DHARMA THE CAT . . . MULTI-FAITH COMMENTARY ON EPISODE TWO

AUTHOR’S COMMENTARY
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by David Lourie
[view the cartoon]

In the episode titled "The Lesson," Dharma the Cat cons Bodhi to get more food. Every time Dharma catches the mouse, Bodhi rescues it and gives Dharma some cat food instead, in an effort to teach Dharma to be "more compassionate."

This is a great example of how sometimes when we try to teach others, others teach us!

To start with, Bodhi has undertaken an unnatural challenge when he tries to re-train an animal’s basic nature – that is, to stop Dharma from hunting. This sort of retraining can be accomplished, but Bodhi hasn’t quite thought it through in this case. And secondly, Bodhi is dealing with a creature who is more wily by instinct than most earnest monks would be! Poor Bodhi – he seems destined to be the unexpected underdog in any contest of will or wit with Dharma The Cat.

I should mention that this episode is autobiographical. We got our cat at the animal shelter -- he had been abandoned by his previous owner at the age of 1 year. He is a very affectionate animal, and he seems to understand that we saved him, But when we first brought him home and let him loose in the yard, he became an instant terror to our happy little neighbourhood, by stalking everything that moved -- and catching most of it.

A couple of hormone shots took the edge off that behaviour, and over the next year he became more gentle, especially by mimicking our own patient gentleness toward him. Eventually he has learned to not physically harm these poor creatures he traps.

However, now he has learned to howl in a certain tone of voice when he has captured or cornered a lizard, mouse or whatever, to signal us. You see, he has learned that we will always rescue his victim and distract him from this insult by giving him a snack. From this long-term retraining procedure he learned to be gentle, but he also learned that a reward is associated with hunting as well as with gentleness. Therefore he still hunts, but at least he has learned to be gentle – a mixed lesson that is the result of my not thinking it through properly in the beginning.

Now, if you want some authentic Buddhist commentary on this subject, tune into PETER MASEFIELD’s erudite explications. And to get some non-Buddhist points of view on "The Lesson," check the MULTI-FAITH commentary below, by representatives of Baha’i, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. -- David Lourie

* * * *

A BAHA'I PERSPECTIVE
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by Paul M Booth
[view the cartoon]

The lesson I took from this is that sometimes, what appears to be the cruelty and hardship of life is, in reality, kindness and mercy - were we only able to see the complete picture. As someone who lost his father through polio, is chairbound himself through the same cause and whose mother died at sixty having suffered several years of premature senile decay, I have given the subject no little thought.  Like Buddhism, the Baha'i Faith provides some fascinating insights into the subject.

I would regularly visit my mother in a mental institution. In a ward of 50 people, I rarely saw another visitor. She could no longer speak and I used to wonder if she even knew of my presence, there being no sign of recognition. We were not the most demonstrable of families - we knew we all cared so rarely said it.  On one visit, however, as she sat there seeming totally oblivious to me and all around her, I said: "I do love you you know". She looked up into my eyes and tears streamed down her cheeks. She was still in there! On the one hand I felt happy that my mother was still present on the other great anguish that she was trapped in this barely functioning body and mind. I was much comforted later on finding these words of Baha'u'llah:-

"Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments.  Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power." (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah)*

Why the need for suffering. This question is, of course, central to Buddhism but, on a personal level, what I know is that when I consider those people in my life who have most struck me as being "special". People who, having touched my life, have left me richer for it - without fail I discover that, at some time, they have really been through the mill. It is as though they have had the "rough edges" knocked off and exposed the jewel within. Baha'u'llah in His book "The Hidden Words"* says:- "O Son of Man! My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit..."

"O Son of Man! If adversity befall thee not in My path, how canst thou walk in the ways of them that are content with My pleasure?  If trials afflict thee not in thy longing to meet Me, how wilt thou attain the light in thy love for My beauty?"

His son, Abdu'l-Baha', further explains:- "Tests are benefits from God, for which we should thank Him.  Grief and sorrow do not come to us by chance, they are sent to us by the Divine Mercy for our own perfecting. While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.

