Is this "awareness" that Advaita points to...is this awareness compasssionate? .. Redux..
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Gary
Sep 16, 2008, 6:23:14 PM9/16/08
to AdvaitaNow
Yes, that is a really intense version of "compassionate".
Here is another early 2006 post. What the hell is "compassion"? Is
that awareness anything, everything.. or skewed towards certain
qualities. You enlightened ones let me know. I just gotta get out of
kindergarten.
Here we go:
jimkeller
Gary, Charlie, others. You may either answer dualistically,
Advaitistically...or preferably...from experience. Jim
(1 user) Mar 21 2006, 2:05 pm
Here is another early 2006 post. What the hell is "compassion"? Is
that awareness anything, everything.. or skewed towards certain
qualities. You enlightened ones let me know. I just gotta get out of
kindergarten.
Here we go:
jimkeller
Gary, Charlie, others. You may either answer dualistically,
Advaitistically...or preferably...from experience. Jim
(1 user) Mar 21 2006, 2:05 pm
empty2
Sep 16, 2008, 7:17:27 PM9/16/08
to AdvaitaNow
Surely "the awareness that Advaita points to" is non-dual, in which
case, who is there to be compassionate to whom?
Compassion is a feeling of one for/with another, generally taken to be
love born of understanding.
Without suffering there would be no relevance in compassion. These two
come into existence with manifestation/consciousness of all this.
All appears to be suffering, but compassion wins out in the
end..........understanding it is all unreal!
case, who is there to be compassionate to whom?
Compassion is a feeling of one for/with another, generally taken to be
love born of understanding.
Without suffering there would be no relevance in compassion. These two
come into existence with manifestation/consciousness of all this.
All appears to be suffering, but compassion wins out in the
end..........understanding it is all unreal!
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 7:41:10 AM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
The awareness pointing to Advaita (not-two) is not-two.
Awareness may or may not be compassionate,depending on conditions/
conditioning.
Compassion is awareness of suffering...the understanding that
suffering is real.
> > (1 user) Mar 21 2006, 2:05 pm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Awareness may or may not be compassionate,depending on conditions/
conditioning.
Compassion is awareness of suffering...the understanding that
suffering is real.
>
> - Show quoted text -
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 10:27:03 AM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
To me, from the perspective of the individual compassion is similar to
mercy in sentiment in that the receiver of compassion is below the
giver. The giver views the circumstances and sees them as
unacceptable to their own experience and projects their fear of being
in that same situation on to the receiver in the form of feeling or
action.
To me, from the perspective of awareness compassion doesn't exist.
The circumstance is viewed as it is without any value assigned or
effort made to touch it.
To me, if someone asks to be pulled out of a ditch, I would pull them
out if I could but the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor
bastard.' is irrelevant.
mercy in sentiment in that the receiver of compassion is below the
giver. The giver views the circumstances and sees them as
unacceptable to their own experience and projects their fear of being
in that same situation on to the receiver in the form of feeling or
action.
To me, from the perspective of awareness compassion doesn't exist.
The circumstance is viewed as it is without any value assigned or
effort made to touch it.
To me, if someone asks to be pulled out of a ditch, I would pull them
out if I could but the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor
bastard.' is irrelevant.
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 12:50:06 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
The idea of not being in a ditch may be irrelevant,but what about the
awareness of i.e.,the memory of?
The compassionate awareness having a 'been there,done that' moment may
view the circumstances of suffering as unnecessary and be moved to
action.I don't know why fear would have to be involved.?
I don't get,'from the perspective of awareness'.What awareness are you
speaking of?One that is not your own?And,one that is not conditioned?
The circumstance,as viewed,is viewed by and through awareness.Isn't
it? And,what view does not have value assigned? How is a view viewed
without touching it?
The view of the circumstance...as it is...will depend upon the
conditions/conditioning.?
I suppose you could say,the circumstance,viewed as it is,depends upon
circumstances.? :)
Ram
Sep 17, 2008, 12:52:30 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Compassion can only exist in awareness. If there was nothing to be
aware of, then there would be no compassion.
"the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor bastard.' is
irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? Isn't it a natural function of the one Self to
be able to discern between such things as higher and lower, meaningful
and meaningless, in the ditch or on the road, swimming or drowning?
From the perspective of Pure Consciousness, nothing is happening, but
from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self that
functions in Illusion, there is the recognition of needless suffering
and freedom from suffering, on whatever level it may be appearing to
exist.
aware of, then there would be no compassion.
"the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor bastard.' is
irrelevant.
be able to discern between such things as higher and lower, meaningful
and meaningless, in the ditch or on the road, swimming or drowning?
From the perspective of Pure Consciousness, nothing is happening, but
from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self that
functions in Illusion, there is the recognition of needless suffering
and freedom from suffering, on whatever level it may be appearing to
exist.
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 1:31:39 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
'I don't know why fear would have to be involved.?'
From what I see, fear is one of the driving forces that motivate
individuals. Desire or lust may be next.
'I don't get,'from the perspective of awareness'.'
It is just for illustration. Drawing a picture from one vantage or
another. Obviously both are built by imagination.
what view does not have value assigned?
How is a view viewed without touching it?
to me, the viewing is unaffected and no action is taken in response to
viewing.
The view of the circumstance...as it is...will depend upon the
conditions/conditioning.?
to me,the awareness i point to is unconditioned and impartial.
'I suppose you could say,the circumstance,viewed as it is,depends
upon
circumstances.?'
from the perspective of the individual =)
From what I see, fear is one of the driving forces that motivate
individuals. Desire or lust may be next.
'I don't get,'from the perspective of awareness'.'
It is just for illustration. Drawing a picture from one vantage or
another. Obviously both are built by imagination.
what view does not have value assigned?
How is a view viewed without touching it?
viewing.
The view of the circumstance...as it is...will depend upon the
conditions/conditioning.?
'I suppose you could say,the circumstance,viewed as it is,depends
upon
circumstances.?'
from the perspective of the individual =)
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 1:55:33 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
I don't get,from the perspective of Pure Consciousness'.
What is that...what is your perspective of that and where did you get
this perspective?
Is Pure Consciousness a consciousness not your own...a consciousness
apart from you,your consciousness?
What compassion can exist apart from a consciousness of that?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
What is that...what is your perspective of that and where did you get
this perspective?
Is Pure Consciousness a consciousness not your own...a consciousness
apart from you,your consciousness?
What compassion can exist apart from a consciousness of that?
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 2:02:52 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
'Compassion can only exist in awareness. '
Compassion as the cultural concept yes but there is nothing there
demanding the act. I should be more clear.
'If there was nothing to be aware of, then there would be no
compassion.'
There is no compassion really. Only actions that are assigned values
and cultural definitions.
By saying it isn't in awareness I mean the motivation to perform the
act culture defines as compassion.
'Why is it irrelevant?' This is my opinion. As an individual
perspective, the circumstances are viewed and then given the value of
good or bad based on conditioning. Is it better to be pulled from the
ditch or learn to pull yourself out? The definition of an action or
non-action is only necessary for communicating and co-existing in a
culture. Compassion is an idea intended to create a sentiment for
something or someone in order to motivate the individual to action.
The action is what is happening and the thought surrounding that
action is irrelevant.
If from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self
that functions in illusion, what is defining suffering? Self? If so,
wouldn't the appropriate action due in the circumstance be performed
to bring back equilibrium without the necessity of an idea called
compassion? Isn't the name 'compassion' given later?
Compassion as the cultural concept yes but there is nothing there
demanding the act. I should be more clear.
'If there was nothing to be aware of, then there would be no
compassion.'
There is no compassion really. Only actions that are assigned values
and cultural definitions.
By saying it isn't in awareness I mean the motivation to perform the
act culture defines as compassion.
'Why is it irrelevant?' This is my opinion. As an individual
perspective, the circumstances are viewed and then given the value of
good or bad based on conditioning. Is it better to be pulled from the
ditch or learn to pull yourself out? The definition of an action or
non-action is only necessary for communicating and co-existing in a
culture. Compassion is an idea intended to create a sentiment for
something or someone in order to motivate the individual to action.
