KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

You are wonderful, Huguette.

Huguette wrote:

night wrote:

#120
But what is also true is that the odds of survival and fruition of a secure and attentive child or adult are greater than of a traumatized one. The greater the capacity for attention the greater the odds.

Eden wrote:

All the more reason not to build your house on shaky ground. Life is fragile enough, why add to the fragility.

The question of compassion came up. You're talking about increasing the odds for survival. For me, increasing the odds of surviving danger and keeping the body healthy does not make life meaningful. In my view there's more to life than survival. Man (woman) has asked about "meaning" for at least thousands of years (perhaps not you personally). It seems to me that man seeks meaning because life feels empty without love and beauty,  where self-interest dominates. But man has been seeking the answer to meaning through thought or through materialism. For me, "meaning" is not a question that can be answered through the accumulation of ideas or goods.

Which is not to deny the fact that the brain demands security when there is danger. You don't watch TV when the bombs are falling. You don't soak in the bathtub when the house is on fire. You don't go for a stroll when the earth quakes. You don't go dancing when your children are starving to death.

And the body needs good food, clean water and exercise to thrive.

One can say that compassion is not necessary, that one's first and only duty is to the survival of one's children and oneself and, indeed, compassion is not necessary for survival nor is it an obligation or a virtue.

I think that - being of this world - one has to at least ask oneself if a world without compassion is in our children's best interests.

The supremacy of thought has made the world what it is - i.e. every man (woman) for himself, every family for itself, every nation for itself, and the image and ideal being more important than the living being. This is the legacy we are passing on to our children, a world mostly without compassion.

A 3 year old child cannot survive on his own for long. He (she) can survive for many years given a minimum of food, clothes and shelter and no love by dutiful strangers. But is survival all that matters?

Compassion does not mean forsaking your children and taking care of 7 billion strangers. Compassion is the spontaneous lending of a hand to a stranger who has fallen, the wordless embrace to a grieving mother, the tending to a wounded animal on the road, the giving of a few dollars .... and caring for the orphan .... if there is the impulse, the ability and the opportunity to do it.

Compassion is felt in the moment. It's not a principle or an obligation carried through life. Compassion has no proof, justification or argument, as also for love or beauty. When you see someone hurt or treated unjustly, compassion is there or it isn't.

Thought has claimed supremacy for itself. Thought speaks and the heart is ignored. By heart, I mean the whole human being, for the human being is more than thought alone. One can obey the supremacy of thought and not listen to one's heart. One can argue oneself out of compassion and love but they are only buried deep, not destroyed (it seems to me).

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. We can talk (or not) if there's a common interest to understand, to examine, to look into existential questions we have in common, like love, compassion, beauty, meaning, right action, relationship, sorrow, fear, and so on.

Huguette, if you read carefully my previous post you will see that I talked about fruition too, not merely survival. These two are connected. An healthy and sane mother is preferable to the child than an unhealthy one. By healthy I mean the whole being: physical, mental, etc. Not merely eating healthy foods or spending enough time at the beach.

You say "Compassion is there or it isn't". Compassion in your definition seems to be "helping the wounded", grosso modo. Maybe that is your call and that is fine. Why not adopt an orphan, sure. Also, if compassion is choiceless, what do you want to do? (You seem to want to promote it or cultivate it in children).

About the search for meaning. Well, one could ask whether there is a meaning to be found (as opposed to invented/projected), or else one could also ask what is the motivation to find meaning (you say out of loneliness). I find that the more open I am to all and myself the less the need to find a meaning - the universe as this unfathomable sexy show is totally sufficient.

bruce sean wrote:

Compassion is not mine or yours, it isn't something which I have created. The latin root, as you know, means passion for all-now all means all, so it is not partial. 'Enlightened' or not, compassion is there, not for someone in particular, or excluding someone or a group-but 'for all', without distinction. Love is just a different word for the same thing, which I've said is not a feeling. Now, you can see that love is not partial, it knows no exclusion. It includes everything because it is everything.