Men who suffer not, attain no perfection.  The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit." (Paris Talks*)

Life then, is an adventure; a race to develop our spiritual capacities and sensibilities before we cast off this mortal coil and these qualities are all we have left. We can't take our money, our property, our physical beauty, our trophies, titles or crowns. Whether we are given, clogs, running shoes or skis. Whether we are given, brightness, health and wealth or dullness, illness and poverty is; in the great race of life totally irrelevant. What is important is that we do the best we can with what we've got and try and achieve our potential while helping others achieve theirs.

If some of my meanderings prove interesting (or even if they don't) I commend to you the Baha'i teachings which not only speak to the needs of the individual but to those of the World.

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration.  The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require.  Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah*)
*Available from: sales@bahaibooks.co.uk

A BUDDHIST'S COMMENTARY
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by Peter Masefield, Pali scholar
[view the cartoon]

1. Bodhi, in trying to instil a little compassion into Dharma, not only seems unaware that compassion ultimately plays no role in the question of whether meat-eating is blameworthy, but also seems not to realise that it is part of a mouse's karma that it be killed, and eaten, by other animals. Nor does he seem aware of the ecological harm his substitute catfood may be giving rise to, containing, as it almost certainly does, the leftovers of whale carcases senselessly slaughtered in huge numbers for the sake of futile human vanities. Let us get one thing straight right from the outset: although certain monks belonging to the Mahayana practise vegetarianism, the Buddha, according to the Pali Canon at least, utterly refused to lay down any rule that he or his monks should be vegetarians (Vin II 196f; BD V 276f). It therefore follows that any monk belonging to the Theravada tradition, which accepts the Pali Canon as the authoritative word of the Buddha, and who refuses to accept any dish offered by a lay-supporter that contains meat or fish, is in serious breach of the Vinaya, or rules of conduct incumbent on monks.

Certain monastic sects, however, though claiming to belong to the Theravada tradition, nonetheless refuse to accept offerings containing meat or fish. I once attended an almsgiving at which a Thai lady thrust into my hands a pot of anonymous curry, which I proceeded to ladle into the bowls of the monks aligned against the right hand wall of the monastery. I then began to repeat the practice with the monks aligned against the left hand wall, whereupon the first monk, perceiving that the curry I had ladled into his bowl contained meat, refused my offering, obviously infuriated that I had contaminated his only meal of the day. In this he was seriously at fault, for it involved a clear breach of the Vinaya, or rules governing monastic conduct.

Some might suggest that, in refusing to prohibit the consumption of meat or fish, the Buddha was simply reflecting the cultural values current in his day. But this is clearly not the case, for there were, in India in the 5th century BC, numerous other heterodox religious movements, such as that of the Jains, that were clearly committed to the practice of vegetarianism.

Anecdote: the Jains believed that a good many living substances were host to one or more jivas (souls), and that the karmic consequences of consuming a substance were directly proportional to the number of jivas to which that substance was host. This meant that to eat a pomegranate, in which there were a vast number of such jivas (i.e. the seeds), was far more karmically culpable than eating, say, a carrot.

2. The Buddha's only qualification concerning the consumption of meat and fish was that the monk who accepted same should not have seen, heard or suspected that the meat or fish in question had been slaughtered for his sake (Vin II 196f; BD V 276f). In this, his reasons would seem to be based partly on practical considerations, and partly on his understanding of karma. For it was, is his day, incumbent upon a monk in the main to enter upon a random almsround, arriving unannounced at the door of some house in which the meal had already been prepared. He was expected to stand motionlessly at the gate. If the householder came out and offered him part of their meal, he was to accept this in silence. If no one appeared, he was to move on, again at random, to some other house. From this it is clear that any meat or fish contained in the almsfood offered could not have been slaughtered for the sake of that monk. Under such circumstances, for the monk to pick and choose, deciding to eat what appealed to him and reject what did not, would also violate the Buddha's rule that a monk should eat whatever was placed in his almsbowl, even if this included the thumb of a leper, should this drop into the bowl whilst he was offering his almsfood (Thag 1055; EV I 97). To act in any other way would serve as a clear demonstration that the monk was still subject to attachment, and one who regarded food as something more than merely something that had to be consumed in order to sustain his physical frame until such time as he reached his goal of enlightenment (S IV 103f; KS IV 64).

