The Next Major Human Advancement. HUGE.

Compassion is just a word we use to communicate, this discussion demonstrates that communication can be difficult if one has a different understanding of a word or gives a different meaning to it.
I am sure the dog will be helped by everyone

reply to post by earthling42


Not according to that other definition.

"Allowing others to evolved on their own" implies no interference, assistance or otherwise, on your part. I find that disgraceful. Everything needs a hand once in a while...even if only to learn.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Compassion is about allowing 'others' or things to evolve at their own pace

My problem with this is that if, in my earlier example, you let that wounded dog die, you just allowed that spcies of dog to evolve at its own pace. You didn't interfere with malice or benevolence.

It's a flawed definition that makes me sick at heart. It reminds me of people who don't do anything because they don't feel like it...they force people to find their own solutions, whether or not they are actually capable, and that's why I'm saying scrap it.

edit on CFridaypm232320f20America/Chicago04 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

I'd do what I could to save the dog. It's about gaining understanding. It's hard to gain understanding from a dead dog. If a coyote was coming to eat my dog, I'd shoot the coyote. We do what we can to protect those close to us from harm. Compassion is about opening your mind to other perspectives, thereby dissolving your ego, to gain understanding. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by earthling42

 

Not according to that other definition.

"Allowing others to evolved on their own" implies no interference, assistance or otherwise, on your part. I find that disgraceful. Everything needs a hand once in a while...even if only to learn.

One can't evolve if one is dead. Save and heal others when you can. Allowing others to evolve on their own means don't impose your will on another forcing them to go in a direction that YOU think would be more applicable to learning.

reply to post by CAELENIUM


Care to post a description of your 2 hour long movie?

reply to post by smithjustinb

If a coyote was coming to eat my dog, I'd shoot the coyote.

You can't pick and choose with global compassion. If you shoot the coyote, you chose to be compassionate for the dog because of your personal investment in it, rather than showing the coyote a kindness and allowing it to feed.

In this sense, you have proven that other user ( I forgot the name) correct, in that we are compassionate only to the point that it serves our own purpose. True global compassion will cause you to scare that coyote away and then throw a steak out there for it to enjoy. That way, the dog and coyote both live, the coyote gets dinner, and you are happy with the whole deal.

Get my point?

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If a coyote was coming to eat my dog, I'd shoot the coyote.

You can't pick and choose with global compassion. If you shoot the coyote, you chose to be compassionate for the dog because of your personal investment in it, rather than showing the coyote a kindness and allowing it to feed.

It doesn't matter which animal dies. Either way, one of them is going to die. So then it also shouldn't matter which one you choose gets to live.

In this sense, you have proven that other user ( I forgot the name) correct, in that we are compassionate only to the point that it serves our own purpose.

Yes that is usually always the motivation for compassion- to serve the self. But any act of compassion will also serve the object of compassion. So the compassionate one understands that to serve another is to serve the self.

True global compassion will cause you to scare that coyote away and then throw a steak out there for it to enjoy. That way, the dog and coyote both live, the coyote gets dinner, and you are happy with the whole deal.

Get my point?

Lol, no a cow still had to die.

word.
to the big bird AND the little one. the omniverse experiencing itself.

Originally posted by Phenomium
reply to post by Poopooplatter

 

I know lots of ideas and theories, but just because I don't practice them doesn't mean don't understand them. Furthermore, attacking me shows you don't "understand" compassion based on your argument of me not understanding.

This is a bit of a contradictory statement isn't it?
In the previous sentence you say.....because YOU don't practice a certain thing, doesn't mean that you don't understand it. Then on the very next line you condemn those who question your thought patterns by saying that they attack you because they don't understand.

I would have to say that likewise, simply because others don't agree with you and they "debate" (or attack) or rather "practice" individuality.....doesn't mean that THEY don't understand it either. Maybe they just simply don't agree with you.

