We were having a talk the other night. It almost got heated, but when we examined the root of the problem it was a misunderstanding of words and not concepts.
The three terms that got us in a muddle were Compassion, Empathy and Sympathy. Initially we discussed what we understood the meanings to be, which resulted in a realisation that our understanding was a little muddled. Even after consulting dictionaries and wikipedia there was still uncertainty. Here is what we decided to be a good working set of definitions. Please feel free to suggest modifications or additions.
EMPATHY: The recognition of someone else's Emotion or suffering.
SYMPATHY: Actually experiencing the suffering or emotions of others.
COMPASSION: Part 1 (Empathy) Recognition of suffering. Part 2 (Love) The wish for the suffering to cease.
Another wordy point we discussed was the difference between detatchment and non-attachment. Attachment to people and things usually results in big suffering when we experience loss. Love and attachment are not the same (I know it, but sometimes get caught out). I have learned that non-attachment is worth striving for. I have heard this described as detatchment, but I think that there is a difference.
Detatchment in my eyes suggests isolation and non-interaction with the world. I feel better with non-attachment as it merely suggests that we don't get too wrapped up in anything too deeply such that it's loss, which is an absolute certainty, brings big big suffering. I know the theory, I am not so great at the practice.
Moo the noo.
Re: Words don't come easy.
by roy on 03 Dec 07 at 12:50
moocow said,
This is a must. We all need to be acknowledged. I think part of the function of this site is to acknowledge the feelings of others, indeed, it is part of human relationships as a whole.
But,
I say don't go there. You are not helping yourself or the person who is suffering. As you say, acknowledge that they are suffering. It would be inhumane not to acknowledge that. But do not suffer with them.
An old Buddhist tale tells of how it is impossible to help someone out of a hole if you climb into that hole with them.
Non-attachment. Yes. Don't be attached to the outcome of your actions.
Not resonating with the low vibrational feelings of others such as sorrow, fear, anger, etc.
Compassion I think is caring for others and for the planet. Actively doing something positive. Raising the vibrations and allowing others to follow your good vibrations up into a higher spiritual plane.
There is a term Don Juan uses in the Carlos Casteneda books - "The place of no self pity." This, I believe, is the place that compassion comes from. A non-attached place.
I totally agree that "detachment" is going too far. I experienced too much of that when I was a Buddhist monk and when I was a Brahma Kumar. It is mostly a mask for people who are unwilling or unable to care for others or for nature.
EMPATHY: The recognition of someone else's Emotion or suffering.
This is a must. We all need to be acknowledged. I think part of the function of this site is to acknowledge the feelings of others, indeed, it is part of human relationships as a whole.
But,
Actually experiencing the suffering or emotions of others.
I say don't go there. You are not helping yourself or the person who is suffering. As you say, acknowledge that they are suffering. It would be inhumane not to acknowledge that. But do not suffer with them.
An old Buddhist tale tells of how it is impossible to help someone out of a hole if you climb into that hole with them.
Non-attachment. Yes. Don't be attached to the outcome of your actions.
Not resonating with the low vibrational feelings of others such as sorrow, fear, anger, etc.
Compassion I think is caring for others and for the planet. Actively doing something positive. Raising the vibrations and allowing others to follow your good vibrations up into a higher spiritual plane.
There is a term Don Juan uses in the Carlos Casteneda books - "The place of no self pity." This, I believe, is the place that compassion comes from. A non-attached place.
I totally agree that "detachment" is going too far. I experienced too much of that when I was a Buddhist monk and when I was a Brahma Kumar. It is mostly a mask for people who are unwilling or unable to care for others or for nature.
spiritual language
by howiemac on 03 Dec 07 at 19:06
I agree fully with the above two posts. Detachment indicates a coldness and aloofness which denies compassion - the heavenly counterpart to earthly attachment is indeed much better described as non-attachment - this is warmer. Without love, there is no virtue in avoiding attachment. Love drives compassion, which itself involves empathy, and not sympathy. As Roy says:
I think our discourse will benefit greatly from such discussion of, and clear definition of, the main terms we use. The English language, as it has evolved, does not clearly distinguish at all well between spiritual and material concepts - the basic words we need are there, but they have become misused and then mis-defined over time - modern dictionaries definitions often muddy spiritual concepts with alternate mundane meanings that have become common in every day use. As a result we need to define our terms more precisely than the dictionaries do, if we are to be able to communicate spiritual concepts clearly.
