Compassion

[Ennio]

Not too long ago, there was this quote of the day on Sott by Buddhist spiritual advisor Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoch:

When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative [enough] to wake a person up.

Well, it got me thinking about my understanding of compassion, what it really means, and how mirrors, shocks and feedback, as the concepts are understood and applied here, can very well be considered coming from a place of compassion. Thinking on it can certainly put the prospect of getting feedback in an interesting new light. But how is this so, when our experience of this form of compassion – being on both the receiving and giving ends can be so very uncomfortable, or even painful? I mean, compassion – real compassion – can exist in a from that does 'hurt', and doesn't feel like compassion since we are so used to thinking of it in terms that are generally more about the feelings of being supported, cared for, etc. But all of these more conventionally understood forms are certainly not the whole enchilada, even if they are important. So, again, one may ask - why is calling ‘objective feedback’, mirroring, shocks, etc, a form of compassion?

I wondered also what, if anything, Gurdjieff had to say about the subject. We're pretty familiar with his teachings about waking up and alarm clocks, and there is also much in his writings to suggest that he was a very compassionate man. But did he ever have anything to say about it? Seems he did.

From the Diary of Madame Egout Pour Sweet by Rina Hands:

A pupil of J.G. Bennett, Rina Hands was given the honorary title of "égout," a French word for sewer or drain, by Mr. Gurdjieff. Present at his dinners in the last year of his life, she has a deep experience with his toasting to 21 different idiots; "The Science of Idiots," he calls it. Sitting in Gurdjieff's dining room she recounts, for example, how when the toast came to all Compassionate Idiots, he suddenly asked her, "You, Blonde there—natural or not I never know—are you Compassionate Idiot?" Later, she learns from Bennett that the whole of Beelzebub was being retyped. Knowing how to make herself useful, Hands offers her services as a typist and so goes to Gurdjieff 's apartment each day, "taking part in whatever was going on at the time."

Of Jokes & Idiots

And so we sit with the author at the lunches and dinners, hear Mr. Gurdjieff recounting his English, Scottish and Irish jokes and, of course, toasting to the idiots, the toasts usually not getting beyond nine or ten idiots. (Mr. Gurdjieff says he is Idiot No. 17.) Recounted are Gurdjieff 's insights into the various idiots. For example, there are three kinds of Compassionate Idiot. The first sees a man in need of help and immediately helps him, even giving him his own shirt. The second does exactly the same, but only because his fianceé's father is observing. The third kind, says Gurdjieff, "So-so-so, sometimes he gives and sometimes not, depending on many things, perhaps even the weather."

Aside from being hilarious, the truth of what G was saying here hit home with me. How many times in my life have I behaved like a Compassionate Idiot? Giving little to no thought to who, why and how I was giving something to someone ie. being mechanical, arbitrary, or selfish about being "compassionate". Now, this isn't to say that there weren't times I hadn't responded appropriately - even times that may stand as good examples, but it does seem to be true that there were times when my "compassion" was ill considered. Rounding this out a bit, there have been times when I know I have behaved with apathy and indifference in situations that could have used some compassion. That is every bit as important too.

On the subject of idiot compassion though, one can take a little heart in the fact that Gurdjieff had to have been able to see these things in himself before he could come to the point of joking about it with such insight I think. Developing this idea of the compassionate idiot further though, and what true compassion actually is or may be, the following passage puts a few good ideas forth.

Chogyam Trungpa borrowed from Gurdjieff the very useful notion of “idiot compassion.” Gurdjieff, a rather fascinating spiritual teacher of the early to mid-20th century, had said that we are all idiots of one kind or another, and his extensive lists of the various types of idiots included “the compassionate idiot.”

Compassion is wishing that beings be free from suffering. Idiot compassion is avoiding conflict, letting people walk all over you, not giving people a hard time when actually they need to be given a hard time. It’s “being nice,” or “being good.”

It’s not compassion at all. It ends up causing us pain, and it ends up causing others pain.

The more someone self-consciously thinks of themselves as compassionate, the more likely it is that they’re a compassionate idiot.