The action is what is happening and the thought surrounding that
action is irrelevant.
If from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self
that functions in illusion, what is defining suffering? Self? If so,
wouldn't the appropriate action due in the circumstance be performed
to bring back equilibrium without the necessity of an idea called
compassion? Isn't the name 'compassion' given later?
Ram
Sep 17, 2008, 2:29:19 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Later, earlier, compassion, etc... All only labels.
Yes, just spontaneous natural functioning of the Self, not bound or
limited by the labels or activity of its functioning.
Yes, just spontaneous natural functioning of the Self, not bound or
limited by the labels or activity of its functioning.
Ram
Sep 17, 2008, 2:31:23 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Pure Consciousness is that Consciousness or Knowledge which is not
tainted with objectivity. It is not separate from your self. Self with
attributes and Self without attributes (Pure Consciousness) are not
two.
From where does this perspective come? You have to find that out for
yourself.
tainted with objectivity. It is not separate from your self. Self with
attributes and Self without attributes (Pure Consciousness) are not
two.
From where does this perspective come? You have to find that out for
yourself.
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 4:37:41 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
(Not a direct response to your post,Ram.Just some thoughts...)
Compassion is awareness of suffering...the understanding that
suffering is real.
Can there be awareness of suffering without having had suffered?Can
there be any knowledge or understanding of it's realness without
having suffered?
Compassion can only exist in the awareness.The name 'compassion' may
come later,but first is the awareness of.So,is it mere invention with
nothing there/here demanding action...naming?
It may be better to teach a man to fish but,in the meantime,the man
needs to eat so give him a fish.Is it better to give him a fish or
fill the ditch in over him?
No doubt,cultures/societies do teach and demand particular actions in
order to demonstrate our compassion.But,in spite of that,I think
compassion is much more than mere idea.
Compassion is awareness of suffering...the understanding that
suffering is real.
there be any knowledge or understanding of it's realness without
having suffered?
Compassion can only exist in the awareness.The name 'compassion' may
come later,but first is the awareness of.So,is it mere invention with
nothing there/here demanding action...naming?
It may be better to teach a man to fish but,in the meantime,the man
needs to eat so give him a fish.Is it better to give him a fish or
fill the ditch in over him?
No doubt,cultures/societies do teach and demand particular actions in
order to demonstrate our compassion.But,in spite of that,I think
compassion is much more than mere idea.
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 4:47:46 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
> Yes, just spontaneous natural functioning of the Self, not bound or
> limited by the labels or activity of its functioning.
You have a fine way of summarizing. =)
> limited by the labels or activity of its functioning.
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 4:59:09 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
'Can there be awareness of suffering without having had suffered?Can
Who told you you were suffering or what suffering was? Are there
degrees of suffering? My son endures great suffering while cleaning
the litter box but my experience while doing the same task is
pleasure. Can't anything be turned into suffering?
The idea of compassion seems to have more to do with 'like experience'
than suffering directly. I fell down the stairs and split my head
open and now I can relate to those who have done the same. I might
not necessarily view it as suffering.
'But,in spite of that,I think compassion is much more than mere idea.'
Compassion may be the 'energy' of moving to identify with another's
experience from the perspective of like experience but isn't that just
the circle closing itself (metaphor)?
there be any knowledge or understanding of it's realness without
having suffered?'
Who told you you were suffering or what suffering was? Are there
degrees of suffering? My son endures great suffering while cleaning
the litter box but my experience while doing the same task is
pleasure. Can't anything be turned into suffering?
The idea of compassion seems to have more to do with 'like experience'
than suffering directly. I fell down the stairs and split my head
open and now I can relate to those who have done the same. I might
not necessarily view it as suffering.
'But,in spite of that,I think compassion is much more than mere idea.'
Compassion may be the 'energy' of moving to identify with another's
experience from the perspective of like experience but isn't that just
the circle closing itself (metaphor)?
Mahakali
Sep 17, 2008, 6:29:21 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
MarkJ wrote: "compassion is similar to mercy in sentiment ...The
Kali: I agree with the definition of compassion as similar to mercy
and as a sentiment. But I do not get the idea of an individual, who,
because s/he finds certain circumstances unacceptale, then, would
project that fear on others in the form of feeling or action. The
question is: at which point, do I realize that the sufference in the
other is the same as mine? My view is that that life is hard for
everyone, but some of us can be compassionate towards others, i.e.
relate to them, better than some other people? I start noticing that
when I am not involved in my own personal sufference, I tend to be
more compassionate towards other people who are suffering. I do not
get involved in it, but, I 'know' the feeling or other people's
suffering happens to be known.
And, I have to disagree with Ram too "Why is it irrelevant? Isn't it a
discerning which, effectively, is creating separation. The entire
point is about 'separation' because whilst the persona is firmly in
place, there won't be any chance for real, sincere compassion to
arise. It is only when the persona falls away then, the sudden
realization of 'how hard life has been for me', this, naturally and
spontaneously, gives rise to compassion i.e. now that the individual
has fallen away there is more room to see and realize the same
'suffering' being tangibly the same as mine is being experienced in
others too. I do not see how the sentiment of compassion can possibly
arise whilst I am involved in my suffering coupled with a mind that
creates discernments, divides things up by putting them on higher or
lower levels etc etc. There has to be absence of separation.
Kali
> > > limited by the labels or activity of its functioning.- Hide quoted text -
giver views the circumstances and sees them as unacceptable to their
own experience and projects their fear of being in that same situation
on to the receiver in the form of feeling or action.."
own experience and projects their fear of being in that same situation
Kali: I agree with the definition of compassion as similar to mercy
and as a sentiment. But I do not get the idea of an individual, who,
because s/he finds certain circumstances unacceptale, then, would
project that fear on others in the form of feeling or action. The
question is: at which point, do I realize that the sufference in the
other is the same as mine? My view is that that life is hard for
everyone, but some of us can be compassionate towards others, i.e.
relate to them, better than some other people? I start noticing that
when I am not involved in my own personal sufference, I tend to be
more compassionate towards other people who are suffering. I do not
get involved in it, but, I 'know' the feeling or other people's
suffering happens to be known.
And, I have to disagree with Ram too "Why is it irrelevant? Isn't it a
natural function of the one Self to be able to discern between such
things as higher and lower, meaningful
and meaningless, in the ditch or on the road, swimming or drowning? "
Ram, this is not what Self is about. It is not about dividing up,
things as higher and lower, meaningful
and meaningless, in the ditch or on the road, swimming or drowning? "
discerning which, effectively, is creating separation. The entire
point is about 'separation' because whilst the persona is firmly in
place, there won't be any chance for real, sincere compassion to
arise. It is only when the persona falls away then, the sudden
realization of 'how hard life has been for me', this, naturally and
spontaneously, gives rise to compassion i.e. now that the individual
has fallen away there is more room to see and realize the same
'suffering' being tangibly the same as mine is being experienced in
others too. I do not see how the sentiment of compassion can possibly
arise whilst I am involved in my suffering coupled with a mind that
creates discernments, divides things up by putting them on higher or
lower levels etc etc. There has to be absence of separation.
Kali
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 6:52:18 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Is it necessary to be told what suffering is,or just necessary to put
a label on what we are?
Who told you what pleasure was and that cleaning the litter was that?
I suppose anything can be turned into pleasure. :)
Compassion does seem to have more to do with 'like
experience'.Still,compassion is just a label.But,one born of
experience...like experience.Suffering,too,although a label,is born of
experience...like experience.And,what we experience like,we label as.
The one losing a loved one.Does this one not suffer,having never heard
the label 'suffer'?
I agree,a split head doesn't necessarily bring about suffering.Maybe
just pain,or that which has been labeled as that.
What is a label,anyway? The reflection (RE-flection) of what is real.?
> > > limited by the labels or activity of its functioning.- Hide quoted text -
a label on what we are?
Who told you what pleasure was and that cleaning the litter was that?
I suppose anything can be turned into pleasure. :)
Compassion does seem to have more to do with 'like
experience'.Still,compassion is just a label.But,one born of
experience...like experience.Suffering,too,although a label,is born of
experience...like experience.And,what we experience like,we label as.
