Compassion in a Nutshell (as promised)

OK, here goes, my stumbling attempt to clarify something that is way out of my league… but someone’s got to do it, and I promised!

Compassion in a Nutshell, as I was taught, how I experience it daily
by    ~burning woman~   expressed by Sha’Tara

What it isn’t:  When I speak on compassion as I was taught by the Teachers and how I experience it, I’m never talking about a common mixture of feeling and emotion, of love, like, attraction, desire, lust, romance, or any of the usual social relationships.  It is none of those.

What it is, point by point:  Compassion is utterly selfless.  Whatever I give to another is entirely for that other, no thought of “what’s in it for me” involved in the transaction.  At the same time I realize that any expenditure of “energy” on my part is immediately replenished and added to.  Since I am fully aware of this now, I have to say that although it seems a contradiction, my motivation is both, selfless and selfish.

Compassion is inclusive.  This needs to be understood very clearly because the compassionate being has no enemies… ever.  What is an enemy?  Obviously someone you fear, either because s/he has hurt you in some personal and real way and would continue to do so, or it is someone your society has demonized.  You fear and you hate.  You want protection or you want to attack.  These are emotional responses.  In this area it isn’t forgiveness that heals, it’s compassion.

Compassion is non-emotional.  In compassion there are no emotional responses.  This also must be clearly understood.  In the previous case of “the enemy” the concept disappears completely if there is no emotional response involved.  Does that mean then that the compassionate person is android-like?  Not at all.  If anything the compassionate person develops and experiences deeper feelings than a normal person.  I find myself constantly reacting strongly to events normal people hardly notice, take for granted or even enjoy.  When I see someone eating meat the effect is mentally devastating, hence why I block any emotional response.  To me all killing is murder and a “piece of meat” was a living, breathing, feeling “other” that a universally false belief backed by emotions, has turned into a billion dollar business from billions of helpless torture victims of “gastronomical” greed.  Hunting, fishing, violent sports such as boxing or sports involving animals in which they suffer or are in danger of being seriously hurt – horse racing for example – these are all stumbling blocks to the empath.  Try to imagine what the truly compassionate feels when confronted with instances of abuse, oppression, rape, genocide, war and mass shootings.  It isn’t just “news” believe me: it’s hell.  You don’t want to go there emotionally or you won’t come back.  Compassion takes care of it by shutting down emotional response.

Compassion does not recognize special relationships.  For a gregarious species this may be the toughest aspect to comprehend.  “You mean I can’t “love” my child more than anyone else’s?” is a typical response.  To a normal person such is unthinkable.  So perhaps it can be explained.  First, compassion doesn’t care who or what you choose to “love” or “hate” because that is neither here nor there.  Compassion, being, shall I say, “higher” in nature and power than all known types of love, overrides those emotions in any case and neutralizes them.  The compassionate being has no use for special relationships, they just cloud the issue.  So if you already have special relationships that need your presence, input and support, compassion will certainly not prevent you from doing your duty.  The difference is that these relationships, these people, animals, things you may own, are not central to your life and do not determine your thoughts and acts.  You are first of all, compassion — not just compassionate — and everything else is secondary.

Compassion is never reciprocal.  Another point that has to be clearly understood.  Most if not all Earthian relationships exist within some form or reciprocity even if it’s just a form of recognition for altruistic acts.  Ego (I don’t like using that term but most people understand what is meant by that) is usually involved in normal relationships, from the dependent to the seductive to the gimme-gimme; the protective to the controlling.  I could truthfully say I suppose that compassion is self-rewarding, that it is its own reward.  Indeed it doesn’t take long for a compassionate person to realize how much the practice empowers!  This empowerment is highly beneficial to both, body and mind.  The immune system works better and there is no energy wasted in lust, regret, recrimination, jealousy, competitive behaviour, fear or anger.  There is neither a sense of gain, nor a sense of loss as far as relationships go because compassion overrides the great “need” that drives individuals into exclusive, controlling relationships.

Compassion demands, and feeds, self empowerment.  A crucial point.  No dependent or non self empowered person can claim to be compassionate by nature.  They may express aspects of compassion at certain critical times but much of that will wear out quickly, or wear the person down because in all cases it will be the result of some response to an emotional appeal and terribly entropic.  A compassionate being is a self empowered being for the two go hand in hand.

Compassion results in detachment, not just from special relationships but from “the world” as it is often called in spiritual circles.  Compassion makes it possible to realize the true nature of joy and sorrow.  As with so many concepts, joy and sorrow are usually misunderstood and lumped in with pleasure, fun, happiness and sadness, pain, unhappiness, grief, loss, etc.  Notice that these aspects of happy/unhappy are essentially ego-centered, i.e., selfish.  It is what one feels and gets emotional about.  Properly understood, joy and sorrow come from empathy.  Joy contains all the good being experienced by the world and conversely sorrow contains all the evil being experienced.  As explained to me, Joy and Sorrow are twins, one who walks in the light, one who walks in darkness.  They can only meet when someone provides a bridge between them and that’s what a compassionate person, or being, does.  A compassionate being is never concerned about personal joy and/or sorrow.  Taken care of.

The compassionate walk between the worlds of light and darkness and bridge the two.   That is their greatest accomplishment until they move on away from here to things of higher consciousness of which I know but an inkling and cannot authoritatively speak of.

In a nutshell then, you are who you are at this moment.  You make a decision to become a compassionate being.  Being of sound mind you choose to make that your entire life’s purpose.  Then you open yourself up completely to the “power” or “energy” your irrevocable choice brings to you.  You proceed from there.  You’re on your own for every decision you make and through every “battle” you must fight.  Then you watch yourself become a different person until hardly anyone recognizes you.  And that’s it.

“What if I enter into this thing and I fail?”  one may ask.  I don’t know, honestly.  All I can think of is this: that anyone who enters into a life choice to become compassion cannot fail unless something was held back; there was a degree of “dishonesty” when signing on that dotted line.  This thing I’m presenting here is in a sense a personal absolute.  In and never out.  If you’ve seen the movie “Men in Black” you will remember that signing on meant to become a different person and disappearing from your familiar world.  You lost your name and became a “K” or a “J” or a “D.”  This is something like that except that “you” gradually blend into “Compassion” and that is the new nature you then express to the world.  Crazy, right?

If you were offered the key to saving your world, and your people, from a terrible catastrophe they’re bringing on themselves and you were convinced this was the real thing, what would YOU do?  For me it wasn’t a difficult choice at all.

Best I can do in explaining the concept.

22 thoughts on “Compassion in a Nutshell (as promised)

  1. A writer from the East

    Very thought provoking and comprehensive post on compassion which is certainly not an easy trait to learn, well personally speaking. It takes a lot of time and healing of one’s soul to finally find the heart to forgive and inculcate compassionate attitude towards those that rip our lives and destroy it. Some pains don’t heal, we can have accept them and if lucky after all the heart break we are able to survive them and go about feeling better and functional. Where as a part of our personal self dies in experiencing that grief and pain, the art of compassion helps initially first to be kind to yourself in that shittiest moment of your life, because rage and anger is directed towards self and if we are able to forgive ourselves and be compassionate to our persons we are able to get up and walk the walk towards forgiving others and being compassionate towards them. Certainly there are people in lives that don’t say sorry neither are ashamed of destroying our lives, but compassion teaches us to forgive them because in the end, it sets our soul free from the darkness.
    Thank you so much for penning this down, stay blessed always ❤

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thank you for taking of your precious time to respond. I think about you often, how you’re coping, that you are taking care of yourself, and staying safe within the turmoil. Maybe, I think, some of my ideas expressed on compassion can be of some “help” for you. To me forgiveness would be impossible outside of the compassionate approach. I used to forgive, only to feel the bitter dregs rise up time and again when circumstances brought up buried memories. Now whatever happened to me is no more poignant than if it had happened to anyone else – it’s all the same. Then there’s joy, and there’s sorrow, to absorb it all. Now there’s just the flow and I live in it until I die, no judgment, no fear, no regret. Take care o’ you!

      Reply
  2. Phil Huston

    “Compassion is utterly selfless.” Coulda stopped there. As far as being unemotional and detached, the selfless throughout history would argue that. One becomes involved and there is no seperation of pain and state, regardless of the intent. Another being’s pain is undeniable, even if not contagious.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Sure, undeniable. But there are different ways to deal with the pain. A pure empath, without compassion, or the ability to transmute feelings, would be destroyed in a moment on earth. The spiritual path isn’t a big romance, more like martial arts. You need to know how to become invisible mentally/spiritually speaking to the excruciating generic pain that wants to turn you into a sacrificial burning man. There’s a discipline that teaches avoidance without losing the effects of sharing. Many torture victims learn this the hard way, the antidote to fear, hate, helplessness and hopelessness. Detachment. That’s an app that comes when you install compassion as your OS. 🙂

      Reply
  3. katharineotto

    Sha’Tara,
    Excellent explanation and worthy of percolating over time. It leads me to think of my personal challenge, of late, which is how to deal with a world of people intent on self-sabotage. I feel forced to become more detached but wonder if detachment is just another term for no longer caring.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Detachment by itself can, and often, leads to a form of narcissism or extreme self-centeredness. It can also mean disinterestedness. None of these things are good for anyone, being dysfunctions. But here, this is what I had thought people might read in my point-by-point expose of compassion: that it’s like putting on armour.

      When it comes to all the things we’d like to do, but which wear us out, or exceed our own strength of character, body or material resources, we eventually settle (for what we believe is our limit) or we give up. Enter the compassionate being, one “imbued” with this energy. First caring is what compassion is all about: it’s its natural state of being. So we simply do it to the best of our ability. Does it demand great sacrifice? We don’t count the costs; we don’t keep records and we never look back for we are always prodded forward by an inner fire, a strength fed by joy. Nothing can take away a compassionate being’s joy. Even the sorrow (I did mention that bridging effect) transmutes into joy. If I were to look back, just to verify my words here I would see that once I engaged myself to compassion, I did not feed it, it fed me. It happens constantly, day after day. I do things for people and ‘my own stuff’ somehow gets done in there too, as if “me” was just another case on my hands. There is no difference. I no longer plan long term, life just happens.

      Detachment within a compassionate life means freedom to truly be self empowered. It still seems strange to me that I can make all decisions regarding how I live my life, or “spend” it in society; how I allocate my resources, money and time to maximize the benefits these can bring to those in need. I still find it difficult not to judge myself or second guess situations, just letting the compassionate nature take its course. As long as compassion is at the helm I know I will do what needs to be done and it always will be the correct choice. I am convinced now that such a “power” is all we need to heal ourselves and our world because, I think, if it works for me, why not for everybody? Just think if we raised our children to be compassionate as they open themselves up to the world? If we demonstrated to them how the concept worked and let them taste the results within themselves? If we didn’t feed them on gratuitous violence? It is our children who would be the most responsive to such a life. Crazy hey? As Harry Crumb would say, “Crazy? Crazy like a fox!” (I’m referring, of course, to the movie starring John Candy back when… I miss the big guy.)

      Reply
  4. theburningheart

    It’s a very nice essay about compassion, but in my view, Compassion it’s a higher Station of Love, like in Rumi’s classic poem you cannot eat the chickpea without first been cooked on the fire of Love, and many other poems related to the subject. Here one I like :

    “Cautious people say, “I’ll

    do nothing until I can be sure.” Merchants know better.
    If you do nothing, you lose.

    Don’t be one of those merchants who won’t risk the ocean!
    This is much more important

    than losing or making money. This is your connection to God!
    You must set fire to have

    light. Trust means you’re ready to risk what you currently have. Think of your fear and

    hope about your livelihood. They make you go to work
    diligently every day. Now

    consider what the prophets have done. Abraham wore fire for an anklet. Moses spoke

    to the sea. David molded iron. Solomon rode the wind.
    Work in the invisible world

    at least as hard as you do in the visible. Be companions
    with the prophets even though

    no one here will know that you are, not even the helpers of the qutb, the abdals. You

    can’t imagine what profit will come! When one of those
    generous ones invites you

    into his fire, go quickly! Don’t say, “But will it burn me? Will it hurt?”
    ― Jalaluddin Rumi. 🙂

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      From ~burning woman~ to ‘the burning heart’ – Thank you for your comment, I appreciate the feedback and “challenge” also.

      I understand the !burning! need to defend love as a concept, and to desire it for its feelings and emotions, but here’s the crux of the matter. Love has been with us for millennia, and we’ve been liberally splashing it around in every way. Love of this, and love of that. Patriotism and erotica. The quasi-naked girl selling tires or lingerie; Jesus hanging on a cross. “Love, love, love, all you need is love.”

      Right. Then why is a civilization built on so much “love” collapsing in injustice, oppression, suppression, rape, torture, war and forms of accepted violence against nature too numerous to name? The problem with love is no one knows what it’s supposed to be, or do, beyond the sudden crazy feelings it engenders. Be it Rumi or Jesus; Mohamed or Gibran; Gandhi or Mother Teresa… none of it has done anything substantial or reliable and measurable in making this world a better place. Why? Because love is a feeling, it isn’t a source of energy but something that results from something else. It is the “something else” that determines where, how, why, love erupts… then peters out just as suddenly.

