Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss

I rarely jump into these threads, as they get far too technical and linguistic for me, but Nikolai, can you clarify why you consider an itch on an arm to be suffering? I would just call that a physical sensation. I guess if I have a mosquito bite or something I might scratch it on and off, or medicate it, but it never occurred to me to think of that as suffering. I guess maybe it is, since I'm scratching it. Hm. Probably just opening a linguistic can of worms. But anyway.

I like to think of compassion as the natural response we have to help others, unburdened by our own emotional or psychological baggage or ulterior motives. In other words without wanting something from the action (such as praise, feeling like we did good, bragging rights, pride, wanting the other person to do the same for us, wanting the other person to owe us one, wanting a gold star from God, etc.). I think you are implying that. I think it's okay for everyone to try to practice compassion, even if they do it with the baggage of ego. Practicing is good for the soul.

"1. I rarely jump into these threads, as they get far too technical and linguistic for me, but Nikolai, can you clarify why you consider an itch on an arm to be suffering?

2. I think it's okay for everyone to try to practice compassion, even if they do it with the baggage of ego. Practicing is good for the soul. "

Hello giragirasol,

1. I did not mean to imply that an itch on an arm is suffering, although it can lead to suffering for some. It was more pointing to the automatic response that often triggers the scratching of an itch on the arm. The comparison was meant to be made with a similar automatic response that occurs when there is a person within my vicinity that requires immediate assistance. This has been observed on a number of occasions in my life in the past couple of months. It may seem cold to equate the two automatic responses, but they seem both to be inherent in this continued flow of life.

When I see that my show laces are untied, ownerless hands reach down and tie them. Although I am not equating a fellow human being to a shoelace, the automatic response to tie up a loose shoelace is very much the same automatic response to aid another being who is in need, generally within my vicinity, asking for or not asking for help. My shoelace gets tied when loose, and people who ask for or are in immediate need of my assistance will more than not receive it.

2. The intention behind this thread was not to imply that it is not good to cultivate an affective compassion, but to discuss more so the idea that compassion or what I'd rather refer to as karuna now, is in fact an affectless quality associated with the pure act to aid a fellow being in need. Not the affective overlay.

I get it. That makes sense.

Can I ask one other question? Would you agree that if everything is just a flow of life, including tying the shoelaces, reaching out a hand to the drowning person, feeling the warmth of sunlight, driving to work, swerving to avoid the animal in the road, etc.... would it not also be true that an upwelling of tears, a flash of fear, etc are also just part of that flow, not me, not mine? ie is it possible for grief or fear to arise (and pass away) and not be clung to nor rejected, nor to cause suffering??

"1. Can I ask one other question?

2. Would you agree that if everything is just a flow of life, including tying the shoelaces, reaching out a hand to the drowning person, feeling the warmth of sunlight, driving to work, swerving to avoid the animal in the road, etc.... would it not also be true that an upwelling of tears, a flash of fear, etc are also just part of that flow, not me, not mine?

3. Is it possible for grief or fear to arise (and pass away) and not be clung to nor rejected, nor to cause suffering??"

1. Ask away!

2. No I wouldn't. This idea would then, in my opinion, imply ignoring what the Buddha (of the pali canon) talked of:

"Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known." Nibbedhika Sutta

There is a massive difference between the 'flow of life' sans stress and the 'flow of life' with it. I prefer the former.

3. It was to a degree at MCTB 4th path in my own experience. But I took the Buddha's advice to heart from the Aneñja-sappaya Sutta:

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way '” 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' '” obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"

"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'

"What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another might not?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way '” (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' '” obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound."

"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"

"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."

"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance."

"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this '” the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception '” is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way '” 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' '” obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html

Look at the picture in the link below. Feel your body. How do you feel? That feeling is compassion. It's not complicated.

bit.ly/qSLGyx

"Look at the picture in the link below. Feel your body. How do you feel? That feeling is compassion. It's not complicated.

bit.ly/qSLGyx "

Yes, 'compassion'.

compassion
mid-14c., from O.Fr. compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from L.L. compassionem (nom. compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from pp. stem of compati "to feel pity," from com- "together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion). Latin compassio is an ecclesiastical loan-translation of Gk. sympatheia (see sympathy). An O.E. loan-translation of compassion was efenðrowung.

