Compassion

[Aeneas]

I am inclined to feel that the word compassion is too big a word. Some have mentioned that one can try and act compassionately and evaluate ones actions and correct them so as to get better. Or as Joe wrote "fake it till you make it" type approach.

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'.

Somehow this jars a little with me as I don't think one can go out and exercise the 'compassion gene'. I think that compassion is a byproduct of being, just like 'right speech', which is another of the buddhist virtues, though they are not unique to buddhism. The more we cleanse our machine and ridding it of the little 'i's, the more we will be able to be present with reality instead of being wrapped up in our internal stories. And the more we will be able to respond to the reality in which we find ourselves and care for it and its inhabitants and fellow beings.

So I think it is a natural progression: Cleansing of the machine => more present, more conscious and less dissociating => more ability to respond and also more responsibility to 'act' => more caring and empathy, acts of caring.

To take it one step further, the more one has cleaned the machine, the less little 'i's are there to claim the credit for the acts of compassion and thus it is just what was done. No one laying claim to being the compassionate one and no one being the receiver of compassion. An exchange happened in a natural flow of life.

In writing this it reminds me of the native American indians who saw themselves as caretakers of the world into which they were born. When one sees oneself as a caretaker it is natural to 'act' in caretaking of ones environment and to help those who are in trouble and suffering, though 'to act' is situation specific and does not necessarily call for 'doing' type action.

In some of the posts it was put forward the idea that one could practise compassion and then evaluate the results of ones actions. But are we really equipped to evaluate the results? One can evaluate how one feels and what one sees, but that is I think a very limited feedback system. We have no access to the karmic lessons, neither do we often have access to how that person thinks and acts. Over a long period of time, we can perhaps see behavioural changes, but were these changes the results of 'our short exchange' or something else?

So the danger in wanting to exercise compassion is that it can appeal to 'fixers' and 'doers', who come to see other people as people with problems that need fixing. Compassion is not a skill like carpentry, where after hammering x thousand of nails in, you feel comfortable in handling a hammer. Being among healthy individuals who care for people around them can be a good addition to working on oneself, so as to see caring in practice.

Regarding compassion then a compassionate act might be to just acknowledge somebody and perhaps truly SEE them in an non-judgmental way. Nothing more and nothing less. And in a way a very human and ordinary thing, which strangely enough can be a rare act these days ...and perhaps always has been a rare act in this 3rd density STS world. Again the question arises, how would you evaluate this, if the thought was of doing stock-take, as nothing appeared to happen and nothing was said?

The more we come 'into' Being, the less separation we feel with others and the more we feel the pain and suffering of the world in which we live. There is less the feeling of 'me' and 'them' and more a feeling of 'us'. Less separation and more unitedness/oneness. One could say that it is like the family into which we are born. When a member of the family suffers, all the members suffer. As we grow, the veils of separation extends further out, the 'family' grows and the more people there are that we naturally care about. One could perhaps say that as we learn more about ourselves and others, we get to realise that there are more things that unite us, than separate us.

When it comes to people involved in the work, the caring for others involved in the work calls for the use of mirrors and feedback, when it is called for. I would tend to call that a practising of caring rather than compassion, but that might just be me being caught up in semantics.

 

[Buddy]

I am inclined to feel that the word compassion is too big a word. Some have mentioned that one can try and act compassionately and evaluate ones actions and correct them so as to get better.

...

Somehow this jars a little with me as I don't think one can go out and exercise the 'compassion gene'.

...

That seems more my inclination as well. In a normative context IRL, I think 'compassion' manifests naturally when there's no conscious effort (or perhaps plan) to "show compassion" like the behavior of those folks who, in the biblical scripture, were soundly criticized for their public displays of prayer and "making a great display of their charity by means of the image."

My view also incorporates that donkey leading the blind horse example earlier. Since it seems obvious to me that there is an awareness shared by all, acts that one would call acts of compassion are just what you do when you ignore certain boundaries and instead of seeing "the other" as "the other", there is only life where one form needs help from another in a specific situation, circumstance or context. Not that there's no point in talking about compassion from various points of view, of course...just saying that, for me, it seems really simple and it's what comes natural, assuming there aren't overriding constraints somehow involved.

Thanks for posting that Aeneas.

 

[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'.

Somehow this jars a little with me as I don't think one can go out and exercise the 'compassion gene'.

