Quan Yin, Boddhisattva of Compassion

[JewelSong]

One of the central Quaker beliefs is that there is divine Light in every one of us, a Light to which we are drawn and to which we must respond. This makes sense to me. I suppose the Dalai Lama burns brighter than most, but that is not to say the rest of us don't also contain that beauty and that brightness.

I was a member of a very active Quaker meeting for many years. I always loved this part of Quaker belief...that there is "that of God in every man" to quote George Fox.

The Dalai Lama's light may burn brighter than some, but we all have the potential. We just need the right fuel...

[WampusCat]

Which reminds me, I did promise a quote from Thomas Kelley, who happened to be a Quaker. Here's one I love, from "A Testament of Devotion":

“Amazing simplification comes when we ‘center down,’ when life is lived with singleness of eye, from a holy Center where the breath and stillness of Eternity are heavy upon us and we are wholly yielded to God. Some of you know this holy, re-creating Center of eternal peace and joy and live in it day and night. Some of you may see it over the margin and wistfully long to slip into that amazing Center where the soul is at home with God. Be very faithful to that wistful longing. It is the Eternal Goodness calling you to return Home, to feed upon green pastures and walk beside still waters and live in the peace of the Shepherd’s presence. It is the life beyond fevered strain. We are called beyond strain, to peace and power and joy and love and thorough abandonment of self.”

Yes.

[Rowanberry]

I hope that I'm not rambling too much...

As this is a Tolkien board: Do any of you notice parallels between Quan Yin and Nienna?

So great was her sorrow, as the Music unfolded, that her song turned to lamentation long before its end, and the sound of mourning was woven into the themes of the World before it began. But she does not weep for herself; and those who hearken to her learn pity, and endurance in hope.
(...)
She goes rather to the halls of Mandos, which are near to her own; and all those who wait in Mandos cry for her, for she brings strength to the spirit and turns sorrow to wisdom.
(Valaquenta)

I also think that the words of the Indian mystic Meher Baba very much relate to the Quan Yin aspect:

If we suffer in the sufferings of others and feel happy in the happiness of others, we are loving God.

[Jnyusa]

Excellent catch, Rowan!

I particularly like that Tolkien has given distinctly different identities to Nienna and to Yavanna. To often one 'earth mother' is made to catch a hundred manifestations of 'woman.'

Jn

[Jnyusa]

A quote from Elie Wiesel about compassion, which kind of captures my mood today:

If you show compassion to a merciless man, you will end up being merciless toward men of compassion.

Jn

[Teremia]

No, jnyusa, I have to say I don't care much for that quote -- it ends up sounding like an excuse for bad behavior.

I'm guessing you had a hard day? End of semester? Certainly has been driving me crazy here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Believe me, dear Teremia, it is eminently appropriate.

[Jnyusa]

it ends up sounding like an excuse for bad behavior

It is a warning not to excuse bad behavior, particularly not to excuse mercilessness.

My own instinct is to say that everyone should be shown compassion - justice, yes, but also compassion. Unfortunately I have seen Wiesel proven correct on this one many times, and I have never seen the reverse come to pass.

If a person scorns a particular virtue (doesn't have to be compassion, could be anything) ... if they scorn the virtue then you gain nothing by displaying that virtue to them. It is useless, and likely fatal, to be loyal to a confirmed traitor, forgiving toward a confirmed abuser, or merciful toward a heartless person.

If mercy, in particular, is viewed by them as a weakness, then showing mercy only encourages them to engage in more atrocious acts, confident of their immunity. And they will commit those acts against others whom they consider weak, that is, against those who are themselves merciful.

I do believe that there are times when only justice will suffice.

Jn

[JewelSong]

And there can be no peace without justice.

I learned that when I was a practicing Quaker. Its one of the reasons the Quakers (One of the historic "peace" churches") tend to be so active in the social justice political scene.

Mercy should not be confused with weakness.

[nerdanel]

I think that compassion - and forgiveness, understanding, etc - should be shown to all people. To show these things does not ordinarily suspend the requirement that people behave themselves ethically and respect various rules and laws - at minimum, those of their country, their local community, and of smaller groups with which they voluntarily affiliate. Even when confronted with a single breach of these rules or ethical standards, one should look carefully at the wrongdoer's circumstances, motives, contrition, and likelihood to err similarly in future before declining to impose a penalty. ("penalty" could mean anything from the loss of friendship on an individual level to legal sanctions at the government level) However, when confronted with a systemic pattern of breaches (by the "merciless man"), compassion is reduced to enablement if used to justify a failure to penalize the wrongdoer.

Any group larger than a circle of immediate friends must organize itself according to rules and/or ethical standards, and the governing precepts chosen by the group must have "teeth" - a mechanism of enforcement, and enforcers. To set up a system without strong enough "teeth" enables wrongdoers, who can err repeatedly, knowing that there is no way to sanction their behavior. In turn, a system without "teeth" in itself shows no mercy to "men of compassion" - it provides them no defense again the wrongdoers. The men of compassion are driven out of the system - something that many of us here have just experienced - or forced to remain miserably within.

Compassion must be accompanied by an expectation that people will behave according to certain standards, and an expectation that they will receive and accept penalty for failure to do so. Down any other way lies madness.

ETA What Jewel said, except I took three paragraphs to say it.

[JewelSong]

Yes, but you said it well, TP!

PS: Nice to see you here!

[Jnyusa]

Actually, I fudged a little bit on Weisel's meaning, to soften it a bit. Beyond the caveat that we should always take circumstances into account, it's not terribly arguable that if cruelty goes unpunished then everyone will suffer.

