Love and Compassion… or is it Love versus Compassion?

        [thoughts from   ~burning woman~   by Sha’Tara]

Let’s dive in with this quote from D. H. Lawrence:

“Life and love are life and love, a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets, and to drag in the idea of a point is to ruin everything. Live and let live, love and let love, flower and fade, and follow the natural curve, which flows on, pointless.”

There’s so much being said in those two lines.  Life and love are life and love just as a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets.  We have a saying here, “a thing is what it is and it isn’t something else.”  …and: Bingo!  Love is love and it isn’t something else.  Now then, can we define love?  I think it’s very easy: love is an emotion.  Therefore love is not any of those other things people (with agendas) “love” to drag love into.

For example, the biblical injunction to love your neighbour as yourself, or to go even further and to love your enemy, and one step more: to give your life for another because of love.  Well, here’s why that has never worked and will, guaranteed, never work: you can’t force an emotion, you can only experience it after something else has happened.  Love therefore is never a motivator, it is the result of something else having happened first.

I don’t see any problem with that; no difficulty in understanding it.  So carrying this on, love then, can only be reciprocal: it manifests only as a result.  It is dependent upon a cause.  Whatever the cause may be, love will manifest and will carry on the nature of the cause.  Hence, you can love your country and kill or be killed for it (a blatant contradiction to the claims made of love) because you first are a brainwashed patriot who has never asked: what do they mean by “my country?”  What am I defending, against whom, for whom?  In comes the enemy.  Can I love my country, defending it against an enemy and love that enemy at the same time?  Am I a spiritual contortionist?

Let’s briefly look at the most common type of love: romantic.  Two people with the right combination of chemicals acting simultaneously “fall in love” and when this is acknowledged, desire flares up usually to sexual intercourse.  It is called “falling” because for those caught in the vise, it is a falling, not a deliberate engagement to a carefully considered end.  Certainly some relationships begun as love, continue, and end well.  But to claim such are sustained entirely by love is giving “love” false credit.  I consider this type of love as a form of suicide… 🙂

As there is no point to any emotion, so there is no point to love.  Emotions are exhaust from feelings.  We get feelings from a variety of sources, some physical, some mental, body and mind reacting to even more primitive or distant input.  Feelings are analyzed and used or discarded.  This process creates emotions.  The main problem with the emotion of love is, people have been erroneously taught (for controlling purposes and to create guilt) that they can use love as a motivating force.  Sure, just as much as you can use your car exhaust to fuel your car.  Love is entropic.  Love does not arise from deliberation, from rational thought.

Is it “love versus compassion” after all?  Once more into the fray, let’s see if I can make this point: that love and compassion are not buddies but diametrically opposite.  I hear people say, “with love and compassion we could…”  That’s like saying, “with salt and sugar we could doctor our coffee.”  Predictably, the result of such thinking, and it is global in scope, is that nothing changes or you have an inedible cup of coffee.  In fact to the great dismay of those who promote “love” as the modus operandi for the world’s ruling agencies change goes from bad to worse… always.  Yes, that’s always.

What then is the big deal with compassion?  Compassion is a power, a source of energy.  It is a stand alone program that can be used as an operating system for the entire spirit-mind-body that we call a human being.  Compassion is there.  I cannot choose to have compassion, I already have it, having been born an *ISSA being.  It is part of me, of you, of all sentience.  All an individual need do is choose to use that particular operating system rather than those offered by the Matrix, which translates as the status quo or the System.

Switching to compassion as our OS will mean a change of programming, naturally.  If  you’ve ever switched from Microsoft Windows to Linux you know what I mean.  This new OS is lean and uncompromising.  It will remove three of man’s most common virtues and foibles: faith, hope and love.  Gone.  Under compassion, you learn to live independently, as a self-empowered being.  The choices you make now are not suggested, they are dictated by compassion.  Your choices become non-choices because any attempt to use to old ways will result in an error message.  For example, if you are thinking of using “love” in a particular dilemma the message will read: “The concept you are attempting to introduce is incompatible with your current programming.”  Then you remember, and you return to your new nature and re-discover that compassion is all you need to approach your current situation.

Advantages of compassion over love: compassion is a part of you, love only manifests as emotion, a johnny-come-lately, meaning it is utterly compromised.  Compassion is free of condemnatory judgments, i.e., free of any external input seeking to motivate choices.  Love thrives on being told what to do.  Compassion is self-motivated whereas love is always reciprocal.  Those who speak of “unconditional love” really have no idea that they are speaking of a contradiction, a chimera.  There can be no such thing as unconditional love.  Can’t be found anywhere on earth, or in history.  Compassion demands self-empowerment and detachment whereas love collapses under endless loads of dis-empowerment and attachments.  Compassion is never found in collectives whereas, again, that is where love thrives, from the family unit or tribe, to the ends of the empire.  You can become compassion by nature but you can never become love by nature.  If you are, by nature, a compassionate being, compassion is your life, you don’t need to activate it, or search for it or hope it will be sufficient to meet any situation: you are it.