I probably wasn't clear enough, but that's not really what I was saying. The point was that most people probably don't have a real 'compassion gene', so how do you get one? You say it is by 'cleansing of the machine', but surely part of that process can be attempting to learn and practice, as I said, the skills and knowledge necessary to exhibit what we understand to be real compassion. If you want to have control over your emotions, for example, would you say that you cannot go out and exercise the 'emotional control gene'? That is to say, practice observing your emotions and 'keeping it below the neck' etc.?

To me the same applies to compassion or any other trait or 'soul quality' that we might aim to develop.

In some of the posts it was put forward the idea that one could practise compassion and then evaluate the results of ones actions. But are we really equipped to evaluate the results? One can evaluate how one feels and what one sees, but that is I think a very limited feedback system. We have no access to the karmic lessons, neither do we often have access to how that person thinks and acts. Over a long period of time, we can perhaps see behavioural changes, but were these changes the results of 'our short exchange' or something else?

I think this is a bit black and white. I think many people have the opportunity, especially in close relationships or with family members, to observe the results of what they think might be showing 'compassion'.

So the danger in wanting to exercise compassion is that it can appeal to 'fixers' and 'doers', who come to see other people as people with problems that need fixing. Compassion is not a skill like carpentry, where after hammering x thousand of nails in, you feel comfortable in handling a hammer. Being among healthy individuals who care for people around them can be a good addition to working on oneself, so as to see caring in practice.

I'm not sure you've understood what has been discussed so far. I don't think there was a suggestion to go out and fix people, but to learn what real compassion is. In many cases that might look like the opposite of what most people think 'compassion' is. See the first post in this thread for one example.

Regarding compassion then a compassionate act might be to just acknowledge somebody and perhaps truly SEE them in an non-judgmental way.

For sure, that's the baseline really, anyone who learns that can probably do it, it requires very little energy, but it's not really compassion. In practice it might amount to just sitting there staring at someone. Much more difficult is engaging with someone, finding out about them, being able to understand where they are coming from (which requires a lot of knowledge of human psychology and a lot of personal suffering and experience), and then on that basis, determining what, if anything, you might be able to do to help them.

Nothing more and nothing less. And in a way a very human and ordinary thing, which strangely enough can be a rare act these days ...and perhaps always has been a rare act in this 3rd density STS world. Again the question arises, how would you evaluate this, if the thought was of doing stock-take, as nothing appeared to happen and nothing was said?

Well, you can't evaluate the result of something when you haven't invested any energy in it.

The more we come 'into' Being, the less separation we feel with others and the more we feel the pain and suffering of the world in which we live. There is less the feeling of 'me' and 'them' and more a feeling of 'us'. Less separation and more unitedness/oneness. One could say that it is like the family into which we are born. When a member of the family suffers, all the members suffer. As we grow, the veils of separation extends further out, the 'family' grows and the more people there are that we naturally care about. One could perhaps say that as we learn more about ourselves and others, we get to realise that there are more things that unite us, than separate us.

Not sure how to respond to the above. It seems a little too general. In fact, the way you've expressed it here: "There is less the feeling of 'me' and 'them' and more a feeling of 'us'. Less separation and more unitedness/oneness" sounds a bit like the new age "we are all one" mantra. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant.

 

[Adaryn]

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".

I've found through experience that what I thought was compassion felt for a suffering fellow human being was mostly projection, recognizing my own suffering, and wishing the other person be free from that suffering because I wanted to be free from suffering.
I come across quite a lot of suffering people in my job - old people, often sick; some had horrendous lives (abuse, disease, poverty, deaths of children/spouses…). I listen to their stories, I empathize with them. And yet, I find that most often, my compassion is only my fear of suffering like they did/are, or me resonating with their suffering.
The caring professions are a good "practice ground" for learning and practicing compassion. I had a training class last year where the trainer told us a bit about empathy, which she described as a "technique". You won't learn anything new here, but in the context of my job, it's just about trying to understand where the other person is coming from, and adopting a neutral attitude, ie: not overstepping our role as carers, not taking sides, not judging, being as unemotional as possible WHILE being caring and benevolent. But understanding fully where the person is coming from and why she's behaving in a certain way (for ie: being rude, or whiny, or whatever) doesn't mean one has to tolerate certain behaviours. It's a tough one.

