Does mercy mean empathy and an open heart?

Mr. L.M.

This is Kawaguchi Hidetoshi. This is my humble answer to the question.

Mercy in Buddhism is about taking other suffering as one's own suffering and doing it with the intention of somehow eliminating that suffering, and to do so, it is called “unrelated mercy,” and merits in understanding the “emptiness” of “no substance” are required for the side that performs mercy, the side that receives mercy, and the act of mercy.

This “no relationship” is also expressed as “three wheels clean” or “three wheels empty,” but of course, even if you say “sky,” it does not mean that there is nothing, it is just “no substance,” and it shows that there are effective effects on the side that performs mercy, the side that receives mercy, and the act of mercy, for example, due to causation (cause and condition), but it shows that we must not be trapped by viewing any of them as an entity.

No matter what, when doing altruism (or self-interest included), there are cases where people do that act with a desire or a sense of worry to ask for something in return, such as “I did this, so this should be in return.”

Well then, it becomes necessary to be careful that it will not be a true merit.

However, the merit of completely eliminating worries from the beginning is not something we can do very well, and it is important that little by little, while practicing Buddhism, we make efforts to reduce our worries, and make adjustments so that we can do it while removing captivity.

If the practice of “love” is performed as “unrelated love” similar to Buddhism, I think it's not much different from Buddhism.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

The word mercy is used in many places and with many meanings. Among them, there are probably uses close to Christian love (I haven't studied Christianity at all, and I haven't learned everything about Buddhism, so I can't say it categorically).

However, a typical use that is different from love is not philanthropy to help people in need in a broad sense, but rather a usage of a heart that tries to lead lost people to remembrance. Buddhism is a teaching of Buddha and at the same time a teaching of becoming a Buddha, that is, a teaching for attaining Buddhahood, so trying to save those suffering in the darkness of confusion into a Buddha is mercy. The only way to save those who are truly suffering is to make them Buddha. It's merciful to work in this context.

Now, mercy is mercy and compassion, but mercy is a heart that involves more active and concrete actions than compassion. Shouldn't it be a desire to teach Buddhism? In response to this, it is a sad heart that reveals the state of suffering people who are internally lost, using the wisdom of consciousness. It's just an analogy, but when you try to save someone who is struggling by jumping up and getting caught in a tree branch, bending your knees and rolling up your state is sad, and I think leaping and stretching your hands all the way out can be expressed as mercy.

There are three types of mercy: mercy related to sentient beings, mercy related to the law, and mercy unrelated. The mercy of sentient beings is poured out on someone specific who has ties to oneself. In short, parents, siblings, acquaintances, etc. Legal mercy is omitted, and unrelated mercy is the Buddha's mercy, and in this case, relationship means the target, and it is a mercy that works naturally without the desire to save water from upstream to downstream without anyone being targeted (it may be difficult for first-time users to understand).

I read your question.
Actually, I can't figure it out either, but I'll just give you my personal opinion so far.
When I read various books, I feel that the way they are perceived is different between Mahayana and Theravada. Mahayana has a broader definition, or rather, captures it more broadly. I think this can be said not only for words of mercy, but for Buddhist terms in general.
On the other hand, in the Theravada, it is more strictly expressed that mercy comes from the scenery of enlightenment.
In other words, after overcoming the ultimate suffering of death, there is enlightenment, and only then does a sincere sense of compassion spring up for sentient beings who have not yet reached enlightenment.
Therefore, there are also people who say it is extreme that it is not true mercy until enlightenment is reached.
Perhaps logically, the suffering of a parent who has lost a child cannot be understood in the true sense of the word, just as only a parent who has also lost a child can understand the suffering they have not experienced. Among them, death suffering is the ultimate suffering. Therefore, those who have overcome it and reached enlightenment can understand the suffering of all sentient beings. I'm interpreting it without permission as if that were the case.