Love on the other hand has so many faces and levels of entropic energy it is guaranteed to fail at the most critical moment and you’ll have to fall back on other choices.  Take that critical moment:  you’ll pray, throw money at it, join with others against it, vote and hope, turn and run, sue, demonstrate, give in, change your mind, convert, put up.  Whatever choice done in the name of love, if you lose you will experience the bitter taste of loss; you will know loneliness, pain and suffering.  You will eat humble pie.  Much of that suffering translates as physical ill-health or psychoses, followed by drugs, injections, hospitalizations, the rise of addictions and lack of self-control.  Follow the trail left by dashed expectations.

The compassionate being, self-empowered and knowing both body and mind, living from spirit source, experiences differently.  We become a bridge between a world’s joy and sorrow, feeling all, knowing all.  By transmuting the worlds’ happiness and pleasures to joy, the world’s pain and suffering to sorrow, compassion makes it not just bearable but understandable.  This leads inexorably to becoming an empath.  Before that happens to me though, I want to be “outta here!” because then “I” would have to feel the world’s extreme feelings and emotions before they became joy and sorrow.  Try to imagine what that would mean.  Already I feel it closing in.

Nevertheless, due to programming there are likely millions of individuals who would choose to live a compassionate life but never see the dichotomy of love versus compassion and remain firmly trapped within the love morass, the love belief, having to make difficult and contradictory choices on a daily basis, choices which compassion would instantly make for them, equipping them to act in the moment rather that toss and turn the idea looking for some proper or logical outcome which can only exist in compassion.

If I were a teacher, I would emphasize this: remember, it is never love and compassion but always love or compassion.  Then, if you make the choice to live a compassionate life, be prepared to lose everything… that you may gain yourself.  Here’s a well known parable that illustrates seeking for compassion:

*”A long time ago an important man came to a Zen master seeking to be taught Zen.  The master quickly realized by the tone of voice that this rich man was used to command obedience.  He listened while the rich man said: “I have come today to ask you to teach me about enlightenment, about Zen.”  The Zen master offered to discuss the matter over a cup of tea.  When the tea was served, the master poured a cup for his visitor.  He poured and poured until the contents overflowed on the table and spilled unto the rich man’s robes.
“Enough!” cried the rich man.  “Can’t you see the cup is full and you’re spilling tea all over?”
The master stopped pouring and said, “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added.  Come back to me when the cup is empty.  Come back to me with an empty mind.”

There is another saying that should be familiar to all Christians at least: “Unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”

*ISSA: Intelligent, Sentient, Self Aware

*Story of Zen master borrowed from:
https://konekrusoskronos.wordpress.com/author/theburningheart/

36 thoughts on “Love and Compassion… or is it Love versus Compassion?

  1. franklparker

    I have to say that I struggle with this. Your definition of ‘compassion’ is precisely how I understand ‘love’. I do not recognise your description of ‘love’ at all – you are describing something other than what I understand by the word, a kind of subservience that, perhaps, some mistake for love.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Ah Frank, you love to challenge. It’s not surprising you (and others) struggle with this sudden switch offered to understanding the two concepts of love versus compassion. The species is awash in aspects of love, most of which gives a nice warm glow that appears to mean something and most hardly notice when the warm glow is gone and love has flitted to another subject. Well, except when it’s a lover who leaves, or a close friend, member of family, etc who dies, then there’s the predictable personal anger, or the predictable sadness and sense of loss. Then love moves on to attach someone/something else to fill the void. Maybe a baby is born, or a son gets married…

      What I’m proposing took me decades to come to an elementary understanding of. I’m sure I’m still on the bottom rung, but I can see it as having the potential to change the course of Earthian history; to bring people fully into their claim to being human beings. As I explained before, a true human doesn’t kill. The only way we can ever arrive to that point is in becoming compassionate beings. Not loving beings. Religions promote love; their gods are gods of love — and I need not expound to you on how well that works. Repeating this: a man on trial for killing his girlfriend defended himself thus: “The bitch was leaving me and I loved her so much I had to stop her.” Love is dependency through attachments. It is primarily a thoroughly selfish expression, yet is thought if in such a (carefully brainwashed) way that it comes out as a wonderfully altruistic concept. History proves it is anything but. I already mentioned the dichotomy of killing in love of one’s country and loving one’s enemy.

      A compassionate person is self empowered, mentally independent (thinks her/his own thoughts about everything), respects all life, is detached from special relationships, judges all things, condemns none, has no expectations from anyone else but her/himself, is naturally empathetic, is always “on call” to respond to another’s needs; eschews all collective power groups but is ever respectful of individuals’ beliefs and situations. The compassionate being/person is first of all a servant. Earthians shudder at the idea they should serve all and sundry, failing to realize that if everyone was a servant, all would be served. Peace, understanding, acceptance, would reign supreme. In today’s reality such thinking is Utopian because people know little or nothing of the inner, sustaining, power of compassion. Instead, they think in terms of love which does not possess such power and ever fails.

      The sum total of “the Law”: “Love the Lord your God with all your mind, soul, heart and love your neighbour as yourself.” That was how Jesus put it. Imagine you are convinced you love your neighbour. That neighbour kidnaps your 14 year old daughter, rapes and kills her, burying her body in a shallow grave by the river. You find this out when the body is discovered by a dog and forensics do their work. The neighbour is arrested and there is no doubt of his guilt. How do you go about fulfilling “the law” then? Does love sustain you, or do you seek vengeance, which is called “justice”? What do you do?