I particularly think of 2 cases: an old woman who had quite a tough life. Her story is pathetic. First time I heard it, I nearly cried with her. Later on, I realised I only added to her suffering by "wallowing" with her in it. I found out that this woman tells her story to virtually everyone, she's become totally identified with her victim status. It's like, if you take it away from her, there'll be nothing left of her. Now, I've learned to see her suffering with a bit more distance, while still being sympathetic (and actually still feeling sorry for her).
I don't know, when dealing with this kind of situation, maybe the most compassionate thing to do is just listen, acknowledge, while knowing there's nothing you can really do to help. Well, maybe just listening and acknowledging does help them, in some way. A kind word, a warm gesture. The trick being not to identify with the person's suffering.
The other person I'm thinking about is a woman who had a stroke a few years ago. She's a drunkard, and she virtually insults everyone, treating the care workers like dirt. I can understand where she's coming from, and that she suffers from brain injuries which further exacerbate her obnoxiousness. So yeah, I can be compassionate and empathize with her plight, but I'd really be a compassionate idiot if I allowed her to insult me.

I also noticed it's far "easier" to practice compassion with strangers than with our own family. Maybe that's where the real test lies: with our loved ones.

ADD: this article might provide clues about how to be compassionate, practically speaking: http://www.sott.net/article/313108-Holding-space-for-people-What-it-means-and-ways-to-do-it-well

 

[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".

I've found through experience that what I thought was compassion felt for a suffering fellow human being was mostly projection, recognizing my own suffering, and wishing the other person be free from that suffering because I wanted to be free from suffering.
I come across quite a lot of suffering people in my job - old people, often sick; some had horrendous lives (abuse, disease, poverty, deaths of children/spouses…). I listen to their stories, I empathize with them. And yet, I find that most often, my compassion is only my fear of suffering like they did/are, or me resonating with their suffering.
The caring professions are a good "practice ground" for learning and practicing compassion. I had a training class last year where the trainer told us a bit about empathy, which she described as a "technique". You won't learn anything new here, but in the context of my job, it's just about trying to understand where the other person is coming from, and adopting a neutral attitude, ie: not overstepping our role as carers, not taking sides, not judging, being as unemotional as possible WHILE being caring and benevolent. But understanding fully where the person is coming from and why she's behaving in a certain way (for ie: being rude, or whiny, or whatever) doesn't mean one has to tolerate certain behaviours. It's a tough one.

I particularly think of 2 cases: an old woman who had quite a tough life. Her story is pathetic. First time I heard it, I nearly cried with her. Later on, I realised I only added to her suffering by "wallowing" with her in it. I found out that this woman tells her story to virtually everyone, she's become totally identified with her victim status. It's like, if you take it away from her, there'll be nothing left of her. Now, I've learned to see her suffering with a bit more distance, while still being sympathetic (and actually still feeling sorry for her).
I don't know, when dealing with this kind of situation, maybe the most compassionate thing to do is just listen, acknowledge, while knowing there's nothing you can really do to help. Well, maybe just listening and acknowledging does help them, in some way. A kind word, a warm gesture. The trick being not to identify with the person's suffering.
The other person I'm thinking about is a woman who had a stroke a few years ago. She's a drunkard, and she virtually insults everyone, treating the care workers like dirt. I can understand where she's coming from, and that she suffers from brain injuries which further exacerbate her obnoxiousness. So yeah, I can be compassionate and empathize with her plight, but I'd really be a compassionate idiot if I allowed her to insult me.

I also noticed it's far "easier" to practice compassion with strangers than with our own family. Maybe that's where the real test lies: with our loved ones.

I think that's a pretty good summation of what it takes, at a practical level, to be as compassionate as we can be. The idea of "being compassionate" by 'empathizing' with the person suffering and just making them feel worse is very true I think. Although it may depend on the person. Those that want to wallow in their suffering might enjoy such "empathy", while those who don't want to feel that way, who ARE really suffering, just feel worse.

Leaving aside someone in your profession, (which can be very difficult and I admire you for doing it), maybe a good way to know if there is any point in even trying to help someone who is suffering, is to try and make them feel better in response to them expressing how much they are suffering. If they don't respond well, i.e. they make it clear they don't want to feel better, then maybe the only thing to do is not entertain that topic at all, and leave them to it.

Then again, there are times when it is useful to someone for us to indulge them in how terrible things are, to help them rant and rave, but this should also result in helping them to 'pull themselves out of it'.

Again, it seems that to really be compassionate, we have to take it on a case by case basis, and it also requires a lot of knowledge of ourselves and the other person.

Thanks Adaryn.

