. Why does an action need to be distinguished as compassionate or aggressive. Who is the judge ?
When Hitler murdered all those people he thought he was being compassionate toward the human gene-pool. Compassion was it when the Romans throw the Christians to the lions. History has an endless string of real examples of our ability to be compassionate. Compassion and aggression are simple labels within the essential world of dualistic illusions. This means they no substance within this illusion of reality. Yet if someone chooses, they can also rise above this our illusion and reconnect with the whole. No enlightenment or awakening. Just a true purity of being. Such people realise. Helping others, giving and loving are just the best way to share this illusion. What you judge as compassionate is simply common sense when truth is realised. . On 2 July, 12:19, roomsearching <[email protected]> wrote: > UG might say he is callous. > > But he did send a message to everyone to be free. That itself is compassion. > > He may say he is callous. But he welcomed anyone who wanted to talk to him > to his house. > > He used to meet thousands of people all over the world. > > A callous uncompassionate brute will not do such things. > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Kuber Technologies < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > Questioner: Is a person in the natural state compassionate? > > > U.G. Krishnamurti: That is your projection; they are callous, indifferent, > > unconcerned. 'Compassion' is one of the gimmicks of the 'holy business', > > sales talk. Do you think this individual is conscious that he is full of > > compassion? If he is, it is not compassion. > > > ------------ > > > UG would not have know compassion even if it reared up and bit his natural > > ass. > > > The typical connotation of the term "compassion" is someone being > > compassionate( in whatever manner) to someone who needs to be > > compassionated. > > > Whether the natural state or the unnatural state(there being really no > > such distinction)... > > > ..there are no entities involved ......where...... as a nuance of > > existing.... the flavour is of compassion, empathy, enmity or > > indifference. > > > That is to say......it is not that when some esoteric exalted state > > ofsagacity has happened...... only after that event.........there is no > > entity involved, there is no separation involved. > > > Non-entitification, non-separation, is the case, whether in the > > particularmilieu... > > > ... a sage (as held by the audience to be a sage) speaks to a > > seeker......or > > two warring nations threaten to obliterate the other .....in the name of > > democracy or in the name of Allah. > > > Whether it is seen to be acts of compassion or genocide...... > > > .....it is always the Duet of One. > > > In this Duet of One......compassion or empathy......is akin the rushingof > > the hand to cup the bleeding toe and ease the pain, when the toe got > > stubbed. > > > The compassionate hand does not see itself separate to the > > bleeding/painful toe. > > > Nor does it see itself as the same. > > > The ideation of separation or the ideation of non-separation...... > > > .....both are meaningless, irrelevant in the immediacy of the actioning. > > > Even the term "immediacy" is misleading for it suggests that there are > > some actions which are spontaneous and some which are delayed in > > time......being affected by deliberation, pondering, thinking etc etc. > > > The deliberation is immediate, the pondering is immediate, the reflection > > is immediate and the physical actualization of all these immediate > > mentations......into an action or series of actions (if at all).......is > > also immediate. > > > When there is nothing which is not immediate........the term immediacy > > becomes superfluous. > > > That is why the apperception of Advaita is the immediate primordial mirth > > at the concept of both Dvait as well as Advait.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