      I’ll tell all and sundry, I don’t “do” what doesn’t work. I “do” what does, however. Love never had the power to change my life, never mind causing an enduring and empowered desire to make others’ lives better if needed to the detriment of my own. Love never explained to me what detachment meant; what non-reciprocal living was all about. Love never explained anything in those endless, sleepless nights when the horror of this world filled my heart and mind and there was no peace; nothing to fill the gap left by the terror, just the hot tears.

      Love has never taken root here because… well, because it has always been foremost in everything man does! How often do people use the word “love” in a day? I love Jesus; I love this rifle; I love my new truck; of course I love my kids! Whenever we invoke love, that’s love – like it or not. This world has a surfeit of love but can’t realize it because it is always something other than what people expect and the saddest part is, they don’t know what to expect from love. Like “God” everyone has their own idea of what it is and except for widely (and often wildly!) disseminated general doctrines (in scientific terms we would call them theories), there is little agreement on any of it. Hence the chaos. Love doesn’t deserve being adulated or worshiped – it is a parasitical energy as comfortable in the mind of the patriot launching a cruise missile as in the whorehouse or the cathedral.
      Now, if you can, take another look at my description of a never-tested source of power available to all of us. Look at compassion without any attachment to love, to any kind of love. Unlike love, you may discover perhaps with some surprise that there is only one kind of compassion. There is no confusion around compassion. It is all or nothing. For those who “catch on” compassion will take over their life and control it – all of it. That’s the point, and that’s what frightens people. Love is so much more flexible. A man falls in love with another woman, well, it’s easy enough to file away the other love to engage the affair. The highest form of love would be God’s love. I’d challenge anyone to read the Bible and discover exactly what that means! All of God’s love is prefaced with a very, very big IF! I have to go take care of something, so, thanks again for the feedback.

      Reply
  5. theburningheart

    When I was a child I had an Italian teacher who was trying to teach us singing in a choir, he used to have a pun on words telling us:

    Please, please, avere compassione (Italian for; have compassion, or mercy) to my ears, do it with passione, (passion) do it with amore profondo! (Italian words that means love and depth=profound love) Now in Spanish the words are so similar, that we easily understood his meaning without need to translate since they are cognate words, which mean that they share a similar meaning, spelling, and pronunciation, while English may share less, with Italian and Latin, and more with Anglo-Saxon, and with the evolution of languages words change meaning, still there is a common root to words we call Etymology.
    However Compassion it’s not a new word either, it’s as old as Love, In fact Buddhism is a Religion who it’s main tenets are Wisdom, and Compassion and precede Christianity some 500 years. And you can say with India, China, South East Asia. and Japan, probably more than half the population at the time where Buddhist.

    The Buddha taught that to realize enlightenment, a person must develop two qualities: wisdom and compassion. Wisdom and compassion are sometimes compared to two wings that work together to enable flying, or two eyes that work together to see deeply.

    In the West, we’re taught to think of “wisdom” as something that is primarily intellectual and “compassion” as something that is primarily emotional, and that these two things are separate and even incompatible.

    We’re led to believe that fuzzy, sappy emotion gets in the way of clear, logical wisdom. But this is not the Buddhist understanding.

    The Sanskrit word usually translated as “wisdom” is prajna (in Pali, panna), which can also be translated as “consciousness,” “discernment,” or “insight.” Each of the many schools of Buddhism understands prajna somewhat differently, but generally, we can say that prajna is understanding or discernment of the Buddha’s teaching, especially the teaching of anatta, the principle of no self.

    The word usually translated as “compassion” is karuna, which is understood to mean active sympathy or a willingness to bear the pain of others. In practice, prajna gives rise to karuna, and karuna gives rise to prajna. Truly, you can’t have one without the other. They are a means to realizing enlightenment, and in themselves they are also enlighenment itself manifested.