 

[Phill4]

I think that learning to be compassionate becomes possible after we have learned certain things i.e. the raw emotional response to immediately trying to "help" (idiot number one), like everyone else in the planet some people are just what they learned to be, if we take the case of a very narcissistic person yet "souled" we understand that this behavior comes from suffering and this person is in underlying pain, he is what he learned to be still deserves compassion to his situation from ones ability to provide what's required and not what's demanded. Without expectation or hoping for a fundamental transformation because of our us as they are free to decide their path.

I think there are levels of compassion proportional to the level of development in people in the work.

another thing to ad is the idea of empathy , or walking in someone else's shoes that was mentioned before.
we have to know our possibilities as individuals (before trying to solve everything or carry the world on our shoulders) and how our actions mirror back at us from within us and from the situation itself, how every transfer of energy is reciprocal, and we will get something back from interacting with others or the universe.

If our actions follow a dynamic progressively attempting towards STO, we will get an answer from the universe through this interaction, if our actions follow has an unspoken intent of bringing benefit only to ourselves the same energy will fill us and that will fill the respective mechanisms of development.


Manipulation takes place when we make use of this rule of reciprocal transfer strictly, partially or unconsciously for our personal gain even if whatever our actions give a beneficial result for the other person or doesn't.

It is a wide topic that is not independent from common consideration, experience, knowledge and being/doing-doing/being and development.


Also dealing with this at the moment

 

[Voyageur]

Without the intention to add noise to this valuable thread, the following is a selection of some random thoughts by others on compassion or as a link to its essence from within their own words - they vary:

If your compassion does not include yourself, it is incomplete.
Gautama Buddha

A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Albert Einstein

For there is nothing heavier than compassion. Not even one's own pain weighs so heavy as the pain one feels with someone, for someone, a pain intensified by the imagination and prolonged by a hundred echoes.
Milan Kundera

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Self-absorption in all its forms kills empathy, let alone compassion. When we focus on ourselves, our world contracts as our problems and preoccupations loom large. But when we focus on others, our world expands. Our own problems drift to the periphery of the mind and so seem smaller, and we increase our capacity for connection - or compassionate action.
Daniel Goleman

Compassion is not a relationship between the healer and the wounded. It's a relationship between equals. Only when we know our own darkness well can we be present with the darkness of others. Compassion becomes real when we recognize our shared humanity.
Pema Chödrön

“As long as Man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.”
Pythagoras

Our task must be to free ourselves... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and it's beauty.
Albert Einstein

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Martin Luther King Jr.

If a person seems wicked, do not cast him away. Awaken him with your words, elevate him with your deeds, repay his injury with your kindness. Do not cast him away; cast away his wickedness.
Lao Tzu

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
John F. Kennedy

Compassion is a verb.
Thich Nhat Hanh

There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one’s head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people’s pain.
James Baldwin

Wisdom, compassion, and courage are the three universally recognized moral qualities of men.
Confucius

Compassion is not just feeling with someone, but seeking to change the situation. Frequently people think compassion and love are merely sentimental. No! They are very demanding. If you are going to be compassionate, be prepared for action!
Desmond Tutu

The dew of compassion is a tear.
Lord Byron

The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.
Robert F. Kennedy

With compassion one becomes courageous. Compassion brings triumph when attacked; it brings security when maintained.
Tao Te Ching

"Can I see another's woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another's grief,
And not seek for kind relief?"
William Blake

 

[obyvatel]

I am inclined to feel that the word compassion is too big a word. Some have mentioned that one can try and act compassionately and evaluate ones actions and correct them so as to get better. Or as Joe wrote "fake it till you make it" type approach.
.......................................................
In writing this it reminds me of the native American indians who saw themselves as caretakers of the world into which they were born. When one sees oneself as a caretaker it is natural to 'act' in caretaking of ones environment and to help those who are in trouble and suffering, though 'to act' is situation specific and does not necessarily call for 'doing' type action.

Seeing oneselves as caretakers of the world and acting in that capacity is a good general example. If such a view is already part of the cultural ethos, then such action can be effortless. However, if such a view is not part of the culture, then conscious effort may be needed to get started. This is where conscious intention and reminding oneself of that intention may have its place. The intention imo is not to be compassionate , but can be something like having goodwill for others. Sometimes, compassion may be the main driver of behavior depending on the situation.

