Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss

1. Compassion isn't just a feeling. In fact, true compassion need not involve any particular emotions at all. Sincere compassionate action can take place when there is no sense of 'Me' and 'You', 'Us' or 'Them'. If my left arm is itchy, my right hand reaches over to scratch it without first having to feel really, really sorry for the left arm. My right hand doesn't need to spend a lot of time thinking of the best way to solve the problem of itching. It recognizes a degree of suffering experienced by the left arm and responds appropriately in a way that alleviates that suffering. Compassionate action is spontaneous and happens as naturally as reaching for a pillow when it's time to go to bed at night. No thought, no great effort, no patting one's self on the back--just doing whatever the situation calls for. Getting caught up in a warm and fuzzy feeling and calling it compassion can be yet another form of self-aggrandizement and separation.

2. Compassion isn't currency. Acting with compassion simply involves responding to the suffering of others because we recognize that we are not separate from them. The phrase 'You scratch my back and I'll I scratch yours' is terribly misguided. If I hold the door for someone and they rush through without saying 'thank you', I need not get in a huff because I think they're being rude to me or that they are ungrateful. The second I start looking for a 'thank you' or some other form of acknowledgment, I'm engaging in pumping myself up rather than simply doing for others. What I'm trying to pass off as being nice or compassionate is in fact a form of currency. I'm doing something with an expectation of gaining something in return--even if it's just a little 'thank you.' It's not a really big deal, but let's not call that compassion.

3. Compassion is our natural state. There are many, many practices meant to rouse a sense of compassion within us and they are all very wonderful. However, it's important to remember that compassion is our natural state. It isn't something we need to get or acquire, it's something we just need to recognize and cultivate within ourselves. It's already there but it gets covered over by the weeds of our thinking, our habits, and our fundamental misunderstanding about the true nature of things. It's like seeds that can't grow because there are so many weeds and brush that needs to be cleaned up all around them--and once all of that stuff gets cleared away, we can notice how naturally compassion arises.

The above 3 notions were taken word for word as quotes from Lawrence Grecco from here: www.theidproject.org/blog/lawrence-grecc...m_source=twitterfeed

From my viewpoint, compassion is not an affective feeling. Thus there is no-one feeling the need for something in return (currency exchange). I scratch an itch when appropriate. I help a person in need when appropriate. Without the push and pull of affective feelings, the stillness has an inherent caring quality to it.

Nick

I think empathy is the affective feeling people usually conflate with compassion. Compassion is the act caused by empathy or by a natural inclination to help another human being.

JMHO

I agree Chris. One of my resistances to AF is the possibility that lack of empathy would equate to lack of compassion. From what Nick says, this is groundless; compassion is intrinsic and happens without empathy. But a question still remains as to whether true compassion requires an intuitive understanding of where the other person is coming from, and whether there can be such intuitive understanding without empathy (and feelings in general). I'm still not sure.

Alex

Agree. True compassion comes from wisdom: right view, right way of abiding (with no self). It is, like u say nick: affectless. IMHO and from experience, compassion with a self is the most inefficient way to be compassionate. There's sensual delight, there's consumption of pleasantness, there is push and pull, there is conflict, control, manipulation and of course there is suffering when one tries to help as a self.

Affectless/Support-less action is free and more precise. It senses when to stop and when to go. Knowing when to stop and when to go is compassion in action. Not becoming for others is ruthless compassion. If others look for reassurance and find none when they speak to someone that does not become, it might feel cold, painful or rude. But that is not the case at all, not being a support for other's DELUDED narrative is the best way to help others IMHO, without expecting something in return.

More about genuine affectless compassion here:
kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/47...iness+and+Compassion

Edited for clarity.

"not being a support for other's narrative is the best way to help others IMHO"

The arrogance of such statements, despite the "IMHO", suggests the contrary to me.

""not being a support for other's narrative is the best way to help others IMHO"

The arrogance of such statements, despite the "IMHO", suggests the contrary to me.

"

Why is it arrogant?

"I agree Chris. One of my resistances to AF is the possibility that lack of empathy would equate to lack of compassion. From what Nick says, this is groundless; compassion is intrinsic and happens without empathy. But a question still remains as to whether true compassion requires an intuitive understanding of where the other person is coming from, and whether there can be such intuitive understanding without empathy (and feelings in general). I'm still not sure.