    My point is Compassion had a 2,500 year chance, and it seem it didn’t do better than Love!
    What make you think it will do it now? 🙂

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Yes, in French, c’est l’amour! J’aime ceci or cela… (I love this or that.) The main point you ask is, what makes me think this can work now? Here’s how “the Teachers” explained it. First, understand that words have power, they carry certain vibrations. A word can be just a word in which case nothing much happens beyond conveying information, or it can be impressed on/in the mind and become a motivating force. We already know how this works with our repetitive mantras, slogans, chants. Some will drive people into madness, some into ecstasy. OK, so “compassion” as a mantra is a very powerful word because, unlike love, it remains basically unadulterated from religious clap-trap or commercialism. You can buy and sell love but who does that with compassion? Who sells compassion as “a good time” or a Hallmark sentiment? “I compassion you! Do you compassion me? I am so totally compassionate about this (or that)”? It doesn’t work. So here we have a concept that we can activate according to its proper meaning, and elevate into the realm of a Power, a Force, to change human nature.
      The concensus of the race at the moment, even if subconscious, is that we have reached a dangerous crossroads and if we do not make a right choice, the chances are high that we, and our world, will pay a terrible price. I know this because I have seen our future and it is grim indeed. The challenge I was given is to literally put on this “armour” called compassion and go out into the world wearing it, living in it, letting it push and prod me to act compassionately. For many years I wasn’t sure what I was doing, but I could tell my thoughts, views, jugments, reactions and actions, were changing. I was changing. I lost my fears and my pet hatreds, for where there is no fear there is no enemy and where there is no enemy, hate has nothing to cling to and peters out.
      Back to my truism: if it worked for me, a very simple and ordinary person with average intelligence and education, then it should work for the majority of people. They just need what you might call a “primer” to understand it. My comments/articles/rants on comparing compassion with love are meant as such a primer. It may work, it may not. If people as a species would rather carry on with all their tried and failed, I certainly cannot stop them, but neither can I help them through their downfall. They are making a choice based on their limited access to freewill. I’ll close this for now, got work to do… 🙂

      Reply
  6. colettebytes

    Perhaps ‘compassion’ needs to join forces with ‘truth,’ ‘insight,’ and ‘awareness,’ to be a really useful ally on the fight against ‘indifference,’ ‘lies,’ ‘deception’ and ‘ignorance.’

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Yes, true that, however if instead of “being compassionate” (whatever that entails) one chooses to become compassion, thus entering into “the Force” or becoming one with “the Force”, then truth, insight, awareness, goodness, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and whatever “virtue” one could throw in the ring, are all activated without having to think about it. Compassion doesn’t need to “join forces” with anything else since it already is all of that when it is accepted as a force instead of a concept. It is a spiritual and mental guide through any and every situation. That’s my personal experience anyway.

      Reply
  7. Lisa R. Palmer

    Wow… I find the comments as interesting and insightful as the essay itself. Well done, Sha’Tara, and many thanks! Much for me to contemplate and consider here…

    Reply
  8. Lisa R. Palmer

    I know that on some level we travel similar paths, Sha’Tara, and on some things we will likely never agree. I find it most interesting, though, to see your immediate, gut level response to the word “love.”

    It seems like every time it comes up, you immediately slip into the “personal,” as in love between people, love as a superlative of like, love as the opposite of hate, etc. I, however, am convinced that there is an impersonal form of Love, which operates in every way like Compassion. It is a force, in and of itself. It energizes and nourishes the one who lives it. It encourages empathy, good deeds, and personal responsibility and integrity. It is not based on reciprocity, for it asks for nothing in return, empowering the giver to simply give. It is non-judgmental, unbiased, and non-possessive. It has no true opposite, unless you perhaps consider apathy and/or indifference (which are not to be confused with detachment). And it serves as a bridge between joy and sorrow…

    I agree that the word “love” is overused, and blamed for many of our ills, but that love is ego driven and personal. That is infatuation, lust, passion, possession, idolization, adoration, and all of their consequent negatives like hate, jealousy, violence, expectation, disillusionment, etc… But that is not the impersonal Love that compels a spirit to serve others selflessly…

    Perhaps calling it Compassion is best, as it clearly distinguishes itself, unlike Love which is so often abused, but the concepts/practice are too close to be coincidental; I believe they are essentially the same…

    The greatest difference in our views and practices seems to be the role of One vs. Other. I clearly believe we all “come from” the same source and shall one day return to it. You clearly do not. On that we must agree to disagree. We both have strong and compelling arguments to support our points of view, but neither is ever going to convince the other to change theirs. And, personally, I don’t think it’s necessary to. We will live and make choices based on our own truths, and we will deal with the consequences of doing so. Simple enough…

    Reply
    1. Lisa R. Palmer

      You know, it suddenly occurs to me that my final thoughts above may actually be the crux of the differences between us. Love (universally speaking) naturally makes “me” a part of All-That-Is, reinforcing the idea of unity. While Compassion (if I understand correctly) serves to separate you from it All, making you unique and individual. And since the core of our different viewpoints is Unity vs Individualism, we naturally cannot adopt the other’s terminology. Hmm…

      Reply
      1. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for both well thought out comments, Lisa. I will be responding at length to both but right now, work calls and I’m already late, hah!