The one losing a loved one.Does this one not suffer,having never heard
the label 'suffer'?
I agree,a split head doesn't necessarily bring about suffering.Maybe
just pain,or that which has been labeled as that.
What is a label,anyway? The reflection (RE-flection) of what is real.?
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 7:10:24 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Absence of separation,ok.
But,I would separate filling in the ditch while you're in it from
compassion.
How about you?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
But,I would separate filling in the ditch while you're in it from
compassion.
How about you?
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 7:13:52 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
> Is it necessary to be told what suffering is,or just necessary to put
> a label on what we are?
To me, labeling is for communication and communication is the attempt
> a label on what we are?
to enter relationship and relationship the illusion that that there
are two there.
>Who told you what pleasure was and that cleaning the litter was that?
was alright. I took this to mean that falling was a problem. She
would also complain about performing certain tasks. I took this to
mean that those tasks were painful and to be avoided. The desire to
escape these tasks/experiences caused a build up of energy and the
longer I felt that energy the more I desired to escape these tasks/
experiences. I was told that it was called suffering.
> The one losing a loved one.Does this one not suffer,having never heard the label 'suffer'?
out of the desire for that relationship.
> What is a label,anyway? The reflection (RE-flection) of what is real.?
some have seen and some have not.
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 7:21:13 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
>The question is: at which point, do I realize that the sufference in the
other is the same as mine?
IMO - If suffering is an illusion, how do we identify this experience
other is the same as mine?
of an illusion through communication with someone?
I am being misunderstood right now and I am misunderstanding.
How can compassion be anything else but the sharing of similar
experiences with out the identical idea of suffering?
empty2
Sep 17, 2008, 7:30:42 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Very nice, Kali.....
"I do not see how the sentiment of compassion can possibly
arise whilst I am involved in my suffering coupled with a mind that
creates discernments, divides things up by putting them on higher or
lower levels etc etc. There has to be absence of separation."
.......but without separation, who/what is there to be compassionate
regarding whom?
Could it be the final (or first) sentiment/gasp of the individual
seeing separation yet knowing there is no such thing at all?
Having a foot in both camps, as it were.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
"I do not see how the sentiment of compassion can possibly
arise whilst I am involved in my suffering coupled with a mind that
creates discernments, divides things up by putting them on higher or
lower levels etc etc. There has to be absence of separation."
regarding whom?
Could it be the final (or first) sentiment/gasp of the individual
seeing separation yet knowing there is no such thing at all?
Having a foot in both camps, as it were.
Rodger
Sep 17, 2008, 7:44:12 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
Is desire for relationship real?
Labels are for communication,yes.
To me,the illusion is not that there are two there,but that there are
two here.
There are differing points of view...differing points of view are
there.
The differing points of view there are due to the conditions/
conditioning of the awareness which is here.
It is not necessary for the awareness to be told what suffering is,for
already there is the awareness of suffering.Awareness only needs to
put a label to what is already here in order to communicate to what is
there.What is communicated is a like experience.
Many experiences of suffering are due to conditioning which wouldn't
be there if not conditioned to be there...they are essentially
unnecessary sufferings.And yet unavoidable...due to
conditioning...so,necessary.At least until some form of seeing through
the conditioning...illusion...presents.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Labels are for communication,yes.
To me,the illusion is not that there are two there,but that there are
two here.
There are differing points of view...differing points of view are
there.
The differing points of view there are due to the conditions/
conditioning of the awareness which is here.
It is not necessary for the awareness to be told what suffering is,for
already there is the awareness of suffering.Awareness only needs to
put a label to what is already here in order to communicate to what is
there.What is communicated is a like experience.
Many experiences of suffering are due to conditioning which wouldn't
be there if not conditioned to be there...they are essentially
unnecessary sufferings.And yet unavoidable...due to
conditioning...so,necessary.At least until some form of seeing through
the conditioning...illusion...presents.
MarkJ
Sep 17, 2008, 8:55:48 PM9/17/08
to AdvaitaNow
>Is desire for relationship real?
As real as every other desire.
>Many experiences of suffering are due to conditioning which wouldn't
be there if not conditioned to be there...they are essentially
unnecessary sufferings.And yet unavoidable...due to
conditioning...so,necessary.At least until some form of seeing
through
the conditioning...illusion...presents.
of seeing through or realization.
I'm sure there are several labels in many languages describing this
process.
Gary
Sep 18, 2008, 12:14:47 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Anandanand
Sep 18, 2008, 1:08:44 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi MarkJ
On Sep 18, 4:21 am, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IMO - If suffering is an illusion, how do we identify this experience
> of an illusion through communication with someone?
I don't think suffering is an illusion. On the mental level, may be
partly.
Even then this point remains valid. Is it possible to rid the world of
suffering ? this was discussed here.
Would a jnani want (in the first place would there be any want) to rid
someone of suffering ? I don't think so. Even if he appears to be
doing so, imo, he might be trying to relieve the mental buildup.
I don't know what exactly is compassion.
In India, since hundreds of years we have extreme poverty. If I am
well off I have a exaggerated view of poverty. We also have had
hundreds of saints in those many years, and, barring a few, most have
not advocated rebellious actions against those bleeding the poor.
(which logically would be the best action to free them from the
suffering)
On Sep 18, 4:21 am, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IMO - If suffering is an illusion, how do we identify this experience
> of an illusion through communication with someone?
partly.
Even then this point remains valid. Is it possible to rid the world of
suffering ? this was discussed here.
Would a jnani want (in the first place would there be any want) to rid
someone of suffering ? I don't think so. Even if he appears to be
doing so, imo, he might be trying to relieve the mental buildup.
I don't know what exactly is compassion.
In India, since hundreds of years we have extreme poverty. If I am
well off I have a exaggerated view of poverty. We also have had
hundreds of saints in those many years, and, barring a few, most have
not advocated rebellious actions against those bleeding the poor.
(which logically would be the best action to free them from the
suffering)
godszen
Sep 18, 2008, 4:45:09 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Anandanand wrote:
> In India, since hundreds of years we have extreme poverty.
why?
> In India, since hundreds of years we have extreme poverty.
> We also have had
> hundreds of saints in those many years, and, barring a few, most have
> not advocated rebellious actions against those bleeding the poor.
> (which logically would be the best action to free them from the
> suffering)
telephone, refridgerator, tv, hot/cold water, clothes, food, car, and
a productive job which makes it all possible.
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 5:01:40 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Empty, none is there to be compassionate. In the given circumstances,
compassion may arise and it may be to be the first sentiment - rather
than the last one - to arise once the person has fallen away and
everything is being seen as One. So, where is the question of my or
your suffering now?
Kali
P.S. Empty: you are speaking of 'seeing' separation but 'knowing'
there is no such a thing. Are you playing with words or do you ascribe
different or special meaning to 'seeing' or 'knowing'? How different
are these to you? Sorry for being so pedantic.
compassion may arise and it may be to be the first sentiment - rather
than the last one - to arise once the person has fallen away and
everything is being seen as One. So, where is the question of my or
your suffering now?
Kali
P.S. Empty: you are speaking of 'seeing' separation but 'knowing'
there is no such a thing. Are you playing with words or do you ascribe
different or special meaning to 'seeing' or 'knowing'? How different
are these to you? Sorry for being so pedantic.
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 5:11:56 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Rodger, sorry but my English is not this good: what's "'filling or
falling' in the ditch while you're in it"? Can you explain or give me
another example please.
However, nothing can stop a good, honest act of generosity
(compassion) from arising...most of the time it is spontaneous,
unexpected and unpredicted..how much of the other do you see in a
generous person?
All the best ..
Kali
falling' in the ditch while you're in it"? Can you explain or give me
another example please.
However, nothing can stop a good, honest act of generosity
(compassion) from arising...most of the time it is spontaneous,
unexpected and unpredicted..how much of the other do you see in a
generous person?
All the best ..
Kali
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 5:23:17 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Mark: the moment I stop being obsessed with my own individuality, the
moment I am not anymore involved with my own problems/suffering, then,
there could be a chance that compassion may arise; suffering is not
anymore my exclusive problem but is being recognized in other fellow
human beings, animals etc etc too. It is only a matter of being able
to create that space to see 'suffering' as an universal condition
rather than being restricted to my own suffering.
