Gratitude and comfort

Spirituality
#41

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;40031]Very interesting conversation!

So, if you experience the pain of others, there is pain. The key is to be aware, but not experience. Once you are aware, without the attachment of the pain and suffering, you are able to find compassion for all those who are suffering. In that awareness of pain and suffering you can then find a way to end the suffering of others. It is through compassion that we find we are no different because we are all connected.

Am I far off on my simplistic summary? Such a difficult concept![/QUOTE]

Hi Lotusgirl,
Glad you find this interesting!

I liked this distinction between awareness and experience you mention. Could you elaborate a bit on this difference? And in practice - eg. how can I be aware of me dishwashing and not experience it?

But I’m not sure if lack of attachment is relevant in feeling compassion. But I guess you meant that this awareness is a good place from which we can be compassionate without loosing touch with our “deeper levels”?

#42

I do find it interesting, but like I said, a hard concept to follow and understand. It’s like when I was in Catholic grade school and I tried to envision GOD. I could almost grasp GOD and the concept of infinite, but as soon as I did, it was gone. Very frustrating.

Awareness and experience. Well, let’s see. If I only concentrated on my experience of “doing the dishes”, I may not be aware that the dishes were dirty, or that the pot of soup on the stove was boiling over. Like a pilot flying a jet. If he is only experiencing flying the jet, he may not be aware of a flock of birds, or that there was a thunderstorm off to the west. Awareness is much broader than the experience itself. As far as what I stated above, if you actually experience pain of others, how can you help them or feel compassion if you yourself are in pain? You are basing your compassion on YOUR experience and pain, which is or could be much different than theirs. But if you are aware of painfulness without your personal attachment, you can more fully be compassionate because it is not based on YOU. It is a much broader feeling, not limited by experience.

I’m sure I am not explaining this very well. There is a fine line and the two are interconnected but the outcome of each is quite different. This is in my mind, of course, as I am also still seeking and trying to comprehend and understand, I could be way off! Wouldn’t be the first time, nor the last.

#43

I think I get you Lotusgirl…a.wonderful insight xx

What do you think Pawel?

#44

I’m glad someone gets me, or thinks they do! I don’t get myself most of the time!

#45

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;40114]I do find it interesting, but like I said, a hard concept to follow and understand. It’s like when I was in Catholic grade school and I tried to envision GOD. I could almost grasp GOD and the concept of infinite, but as soon as I did, it was gone. Very frustrating.

Awareness and experience. Well, let’s see. If I only concentrated on my experience of “doing the dishes”, I may not be aware that the dishes were dirty, or that the pot of soup on the stove was boiling over. Like a pilot flying a jet. If he is only experiencing flying the jet, he may not be aware of a flock of birds, or that there was a thunderstorm off to the west. Awareness is much broader than the experience itself. As far as what I stated above, if you actually experience pain of others, how can you help them or feel compassion if you yourself are in pain? You are basing your compassion on YOUR experience and pain, which is or could be much different than theirs. But if you are aware of painfulness without your personal attachment, you can more fully be compassionate because it is not based on YOU. It is a much broader feeling, not limited by experience.

I’m sure I am not explaining this very well. There is a fine line and the two are interconnected but the outcome of each is quite different. This is in my mind, of course, as I am also still seeking and trying to comprehend and understand, I could be way off! Wouldn’t be the first time, nor the last.[/QUOTE]

Thats interesting distinction between experience and awareness. I think I understand what you mean. When I think about awareness I think about observer transcending the object of awareness. Like some transparent space in direct contact with everything - watching everything not disturbed. When I think about experience I think about being a part of reality. More material/substantial part of being. Maybe its complementary thing? Like shiva/shakti aspect of existence?

I’m still not sure about awareness being better place from which you can be compassionate. Saying that your compassion is limited because its based on your own experience may be turned around - if you base your compassion on some abstract notions and not real experience then its not real compassion but just theoretical one based on imagination and stories. Even if the experience is different our reactions are similar - fear, pain, depression etc. And in this we can find common ground. But I guess they are just complementary types of compassion and both are needed to be complete.