Idiot compassion lacks both courage and intelligence.

Idiot compassion lacks courage because “being nice” and “being good” are held to be the most important qualities we can manifest, and so we’re afraid to do anything that might make us unpopular. It’s not uncommon to see a related phenomenon, “idiot kindness,” in parents’ interactions with their children. Some parents want to be their children’s best friends, and don’t want to be unpopular. And so they indulge their children, giving them what they want and never disciplining them, or using very inconsistent discipline. But it’s not a parent’s job to be a BFF for their children. It’s their job to help bring their children up to be responsible adults.

Idiot compassion lacks intelligence, because it doesn’t lead to happiness or to freedom from suffering. If someone cheats you, and you immediately decide to trust them again, you’re not helping either them or you. The person who cheats you is unlikely to have a sudden conversion to being conscientious. Any easy promise they make to change their ways is likely to be just another form of cheating. And so by letting them off the hook you don’t help them. In fact you become an enabler of their dysfunctional behavior, and thus you’re helping them to suffer more in the future, when their unskillful behavior catches up with them. And you end up suffering as well. At some point either resentment against the cheat, or against themselves, is going to kick in.

True compassion does not shy away from causing pain when necessary. Causing pain is not the same as causing harm, by the way. The Buddha talked about this in relation to speech, in an interesting dialogue with a prince named Abhaya.

Abhaya was the follower of a rival teacher, and he was sent to try to entrap the Buddha. He was to ask whether the Buddha would say words that were disagreeable to others. If the Buddha were to say he would say things that were disagreeable, then he would be accused of acting just like ordinary, unenlightened people. If he were to say he wouldn’t, then it would be pointed out that his words had in fact caused others to be upset. This was described as a “two-pronged question.” “When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you,” Abhaya is told, “he won’t be able to swallow it down or spit it up.”

Of course the Buddha has no difficulty in avoiding this trap, and he turns the “two-pronged” metaphor to his advantage.

Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince’s lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, “What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?”

“I would take it out, lord. If I couldn’t get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy.”

So the Buddha leads Abhaya to recognize that it’s acceptable to cause pain in the short term if you want to save someone from long-term harm. And he goes on to say that:

In the case of words that the Tathagata [i.e. the Buddha] knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

And those are the only circumstances under which the Buddha would say something that he knew to be disagreeable.

So this is quite a tough order. What you say has to be true — not just your opinion, but actually true. This requires a great deal of mental clarity. What you say has to be beneficial — which implies that you have a good understanding of psychology and of the spiritual path, otherwise how can you know what it helpful? And you have to have an awareness of what’s the right time to say what needs to be said. This requires some empathy.

I don’t think it’s wise to say, though, that honest but critical communication should be avoided until we’ve attained some kind of near-superhuman state of wisdom. How do we learn when it’s beneficial and timely to tell the truth? How do we clarify whether we’re actually in possession of the truth? We learn by speaking, with as much courage, honesty, kindness, and wisdom as we can muster, and by reflecting on the consequences.

So ask yourself, “Am I avoiding conflict and calling it compassion? Am I afraid to be honest because I might end up being disliked? Am I letting people off the hook too easily? Am I setting myself up for resentment?” And if any of these is the case, muster your courage, and speak up, even if you make mistakes. The spiritual path is, as I like to say, the fine art of making mistakes.

Eventually this all becomes spontaneous. And in fact when the Buddha has done explaining the circumstances under which it’s skillful to say something disagreeable, he goes on to talk about the spontaneous nature of his communication. Those who are most genuinely compassionate don’t think in terms of “being compassionate.” Expressing themselves honestly and with empathy is just what they do.

So be wary of trying to be compassionate in a self-conscious way. The more you do this, the more likely it is that you’re being a compassionate idiot.

So finding inner courage and using intelligence seems to be required of us in ways we normally do not consider when we think of being compassionate. How many difficulties could be avoided - and how could we be helping people (and ourselves) if we chose to acknowledge that the pain that may arise as a result, was just part of the process of receiving compassion?