Indeed, there was until recently (?video footnote) a group of monks in Thailand that did not allow any images of the Buddha in their temples. Now it happens to be a common practice of Buddhist lay followers in Bangkok to offer a bunch of lotuses, along with their almsfood, which they hope the monk receiving the alms will present to the Buddha image upon his return to the temple. But since this particular group of monks eschewed any such Buddha images, they therefore dutifully ate the lotuses themselves, so as not to infringe the rule that they should eat whatever was placed in their almsbowls.

There were, however, occasions upon which the Buddha and/or his monks were asked by a householder to accept an invitation to his house for a meal on the following day. In such cases, the Buddha advised the householder to procure meat that had already been slaughtered (pavattamamsa). So strict was this rule that a certain female householder, who wished to provide alms but could find no such meat available, once cut flesh from her own thigh so as to provide meat-broth for a monk (Vin I 217; BD IV 296f). Let it be acknowledged that there is, underlying such beliefs, little element of compassion for the animal slaughtered, and rather merely a concern to avoid any of the karma associated with its slaughter. In this, the Buddhists and the Jains seem agreed.

It may be noted that, in modern Sri Lanka, most Buddhists eat little meat but a good deal of fish. In general, they use Muslim butchers to slaughter their meat, and Roman Catholic fishermen to catch their fish; whilst Holmes Welch observes that, in China, there is the story of one old woman who left off reciting the Mantra of Great Compassion just long enough to remind her servant to kill a chicken for supper (The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950, Cambridge Mass, 1967, p 383.)

3. In addition, it is possible that underlying the assumption that the consumption of flesh is blameless, given that someone else suffers any karmic consequences stemming from its slaughter, is also the view that it is, in any case, part of a wild animal's own karma that it be killed and eaten by others, just as it is part of a domestic animal's karma that it work for humans.

Many years ago, I shared a railway compartment in Sri Lanka with a Tamil (Hindu) farmer from the island's north. We got to talking and he boasted of his vegetarianism. He pointed out, so eloquently that it almost brought tears to my eyes, how his cattle pulled his plough, hauled water from the well, thrashed his grain, provided him with cow dung, milk, and ghee and so on. How, he asked rhetorically, could he eat such an animal. I could not stem the rising feeling that it might not be a grand culmination to the whole process if he also allowed the animal to provide food for his table, but resisted this, asking him instead what he did when an animal became too old to work. He replied, without any obvious sense of inconsistency, that when an animal became too old to serve him, he sold it to the abattoir down the road.

As for eating human flesh, I can do no more than quote the canon: "Coming down from my lodging, I entered a city to beg; I respectfully stood by a leper who was eating. He offered a portion to me with his rotting hand; as he was throwing the piece (into my bowl) his finger too broke off there. But near the foot of a wall I ate that portion; no disgust arose in me,
either while it was being eaten or when it had been eaten" (Theragatha 1054-1056).

A SECOND BUDDHIST OPINION
ON VEGETARIANISM
By Bodhipaksa
[view the cartoon]

There are indeed very good reasons for becoming vegetarian. It's an expression of ahimsa [non cruelty], is in line with the first precept, is an expression of metta [loving kindness]. The Buddha's directives in the Jivaka Sutta don't support vegetarianism but those in the Sutta NIpata do.

The main reason that the Buddha and his monks were not vegetarian was, I think, that most of the population wasn't at that time. If you dig around you find little evidence that there was much practice of vegetarianism at that time. The Brahmins seemed to eat meat, as did the Jains (there are references to this in Jaina Suttas). If you begged you pretty well would have to eat meat or go hungry. If monks were wandering - as they would have been most of the time in the early days - they wouldn't know which householders were vegetarian, so they couldn't choose only to beg from vegetarians. The Buddha did allow monks to be vegetarian but it was the optional practice of an austerity. It only makes sense that vegetarianism was an austerity if it was hard to do. After all it's lumped in with things like not sleeping under shelter!