[quote author=Aeneas]
In some of the posts it was put forward the idea that one could practise compassion and then evaluate the results of ones actions. But are we really equipped to evaluate the results? One can evaluate how one feels and what one sees, but that is I think a very limited feedback system. We have no access to the karmic lessons, neither do we often have access to how that person thinks and acts. Over a long period of time, we can perhaps see behavioural changes, but were these changes the results of 'our short exchange' or something else?
[/quote]

That is true. It also holds for other related concepts like "external consideration" for example. How can we know for sure if we are practicing external consideration? How do we know if what we did was good for us and others? This basic uncertainty is part and parcel of life and our actions in it.

[quote author=Aeneas]
So the danger in wanting to exercise compassion is that it can appeal to 'fixers' and 'doers', who come to see other people as people with problems that need fixing. Compassion is not a skill like carpentry, where after hammering x thousand of nails in, you feel comfortable in handling a hammer. Being among healthy individuals who care for people around them can be a good addition to working on oneself, so as to see caring in practice.
[/quote]

One idea is compassion arises naturally as being grows. This is true per my current understanding. But then, how does being grow? Here, if we are willing to admit the knowledge obtained from neuroscience and cognitive psychology, which do not deal directly with being but with neural and behavioral correlates of what could constitute as the results of the growth of being, we come to specific actions or doing. When we act in certain ways, certain specific parts of our brains light up, meaning certain groups of neurons fire and consequently wire together. The more we do them, more those actions become habitual and effortless, and skillful. In order to get better at the action, it is necessary to get feedback from the environment and constantly strive to get better. In this respect, carpentry and compassion may not be as far apart as they may seem at first glance.

One does not become a skilled carpenter by applying carpentry skills to wire a house. That is a different skill. Similarly one cannot just go into every situation with the idea of exercising compassion willy nilly. Here we come to the problem of understanding what compassion is. If the term is used in such a wide sense that it gives rise to "compassion is all it takes" type meme, then we have to step back and say, "it is too big of a word". It is not a skill that can be learned through practice as its boundaries are not delineated properly.

[quote author=Aeneas]
Regarding compassion then a compassionate act might be to just acknowledge somebody and perhaps truly SEE them in an non-judgmental way. Nothing more and nothing less. And in a way a very human and ordinary thing, which strangely enough can be a rare act these days ...and perhaps always has been a rare act in this 3rd density STS world. Again the question arises, how would you evaluate this, if the thought was of doing stock-take, as nothing appeared to happen and nothing was said?
[/quote]

In my experience, we can evaluate our side of things. Were we able to hold our intention of goodwill and acknowledge the person in a non-judgmental way? Or did we fall into one of our projections that landed on the other person? Even this is hard to do but with practice there is an inner sensation and feeling that develops. And, also, in my experience, when this happens, and the other person senses that he/she "is seen", there is a corresponding reaction. As you say, nothing may appear to happen externally and nothing may be said. But there is a feeling of rightness, not intellectually conveyable. It is however a valid experience, not magical thinking, and psychologically grasped by the rational "feeling function".

 

[Ennio]

I also noticed it's far "easier" to practice compassion with strangers than with our own family. Maybe that's where the real test lies: with our loved ones.

I think that there's some truth to this. At least I've seen it in myself as I relate to my own family sometimes, and in past relationships. I think that there are a few different reasons for why being more objectively compassionate can be more challenging in the 'loved one' context. The first being that we view those closest to us through a filter of projection. We see those things that we want to see or think/hope exists within the person(s) we are close to simply based on what we want or think we need them to be. And probably do not give their various different 'I's' their due - observing and responding appropriately when its uncomfortable, or when 'it' doesn't like to. Or, we might be so identified with what we like about someone close to us and what we get out of the relationship, that we avoid the work of acknowledging to them (and to ourselves) that there is a problem that can only be helped by bringing it up and dealing with the painful emotions in an honest way. We don't realize that by avoiding this form of compassion - waking up a loved one to a problem - we can be missing an opportunity to be of great help to all involved. And not to be proactive in this sense, can be very detrimental to all involved.

Another side to this seems to be enmeshment. The healthier boundaries that come of respecting one's self (as well as the other) get erased with identification with the other person's "feelings," programmed and easily predicted responses, narrative, etc. That battle is lost before its even fought, ie. "I know what they're going to think, say and do if I bring *whatever* up - so why bother?" - may not even come into the equation consciously because one's own thoughts and feelings have gotten so utterly lost and subsumed in the other person's. We mistake enmeshment for empathy, co-dependency for constructive support, and end up feeding the dynamics of narcissism.