    2. Sha'Tara Post author

      OK Lisa (and whomever is interested in this discussion) here goes:

      First, with me it’s never about agreement, it’s about observation; it’s about solutions to problems by reaching for the source of the problem. No problem can ever be resolved if its source is denigrated, ignored or blissfully unknown. Is the love concept, as understood and practiced over the ages, a problem or a solution? I think any honest appraisal and a reading of history, particularly the history of man, his rulers, his powers and his gods, and his subsequent performance on earth answers that categorically: it is a serious problem.

      Second, anything that has proven false, misleading, violent or murderous is something I personally eliminate from my reality. Love fits those descriptions therefore it has become persona non grata. It doesn’t matter if later the concept is whitewashed or used to describe a particular “loving” act at a particular time, any concept that lends itself to manipulation and corruption is a failed concept. It cannot be fixed, only destroyed.

      Third, why do you think there are so many different kinds of love, yet people speak of it as an “it” and not a convenient collection of “loves” which exist across a gamut stretching from pole to pole, describing situations of extreme self sacrifice to the committing of extreme evil acts? Is our language so poor that we cannot ascribe different labels to such disparate acts? Even using the term “unconditional love” is but another qualifier to make love palatable to those who think murderous love is somewhat unacceptable. Why does love need qualifiers; why does it need defending?

      Outside of emotion love is non-existent. It is a misnomer, weak, untrustworthy and dovetails with any power system, a cover for evil behaviour. There is always someone, or something, one can love, be it a country justifying the killing of innocents through patriotism; be it money justifying greed; be it sex justifying rape and misogyny; be it a god (religion) justifying the oppression, torture and brutal killing of unbelievers. Love is the acceptable generic term to describe any addiction including the knee-jerk reactionary addiction to protecting one’s own physical life (self love).

      The love you describe in opposition to the ego driven type as (quote) “an impersonal form of Love, which operates in every way like Compassion. It is a force, in and of itself. It energizes and nourishes the one who lives it. It encourages empathy, good deeds, and personal responsibility and integrity. It is not based on reciprocity, for it asks for nothing in return, empowering the giver to simply give. It is non-judgmental, unbiased, and non-possessive. It has no true opposite, unless you perhaps consider apathy and/or indifference (which are not to be confused with detachment). And it serves as a bridge between joy and sorrow…”

      …is in fact as good a description of compassion as anyone could write but it does not describe love. I know this because only with compassion can such be experienced. There is no example of love that matches your description of selfless love and the saying of a thing does not ‘make it so.’ Therein lies the problem of love, as it is the problem of God. They make claims that remain unsubstantiated thus cannot be trusted to ever deliver the goods.

      Compassion is indeed a force, thus the compassionate being is personally empowered to remain within her/his compassionate nature regardless of circumstances for the energy needed to provide this ‘stickwithitiveness’ is provided by the resident nature of compassion drawing from the energy that maintains the cosmos. Unlike love, compassion works both ways, it gives to both, the compassionate and the objects of the compassionate acts. What glaringly distinguishes any sort of love from compassion is that love needs to be sought and brought in, usually by some unseen deity or object of passionate worship. The compassionate is self-empowered with no external needs of “invisible means of support.” There is no need for a gas station (church or belief system) to refuel. You may say, well, I don’t have any “invisible means of support” for the love I have in me, but that would be untrue, wouldn’t it. You’ve already stated that you believe you are one with all others – not sure if that means only Earthian ISSA beings or all of life throughout the cosmos but essentially, that is your belief system; your source of invisible empowerment, this oneness, or as you call it, the “Otherhood of One.”

      Would your belief system allow you to exist as a self empowered individual apart and separate from any and all others, beyond the necessary symbiotic relationships we as physical beings must develop with our environment(s)? Would there even be any point to such a contradiction? Love needs you to be a part of the all, whether aware of it or not – there are many who are not aware of this yet are just as much a part of the whole, including those who kill and destroy out of fear, hate and lust. In fact if they were not a part of the whole, they could not do such things, as I have discovered.

