvana.

Enlightenment is no doubt of paramount importance to all Buddhists. Enlightenment is such an important goal to them precisely because it is also, or it brings about, nirvana. One gets free of all suffering once she achieves enlightenment. All studies of Buddhist scriptures and meditation practice are directed to achieving enlightenment and attaining nirvana. Enlightenment and nirvana (hereafter, EN) is a non-negotiable goal of all Buddhists.^[12] If there is in Buddhism any criterion or principle with which we should evaluate events and actions, it must be their conduciveness or counter-conduciveness to (the production of) EN. Let me suggest the following as the principle of EN-conduciveness:

(An event or action is conducive to EN.) ↔ (It is good/right.);
(An event or action is counter-conducive to EN.) ↔ (It is bad/wrong.)

One’s suffering is bad because it is counter-conducive to her EN. Her hedonism will hinder her from achieving her EN, and it is bad. Practicing meditation is good because it is EN-conducive. To use harsh words to others is wrong because a mean speech causes suffering to others and their suffering is counter-conducive to their EN. To kill people is wrong because their death is counter-conducive to their EN. To tend to other person’s bodily injury is a right thing to do because her recovery is conducive to her EN. To distribute the wealth of society to people fairly is right because it is conducive to the people’s EN. And so on.

I believe it may well be accepted in Buddhism that every event and action come to have evaluative meaning and value in terms of their conduciveness to EN. Any Buddhist would accept that all sentient beings strive to eliminate their sufferings and that they can free themselves from sufferings by achieving their EN. For Buddhists, who accept the truth of dependent arising and the interconnectivity of all sentient beings, EN is in fact the ultimate goal of everyone who wants to remove all suffering, and this ultimate goal (EN) must always be honored by everyone else. The principle of EN-conduciveness is applied to all sentient beings universally and indiscriminately. Therefore, it is always good/right for Buddhists to act in a manner that is conducive to other sentient beings’ EN.

Now that we have identified the principle of EN-conduciveness, we can better answer the questions we raised above about Śāntideva’s quote. He wrote, “It is just because they are suffering that they are to be prevented… If it were asked why suffering is to be prevented, everyone without exception agrees that it is.” We would not like to repeat ourselves when we are asked why suffering is to be prevented, but Śāntideva is basically repeating himself in this quote. We can now give a better answer: Suffering needs to be prevented and eliminated because it is counter-conducive to EN. I believe this is a more reasonable and sensible answer.

Śāntideva also wrote, “[If suffering] is to be prevented, then all of it is to be prevented; if not, then one’s own case is also like that of other persons.” We can explain this point better: The principle of EN-conduciveness is indiscriminately applied to all sentient beings, and it is always good/right to make it happen that suffering, which hinders them from their journeys to EN, be all eliminated in these sentient beings. After all, Buddhists, as long as they remain as Buddhists, must accept this EN-conduciveness principle. Then, since the principle of EN-conduciveness is applied universally to all sentient beings, Buddhists must also accept as their goal the elimination of all suffering, which promotes the EN-conduciveness of not just themselves but also of all other suffering beings.

Buddhism is the system of teaching for enlightenment and nirvana. It is in a sense natural for Buddhists to ground and evaluate all events and actions in light of the EN-conduciveness principle. This principle seems certainly more reliable as the origin of compassionate actions^[13] than selfless concern based on human instincts and dispositions. I believe the question “Why should the enlightened ones in nirvana be compassionate?” can now be appropriately answered as follows:

1. 1. Buddhists understand and accept the truth of dependent arising and the interconnectivity of all sentient beings.
   2. Buddhists understand and accept the EN-conduciveness principle and its universal applicability. That is, Buddhists understand and accept that it is good/right for them to do things that are conducive to other beings’ EN as well as to theirs.
   3. Compassionate actions are conducive to EN.
   4. The enlightened ones in nirvana are also Buddhists.

Therefore, the enlightened ones in nirvana should also conduct compassionate actions.

I believe we must conclude that, in the world of Buddhists where the principle of EN-conduciveness is to be accepted, all enlightened ones constantly engage in compassionate actions.

  7. There is no Hinayana.

I will complete the discussion of this chapter by examining whether there is any Buddhist school that does not accept the universal applicability of the EN-conduciveness principle. I would certainly believe that all Buddhist schools agree that the principle of EN-conduciveness is indiscriminately applied to all sentient beings. Anyone’s suffering surely is counter-conducive to her EN, and I cannot think of any Buddhist school that would not agree that every sentient being deserves to have her suffering eliminated. Every Buddhist school would readily support and promote compassionate actions that help eliminate suffering that prohibits sentient beings from achieving enlightenment and nirvana. The logical conclusion we should derive here must be that every Buddhist school advocates compassion and that there is no selfish Buddhist school which is indifferent to the sufferings of other sentient beings. I believe that in Buddhism there is no, and has never been, Hinayana.

An interesting logical consequence of the Mahayanist view that enlightenment naturally leads Buddhists to the way of compassion is: If there are Buddhists who are not engaged in compassionate actions, they are in fact not enlightened ones – even if they claim they are.

Reviews

 Middle Way 1

The Buddha’s Middle Way presents us none other than the method of practice to reach enlightenment. The Buddha was a Crown prince of his kingdom and enjoyed an extremely lavish lifestyle. This kind of life did not lead him to enlightenment. So, he left the royal palace and followed the path of mendicant monks. He practiced extreme asceticism for six years but failed to attain enlightenment. As he finally left these two extremes and took a middle way, he achieved enlightenment while sitting under the Bodhi Tree.

The answer: The ten sentences above are all true.

