SECRETLY TAKING ON THE SUFFERINGS OF OTHERS

QUESTION: Can you tell something more on the verse “Bring help and happiness to all other beings, and secretly take upon myself, all their harm and suffering” (The eight verses off Geshe Langri Thangpa in the Nien Fo book off Amida order): People say to me: I don’t want to take the harm and suffering off others on me, I can not bear this, it is not healthy to do this.

SHORT ANSWER: Buddhism is not about personal health.

LONG ANSWER: Of course, most people do not want to take on the suffering of others: most people are not bodhisattvas. Amida Buddha would happily take on our suffering if it would relieve us of it. When one loves somebody deeply and that beloved person is suffering, one naturally feels, "I wish I could take it upon myself and relieve them of it." To some extent we do all do this - we suffer with somebody and thereby give them some relief rather than leaving them to suffer alone. We do things that cost us time, money, health, energy and so on in order to help those we love. If a friend is in desperate straits, perhaps we give them some money - now they have what they need and we are worse off so we have taken some of their suffering onto ourselves. We might even arrange for them to get the money without them knowing where it came from. When one listens to another person talking about their distress, one takes some of it upon oneself and thus eases their burden. One could, of course, have just said "I don't want to hear about your problems - it is not good for me," but we don't. In the long run it is best for everybody that one is compassionate.

There is a story about a Buddhist hermit who was well regarded by everybody. One day a young woman in the village became pregnant. She did not want to say who the real father was, so she told people that it was the hermit who had seduced her. People went to see the hermit and told him what the woman had said. All the the hermit said was "Is that so?" The hermit's reputation was ruined. When the baby was born the parents of the girl brought the baby to the hermit and said, "This is your baby." The hermit said, "Is that so?" They left the baby with the hermit and the hermit looked after it. Eventually the girl could keep up the pretense no more and confessed the truth of the matter. The parents came to the hermit and apologised and said that he was not the father of the child. The hermit just said, "Is that so?" They took the baby away and the hermit got on with his life and practice. The story is probably apocryphal, but it illustrates an important principle. Sometimes good things befall us and sometimes bad ones. Sometimes we are understood and sometimes misunderstood. Sometimes other people dump their troubles upon us. Sometimes they take them away again. The bodhisattva does not defend himself at the expense of others. By taking on their suffering he brings peace into the world. This may not be apparent in the short run and he may be misunderstood, but he is not in it for himself. By doing so secretly, he does not take credit to himself.

The Eight Verses are not a text from the Pureland tradition. They are an important text in Tibetan Buddhism. There is a related practice called tonglen. Traditionally this is a practice of great compassion for others. As with almost every aspect of Buddhism, in the modern world many teachers have introduced a distortion into the practice by making compassion for oneself primary, but this was not the original form. The modern world is a culture of self-care and self-concern, but traditionally the bodhisattva ideal is one in which one abandons or renounces self and lives in the service of others. This is a challenging ideal. The most thorough text on this is the Guide To The Bodhisattva's Way of Life by Shantideva. It is a prayer to be able to be whatever it is that others really need. It is the ultimate in unselfishness.

In Pureland, we acknowledge these ideals, yet at the same time also acknowledge that as ordinary beings we often lack the courage, will power, compassion or understanding to fulfil them. We might like to be bodhisattvas, but we find that all too often we are primarily concerned with ourselves. We do not want to undertake anything that might be disadvantageous to ourselves or unhealthy for ourselves. Materialist and consumerist ideas have made selfishness into a virtue to such an extent that many people nowadays are completely blind to any other option and find teachings like these a shock. To the modern person it seems self evident not only that people do put themselves first but that they should do so. From the Buddhist perspective, however, this is a major mistake.

One of the big problems in the world at the moment, for instance, is the fact that people from rich countries do not want to help people from poor countries and do not want them to come into the rich countries because if they do the people in the rich country will have to take on some of the suffering of the poor immigrants. This is understandable, but it is not Buddhism.

You need to be a member of David Brazier at La Ville au Roi (Eleusis) to add comments!

Join David Brazier at La Ville au Roi (Eleusis)

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • @ Satya... Ouch! but i still love you. Namo Amida Bu.

  • Thanks, Mat. The question "What am I actually asking a teacher 'for'?" is an important one, though, of course, what one thinks one wants and what one gets may be two different things. The relationship with a spiritual teacher is not like that with a school teacher, nor that with a shopkeeper. What is "true"? Is it information? A spiritual teacher may supply information, but that is not the core of what it is about. Friendship - certainly. The spiritual guide is called kalyana mitra - literally "kindly skilful friend".  My teachers have all be kind and skilful in the way that they befriended me and this has done me a power of good.

  • Thanks, Andrew. Yes, often feelings like guilt and anger are good tell tale signs that some spiritual problem needs attention. In some way one is fighting oneself and looking for somebody else to rescue, though such a "rescue" is almost bound to just set up another round of trouble.

  • Sometimes permission is our way of not feeling guilt about something we think we should do. So I now have permission to say no, it's not my fault.
    It could also be due to a wanting to please this is usually due to schemas and takes a lot to overcome. The way our personalities develop can't just change however spiritual we become. It can just make us feel more guilt and anger.
    FAULT.IT
  • I suppose that the important point about the "I can't" is... is it true? If it is true then the consequence is evident. If it is not true, then what is true? Perhaps it is true that if I look after the baby there are other important things that I shall have to neglect. If so, then I have to make a choice. Which good thing am I going to do? This is the position of the hermit - Am i going to say another million nembutsu or am I going to change nappies?