  You still didn't tell me what is the action of such a thing, total, creation, whatever you name it-don't name it if you don't wish to-but what is its action?

You are asking me what passion for all living things looks like as manifested through a human being?  Did you want that in 20 words or less?  :-)  Or did you want to just hang out with me for a few hours?

night wrote:

I talked about fruition too, not merely survival. These two are connected. An healthy and sane mother is preferable to the child than an unhealthy one. By healthy I mean the whole being: physical, mental, etc. Not merely eating healthy foods or spending enough time at the beach.

You say "Compassion is there or it isn't". Compassion in your definition seems to be "helping the wounded", grosso modo. Maybe that is your call and that is fine. Why not adopt an orphan, sure. Also, if compassion is choiceless, what do you want to do? (You seem to want to promote it or cultivate it in children).

About the search for meaning. Well, one could ask whether there is a meaning to be found (as opposed to invented/projected), or else one could also ask what is the motivation to find meaning (you say out of loneliness). I find that the more open I am to all and myself the less the need to find a meaning - the universe as this unfathomable sexy show is totally sufficient.

At #110, Eden offered this definition of compassion: "literally means to suffer together with" and that is actually my understanding of it. I don't want to "do" anything in particular, nor did I suggest taking any action in regard to compassion. How does adopting an orphan come into this? I certainly don't want to promote or cultivate anything, either in children or adults - compassion cannot come about through promotion or cultivation.

I did say that abandoned children need and deserve compassion, whether or not they get it.

As for meaning, I didn't say that meaning can or should be found, only that suffering humanity looks for meaning.

If you don't suffer and you have "less need to find a meaning", good. I have no argument with that. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Of  course a sane healthy mother is more beneficial to a child than an unhealthy one, but what is a sane healthy mother? Is being sane a choice? It's easy to see "insanity" or "imbalance" (or whatever word one uses) in another, difficult to see it in oneself. Whatever a sane mother is, an insane mother also needs and deserves compassion.

So you are concerned with your body's needs, whatever they may be.

There is no you you say, but the body is concerned with itself, not other bodies.

Huguette wrote:

night wrote:

I talked about fruition too, not merely survival. These two are connected. An healthy and sane mother is preferable to the child than an unhealthy one. By healthy I mean the whole being: physical, mental, etc. Not merely eating healthy foods or spending enough time at the beach.

You say "Compassion is there or it isn't". Compassion in your definition seems to be "helping the wounded", grosso modo. Maybe that is your call and that is fine. Why not adopt an orphan, sure. Also, if compassion is choiceless, what do you want to do? (You seem to want to promote it or cultivate it in children).

About the search for meaning. Well, one could ask whether there is a meaning to be found (as opposed to invented/projected), or else one could also ask what is the motivation to find meaning (you say out of loneliness). I find that the more open I am to all and myself the less the need to find a meaning - the universe as this unfathomable sexy show is totally sufficient.

At #110, Eden offered this definition of compassion: "literally means to suffer together with" and that is actually my understanding of it. I don't want to "do" anything in particular, nor did I suggest taking any action in regard to compassion. How does adopting an orphan come into this? I certainly don't want to promote or cultivate anything, either in children or adults - compassion cannot come about through promotion or cultivation.

I did say that abandoned children need and deserve compassion, whether or not they get it.

As for meaning, I didn't say that meaning can or should be found, only that suffering humanity looks for meaning.

If you don't suffer and you have "less need to find a meaning", good. I have no argument with that. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Of  course a sane healthy mother is more beneficial to a child than an unhealthy one, but what is a sane healthy mother? Is being sane a choice? It's easy to see "insanity" or "imbalance" (or whatever word one uses) in another, difficult to see it in oneself. Whatever a sane mother is, an insane mother also needs and deserves compassion.

Deserve? All of this is choiceless, is it not?

