I was recently asked; What is the difference between pity and context?
Symbian has become a buzzword, used rather freely, but it's confusion about what it means and how or if it affects our lives. When does something that feels and looks like compassion, even with mercy, rests the line to be something unhealthy?
I think we can agree that sympathy, as we generally define it, is desirable quality. It speaks of kindness, acceptance and understanding, tolerance and grace. In religion, we could go so far to refer to qualities like this as the qualities of God.
When does something work as good as noble and pity over the line to be unhealthy? When do we start to deny someone with protection or rescue or decide?
It might be the goal of being aware of the question of asking yourself; Am I strengthening someone, or relieving them?
Strengthening is "promoting self-esteem." This is absolutely what the middle to long term goal of compassion is, or should be.
It is a disease that has occurred in our culture over the past two decades, and this pathology is; I've been acting because I am. The news, if it's full of it, soaps and other television and the media, provide a constant diet of it, make the tablets a fate. It has almost become desirable to be in a drama of one kind or another. It can even resemble drama competition; My drama is bigger than your drama.
Since this disease has occurred and developed, there has been another sympathetic disease that has followed up the extent of consciousness and who is; I save people in drama, because I am.
We've forgotten somewhere along the way that we learn and conquer our fear of experience. Emerson reminds us: "Do not be too tired and hurt your actions. You fail and get roughly dirty once or twice. Again, you'll never be so afraid of the tumble."
One What happens to this growing pathology is that we put our pain on someone else, cleverly disguised as a compassion. Based on how we look at the world or situation, or challenge, we put these opinions on someone else. The internal discussions are: "I think this is bad for you, it hurts me to look through you because I'm going to step in and shorten your process."
We've been afraid somewhere along the way to fail and get some dirt once or twice and we deal with this fear by saving others.
How to be homosexual and still have a healthy relationship? We do it by going through another version of hell with them and not judging the situation as good or bad, or right or wrong. We refrain from emphasizing our other fears.
We trust that the international consciousness knows what it's doing, that it could be a little fine without correcting us.
None of us likes to see those we love in an emergency. And when is their need really our own need? When do we see something that is needed when someone actually learns life, precious living, without which may be less well-blossomed in the world? When do we start to disempower someone with over protection, or rescue or decide?
When are we saving someone from something they do not need to be saved from?
We all have to live our own lives. I can not do it for you in the name of compassion, because it would be cheating you to be comfortable knowing how powerful you really are.
You've heard saying, "Give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach him to fish and he'll eat in his life." What I believe is a precise metaphor for what we are trying to perform with compassion. Of course, if you're hungry, I'll give you fish. As soon as you're well enough, I'll teach you to fish. If I continue to give you fish after you're well enough to start learning to fish for yourself, it does not matter and does not support you. Rather, it dis-empowers it. This is a context.
Religious science teaches us that our thoughts have enormous power. With such power comes responsibility, responsibility for ourselves, responsibility for our choice. This can be one of the most constructive and adequate things we ever discover in life. This is the whole foundation of the ideology of the scientific mind.
So what matter, whatever you thought or chose, did someone come and a short circuit that absorbs the consequences of your actions and choices? It has a particular appeal, as it loses us of responsibility. And in the long run, we would never learn how truly powerful we are. We never wanted to know that pleasure.
Many years ago, I was encouraged to sign up for my life to review my relationship, my actions and my choices, and see what I could learn from them.
It was difficult, because I knew I would see that I had made a huge mess of my life. But sometimes for the first time in my life, I was encouraged to take responsibility for my own power, taking out the role of the victim, to be responsible for my part in mischief. As a result of that process, I had one of the greatest achievements of my life; If I could make it a lot of chaos of things, WHY DO I use the same power, mindset and choice, and try to do something about it? I just started doing this and life has become very different. But here's the cave: I had to embrace what seemed to be a failure to grasp on my own power.
I would like to propose a new word for you: CO-AFDEPENDENCE. And here's the definition of work: I love you and I'll walk you through hell. But I will not seduce you. I'm excited to love you so much that I'll let you discover how truly powerful you are. I will not short-circuit it. I will not leave you, but I will not save you if you choose to do the same options over and over again. I will not emphasize your fear of you, but will trust that the way you are walking is the right and perfect way for you to learn what you need to learn. I will let you learn, not my way. I fully trust in infinite wisdom within you, knowing that you will find your own perfect alignment in perfect time, in the perfect way. The power of the universe lives in you, and I trust it above all else.