      I can tell you what a truly compassionate person does. She does nothing; nothing to intervene or interfere with the workings of the law. She ignores it all. Her daughter is dead, completing the detachment. What happens to the perpetrator is none of her concern. Whether he gets life, or is released on a technicality matters not at all. But if he comes to live next door again, though she will avoid him, she will not fear him. If he needs her help, she will give it as if nothing had ever happened. That is the freedom that compassion gives which love never can. It has to do with detachment and self-empowerment.

      Other aspect of dis-empowerment coming from love have to do with regret and expectation. Love cannot wipe out regret whereas compassion eliminates it entirely. Clean slate. Love teems with expectations and hope. With compassion, life simply goes on, neither hopeless nor hopeful. One enters into compassionate acts because that is who they are.

      Imagine you’re a car. Think of compassion as the fuel in your tank. That’s what powers you. Love is the exhaust. Yes, it throws out heat, even water and it makes a lot of noise, but if your driver and passengers sucked on it, they would die. If they listened to it closely, they would go deaf. Love is entropic.

      Going from love to compassion is not an easy, or simple switch. The two are incompatible. It demands a change of nature and a willingness to come to the Zen master with a child’s mind.

      Final thought: all the love in your world, in your civilization, has brought you exactly where you are now. Will more of that save your world?

      If you have not already and if time permits, read “The Sheep Look Up” by John Brunner — published 1972. Prophetic.

      Reply
  2. Woebegone but Hopeful

    Hi Sha’ Tara.
    As always you provide the most interesting and provoking posts.
    Maybe there are more facets to both than are initially noticeable.
    We are initially born, as it were selfish because of our need to survive and being helpless we demand sustenance and protection. This is supplied in most cases even when the provider really isn’t gushing with joy, then gradually a bond develops, this is an unquantifiable. At times they can fight like cats and still at the end of the come back to each other. Two folk can meet when young, and hormones kick in, so sex and love get all mixed up, times goes on, Life demands its due and yet despite all the drags and miseries they still hang together because they have come to belong to each other. Both I feel are aspects of Love. An unquantifiable facet of Human emotion. These are the more easy to understand sides of it. There are the non-parental, non-sexual relationships which grow in duress, or turn up in crisis, in which there is a bonding between folk which transcends any rational behaviour. Love is an oddity, and as much as Light which scientifically can either be a particle or a wave of energy is a heck of a thing to pin down.
    Compassion I believe we do learn; an understanding that there is a need, a duty, a yearning to help other folk, because of an empathy which is one of the better sides of Humanity. Compassion has a rationality and is the foe of Hate, Selfishness and Ignorance. Compassion dwells with Respect and Tolerance. At the end of the Day, they are the three qualities which we must all strive for, even if we don’t always get there or maintain.
    That’s how I see things from my bit of The Universe.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I fully “grokk” your comment! I picked up on the “strive for” bit. What we must do is arrive at doing that which is humanly and humanely correct without the need to strive, swimming in the knowledge and wisdom that we accumulated in times immemorial but which societal programming has denied us access to. When we seek improvement, or invent a thing, usually it is to make our lives better – or so it should be. But before “it” makes things better we need to spend money on it and learn to use it properly (expend personal energy). Until we do, either we ignore this new thing, or we struggle with it needlessly.
      You say, “Compassion, I believe we do learn.” Sure, we can learn it, bit by bit, on and off, mixing it with other necessary feel-good efforts. But that’s what I’m “warning” against for that is how love works.
      Compassion is other than that. It isn’t actually learned and it doesn’t teach. It’s an awakening force. It’s totally revolutionary, a nature-changer. The point is to evolve ourselves out of our current societal dilemma into a place where we can see how to literally fix everything we now decry and despair over. The game’s not over until it’s over. What if the water boy on the field comes up with a revolutionary tactic that could wipe out the opposition but the team is so full of tried and true tactics it cannot accept to implement this drastic change? If I were the coach and my team was down by a hopeless margin, I’d say, “People, we’ve nothing to lose. Let’s do this!”
      I did that. Stopped using the bits that work and the bits that don’t and took a plunge into an unknown quantity, a pool that had no bottom. It was a shock swimming in there and no way to get out. I could no longer reach the many things that defined my life until that moment and that was scary. It remains a shock but if I could get out now, I wouldn’t because this is real and the things I lost turned out to be of little value.
      I’ll leave you with these added thoughts but for one. When I was still a practicing Catholic, in one of the visions that spoke of a vocation I was told very clearly: “There are no shortcuts to sanctification.” For me being compassionate, or an avatar of compassion is the path of sanctification I was shown then.

      Reply
      1. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Assume then of a great number of varieties in which we can exist; consider the emotional is equivalent to the matter of the Universe, in this Love and Compassion are parts of our construct as are Gases, Liquids and Solids in construct of the Universe about us. Some bodies are of one combination, some of another. As we are parts of The Universe we fall into a broad line of conditions as to the planets, stars and other bodies. Our emotional and mental states are not set into one format. Our dynamic being Choice.
        Maybe?