    Or, perhaps what is true is that I don't want to look after the baby - maybe I hate babies... they are smelly and noisy and I had enough of all that, etc. In which case, again I have a choice. Do I override my revulsion or not? It's my choice. It is not for somebody else to give me permission - it is for me to decide. Buddha gives me the spaciousness in which to do that. If i take the baby Buddha will smile and be happy that I overcame my selfish impulse. If I say, "Not today, thank you" Buddha will smile as I smile at the cat when it runs off with my hat.

    Sometimes we make prisons for ourselves by fearing what our emotions might do in the future. However, emotions are just emotions. Actually, the less one indulges them the less they play up, as a general rule. That does not mean that one should ignore them - they provide useful information - but it is unwise to let them run the show. It is a bit like with children. Be kind, but as a result of your own decision, not as a capitulation to whining.

    The problem with asking for permission is that it is not anybody else's decision and if somebody else tells you how to run your life either you will do it their way or you won't. If you do you will probably resent them for it. If you don't then why did you ask? You do not need permission. You are a free woman. Namo Amida Bu.

  • Investigating our own side - nei quan - is generally a good idea. It provides experiential understanding of human nature. I am resistant to the idea that doing so be labelled as "meeting one's own needs" - it is simply a wise thing to do. When we start thinking in terms of placating the ego we are on a slippery slope already. I am not really clear what Satya wants "permission" to do.

    Satya says "I think this is of particular interest to me as I received the message that it was NEVER okay to attend to my own needs/limits when there was a needy Other in the vicinity." - who are you blaming for that? One receives many messages but one is not obliged to take them on. Why be particularly attached to this one?

    It seems to me that the whole idea is a bundle of misconceptions. "A needy other" sounds like somebody who wants you to take responsibility for their life which you cannot possibly do even if you try - it would just be a heap of nonsense. If the other genuinely does need something that one has the power to give, then from what I hav observed, Satya, you respond perfectly appropriately to that. But "A needy other" sounds like somebody who makes demands well in excess of real "need". The whole question of how the word "need" is used needs examination as it is often abused as a form of subtle coercion.

    And what does "never okay" mean? Sometimes we eat a slab of chocolate and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we then get a tummy ache and sometimes not. I shall now pause and have a piece of chocolate.

    Then I'm not clear what "attending to my needs/limits" means. If it means noticing that I am tired and sitting down to rest, there is nothing wrong with that and I'm sure we all do it in most ordinary circumstances. If it means something more than that, what is it? Perhaps it might be what is sometimes called "emotional needs" or Kaspa refers to as "ego needs". I think that this is a slippery idea. Why not just "emotions". There is something imperious about adding "needs". If I notice that I am feeling hate for something, that is interesting. It is likely also to be unpleasant. Maybe I have to put up with it for a while. Maybe even a lifetime or two, but it does not have to dominate my decision making. I may have to make some allowance for my rather poor ability to keep myself under control in some situations. If that is "attending to my needs", well so be it, but I would still think that calling it so is misleading and dangerous.

    We evidently are talking two different languages and, as Kaspa says, perhaps arriving at the same place. However, language does sometimes matter because it drags in all sorts of associations. I would recommend using the term "needs" very sparingly and with precision. Every "need" is for a purpose. If we are clear about the purpose, things may become easier to understand. The hermit probably found himself needing to buy nappies, or whatever it was thy used in China in those days.

  • Thanks, Andrew - yes, I think that is about right.

  • Maybe when the hermit was approached he just thought oh a baby that needs care. When they came to take it back he thought it's good that it's mother wants her child and was happy for them both. Contented with his world and able to love and let go when needed.
  • A few more points

    1. It is sometimes useful to investigate why we are invested in helping or being a helper. Roshi used to say that if somebody came to the monastery and wanted to join and she asked them why? and the person said that their motive was that they wanted to help people she would turn them away. A self-conscious wish to be a helper is an obstacle, a kind of grandiosity. There are many things to do in life and some of them are helpful, but too much self-consciousness about it only gets in the way.

    2. The best way to help many people is simply to give them space in which to discover their own life.

    3. It is a widespread idea that one must protect one's boundaries and say no to people sometimes in order to survive psychologically oneself. However this is mostly putting the cart before the horse. When people are overly demanding, it does not help them to collude with their graspingness by doing more and more for them. There is rarely a real conflict of interest between the helper and helpee.

    4. There is the famous story about the man who goes to a Zen monastery to seek teachings and after a year or so says to the master, "Why do you never teach me?" and the master says, "When was I not teaching you?" You could substitute "Why do you never help me?" and "When was I not helping you?" The concept of "help" in Buddhism is not the same as it is from a materialistic or liberal-social perspective.

  • @ Satya...Well, I think your example illustrates the point. When you are "preoccupied with How They Are in order to Be Okay myself" then you do not hear you body saying its ordinary things. It is the preoccupation with self that makes us blind and deaf. Of course, we train ourselves in such deafness and blindness in order to be able to give our attention more to our "self" and, you are right to imply that "self" is a survival strategy - a form of defense. However, it becomes a vicious circle that goes on long after the real threat has passed. Even if it really was once necessary to build up one's castle walls, there comes a time to "leave one's castle" as the scriptures say - or, maybe, just let it decay into a tourist attraction - something to chat about on the internet but not take too seriously any more. :-). As you say, the discussion can go on. Namo Amida Bu.

This reply was deleted.