I have changed my tune. The word 'compassion' and how westerners understand it continues to draw from the word's root meaning. A very affective meaning.

Thus I now argue that the pali/sanskrit word 'karuna' isn't an affective feeling but implies 'action'. The act to help another being in need. As I am looking at just a digital picture on a screen, there is recognition of the theme of the picture which is a child who is obviously suffering from starvation. There is recognition that this was the plight of the child. There is recognition of the story behind the photo, the fact that the child eventually died and the photo journalist committed suicide later on. There is also recognition that it is just an image on a screen. The child is not in front of me physically. There is no affective feeling of 'pity' or 'compassion' arising. There is just recognition of the child's plight and the story behind the photo.

If however, this mind/body organism was standing in front of the child in real life, not only would there be recognition of her plight but an automatic response to provide as much assistance to her as possible. First things first, the vulture would be scared off.

Thus my switch to the term 'karuna' meaning action.

""Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this '” the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception '” is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way '” 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' '” obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html "

I see where you are coming from. Thanks for clarifying.

The Sublime Abodes according to Nick

The sublime abodes could be explained as being an affectless inherent 'caring' expressed through 'acting' to aid others without any 'me' standing in the way or gaining something in return (e.g.feelings of release from the other's perceived suffering). This would be akin to 'karuna' as far as I now read that term.

There is inherent good will. This is of course what remains in the absence of malice or ill will. There just isn't any ill will to cause the opposite of good will. In its place is a will that takes into account the beings in the vicinity (physical and digital). This is akin to 'metta'.

There is an inherent appreciation for life, for that which is seen and observed including seeing others come out of suffering. This is akin to 'mudita'.

There is an inherent stability or equanimity, although these two words imply that something needs to be stable or equanimous against the arising of something else. So perhaps a 'non-clinging mind' would be a better term to describe what would be akin to 'uppekha'. It is a mind that sees every distinction, every mind moment, every arising of sense consciousness and its cessation, the continuum of the aggregates arising and passing, the arising and passing of form, volition, memory, consciousness and preference and gives none of the above absolutely any weight at all. What results is a 'non-clinging mind'. This is akin to 'uppekha'.

This post was a result of many causal mind moments.

As the story goes, the Buddha was sitting around under the Bodhi tree after his enlightenment. He had no intention to teach; he reckoned no one would understand, and after all, he was fine.

Sakka, the king of the gods, saw this. So, he went to the Buddha and asked the him to cast out his mind net and see what he could see. The Buddha complied and what he saw was the suffering of all sentient beings. He was moved to compassion.

He wasn't doing anything. He was feeling compassion. It was this felt sense of compassion that compelled the Buddha to spend the rest of his life teaching.

Similarly, another of the Brahma Viharas, mudita (sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another) is not an action. It is a feeling.

Let's continue to resist the urge to plant flags, to put a lid on what this practice can be. Let's take the lid off.

Maybe we don't yet understand how to reconcile freedom and compassion. But just as we have conditioned the mind to be free, we can condition it to be free while feeling compassion. This is not a race to the bottom to see who can feel the least. It's an ongoing experiment in human development and it is always guided and influenced by our values and assumptions. We can and should reflect carefully upon our deepest values. For those of you who hold compassion as a value but seem to be in a place where it is not accessible, I submit that the challenge is not to rationalize that situation but rather to find a way to access compassion at the new level.

I'm talking about compassion not as an abstraction but as a felt sense: "a quivering of the heart upon seeing the suffering of another." This can be felt in the body.

"Whatever you think enlightenment is... it isn't." -Bill Hamilton

Let's take the lid off.

"As the story goes, the Buddha was sitting around under the Bodhi tree after his enlightenment. He had no intention to teach; he reckoned no one would understand, and after all, he was fine.

Sakka, the king of the gods, saw this. So, he went to the Buddha and asked the him to cast out his mind net and see what he could see. The Buddha complied and what he saw was the suffering of all sentient beings. He was moved to compassion.

He wasn't doing anything. He was feeling compassion. It was this felt sense of compassion that compelled the Buddha to spend the rest of his life teaching.

"

As the story goes. Story is fact? I will have a look at the suttas that explain this story and see if the translations talk about the buddha experiencing the fabrication of compassionate love. I also did not nor do not have the immediate intention to teach, but people keep asking me for help. I help.