Alex
"

Why do even actions that convey 'empathy' need to be seen only as caused by an affective empathic feeling? Can there not be the affectless quality of understanding another person's predicament based on past experiences and conditioning, cultural upbringing and anything else that is cause for the understanding of another person's plight? Does one actually need to 'feel' empathetic to understand and act on the knowledge of another's suffering?

As far as I can see and have so far experienced there is much understanding of the plight of others due to accumulated knowledge and past conditioning which allows the ability to recognize the myriad forms suffering can take in another being. Helpful actions are then the effect of such causal knowledge.

Is this not what affective empathy aims for? So what if the rising of a compounded feeling (formation/fabrication) is now no longer what seemingly urges one to act. Isn't the accumulated conditioning actually a condition for the arising of the 'extra' affective empathy overlaying the intention to help in the first place? What if it was seen that the intention to help arises anyway even without the affect overlaying it? Does one think removing the affective empathy would remove the intention to help? What if the actual causes to help where still in place?

As far as i can see, 'I' (any affective feeling) is not intention and intention is not 'I'.

"Why is it arrogant?"

Because it assumes that your narrative concerning their situation is more important and more valid than their own.

"Because it assume that your narrative concerning their situation is more important and more valid than their own.
"

Hello Alex,

Can you please elaborate on your statement. How is 'my narrative concerning the situation more important and more valid than the other persons'?

Nick

Hi Nick,
That remark was not addressed to you; it was a response to APrioriKreuz in messages 5, 6 & 7.
Alex

"Hi Nick,
That remark was not addressed to you; it was a response to APrioriKreuz in messages 5, 6 & 7.
Alex"

Ah, ok. I missed that.

""Why is it arrogant?"

Because it assumes that your narrative concerning their situation is more important and more valid than their own.
"

Using Chris's example (from this thread: kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/47...ependent+Origination ):

If a friend thinks I stole his wallet (when in fact I didn't), why would supporting his narrative be compassionate? Moreover, why would I assume myself more important or arrogant if I stick to facts?

Why choose an example in which the facts are clearly on your side, and the other is clearly wrong? That was never the context for this discussion.

The discussion was about compassionate responses to another's suffering; it wasn't about defending oneself against false accusations!

"Why choose an example in which the facts are clearly on your side, and the other is clearly wrong? That was never the context for this discussion.

The discussion was about compassionate responses to another's suffering; it wasn't about defending oneself against false accusations!
"

Alright, then you choose an example.

In any case, if a friend mistakenly thinks he got robbed by me and wants his wallet back, there's a good chance he might be suffering because he believes his friend is doing something not so friendly. Supporting his deluded narrative would create more suffering for both himself and myself.

What I was trying to say in the first place is that support for deluded narratives isn't compassionate, ever. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'll edit my post. Why accept confused projections from others?

On the other hand, of course if a friend suffers based on facts (like for example losing a loved one), I would never assume that is delusion. I would provide support without hesitation. Now, whether one needs affect for that or not, I dont know yet since Im not AF.

Tempest!

Teapot!

I really don't think it matters much how the compassion is generated as long as it's in evidence. If I'm suffering I doubt I'll care much, if at all, how the person who helps me comes by their willingness and ability to help me. Whether compassion comes from some urge or capability generated without empathy and without any affect, or from an empathetic emotion, really seems to be a moot point.

Make sense?

"
Tempest!

Teapot!

I really don't think it matters much how the compassion is generated as long as it's in evidence. If I'm suffering I doubt I'll care much, if at all, how the person who helps comes by their willingness and ability to help me. Whether compassion comes from some urge or capability generated without empathy, or from an empathetic emotion, really seems to be a moot point.

Make sense?

"

Hi Chris,

Yes, the more compassionate acts done the better off the world will be so the causes need not be argued about, affective or not. I must admit to the intention of this thread, which was to perhaps massage the stressed out shoulders of those burdened by the intimidating thought of the loss of affect making one miss out on being a compassionate organism. I'm here saying that such a burdensome thought is only cause for sore shoulders and more wrong assumptions.

Nick

"What I was trying to say in the first place is that support for deluded narratives isn't compassionate, ever."

OK, I see what you mean. If it's about simple, verifiable factual errors (eg. false accusation about actual events) there's no problem. But it gets more complicated when a person's entire world view can be deemed "delusory" by another.

An example of this might be when an AF person regards another person's experience (and therefore all "narratives" arising from it) as implicitly "deluded", simply because they have/are a 'self'.