Something else to consider is that, because so many of us have wounds or scars from past events - that when we hear something ‘critical’ of our behavior we are really reacting, in part, to these past hurts that have had a hold on us and tend to keep us back in ways we don’t even realize. That’s when the work of considering the feedback can get difficult if we refuse to acknowledge what’s being said, actually see it for ourselves. But maybe more importantly, to recognize how this form of compassion can really help us towards having a future, so that we can fit better in a world that isn’t consumed with being mostly self-serving.

 

[bjorb]

Thanks Ennio

I think that what you have shared should always serve as a good reminder whenever we attempt to help others.

Gurdjieff also remarked that : ''Love without knowledge is demonic''

And knowledge without love is ofcourse also demonic.

Our intent decides when we are truly trying to be of help or performing the opposite. Without sufficient self-knowledge, it is impossible to tell the difference.

 

[luc]

Thank you Ennio for sharing this.

It seems there is a lot of confusion about what exactly is an act of compassion in a given situation. In my experience, it's true that oftentimes, acting with compassion is not what 'feels good', though of course it can be!

What makes it extra tricky is that as you said, people are so different, and have so many different 'hot buttons' and programs. For example, I always was a classic 'people pleaser', with a drive to reduce tension and avoid emotionally demanding situations. So there's a great danger that I do the wrong things, while justifying them with 'compassion'. But sometimes, tough talk is necessary, sometimes, the compassionate thing is to endure a charged up atmosphere and let it run its course instead of 'harmonizing' it. Oftentimes, not giving in to manipulation attempts via self-pity is an expression of compassion, and sometimes, you need to scream at people and tell them the truth in their face, even when they are making a scene, tears and all.

BUT, this applies to me personally as I have trouble in this area based on past trauma/programming. Someone with a different programming and different flaws might take this advice as an excuse to dominate others, drain them, and manipulate them. That is of course quite the opposite of compassion. So yes, I think it is really tricky.

As a rule of thump, I think it's important to do our best to determine the most compassionate course of action in a given situation, regardless of how difficult this action is for us. Otherwise, there is always the danger that our 'System 2' tries to fool us, and pull us in the easiest, automatic direction, while coming up with all kinds of justifications for this.

I'm also reminded of the Ten Commandments of Character which I posted here, especially this:

Willfulness in the service of justice and righteousness is indeed a virtue. To accept moral and social obligation, to work, and to persevere in service of the welfare of others, to pursue justice and live righteously (i.e. to love), are indeed the most noble ways to exercise your will. So, pledge yourself to principled living and stay the course. Faith in something bigger than you really helps. And faith and commitment are the antidotes to fear.

Note that Simons describes love as pursuing justice and living righteously, in service of the welfare of others. He doesn't describe love as a 'feeling'. This is good advice I think, especially since most of us are programmed to see love as some sort of 'feel-good' thing, i.e. happy chemicals. But still, I think love and compassion also have a strong emotional component - some actions, some situations seem to touch us profoundly, and even motivate us to do the right thing, against our programming.

So maybe it's important to consider all three aspects of compassion: the emotional, the rational, and the physical, and strive to find a balance when evaluating a situation. Sometimes we have to react fast, sometimes we are overwhelmed with emotion that can boost our motivation, and sometimes we need to just keep a cool head and think it through rationally. But when we are able to use all our three centers in a balanced way, when we can distinguish the finer 'textures' of our internal and external senses - i.e., distinguish pity-ploy from real suffering, programmed physical reaction from conscious physical movement, 'system 2 narrative' from rational thought -, then maybe we can act with more real compassion. OSIT

Fwiw.

 

[3DStudent]

Thanks for posting this. The process of using compassion sounds like Castaneda's concepts of forbearance and timing when dealing with petty tyrants. I'm a compassionate idiot and tend to let others walk over me and not speak up when I should. You know, the "be nice" program.

There was something I read on the forum some months ago that addressed that. Or maybe it was a Sott article. But when you don't speak up for yourself, it hurts yourself. And you lose a part of yourself, getting caught up in trying to hang on to pleasing others with your facade.

