Buddhism and the limits of compassion

I’m afraid that this time William Page slightly misrepresented things. First of all, Vivekananda was a disciple of Ramakrishna, but Ramakrishna was a self-made saint who relied on popular appeal and personal claims rather than strict representation of tradition. No one ejected these two philosophers from Hinduism, but they don’t get to speak on behalf of all Indian religion, which is not a single institution. 

Theologically, they are aligned with the Advaita interpretation of Vedanta, which is very close to Buddhism in denying the existence of an eternal, personal form of godhead. However, this interpretation is rejected by all schools of Vaishnavism, whose followers comprise up to 80 per cent of all Hindus (depending on how one calculates). 

Neither Ramakrishna nor Vivekananda followed the Advaita tradition in terms of personal spiritual practice, and both ate meat, a big no-no for Hindu traditionalists. However, Ramakrishna’s appeal to the masses and Vivekananda’s appeal to the founders of the Congress Party ensured their popularity. 

It is true they gave rights to India’s “untouchables” and thus were revolutionary, but being a revolutionary doesn’t make you a spokesman for a tradition. 

Second, compassion is a tricky thing. A friend who buys you a beer might be compassionate, but if it’s “one for the road”, his compassion becomes practically criminal if you crash your vehicle. 

Compassion needs to lead to the ultimate goal, which in any religion is some kind of spiritual realisation. Caring for untouchables, on the other hand, can be seen as only caring for their material well-being and not their eternal souls. It’s a very convenient way for politicians to get votes, however – an Indian kind of populism. 

There surely are better ways to reform the Indian caste system than elevating service to the poor to the same level as service to God. Incidentally, Thai Buddhists don’t do this – no one in his right mind would equate monks with street beggars. (This is not to say that charity is unwelcome and that the homeless should be abandoned.) 

Stan G