"Similarly, another of the Brahma Viharas, mudita (sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another) is not an action. It is a feeling.

"

I experience it as an affectless quality that is inherent in the absence of the fabrication of an affective sympathetic joy, which lead supposedly to rebirth in the brahma realms (according to the suttas). Why is that?

Any affective feeling in my experience and opinion, wholesome or unwholesome = sublte or gross craving and clinging leaping off of vedana to give rise to becoming. Same thing. Another form of becoming. The Buddha pulled down that ridgepole, no?

"
Let's continue to resist the urge to plant flags, to put a lid on what this practice can be. Let's take the lid off.

"

Is not this past post of yours, Kenneth, another form of planting a flag slash view? Is there weight given to it? Meaning is their weight given to how you feel about it?

I am not saying that the affective versions of the sublime abodes are wrong. Far from it. They are great for refining the flow of becoming and for being a better human being, but they are fabrications all the same and lead to becoming. The Buddha talks of this. But he also talks of them often with himself involved? would this mean there are versions which don`t lead to more becoming? Thus my angle.

Is planting the flag saying that there exist no affectless versions the same `planting the flag` you wish to avoid?

Lets lift the lid RIGHT off!

"Maybe we don't yet understand how to reconcile freedom and compassion. But just as we have conditioned the mind to be free, we can condition it to be free while feeling compassion. This is not a race to the bottom to see who can feel the least. It's an ongoing experiment in human development and it is always guided and influenced by our values and assumptions. We can and should reflect carefully upon our deepest values. For those of you who hold compassion as a value but seem to be in a place where it is not accessible, I submit that the challenge is not to rationalize that situation but rather to find a way to access compassion at the new level.

I'm talking about compassion not as an abstraction but as a felt sense: "a quivering of the heart upon seeing the suffering of another." This can be felt in the body.

"Whatever you think enlightenment is... it isn't." -Bill Hamilton

Let's take the lid off."

I think many are attached to one way of understanding `compassion` plain and simple: `There can`t be another way! I am right!`

As far as can see there are affective and affectless versions of the sublime abodes. Why do people feel apprehensive about this? `No! There must only be feelings!...as without feelings I am no more.`

The affectless verions are pretty awesome. Repeating metta phrases over and over in the mind does soemthing in the brain.....but no affect. My wife seems very relaxed around me when I do it.

"
I'm talking about compassion not as an abstraction but as a felt sense: "a quivering of the heart upon seeing the suffering of another." This can be felt in the body.
"

Fabrication. Investigate it! Is there any `me`-ness to it? Presence? Location in the world? Felt sense of existing? I will find a very good Ayya Khema dhamma talk where she talks of love and the wholesome `quiverings` as fabrictions. Will post it later.

"1. "Whatever you think enlightenment is... it isn't." -Bill Hamilton

2. Let's take the lid off."

1. Right back at ya!

2. And starting this thread was leaving the lid on?

Are we able to feel the pain of our own hubris?

"Are we able to feel the pain of our own hubris?"

Hubris ( /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, means extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.


Hi Kenneth,

As I took this thread as a place to 'discuss' what I had posted in the title, I took your post as part of that discussion. As you said 'let's take the lid off":

Take the lid off (of) something and take the lid off

Fig. to reveal a set of previously concealed problems. (Of is usually retained before pronouns.) You took the lid off this mess. You straighten it out! You took off the lid, so you have to settle it.

That is what I thought was doing concerning misunderstandings of the angle I'm coming from. There wasn't any felt pride on my part when I posted my replies. They were just what I thought. If the pain of the perceived hubris is on your part and if my posts were the cause, then accept my apologies.

At times I do not recognize that when I communicate in writing, it may upset others. I often forget how others may read the straightforwardness that seems to have become the dominant quality of how I write. I understood this thread to be an exchange of ideas, not a chance to express one's 'pride'. If this conversation was not about conversing but of just establishing the dominant view, then there is no need to continue. I would prefer that it not be about 'dominant views' but of lively helpful discussion.

If anyone wishes to question what I have said then please feel free. I will try and temper any straightforwardness in future.