And the sharing of a similar experience is part of the new relate-ness
that happens when there is no separation. Compassion arises in a
different way of relating to others...because there are no more
others. What do you want to share with others if there are no others?
Kali
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
moment I am not anymore involved with my own problems/suffering, then,
there could be a chance that compassion may arise; suffering is not
anymore my exclusive problem but is being recognized in other fellow
human beings, animals etc etc too. It is only a matter of being able
to create that space to see 'suffering' as an universal condition
rather than being restricted to my own suffering.
And the sharing of a similar experience is part of the new relate-ness
that happens when there is no separation. Compassion arises in a
different way of relating to others...because there are no more
others. What do you want to share with others if there are no others?
Kali
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 5:32:52 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Anandanand..please allow me some observations;
Ananda: Would a jnani want (in the first place would there be any
is a 'personal' matter whereas consciousness is totally impersonal.
However, I know many teachers/jnani who, as people, do worry about
other people suffering, but, at their own personal level. But thinking
that, for example, Consciousness did go to sleep last night worrying
about Kali's suffering...no, this does not happen.
Ananda: I don't know what exactly is compassion
Kali: to me, it may mean and equal generosity.
Ananda: In India, since hundreds of years we have extreme poverty...
Kali: you also have had a caste system too ...and karma...which, imho,
did not do the poor any favour.
Best wishes..
Kali
Ananda: Would a jnani want (in the first place would there be any
want) to rid someone of suffering ?
Kali: he cannot do that because a jnani knows too well that suffering
is a 'personal' matter whereas consciousness is totally impersonal.
However, I know many teachers/jnani who, as people, do worry about
other people suffering, but, at their own personal level. But thinking
that, for example, Consciousness did go to sleep last night worrying
about Kali's suffering...no, this does not happen.
Ananda: I don't know what exactly is compassion
Kali: to me, it may mean and equal generosity.
Ananda: In India, since hundreds of years we have extreme poverty...
Kali: you also have had a caste system too ...and karma...which, imho,
did not do the poor any favour.
Best wishes..
Kali
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 5:44:31 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Gary..what about compassion as unconditional love? Is it a 'yes'
or a 'no' ....or 'phone-a-friend'?
;-)
Kali
> > (1 user) Mar 21 2006, 2:05 pm- Hide quoted text -
or a 'no' ....or 'phone-a-friend'?
;-)
Kali
Ram
Sep 18, 2008, 6:19:22 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Kali,
For the most part I agree with what you say. Compassion can be viewed
in different ways. While the belief in an independently existing
individual is still intact, there can be compassion. Why not? I see
examples of people who think that they are people performing what they
define as compassionate acts every day. This is natural inherent
quality of the Self which manifests in many ways.
When it is seen that there is not independently existing individual,
then compassion takes on a deeper significance, and the root of the
suffering is seen, rather than just the symptoms of suffering. Still,
from this perspective, as long as the body is drawing breath, the
'persona' or personality, is still present but one does not feel
limited or bound by it.
If you look directly into your own experience, you cannot deny the
appearance of differences and suffering in the universal Illusion. The
Self or Consciousness has in it the nature of multiplicity in Oneness.
When the belief in the individual is seen through, then compassion is
just natural spontaneous functioning. Its an energy as Mark said, in
one respect, but it is also a recognition. Suffering is rooted in
taking oneself to be the body, and taking the Illusion to be true.
When this is realized, it is recognized that all suffering is
unnecessary, and the natural motion arises in the Self to help
alleviate the suffering that it sees in itself that is manifest in
Illusion in the form of 'others.' All the while, it sees all, and
knows all to be only itself.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
For the most part I agree with what you say. Compassion can be viewed
in different ways. While the belief in an independently existing
individual is still intact, there can be compassion. Why not? I see
examples of people who think that they are people performing what they
define as compassionate acts every day. This is natural inherent
quality of the Self which manifests in many ways.
When it is seen that there is not independently existing individual,
then compassion takes on a deeper significance, and the root of the
suffering is seen, rather than just the symptoms of suffering. Still,
from this perspective, as long as the body is drawing breath, the
'persona' or personality, is still present but one does not feel
limited or bound by it.
If you look directly into your own experience, you cannot deny the
appearance of differences and suffering in the universal Illusion. The
Self or Consciousness has in it the nature of multiplicity in Oneness.
When the belief in the individual is seen through, then compassion is
just natural spontaneous functioning. Its an energy as Mark said, in
one respect, but it is also a recognition. Suffering is rooted in
taking oneself to be the body, and taking the Illusion to be true.
When this is realized, it is recognized that all suffering is
unnecessary, and the natural motion arises in the Self to help
alleviate the suffering that it sees in itself that is manifest in
Illusion in the form of 'others.' All the while, it sees all, and
knows all to be only itself.
> MarkJ wrote: "compassion is similar to mercy in sentiment ...The
>
>
Ram
Sep 18, 2008, 6:30:08 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
"The one losing a loved one. Does this one not suffer,having never
extent.
:O)
heard the label 'suffer'?"
I guess it depends upon if you are in that person's will and to what
extent.
:O)
empty2
Sep 18, 2008, 6:52:54 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Kali, yes you are being pedantic! :)
>"you are speaking of 'seeing' separation but 'knowing'
there is no such a thing. Are you playing with words or do you
ascribe
different or special meaning to 'seeing' or 'knowing'? How different
are these to you? Sorry for being so pedantic."
I was trying to suggest that compassion a) can only exist where there
is the idea of an 'other' who is suffering, ie. 'seeing separation';
b) that feeling compassion implies that the 'feeler' is not subject to
the same suffering, but recognizes it nonetheless; c) that the
'compassionate one' has transcended such suffering, ie. 'knows' it is
illusory and that the real Self within all remains ever untouched and
un-suffering, yet feels compassion for the 'other' who hasn't thus
transcended and doesn't 'know'.
This is why I suggested such compassion would be felt by someone with
a 'foot on both sides', ie. enlightened, but still retaining an
individual form and the memories associated with it.......a
jivanmukta, liberated while living......knowing the Truth, knowing all
is illusion, - yet aware of the state of others who don't.......and
feeling compassion for them.
I would imagine this kind of compassion, which is mentioned in quite a
few scriptures as an attribute of a jnani, sees no 'higher or lower',
but feels with the other much as a father or mother has to stand back
and watch their child go through experiences they wish they could
prevent, yet know that only thus will the child learn what it has
to......albeit offering as much advice as they can. Who knows, a jnani
may have other subtle ways to help also.
>"it may be to be the first sentiment - rather
than the last one - to arise once the person has fallen away and
everything is being seen as One."
First or last depends on which way 'you' are going, - personal to
impersonal or vice versa.
Are you suggesting some sort of 'bliss of the Absolute'......that
perhaps emerges into individual consciousness as a feeling of
compassion? When one is one, who is there to feel what? Then indeed,
"where is the question of my or your suffering now?".
PS......glad you got some nice weather at last :)
>"you are speaking of 'seeing' separation but 'knowing'
there is no such a thing. Are you playing with words or do you
ascribe
different or special meaning to 'seeing' or 'knowing'? How different
are these to you? Sorry for being so pedantic."
is the idea of an 'other' who is suffering, ie. 'seeing separation';
b) that feeling compassion implies that the 'feeler' is not subject to
the same suffering, but recognizes it nonetheless; c) that the
'compassionate one' has transcended such suffering, ie. 'knows' it is
illusory and that the real Self within all remains ever untouched and
un-suffering, yet feels compassion for the 'other' who hasn't thus
transcended and doesn't 'know'.
This is why I suggested such compassion would be felt by someone with
a 'foot on both sides', ie. enlightened, but still retaining an
individual form and the memories associated with it.......a
jivanmukta, liberated while living......knowing the Truth, knowing all
is illusion, - yet aware of the state of others who don't.......and
feeling compassion for them.