Oh, I remember now. I think it was something like people who act nice and let others walk over them and don't speak out are actually narcissistic. Because it's putting on a false ego that you defend. Busy day at work and words seem to elude me at the moment.

 

[Joe]

This point:

Compassion is wishing that beings be free from suffering.

Is perhaps a good summation of it. Or maybe it could be better said that it is trying to 'help' others be free from suffering, through learning lessons. The slight nuance being that we understand that suffering is often necessary for learning to be free from suffering. So we're not talking about removing suffering here, but helping others not suffer so pointlessly, of making sense and use of their suffering. In that way, the idea of 'mirroring' or 'shocks' given to someone can be a way to do exactly that: to show them the reason for/cause of their suffering and then helping them to figure out a way to learn the lesson rather than repeatedly suffer.

 

[Keit]

Recently I stumbled upon the following small video about Russian Biologist Valentin Pazhitnov and his method of raising orphan bear cubs. And it seems to me that he shows true compassion toward the animals, even if it is incredibly hard.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...cs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ennio]

Our intent decides when we are truly trying to be of help or performing the opposite. Without sufficient self-knowledge, it is impossible to tell the difference.

One's intentions - being as clear as possible within one's self about what one wants to say, and why, and what's behind it, and what information one is trying to get across - is crucial, I agree. At the same time, I wonder how many of us play it so safe - fearful in being incorrect about something, or doing the wrong thing, or being invested in not taking chances, that we forgo the opportunity to act when something we could do (or could've done) might be helpful. For myself, I know that there are times I wish I acted differently or taken a chance at failing in order to make certain situations, or relationships better. The following quote speaks to this, and affirms I think, how much of a process this all is:

I don’t think it’s wise to say, though, that honest but critical communication should be avoided until we’ve attained some kind of near-superhuman state of wisdom. How do we learn when it’s beneficial and timely to tell the truth? How do we clarify whether we’re actually in possession of the truth? We learn by speaking, with as much courage, honesty, kindness, and wisdom as we can muster, and by reflecting on the consequences.

 

[Ennio]

It seems there is a lot of confusion about what exactly is an act of compassion in a given situation. In my experience, it's true that oftentimes, acting with compassion is not what 'feels good', though of course it can be!

What makes it extra tricky is that as you said, people are so different, and have so many different 'hot buttons' and programs. For example, I always was a classic 'people pleaser', with a drive to reduce tension and avoid emotionally demanding situations. So there's a great danger that I do the wrong things, while justifying them with 'compassion'. But sometimes, tough talk is necessary, sometimes, the compassionate thing is to endure a charged up atmosphere and let it run its course instead of 'harmonizing' it. Oftentimes, not giving in to manipulation attempts via self-pity is an expression of compassion, and sometimes, you need to scream at people and tell them the truth in their face, even when they are making a scene, tears and all.

Yup. I've approached compassion in both of the ways that you describe. And I agree, its about not only seeing the 'people pleasing' part of ourselves, but taking the next step to act with courage when something needs pointing out - which, I believe, is all for the good. Like so much of what we're communicating or trying to do here, I think is sending out a type of signal. This isn't to say, of course, that we shouldn't be cautious or use forbearance as 3D mentions, but it does mean that many of us need to understand and practice 'tough love' as necessary, since it seems like one of the lessons we're here to learn.

BUT, this applies to me personally as I have trouble in this area based on past trauma/programming. Someone with a different programming and different flaws might take this advice as an excuse to dominate others, drain them, and manipulate them. That is of course quite the opposite of compassion. So yes, I think it is really tricky.

As a rule of thump, I think it's important to do our best to determine the most compassionate course of action in a given situation, regardless of how difficult this action is for us. Otherwise, there is always the danger that our 'System 2' tries to fool us, and pull us in the easiest, automatic direction, while coming up with all kinds of justifications for this.

It can be very tricky and complicated to be sure! And one reason why I wanted to start this thread. We could read about compassion in all its forms, know what some of the wisest most insightful parameters are as written, but making distinctions for ourselves and using our experiences so that we can get better at this (and begin applying where needed) - could be very helpful in the difficult times to come.

I'm also reminded of the Ten Commandments of Character which I posted here, especially this:

Willfulness in the service of justice and righteousness is indeed a virtue. To accept moral and social obligation, to work, and to persevere in service of the welfare of others, to pursue justice and live righteously (i.e. to love), are indeed the most noble ways to exercise your will. So, pledge yourself to principled living and stay the course. Faith in something bigger than you really helps. And faith and commitment are the antidotes to fear.

Note that Simons describes love as pursuing justice and living righteously, in service of the welfare of others. He doesn't describe love as a 'feeling'. This is good advice I think, especially since most of us are programmed to see love as some sort of 'feel-good' thing, i.e. happy chemicals. But still, I think love and compassion also have a strong emotional component - some actions, some situations seem to touch us profoundly, and even motivate us to do the right thing, against our programming.

I agree, the emotional part can't and shouldn't be ignored; our emotions can lead us to behave constructively, or destructively. On the subject of 'love as a feeling' the following quote from the C's seems to get at the heart (and mind) of the matter and is a reminder of what G was saying about the use of our intelligence when exercising compassion:

The problem is not the term "love," the problem is the interpretation of the term. Those on third density have a tendency to confuse the issue horribly. After all, they confuse many things as love. When the actual definition of love as you know it is not correct either. It is not necessarily a feeling that one has that can also be interpreted as an emotion, but rather, as we have told you before, the essence of light which is knowledge is love, and this has been corrupted when it is said that love leads to illumination. Love is Light is Knowledge. Love makes no sense when common definitions are used as they are in your environment. To love you must know. And to know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to have knowledge is to love.

So maybe it's important to consider all three aspects of compassion: the emotional, the rational, and the physical, and strive to find a balance when evaluating a situation. Sometimes we have to react fast, sometimes we are overwhelmed with emotion that can boost our motivation, and sometimes we need to just keep a cool head and think it through rationally. But when we are able to use all our three centers in a balanced way, when we can distinguish the finer 'textures' of our internal and external senses - i.e., distinguish pity-ploy from real suffering, programmed physical reaction from conscious physical movement, 'system 2 narrative' from rational thought -, then maybe we can act with more real compassion. OSIT

Well when you put it this way its a reminder to me that we'll never be perfect about it; there's no such thing anyway and it isn't an exact science after all. But we can fine-tune what we know from all the various things discussed here, and try to approach it more like an art.

 

[obyvatel]

Wishing that others be happy is goodwill. The way I use the word "happy" in this context is related to what is described here .

We can have such goodwill as the general background intention as we approach most situations in life. If we can do that, then compassion is a feeling that naturally arises when we encounter suffering in others and ourselves. Compassion can also arise without having a conscious background intention of goodwill but I guess such a background makes the overall experience more cohesive. This is similar to what is reported in compassion research as an integrated response involving specific brain waves and neural activation patterns.

Compassion can become a visceral and spontaneous feeling with consciously directed practice of the intention of goodwill. This is quite general. Now the specific response to a particular situation involves other qualities and skills. Perhaps we can look at the general background intention of goodwill as the canvas and compassion as the motivation to paint on that canvas. What we paint, what colors we use, how much effort we put and for how long, and the end result we get are related to our understanding of the subject and our skill level in "painting".

The value of this view of compassion lies in separating out the intention, motivation and action in a situation. What we actually do is the action component and is a measure of skill. The action may or may not give desired results. If it does not, we go back and work on the skill aspect. If we fail in the action part, we need not beat ourselves up but learn from the failure as one naturally does when developing a skill. A failure at action is not a problem of character or conscience.

If we can bring the right intention and motivation to the action and sustain it throughout the process through mindfulness, we are on the right track. It is best to consciously clarify our intentions at the outset and periodically remind ourselves of our intention and check our motivation as they often tend to change. Conscious intention is within our control and something we can be held accountable for.

