Compassion

[obyvatel]

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)

The way I understand it, the process goes like:

- intention: goodwill towards others and oneself
- compassion : feeling which arises when we see suffering
- action : what we actually do (or not do) in response to the specific situation of suffering
- reflection: what kind of results did we get from the actions; what can we learn from it

While thinking "what am I going to get out of it" reduces the element of goodwill towards others, one does not exclude oneself from the picture either. It is more like finding the right balance in the moment.

Suppose I see a man begging at a street corner. He seems to have fallen into hard times but does not give the appearance of a junkie. I am moved by his suffering. What can I do next? If I have time and the situation is safe (it is daytime with people around), I can engage him in conversation, listen to him and find out what he is asking for. Is it just some money or something else? Am I able to provide the money or something else? How much would I get involved? What else would I be neglecting if I get too involved? All these questions need consideration for the action component of the process. I may decide to just give him some money and move on.

Note that the intention of goodwill and the feeling of compassion in the face of suffering is not dependent on what I am actually able to do. One can ask what is the goodwill and compassion worth if it does not translate into action? The counter question is who is to be the judge? I choose to value the intention and the feeling irrespective of how much it actually accomplishes. There are many situations in life where we are unable to make a difference. However, we can at least have the right intention and allow the right feelings and have good reasons behind the action we take.

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.

If someone is joyful due to identification then he/she is not suffering in that moment. We can imagine how that identification can cause suffering for the person somewhere down the line. That imagination of future suffering can give rise to compassion. In terms of the action in the present moment, we have to take into account all these and decide what we want to do about it. We can give a gentle reminder of the possible downside of the overall experience if that is appropriate. We can choose not to amplify or encourage the present identification but at the same time we do not "rain on their parade".

The problem may come from the expectation that there is some "perfect response" that we are supposed to give to each situation. And some day we are going to find our own Real I or whatever other term we have for an "ideal state" of the future where we will know all there is to know about our own self, others and the situation and provide the perfect response.

An alternative to this type of thinking is using the skill model discussed here to all life situations.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Ennio]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.[/quote]

The example you gave was perfect (ie. they got a new car or other symbol of status) Motivations such as 'status' governs the lower levels. But encouraging the higher centers ties in with real compassion. Fact is that for all intent and purposes most are probably unable in this lifetime to reach that level. ( Organic portals ) So like you shared, out of consideration we can be kind 'happy' for them. No need to lecture anyone ofcourse. It’s just that programs can arise that not being happy for someone who is experiencing 'joy' makes you bad person. Programs such as that also clouds your own motivational sense of what should be considered as happines and what not.

Anyhow, I will get over it.

[quote author= bjorn]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.

[quote author= obyvatel]This also seems like a difficult or impossible ideal. If we aim for things that are outside our reach, it can even hinder us from doing things that we can.[/quote][/quote]

Being able to see all lessons within is more 4STO or even 6STO stuff I reckon. So yes, quite impossible. We can of course intent to do the best of our ability.


[quote author= obyvatel]If someone is joyful due to identification then he/she is not suffering in that moment. We can imagine how that identification can cause suffering for the person somewhere down the line. That imagination of future suffering can give rise to compassion. In terms of the action in the present moment, we have to take into account all these and decide what we want to do about it. We can give a gentle reminder of the possible downside of the overall experience if that is appropriate.[/quote]

The 'fight' for earning status, Obsessed with materialistic goods, identifying with a sport club and letting your mood depend on how they performed. Such things are totally empty. The more you let your lower centers dominate your thoughts and actions. The more empathy is blocked out.

And true happiness is ultimately something that is experienced externally. (Empathy and the ability to truly care for others) It is never internally (Ego) Sadly the last is mainly encouraged throughout society. It would be nice to life in a society where the higher centers are mainly encouraged. It would be a completely different world and also ties in with creation functioning properly as a school.

Our Joy is when we see people learn. Or get it. Our Joy is when we see truth triumph over lies. Our Joy is when creation wins over entropy. All else are just lies.


- Struggles such as this are lonely and also require that you chance your complete outlook on life and how to interact with others. Thank you both for explaining :)

 

[sitting]

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.

I think compassion first and foremost -- is an intention. (The purposeful guiding of one's will.)

An act of compassion -- is the expression of that intent ... within the context of "skillful means." This latter consideration can result in numberless variations of methods employed. Each appropriate to the occasion. (Including even lies!)

I must admit I still have trouble with this last one.

FWIW.

 

[mkrnhr]

I think compassion first and foremost -- is an intention. (The purposeful guiding of one's will.)

That would be benevolence, or goodwill as developed by obyvatel above.

 

[Aeneas]

Chogyam Trungpa borrowed from Gurdjieff the very useful notion of “idiot compassion.” Gurdjieff, a rather fascinating spiritual
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.

Thank you for bringing up this topic, which is interesting.

I highlighted the above as I think it can easily become an mind exercise, where doing is dominant and BEING is neglected. In what Trungpa is saying, it is just a natural extension of who they are and thus an expression of their BEING. One could perhaps say that it comes from their higher emotional center and not the intellectual center.

Some questions that one can ask when one sees the appearance of suffering:
Am I being internally considerate or externally considerate?
Have I walked a 100 miles in their shoes?
Are they actually asking for your help?


Oftentimes, my experience has been that the most compassionate thing is to just be fully present with someone and listen without judgement, if the person wishes to share their story. No words spoken and yet the person feels seen...perhaps for the first time.

But it is not a guideline as it is situation specific. I only mentioned it so as to say that it does not have to be an 'active' engagement, though it can be argued that being fully present with someone is an action of sorts.

Fwiw.

 

[Joe]

Reading the last few posts the thought occurred to me that what we are trying to do is akin to figuring out how to paint like a great artist. We can analyze the brush strokes and colors used and then make a pretty good facsimile, but we don't gain the original artist's ability by doing this, and for each new painting we have to effectively copy the ability of another.

While we try to break down the 'mechanism' of how to be really compassionate, there are people who simply do it as a function of their being. All of the information and considerations that we highlight as being necessary to be fairly sure that we're being compassionate, is available in an instant to someone who is naturally compassionate. Such people are extremely rare I think, and this ability might be a function of 'higher centers' or something of that nature.

Then again, I'd say the process of developing such a natural ability could well involve breaking down and learning the method and then practicing it. The 'fake it till you make it' approach which seems to figure largely in the Work on the self that has as its aim this development of 'higher centers'.

 

[Ennio]

While we try to break down the 'mechanism' of how to be really compassionate, there are people who simply do it as a function of their being. All of the information and considerations that we highlight as being necessary to be fairly sure that we're being compassionate, is available in an instant to someone who is naturally compassionate. Such people are extremely rare I think, and this ability might be a function of 'higher centers' or something of that nature.

Then again, I'd say the process of developing such a natural ability could well involve breaking down and learning the method and then practicing it. The 'fake it till you make it' approach which seems to figure largely in the Work on the self that has as its aim this development of 'higher centers'.

Yes - one of the thoughts I had in starting the thread was: "why even write it - why not just work at being it, and exercising more compassion where and when possible based on this Gurdjiffien angle, and other information?" Well, I realized, as I mentioned in the first post, that there were distinctions and fine-tuning (and even broad-tuning) that could use some reflection on to incorporate into better understanding. Its also been interesting, too, to think of this in terms of being open and honest enough to ask for and be receptive to understanding/feedback/help that's coupled with knowledge of our real condition; true compassion. Do we recognize it when its given? Do we confuse it with other things? So there's that side to it too.

At the end of the day though, and like any practice or tool we're aware of, we have to start putting it into practice as you say. See what works, what doesn't, and recalibrate if necessary for the next opportunity to put what we've learned into practice, as has been said. Can doing this be of help in developing our 'higher centers'? Does the diet and all the other physiological improvements we're working on help kick things into gear and facilitate the practicing of a more objective compassion? Or maybe its some combination of both working in tandem. Whatever the answer is, it would seem to be part and parcel of not only growing ourselves individually, but being part of a group of individuals that is working to do this together, and sending a signal of this intention out and to the world.

Having said this, the following is an interesting article posted to Sott, that speaks to some of these issues:

Compassion is essential to our evolution as a species

With the U.S. celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it felt like a good week to take up the question of compassion. In a week when we commemorate high human virtue (not to mention lend each other support during our biggest community endeavor of the year), what does it mean to offer compassion—and how did this inclination develop?

While compassion is defined a number of ways, the genuine crux of it is the concern we have for others' struggles and suffering coupled with the desire to lend help or support in some regard. Rather than the "vicarious" emotional experience of another's difficulties (sympathy or empathy, depending on who you talk to) or the actions we take in response to our concern for another's situation (altruism), compassion records us more in the role of supportive witness—and perhaps motivated actor on another's behalf. While today we consider compassion one of the most esteemed human traits, what were its origins? Is this really a product of evolutionary forces rather than cultural response? How could it have grown out of the rough and tough, survival-of-the-fittest world of Grok's day?

The answer may be something of both nature and nurture, but make no mistake. The roots of compassion are pure genetic instinct even if modern society extends the context for compassionate exchange. Experts associate the development of compassion with a wide variety of key social dimensions within expanding human social organization. They note that compassion stands as its own emotion, differentiated from easily related feelings like sadness or even love.

Compassion can be both a trigger for and a response to our care-taking instincts—with obvious evolutionary benefits. When we feel concern for others' well-being, particularly in the face of what we construe to be "undeserved suffering" or vulnerability, compassion moves us to display the emotional and behavioral responses of bonding, of claiming that person for our care, collaboration, kinship and/or protection.

It's not hard to imagine the immediate genetic advantages. If Grok and his kin had a propensity for compassion toward their children and thereby were more attuned and responsive to the children's needs and helplessness (particularly when they're very young), those children would be more likely to survive. By extension, valuing compassion in one's mate selection clearly would've been a key piece of this picture. Two compassionate parents would likely boost the child's welfare.

While the primary evolutionary benefit might be that immediate offspring survival, group selection theory holds here, too. A tribe of reasonably compassionate individuals who were able to have concern and act for the benefit of others in the group would be better motivated and equipped to successfully collaborate, thereby supporting the survival of all. Evolutionary biologist, Robert Wright, calls this a second evolutionary logic, a product of later evolution (while kin selection, he suggests preceded even homo sapiens). This emotional evolutionary leap into extended kinship and its reciprocal altruism is that we're motivated in that "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of way.

Wright explains, we are still working with a limited circle until we begin to embrace a still more theoretical social concept of non-zero sum gain - a relationship (situation) in which both you and I (or this group and that group) stand to gain something by collaborating. In the modern world, we more often find ourselves with knowledge or goods to share that will benefit both parties. National and international trade, communicable disease, and large-scale environmental concerns are all examples of interdependence or vaster scales of influence we're smart to observe in our deliberations.

Yet, are we extending compassion a little too far here when we're talking about the likes of international business? If we define compassion as an emotional instinct rather than a rational consideration, consciously self-serving intentions stretch beyond that scope of compassion. Wright, for his part, was talking more about society-scope collaboration than actual compassion, but it's important to clarify the distinction for a number of reasons.

For one, rational deliberation won't elicit physiological response, whereas primal emotion does. Beyond survival opportunity, is there a benefit to compassion? What, if anything does it have to do with health and well-being? More than you'd perhaps imagine....

Research shows practicing compassion trips the pleasure circuits in the caudate nucleus and anterior cingulate in the brain (triggering responses similar to those experienced when our own desires are fulfilled). In another study, compassionate actions enhanced self-esteem and self-reported happiness for several months following the initial actions. Acting from a place of compassion has also been shown to lower heart rate and raise oxytocin levels (that feel-good, social bonding hormone). Finally, research on compassion (or "loving-kindness") meditation demonstrates enhanced immune response.

Of course, you can point out the irony in noting the self-serving elements of compassion and encouraging compassionate practice, but as the deeper dimensions of ancestral wellness consistently show, what works for the individual works for the group as a whole. In embracing the advantages to be had, you could say, we perform good self-care as well as Primal public service.

Hmmm, practicing compassion "as good self-care as well as Primal public service". So, in a way, the practice of being compassionate as we are working to do it here, and in other ways, opens the door to further collaboration with those who see how it can be of benefit not only to themselves, but to many others potentially.

 

[JonnyRadar]

I think compassion is also intimately tied to free will. Referring to the quote you cited in your original post, Ennio, about "being creative enough to wake someone up." - leaving aside the question of what "awake" is - sometimes people don't want to be woken up. Are they then exempt from our compassion?

In the Ra sessions, Ra makes the point in one session that in some cases, when a person doesn't wish to "wake up", the compassionate thing to do is to "tuck them in" (paraphrasing) - in other words to be sensitive to where they are and what they are choosing in life.