I would imagine this kind of compassion, which is mentioned in quite a
few scriptures as an attribute of a jnani, sees no 'higher or lower',
but feels with the other much as a father or mother has to stand back
and watch their child go through experiences they wish they could
prevent, yet know that only thus will the child learn what it has
to......albeit offering as much advice as they can. Who knows, a jnani
may have other subtle ways to help also.
>"it may be to be the first sentiment - rather
than the last one - to arise once the person has fallen away and
everything is being seen as One."
impersonal or vice versa.
Are you suggesting some sort of 'bliss of the Absolute'......that
perhaps emerges into individual consciousness as a feeling of
compassion? When one is one, who is there to feel what? Then indeed,
"where is the question of my or your suffering now?".
PS......glad you got some nice weather at last :)
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 7:26:51 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Empty...nice to hear from you again..
Unfortunately, I am not so complicated as you are..lol...so: in a
situation of suffering, compassion may or may not arise...ok? Whether
the 'feeler' has recognized it or not...I do not know because the
individual is not there. I suppose I am thinking of compassion as a
spontaneous act of generosity or gratitude, where is the 'I' when you
are open to generosity? And, of couse, I know it is all an Illusion
but what choice have I got over being or not being compassionate? How
I am going to manifest that compassion is another story, the bottom
line is that I am relating in a different way to the other
person..i.e. in an impersonal way.
The spell of good weather has gone and it is getting cold...damn!
Kali
Unfortunately, I am not so complicated as you are..lol...so: in a
situation of suffering, compassion may or may not arise...ok? Whether
the 'feeler' has recognized it or not...I do not know because the
individual is not there. I suppose I am thinking of compassion as a
spontaneous act of generosity or gratitude, where is the 'I' when you
are open to generosity? And, of couse, I know it is all an Illusion
but what choice have I got over being or not being compassionate? How
I am going to manifest that compassion is another story, the bottom
line is that I am relating in a different way to the other
person..i.e. in an impersonal way.
The spell of good weather has gone and it is getting cold...damn!
Kali
empty2
Sep 18, 2008, 7:27:29 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Anandanand,
Not in any way lauding poverty (though many religions do), or
suffering of any kind, a lot depends on one's perspective of good and
bad.
Wasn't it Kunti, in the Mahabharata, who, being offered a boon by
Krishna, asked that she always have problems and trouble so that she
would always think of and take refuge in Him?
As for Krishna, so for Advaita or any other path that helps us go
beyond this suffering of illusion. Agreed most people would not wish
to be poor, but there are some who choose it, above all in India, as a
way to be free of the fetters of posessions and the ego that values
and is cushioned by them. Before the industrial revolution, they say,
the average farm worker worked about 50 days a year, didn't starve,
and had time to enjoy and continue creating a culture of song, dance
and stories. The Aboriginal people in Australia took about 3 hours a
day to gather food for the day and did likewise. For modern 'comfort'
and amusements many people today are lucky to get a holiday at all!
Didn't someone say pain is of the body but suffering is of the mind? A
lot of suffering imho is related to a lack of security....of body and
emotions, and of course, the need to care for others........in the
face of a life that is by nature insecure, indeed, totally insecure in
the end. In the words of an old Incredible String Band song, "There
are those who find security upon the winds of change...." I think I
envy them!
Not in any way lauding poverty (though many religions do), or
suffering of any kind, a lot depends on one's perspective of good and
bad.
Wasn't it Kunti, in the Mahabharata, who, being offered a boon by
Krishna, asked that she always have problems and trouble so that she
would always think of and take refuge in Him?
As for Krishna, so for Advaita or any other path that helps us go
beyond this suffering of illusion. Agreed most people would not wish
to be poor, but there are some who choose it, above all in India, as a
way to be free of the fetters of posessions and the ego that values
and is cushioned by them. Before the industrial revolution, they say,
the average farm worker worked about 50 days a year, didn't starve,
and had time to enjoy and continue creating a culture of song, dance
and stories. The Aboriginal people in Australia took about 3 hours a
day to gather food for the day and did likewise. For modern 'comfort'
and amusements many people today are lucky to get a holiday at all!
Didn't someone say pain is of the body but suffering is of the mind? A
lot of suffering imho is related to a lack of security....of body and
emotions, and of course, the need to care for others........in the
face of a life that is by nature insecure, indeed, totally insecure in
the end. In the words of an old Incredible String Band song, "There
are those who find security upon the winds of change...." I think I
envy them!
Rodger
Sep 18, 2008, 7:33:18 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Empty2,
Good stuff!
Good stuff!
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 7:34:22 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Ram, I agree with you too...
In my post I was trying to communicate in respect of the deeper sense
of compassion rather that compassion as a charitable/altruistic act.
But the Self in it has not got 'the nature of multiplicity in
Oneness'...you cannot describe it as having a 'nature' becaus e it is
Oneness..but I know what you are pointing to. In Oneness compassion
arises and the two actors relate to each other in a selflessness way.
I'd like to take it a step further and call it unconditional love...
Kali
In my post I was trying to communicate in respect of the deeper sense
of compassion rather that compassion as a charitable/altruistic act.
But the Self in it has not got 'the nature of multiplicity in
Oneness'...you cannot describe it as having a 'nature' becaus e it is
Oneness..but I know what you are pointing to. In Oneness compassion
arises and the two actors relate to each other in a selflessness way.
I'd like to take it a step further and call it unconditional love...
Kali
Anandanand
Sep 18, 2008, 7:35:00 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi GZ, Kali,
The point I was making was, does any one know what is the suffering of
other people ?
A broken leg may cause more or less same amount of pain for any one,
but is the suffering same ?
Is knowing someone else's suffering compassion ?
Suppose I see a person going to work daily by a bicycle, and knowing
what it means to ride a bicycle 10 miles uphill , out of compassion I
give him a car. He says 'I can't afford to repair even the bicycle,
what am I going to do with a car ?' so he sells the car and uses the
money and after a while the story continues.
The point I was making was, does any one know what is the suffering of
other people ?
A broken leg may cause more or less same amount of pain for any one,
but is the suffering same ?
Is knowing someone else's suffering compassion ?
Suppose I see a person going to work daily by a bicycle, and knowing
what it means to ride a bicycle 10 miles uphill , out of compassion I
give him a car. He says 'I can't afford to repair even the bicycle,
what am I going to do with a car ?' so he sells the car and uses the
money and after a while the story continues.
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 7:42:51 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Ananadanand: if the nations really knew how much pain they are causing
when they drop a chemical or atomic bomb in the middle of Japan or
Vietnam, do you really think they would do it? Perhaps, even stopping
and thinking may be regarded as a compassionate act..
Kali
> > a productive job which makes it all possible.- Hide quoted text -
when they drop a chemical or atomic bomb in the middle of Japan or
Vietnam, do you really think they would do it? Perhaps, even stopping
and thinking may be regarded as a compassionate act..
Kali
empty2
Sep 18, 2008, 7:43:15 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi again Kali,
>"in a situation of suffering, compassion may or may not arise...ok?"
Sure. Spontaneous and pure. Action without thinking...ok. But where
does it arise if not in the individual? Any thinking what to do with
it is certainly of the individual who experiences the feeling. The
impersonal has no use for it and 'sees' none other than itself. This
comes round to the discussion as to whether we, as individuals, have
free will or is simply everything but a manifestation of the 'divine
play'.
>"in a situation of suffering, compassion may or may not arise...ok?"
does it arise if not in the individual? Any thinking what to do with
it is certainly of the individual who experiences the feeling. The
impersonal has no use for it and 'sees' none other than itself. This
comes round to the discussion as to whether we, as individuals, have
free will or is simply everything but a manifestation of the 'divine
play'.
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 7:47:10 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Empty..you do not have free will..and I know this. But I have a
choice within the limited choices I am given...but they all apparent
choices anyway. Even the story of the individual falling away is part
of the script or the play of leela....
Kali
> > > > > > > > No doubt,cultures/societies do teach and demand- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
choice within the limited choices I am given...but they all apparent
choices anyway. Even the story of the individual falling away is part
of the script or the play of leela....
Kali
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
empty2
Sep 18, 2008, 7:49:06 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Yo!