 

[Ennio]

Without the intention to add noise to this valuable thread, the following is a selection of some random thoughts by others on compassion or as a link to its essence from within their own words - they vary:

This is a really useful survey on what compassion may be, thanks!

I thought that this one below was really interesting in light of some of your concerns, Aeneas:

Compassion is a verb.
Thich Nhat Hanh

While compassion is partially an outgrowth of our level of being, as has been mentioned, I think its correct to consider that the things that we choose to actively do helps cultivate compassion in ourselves. Like the mere doing of something reinforces and strengthens whatever latent empathy and concern we have for others. And when this reinforcement or strengthening occurs it helps us build our capacity for more and better acts of compassion. I think Joe and obyvatel explained it rather well.

 

[Joe]

While compassion is partially an outgrowth of our level of being, as has been mentioned, I think its correct to consider that the things that we choose to actively do helps cultivate compassion in ourselves. Like the mere doing of something reinforces and strengthens whatever latent empathy and concern we have for others. And when this reinforcement or strengthening occurs it helps us build our capacity for more and better acts of compassion. I think Joe and obyvatel explained it rather well.

As far as I can see, everything we learn, or hope to learn, in life is founded in trial and 'error', repeatedly, which often generates suffering of some kind. An analogy that often comes to mind is the annealing of iron or some other substance that removes 'impurities' and fashions it in such a way as to make a useful, accurate, efficient tool out of the 'raw material'. This is, perhaps, one example of what 'Being' actually is (or how it can be achieved): fine tuning the 'raw material' that is us, our 'machines' and the errors they contain, the errors being false beliefs. How can you define which beliefs are false if you do not put them 'out there', test them, to see if they 'work' or get us what we think they will?

Fine tuning a musical instrument, for example, takes repeated attempts to get the right note. Fine tuning our own human instruments takes repeated attempts to 'strike the right note', getting it wrong, with the feedback we receive from life provoking us to try again in a different way, again and again. If this process is engaged in consciously, and recognized AS a process, then it can be, at least some of the time, a very interesting and dynamic experience. But as I said, it requires effort, input of energy, testing, observing feedback from life and others and trying new approaches.

 

[Aeneas]

The issue of compassion has raised many thoughts and perhaps some of them are due to different ways of using words. As I mentioned in my last post then in my understanding compassion is a by-product of Being. It is not something that one can go after directly, but in an indirect way one can, by practicing caring for others. This is, where one can see the specific situation, the context and the circumstances and decide what the best action of care would be. One can be a good caretaker and even write that on a CV, but I would find it a little odd if someone wrote on their CV that they are good at compassion. It sounds a little like Moses writing the bible and saying of himself that he himself was the most humble person who ever lived.

I am inclined to feel that the word compassion is too big a word. Some have mentioned that one can try and act compassionately and evaluate ones actions and correct them so as to get better. Or as Joe wrote "fake it till you make it" type approach.
.......................................................
In writing this it reminds me of the native American indians who saw themselves as caretakers of the world into which they were born. When one sees oneself as a caretaker it is natural to 'act' in caretaking of ones environment and to help those who are in trouble and suffering, though 'to act' is situation specific and does not necessarily call for 'doing' type action.

Seeing oneselves as caretakers of the world and acting in that capacity is a good general example. If such a view is already part of the cultural ethos, then such action can be effortless. However, if such a view is not part of the culture, then conscious effort may be needed to get started. This is where conscious intention and reminding oneself of that intention may have its place. The intention imo is not to be compassionate , but can be something like having goodwill for others. Sometimes, compassion may be the main driver of behavior depending on the situation.

This is also how I see it, namely that the intention is not one of wanting to be compassionate, but one of having goodwill for others. In our culture, where values are upside down, conscious effort might indeed be needed and preferably to place oneself in proximity to healthy individuals who display those qualities. Joe mentioned the tuning of an instrument and to use that analogy it is much easier to tune an instrument in close proximity to an already tuned instument than in a cacophony of noise.

My view also incorporates that donkey leading the blind horse example earlier. Since it seems obvious to me that there is an awareness shared by all, acts that one would call acts of compassion are just what you do when you ignore certain boundaries and instead of seeing "the other" as "the other", there is only life where one form needs help from another in a specific situation, circumstance or context.

I think this is true, especially when one has a genuine interest in the wellbeing of others, without overstepping the free will of others.