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        I’ve got to ponder that as I can see several ways you may mean what you write and I don’t want to misinterpret and make in-apropos comments in return. It may result in another “tiradously” long reply. OK, I’ve set the timer on the thinking clock!

      3. Sha'Tara Post author

        While I’m in full thinking mode but not yet at boiling point, how about explaining, if possible, what you mean by “our dynamic being Choice.” I know we have something there that does not seem available to any other species (though perhaps in limited amounts to certain non-human known life forms) or things. What do we mean when we think of “Choice”? Where does that come from? Why do we have it?

      4. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Hi Sha’ Tara.
        This is the complex one. Basically I believe because we are, just like everything else in the Universe a construct of matter and energy, we work within the broad parameters of the same laws which govern all matter.
        Now, in our particular situation we have a consciousness thus a measure of being self-aware, and a reasoning capacity.
        However we must still realise we are also part of the Cosmological (massive scale, galaxies etc) and Quantum (sub-atomic particles) states.
        Now this is the tricky bit, which I am still pondering on…that is the link between our mental state (self-aware, reasoning etc), our physical state (our bodies) and the state of the components of which we are constructed.
        So, going back to the Light analogy, which can exists in two states (pause for breath)…. Our own mental/emotional/spiritual/etc state. Can this exists in several states? Thus Love , Compassion are these equal, and co-existent by virtue of our construct being part of the complexities of the Laws which govern all matter?
        I’m still working on that, it’s full of rough edges. The concept is in my head, but the words won’t fit very well.
        If I said, you always produce the most thought provoking posts.

      5. Sha'Tara Post author

        Take your time, Roger, while I ponder this the more. You’ve just added quite a bit to the pile – my brain is beginning to sizzle: love it! (Think of me as a wayward member of your Patchwork Warriors crew 🙂 )

      6. Sha'Tara Post author

        Quote from your latest comment: “So, going back to the Light analogy, which can exist[s] in two states (pause for breath)…. Our own mental/emotional/spiritual/etc state. Can this exist[s] in several states? Thus, Love, Compassion are these equal, and co-existent by virtue of our construct being part of the complexities of the Laws which govern all matter?
        I’m still working on that, it’s full of rough edges. The concept is in my head, but the words won’t fit very well.”

        OK, keep working on that. Meanwhile, if our own “construct” is a state of mental/emotional/spiritual (and sensory) unit, then I can see why we as a species are problematical. It’s an impossible construct, a contradiction. As explained to me, we are not designed to fit in, but are a catalyst for change. We are thus a trinitarian construct put together thus:

        Our source: spirit (or whatever gave this universe, and us, life.)

        From spirit, life expresses in the mental and individual state. In this condition we have complete freedom of choice and expression, and we exist outside of the space/time continuum, a sort of angel, or messenger of change thus above all laws which govern matter.

        Our third and always temporary state is the physical. This is the state in which we become subject to the laws governing matter. It is the only way to sensually experience physical reality to understand it. This state that has proved to be our downfall, blinding us to our greater reality and what was once a clear awareness of our spiritual and mental nature, having supplanted it by emotional reactions. Earthians (who insist on being called human beings but are at best only pseudo-humans) put heavy reliance on their emotions because these are extensions of sensory perceptions. So they trade their original, cosmic nature for an earth-based (or physical/material based) nature where emotions replace spirit, brain replaces mind and body becomes the repository of what really matters. We have literally fallen into a state that denies our greater and true nature. So taken by this state, despite its innumerable weaknesses and foibles, we kill for it and defend it to our dying breath.

        If we are to “return” to our greater state of beingness we literally need to overcome the seduction of our physical bodies. I don’t mean to denigrate them as some ascetics have done, but to “put them in their place” so to speak, so they do not rule us by making emotionally-based decisions on our behalf. It is our vices much more than our virtues that express our emotional output and that would be of great concern to us were we actually true human beings and fully conscious of what we are doing here. {I’m stopping now as my mind is already several miles ahead of my typing.} Thanks for your comments, Roger.

      7. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Here’s a thought Sha’ Tara going along the analogy of the construction of the Universe from sub-atomic particles and upwards.
        As there innumerable permutations of matters and energies and as these are vital in our own physical makeup, which in turn affects our perceptions and thoughts process. Are all our thoughts and perceptions all equal and possible at the same time?
        In a Universe which is 14 billion (or so) years old and possibly 40 billions light years in circumference there is a monumental opportunity for variety and co-existence.
        Thus all perceptions and conclusions are valid?
        The only danger being the hubris of believing one is superior to another, and that exploitation and cruelty is valid. Whereas the true and only way must be Compassion, Respect and Tolerance.

      8. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for keeping the conversation going on this, can’t be easy! I have to admit, I gave up on the concept that consciousness (and our morality) is based on physical properties much sooner than I gave up serving God — it made no sense to me. I can’t “allow” myself to be so constrained, as in a form of predestination. I need to be “above and looking down” when it comes to the universe (or multi-verse), i.e., beyond the grasp and control of space/time (which make the physical possible in a sense). Space/time, to me, is an invention and an imposition, purpose being enslavement of minds through fear.

