 |
| His Holiness the Dalai Lama |
Compassion is defined as "the response to the suffering of others that motivates a desire to help." However, "love" is much more complicated, as we know, arguably so complicated and multi-faceted as to be a nearly meaningless term.
As Wikipedia points out in defining "love", "This diversity of uses and meanings combined with the complexity of the feelings involved makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, compared to other emotional states."
The Christian texts say "Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other." and "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
 |
| Homer (not from the Simpsons) |
Responding to the needs of others is not just a religious concept, as it has played an important role in our species' evolution. It is a key element of our very evolutionarily-successful strategies of co-operation, task-sharing, and hierarchical organization.
A recent Scientific American article said that we "conquered" the planet and became "the ultimate invasive species" w/the weapon of co-operation. No other species is nearly so successful in creating and managing large organizations and/or complex tasks.
Much of our neural real estate is dedicated to these behaviors. This hugely successful strategy also evolved a supportive reward system using the pleasure from dopamine, oxytocin, etc. to ensure that we do it... we feel "good" when we are "compassionate".
As His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, said at a recent presentation, (Gassho to Paul Frost for the link)
"Human beings may naturally be selfish, but they are also naturally compassionate, science shows. Helping someone else does make a person feel good – but that is a wise kind of selfish."
“By nature, every human being loves oneself,” the Dalai Lama
said. “But by helping another, you are building your own happy future. We
should be wise-selfish rather than foolish-selfish.”
There is, however, from our evolutionary psychologists, a more cynical view of this reward system supporting our helping others, called reciprocal altruism.
Reciprocal altruism is "a behavior whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."
Or basically, "i'll do something to help you, but i expect to get something in return later", with the implication that "..and if you don't do something for me later, i won't help you again".
Reciprocal altruism was introduced by Robert Trivers in "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". Criteria for reciprocal altruism behaviors were developed subsequently by Christopher Stevens in "Modeling Reciprocal Altruism":
- the
behavior must "cost" the donor
- the recipient must get more benefit than non-recipients
- the behavior must not depend on receiving immediate benefit
- these conditions apply to both individuals involved
For reciprocal altruism to evolve there must be a) a
mechanism for detecting 'cheaters', i.e. recipients who don't repay and b) many
opportunities to exchange aid.
 |
| Primate grooming Reciprocal altruism |
Are there any examples in the "real world" where this is demonstrated? There are several cited, including parasite removal in fishes, vampire bats regurgitating blood to feed other bats, bird calls when seeing predators, and primate grooming.
However, the human reciprocal altruism system is described as "sensitive and unstable", which is why it may need dopamine-reinforced pleasure to reinforce it.
Human reciprocal altruism also shows:
Human reciprocal altruism also shows:
- Liking and disliking behaviors.
- Aggression to educate/punish a cheater.
- Regulating "helping" to the best cost/benefit ratio at which the
beneficiary will repay.
- A cheater showing regret for past acts to avoid paying a large "late" penalty.
- Cheating in which other cheaters work together co-dependently to support the behavior.
- Regulating cheating w/trust
and suspicion.
 |
| Robert Trivers |
With all of this, as well as dopamine (and oxytocin) rewards in the bargain, the surprising thing is that it is so hard for humans to be compassionate. Are we really that impossibly "selfish"?
It is very difficult to discern that our current religious-based approach has "worked", despite 2,500 or 2,000 years of practice. IMHO, a secular, non-selfish approach is needed. The move to a secular society is endorsed by the Dalai Lama, who says that "With more education, religion might disappear in the next 1,000 years" and has proposed a solution w/secular ethics, as outlined in his 2011 book, "Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World" (video)
i do not believe it will take, nor do i believe we have, 1,000 years to wait for a radical change to our self-based operating system. my Buddhist Geeks presentation "Upgrading Your Mental Operating System" describes how/why such a fundamental change is critical if we are to continue to exist.
The blogposts "Uninstall your outdated OS1, upload your new OS2" and "we need a new mental operating system...now" also discuss this. A different way of non-egoically being, which naturally yields self-less compassion of a different quality w/o agenda or expectation of reward, can manifest as discussed in the video "Selfless love and giving yourself away".