I probably wasn't clear enough, but that's not really what I was saying. The point was that most people probably don't have a real 'compassion gene', so how do you get one? You say it is by 'cleansing of the machine', but surely part of that process can be attempting to learn and practice, as I said, the skills and knowledge necessary to exhibit what we understand to be real compassion. If you want to have control over your emotions, for example, would you say that you cannot go out and exercise the 'emotional control gene'? That is to say, practice observing your emotions and 'keeping it below the neck' etc.?

To me the same applies to compassion or any other trait or 'soul quality' that we might aim to develop.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say that cleansing the machine was left to the rain and wind as it to me is a continuous effort. Thus I pointed to practising being a caretaker, of caring for others and of watching how healthy people naturally care for each other. This is something that can be exercised, evaluated etc.

Some of these soul qualities that we wish to develop and strengthen might not be able to be exercised directly. One might wish to practise the "humbleness gene" or the "right speech gene", but going about it directly can be difficult. One can however approach it indirectly by being mindful of what one says, less daydreaming, thinking before speaking, put attention more on others than oneself, not indulge etc as a way to practise.

But here is where I think that sometimes the famous shocks are at times needed. One needs to make a huge effort by ones own steam and persevere against all odds against the machine, but then comes a plateau, where it appears as though a shock is needed to go further.

Buddhist Zen masters went to great length to create shocks for their students, so that the "penny would drop". This was done to those special students who knew the teachings back to front, but still didn't embody it or where it was still an intellectual thing. Those for whom the shocks succeded, went on and set up teaching in other places with their own students. It was by no means sure that the shocks of a master produced the wished for result. (For those interested look up books on Hyakujo, Ma Tzu, Rinzai, Eno and other Zen masters, to get the flavour).

Gurdjieff also used the technique of shocks and one can debate to what degree they worked as none of his students took over the rein. No "Master" was created, and Gurdjieff did say that schools just come for a limited time. He had brilliant intellectuals coming to him and yet somehow they didn't make the 'ultimate' leap from mind to Being (man number 4?). Teachers of the teachings were created but no Masters. An example would be the interview with "William Patterson" that was on Sott Blog Radio. This guy knows the inside out of Gurdjieffs teachings and all the info about all the students and what happened when, why and by whom in Gurdjieffs life. He leads a Gurdjieff group, but though he might like to assume that he has 'got it', it was clear in the interview (at least how I saw it) that he knew the teachings but didn't embody it. He couldn't even SEE Laura, and hence as I see it, he didn't get the shock that would have propelled him to the next step. He stayed a teacher.

Sorry for the rant above, but the reason for mentioning it is that these shocks might be what is needed to propel us to the next step, where compassion becomes a by-product of Being.
I could well be wrong, but my guess is that Joe had such a shock in connection with the iodine. It was evident for those following the iodine thread that a different more compassionate and emotionally changed Joe was active on the Forum.

Long ago the Cs made it clear that the goal is not to change this world. It is, after all, a place specifically designed for specific lessons to be learned. So my investment in changing it for the better was always destined to go nowhere and eventually burn me out in the process. It seems that point of 'burn out' happened to me last Dec. with the help of iodine.

That doesn't mean that we should stop doing what we do in terms of calling out the lies, but the thin line of non-attachment to specific change has to be walked. It's not an easy task, but doable with the right perspective I think.

The effect of having a major illusion or false belief stripped away was, for me, to first make me painfully aware of the need for connection to others and community and to help each other in our trials and struggles, which was combined with generalized anxiety and a 'doom and gloom' perspective (I know, weird combination!).

[...]

Also, I think it's useful to remind ourselves of the extent of what we can do and not stress what we can't do or change. I tend to get a little anxious or fearful about the 'future' and 'measuring up' or 'meeting a standard'. Whether or not any of that applies is sort of irrelevant, because we can't really know if it applies or not. All we really can do is focus on what is within our ability to do, and most of that involves learning as much as possible about ourselves and the world, caring for others and changing ourselves for the better.

So Joe had prepared the ground by doing what he could possibly do and then an "external" shock created the leap in understanding. As Joe wrote:

...'the DCM works in mysterious ways'...

And a last clarification:

The more we come 'into' Being, the less separation we feel with others and the more we feel the pain and suffering of the world in which we live. There is less the feeling of 'me' and 'them' and more a feeling of 'us'. Less separation and more unitedness/oneness. One could say that it is like the family into which we are born. When a member of the family suffers, all the members suffer. As we grow, the veils of separation extends further out, the 'family' grows and the more people there are that we naturally care about. One could perhaps say that as we learn more about ourselves and others, we get to realise that there are more things that unite us, than separate us.