I've been told by a Theravadin Bhikkhu that it is indeed permissible to eat what you want and leave what you want. He told me that it would be physically impossible to eat everything you were given. Therefore it would be possible to leave aside some meat (although it would be hard to be strictly vegetarian because everything would be mixed in or offerings might be predominantly meaty).

As I've pointed out the Jains did eat meat so the Buddha probably was compromising to fit in with accepted dietary practice.

The Buddha's qualification concerning the consumption of meat and fish -- that the monk who accepted same should not have seen, heard or suspected that the meat or fish in question had been slaughtered for his sake (Vin II 196f; BD V -- is not the only qualification. Monks had to refuse raw meat, human flesh, and certain animals like elephant, horse, snake, and predators. This shows that monks could in fact refuse offerings. Refusing meat specially killed for a monk could have been because the monk would be complicit in the killing if he accepted such meat.

Again, I've been told that the practice was not to stand at doors but to wander slowly through the village - the householders would then call you over and offer food. I haven't checked this up in the Vinaya though.

Presumably animals were sometimes killed specially for the monks, or the Buddha wouldn't have formulated the rule against doing this! Householders, knowing that mendicants were in the area might well decide to earn extra brownie points (sorry, merit) by making a special offering. They'd kill an animal and have the meat handy. I suspect the Buddha formulated this rule to stop mass outbreaks of slaughter whenever monks arrived in an area.

If you check in the Sutta NIpata you'll find that laypeople are encouraged not to kill, to cause to kill, or to approve of others killing. Now the Jivaka Sutta is aimed at monks who were begging and couldn't make much choice in what they were eating. This bit of the Sutta Nipata was aimed at laymen, who could choose what they ate. Now, what is buying meat from someone if it is not approving of someone else killing. You are in fact rewarding them for killing -- a form of approval.

My view is that the Buddha did encourage vegetarianism, but not amongst monks - who couldn't make much choice - but amongst the laity - who could. Otherwise it is hard to see how vegetarianism could have grown so fast in India in parallel with Buddhism. By the time of Ashoka (250 years or so after the Buddha) we have a monarch - a layman! - becoming vegetarian and encouraging others to do so.

There are far too many laypeople who base their actions on the Jivaka Sutta, which was aimed at mendicants and not at them. Laypeople need to look at what the consequences of their actions are: are they supporting ahimsa and metta by their actions or are they encouraging others to kill or approving of others killing by buying their meat? [see the Sutta Nipata]. -- Bodhipaksa

* Buddhism -- A Concise Introduction

* * * *

A CHRISTIAN'S COMMENT
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by Rev Bern Stevens
The Uniting Church, Sydney, Australia
[view the cartoon]

Dharma continues to be a manipulator for his own ends. In Episode 1 he was manipulator of the clock and time, and also of Bodhi, to satisfy an undisciplined appetite for food. This time he manipulates Siam and Bodhi. Again Bodhi falls into the trap of rewarding him, thinking that this will teach him to be more compassionate to Siam, not realising that Siam is falling into line as a collaborator in using Bodhi as a source of food.

There is no hint of compassion in the behaviour of Dharma. Siam is a compliant "victim" in the "food chain" that they share.

There are many references in Christian Scriptures to compassion. Jesus was "moved to compassion" on several occasions where there were people in great need of bodily or spiritual food. His response was to meet the causative need of people and not to manipulate others or be manipulated himself by selfish motives of appetite or greed. For example, in Matthew Gospel account of the life and actions of Jesus, it is said:

"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd".

Likewise, Christians, in their best responses to others, seek out the causes for need and then endeavour to bring compassion to bear on each situation. A good example of this is seen in the strong movement to deal with the underlying historical and social causes for discrimination against indigenous Australians and other minority groups in our multicultural society.