      Now to the real underlying question: why did I choose to become an individual through self empowerment? Why do I categorically refuse to be labelled as one with all others? The answer is simple enough, and it has to do with corruption. If I identify with that which is inherently corrupt; if I claim to be one with a group or a system that is essentially evil in its nature and performance, then I choose to exist in collusion with that group or system. This is the crux of my choice. If I am “one with all” then I must bear the guilt and consequences of, let’s say, all that Donald Trump says and does even if I protested loudly against his words and acts. As one with the following and obedient crowd I must similarly and automatically live a life of obedience to the System. If I do not then I am most certainly a wonderful liar, able to fool all others and myself to boot. (Saw a young lady today sporting a sweat shirt that proclaimed: “Obey Propaganda!” and I thought, how appropriate a message.) I choose not to live within such hypocrisy and as a committed compassionate being I have this personal assurance that my non-association will result in good, not evil, emanating from my thoughts, words and deeds. When they do not the “Force” within me burns me until I make a sincere and permanent course correction. Compassion leaves no room for excuses since no ego is involved.

      Please don’t think of this as an attack upon your choices, they are yours and they are sacred to me. All I seek to do is point to the confusion between what really works and what just sounds and feels good. Compassion is not soft or gentle since its ‘job’ is to create a new nature by painfully (there is no other way) eradicating all those things that belonged to the old. Love is an imitator and enabler. It takes its energy from the source of the programming and from whatever it interacts with even if it denies it. Love takes, it never gives, because the author of love was/is nothing but a Taker, that being God’s hidden name.

      In closing, here are some words from another blogger I follow who knows what love really means… https://nakedinfiniverse.home.blog/2019/04/11/proof-of-love/

      PROOF OF LOVE

      There are myriad ways
      to display true love;
      a simple kiss, a blooming rose,
      a bashful smile, a frilly note.

      I appreciate
      you raised me from the floor
      to staunch the flow of blood, but
      it is inappropriate
      to coo like a solicitous dove, as if
      the punch which broke my nose
      was in any way
      proof of your affection.

      ©Jane Paterson Basil

      Reply
      1. Lisa R. Palmer

        I agree that living as Love makes me to be a part of the whole, and therefore responsible, in some way, for the acts of all others. Such responsibility forces me to act differently, leading me to question everything I do in terms of how it affects others. Such self-scrutiny allows me to avoid hypocrisy. But it isn’t the system I’m involved with that controls my actions, nor empowers them; rather it is the love that flows through me. Is it painful to see what my others are up to? Absolutely! Is it painful to love in spite of that? Yes…

        Does it work to change the system’s behavior? No. But if it changes the life of one near me for the better, then maybe they, too, could alter the life course of another in some small way. Because love is inclusive, rather than exclusive…

        Would it be easier to give up on others, separate myself from the whole, live my own life being responsible for, and to, no one but myself? Perhaps. I don’t really know. Would it be more effective on the whole? Again, I don’t know…

        I do know this discussion has opened my eyes to a whole new perspective, and I am grateful to you for that. For me, the phrase “All is One” has always been virtually synonymous with the phrase “One is All,” the only difference being the perspective of the speaker; in the first case coming from the Source side, in the second coming from the self side. Now, thanks to you, I see that “One is All” can have an entirely different meaning, where self exists separately from all else. THAT perspective can be life altering, and perhaps I will gain more from exploring that…

        I’ve heard you say more than once that the Universe has no inherent morality. That self-empowered beings can choose to do good or evil. You, having chosen the path of Compassion, can really only do good…

        Is it possible that some of the worst evils done by our system is because it is maintained by those who choose such a path for themselves? I’m not saying it is; I’m just wondering out loud…

        And as I contemplate this more, I suspect a new post shall arise as a result on my own blog. Thanks for the inspiration.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        You are welcome, Lisa. I can appreciate your chosen path as well though I see it as a much more difficult and less fulfilling on the long run. You see the point, I think, that it is frustrating to be tied to something that refuses to, or cannot, change for the better. In a tug of war you end up alone on your end of the rope and more likely than not, face down in the mud hole. That’s why I stopped holding on to that rope of hope. If my open and public example of doing what is right is not good enough, nothing can be. Looking forward to reading more on your blog. Thank you again.

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.