To disregard a suffering person's "narrative" on the assumption that it's implicitly deluded, to assume that one knows better, to act entirely according to one's OWN narrative, and to call it "compassion", is what I took to be arrogance.

That's where I thought you were coming from in message #5. My apologies if this was a misunderstanding.

Alex

What about parents that don't enforce house rules because they feel pain when they see their kid crying when rules are supposed to be followed. Is that compassionate?

"To disregard a suffering person's "narrative" on the assumption that it's implicitly deluded, to assume that one knows better, to act entirely according to one's OWN narrative, and to call it "compassion", is what I took to be arrogance.

That's where I thought you were coming from in message #5. My apologies if this was a misunderstanding.

Alex
"

No problem man, and yes, that would be arrogant indeed

"I really don't think it matters much how the compassion is generated as long as it's in evidence".

As long as it's in evidence, yes. But in whose eyes should it be in evidence? Who decides whether a response is compassionate or not? What if there's a discrepancy in the two people's views as to what constitutes caring or compassion?

If you read the AF website, you'll often find scenarios in which an AF person's "actual caring" is experienced by the other as painful, uncaring, not compassionate at all. Yet the AF person believes they're giving the best help anyone could possibly give.

Whose "narrative" matters more?

I'm not addressing Actual Freedom per se, Alex. And again, though I'm not a fan of Actual Freedom, if I were in need and the person helping me were a serious devotee of AF I'm not sure I'd care. I guess I just don' think that the philosophy of the person who's helping/compassionate matters. What matters to me is the act itself, whatever the source. I suppose, using a common argument the philosopher Daniel Dennett uses in these kinds of discussions, even a zombie or a robot could help me if I really needed the help. Neither have emotions... but what matters is that I get the help

As for "in whose eyes compassion should be evidenced," it seems to me that when we're talking about healthy adults then it is in the eyes of those in need of the assistance. For young children, or even for aging people like my mother (who has Alzheimers and cannot care for herself) then compassion is a somewhat more complicated matter but if it involves causing harm without some benefit to the person who needs help then it's problematic.

I should perhaps have come at this from a different angle. The word compassion is probably not the best word to use if we are to talk of one of the sublime abodes. As this is a dharma context, it is often assumed that 'compassion' is karuna. But perhaps it is not really what the term 'compassion' implies. Here is a snippet I took from this book: Action Dharma: New Studies In Engaged Buddhism by Christopher S. Queen, Charles S. Prebish, Damien Keown
tinyurl.com/64qekmb

START OF QUOTE, pg 41: Buddhaghosa, whose commentaries are the central authority for the interpretations of the Pali scriptures for Theravada Buddhism, gives an analysis of the word karuna; that shows that in mainstream Buddhism the concept of compassion calls for aggressive action for the relief of the suffering of others:

"When others suffer it makes the heart of good people tremble (kampa), thus it is karuna it demolishes others' suffering, attacks and banishes it, thus it is karuna; or it is dispersed over the suffering, is spread out through pervasion, thus it is karuna." Buddhaghosa

Buddhaghosa is implicitly giving a philological analysis (nirutti) here. What is important here is not the actual etymology, but the meanings presented through this traditional analysis. The fact that the actual etymology of the word karuna is obscure allows a variety of creative suggestions. Here he suggests three verb roots that may be the basis of the noun karuna kr, meaning to make, cause, or act; krt, meaning to cut or break; and krr, which mean to disperse or spread. It is notable that the second of Buddhaghosa's roots, krt, meaning to cut or break, gives an even more explicitly active meaning to compassion which is not merely affective, but actually removes the suffering of others.
Continued...

The first of these verbal roots, kr, whose basic meaning is action, is also identified as a base of the word karuna in Mahayana sources. Another philological analysis from the Aksayamatinirdesa Sutra, one of the earliest and most broadly cited Mahayana Sutras, also gives a definition of karuna as action, translated as 'work'. As did Buddhaghosa, it plays on the similarity in Sanskrit and Pali of the words for action, arana and compassion, karuna.

"As for the great compassion, reverence Saradvatiputra (the meaning of the word compassion is 'work''¦and all the roots of good are) work performed by oneself'¦(Even if it is for the sake of both others and oneself) it is one's work, thus it is called great compassion."

These definitions give an active and materially effective meaning to compassion. END OF QUOTE