> > > > > > > > > Can there be awareness of suffering without having had suffered?Can- Hide quoted text -
empty2
Sep 18, 2008, 8:23:06 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Thanks, Rodger :)
Rodger
Sep 18, 2008, 9:03:28 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Kali,
I was agreeing with you about absence of separation.I was also
agreeing with Ram about being able to separate things i.e.,meaningful/
meaningless.
If you're in a ditch wanting out,filling the ditch in over
you...covering you up with dirt...would be contrary to your desire and
not very meaningful.At least,not for you. :) And,if we are being
compassionate then it's you the fuss is over.It's you we are wanting
to do something meaningful for.
Or,you could just take it as me being stooopid...again.
Either way,may there be something here that's meaningful for you.If
not...well,it's not for me to tell another how to think.And,I wish you
well. :)
On Sep 17, 6:10 pm, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Absence of separation,ok.
> But,I would separate filling in the ditch while you're in it from
> compassion.
> How about you?
>
I was agreeing with you about absence of separation.I was also
agreeing with Ram about being able to separate things i.e.,meaningful/
meaningless.
If you're in a ditch wanting out,filling the ditch in over
you...covering you up with dirt...would be contrary to your desire and
not very meaningful.At least,not for you. :) And,if we are being
compassionate then it's you the fuss is over.It's you we are wanting
to do something meaningful for.
Or,you could just take it as me being stooopid...again.
Either way,may there be something here that's meaningful for you.If
not...well,it's not for me to tell another how to think.And,I wish you
well. :)
On Sep 17, 6:10 pm, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Absence of separation,ok.
> But,I would separate filling in the ditch while you're in it from
> compassion.
> How about you?
>
Gary
Sep 18, 2008, 9:36:08 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Kali:
I'm not a good one to ask regarding love. In my everyday life, I see
most of these terms used to prop up the ego. Certainly, there are
apparent thoughts and activities that can be interpreted as "love" and
"unconditional love". For example, a mass murder may be seen as
exhibiting compassion for the world when he thins out the population
and does his part to restore population sanity. Consider the doctor
that mistakenly delivers a baby that was suppose to be an abortion.
The doctor finds that the baby is both living and can be incubated in
order to continue living, but out of compassion and unconditional love
for the mother, he puts the baby in a medical closet to die. This is
an act of a compassionate man. This closet thing resulted in a
firestorm and a subsequent state law to prohibit such action on the
part of medical staff. The law passed with all but one vote. That
vote was a vote from a truly compassionate state senator. This loving
man is now running for President of the United States. He understand
the pain of the poor, downtrodden and the pain of that woman that
underwent that late term abortion. Is this an unfair representation?
My guess is that it is probably an unfair representation, but it
illustrates my point that one person's compassion doesn't quite
measure up to another person's judgement.
I'm not a good one to ask regarding love. In my everyday life, I see
most of these terms used to prop up the ego. Certainly, there are
apparent thoughts and activities that can be interpreted as "love" and
"unconditional love". For example, a mass murder may be seen as
exhibiting compassion for the world when he thins out the population
and does his part to restore population sanity. Consider the doctor
that mistakenly delivers a baby that was suppose to be an abortion.
The doctor finds that the baby is both living and can be incubated in
order to continue living, but out of compassion and unconditional love
for the mother, he puts the baby in a medical closet to die. This is
an act of a compassionate man. This closet thing resulted in a
firestorm and a subsequent state law to prohibit such action on the
part of medical staff. The law passed with all but one vote. That
vote was a vote from a truly compassionate state senator. This loving
man is now running for President of the United States. He understand
the pain of the poor, downtrodden and the pain of that woman that
underwent that late term abortion. Is this an unfair representation?
My guess is that it is probably an unfair representation, but it
illustrates my point that one person's compassion doesn't quite
measure up to another person's judgement.
MarkJ
Sep 18, 2008, 10:24:46 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Anandanand
> I don't think suffering is an illusion. On the mental level, may be partly.
I only say it doesn't exist from the grand scheme. I realize people
are experiencing and to some degree creating suffering for
themselves. I used to experience a racing heart, raised blood
pressure and a release of adrenaline when watching action movies at
the cinema. The body's experience of this stress was real but the
origin was imagined.
The poor will always be among us is what Jesus said. On man is born
with a diminished mental capacity and another with paralleled
intellect. One woman is born to the royal family and another to a
homeless crack addict.
Are the native indigenous people living in the Amazon poor because
they do not have what the wall street tycoon has? They have
everything they need to survive. Poverty appears to be relative to
the culture.
> I don't think suffering is an illusion. On the mental level, may be partly.
are experiencing and to some degree creating suffering for
themselves. I used to experience a racing heart, raised blood
pressure and a release of adrenaline when watching action movies at
the cinema. The body's experience of this stress was real but the
origin was imagined.
The poor will always be among us is what Jesus said. On man is born
with a diminished mental capacity and another with paralleled
intellect. One woman is born to the royal family and another to a
homeless crack addict.
Are the native indigenous people living in the Amazon poor because
they do not have what the wall street tycoon has? They have
everything they need to survive. Poverty appears to be relative to
the culture.
MarkJ
Sep 18, 2008, 10:35:07 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Kali
>What do you want to share with others if there are no others?
I don't want to share anything as I have nothing to share that the
'others' don't already have.
To me, the idea of sharing an experience is a part of the idea of
relationship which requires two.
To me, in appearance there is an environment which displays as a
multitude of relationships but the reality is that there is one source
or substance/non-substance displaying and relating to itself
spontaneously and effortlessly.
I am not sharing this with you, I am typing a response to a question
from the knowledge that I have of how to express what I am. (what are
you? I am me) No response is necessary but just as appearance is
displayed so is this relationship of call and response.
Mark
>What do you want to share with others if there are no others?
'others' don't already have.
To me, the idea of sharing an experience is a part of the idea of
relationship which requires two.
To me, in appearance there is an environment which displays as a
multitude of relationships but the reality is that there is one source
or substance/non-substance displaying and relating to itself
spontaneously and effortlessly.
I am not sharing this with you, I am typing a response to a question
from the knowledge that I have of how to express what I am. (what are
you? I am me) No response is necessary but just as appearance is
displayed so is this relationship of call and response.
Mark
Rodger
Sep 18, 2008, 11:20:31 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
'The body's experience of this stress was real but the origin was
imagined.'
The origin of the body's stress is imagined i.e.,imagination.
Is the origin of the mind's experience of stress imagined?
This would mean the origin of suffering is the mind.
If the body's stress is real,why not the mind's?
The mind imagines,the body follows.
Would not this apply to the mind as well?
If suffering doesn't exist from the grand scheme (the grand schemer?)
from where does suffering exist?
What is this 'grand scheme' you speak of? What is your scheme of that
and from what do you scheme of it?
> > suffering)- Hide quoted text -
imagined.'
The origin of the body's stress is imagined i.e.,imagination.
Is the origin of the mind's experience of stress imagined?
This would mean the origin of suffering is the mind.
If the body's stress is real,why not the mind's?
The mind imagines,the body follows.
Would not this apply to the mind as well?
If suffering doesn't exist from the grand scheme (the grand schemer?)
from where does suffering exist?
What is this 'grand scheme' you speak of? What is your scheme of that
and from what do you scheme of it?
Rodger
Sep 18, 2008, 11:24:41 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
'Didn't someone say pain is of the body but suffering is of the mind?'
If not,someone ought to. :)
If not,someone ought to. :)
herenow
Sep 18, 2008, 11:38:18 AM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Thanks for sharing!!!
On Sep 18, 2:02 am, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 'Compassion can only exist in awareness. '
> Compassion as the cultural concept yes but there is nothing there
> demanding the act. I should be more clear.
>
> 'If there was nothing to be aware of, then there would be no
> compassion.'
> There is no compassion really. Only actions that are assigned values
> and cultural definitions.
>
> By saying it isn't in awareness I mean the motivation to perform the
> act culture defines as compassion.
>
> 'Why is it irrelevant?' This is my opinion. As an individual
> perspective, the circumstances are viewed and then given the value of
> good or bad based on conditioning. Is it better to be pulled from the
> ditch or learn to pull yourself out? The definition of an action or
> non-action is only necessary for communicating and co-existing in a
> culture. Compassion is an idea intended to create a sentiment for
> something or someone in order to motivate the individual to action.