This is in no way contradictory... It showed based on His definition not mine. I'm not contradicting myself if I'm talking about someone else's opinion. Furthermore, anyone can disagree with me, this is never an issue. Nevertheless when I am proved wrong I will cease to debate, which still hasn't happened.

None of this petty stuff still has anything to do with the OP. Let me throw in another wrench. How do show discipline if all that remains is compassion? So children are born this way and they will be perfect children? Exactly. There still has to be happy medium between compassion and not letting people take advantage. This Still is in no way the next big thing. Sorry, maybe in the afterlife things are different, but as long as there is free will there are going to be assholes.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Elegantly put as usual,

Next time, rather than confuse terms and definitions, maybe we can stick to the definitions already in use. For clarity's sake, we should call understanding understanding, call empathy empathy and compassion compassion. I think you risk diluting your own philosophies, or muddy the waters by trying to define your own terms, rather than use the terms already in use by everyone.

I was confused by your definition—which still sounded like compassion—and as a result started my polemic. For that I apologize. But since I don't want to feel like I've wasted my time, I will continue my tirade against compassion.

At some point, the compassionate man must assume that the one who he perceives as someone in need of compassion is somehow of a lesser state of being than him. This only shows how superior the compassionate man thinks he is. The sufferer may in fact not be suffering at all until someone comes along and shows him through compassion how he is perceived to be suffering. This seems rude and pious to me.

"I declare you suffering, embrace my compassion." Who has that right to impose such a thing?

Take the whole "Kony 2012" fiasco. How do the Ugandans feel about the unwarranted sympathy brought forth by that group's unwarranted compassion?

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by earthling42

 

Not according to that other definition.

"Allowing others to evolved on their own" implies no interference, assistance or otherwise, on your part. I find that disgraceful. Everything needs a hand once in a while...even if only to learn.

Allowing 'others' to evolve at their own pace - without forcing your way upon them.
This does not mean that you cannot lend a hand. It just means there is patience.

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
This Still is in no way the next big thing. Sorry, maybe in the afterlife things are different, but as long as there is free will there is going to be assholes.

By the progression of our understanding of the mechanics of the physical universe, we are coming to a point now where we are going to realize that there is something mental about it what we have previously considered to be "inanimate". We're going to realize, in a big way, that life isn't an accident. Once quantum mechanics discovers this, we will have likely reached a full understanding of the physical mechanics of the universe and every scientific discovery from that point on will be an effort to understand the mental mechanics of the universe.

When this point arrives (coming soon), compassion is going to be the first concept that opens the door for understanding of the mental universe. This is for obvious reasons due to the fact that the only way to understand life is to understand life- which can only be done by the opening of self to another through compassion.

Now, at that point, the urge towards a compassionate lifestyle will be very strong that even the ones who used to prefer being assholes will now see the wisdom of the ways of not being one. So yeah, when compassion hits, its going to hit so hard that yeah you'll have free will to be an asshole, but you won't want to becuase the better way of compassion will be obvious. It will be obvious because it will have been discovered by a reliable source- physics.

I'd just like to remind everyone having difficulty with the word "Compassion" or other words, that:

Words are thought concepts

Thoughts are not the same as Being

Thoughts are more the conceptualization that Ego must use to identify by form.

A word or thought by its nature can take the real meaning from being or an experience.

Therefore, let's not get caught up in the word / thought pattern and its definition, but become compassionate in the way our Being would wish to express the thought.



This is a great thread btw.

Eckhart Tolle really needs to jump in.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Although the message is great, and I offered up a SnF, I must respectfully disagree that we will converge upon a singularity of compassion.

Technology is ironically driving us further apart the more it brings us closer together. As if it weren't difficult enough to see life through the perspective of another, nowadays, I feel that human interaction is going the way of the dodo simply because everyone's texting and emailing and facepaging and stuff. We're all just bits of text to each other now.

