"Be excellent to one another!"

If you think that compassion implies softness, there's no way I can describe compassion to you, absolutely no way, because compassion can be very hard. Compassion can be very rude, compassion can jolt you, compassion can roll up its sleeves and operate on you. Compassion is all kinds of things. Compassion can be very soft, but there's no way of knowing that. It's only when you become love -- in other words, when you have dropped your illusions and attachments -- that you will "know." from Anthony De Mello, Awareness.

I define compassion as the sense of being fully aware of the inherent dignity and value of every human being. It's not always an easy thing. But it doesn't always necessarily mean wanting to hug every person you meet, too; there are times when the best course of action involves confrontation, resistance, or even violence.

Compassion is the key to the best course of action in every case. Therefore it is essential in ethical education.

Unconditional compassion is the key that unlocks much of the perennial truth within the world's religions. Unconditional compassion removes the conceptual blockages we may have in contemplating or perceiving the interconnectness of life and spirit.

Unconditional compassion is a much harder road than compassion; think of it as the "high road." 'Compassion' merely asks us to be human to one another; unconditional compassion demands love in all circumstances. Krishna taught Arjuna about compassion while standing in a chariot on a battlefield, even while explaining why the battle had to proceed. Paul and Socrates, like Krishna, taught primarily from the standpoint of compassion. But Lao Tzu, Buddha, and Jesus, among others, taught unconditional compassion.

Those who wish to embody the Tao should embrace all things. To embrace all things means first that one holds no anger or resistance toward any idea or thing, living or dead, formed or formless. Acceptance is the very essence of the Tao. To embrace all things means also that one rids oneself of any concept of separation; male and female, self and other, life and death. Division is contrary to the nature of the Tao. Foregoing antagonism and separation, one enters in the harmonious oneness of all things. -- Lao Tzu, Hua Hu Ching 2

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even gentiles do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. -- Jesus, Matthew 5:43-48

Edit: There is some tension here. What makes this tricky is that while unconditional compassion may be the centerpiece of religious perception, it does not necessarily give the best ethical guidance. It may offer the most spiritual way to perceive the world, but it is not always the best guide to action. Injustice, for example, should not be accepted, it should be opposed. Therefore I take "unconditional compassion" to be a guide to one's inner life; it allows one to cultivate inner stillness; but it is not a guide for living, for interacting with the cosmos.

Can I have this posted on a plaque in every courthouse in America? It's by a saint...

Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance.

... Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

--Augustine, On The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Chapter 19

(no subject)

I'm feeling a very strong urge to sift through my thoughts and beliefs and philosophies and start coalescing them into some sort of coherent picture. I wrote the essays on the Renewal Gnosticism page about two years ago, and that was the last time I sat down and sorted through my thoughts in anything resembling a systematic fashion.

Since then many of my ideas have matured and progressed, but I've approached matters in a very ad hoc fashion. There is no good reason why I should do otherwise, my approach is primarily reflective, by which I mean I do not operate from some sort of laundry-list agenda of topics, but simply reflect on topics as they arise. It sometimes amazes me that there is any consistency to my thoughts at all, but -- what is that word that means my ethics and philosophy are driven by a concise set of principles? -- starts with a "p" I think? -- whatever that adjective is, that's the way my mind works, philosophically.

This journal has been an amazing tool in helping me to collect and organize my thoughts for later reference, and see patterns in my responses to things. More and more now, I can see when a topic comes up that chances are I've already expressed some sort of opinion and can restate or revise as necessary. Now that I'm covering the same ground over and over in similar ways, I'm sensing that I've reached the end of a parenthetical sort of period in my philosophical life, and it's time to organize thoughts, maybe for yet another start on the book I've been writing for years now. (That poor thing!)