        However one shakes it, we are not a product of universal material/physical development; not bound by it. Did you ever seriously, and I mean seriously(!) consider why we came to believe in deities and to worship them, and why there is so much evidence they interacted with us, and us with them? The great teachers warned us about believing we are physical beings only. There is no doubt that at this junction the physical greatly affects our “perceptions and thought processes.” That doesn’t mean this is either legitimate, or that it was ever meant for us to be so constrained. I call it a spiritual devolution, not caring a whit if that runs counter to post-Darwin scientific thought.

        Whatever we are, we were meant (probably starting out all bright-eyed and full of wonder) for much greater things. We were meant to be creators and life givers, not the pathetic slaves and self-punishers we’ve become. To be takers and killers; to love violence as we do today; to accept, even for a moment the gross horror we call war, that is an aberration of our original nature.

        Here’s the deal: if we were motivated purely by ” innumerable permutations of matters and energies” then we have a massive dilemma. One, the whole of “creation” is perverted and corrupt, fearful, violent and endlessly dying, we being the micro example of such, caught in a crucible from which there is no escape. Finally, we cannot rely on anything once we’ve invented the concepts you conclude with: compassion, respect and tolerance, because obviously they come from a mystical realm that has no power to affect the consciousness prison we’re born into and die into. They cannot have any validity in a world and universe strictly governed by natural law or what Roget’s thesaurus calls spatial relationships for it is impossible for natural law to give rise to abstract relationships, or intelligent, sentient, self-aware human beings because such an opening, were it even possible would destroy the universe. To the natural, any abstract relationship is something that cannot be analyzed, computerized and categorized. It is deadly chaos. Only an intelligent mind capable of reason can handle abstraction.

        If we are only product of natural law, however complex, we are nothing more than insignificant bits of matter and energy within a strictly material universe. Our entire expression then, as a weird species capable of conjuring up good things but unable to do more than stillbirthing them becomes a cruel hoax that gives hope where hope is based on nothing, or based on something that can never manifest or if it did, would become an ABSOLUTE — the counter monster that would destroy the universe. The writer of “Revelation” used a deus ex machina to resolve this: “Re. 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” So, what is this Force that can destroy an entire world (read universe) and create an entirely new one based on a different set of rules, or laws?

      9. Sha'Tara Post author

        OK, going back to the first comment, and quote (hopefully not out of context) “Assume then of a great number of varieties in which we can exist; consider the emotional is equivalent to the matter of the Universe,”
        What I read in this opening line is something to the effect that the Big Bang was an emotional response (though I don’t know what caused such an emotion – an older universe giving birth before expiring?) This would place this universe as an emotional construct, emotion being the first and foremost force keeping the whole thing going. To that I would say, no wonder we’re confused, chaotic and ever in trouble! As a student of Teachers who are pragmatic and totally rational; who have no use for emotion(s) – I used to compare them to the Vulcans of Star Trek lore – I find such a discovery, first, inadmissible. Second, if indeed that is the case then there is no longer any need to “struggle” to seek for sane solutions to our socially disastrous systems: being based in emotion they are entropic, irreparable, doomed. To be consciously effective in reversing universal entropy one would need a power superior to that which “big-banged” this universe into life, a powerful enough engine that the current dying motive force could be replaced and the entire “mechanism” put back on line with non-entropic energy: a heart and brain transplant on a universal scale. Tesla on a cosmic scale. Who knows? Perhaps it is doable. Perhaps it is already in motion and earth is part of the project, awaiting her own transplant and a new nature. I remember the Teachers’ exhortations: think big, Sha’Tara, don’t let your programming limit your mental awareness and reach. Thanks for the challenge, Roger. I am continuing to read your comments to help find missing dots and connect them.

      10. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Going far out, wide and deep. Stretching beyond Three-Dimensional perceptions of Credibility. It’s the quite liberating.
        In this state you can look at all the squabbles and tiresome vanities and think to yourself of the egotists and hate-mongers; ‘You are truly nothing in the universal scheme of things, and you just cannot change that’

      11. Sha'Tara Post author

        Quote: “In this state you can look at all the squabbles and tiresome vanities and think to yourself of the egotists and hate-mongers; ‘You are truly nothing in the universal scheme of things, and you just cannot change that’ ”
        Funny how that ties in to what I just finished commenting back to you: that trap we are in wherefrom we cannot escape! Our material/physical universe, of which, presumably we are a part, and can only be a part of. If these egotists and hate-mongers are nothing, then neither are those on the “other hand” who would be kind, loving, good, tolerant, compassionate. Whichever path you choose to walk, you all come to the edge of the very same cliff, and “there is no longer any sea” so there’s nothing there.
        Is that an unfair analysis of your comment, I wonder?

      12. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Not at all Sha’ Tara (sorry I’m late- was thinking on this and the whole notion drew me back to Part II of Patchwork-another story…literally)
        Anyway.
        As I see things from my part of The Universe/Creation. We are still just starting out. Even if a race of beings have been around for, say, 5 million years that is still a fraction of the 14 billion age of The Universe. We have so much to learn and garner. The potential to learn and absorb is a beautiful opportunity. The horizon is vast.
        But we can only enjoy this journey by freeing ourselves of the pettiness of Hate and of Fear. Thus we carry our Love and Compassion to nurture our Curiosity and Inventiveness.