It is very difficult to discern that our current religious-based approach has "worked", despite 2,500 or 2,000 years of practice. IMHO, a secular, non-selfish approach is needed. The move to a secular society is endorsed by the Dalai Lama, who says that "With more education, religion might disappear in the next 1,000 years" and has proposed a solution w/secular ethics, as outlined in his 2011 book, "Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World" (video)
i do not believe it will take, nor do i believe we have, 1,000 years to wait for a radical change to our self-based operating system. my Buddhist Geeks presentation "Upgrading Your Mental Operating System" describes how/why such a fundamental change is critical if we are to continue to exist.
 |
| Dialogue w/Rich Doyle |
The blogposts "Uninstall your outdated OS1, upload your new OS2" and "we need a new mental operating system...now" also discuss this. A different way of non-egoically being, which naturally yields self-less compassion of a different quality w/o agenda or expectation of reward, can manifest as discussed in the video "Selfless love and giving yourself away".
BTW, the Ninth Episode of the live, open Q&A, dialogue with Rich Doyle and i on "out of the 'blah blah blah' of everyday life and into this joyful stillness that exists just beyond self-referential thought" will be on Thursday, August 6 @ 8:00 pm USEDT/NYC. Signup @ http://www.synchcast.net/#!awakening-beyond-thought/c1oe5. Donations only, as always.
This reminds me of a recent conversation I had involving a woman who had a life-changing experience at a particular forum. She repeatedly suggested that I follow in her footsteps, despite increasingly overt levels of refusal by me. A lovely woman with good intentions, she was absolutely convinced that I would be improved by attending this forum. But she was so invested in this idea, compassionate or not, that she was either blind to or apathetic towards my resistance.
ReplyDeleteDuring that meeting, and at many times before, I have seen the same tendency come out in me: the desire to propagate my belief in self-inquiry. This was my story, my desire, attempting to cram itself into every possible situation it could, under the guise of helping others. Regardless of good intentions or efficacy, what we believe to be compassion is the remainder of radiance that has been filtered through our ego. Quite the ego, then true compassion — or, at least, selfless interaction — will result.
Hi David R.
ReplyDeleteExcellent examples of the difference between self-ish and selfless compassion, even in situations when we are trying to "help" another. As you say, quiet the ego, and then true compassion...will result.
stillness
Hi Gary,
ReplyDeleteThis brings up a question that comes out for me often as a result of my Vipasana background: How do I embody kindness, compassion, and all that other good stuff that Buddhism, as well as other religions, encourages, in the time prior to the falling away of the ego?
What's the correct dose of "fake it till you make it" for those of us who practice on the path still with an active ego?
On the one hand I don't want to act like a non-caring jerk, on the other hand I disdain spiritual fakery, and the balance is not always clear.
Thanks,
Shaul
Hi Shaul,
DeleteA great practice is to watch when you are doing something that you regard as "compassionate" and feel what it feels like. Feel the pleasure arise as "you" do that behavior/act, and just ask, "What is it that is compassionate?". If you don't do the act and feel "like a non-caring jerk", ask "What feels like a non-caring jerk?".
If you continue to watch this process in action, soon, you won't have to "fake it till you make it", you will really understand the process clearly and the one who does a "compassionate" act out of self-interest will fade away.
Then your actions, "compassionate" and otherwise, will be done w/o self-interest, agenda, concept, expectation of reward, etc. They will take on a whole new character of presence, openness and availability and will be dramatically more effective and useful for all.
stillness
ReplyDeleteHi Gary,
Thanks again for your blog and YouTube videos.
You might be interested in Spinoza's view on pity/compassion. He regards it as an irrational emotion, on the same footing as hope and fear. It is useless (in fact harmful) to person who is ``governed by reason''. See e.g.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/12/spinoza-on-commiseratio-pity-as-a-wastebasket-emotion.html
Given that his position is repugnant to most traditions, I sometimes wonder how he arrived at it. He appears to have decided that since there is only one thing ("substance", aka God or Nature) and that thing is perfect, sorrow at the misfortunes of others can only be attributed to a defect in the intellect. This is a big pill to swallow.