* * * *

A HINDU PERSPECTIVE
by Dr Greg Bailey
[view the cartoon]

Compassion is an important component in all of the devotional traditions within Hinduism where the god or goddess will actively intervene in the devotee's affair to bring either a material or a spiritual benefit. Both are equally valid, such that there would be no negative comment made about Dharma or the mouse in practicing a mild form of deceit in order to enable Bodhi to exercise compassion.  Moreover, as we are consistently told in medieval devotional texts, an act of compassion will be effective as a demonstration of devotion, whether or not the actor is aware of it or not. Hence Bodhi would accrue good karma for his act, even if he has been set up by Dharma and the mouse.  They too, in turn, will receive good karma, now -as cheese for the mouse - and in the future, because in attempting to ensure that Bodhi exercises compassion, they are carrying out a kind of both compassion and an act of devotion as well.

Bodhi's blind adherence to the dharma is both touching and amusing from a Western perspective.  The kind of pragmatic behaviour and compromise engaged in by the cat and the mouse in unison, for their own benefit, is firmly grounded within a tradition of realism operative within early Hinduism.  We see this especially demonstrated in parts of the great Hindu epic, the Mahaabhaarata, and in many collections of folk tales, where wit, cunning and agility are always celebrated as skills worthy of cultivation.

As Peter Masefield points out in his Buddhist commentary, Bodhi's naive compassion does contradict a fundamental Buddhist teaching that a creature must work out its own karma, implying that Dharma has been born a cat because of actions performed and intentions formed in previous lives. In Hindu traditions a similar teaching is present, though it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the devotional god or goddess can nullify the effects of bad karma in order to allow their devotee to go straight to heaven.  Ultimately Bodhi's efforts must fail because the cat's true nature will assert itself and the temporary alliance it has contracted with the mouse will disappear.  Then his compassion will be seen to be empty as the cat will kill the mouse and not only will Bodhi be held responsible for the death of the mouse but also for causing an act of violence and the bad emotions associated with this.

Really, in this cartoon the act of compassion belongs to the cat and the mouse who are both actively working to help Bodhi in performing the kind of role the Buddhist tradition expects of him. -- Dr Greg Bailey

* * * *

INTERFAITH PERSPECTIVE
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by Paul Trafford
[view the cartoon]

So the cool cat hoodwinks the young monk again: Dharma, in his worldliness, seems to have Bodhi in the palm of his paw. This episode is a lesson in the need for wisdom as well as compassion if one's action is to be truly skilful. Real compassion, as described by Rev Stevens, should satisfy a need, not craving. This is particularly the case when trying to "set others right".

At least Bodhi is kindly in his intentions, showing some awareness of the first Buddhist precept. Naivety with respect to others is not necessarily a bad thing for Jesus reports this in the parable of the shrewd manager [Luke 16], commenting: "For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light."

However, if Bodhi had been more alert he would have probably queried why it is that the cat seems not to have improved his behaviour (thus letting him urge Siam, his accomplice, "Come on, one more time!"). All being well, Bodhi will continue to practise dutifully and develop a clearer mind, whence he may discern the roguish intentions of little Dharma and determine some appropriate action.

By involving himself in this way in another's affairs, Bodhi runs into a difficult situation without realising it. Analysing the karmic consequences appears (to me) to open up a veritable minefield concerning the pros and cons of what to eat and in what circumstances. Perhaps that's why in some religions there are well defined rules on preparation and consumption of certain foodstuffs. If we all got together, what meal could we share, I wonder?

In my own experience, I have noticed that refraining from consumption of meat is conducive to more refined states of mind; conversely, when one has a refined state of mind, then one can find meat rather unattractive. As a further example, it is recommended that those who wear the brown scapular, a Christian form of devotion, should refrain from eating meat on (at least) three days: Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. I think this is to help in purification.
-- Paul Trafford pt@easynet.co.uk web site: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~pt

* * * *

ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 1 - "TIME"
by Saifullah Khalid
Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of Australia Inc
[view the cartoon]

Before commenting upon the Cartoon, let me state how 1 understand it.

* * * *

A PAGAN (WICCAN) PERSPECTIVE
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by Mari Powers
[view the cartoon]

When I first thought about this cartoon, I asked myself if it was possible to teach compassion. I thought of compassion as a feeling and wondered if it is possible to teach a feeling. I thought of compassion as a way of action and concluded that it is possible.