However, the Pali words “metter (mercy)” and “karna (sorrow),” which are the original words of mercy, have the meaning of “friend” and “groan,” respectively.
Therefore, I understand that “those who have experienced pain such as moaning can pay attention to people in the same situation,” so I think that even those who have not reached enlightenment are merciful in the category of suffering they have experienced themselves.
The person who came to realize it said, “That's not true mercy!” If I were to say that, I think that would be the case.
Again, this is just my personal opinion of shallow learning. Please take a look at it for reference only.

In terms of dictionaries, mercy is “tekku yoraku” (baku yoraku). Eliminates pain and gives comfort. Relaxation is fun, not ease. Peace of mind. In other words, ultimately, mercy is enlightenment and enlightenment.

So far, it's simple and clear. The problem starts here.
Something to empathize with? Praying for people? If you list them, they are all correct answers, and they are all wrong.

In Christianity, first of all, there is an absolute example called the Bible, and I aim to be able to put the Bible's teachings into practice.

However, Buddhism determines what to do according to the perspective of the person in front of you. For example, praying for others is basically mercy. But was it the year before last? The Dalai Lama said, “Stop praying for war in the Middle East! “As for this matter,” we have to take concrete action to stop the war!” That's what you said.
In other words, mercy is doing this! It's no good if you make it a rule. But there are times when rules should be made on a case-by-case basis...
This is called “obyoyaku” (obyo yoyaku), where medicine is given according to the illness. It's a style that makes a monk cry. As a case study (in other words, on the surface), it's full of contradictions at the time of the scriptures.

Ultimately, however, enlightenment is the same no matter where you do it. After all, what do you do that for? That direction is important, isn't it? You will learn this direction by “supporting monks and getting feedback” or “self-enlightenment (aiming for enlightenment).”

Based on that, after all, what is mercy? In other words, it's “getting rid of the sense of self and others.” In other words, it's “connection,” which I wrote in my previous question.
https://hasunoha.jp/questions/26499
I'm going back from my [individual] way of life to my [connected] way of being. On top of that, it goes back to [individual], which is said to move concretely.

Well, now it's all of a sudden Naruhod! If you think about it, on the contrary, it may seem suspicious... especially the last part.
Buddhism is said to be naturally inspired and transmitted from person to person “as if you walk through fog, your sleeves naturally get damp.” Please be sure to cherish your encounter with the monk.

Finally, there is a snake foot, but the “individual” from the connection that everyone is one big one is the feeling that God's will is completed and my mission are different things after all, but it gives me a sense of closeness. No, I wonder if I'll mislead if I write something like this after all...

Visit Buddhist sites in India. I read sutras and experienced a memorial service trip.
Even now, in India, the caste system remains, and people in the status of shudras (slaves) live in houses like in the Jomon period in Japan, and the living environment is so bad that I was shocked by the culture.
Seeing this scene, I first felt mercy and sorrow in my heart, and tears welled up. Then, the feeling of compassion that I wanted to save them somehow never stopped, and my heart ached as it crossed my head. I was convinced that this state of mind was the “heart of mercy” that Japanese people in countries with advanced modern civilization would have, even if they were not Buddha. Unlike us, the extraordinary Buddha was exalted in his heart of pity and compassion, felt a contradiction in the caste system and wanted sentient beings to be saved, and I thought it was Buddhism that was founded. Nakamura Motoji Iwanami Bunko says in “Buddha's Words” and “Buddha's Words of Truth and Inspiration,” while acknowledging that Brahmins are the greatest saints as human beings, “they do not become ＜Brahmons' by birth. Nor do you become a “person who is not a Brahmin” by birth. They are “Brahmin” due to their actions. It is stated that they are “people who are not Brahmins” due to their actions. Also, people who are struggling were also felt sorry, and they were adopted into Buddhism, stopped the phenomenon of suffering, made the sutras, and proselytized. I realized that the heart of mercy is the Buddha nature, which is the best heart that every human being has, and it was shown that by doing everything “for the world and for people” with this heart, it will be easier to live in and a better world. Unfortunately, it did not spread in India, spread to Southeast Asia and East Asian countries, and Japan has also reached the present as a Buddhist country.