History of the Theosophical Movement

[Neil]

Taking on the suffering of one's own child is natural. For love ones ... easy. For a dear friend ... okay. But taking it on for a stranger is a whole different matter. And taking on the suffering of an enemy is (for me) next to impossible. Yet that attribute, may indeed be the true quality of what is meant by STO. It could very well be the C's definition as well. This subject has been on my mind for a long while now.

As long as the enemy is "sincerely asking" and not manipulating, which can be tough distinction to make to say the least. In such a case, I would question the use of the word "enemy." Otherwise, you're just lunch.

One could say that we are enemies with the Cassiopaeans because they are STO and we are STS, but of course it is not that simple. So what constitutes sincerely asking? Maybe it has to do with being an STO candidate, but then, how do you define that? The best I can tell, it is someone who is disillusioned with the STS paradigm at some deep level, and is trying to do all they can to find an alternative to the hierarchical slave system.

 

[sitting]

Taking on the suffering of one's own child is natural. For love ones ... easy. For a dear friend ... okay. But taking it on for a stranger is a whole different matter. And taking on the suffering of an enemy is (for me) next to impossible. Yet that attribute, may indeed be the true quality of what is meant by STO. It could very well be the C's definition as well. This subject has been on my mind for a long while now.

As long as the enemy is "sincerely asking" and not manipulating, which can be tough distinction to make to say the least. In such a case, I would question the use of the word "enemy."

Hi Neil,

Good point.

I think in place of "enemy," a better term might be "someone we dislike."

But even with enemies, there may be natural safeguards (like frequency mismatch), which would render anything totally unseemly not possible. (This in the context of truly STO versus truly STS ... like the C's in relation to STS 4th D.)

I also think the capacity to give all is perhaps a more relevant description than simply "to give all." In the same way "receivership capacity" has been highlighted in past sessions. The two may even be related somehow. Taking on the suffering of others being a form of receiving.

I've been mulling through this subject, coming from various sources & schools of thought. The C's have pointed to STO as the single primary graduation criteria. This is significant, in view of all the other criteria they could've used instead. They chose this one.

I find it no easy task (in the way I understand it presently.) Maybe that's why the "passing grade" has been compassionately set at slightly over 50%. And not much higher.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=sitting]
Service-to-Others has been defined concisely here (forum) as "giving all to those who ask." Through Tonglen practice however, I've gotten a somewhat deeper glimpse. It's an actual taking on of another's suffering (so as to know precisely what to give.)
[/quote]

Regarding "giving all to those who ask", there is an appropriate common sense quote of Gurdjieff - "to give one must first have". This is easy to see this in the material context but the lines are often blurred when applied in abstract - like "taking on another's suffering".

I think the terms STO/STS are difficult to understand in depth in terms of categories. As a result, there are a lot of vague ideas that tend to get attached to them just as what happens with more mundanely used pairs of opposites like good/evil. Whatever we know or imagine to be in the "good" category may tend to go into one bucket and the rest in the other. My personal opinion is that this is an example of "thinking in twos" or opposites that comes most naturally to humans. We say that the law of three should be used and context should determine which is good or evil - and that is at least a more rational way of looking at the world.

You find Tonglen meditation useful, and it is your personal choice. I prefer the idea of "walking in the other person's shoes" as a way of understanding the other. It is related to empathy. It is also specific, context dependent and necessarily engages with the other person with real interaction, unlike a meditative practice.

[quote author=sitting]
Taking on the suffering of one's own child is natural. For love ones ... easy. For a dear friend ... okay. But taking it on for a stranger is a whole different matter. And taking on the suffering of an enemy is (for me) next to impossible.
[/quote]

If you are taking of "intent to take on suffering " then it makes some sense to me. But, in my experience, to understand the suffering of another is not easy, as to do that one needs to walk in another's shoes. It is as difficult for near and dear ones as it is for strangers except for those close to us, we may have more empirical data and psychological insight into their suffering. And if we are able to get into that empathetic position, the other person who is suffering feels "understood". I do not look at it as taking on anothers' suffering.

[quote author=sitting]
I think in place of "enemy," a better term might be "someone we dislike."
[/quote]

It takes more effort to understand the position of someone we dislike. That effort is an useful exercise in training the rational faculties of the mind and reach a relatively higher state of impartiality.

Whether all this relates to a 50% passing grade for some graduation, I do not know nor particularly worry about. I follow this path because it seems a good way to live life here and now.

 

[sitting]

You find Tonglen meditation useful, and it is your personal choice. I prefer the idea of "walking in the other person's shoes" as a way of understanding the other. It is related to empathy. It is also specific, context dependent and necessarily engages with the other person with real interaction,

Hello obyvatel,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Your statement above, is very very close to what I was trying to convey. The words may be different. I'm a bit confused by your perceived divergence.

Tonglen is a practice, but not a meditative practice. It IS individual specific. And it depends on context & circumstance. I could even just call it deep empathy. But that empathy must be unconditional ... and from the heart. To achieve that is not easy.

I brought up STO because I was trying to bring myself back to basics. To refresh my frame of reference. Events have moved so quickly & dramatically that I found myself a bit adrift. Hence my post.

I was also inspired by the C's urging to "meditate with seed." So I looked at material that was closest to this urging. Hence my reference to Buddhism.

I want to make clear I was in no way preaching. A particular religion nor a particular practice. The material was mentioned because I thought it relevant.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Buddy]

...in my experience, to understand the suffering of another is not easy, as to do that one needs to walk in another's shoes.

It's just as hard for me too. When to understand means to stand under...to be covered by...to drink of...to grok, then I can only feel like I understand another person's suffering if I have some shared or similar experience with him/her and they provide enough information for me to be thinking about and using for the purpose of gaining some measure of understanding. Otherwise I can only offer myself as an attentive listener.

Late one night a few months ago, a client was in a talking mood, so we went outside to sit and chat. He has/had an alcohol addiction (he's moved on now) and he was trying to tell me what it was like for him and how it differs from other peoples issues with alcohol. He spoke of a kind of "calling to him" as if it was a siren-song sung by the mermaids tempting Odysseus and his men to change course for an island of permanent entrapment. He had no defenses.

I was just trying to relate to him but after a few moments he said "Buddy, I appreciate what you're doing, but I can tell just by listening to you that you've never had an alcohol problem." I had to admit he was right and to say that even though I had no experiences like that in common with him, he could at least count on me to listen. I spent less time talking after that, and even more time listening. Sometimes that's all that's being asked for, no matter the amount of suffering someone is going through. But I'm just speaking of my experience which is not necessarily a comment on anyone else's.

It is as difficult for near and dear ones as it is for strangers except for those close to us, we may have more empirical data and psychological insight into their suffering. And if we are able to get into that empathetic position, the other person who is suffering feels "understood". I do not look at it as taking on anothers' suffering.

I agree. Whether IRL or on a forum, when I feel understood by someone, I get a sense that they are walking slowly beside me while I fiddle with a piece of grass or straw, looking around the environment and just speaking from the heart. It's an experience from my youth that I value highly. I don't want anyone to take on my suffering or put their feet in my shoes, just walk beside me and be with me when I need it most. When I'm attempting to offer something similar to others and I don't know what they value most at these times, I just listen and where appropriate, paraphrase what they are telling me to let them know whether or not I'm really hearing them.

Whether all this relates to a 50% passing grade for some graduation, I do not know nor particularly worry about. I follow this path because it seems a good way to live life here and now.

I'll admit I don't yet grok the STO concept. The closest I can come right now is to keep my mind straight concerning the differences between other real opposites and contraries. I know the difference between a zero-sum game where if I take anything at all, you have less; and a non zero-sum game where if I build onto my house to improve my situation and property value, it has the effect of raising the value of your property next door as well. Or if I just rake my yard because I like the way a clean yard looks, it helps to beautify your neighborhood too, since it's a shared one.