Eden wrote:

How could you have possibly concluded that?  Must I sit here and refute all your bogus assumptions and your giant leaps?

You're not talking about any action of compassion, or whatever you want to call it. You say there is awareness of the whole planet-what is the action of that awareness? Can it be indifference?

bruce sean wrote:

Eden wrote:

How could you have possibly concluded that?  Must I sit here and refute all your bogus assumptions and your giant leaps?

You're not talking about any action of compassion, or whatever you want to call it. You say there is awareness of the whole planet-what is the action of that awareness? Can it be indifference?

Why introduce "indifference" into the discussion?  Sounds like a loaded question. Define "indifference".

Awareness expands and narrows as needed by the body.  No need to call it indifference...that word carries all sorts of subtle baggage. Obviously the body's interests are very specific and focused at certain moments....that doesn't mean that one is apathetic or dull to everything else.  The body's interests wax and wane from the whole to the specific, as needed.

Eden wrote:

Huguette wrote:

....if there is the impulse, the ability and the opportunity to do it.

Compassion is felt in the moment.

Impulse, felt in the moment.

We know that thought moves very fast so that, without attentive observation, one can miss an underlying motive. Impulse can be driven by thought, motive, anger, greed, jealousy, and so on. It seems to me that impulse can also be driven by something motiveless, love, compassion, beauty - not thought.

bruce sean wrote:

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

You're not talking about any action of compassion, or whatever you want to call it. You say there is awareness of the whole planet-what is the action of that awareness? Can it be indifference?

Why introduce "indifference" into the discussion?  Sounds like a loaded question. Define "indifference".

Awareness expands and narrows as needed by the body.  No need to call it indifference...that word carries all sorts of subtle baggage. Obviously the body's interests are very specific and focused at certain moments....that doesn't mean that one is apathetic or dull to everything else.  The body's interests wax and wane from the whole to the specific, as needed.

The body's taking care of its needs, it's not dull to everything else, got it. Can that body take care of its needs as long as there is the danger of a nuclear war, which can bring total destruction of the entire planet? Is the body aware of that?

  Then, does that body 'feel' different from the rest of the bodies? Does it 'feel' its brain is somewhat different?

You talk constantly about having a silent mind, and you also constantly speak of your fear of nuclear annihilation. You live a contradiction.

bruce sean wrote:

The body's taking care of its needs, it's not dull to everything else, got it. Can that body take care of its needs as long as there is the danger of a nuclear war, which can bring total destruction of the entire planet? Is the body aware of that?

Like I have pointed out before, your entire view of compassion, your entire religion hangs on this premise of the 'danger of nuclear annihilation'.

It is far more likely that your neighbor just randomly walks into your room one day and kills you than it is that the planet will be wiped out by nuclear annihilation.  You are more likely to die of a fall in the shower or a falling coconut. 

It is more likely that a comet destroys the earth.  Can the body take care of its needs as long as there is the danger of a comet from outerspace bringing total destruction of the planet?  Such is the absurdity of your position.

Have you eliminated all other dangers in your life(cancer, homicide, illness, accident, etc) and the only danger that now remains for you is nuclear annihilation?  If the answer is "no", then your concern is neurotic. 

You basically have taken the position that nuclear annihilation is a 100% probability whereas all these other dangers are much less than 100%.  There are so many unlikely events that would have to all come together to create your doomsday scenario that it is borderline absurd.  It is far more likely that there will be a nuclear event that destroys much less than the whole planet which will result in the human population demanding the end of nuclear weapons.  That is not my position but why is that scenario any less or any more likely than yours? 

bruce sean wrote:

Then, does that body 'feel' different from the rest of the bodies? Does it 'feel' its brain is somewhat different?

Awareness has simply withdrawn from myth and stories and now inhabits the body and all of life(which is the extension of the body).  One is able to feel and sense everything with less distortion.

Huguette wrote:

When you see someone hurt or treated unjustly, compassion is there or it isn't.

The religion of justice is born.