      13. Woebegone but Hopeful

        There’s a reply there somewhere…..sorry WP is acting up at my end, either that or my laptop is acting up.
        Weirdness.

  3. Phil Huston

    What Frank said. Selfless love for others and compassion are often equated as the same. Romantic love is an instigator. Or would that be lust? as Jimi Hendrix asked – “Is this love? Or is this just confusion?”

    Indeed. Is this rant justifiable, or are you playing a game of semantics? We are sold love in everything from religion to boxes of candy. Trite. Confusing. Compassion as well. Sad dog pictures generate “compassionate” donations. Because someone had a dog they loved. Who loved them. Pictures of hungry children and flood victims and law enforcement congratulating each other for arriving after the fact of a tragedy and celaning up the mess. All cleverly instigators for “compassion”. The same as hearts and flowers and box of candy for a teenager’s first love. Depth of feeling is beyond semantics. Like the man said. Life and love are life and love. Is a bunch of violets is abunch of violets. Is just is, and words just get in the way.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for the comment, Phil. There was a song in my day, something like, “It’s only words, and words are all I have… etc. I can assure you, or anyone reading “my” take on love and/or compassion that I’m not interested in playing semantics games. I have looked at it and yes it does seem that way, but if one were to take the time to really investigate what I’m writing, they would eventually realize how love and compassion are so different.

      I use the word “compassion” to describe a unique force we all have access to — it’s a question of will. The kind of “compassion” you write about isn’t compassion at all but different aspects of love. Late in the game of power and control it has become necessary to confuse love and compassion. Why? Because compassion, represented by avatars willing and able to separate it from the lies surrounding it, to demonstrate its effectiveness becomes a deadly poison to the deep state — whether it be of earth or universal. Compassion is pure empowering energy that destroys violent tendencies and ends wars. Now tell me where and how often has love done that?

      One could say, well neither has compassion. Fair enough if compassion had ever been cast out into civilization as the real thing — it never has. Easy to prove, let me “show” you something.

      A compassionate being operates in a completely detached mode; is self-empowered; doesn’t worship anything or anyone, doesn’t seek notoriety and conversely, doesn’t support or adulate leaders or popular entertainers. What else? A compassionate person (CP) judges all things, condemns none. More? A CP does NOT fall in love; doesn’t have a lover, or lovers. Not needed. If a CP should have a child — not excluding possibilities here — she would raise it to understand that it is part of a global community of similar beings and doesn’t belong to anyone. That child would soon learn to take responsibility for its thoughts and acts and would never seek to claim “rights” or “entitlement” to make its way through life. A CP knows innately that it has no special place, no nation, race, god or ethos beyond its own compassionate nature. A CP never belongs to any collective, though of necessity its body can be claimed by a dictatorial collective, such as citizenship of a country but it will never recognize the right of such a group to force it to do that which violates its nature. A CP does not kill; does not take life. In a world under sway of a predator-prey system there may be extenuating circumstances but the CP will work hard at finding alternatives to the taking of life. A simple one for me was to become vegetarian. Another: refuse military service (France where I was born) and live in a relatively violence-free, non-military driven, country, currently Canada.

      Compassion leads to personal freedom from the taboos, excesses, stupidities, beliefs, anal-retentive religious and political movements rising from the seas of Earthian humanity and crashing upon its shores.

      Yes, I’m certain, Phil, that compassion has never yet been expressed in such powerful ways on earth but with the imminent collapse of man’s current civilization, those who survive may yet choose wisely and rebuild their world as a compassionate one. I don’t hope for this; I don’t expect it, but I choose to lead in that direction.

      Perhaps this lengthy comment helps clarify some points for you. Good exchange in any case.

      Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thank you for your comment, and the link. I have not read the entire article as yet but the gist of it is, love is rife with problems! Seems like a back-door kind of statement supporting what I have to say about it. So, do we attempt the next step, leave love to those who won’t ‘know better’ and become self-empowered compassionate beings, people who fear nothing, having lost all and regained it all and more?

      Reply
  4. K

    Rather I remember Orage describing various forms of love including conscious love which would resonate with compassion.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I think I’ve recently written enough comparing love – any sort of love – to compassion to demonstrate they do not resonate with each other. Note particularly the insistence on detachment when it comes to the “practice” of compassion. Detachment and love are incompatible – love exists strictly through attachments. That is no small point when one considers the state the planet is now in mostly due to the ravages of attachments to possessions, i.e., consumerism. Food for thought, perhaps? Not trying to convince anyone, that’s not my purpose, put pointing out those essential and life-changing differences most people never catch on to. Glad to exchange thoughts with you, K. (That looks like a “Men in Black” name… 🙂 Just kidding!)

      Reply
    2. Sha'Tara Post author

      I’ve now read the piece and focused on the “conscious love” description. That is basically what I studied before. We called it “unconditional love,” only in this article it is not unconditional, is it. It focuses on “a beloved” and there is attachment, or a reverse attachment which appears to me destructive, if by choice, quote: “The conscious love motive, in its developed state, is the wish that the object should arrive at its own native perfection, regardless of the consequences to the lover. ‘So she become perfectly herself, what matter I?’ says the conscious lover. ‘I will go to hell if only she may go to heaven’. And the paradox of the attitude is that such love always evokes a similar attitude in its object. Conscious love begets conscious love.”