I hope my comments aren't too noisy here, I just wanted to offer another possibly helpful view.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=sitting]
Your statement above, is very very close to what I was trying to convey. The words may be different. I'm a bit confused by your perceived divergence.
[/quote]

Hi Sitting,
Let me try to explain where I am coming from. You mentioned "actual taking on of another's suffering." Such an act or intent has very old roots going back to shamanistic cultures and their degenerate offshoots. Back when people believed physical illnesses were caused by evil spirits, the actual taking on of another's suffering had the meaning of transferring the illness on to another person, presumably stronger and more capable of fending it off. Sometimes it was an act of martyrdom to save a loved one. Whether there is a possibility of real transfer of illness/suffering or it all happened due to strongly held beliefs is not known - but there are recorded incidents of such maneuvers being apparently successful. One famous example I can think of is the story of Babar, the first Mughal emperor of India and his son Humayun. Also advanced spiritual teachers were said to have such powers which they occasionally used for the benefit of their disciples, often to their own detriment.

Now coming to "taking on another's suffering" in the context of modern Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism to be more specific, Tonglen is described as a practice of breathing in (taking) suffering and breathing out (giving) healing or some other specific good thing. It can be specifically directed at a person or to groups or even geographical areas. This does not look like empathy to me, nor does it seem like something that the Buddha would teach imo (my opinion is based on study of interpretations of Buddha's life and teachings in a historical context, especially in the Theravada tradition, which reaches back as close as possible to the source). Buddha taught people the means to end suffering for themselves through their own efforts as well as advocating compassion towards others, but I have so far not encountered a teaching which takes on others' suffering directly.

So if your understanding and interpretation of Tonglen practice and taking on another's suffering is one of exercising empathy in a real interaction with another human being with an aim of understanding their condition, then there is no point of divergence.

fwiw

 

[sitting]

This does not look like empathy to me, nor does it seem like something that the Buddha would teach imo (my opinion is based on study of interpretations of Buddha's life and teachings in a historical context, especially in the Theravada tradition, which reaches back as close as possible to the source). ... I have so far not encountered a teaching which takes on others' suffering directly.

So if your understanding and interpretation of Tonglen practice and taking on another's suffering is one of exercising empathy in a real interaction with another human being with an aim of understanding their condition, then there is no point of divergence.

Hi obyvatel,

Thank you for your reply. I see where the confusion might have arisen.

Shakyamuni employed the method of "skillful means." (That which was appropriate to the pupil's level of understanding.) This is remarkably similar to what the C's have done I think. Reflected in such comments as: Had we told you that 20 years ago, would you have believed it???

Theravada is the base level of Buddhist tradition. But it's called the lesser vehicle for a reason. Folks then were simply not at sufficient levels of "receivership capability."

Only much later came Nagarjuna and with him, Mahayana -- the greater vehicle. In many important aspects, it's vastly different from the former. It is from that tradition that my comments & observations were drawn.

FWIW.

 

[sitting]

Buddha taught people the means to end suffering for themselves through their own efforts as well as advocating compassion towards others,

No.

And this is explicit in both traditons -- Teravada and Mahayana.

Liberation & enlightenment is achieved through the method of compassion for others. It's linked and not selective. In many ways, it's identical to the concept of STO (service to others.) Graduation coming only from adequate levels of deep empathy.

FWIW.

 

[sitting]

...in my experience, to understand the suffering of another is not easy, as to do that one needs to walk in another's shoes.

It's just as hard for me too.

Yes.

Very hard to do. Trying to truly walk in that homeless man's shoes was what frightened me.

I believe deep empathy is one of those "simple understandings" (along with karmic lessons) the C's have spoken about. I consider it among the most central & remarkable hints they've ever handed out. Pointing us in this direction.

And it's a direction I've gotten a slight glimmer of understanding -- and tried hard to maintain.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Oxajil]

Tonglen is a practice, but not a meditative practice. It IS individual specific. And it depends on context & circumstance. I could even just call it deep empathy. But that empathy must be unconditional ... and from the heart. To achieve that is not easy.

Reading its description on the wiki link obyvatel posted, it sounds like a meditative practice. I could be wrong, but it's kind of backwards.

"In the practice, one visualizes taking onto oneself the suffering of others on the in-breath" --> Taking onto oneself the suffering of others can be a breach of free will. Suffering plays a role in learning the lessons of life.

"and on the out-breath giving happiness and success to all sentient beings." --> Again, can be a breach of free will.

You say it depends on context & circumstance. Okay, but if it concerns a friend with a problem, I don't think s/he would want you to meditate in a way that aims to absorb her/his suffering. Rather, in that case it might be more fruitful to ask for guidance and help in her/his struggles. And to be there for that person in other ways.

Also, I think you'll find this post by Laura on empathy interesting: Link

 

[obyvatel]

Sitting, it is interesting to see how you located the source of confusion in the "bigger" and "lesser" vehicles of Buddhist tradition keeping aside the other information provided in my post. I do not wish to proceed further on that line as it will deviate from the topic under discussion.

You initially remarked "taking on suffering of others" is STO in the context of Tonglen practice. I have my reservations on the benefit of such a practice. It seems that you a reframing and stretching what is generally understood and disseminated as Tonglen instruction ( there are other materials on this topic aside from Wikipedia link) about "taking on suffering and giving out healing" to bring it to the point of empathetic understanding of another's condition. Like I said before if this is how you understand the practice, no point of divergence. But then why not just say empathetic understanding instead of "actual taking on others suffering"?

The impression I have from this discussion is an effort to fit a square peg in a round hole for reaching agreement.

fwiw

 

[Buddy]

...in my experience, to understand the suffering of another is not easy, as to do that one needs to walk in another's shoes.

It's just as hard for me too.

Yes.

Very hard to do. Trying to truly walk in that homeless man's shoes was what frightened me.

I haven't followed any story you may have provided about your relating to a homeless person. That you've made efforts counts for something, I suppose and I truly hope it was edifying for someone, because people, especially children, can feel when one is making efforts. So, I won't refer to your experience in this reply, but I would like to pass on some thoughts from experience that might help someone or help in other ways.

In my experience, in the two-city area that I work and transit daily, homeless people can be tricky to work with. I advise people that it's best to leave them alone if they are not searching you out, or, to try and approach with no assumptions about them or their situation...even when things appear to be obvious.

Some homeless people look more pathetic than they actually feel. Sure, their basic needs for food, a few dollars kept on hand and shelter from harsh weather are the same for all of us. But, given the option, some would rather feel the thrill of discovery than to be given something out of pity or sympathy. To run across a small bag of relatively fresh bagels thrown into a dumpster behind a bakery while looking out for the deranged baker trying to run him off might just be part of the thrill of really living and feeling alive.

To some, being able to come and go as he pleases while knowing that what he pleases is mostly to be left alone as he leaves others alone makes a homeless life worth living. In fact, unless a person has been surviving for awhile (however poorly) while homeless or temporarily living a pseduo-anarchist lifestyle for any reason, the sheer sense of barely describable freedom might never be known to them. You won't even find many homeless people who will even attempt such a description because that could be counter-productive to helping them get some need met on some occasions.

I don't want to leave an unbalanced impression here, though, even while I'm only talking about my experience and what I've personally learned. I am not romanticizing anything - not downplaying, underplaying, overplaying or in any way trying to influence anybody's thoughts or efforts about helping anyone from empathy or whatever - especially with respect to homeless people. I just want mainly to suggest that we ditch any stereotypes we may be acting or thinking with when attempting to work with individuals or just empathizing with them.

It may sometimes seem counter-intuitive to an adult, but sometimes if we simply approach a person with a wide-open sense of a possible adventure and regard the other as a king in a one-person kingdom, we might get positive and immediate results in establishing connection. Any info we get from them after that approach would serve to modify and shape our impression closer to match who is actually in front of us. And sometimes the info they give us takes on a kind of self-org quality and the impression that comes to you to suggest what to do or what to give requires no deliberate left-brain verbal thought process, if that makes any sense.

 

[Buddy]

Attempting to regain original heading...

I was reviewing posts on this thread with the latest replies in mind and it strikes me how most everything can be related in information theoretical terms, when we find some workable transforms.

In light of this...