Human face-time and interaction will be critical in sparking compassion...how can we do that if we're all behind computer screens with all the other humans seen as avatars and typed words?

The compassion thing NEEDS to happen, for sure, but I feel we should remain vigilant against the pitfalls and abuses of technology that prevent us from connecting to others. And I liked the part where you offer the exercise of putting yourself in the position of other people and animals. I think it's possible to learn about yourself doing so.

Just my .02.

reply to post by guavas


Yeah but like most advancements, it will probably come in the face of some form of catalytic event, some strife. It would also help if the masses weren't programmed by TV, movies, etc. That would be nice.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

At some point, the compassionate man must assume that the one who he perceives as someone in need of compassion is somehow of a lesser state of being than him. This only shows how superior the compassionate man thinks he is. The sufferer may in fact not be suffering at all until someone comes along and shows him through compassion how he is perceived to be suffering. This seems rude and pious to me.

"I declare you suffering, embrace my compassion." Who has that right to impose such a thing?

The definition of compassion from dictionary.com is pretty much "having sympathy for those sufferring". But this is a mistake on their part. This isn't compassion. This is a dualistic understanding of compassion. Real compassion involves having sympathy towards negative, but inversely also having appreciation for positive. Compassion in the non-dual sense just means- putting yourself in someone else's shoes. And to contact a non-dual common ground, you're going to have to use non-dual methods.

Really, compassion has little to do with sympathy. Compassion is just an act to gain understanding. Compassion isn't the understanding. Compassion is the way to understanding. As long as you are opening yourself to see things how another might see it, that is compassion. And you can do that for someone sufferring or someone not sufferring.

And another thing a compassionate person is not is a seeker of sufferrers. I'm not telling people to go out and find the sufferring ones. In doing so, they are likely to believe everyone is sufferring. That's their ego talking. Compassion is given freely to all first, and then if you come across someone you have determined to be sufferring after you have tried to see their experience as they are seeing it, then it is appropriate to label them as sufferring and act accordingly.

Choosing who you are going to be compassionate towards is impossible, actually. Because in choosing, you have already judged who they are and what state they are in. This isn't the way of compassion. The way of compassion requires that compassion comes before the judgment. So it is impossible to know who deserves compassion unless you have already shown them compassion.

Compassion requires an element of empathy,...

And the last few generations are all about "me me me".

The first two letters of empathy, are the reverse of "me".

reply to post by smithjustinb


There's no way everyone will be on board with this... I like the 'avatar' theory, but in the end people will still ruin it. Just like the movie hahaha. Like the idea, but again inconceivable for all of man kind when free will exists and people aren't born with this gift. It would have to be born instinct and not taught. If there is an evolution of this, the ones left behind would still ruin it. I'm pretty much sold this can't and will never be, but I would like to be wrong.

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

There's no way everyone will be on board with this... I like the 'avatar' theory, but in the end people will still ruin it. Just like the movie hahaha. Like the idea, but again inconceivable for all of man kind when free will exists and people aren't born with this gift. It would have to be born instinct and not taught. If there is an evolution of this, the ones left behind would still ruin it. I'm pretty much sold this can't and will never be, but I would like to be wrong.

Since you're sold, then there's nothing I can say to convince you.

The problem with proclaiming yourself as "sold" is that you effectively close your mind to the subject altogether. Compassion doesn't ever become "sold". Compassion remains open to the fact that what one has accepted to be true can change at any time. In becoming sold, you are causing yourself to not see the avenues of possibility that could lead to you being wrong. That is the very definition of ego action and the opposite of compassion. And even if compassion becomes something prevalently presenting itself as a way forward, it will still remain a choice. So I guess you are free to choose whether or not you want to live in a compassionate world or not. But even if you don't see a compassionate majority as a possibility, the choice to be or not be compassionate is still going to have an effect on you individually. So, in that sense, if you want to live in compassionate world, the only one who needs to be compassionate is you.