In an encounter with a good friend yesterday, I was
confronted with a question. Simply put,
my friend said, “why don’t you write about compassion?” “Ok,” I thought. That should be easy. I know the Greek and Latin words for
compassion. I even know what those words
are in German and French and could even make a good guess in Spanish. So I know a great deal about it…right?
Of course, intellectually I know quite a bit about
compassion. I probably could do a
lecture on it and possibly impress a few who don’t know Greek and Latin. But I do not really like to stay at that
level. And I gave up lecturing a long
time ago…passive learning I tell the students.
I want you engaged, active, and really learning. If I am doing all the talking, how can I
possibly know whether you are learning?
Instead of Greek and Latin, the only real place to begin is
with experience. As in most things
having to do with spirituality, if I have no experience of something, I should
not be talking about it. It is fine to
ask questions so I can learn something.
So from my experience what do I know about compassion?
Actually, there are only two key ideas that can be
learned. And I think I know only a
little bit about each one. Compassion
has to do with love and it has to do
with suffering. Those are the two key ideas. Anything else is a footnote to love or
suffering. And those two ideas are
fairly closely related. So let’s look at each one.
Let’s choose to look first at love; that sounds more fun
than suffering! I find that I do not use
that word as much as many folks do. I
fear it has lost much of its power in our current culture. When people can love their children, cars,
and carrots, I am no longer able to understand what love really means.
No doubt, there are a zillion ways folks talk about love,
but the list narrows when we are talking about the kind of love that is
compassionate love. I like the one-liner
of Gerald May, the late writer on spirituality and psychiatry. He says, “compassionate love…is a firm,
committed, noncontrived giving of time, energy, attention, and wealth to
further the welfare and improve the lives of other human beings.” This is powerful for a number of reasons.
I like his adjectives: firm, committed, and
noncontrived. Have I loved like
this? If so, I am capable of
compassion. Too often, our love is
wimpy, non-committal, and contrived. Too
often we love to get something! Or at
least, we say we love to get something.
I think that should be called manipulation.
And then, compassion always has to do with suffering. Of course, I can love people who are not
suffering, but I cannot call it compassion.
Compassion is always a “loving-with,” not “loving-for.” Sometimes I can only be compassionate with
someone. I can only “love-with.” Sometimes compassion is stuck
“loving-with.” Neither I nor the other
person can change the situation.
For example, we all will die. Compassion does not prevent that. In fact, there may be suffering in the dying
process. Compassion won’t prevent that. Morphine might be given to alleviate the
pain. But morphine does not forestall
death either. Compassion may be the only
medicine of the soul I can offer. I can
“love-with.” And “loving-with” means at
one level I “suffer-with.”
When I understand compassion with these key ideas, I have a
clue what Jesus was talking about in his language of love. I have a clue what the Buddha meant when
talking about karuna, which means
working to alleviate the effects of suffering.
When all is said and done, the real question is, “have you
been compassionate,” not the question, “do you know what compassion
means?” Lord, help be able to say “yes”
to the real question!
Comments
Post a Comment