A confluence of influences leads to this week's Sunday question.  First, there was my viewing of an excerpt from a speech about meditation by the Dalai Lama.  He urged the new student of mediation to start by meditating on compassion.

I've done so a few times this week, finding a deeper meaning each time I focused on this mutifaceted characteristic.

Then, last night, I watched the movie Doubt.  There are many themes and subtexts to the movie (which I highly recommend for its acting, writing and excellent ambiguities).  One of the main themes, imho, is compassion versus righteousness.

And, of course, there is the compassion that I have received since my diagnosis.  (Which is much different from the pity that I have received.)  And which leads to the Sunday Question (put in terms that David Gerrold used to put Socratic questions to his screenwriting classes).

What is the distinction of compassion?

(In other words, what defines compassion and makes it unique?)

 


Comments

Erik

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:58:36

This is a VERY tough question for me. I have begun reading a book by the Dalai Lama, and I confess to a real sense of not knowing clearly what makes for compassion.

I do think that one element of compassion is the sense of not simply empathy, but a real awareness of where the object of your compassion is in the present moment. So empathy is "man, that sucks", but compassion is "man, that sucks, and I have a deep sense of interconnecteded with you in this sucky moment - I'm with you here."

Not eloquent. But in the right direction.

 

Mom #1

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:24:46

Compassion is unselfish. It's not like, "there but for the grace of God..." and "oh, your poor fellow." Then move on. It's more like involvement, like the Samaritan on the Road to Damascus.
It's more like Erik said, "Life sucks. You're up, your're down. And no matter where you I understand your and feel your pain and even your helplessness. I would change things if I could, but I'm standing here next to you, every bit as stressed as you; but maybe, together we can triumph; and if not, at lease catch each other." Oh, there, I think I described empathy. Erik's right. It's a tough question. Maybe compassion is three parts empathy, huh?

 

Mom # 1

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:26:29

And at least one part generosity.

 

Laura

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:42:28

Erik,

I totally agree with you that for compassion to be possible, it's necessary to be fully present with the other person.

In a way, it's a witnessing of that person's situation and an understanding of shared humanity.

I also think this is a hard one to "define" and suspect that's why the Dalai Lama suggests beginning with this contemplation.

It's also one thing to have compassion on a friend or a loved one, or even a stranger. But what about an enemy? How does compassion work there?

 

Laura

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:46:57

Mom #1,

I think you're onto something other than empathy both in your example of the Good Samaritan and in your paragraph about being with the person and acknowledging their situation.

While I agree that it might be easier for a generous person to be compassionate, I don't think it's a recipe of 3 parts empathy and one part generosity. There's a quality to compassion that makes it its own characteristic; that we recognize when we see compassion in action and know that it's different from mere empathy or kindness.

Again, I go back to the idea that compassion is understanding that there's no difference at the core of each human. We all could be in each other's shoes.

 



Leave a Reply