      This sort of tortured thinking is not part of the mind of the compassionate. If I, the compassionate being, give rise to “perfection” (no such thing by the way), then I receive same in return. In other words, the “compassionate” rises along with its surroundings to which compassion is applied. In compassion, there is no greater or lesser. There is empathy.

      Other described aspects of conscious love make it clear that it is focused on a beloved, an object; that it has a “target” in mind, thus of necessity ignoring the rest. This is where such a type of love and compassion part company entirely. Compassion is inclusive, no one excluded, no one of particular focus. Compassion is based upon detachment; it has no “beloved.”

      I remind people who read my “rants” about compassion that my reasoning behind it is to find, perhaps even activate, a power that can help prevent the global catastrophe we are currently facing. Our current dilemma regarding climate change, already in many parts catastrophic, is but a warning of much more serious events to take place. Exacerbated famine, another warning that we need to take heed of the planet’s reproductive capacities and deal with our overpopulation. The expanding violence and resource wars, more warnings that we need to drastically curb our consumption, not just try to find “Tesla” ways to make them more environmentally friendly.

      Love, in whatever guise, a concept we’ve known since pre-history and our great systems of religion and socially-aimed governments have played and plagued us with has done nothing to curb man’s insatiable greed and violence. Proof is in the eating of the pudding and we’re eating it. Therefore we need to discover and activate a whole new template for interaction between men and women, race and race, man and animals, fish and birds, man and the planet. Something that would act as an instant deterrent to exploitation, oppression, extortion and all gratuitous violence. No type of love can ever produce such a result unless one had them all, but then as the writer points out, they don’t work with each other but against each other. What can one do with such a controversial, inimical, condition? Nothing.

      The aim of compassion, as I have explained here in articles and comments, is to engage us into becoming total empaths. If, as I have been taught, empathy is part and parcel of all fully developed human beings, then once we are all empathetic we will eschew all those evils that currently, endlessly, plague our race on this world.

      I repeat, if love had ever been “done” or applied successfully, for a measurable period of time and had during that time given rise to a race, or nation, or group, of empaths, then I’d consider it. All I can consider of love to this time is that it has been an abject failure, particularly among those who promote it the most: those who are members of organized religions based on love.

      I have a saying, “Show me, don’t tell me.” I have been living with compassion for several decades now and it has proven a most solid and reliable base and source of power for all my “altruistic” endeavours.

      A challenge for you: Why do you suppose people insist on defending love and on watering down the concept of compassion? What’s behind that fear of compassion; the need to promote something so compromised to the System, it is inextricable from it? Why push a cart with four flat tires and a busted floor up a hill that is becoming ever steeper? If something has never worked, what are the chances it suddenly will; that it will fix itself and function according to faith, and hope?

      Maybe that will help and not discourage from seeking answers to vexing problems and solution to our civilisation’s dilemma.

      Reply
  5. K

    Thanks for reading!
    I’m happily anonymous in web.
    Love and compassion to me are part of same formless impulse. But I want to convince so it’s better to shut up maybe, hah–

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Since this is a discussion, not an argument, I don’t see the need to “shut up” at all. This is an open mind blog in any case, all opinions welcome. Thank you for coming aboard and engaging the topic, K.

      Reply
  6. theburningheart

    A long dissertation on what love it’s, and what is not, I really do not see the point to add my two cents to it, however I would like to point that the nature of Existence is rooted in change, and transformation, the way you describe Compassion Vs Love it is to my limited view of your experience, what Plato claimed for Agape, Vs Eros, Storge=Empathy, and Philia, now days psychologist add Ludus, Pragma and Philautia.

    I do believe as Human beings we are designed to learn, and transform ourselves acquiring Virtue, or what the Greeks called Arete.

    We all have our own experience to live, and we are at different stages, with different experiences, of what it’s common to every individual, and therefore, hard to feel empathy to particular points of view, that at the moment are not our current experience.

    And I leave it at that, otherwise I would have to write a whole post about it. 🙂

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your comment. So… why not write a post about it? It’s an endless subject and there’s no right answer. Yes, human beings are designed to learn and transform themselves thereby, but these Earthian characters don’t seem much inclined to learn anything from enforced change. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” If we could look far into the future and see that we didn’t destroy ourselves and our planet after all, perhaps one could say, “We’ll change, we’ve got all the time in the world” but current conditions; change acerbated by technology, population growth, dwindling resources and space with accompanying wars, environmental pollution causing or adding to climate change – these things are speaking loudly and clearly that we do not have much time to change our minds, and ourselves. All economies of any count are still solidly based on consumerism. Any “change” such as less polluting technologies is lateral, not vertical. People still insist on having their cars and other technological toys which means “extraction” will continue and those who have resources will continue to be targets of rapacious, colonizing multi-nationals and their military or para-military protective support.
      Would a miraculous, sudden awakening to compassion cause the change we need to survive? From my “studies” and personal application of the concept, there is no doubt it would, because it leads to empathy. An empathetic individual cannot cause harm to another and that’s the real key to meaningful change.

