homework help: philosophy question: - Help.com

It would be well to remember here that no religion is anything more than the personal qualities of its adherents. Non-attachment is just the monkish way of life, pure and simple. It is common to the priestly class of all religions. In a sense, it is religion, if by religion we mean the personal attitude of the genuine priest. A similar arguement could be made for compassion. In this, we see how all priestliness (not faith) is simply a counter-concept to real life. It is always a negation, i.e. non-doing, non-ambition, selflessness. Their compassion is never compassion for the fighting and victorious man, nor even for the weak and the downtrodden, the real victims of circumstance. It is always compassion for the lowest kind of human being; the complainer, the lay-about, the shirker, and all those who have an endless thirst for rights without responsibilities, and who correspondingly seek to tear down the order of polite society. They use a lot of sentimental talk about ‘compassion’ and ‘loving one’s neighbor’ to guilt trip successful people into giving to “the poor”. But what they mean by poor is not people of humble means, who still have their pride; who do not want hand-outs and would not accept them; but the mob of dysfunctonals who want nothing more from life but to be fed and entertained at someone else’s expense.

This priestliness is a quality in itself that certain people possess, specifically those who are sick in their outlook towards life and who cannot or do not want to accept the fact that you have to work and fight to be successful. They always talk about ‘renouncing’ wealth when what they really mean is redistributing it from those who made it to those who did not. It can be found not only in Buddhism, but in all religions, and in the absence of any religion. It is not unique to any people, place or time. It is the hallmark of all who have become vulgar and cowardly in the face of life’s demands.

But the vast majority of mankind are not priests by nature. They follow religions, but they live as men. What the ordinary person feels inside himself when he contemplates “non-attachment” is simply putting things n perspective. When he contemplates “compassion”, what he really feels is a vague sentimentality. This is fine, because it forms the basis for all ordinary life, but it shouldn’t be confused with the bloodless and putrid outlook of the genuine priest. Real faith and real life are not incompatable, but that’s another post.

I think there is a little bit of the fighting man, the victorious man, the lay-about, the shirker, and the weak and downtrodden in all of us. I know I have played each of those roles at different times in my life.

Whether or not any ordinary person actually lives it, I think the compassion and detachment referred to in Buddhist thought is exemplified in the words of Albert Einstein, who, ironically or not, wasn’t Buddhist:

“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

You’re not giving yourself enough credit, Limon.

Buddhists have a non belief (ie its not static) that 3 three poisons are attachment, anger and desire depending on the discipline (for the lack of a better word). So attachment could not exist where there’s compassion. Put simply if you have sympathy, empathy or you feel their pain your a ****** phony. Compassion is not an intellectual exercise it is an action without thought.
======
(your filthy mind has no part to play.) The problem with non is its not complete no attachment=compassion not non. This is not semantics just the reality of an ability for people to realise that words are a perversion.

You’re right, Fronde! You’re right!

Hmmm…seems a relatively simple question, so here’s a simple answer:

Compassion is not at odds with non-attachment.

It is another word for love, and love gives freely of itself; without the need for reciprocity. Love asks for nothing, needs nothing, and is in Infinite supply. It is a universal principle - you might as well ask if gravity is at odds with non-attachment.