#46

I had some following thoughts. This shiva/shakti reminded me some things I though some time ago about our “true” self. I found this “duality” fascinating because I found it represented my inner conflict I go through from time to time. I would like to be just “shiva” - find out that my true self is just pure awareness detached from this mess around (and inside me). And to escape from this difficult “shakti” part of being specific and individualistic. But deep inside I believe that our true nature is based on this “duality” of transcendence and “immanence” and this tension is important for us. Trying to identify with just one aspect will cause imbalance in spiritual life. But its just mine interpretation.

#47

It appears implied in the above conversation that one can experience other people’s pain versus one can be simply aware of that pain and that one can be compassionate because of either of them. It is also said that compassion coming from experienced pain is more real than one from mere awareness.

Some room for more thinking here. One [B]is[/B] compassionate and can’t [B]be[/B] compassioate on “on/off” basis. Compassion should arise in response to any pain, experienced or what you are aware of. The compassionate ‘act’ may differ. But this is only intellectual trivia.

When we bring in heavy concept like, shiva/shakti, it becomes rather hazy. Shiva, the Spirit, is pure consciousness, and in the very advanced stage one can be that but cannot be aware of it any time. Both experience or awareness are mind’s processes and belong only on the Shakti side.

Moreover, it cannot be a choice of being Shiva rather than Shakti, if we realize what scale we are referring to. Shakti is present in the physical, astral or causal bodies (by itself a massive range to comprehend), but Shiva is beyond the three. That Shakti is a participating principle and Shiva, a mere witness needs to be taken as a very profound truth and not a mundane behavioral choice.

So I think what is really being compared in the conversation is doing a compassionate act without experincing pain (as it is good to be compassionate) with doing it in response to a direct experience of pain (as a natural response), a very valid practical choice.

#48

Hi Suhas,
I don’t imply one type of compassion is better than other or more real. I’m just careful with such comparisons because I learned that usually there is an inner tension which is expressed in such preferences. E.g. preference of “awareness compassion” vs. “experience compassion” would be a result of deeper tension between universal-specific (“universal” camp says that only universal truths are valuable and “specific” camp would say that all this is rubbish and making things working in reality is the only valuable thing). There is nothing wrong with that in general, I believe such tensions are part of our nature.

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;40149]When we bring in heavy concept like, shiva/shakti, it becomes rather hazy. Shiva, the Spirit, is pure consciousness, and in the very advanced stage one can be that but cannot be aware of it any time. Both experience or awareness are mind’s processes and belong only on the Shakti side.

Moreover, it cannot be a choice of being Shiva rather than Shakti, if we realize what scale we are referring to. Shakti is present in the physical, astral or causal bodies (by itself a massive range to comprehend), but Shiva is beyond the three. That Shakti is a participating principle and Shiva, a mere witness needs to be taken as a very profound truth and not a mundane behavioral choice. [/QUOTE]

You are very “shiva” in interpretation of shiva/shakti. That its very profound truth that is so profound that it shouldn’t have anything to do with everyday reality :wink: :wink: In my post I had more “shakti” interpretation - a psychological interpretation: how this concept is perceived by us and influences us and our behavior. I should explain it before. I guess its confusing if you read it from philosophical point of view.

#49

Agreed I was too philosophical; and unnecessarily. But I enjoyed the conversation.

#50

Im going to get shares in a Sanskit translation company if one exists!!
off to the dictionary I go!:smiley:

#51

S

o I think what is really being compared in the conversation is doing a compassionate act without experincing pain (as it is good to be compassionate) with doing it in response to a direct experience of pain (as a natural response), a very valid practical choice.

Yes!

#52

Good, but it may look like faking (even for the one, in relation to whom a compassion act is being made).
As for me, action itself is less important than the intention, which stands behind it.
Lotusgirl, nice words about awareness here, moreover, I think it is a true compassion that contents no pain (without regard to etymology:))