Weisel, in contextt, actually meant something even tougher than that. He meant that if we choose to be merciful to everyone, even those who are not themselves merciful, we corrupt the virtue within ourselves and eventually become cruel.

I think this is less universally true ... it depends very much on the inner strength of the person. I know stories in both directions.

Jn

[nerdanel]

I don't know which of Wiesel's writings you've taken the quote from, Jn - it's been a while since I read anything written by him.

Can you elaborate on what you think he means by "merciful"?

Depending on the meaning of "mercy" one can argue that if you choose not to show it to people on the basis of your judgment about their character (i.e. that they are not merciful), you are lessening your own character - how far can you slide down that slope before becoming merciless yourself, using the justification that the people you are dealing with are not of the sort to whom you should show mercy?

As I said, though, it comes down to what he meant by mercy, and I don't know the context of the one sentence you quoted.

JS, it's good to see you here too.

[Jnyusa]

tp:Depending on the meaning of "mercy" one can argue that if you choose not to show it to people on the basis of your judgment about their character (i.e. that they are not merciful), you are lessening your own character

Yes, that is also true! But then you are the one who is not merciful in the first instance ... the virtue has already been corrupted; and I suppose that W.'s recommendation would be that others should deal harshly with you.

I don't remember the source. My Weisel books have sort of flown to the four winds over the years (borrowed and not returned). I believe it was a short story, and by 'unmerciful' he was referring to people who had practiced actual persecution of others. So it was not so much a character judgment as ... a legal judgment? A conscious decision to leave cruelty unpunished in the hopes that the offender would learn mercy by receiving it. Weisel crafted the story - fiction, btw! - to show that not only did the offender not learn mercy but the person refusing to render justice was corrupted themself.

One of the Eastern religions holds to this premise ... maybe Ath can tell us which one because I've forgotten ... within Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism three different approaches to good and evil:

• deliver good for good and evil for evil, so that the evil will feel the consequences of their behavior

• deliver good for good and good for evil, so that the evil will see the alternative

• deliver good for good and justice for evil so that the evil will learn restraint

I have to confess that I favor the last formula ... but then, it also depends on the circumstances. If 'evil' has never seen 'good' and does not know what it looks like, then it might be wise to begin by showing that.

Jn

[WampusCat]

You don't have to justify wrongdoing to show compassion.

You don't have to put up with abuse to forgive the abuser.

You don't have to coddle evil to act with mercy.

These are qualities that show our own character and do not depend on the behavior of others. To choose them is to be fully human, fully alive. Choosing them takes us out of the defensive crouch that ends up wounding us as much as others.

It's not about them, it's about us.

[Teremia]

I think I agree with WampusCat -- but still can't subscribe to the Wiesel sentiment at the origin of this bit of discussion:

If you show compassion to a merciless man, you will end up being merciless toward men of compassion.

My problem is that it is tempting -- as fallible humans -- to decide that the Other Guy is a "merciless man," once one has a principled loophole (escape hatch from the general requirement of "compassion") such as Wiesel offers us.

Do you see what I mean? It's not that I'm arguing for injustice or tolerance of cruelty or whatever. I'm just skeptical about anyone who claims to know which human beings are the ordinary ones to whom we must show compassion, and which are the bad ones (AKA 'merciless'), to whom we ourselves can be uncompassionate, even cruel, without a twinge of conscience.

I should add (since someone kindly told me after my first post that there was some subtext here I didn't know about) that my frame of reference in this discussion is the recent debate on torture and "rendition," more than any more local troubles.

[Jnyusa]

WC: You don't have to justify wrongdoing to show compassion. You don't have to put up with abuse to forgive the abuser. You don't have to coddle evil to act with mercy.

Right. And that's the rub, I think - finding the right balance that neither justifies wrongdoing nor acts out of vengeance.

Forgiveness, I think, belongs to a different realm. One can receive justice and still be unable to forgive; or, if one is a saint, be able to forgive even if the wrong is never righted. That is something truly within ourselves and I think it's a great blessing to be able to forgive without conditions.

Jn

[WampusCat]

To clarify (I never seem to explain myself well!): I don't agree at all with Wiesel's quote, even though there is much about him and his writings that I admire.

I think of Bilbo's mercy toward Gollum. Gollum was hardly merciful himself. What if Bilbo had acted "justly"? It would have been easier for the Ring/evil to corrupt him.

[Teremia]

Then I really do agree with you, WampusCat!

edited to add: ....and with you, too, Jnyusa, with the emphasis on caution because we may so easily fall into justifying wrongdoing or acts of vengeance -- it is hard for us to be conscious of all of our motivations....

[Jnyusa]

Teremia and Wampus Cat - you are both bringing examples that are, I think, at the other extreme of the spectrum.

Frodo's mercy toward Gollum (and the mercy of others as well) was to refrain from killing him. But Gandalf and Aragorn and the elves had no compunction about putting him in prison.

Mercilessness cannot be used to justify torture.

I would like to take these extremes off the table, because plainly a punishment that is rash or unjust is also lack of mercy. Weisel's argument is not that we should become like our enemy. That would also corrupt the soul.

But he is pointing out something which I have found to be quite true ... and more salient for those of us who tend to be liberal, of course, than for those of us who tend to have a knee-jerk reaction toward crime anyway ... he is pointing out that compassion is a serious endeavor. It should not be delivered for the sake of a touchy-feely revelry in our own goodness. It should be rendered with prudence, with a thought to sustaining the confidence of the victims in a just society, with a thought to our own ability to withstand suffering without losing our empathy for others. Compassion, to be delivered wisely, must be coupled with a certain amount of dispassion. I believe that is what he is saying.

Something similar from Yeats: 'Too much suffering can make of the heart a stone. When will it suffice?'

Jn