      Reply
  7. theburningheart

    I was talking about not leaving a response as large as a post, not that I may not write a post on the future about it. 🙂 And yes I have many posts in my blog where I speak about the despair of the kind of world we are living, just as what you are commenting, although personally I believe things eventually will change by the sheer weight of present conditions, that would become unsustainable, and not because one day everybody will wake up with a new consciousness, and decide to change things on their own, for the good of all. It will be messy, and we all will suffer, because of it.
    This of course doesn’t mean I do not believe on raising awareness, and keep fighting for that change to happen, despite conditions that at the moment seem to be hopeless.
    Mankind historically seems to be always on a never ending slumber of unconsciousness, except by the very few, Prophets, and Visionaries. 🙂

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      … and quote: “Mankind historically seems to be always on a never ending slumber of unconsciousness, except by the very few, Prophets, and Visionaries.” Indeed that’s been the way since we can remember. Thus it behooves those of us who can see the foibles and futility, to point them out, for if not us, then who? Can’t wait to read your take on the subject. Also, I don’t limit the length of comments on this open-mind blog. All opinions welcome, though obviously those who take a counter stance will have to back it up and explain why they choose their views in light of the fact that my purpose in having this blog is to look for real and never before used solutions to our many glaring social problems. My approach to problem solution is unapologetically utopian. If I could say of myself that I believe IN anything at all, it would be in magic and miracles. Seems to me that as an intelligent, sentient and self-aware species we are walking behind a veil that hides a much greater and amazing reality from us. So, if it cannot come to us, we must go to it and for that we have the power of thought.

      Reply
      1. theburningheart

        Let me apologize, my time is limited, and as much as I wish can’t spend more time online, as it is I do just that a lot, and it’s never enough!

        However the good news is you do not have to wait, a month or so every time I write a new post, I got close to about 100 post, most of them deal with Spiritual issues, or Social-political in nature, they are at your disposal and you can check them and comment at your will, and I would be glad to answer your comments.
        I sympathize with your position, since seems to me, the same than mine, so I invite you to read the many post I had wrote. 🙂

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your reply, Roger. I’ve got a few moments, so here goes in response.
      Quote: “We are still just starting out. Even if a race of beings have been around for, say, 5 million years that is still a fraction of the 14 billion age of The Universe. We have so much to learn and garner. The potential to learn and absorb is a beautiful opportunity. The horizon is vast.
      But we can only enjoy this journey by freeing ourselves of the pettiness of Hate and of Fear. Thus, we carry our Love and Compassion to nurture our Curiosity and Inventiveness.”

      The time frame: how to put it so it doesn’t sound superior — time for “us” is an artificial construct, used only as a “language” to communicate with those who of necessity must understand their worlds and conditions within its constraints. Simply put, the time factor is not relevant, really, to spiritual growth and rise in consciousness: it’s all a matter of mental effort and application. You may remember the line, “to the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.” So there is truth and validity in what I write about time.

      However, if time must enter the rules, then yes, man’s presence in the universal context is but a blink of an eye. From that point of view, your point is logical. That “we” have much to learn and garner is inarguable. The fact however, that we have been given Teachers, wise people, even angels and divine entities to explain the greater life for us, and to point or even command, that we should live thus leaves us, as a species, very little wiggle room to avoid condemnation for our current acts. By condemnation, I don’t mean the literal “casting into hell” but basically karma; cause and effect; the inevitable turn around that what we do unto others will be done unto us. We can see/sense it now as our proud democracies teeter on the edge of becoming police states and dictatorships and our wars are on the increase, as is anthropological climate change. Our obdurate ways are grindingly bringing catastrophic destruction and if my observations are worth anything at all, safe to say we are not taking advantage of what time we have to learn a new way, or new ways, to interact with each other and our natural environment.
      The potential to change still exists, and will to the last breath of the last surviving Earthian, but while the horizon is vast, we are allowing the psychopath to close it from us, using Donald Trump’s big beautiful wall as symbolic of what the elites are doing. As long as we wholeheartedly or fearfully tag along with such inanities the “pettiness of hate and fear” isn’t going to un-Velcro itself from our hearts and minds.

      Enter your Patchwork Warriors, Roger. Bottom line is, we need something that we can “wear” that makes us invincible to the fear and the hate because it knows nothing of either. That would be compassion as a committed way of life. I understand curiosity and inventiveness having a fair share of it myself as a techie and nature observer, but they need more than nurture, methinks. They need guidance and severe control. Do we really need weapons of mass destruction? More to the point, do we really need cities and all the complex, dangerous grid living that sustains them so artificially? Do we need a sky filled with planes and highways gridlocked? Do we need to have a cell phone glued to our ear, or connected to ear buds for most of the day? How much of our current technology do we really need to live happy, full lives?

      I think your Patchwork Warrior heroes can yet teach us a lot on that because I found much interesting philosophy in their approach in such cross-dimensional confusing circumstances. We ourselves are at such a crossroads, or crossing now and our technology isn’t going to be of much help, only expanded awareness, higher consciousness and a very, very open mind.

      (As a “by the way” I intend to re-read Patchwork Warriors before the end of this year. This is the second reaping where the adventure is less important than the conversations and philosophy.)

      Reply
    2. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks, just don’t waste your time on the repetitive stuff, and writing ego-stroking comments… just burn your way through… 🙂

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.