> The action is what is happening and the thought surrounding that
> action is irrelevant.
>
> If from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self
> that functions in illusion, what is defining suffering? Self? If so,
> wouldn't the appropriate action due in the circumstance be performed
> to bring back equilibrium without the necessity of an idea called
> compassion? Isn't the name 'compassion' given later?
>
> On Sep 17, 9:52 am, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Compassion can only exist in awareness. If there was nothing to be
> > aware of, then there would be no compassion.
>
> > "the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor bastard.' is
> > irrelevant.
> > from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self that
> > functions in Illusion, there is the recognition of needless suffering
> > and freedom from suffering, on whatever level it may be appearing to
> > exist.
>
> > On Sep 17, 9:27 pm, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > To me, from the perspective of the individual compassion is similar to
> > > mercy in sentiment in that the receiver of compassion is below the
> > > giver. The giver views the circumstances and sees them as
> > > The circumstance is viewed as it is without any value assigned or
> > > effort made to touch it.
>
> > > To me, if someone asks to be pulled out of a ditch, I would pull them
> > > out if I could but the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor
> > > bastard.' is irrelevant.
On Sep 18, 2:02 am, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 'Compassion can only exist in awareness. '
> Compassion as the cultural concept yes but there is nothing there
> demanding the act. I should be more clear.
>
> 'If there was nothing to be aware of, then there would be no
> compassion.'
> There is no compassion really. Only actions that are assigned values
> and cultural definitions.
>
> By saying it isn't in awareness I mean the motivation to perform the
> act culture defines as compassion.
>
> 'Why is it irrelevant?' This is my opinion. As an individual
> perspective, the circumstances are viewed and then given the value of
> good or bad based on conditioning. Is it better to be pulled from the
> ditch or learn to pull yourself out? The definition of an action or
> non-action is only necessary for communicating and co-existing in a
> culture. Compassion is an idea intended to create a sentiment for
> something or someone in order to motivate the individual to action.
> The action is what is happening and the thought surrounding that
> action is irrelevant.
>
> If from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self
> that functions in illusion, what is defining suffering? Self? If so,
> wouldn't the appropriate action due in the circumstance be performed
> to bring back equilibrium without the necessity of an idea called
> compassion? Isn't the name 'compassion' given later?
>
> On Sep 17, 9:52 am, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Compassion can only exist in awareness. If there was nothing to be
> > aware of, then there would be no compassion.
>
> > "the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor bastard.' is
> > irrelevant.
>
> > Why is it irrelevant? Isn't it a natural function of the one Self to
> > be able to discern between such things as higher and lower, meaningful
> > and meaningless, in the ditch or on the road, swimming or drowning?
>
> > From the perspective of Pure Consciousness, nothing is happening, but
> > Why is it irrelevant? Isn't it a natural function of the one Self to
> > be able to discern between such things as higher and lower, meaningful
> > and meaningless, in the ditch or on the road, swimming or drowning?
>
> > from the perspective of the active living principle of the Self that
> > functions in Illusion, there is the recognition of needless suffering
> > and freedom from suffering, on whatever level it may be appearing to
> > exist.
>
> > On Sep 17, 9:27 pm, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > To me, from the perspective of the individual compassion is similar to
> > > mercy in sentiment in that the receiver of compassion is below the
> > > giver. The giver views the circumstances and sees them as
> > > unacceptable to their own experience and projects their fear of being
> > > in that same situation on to the receiver in the form of feeling or
> > > action.
>
> > > To me, from the perspective of awareness compassion doesn't exist.
> > > in that same situation on to the receiver in the form of feeling or
> > > action.
>
> > > The circumstance is viewed as it is without any value assigned or
> > > effort made to touch it.
>
> > > To me, if someone asks to be pulled out of a ditch, I would pull them
> > > out if I could but the idea 'good thing I'm not in a ditch, poor
> > > bastard.' is irrelevant.
>
> > > On Sep 16, 3:23 pm, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, that is a really intense version of "compassionate".
>
> > > > Here is another early 2006 post. What the hell is "compassion"? Is
> > > > that awareness anything, everything.. or skewed towards certain
> > > > qualities. You enlightened ones let me know. I just gotta get out of
> > > > kindergarten.
>
> > > > Here we go:
>
> > > > jimkeller
>
> > > > Gary, Charlie, others. You may either answer dualistically,
> > > > Advaitistically...or preferably...from experience. Jim
> > > > (1 user) Mar 21 2006, 2:05 pm- Hide quoted text -
> > > On Sep 16, 3:23 pm, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, that is a really intense version of "compassionate".
>
> > > > Here is another early 2006 post. What the hell is "compassion"? Is
> > > > that awareness anything, everything.. or skewed towards certain
> > > > qualities. You enlightened ones let me know. I just gotta get out of
> > > > kindergarten.
>
> > > > Here we go:
>
> > > > jimkeller
>
> > > > Gary, Charlie, others. You may either answer dualistically,
> > > > Advaitistically...or preferably...from experience. Jim
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 1:17:27 PM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Hi Gary, when it comes to unconditional love you certainly are not the
only one finds difficulties in discussing it. Of the examples you've
described, what strikes me more than anything else is the fact that
they all deal with ethical issues. Ethics seems to key to this as we
cannot really know whether there was sincere unconditional love in
those people's heads but we can discuss whether their behaviours were
ethical or unethical.
And yes, the mind can think of many stratagems in order to prop up the
ego..
Kali
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
only one finds difficulties in discussing it. Of the examples you've
described, what strikes me more than anything else is the fact that
they all deal with ethical issues. Ethics seems to key to this as we
cannot really know whether there was sincere unconditional love in
those people's heads but we can discuss whether their behaviours were
ethical or unethical.
And yes, the mind can think of many stratagems in order to prop up the
ego..
Kali
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 1:18:06 PM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Ditto.
Kali
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Kali
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 1:22:54 PM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
So, this is about doing something meaningful or not meaningful...in
other words it is another story. You can do whatever you want but that
is not how compassion is going to arise... it is totally impersonal.
Kali
other words it is another story. You can do whatever you want but that
is not how compassion is going to arise... it is totally impersonal.
Kali
Rodger
Sep 18, 2008, 2:07:20 PM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Well,it's about desiring to do something meaningful.But,there is
transmission and there is reception.Sometimes,reception is a little
distorted due to stuff in the air.Or,in the mind,whatever the case may
be.
It is also about knowing when to separate from that desire,or not
getting so caught up in it.
What difference does it make how compassion arises or how impersonal
it is? If it is there,it is there.Once there/here,can I do anything
meaningful or not?The desire is there,but...
I think maybe some good old common horse sense would be
meaningful.When one is in a ditch,stuck in a rut,or otherwise
suffering and one is moved to assist (try to),that is what is called
compassion.In spite of all this oneness we keep talking about and it's
impersonalness,there are others in this impersonal oneness,too.Just
because there is not-two doesn't mean there is not too.
But,that's just me and my personal point of view.
transmission and there is reception.Sometimes,reception is a little
distorted due to stuff in the air.Or,in the mind,whatever the case may
be.
It is also about knowing when to separate from that desire,or not
getting so caught up in it.
What difference does it make how compassion arises or how impersonal
it is? If it is there,it is there.Once there/here,can I do anything
meaningful or not?The desire is there,but...
I think maybe some good old common horse sense would be
meaningful.When one is in a ditch,stuck in a rut,or otherwise
suffering and one is moved to assist (try to),that is what is called
compassion.In spite of all this oneness we keep talking about and it's
impersonalness,there are others in this impersonal oneness,too.Just
because there is not-two doesn't mean there is not too.
But,that's just me and my personal point of view.
Mahakali
Sep 18, 2008, 2:34:41 PM9/18/08
to AdvaitaNow
Rodger wrote:
"In spite of all this oneness we keep talking about and it's
impersonalness,there are others in this impersonal oneness,too."