My guess is that he may have first recognized the uselessness of self pity (although there doesn't seem to be any indication of this in his writings). It is easy to imagine how self-pity would evaporate if the sensation of having a self is lost. Presumably if self-pity goes then pity for others goes as well. I wonder if this progression corresponds to anything in your experience?
thanks
Hi pjk55,
Deletei have found much of Spinoza's philosophy, as did Einstein, to be some of the most useful.
The Maverick Philosopher who blogged your link gave a good summary on Spinoza's views on compassion, particularly in the first paragraph..."it is unnecessary that I 'feel your pain'...Indeed, my allowing myself to be affected might interfere with my rendering of aid...Better that I should remain unaffected and unperturbed."
This is also covered in our video "Selfless love and giving yourself away" @ https://youtu.be/7ShboPS8so8.
As pointed out in the post, the likely origin of selfish-compassion is Darwinianly evolved to promote cohesion w/the group, but only personally-useful cohesion, i.e. that which would be reciprocated to yourself at some future time.
IME, if one watches closely when they are "compassionate", they can feel why it is being done. Doing it w/the expectation of a return favor, personally, either now, or in some after/future life, feels very different from having compassion manifest w/o an agenda or consideration of a reward in stillness and presence. They are of a totally different quality, utility and integrity.
stillness
To me certain elements of religion are indispensable. We can be right in that which we affirm and wrong in that which we deny. Because people have abused religion and used it to their own advantage doesn't make it wrong any more than atomic science is bad because through it the atom bomb came about.
ReplyDeleteMy own personal take is that the denial of / death of / negation of "self" may be on a certain level attainable through various meditative techniques and non dual approaches in everyday circumstances and can be very beneficial and make great contributions towards the well-being of mankind. But so often more is needed where the above techniques are little more than attempts to "lift oneself up by ones own shoelaces" ... I.e. Self cannot crucify self! An outside agent is needed. For the Christian for instance to relate to Jesus Christ who suffered death whilst forgiving his enemies is to become a participant in this death and thus a partaker of his resurrection through faith. In this there is a power beyond myself which transcends instantaneously my own feeble efforts to negate self. It is the divine coming from the outside enabling something from within (I think the theologians call it panentheism). So for me while I am fully committed to non dual consciousness and practice Centering prayer (or "heartfulness" as Thomas Keating has recently called it) every day I very much recognise the centrality of the cross as a pointer to divine outside help in the furtherance of agape.
Hi Bruce. i agree, as did Ramana Maharshi, my principal teacher, that a deep "bhakti/devotional" practice, as you describe, can be a valuable partner w/self-inquiry and surrender practices. If you look @ the blogposts "Can i reach 'nondual awakening' through devotion? Is it the same as 'self-inquiry'?" and "Feeling your way to nondual awakening", you'll see that i have used and have recommended using a devotional practice along w/self-inquiry.
DeleteThe critical thing i found w/using a bhakti practice in a non-dual awakening process is to move from seeing the object of devotion, whether it's Jesus Christ, Shiva, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, or some other iconic figure, as different from oneself, to being one w/that iconic figure.
The difference is between one's "tasting the sugar/sweetness" of the dualistic devotional relationship to actually merging w/the object of the devotion and "being one w/ and absorbed in the sugar/sweetness" of the object of devotion in a nondual way.
As someone who was deeply schooled in fundamental Christianity, i recognize this is heretical, and very difficult, for Christians, but it is possible, and amazingly powerful. Mother Teresa was deeply-devoted and cherished her relationship w/Jesus and healed so many folk for him. However, she had a deep nondual experience and spent many years in great unhappiness because she lost that dualistic relationship and wrote about it in letters in "Come Be My Light".
Another famous Christian mystic, Henri Le Saux/Abhishiktananda, had a similar experience and struggled w/losing the duality and sweetness of the Eucharist while deeply being immersed in nonduality. He also wrote many wonderful books about it.
IME, if one is going to move into the depths of agape, they will need to move into "absorption into Christ". The nondual mystical experience can transcend any other experience, but only if one can let go of their attachments, even to "tasting the sweetness" of devotion.
stillness, love and surrender