The thing is, there are exoteric, mesoteric, and esoteric levels of reality to the serpent phenomenon which are all equally valid. On one level, you have these cosmic serpents dueling in the sky which bring physical destruction down on the planet. This is merely a description of dust trails left in the sky after the cometary bombardments which periodically destroy civilization on our planet. Blavatsky touches on it very, very obliquely in the quote I pulled from the Secret Doctrine when she is speaking of planetary formation. If it is true that the cosmic environment reflects the human experiential cycle, and that these catastrophes come when the "Mandate of Heaven" is lost on Earth, then you could say that this cosmic serpent is a form of regeneration.

It is good to see us pumping good relations and self-development into the human experiential cycle, I think. Trying to look at everything from the perspective of integrated information theory, when I read Blavatsky's work explicating Theosophy, some Secret Doctrine, or whatever, I look for some varying resolution of what I can see and understand already about life and the world.

IOW, in these terms, it seems one would naturally expect writings on efforts at human empathy or efforts to expound esoteric stuff to all follow lines similar to what might be described as running a virtual simulation of life or some aspect thereof at some resolution. The more realistic, the more possible involvement with a reader or real life companion. It seems to help me sometimes to locate possible sources of confusion or error in some written material.

 

[Windmill knight]

Tonglen is a practice, but not a meditative practice. It IS individual specific. And it depends on context & circumstance. I could even just call it deep empathy. But that empathy must be unconditional ... and from the heart. To achieve that is not easy.

Reading its description on the wiki link obyvatel posted, it sounds like a meditative practice. I could be wrong, but it's kind of backwards.

"In the practice, one visualizes taking onto oneself the suffering of others on the in-breath" --> Taking onto oneself the suffering of others can be a breach of free will. Suffering plays a role in learning the lessons of life.

"and on the out-breath giving happiness and success to all sentient beings." --> Again, can be a breach of free will.

You say it depends on context & circumstance. Okay, but if it concerns a friend with a problem, I don't think s/he would want you to meditate in a way that aims to absorb her/his suffering. Rather, in that case it might be more fruitful to ask for guidance and help in her/his struggles. And to be there for that person in other ways.

Also, I think you'll find this post by Laura on empathy interesting: Link

Thanks for that link Oxajil, I enjoyed that post by Laura from the other thread. What I'm getting from it is that compassion has a lot to do with putting into action the initial feeling of empathy. So the empathic feeling is actively channeled into something useful. If we don't, it's wasted either in burnout or in guilt, or it is suppressed to avoid those two.

While reading your post, it occurred to me that one difference between compassion and pity is that the compassionate person will not try to remove suffering from the experience of others if it is obvious that the suffering is an integral part of their lesson. Rather, the compassionate person will help them overcome that suffering by learning their lesson and doing the work themselves.

It's a bit like that old saying that if you give a fish to a poor person, they will eat for a day. But if you teach them how to fish, they will eat for life. In the first scenario you do the job for them (and sometimes, depending on the context, that might be the right thing to do, but certainly not always); in the second you help them learn the lesson, which is ultimately much better for them.

A bit of off-topic-ish food for thought. :)

 

[sitting]

I think you'll find this post by Laura on empathy interesting:

Not only interesting but enlightening.

Most especially this passage (from Sott):

Experienced Buddhist meditators have reported that when they focused
for some time on what they called "stand-alone empathy" (visualizing intense
suffering affecting someone else & resonating empathically with that suffering)
without allowing compassion and altruistic love to grow in their minds, they
soon experienced burnout.

However, when they added a powerful feeling of unconditional love & compassion,
the distressing negative aspects of empathy disappeared, replaced by compassionate
courage & resolve to do whatever they could to soothe the others' suffering.

It would therefore seems that there is no such thing as "compassion fatigue," as
burnout is often called, but only an "empathy fatigue" that can be remedied.

The above precisely describes Bodhicitta -- the appropriate frame of mind.

Laura further explains:

That is one of the things that the SOTT editors work with every day: being able to
view horror and suffering repeatedly, and having something of an outlet to actually
work on doing something about it.

What happens then, after awhile is that compassion for the cosmos at large grows
and while there is no stemming of the flow of love and compassion, it just simply
becomes harder and harder for things out there to trigger negative emotions within.

All I can add, is amen.

FWIW.

PS
Thank you Oxajil for the reference. I had not seen this before. And the fact that Laura had already traversed this territory is not a surprise to me. Amazing is all I can say.