Sentences 1 through 5 are questions about the necessities of our life – food, clothes, and shelter – and the three most basic human instincts  – appetite, libido, and sleep desire. Even the actions for our survival instinct, if they go extreme, hurt not only our meditation practice but also our daily life. Also, craving (excessive attachment) for the basic needs of our lives does not promote our practices toward enlightenment. Craving only increases suffering.

Sentences 6 through 10 show that asceticism to the point of harming our health or intentionally causing pain to us cannot lead us to enlightenment. It is important to stay healthy to have clear mind and focus on the way to truth. Extreme asceticism harms our health, so we must avoid it. Buddhism does not approve practices of hurting one’s own body or intentionally causing pains to obtain good karma and achieve enlightenment.

Enlightenment can be achieved only through taking the Middle Way that avoids the two extremes of hedonism and asceticism. In the analogy of a musical string instrument, a string does not produce a proper sound if it is too tight or too loose. The tension of the string must be appropriate to get the sound we want. The same goes for enlightenment.

Middle Way 2

We learned above the Buddha’s teaching of the Middle Way on meditation and other practices that lead to enlightenment and nirvana. Now, we will discuss how we exercise the Middle Way in our ordinary life.

Sentences 1 through 5 are false, and 6 through 10, true.

Sentences 1 through 5 are all false because they are not aligned with our common sense. We now know that the Middle Way is not merely an arithmetic mean. In contrast, sentences 6 through 10 are all true because they are the cases in which we make wise decisions. To follow the Middle Way is to act appropriately depending on people and according to contexts and situations.

Compassion 1

Compassion in Buddhism is a virtue that somewhat challenges our commonsensical understanding. Many of you might be surprised to find out that the Buddhist teaching of compassion is not to love and care for people with warm-heartedness – because both positive and negative feelings easily bring about attachment. An act of compassion in Buddhism is to care for people with calm concerns, without emotion, about their suffering and help them live happily.

Sentences 1 through 5 are true whereas sentences 6 through 10 are false.

An act of compassion cannot be dictated by your positive or negative feelings. To practice compassion, we must empty our minds and care for people with a calm and ‘cool’ concern about them. Celebrating others’ good fortune and sympathizing with their misfortune are acts of compassion.

It might be surprisingly easy to figure out how we should practice compassion in our everyday life. When you are in a problematic situation, just think about how the Buddha would handle it. Take, for example, Japan which did a lot of horrible things to Korea and China in the early 20th Century. Suppose that many Japanese are injured and killed due to recent earthquakes in Japan. How would the Buddha act in this situation? Without a doubt, he would go help them immediately. History also shows that Western Europe and North American countries provided food aid to the Soviet Union which was their enemy during the Cold War. This was an act of compassion. We know that compassion is to care for others and relieve their suffering with no exciting emotions applied.

Compassion 2

One might think that helping others with passion is an act of compassion. However, an act is not of compassion if it results from intense emotions. Compassion is to help people in need wisely so that they can become self-sufficient. In other words, you must neither stay away from people in need nor help them more than necessary – an act of compassion should also follow the Buddha’s Middle Way.

Sentences 1 through 5 do not represent compassion.

The act that each sentence describes actually harms people, so it is not compassion. Acts of compassion must follow the Middle Way. Please consider, again, sentences 1 through 5 and think about how you should act in those situations to practice compassion.

A good act based on momentary passion might be appreciated and beneficial. However, taking care of people consistently over an extended period of time with calm consideration is a better and more efficient way of practicing compassion. The Buddha’s teaching of compassion is not to passionately love people, which results from intense emotions, but to consider their needs and care about them with calm and composure.

Sentences 6 through 9 present what the Buddha would say are the right acts of compassion.

Buddhists are enlightened by abandoning their attachments to material things, and armsgiving is a virtue of compassion that is so useful for removing attachments. And, since compassion is a virtue to care about people and help them, practicing it is a good way to eliminate the false conception of self and thereby realize the Buddha’s teaching of Non-Self. Hence compassion is a virtue that we must practice to obtain enlightenment.

Heuristic Tools

The Buddha taught and edified people for 45 years after his enlightenment. He delivered the truth that he realized as he walked through Northern India and Nepal. He met various groups of people from illiterates to nobility to royalty and taught them with different pedagogical methods in accordance with the level of their education, intelligence, and social backgrounds.

After the Buddha passed away, his disciples gathered and tried to recollect and organize the Buddha’s teachings. They came to find that some contents of his teachings were seemingly contradictory to each other. Since the disciples believed that the great sage must not have taught them something inconsistent, they tried to explain away this apparent contradiction and prove the consistency in his teachings. They presented the theory of ‘heuristic tools’ and claimed that the Buddha tailored the most accessible and convenient teaching methods to each group of people so that they could understand his teachings effectively.

The answer is (a). We need to teach little children in an accessible and age-appropriate way so that they can understand the concept of peace easily.

The answer is, of course, (c).

(a) and (d) cannot fundamentally eliminate his anger because he has to go through the same process whenever he becomes angry. (c) could be a solution, but it is not a solution at its root. Buddhism teaches that (b) is the right method of practice.

The answer is (c). This is in fact how the Buddha sometimes taught to the ordinary people of his time. (a) requires much intelligence, so the poor and illiterate farmers would not have been able to handle it. And (b) is not what they could understand. As for (d), we should not force them with blind authority.

The answer is (d). The Buddha sometimes says what is seemingly inconsistent, but at a closer examination we can realize that it is not. Like (d), once we research the contexts for each case, we can come to understand why the Buddha said what he did. And we can make sense of his teaching. This is the way we interpret the Buddha’s heuristic tools.