So I don't think compassion just refers to waking people up. I think it has a very "law of three" meaning. The compassionate action most likely depends on all the variables in the equation of whatever situation you're in.

My 2 cents...

 

[Woodsman]

I’ve come to think of compassion as an expression of sympathy mixed with the golden rule.

That is...

Sympathy ==> Sympathetic Vibration ==> I am you, you are me, we are the same stuff.

More immediately understood; it is the ability to put yourself in another’s shoes.

That’s one half. The other...

Compassion is formed also from the same quality of feeling which (psychologically sound) parents hold for sons and daughters. A soul pressure from within, a wanting for the child to experience health and strength and wisdom. To grow up bright and happy and successful!

Witnessing a person in the middle of a painful experience can evoke compassion.

Consider a little boy crying in frustration because he cannot master the tying of his shoe laces.

We might look on and feel for him, and think, “Oh, dear! -I know just how you feel, little guy. But you’ll get it! Just keep struggling. I love you and so I’m not going to do it for you. You need to experience this!”

Soul Gardening is Compassion put into action.

How effective a gardener we are is dependent largely on our knowledge of plants.

A fight erupts! We have the opportunity to intervene. But... what of Karma? Would we be messing up a carefully planned lesson? But there is pain and there is suffering! What is the compassionate thing to do? You can go out of your mind trying to solve these kinds of problems, making mistakes, going back, trying and trying again through.., how many lives..?

It is much easier to know children’s shoelaces!

And this is exactly as it should be. We are planted in the garden as well, growing our own souls. And somebody, if we are fortunate, is perhaps looking down on our frustration...

“Oh, dear! -We know just how you feel, little one! But you’ll get it. You’ll get it...”

 

[sitting]

All of the information and considerations that we highlight as being necessary to be fairly sure that we're being compassionate, is available in an instant to someone who is naturally compassionate.

Such people are extremely rare I think,

I agree Joe.

There ARE people like that. And I might have met one or two. One a kind old woman who had 6 children (now grown,) raising them all ... in a small house (with one bathroom.)

These exceptional individuals are typically very old souls I think. Volunteers who "came back" to render much needed service -- to lesser beings.

FWIW.

 

[Voyageur]

It's an interesting word "compassion" in the ways it is thought about, and this thread is just that. On a macro societal level as weaved into what societies strive to be, a "disaster" at the moment, there is a brief addition below on this.

In terms of entomology it is rooted in "sympathy" and "pity":

mid-14c., from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com- "together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

Latin compassio is an ecclesiastical loan-translation of Greek sympatheia (see sympathy). An Old English loan-translation of compassion was efenðrowung.

The C's have mentioned "pity".

As a societal understanding when applied to governance (discussed more on an individual bases in Buddhist teachings), here is something along these societal lines - just added one thing:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/harris/bl141.html Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism

The Buddha's teachings about statecraft and government also embody compassion as a guiding principle. The Cakkavatti Siihanaada Sutta describes a state in which the king ignores his religious advisers and does not give wealth to the poor. Poverty becomes widespread and, in its wake, follow theft, murder, immorality in various forms, and communal breakdown. The culmination is a "sword period" in which men and women look upon one another as animals and cut one another with swords. In this sutta, lack of compassion for the poor leads to the disintegration of society. Lack of social and economic justice leads to disaster. In contrast, the ideal Buddhist model for society, as deduced from the texts, would be one in which exploitation in any part of its structure is not tolerated. Such a society would be rooted in compassion. Compassion is its prerequisite.

Thanks for starting the thread.

 

[Ennio]

I think compassion is also intimately tied to free will. Referring to the quote you cited in your original post, Ennio, about "being creative enough to wake someone up." - leaving aside the question of what "awake" is - sometimes people don't want to be woken up. Are they then exempt from our compassion?

The 'waking up' definitions were given as a way to start the subject as much as a point of departure for other sides to it, of which there seem to be several. To only see compassion in the light of waking another up would limit the discussion, which doesn't seem to be occurring and wasn't the intention. One of the things I was trying to get across was that compassion, particularly as it is sometimes given expression here, can look and feel different from what may be our more usual understanding of it is. And that it can, for some of us, be a very challenging thing to see it and accept it this way.

