1. Explain the parallels drawn by the Dalai Lama between the three bodies of the Buddha and the Christian concept of the Trinity as you address the question: Do we need a metaphysical support for an ethics of compassion? Why or why not? Do the religious metaphysics add anything of value? I do not think that there is any condition to follow the compassion. Of course, the metaphysics may give a reason to practice compassion from a narrow prospective, but when one tries to find the dee nature of compassion, all the conditions go vanish. The Dalai Lama defines compassion as: “[The value that] develops the seeds of empathy in having some regards for the other into an active generation of love and compassion for all other beings.” I understand …show more content…
That is not the case, however, because any person, as illustrated by many examples from the Dalai Lama, from any religion can exercise the act of compassion at its highest.
The ultimate compassion remains the same without any difference in metaphysical view of the practitioner. The Dalai Lama compares compassion between Christianity (Trinity) and Buddhism (Trikaya). The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, reflects perfectibility of humankind which ultimately comes when one opens up love for the others. This indirect connection shows that the Son represents the symbol of compassion to lead to the possibility of humankind to perfection. In Trikaya, Sambhogakaya, the bliss body, marks the subtle energy from the acts of compassion.
This comparison between the religion ideologies by Lama accounts that different religions have different metaphysics for the ethics of compassion, which adds value of the view for the followers. Thus, metaphysics can be of a tremendous value for the followers of religions as in it a guide to compassion, but for the secularist compassion is merely an act of a good