There are many situations where we might have the right intentions and feel compassion but a rational evaluation of the situation shows that we cannot make a big difference. In such situations, the quality of equanimity is called for. We learn to bear what we cannot change and act skillfully within the sphere of our control.

A lot of doubts regarding whether an action is compassionate or just "people pleasing" or "validation seeking" can come from a lack of consciously articulated and remembered intention. The basic intention of goodwill is not just directed to others but to oneself as well. So if we make a mistake and we use harsh and vile language in our internal talk to beat ourselves up, we are not upholding an intention of goodwill. If we indulge ourselves with pampering and label such as "compassion", we are not upholding the intention of goodwill.

It takes time and effort to really internalize such an intention of goodwill by repeated practice.This is more of a personal practice the results of which shows in our interactions with others. And if we get down to practicing and remembering our intention throughout a variety of situations, we will see what helps and what hinders it. This is needed so that after some time we can trust our intentions more and more. It is important to move in the direction where we can trust our intentions more and more. This eliminates a lot of unnecessary energy drainage through doubts, fears etc. Other than consciously articulating and remembering the intention which is the direct approach, this also involves the indirect approach of doing messy psychological work, especially uncovering and integrating what is described as the "shadow" aspects in Jungian psychology. And this integration of the shadow strengthens goodwill and compassion. As we uncover the unsavory shadow parts of our own psyche (on our own and through interactions with others), we see how we are similar in some ways to those whom we may feel especially motivated to condemn.

Compassion is one element, albeit an important one, in the overall development of a human being. Since the Buddha was mentioned in a quote of the original post and since the modern "compassion" movement is largely neo-Buddhist in nature, I would add that what passes for compassion (or 'loving kindness") today is quite far removed from the oldest available records of the Buddha's teachings. Compassion was treated in those teachings in a far more balanced and practical way than what is popular today. What I presented above is a distillation of my understanding of what I have seen of the old teachings supplemented with neuroscience and Jungian psychology.

fwiw

 

[bjorb]

Hi obyvatel

If I understood your post correctly goodwill and compassion will get corrupted whenever in that process we reward ourselves of being 'nice' and 'kind' and even expect something in return from the other person. Or life in general, since we are so 'good' and 'nice' (magically thinking / new age thinking)

It’s something I remember doing many times. I think it is safe to say that for machines this is their only way they understand goodwill & compassion to be. It really takes practice to remove ourselves from it and even then it is difficult to see the other person as they are because we are not able to see ourselves as we are. So knowing what is best for them (goodwill & compassion) requires a sufficient amount of self-knowledge and knowledge of life (creation) in general.

To truly wish someone goodwill (be compassionate) I think we have to see them as they are, respectably with all their challenges (potential lessons) of life and act in line with it. It requires that we have to see the lessons within. Easier said than done of course.

I am not familiar with Buddha or Jung except from a few quotes. But I believe this was the point you tried to convey. If so, if we speak about compassion, what you mentioned cannot be leaved out. Recognizing this program seems to be the first thing in order if we ever want to practice compassion in its essence form.

I didn't want to repeat of what you said, it's just something I am struggling with.

 

[Joe]

As others have more or less said, the problem that can arise with compassion is projection, where we see only the outward appearance of suffering, "recognize" our own suffering and, at least partly motivated by pity for ourselves, we respond with "compassion". In addition, as we know, human being are very complex organisms, and can develop learned behavior designed specifically to elicit sympathy or compassion aka 'energy' from others. Is it compassionate, or good, or truly loving to give to someone who appears to be suffering if, in that giving, we are both deepening our own illusions about ourselves and facilitating the other person's continued suffering?

So it seems that a deep and broad understanding of human nature in general, and ourselves and the other person's real situation specifically, is necessary before we could even attempt to truly be 'compassionate', i.e. give in a way that truly helps the other. If that other person is not interested in really being helped, then it seems it would be impossible to actually help them. This is perhaps why Gurdjieff says that it is almost impossible to really help another person, if they are not willing and able to help themselves to begin with.

That isn't an injunction against "being compassionate" in a subjective way of course, because it's only by trying and failing, or trying and not getting the results we expect, and often suffering in some way ourselves, that we learn what real love and compassion really is and how and when it is possible to give.

 

[sitting]

So it seems that a deep and broad understanding of human nature in general, and ourselves and the other person's real situation specifically, is necessary before we could even attempt to truly be 'compassionate', ...

Yes.

And this is a fundamental challenge -- to all those who wish to be compassionate.

It requires sincerity first and foremost. Plus knowledge & understanding (of self and of others.) What this really means (at its deepest level) ... is a comprehension of all karmic influences.

But Shakyamuni had clearly noted, karma is the most difficult of topics. With the "chain of dependent arising" stretching from time immemorial. It's nothing less than the full grasping of the mosaic construction. In its totality. (My sense is it's way beyond our present capabilities.)

The closest approximation I can think of -- are the C's. With their admitted ability "to see all."

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[bjorb]

Mechanical men feeds suffering :

Hence the qoute already shared here :

Compassion is wishing that beings be free from suffering.

But what is mechanical (False personalities) and what is essence. (real individual I) It is this journey of struggle and suffering we have to endure ourselves to be able to differentiate between the two.

Not only that, to truly understand it we also have to see it in others.

The hardest part I think is to see 'machines' endure things they experience as joy ( attachments , identifications )

Because we have to see it as suffering !! We are so programmed to be happy for someone who is experiencing 'joy'. When in fact this 'joy' mostly originates internally from identifications and attachments. So we shouldn't be happy for them.

Yet still, it could be that their 'joy' has it’s rightfully place at that particular moment because it’s part of their learning progress.

But as G said, true happiness is focused externally, internally never.

We can't be happy for someone who is happy because of internal reasons he/her experiences. It has to be for external reasons. That's what I am mostly struggling with. I hope I made sense.

 

[mkrnhr]

It would be more practical IMHO to make a distinction between compassion and an act of compassion. After all, compassion is a feeling (an emotion?) where one shares the hurt of somebody else, based on the knowledge one has access to at a given moment. An act of compassion on the other hand is doing something to alleviate that hurt or suffering. But, is this act meant to alleviate the other's suffering? Or is it to alleviate one's own suffering by helping that other? Is it rational? Is it irrational? Is it really helpful? Is it harmful? To have a more accurate assessment on the act of compassion, more knowledge is needed indeed. For example, is it more helpful to give a fish to a hungry man or to show his how to fish? What if it's a child? What if fishing is forbidden? etc. etc.

 

[Ennio]

Mechanical men feeds suffering :

Hence the qoute already shared here :

Compassion is wishing that beings be free from suffering.

But what is mechanical (False personalities) and what is essence. (real individual I) It is this journey of struggle and suffering we have to endure ourselves to be able to differentiate between the two.

Not only that, to truly understand it we also have to see it in others.

The hardest part I think is to see 'machines' endure things they experience as joy ( attachments , identifications )

Because we have to see it as suffering !! We are so programmed to be happy for someone who is experiencing 'joy'. When in fact this 'joy' mostly originates internally from identifications and attachments. So we shouldn't be happy for them.

Yet still, it could be that their 'joy' has it’s rightfully place at that particular moment because it’s part of their learning progress.

But as G said, true happiness is focused externally, internally never.

We can't be happy for someone who is happy because of internal reasons he/her experiences. It has to be for external reasons. That's what I am mostly struggling with. I hope I made sense.

I think what you're getting at is that it is better to be happy for someone who has reached a point of joy because of something meaningful they did, than to be happy for them for any ephemeral reasons (ie. they got a new car or other symbol of status) - in which case, it makes total sense in terms of feeding the higher part of an individual. However, if there are things that people we know are taking joy in that don't fall into the realm of meaningful or higher, I think - if only out of consideration for that person and where they are, we can still express something kind as long as we are aware that this expression has its place. No need to get too hung up on it. But if this is missing the point of your question, Bjorn maybe you can give a specific example of what you mean.