But your point brings up again the value and necessity of 'obyvatel compassion'; basic, intrinsic care and feeling for others' suffering and wellbeing, and underscores the idea that this is one area that we would probably do well to work on first. G. certainly walked the talk in this regard. We know that he not only worked on waking people up in his school, but helped a number of people from all walks of life and who weren't necessarily involved in his work. He met people where they were. We also know that he worked to provide for and keep safe a number of people during the war during the most dangerous circumstances. So perhaps there is a lesson and reminder there in G.'s life and acts that help us to see compassion in a more well-rounded sense.

 

[sitting]

Compassion is formed also from the same quality of feeling which (psychologically sound) parents hold for sons and daughters.

Witnessing a person in the middle of a painful experience can evoke compassion.

In case of bonds between parent & child, the more appropriate emotional description (I think) is love.

But I agree with your second remark. Compassion may be aroused, upon see suffering in others. So can indifference. And for some (nasty types,) even glee. (Here karmic payback is assured.)

So compassion is a choice. But the consequences of choosing wrongly are severe. Those not compassionate -- have entirely missed the boat. Their choice (unbeknownst to them) is dead ended.

Compassion is not simply a right thing to do ... it's the fundamental quality needed for soul advancement. There's no other way it seems. This is reflected so simply, elegantly, and forcefully -- in "be of service to others." (According to C's.)

Self centered-ness runs counter to this dictate. Me ... me ... me ... simply means -- gone ... gone ... gone. And -- repeat ... repeat ... repeat.

That said, true compassion is not easy. It is in fact impossibly hard. It requires full understanding of karma and all karmic influences. (Needing many life times for attainment I think.) The C's clearly have it. Maybe great bodhisattvas too. But the latter I'm not really sure.

In a most reassuring way, the choice the universe made (in making compassion the criteria) ... is a self reflection of the compassionate nature of the cosmic mind. Any other criteria would simply be too horrific to contemplate.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Kisito]

Compassion seems to be a connection between our emotional body and the emotional body of another. This does not mean that the emotion of compassion, the same as that felt by others. Because our emotions exist according to our beliefs. There seems to be four variations: 1: compassion, it is the panel or the rainbow sky all human emotions, pain to joy. And felt and for me, order unconscious. 2: empathy seems to be based on the suffering of emotions. These emotions are based on our unconscious fear and our common sense (reason). So we would be a little conscious manifestation of feeling empathy. 3: altruism could be the awareness of compassion, ie the act of compassion. The example of the scale of idiots is very interesting. I do not know what an idiot I am, but that would make me silly, would be ashamed to be seen in the process of giving money to a beggar or giving my place in the subway to a pregnant woman. What bothers me is that people think that I do so to show me or glorified. I really struggle not to give me the importance in the eyes of others, because it is a form of self-centeredness. So when I act of altruism / generosity / compassion, I try to be as discreet. But I noticed that this act of compassion, was related to my ego. Example: I see a pregnant woman in the subway standing. I notice a man sitting not far from it. I try to catch the eye of man, and he motioned with my eyes, that a pregnant woman is near him. At once the man stood up, and the woman thanked the man. I took great pleasure in watching posive emotions that man and woman were exchanged. If I had wondered aloud, before the woman, the man to give his place, then it would certainly have been ashamed, and it would have affected me. So it is why I noticed that my acts of compassion is still tainted with selfishness. That said, I do not know if I'm doing for fun, out of compassion or common sense (reason). Should I feel guilty to have fun on a man who is flattered? Maybe the man was not flattered. Also maybe, do I think about the concept of "live vicariously" and have compassion. Compassion is the man, mercy is God, because God has no belief.

 

[3DStudent]

Example: I see a pregnant woman in the subway standing. I notice a man sitting not far from it. I try to catch the eye of man, and he motioned with my eyes, that a pregnant woman is near him. At once the man stood up, and the woman thanked the man. I took great pleasure in watching posive emotions that man and woman were exchanged. If I had wondered aloud, before the woman, the man to give his place, then it would certainly have been ashamed, and it would have affected me. So it is why I noticed that my acts of compassion is still tainted with selfishness.

I think I understand your story correctly, if not let me know. But I think in that example, giving the man a look was the best choice. You didn't embarrass him or yourself and he was able to do something for another. It seemed the best choice for the three of you.