Nick

I have a question. It has to do with your point, Nick, that your wife is happier with you as you are now. I am wondering (and I don't expect you to have an answer to this, but maybe some thoughts to contribute) if the same might not necessarily be true for all partners and/or children. In other words, your wife may have the emotional maturity not to expect her spouse to be generating emotional responses, but not everyone's wife would respond that way. Thus, other people's relationships might experience strain, or children might want something from a parent that requires a robust expression of feeling. It's something I actually am concerned about here and there, although I am still pre-path. I hope this isn't off-topic, and thanks to whoever replies.

"I have a question. It has to do with your point, Nick, that your wife is happier with you as you are now. I am wondering (and I don't expect you to have an answer to this, but maybe some thoughts to contribute) if the same might not necessarily be true for all partners and/or children. In other words, your wife may have the emotional maturity not to expect her spouse to be generating emotional responses, but not everyone's wife would respond that way. T "

Hi Laurel,

Your question implies that I may not show outwardly an 'emotional response'. This is not exactly true.

My wife has long understood the path i have taken, having been there with me for 2 years of chronic pre-1st path dark night. She understood what I was doing and saw massive changes in my emotional reactions. She did get used to these changes to the point that when i mentioned another shift , she was very 'meh!' about it. If I was less moody, she was happy.

But my point was that , even though there is no affect forming within, there is laughter and jokes, back rubbing and smiling, asking if she is ok, and attending to her emotional needs in as positive a way as I can. When she expresses sorrow, for example, a lot of sadness and crying, I was not going to sit there and act like a robot.

As i have said before, karuna is all about action for me. A smile, a back rub, a hug, laughter, a concerned facial gesture that she is looking for for support. These are acts that haven't stopped even though they are not triggered by an 'inner emotional response'. Spontaneity!

On the outside, I appear to be a very normal calm and relaxed human being. No-one is the wiser. Some may even see a facial gesture and think I am having an emotional response. If you talk with me on skype video you may not even know I do not experience affect like most do. My writing style though sometimes does not convey this.

Nick

Thanks, Nick. It's cool that these things arise spontaneously; you don't have to work at putting on an act for the sake of others. I also know that no emotion is going to "disappear" unless I or anyone else deliberately work in that direction, so being fearful of being turned into Mr. Spock is a red herring.

I do think there are differences among individuals, though. Dipa Ma apparently claimed she would have emotions arise in her but she would not attach to them. I guess this is true for some advanced level yogis, doing Buddhist or other practices, but not for others.

"I do think there are differences among individuals, though. Dipa Ma apparently claimed she would have emotions arise in her but she would not attach to them. I guess this is true for some advanced level yogis, doing Buddhist or other practices, but not for others. "

Hi Laurel,

Dipa Ma was presumably a fetter model anagami. Here is what she said: www.tricycle.com/interview/enlightenment-lifetime?page=0,3

START OF QUOTE: Sense-desire comes up a lot in people's practice. Does it come up for you still?

It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering'”grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it'”and that's the way to overcome it. I don't feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don't go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path.

Westerners seem to struggle a lot with sense-desire and anger. I was older when I started practice, so naturally my sense-desires weren't as strong. Sense-desire is also an instinct which remains in you through cycles of rebirth. It is already very weak in those who were born from the Brahma-loka [heaven realms], for instance. . . . You can stay in the world of sense-desires and still be a good Buddhist, though, because you can be out of the world at the same time, in the sense of not being drawn in or attached. All who are householders can proceed in this way. Buddha has said you can even indulge in sense-desire and be a good follower of dharma, and for most people this is part of an average, normal life.

Do you experience anger at all? As soon as it comes, at the very start, I'm aware of it. It doesn't get any nourishment. END OF QUOTE

As soon as what comes up? What is it that gets no nourishment? The fully formed fabrication of anger? A fully formed fabrication of anger has already gained nourishment, that is why it has formed. Without nourishment, it does not form. Nourishment is the craving and clinging in the sequence of dependent origination. What comes before craving and clinging? Vedana, feeling tone/preference.

Perhaps she was just experiencing the vedana as it arose in a familiar situation which may have triggered the full affect of anger to form before becoming an anagami. Perhaps she was not giving the 'anger' (the supporting condition of vedana) any nourishment of craving and clinging. If she did not do that, it would not have been a fully formed affective anger. Very much what I have described in my own situation. This is my opinion and experience.

Nick

Thanks for the clarification; this is helpful.