This is exactly my point; so, what do you suggest we should do? You
"In spite of all this oneness we keep talking about and it's
impersonalness,there are others in this impersonal oneness,too."
know the story told many times by Ramesh B: there were some images on
TV of baby seals being clubbed to death. So, action or not action? As
a result of that, Brigitte Bardot (the French actress)went out, formed
an animal right movement and campaigned against the unfair treatment
imposed on animals whereas Krishnamurthy watched it and he, simply,
turned the TV set off. Does it mean he was uncompassionate?
Kali
Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
Sep 19, 2008, 12:05:48 AM9/19/08
to Advai...@googlegroups.com
Hello MT2 and Kali,
empty2 wrote:
Kali....suggest.....the absence of separation is already the case.
What is already the case .....cannot happen.
(In reference to the comment "there has to be...")
empty2 wrote:
Very nice, Kali..... "I do not see how the sentiment of compassion can possibly arise whilst I am involved in my suffering coupled with a mind that creates discernments, divides things up by putting them on higher or lower levels etc etc. There has to be absence of separation."
Kali....suggest.....the absence of separation is already the case.
What is already the case .....cannot happen.
(In reference to the comment "there has to be...")
.......but without separation, who/what is there to be compassionate regarding whom?
MT2,
Yes.
Which is why, in no case(whether the object in question has been labeled as a sage or a Lehman Bros sub-prime mortgage trader)...
....there is any "compassionater" or a "compassionated".
And yet there is compassioning.
In whatever form, shape and hue that is needed in the moment(the moment which encompasses the totality of the surrounding situation).
In compassioning............"you" are the "other".
Pain, in whatever form, in whatever apparent locale.......is appercevied to be ......AS one self......
......occurring IN oneself.
To the viewing audience(which is itself a product of thought).....there is someone extending compassion, mercy, helping hand etc.
And thus for that viewing audience there is a recipient of the extending.
This dualism(apparently so real)...and the audience for which this dualism is so real ..
..are also nuances of the same compassioning moment.
However in essence..........there is the magic........expressed as the compassion, the surrounding situation which invoked the compassion and the attributed dualism associated with the act of compassion.....
the magic .....in which there are no discrete separated characters.
How is it possible for action to be possible and yet no actor to that action.
Whether the action is seen to be "compassion" or "mayhem".
Ad nauseaum........the allegory of the last night sleep dream drama.
There were profound acts of charity in that last night sleep dream drama.
There was the saint, doling out all forms of benediction, wine and scented wafers.
There was the hoard of sinners , jostling for salvation, mainly through the wine.
There were explanations, rationalization, great expositions of the truth behind compassion, what defines compassion, what defines the compassionate one et al.
And then TV blares out that you lost your job at Morgan Stanley, making you jump out of the bed in panic.
Into the magic of a another drama, where top-management of Morgan Stanley was letting you-go
on compassionate grounds for themselves.
(The recent mayhem on Wall Street is all about focussed compassion.)
So what to do coming across a struggling object.
Do whatever that moves you.
Walk past in the belief that it's all Maya anyway.
Or bend down to give a hand.
Or bend down and give a swift kick to the struggler.
If you believe you deserve the kick.
Yes.
Which is why, in no case(whether the object in question has been labeled as a sage or a Lehman Bros sub-prime mortgage trader)...
....there is any "compassionater" or a "compassionated".
And yet there is compassioning.
In whatever form, shape and hue that is needed in the moment(the moment which encompasses the totality of the surrounding situation).
In compassioning............"you" are the "other".
Pain, in whatever form, in whatever apparent locale.......is appercevied to be ......AS one self......
......occurring IN oneself.
To the viewing audience(which is itself a product of thought).....there is someone extending compassion, mercy, helping hand etc.
And thus for that viewing audience there is a recipient of the extending.
This dualism(apparently so real)...and the audience for which this dualism is so real ..
..are also nuances of the same compassioning moment.
However in essence..........there is the magic........expressed as the compassion, the surrounding situation which invoked the compassion and the attributed dualism associated with the act of compassion.....
the magic .....in which there are no discrete separated characters.
How is it possible for action to be possible and yet no actor to that action.
Whether the action is seen to be "compassion" or "mayhem".
Ad nauseaum........the allegory of the last night sleep dream drama.
There were profound acts of charity in that last night sleep dream drama.
There was the saint, doling out all forms of benediction, wine and scented wafers.
There was the hoard of sinners , jostling for salvation, mainly through the wine.
There were explanations, rationalization, great expositions of the truth behind compassion, what defines compassion, what defines the compassionate one et al.
And then TV blares out that you lost your job at Morgan Stanley, making you jump out of the bed in panic.
Into the magic of a another drama, where top-management of Morgan Stanley was letting you-go
on compassionate grounds for themselves.
(The recent mayhem on Wall Street is all about focussed compassion.)
So what to do coming across a struggling object.
Do whatever that moves you.
Walk past in the belief that it's all Maya anyway.
Or bend down to give a hand.
Or bend down and give a swift kick to the struggler.
If you believe you deserve the kick.
empty2
Sep 19, 2008, 5:31:59 AM9/19/08
to AdvaitaNow
>"However in essence..........there is the magic........expressed as the
compassion, the surrounding situation which invoked the compassion
and
the attributed dualism associated with the act of compassion.....
the magic .....in which there are no discrete separated characters."
Thanks Sandeep, and so nicely said.
compassion, the surrounding situation which invoked the compassion
and
the attributed dualism associated with the act of compassion.....
the magic .....in which there are no discrete separated characters."
>"Or bend down and give a swift kick to the struggler.
If you believe you deserve the kick."
moment...that's a very interesting psychological observation as to why
people kick!
On Sep 19, 11:05 am, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
Sep 20, 2008, 4:39:43 AM9/20/08
to Advai...@googlegroups.com
empty2 wrote:
Anandanand, Not in any way lauding poverty (though many religions do), or suffering of any kind, a lot depends on one's perspective of good and bad. Wasn't it Kunti, in the Mahabharata, who, being offered a boon by Krishna, asked that she always have problems and trouble so that she would always think of and take refuge in Him?
MT2,
Whether Kunti did indeed mutter that or not.....is quite irrelevant......
......for the depth of that prayer to invoke a dancing in the aisle.
That's sheer Dooobeee Dooobeee Dooooo
Thank
(if I now put a "you" next to the "Thank", the ad-nauseum argument ..who is there to be thanked,
who is there to thank ......et al crap)
Whether Kunti did indeed mutter that or not.....is quite irrelevant......
......for the depth of that prayer to invoke a dancing in the aisle.
That's sheer Dooobeee Dooobeee Dooooo
Thank
(if I now put a "you" next to the "Thank", the ad-nauseum argument ..who is there to be thanked,
who is there to thank ......et al crap)
empty2
Sep 20, 2008, 7:42:39 AM9/20/08
to AdvaitaNow
What goes around, comes around, as they say, Sandeep.
When it comes to depth and breadth, nothing compares to Mother India,
imho, and for that greatness I am always grateful....even if it means
thanking.......you.......my......Self!
"Arjuna, I am the Self seated in the heart of all beings; so I am the
beginning and middle and also the end of all beings"
Krishna, in the Bhagavadgita (Gita Press version)
On Sep 20, 3:39 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
When it comes to depth and breadth, nothing compares to Mother India,
imho, and for that greatness I am always grateful....even if it means
thanking.......you.......my......Self!
"Arjuna, I am the Self seated in the heart of all beings; so I am the
beginning and middle and also the end of all beings"
Krishna, in the Bhagavadgita (Gita Press version)
On Sep 20, 3:39 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
Sep 20, 2008, 9:06:20 AM9/20/08
to Advai...@googlegroups.com
empty2 wrote:
What goes around, comes around, as they say, Sandeep. When it comes to depth and breadth, nothing compares to Mother India, imho, and for that greatness I am always grateful....even if it means thanking.......you.......my......Self! "Arjuna, I am the Self seated in the heart of all beings; so I am the beginning and middle and also the end of all beings"
Yes.
Simultaneously.
Simultaneously.
Ram
Sep 20, 2008, 7:59:39 PM9/20/08
to AdvaitaNow
:~)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages