In the context of the Sutra commentaries, the quotation given was admonition to each individual. That is, we each should look upon the experience of those situations in the way presented — in our own lives.
By extrapolation, we can see that the suffering of others would help lead them towards enlightenment if they could take a similar view. But that does not imply that we should leave them to suffer. More appropriate, I think, would be to help with the immediate troubles and also attempt to show ways to put those troubles into the context of spiritual instruction (so they might avoid evoking such trouble again).

However, the main intention had been to suggest that we cut through the doubts about whether we should help or not, because we cannot presume to know our role in another’s Karma. And, from that basis, to suggest that the only reasonable course is to develop our own good nature, and to always act from that nature.
Which returns to the main point of the entire post — [good] motive. Which, I propose, derives from a good nature.

The nice thing about Vietnamese Buddhism is that it is so very eclectic: it has influence from all the different kinds of Buddhism still alive in Asia: Zen, Chinese, Theravada etc. Of course Thich Nhat Hanh is quite the master of combining them all in a way that is both wise and relevant for today.

It sounds like this sutra was written before the divisions between Theravada and Mahayana were as complete as they have been for the past 1000 years. Global communication may change that again though

Regarding the balance of your reply, it seems quite complete and would only be marred by carrying on. Thanks.

It’s always hard, I think, to balance priorities. Doing people a favor is something very different from really helping them. Truly helping them is something different from seeming to help them.

The famous saying that it’s better to teach a man to fish, than to feed him is one example of this. Better to help in a way that the person can go on helping themselves, than to get them through the night. But still, if it’s a choice between doing nothing and helping them through the night – one should obviously help them through the night.

I’m sure there are enough examples of the Buddha helping others in the pali sutras and Jakata tales to support this.

“The Buddha spoke of sickness and suffering as effective medicines; times of difficulty and accidents as times of freedom and realization; obstacles as liberation; the army of evil as guards of the Dharma; difficulties as required for success;….”

Other portions, bring to mind the thought that Karma simply cannot be interfered with. Who, other than avatars, can presume to be able of judging properly? Yet, still, we have not merely the option, but the responsibility to exist, to act. We must create a positive vision, then use the powers alloted to us to attempt to act in accordance with that vision. In doing so we may erase previous Karmic debts and we may create new Karma, but only for ourselves.

Whether our powers have the capacity to alter or positively influence the state of another’s experience will, of course, be constrained by that person’s Karma (both from the past, and that generated by his or her current state). Sometimes our attempts to help succeed, sometimes they fail.

We cannot alter other’s Karma, though we may be an instrument whereby they come to alter it for themselves.

The influence of such an act (of healing, suggestion or instruction) upon our own Karma, as the last paragraph in the blog mentions, is related to motive.

The matter of “self-interest” refers to the interest as understood by the ego-image — that false belief that we are separate and not connected to the universe. From this person’s experience, as that false image is slowly challenged and altered, the assumption that the one must master the world (for survival, affirmation, belonging) also slowly dissipates. It is a frightfully long path of following an ideal in darkness before discovering that the universe is a benevolent place. This is a challenge everyone faces when setting out.

In any case, when considering “doing good,” it is more important to try to create a good nature from which good acts arise, rather than merely acting good in a desire to be good. Returning again to the Sutra:

“[The Buddha spoke of]…..the act of doing someone a favor as base as the act of casting away a pair of old shoes…..”

Namaste

[corrected slightly based on private correspondence with Brad - Katinka]

Yes, in general I agree with that. It really is, ultimately, better to just do what good you can, when you can, instead of waiting till you’re perfect enough to do good perfectly. And the doing will speed up the perfection process more than any waiting could.

BUT – when healing and money get mixed up, and the healing itself isn’t a permanent thing, things do get mucky in my view – aka grey instead of pure white magic.

If it’s against someone’s karma to give them healing as you may interfere with their karma, then wouldn’t it also be bad to education them as that can hugely alter someone’s karma? Even being nice to the lady at the supermarket checkout could change their day for the better…

By making spiritual truth available on your site I imagine you’ve changed some people’s karma for the better – and no doubt your own too.

Then again – much that is called healing does no more than give temporary relief. Nothing wrong with that – but from a spiritual perspective the question is: does it create dependency?

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with either position. I’m very much on the fence.

I’ve been reading Jane Eyre and it’s amazing how far we’ve come from the simple religious attitude that sorrow is part of life and learning acceptance and forgiveness are the most important things.