Not sure how to respond to the above. It seems a little too general. In fact, the way you've expressed it here: "There is less the feeling of 'me' and 'them' and more a feeling of 'us'. Less separation and more unitedness/oneness" sounds a bit like the new age "we are all one" mantra. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant.

It sounds like a misunderstanding and I might not have been clear enough, though it admittedly can sound new agey.

Take the last 13+ years since I first learned about Sott. At that stage I cared for those around me and wasn't touched so much about by what happened to those people 'over there'. A lot of whom I was blissfully unaware of. Then gradually the forum formed and the Fellowship and suddenly the separation wasn't so great any more. I started to care about lots of people around the world, most of whom I didn't even know or hadn't seen. In the process of working as an editor on Sott, I started to know about the suffering of people all over the world and the evil machinations that are done by the world leaders. It touched me and I started to feel for people in countries, that I had hardly heard of before. You could say that the boundaries got smaller, the veils of separation that our leaders enforce were lifted and I could in a tangible way feel that there is more that unites us, than separates us. That we have more in common with each other than with the 1% that rule over us.

As Joe said above in the other thread:

All we really can do is focus on what is within our ability to do, and most of that involves learning as much as possible about ourselves and the world, caring for others and changing ourselves for the better.

That the subject of compassion is coming up now might also be a sign of the 'wave' being here and impacting us and making us think/act about caring/compassion.

 

[Joe]

Joe mentioned the tuning of an instrument and to use that analogy it is much easier to tune an instrument in close proximity to an already tuned instument than in a cacophony of noise.

Yep, and I think that's what the network is for, to get a better idea of what 'in tune' is.

Some of these soul qualities that we wish to develop and strengthen might not be able to be exercised directly. One might wish to practise the "humbleness gene" or the "right speech gene", but going about it directly can be difficult. One can however approach it indirectly by being mindful of what one says, less daydreaming, thinking before speaking, put attention more on others than oneself, not indulge etc as a way to practise.

I'm not sure I see the difference between direct and indirect here. For me, 'practicing the humbleness gene' would involve actively putting attention on others rather than the self, and this would be a direct way to go about developing that quality. Maybe what you mean by 'direct' is somehow generating humility or compassion etc. by just 'being compassionate' all of a sudden? If so, then I agree that that doesn't work. Specific efforts are needed, that generate experience that can provide 'shocks' that 'tune the instrument' (ok, enough analogies already!)

Since you mentioned my experience with iodine, at this point the only thing I would add in reference to this topic is that I had, for several years, been attempting to exercise my 'compassion gene' for several years in pretty direct ways (those ways having been effectively learned in a 'fake it till you make it' kind of way), with mixed results. I suppose you could say that I had decided that my 'chief feature' was a lack of compassion, although it seems it was really driven by fear and a belief in a threatening 'universe'. And I worked myself up pretty hard about changing it, even though I didn't really understand it at the time (not that I understand it fully now, but I think I have a more clear view).

Speaking of 'chief features':

Gurdjieff spoke of a central feature in man’s psychology around which his entire falsehood revolved. “One man talks too much; he must learn to keep silent,” he said. “Another man is silent when he ought to talk.” This chief feature is custom tailored to each, which makes work on chief feature a personal and practical endeavor.

It seems to me that chief features are really the core (usually erroneous) beliefs we have about life that then shape our personality in such a way as to support those beliefs or protect against them. Often this means that a person's outward manifestation of personality will be the opposite of what they really believe, i.e. who they 'really are', but they're usually unaware of that background belief. But if you become aware of and change your core belief, then you can possibly change who you 'really are'. I suppose the idea of 'we're all a work in progress' speaks to that.

Take the last 13+ years since I first learned about Sott. At that stage I cared for those around me and wasn't touched so much about by what happened to those people 'over there'. A lot of whom I was blissfully unaware of. Then gradually the forum formed and the Fellowship and suddenly the separation wasn't so great any more. I started to care about lots of people around the world, most of whom I didn't even know or hadn't seen. In the process of working as an editor on Sott, I started to know about the suffering of people all over the world and the evil machinations that are done by the world leaders. It touched me and I started to feel for people in countries, that I had hardly heard of before. You could say that the boundaries got smaller, the veils of separation that our leaders enforce were lifted and I could in a tangible way feel that there is more that unites us, than separates us. That we have more in common with each other than with the 1% that rule over us.

Ok, I understand what you mean now. Explaining and being specific helps! :D