This paper is to argue that there are no degrees in a Bodhisattva's compassion and also to explore the Western account of compassion, which suggests that there are degrees in our compassion. After analyzing and comparing both positions, I affirm that they are opposite views.

_Since arguably Bodhisattva Practice (bodhisattva-carya) is the foundation of Mahayana Buddhist ethics, it is significantly important for Bodhisattva compassion to be compatible with other Buddhist doctrines, specifically with the doctrine of 'no-self ' (anatta). There are two thoughts on the relation between compassion and 'no-self ': they are compatible or incompatibility. Most Buddhist authors accept the former view. However, the principal problem with the two views is that their arguments have not been singled out. So the acceptance or denial of (...) the compatibility may not be well grounded. This paper is to identify and evaluate the arguments for and against the agreeability, and to defend the compatible view_. (shrink)

Jay Garfield proposes a transpersonal way to ease the extreme difficulty to become a Buddha for those refugees who are agonized by the arduous pursuit. By ?transpersonal method?, Garfield means that we could accumulate others? karma to become a Buddha just as we do with others? knowledge. Garfield's proposal touches an essential question of Buddhism: how to become a Buddha or how to attain nirvana? Generally, most Buddhists think that nirvana should be done through the intrapersonal (or difficult) way rather (...) than the transpersonal way that Garfield recommends. So if Garfield is right, his suggestion would be an easier way to become a Buddha. Given the significance of Garfield's proposition for Buddhism, it is strange that no contemporary Buddhists have examined his claim. This essay is to refute his proposal. (shrink)

This essay is to identify two views of Buddhist ethics: egalitarianism and non-egalitarianism. In the time of the Buddha, there was no conflict between the concept of equality and the Buddha’s teac...

Prima facie, Confucianism does not explicitly encourage war given its emphasis on humanity. This, however, may be overlooked. This paper is to examine the correlation between war and Confucianism and to argue that Confucianism should take some, if not primary, blame for the vicious circles of China's war and chaos for more than two millennia. To see the correlation, we explore two readings—top-down and bottom-up—from two sources of Confucianism—Great Learning and Mencius respectively. The top-down reading is this: from a ruler's (...) point of view, a czar has a moral obligation to maintain world peace by force if necessary, whereas the bottom-up is this: from the people's point of view, war is a necessary means to remove non-ren (or atrocious) kings. Since Confucianism is the cardinal philosophy in the second half of Chinese history plus the interaction of its two momentums (or readings), it is not too hard to realize that it could easily sustain war. If so, it makes no sense to say that Confucianism should not bear any responsibility for the vicious circles of war and chaos in the second half. Finally, given the account, we also explore an intriguing and imminent worry—whether the rise of China will threaten world peace. (shrink)