I once did a ritual entitled “The Gathering of the Tribes”. The purpose was to celebrate our multicultural spiritual heritage. One of the chants we sang was as follows: Celebrate diversity Infinite in harmony Rainbow colors all entwined One body, one mind. Come and be one Be one Come be one be.

We all came out of Africa and split off in the four directions and became the four races. We each developed many different spiritual traditions. As long as we honor and celebrate our differences, we can remain compassionate and respectful of each other. I am reminded of a story where a rabbit, a cat and a dog were raised together. To the delight and surprise of all who knew them, they often napped together in a pile. When we raise our children together, they do not see their differences. As parents and spiritual teachers, we can teach compassion.

Bodhi is attempting to teach Dharma compassion. What he fosters is a mutual exchange between Dharma and Siam. Because they are who they are, what they exchange is food and the promise of food. As humans, we can exchange much more.

As we enter the Age of Aquarius, the age of information and the world economy of exchange, there are many more opportunities to raise our children to be compassionate and respectful of diversity. It is a prayer I have that we can move from the economy of exchange, to one of compassion and celebration of spiritual and cultural differences. The worldwide exchange of information can be a very good place to start.   -- Mari Powers

A RABBI'S COMMENT
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 - "THE LESSON"
by Rabbi Brian D, Fox AM.,DD
Senior Rabbi Temple Emanuel Sydney Australia.
[view the cartoon]

Does the most important commandment -- the saving of life -- include animals?

Dharma The Cat is learning that it does. Judaism would say that if a cat kills a mouse, that is none of our business. If we cause any animal to suffer that is our business! But Dharma takes on human qualities, so we must judge him as we would a human. In that case vegetarianism definitely is preferable to the omnivorism of many human beings (they'll eat anything that moves). If Dharma's cat food is vegetarian then that is definitely preferable to his eating the mouse. However, mice can carry diseases and can be a danger to human life.

A human taking precedence over animals and therefore stopping Dharma from eating the mouse might pose a danger to human life.

Dharma needs to stop his relationship with mice. For mice lead to loss of knowledge. If one eats a biscuit that has been nibbled by a mouse one loses all one's knowledge (The Talmud). It is not compassion that Dharma needs to learn: it is the value of learning. A further point: the evil of eating a mouse--a non-kosher animal-- has led Dharma on the slippery slope to deceit (of his Master) and blackmail. -- Rabbi Brian Fox.

A TAOIST'S PERSPECTIVE
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 2 "THE LESSON"
by Charles Cromer
Founder of the Taoist Circle Organization
[view the cartoon]

Bodhi is trying to teach Dharma is a very important one. Compassion is one of the Three Jewels in Taoism -- the other two being balance and humility. Through respecting the Three Jewels, one will live a good life.

This "Lesson" also points out that while one must be compassionate, one must also have open eyes to those who will take advantage of the compassion. Dharma and Siam are doing just that. Through their mutual greed for material possessions, they are manipulating the compassion that Bodhi offers. While Bodhi thinks he is helping Dharma, in actuality he is only enabling materialism by offering blind compassion. Thus, this blind compassion is actually hindering Dharma's and Siam's path to enlightenment.

When compassion is not tempered with wisdom, it can actually be a stumbling block for the person receiving that compassion. You can see this principle at work every day in major cities. Often the homeless will approach people asking for any money they can spare for food (when they are actually going to get a bottle of beer or liquor). Often times "blind compassion" will cause the person to give them a dollar or two. And by doing so you have fed the addiction of a person placing them one step farther from being functional.

Instead of offering them money, I will volunteer to buy them a meal. The ones seeking the money for booze will refuse, but those truly hungry will be fed. This is tempering compassion with wisdom. And by doing so I help those who wish to help themselves and do no further harm to those that wish to manipulate my compassion. -- Charles Cromer, Ccdrogan@aol.com Founder of the Taoist Circle Organization http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7201/index.html

* * * *