For example: the word
So we have:
LOVE: golden energy which radiates from the heart chakra. The selfless motive force behind true benevolence and compassion.
it is impossible to help someone out of a hole if you climb into that hole with them.
I think our discourse will benefit greatly from such discussion of, and clear definition of, the main terms we use. The English language, as it has evolved, does not clearly distinguish at all well between spiritual and material concepts - the basic words we need are there, but they have become misused and then mis-defined over time - modern dictionaries definitions often muddy spiritual concepts with alternate mundane meanings that have become common in every day use. As a result we need to define our terms more precisely than the dictionaries do, if we are to be able to communicate spiritual concepts clearly.
For example: the word
loveis used in common language for mild affection, for romantic attachment, and for the sexual act - as I indicated in the What is love? thread, I prefer to define love in pure spiritual terms, and not alloy and debase it with selfish desires and attachments. Love is the golden glow from the heart chakra, which gives without asking anything back. It is the inherent quality in all of us that is the basis of all virtue. The other more mundane uses of
loveare actually pure love blended with other feelings or emotions. Modern
lovehas become very diluted indeed! A mother scolds her errant child out of
lovefor the child.. but her anger actually comes from fear and attachment, not from love. Desire and emotional need are not, in themselves, love.
So we have:
LOVE: golden energy which radiates from the heart chakra. The selfless motive force behind true benevolence and compassion.
freedom
by howiemac on 17 Dec 07 at 16:19
On contemplating further on the subtle differences between
Freedom is indisputably positive, and liberating. And, in language terms, it is simple and direct. So, I suggest:
FREEDOM: lack of attachment or bonds
FREE: not attached; independent.
detachmentand
non-attachment, I found myself unhappy with both terms and considering possible alternatives. It seems to me that freedom, in a spiritual sense, is the same as non-attachment. We are free when we have no bonds - when we are not in bondage to another being, or a situation, or our own emotional attachments. So, it is simpler to say (and to understand) "be free", than "be detached" or "be non-attached" or "don't be attached".
Freedom is indisputably positive, and liberating. And, in language terms, it is simple and direct. So, I suggest:
FREEDOM: lack of attachment or bonds
FREE: not attached; independent.
re:Words don't come easy.
by Al on 19 Dec 07 at 16:07
Where does MERCY fit in, I hope you don't have to write it all again.
Hope I don't either.
by Right Life on 20 Dec 07 at 11:55
Mercy only comes into play when you are in the habit of judging others and dishing out retribution. Better find someone more experienced in the field for a more rounded definition. Then they can write it all out again as punishment 
re:Words don't come easy.
by Al on 20 Dec 07 at 14:13
It cannot be mentioned too often, the need for MERCY TOWARDS THE SELF.
this can bring true healing within. We can then have Mercy, or, compassion towards others.
Compassion is a natural virtue from day one. Mercy may suggest that things have gone out of balance in some way and so there is the need for mercy. There may not be need for mercy before we entered this drama therefore, but there is now.
I don't recall being taught anything at school on virtues in this way, I wonder why?
this can bring true healing within. We can then have Mercy, or, compassion towards others.
Compassion is a natural virtue from day one. Mercy may suggest that things have gone out of balance in some way and so there is the need for mercy. There may not be need for mercy before we entered this drama therefore, but there is now.
I don't recall being taught anything at school on virtues in this way, I wonder why?
re:Words don't come easy.
by howiemac on 22 Dec 07 at 09:40
I don't recall being taught anything at school on virtues in this way, I wonder why?
the teachers can only teach what they know
a definition of meditation
by howiemac on 13 Mar 10 at 13:41
MEDITATION: relaxed contemplation intended to increase spiritual presence.