Moderator: Moderators - Public
Sardonyx wrote:Hmh. With that understanding, even "ruthless compassion" would be a vice.
Jim Eshelman wrote:I think it's a "vice" not because it's one kind of compassion or another etc., but for a more exacting reason: Compassion is one of those spaces where one "makes a difference between" one thing or another. Anything like that is flawed eventually.
Chogyam Trungpa wrote:When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative to wake a person up.
Heru wrote:Chogyam Trungpa wrote:When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative to wake a person up.
There may be no connection, but I was still intrigued by the idea that attempting to "wake a person up" could possibly be in some way flawed.
Speculation alert! Could this mean that an Adept's attempts at trying to awaken another person are, in a certain sense, futile. While the Master sees the futility in the exercise, knowing that you can't wake someone up unless they want to be woken up in the first place?
Sardonyx wrote:I wonder a lot about the motivation of masters to continue the work of enlightening humanity. If it's all perfect as it is, then why work to enlighten? Whether kind or ruthless, it seems like compassion.
Call it "creativity," it still has a goal to create change, doesn't it? Or what?
Hermes wrote:I dont think Masters have "goals", and certainly not to "create" or "change" anything.
Compassion at this level probably just consist of doing ones will according to ones nature.
The thing though, probably, is the precision of alignement is so great that even 0.0000001% compation have like billions times more effect than the Neophyte's 100% one. And this on an automatic level.
Luce wrote:Okay, simplistic question here:
You walk down the road and see a woman being raped. You have the ability to help her. Do you help her? Do you have a moral obligation to help her? Does it depend? If it depends, is it only in obscure cases that you wouldn't help her? Is helping her showing compassion?
Luce wrote:Is helping her showing compassion?
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Luce wrote:Is helping her showing compassion?
No... it's showing alignment with my own Will. Just as not helping her in one of those obscure cases which contradict my Will would be doing the same.
gerry456 wrote:The concept of having"no feelings" is repeated twice in Al and not that far apart;
Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.
21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not.
Here I think is the root of your confusion (yes, I'm putting the ownership of it on you):
You are construing "pain" and "regret" and "sorrows" as "feelings" equal to the joys of languid laughter. Pain and regret, in the context of Liber AL at least, are the chains of the slave gods; it is with these shames that they shackle their sheep. But in Thelema there is no wrong, per se, because learning is a process of leaping and laughing, laughing even when we skin our knees and learn.
Does that help?
But the Book acknowledges that of all vices, this is the distinctive one of adepts ("kings"). OTOH it is not given as characteristic of Masters, for whom "making no difference" etc. is a defining trait.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest