← Back to Kinfonet


The word “Compassion” means,

  • to not “induce” people “to what I feel must be done (like preserve them from sufferings or preserve nature or preserve earth)” or turn away the people from, where they are heading, to “Truth”

  • but to ‘provide’ the people what they actually as a whole seek for (not one or two but billions), if what they seek is “righteous”.

This is the “Responsibility” and not to “change” them towards “Intelligence or Truth”. Everyone is free to live their own ‘desire’ and meet the effects. If a man dies even bcz of a “Nuclear” bomb, it’s not an other person/politician’s act, but the return of his Karma. Nothing outside affect one, except his own deeds.

The only thing, the people , as a billions, desire now is, “Danvanthari” or “Apollo”, a right Doctor, who can provide the ‘right’ medicine for all, physical and mental issues (including Covid-19), and I’m heading towards it, not by learning/researching, but tapas/meditating. If there is a “god” in form - like Vishnu or Apollo, he has no other option but to answer to my prayer.

Hii Shakthi,

You started this thread by naming as “Compassion”. I have some questions for you, answer me if you are interested. Such that we can have a meaningful dialouge :slight_smile:

How do you recognize, the person is compassionate or not?

What is your criterion in judging a person whether he/she is seeking “righteous” or “unethical”?

Please share your insight on my questions, if possible.

Hi Siva,

First, why one should have to ‘learn/know/judge’ or even think about another person?

But, asking others, “Are you serious? Are you ready to die now to see what it is, on your own?”, opens up everything, as they forget to ask these questions, so some people like K, asks this, to remind/show them, so they themselves can decide/view, what they are upto in life/discussions, and knowing/judging/understanding others is again, rounding up by making a centre/circle.


My answer to this question is like this. In your reply, you mentioned something about the “righteous” characteristic of a person. It is implying the judgement on a person based on his actions. That is the reason, I asked you a pair of questions to understand your intention.

The topic of discussion is Compassion. Why should we delve into other aspect in this context?

You explained something about compassion, in two points. Both statements are pointing to completely different aspects. Now again my question is,

How to you recognize the person is compassionate or not?

Fine. Sorry for that.

“Righteous”? Not a ‘character’ of an individual - but an ‘act’.

It’s nothing but an act, to satisfy the “Physical Needs” of the society/people - and NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL needs.

The “righteous acts” are - to provide healthy food,clothes,shelter,medications,right treatment. And all other acts - to satisfy the ‘psychological desires’ are not righteous in my view.

Majority of the people, are only ‘concerned’ about ‘Psychological’ needs. This is what they ‘desire’. Let them be, Let them suffer. Only they can ‘observe’ themselves, by going through sufferings. Even me or you, before entering these forums, before ‘thinking’ about society/world, are only concerned about ‘self’ and it’s pleasure. But, as the persons here, went through much sufferings, came to realize a little bit of ‘self’ - so now ready to act for the ‘society’ - to make the ‘society/world’ - a beautiful one. K ‘thought’ about that too.

So, Compassion is, not to give what I feel, but to ‘PROVIDE’ what they “ASK” for ‘physical’ needs. Say, you are meeting a poor friend/stranger. If you give, what you don’t need or what you feel is ‘good’ to him - it’s not compassion. But to let him ask - what he wants physically - food/cloth/shelter - and provide him accordingly - is “COMPASSION”. Even going deeper, in my view, a man/poor can live by wearing a dirty/single cloth, also without shelter. But, without ‘food’ and ‘medicines’ - is impossible - and these two sharing is what I say as ‘righteous’. If he asks food and I have only a ‘small bread’ and I too starve - but to give him, and make him ‘survive’ and let me take the burden of starvation - is “COMPASSION”.

Now, Majority of the people, ask for money,pleasures,etc… (Psychological needs) - which are not ‘righteous’ - as it is concerned only about ‘self’. They didn’t ask for a better society. But, they ask for a ‘Right Medicine’ for the ‘diseases’, a physical need - so acting accordingly is “righteous” in my view.

If they don’t seek “intelligence” and wants to live in ‘self’ - let them be. I won’t interfere. Let them have fun and sufferings.


"To provide what people seek, and if it is ‘righteous’ (i.e. physical needs for SURVIVAL), then acting accordingly is ‘Compassion’".


From the above reply, I understood that providing necessary conditions for poor people in the aspects of food and medical grounds is “COMPASSION”. You classified some of the needs for an human being comes under the category of “RIGHTEOUS”.

I think, we are talking about very little, in the aspects of COMPASSION. Your definition for COMPASSION is limited to physical needs. There are some psychological aspects of this term, which are directly related to the “self”.

In present-day society, politicians and religious people provide food and money to the poor for maintaining their image among other people. In this context will you say they are “COMPASSIONATE”?

No need :slight_smile:

Please share your view.

Sakthi and Sivaram,

Can I understand compassion without seeing my motives for questioning it? Is it that I rebel at the chaos and injustice in the world and I have concluded that one “should be” compassionate so that there can be order and justice in the world? Is it that I have been conditioned to accept compassion as a righteous quality? Is questioning it a pleasurable intellectual distraction, an occupation to keep the mind occupied? Something else?

If I’m interested in compassion, it seems to me that I can understand it only by looking inwardly, not by determining whether others are compassionate. If I do not feel or experience compassion, pain, jealousy, anger, and so on, inwardly, then the thing cannot be looked at directly and cannot be understood.

I could be wrong.

No, it is not compassion at all, it is just a verbal statement that happened due to thought in a normal way.

I see that compassion is a quality of mind, which should be perceived by oneself. Therefore, there is no place for accepting.

I feel that this is the only way to penetrate deeply into the core of the topic. Otherwise, we may get to conclusions, which do not hold in reality.

Yes, I do see that compassion is related to the psychological aspect of the mind. Now, let us dig deep into the simple question.

What are the aspects of the mind which are not related to compassion?

Share your view :- :blush:

What does it mean to perceive that compassion is “a quality of mind”? How do I know it is, how can I find out what it is and why do I care?

Can one perceive that compassion is a quality of mind if the perceiving mind — the perceiver — which is looking into it does not have that quality? To me, if the perceiver does not have that quality, he cannot directly perceive compassion. Then compassion is merely an abstraction or idea that is perceived. But if the perceiver has that quality — the actual thing — then compassion is perceived directly and understood. So it does not need to be defined or analyzed. I don’t know if I’m clear — or right.

Compassion is not an idea, it is the state of mind. I did not understood how the mind will be in that state yet, but I am trying to understand it.

If we accept to some definition, it will just become the statement without feeling with our senses. Therefore, mind should perceive by its own in order to understand it and its effect.

I see that perceiving will take place only if the mind is free from all other contents inside. I can say that Compassion can be perceived, it is not hard thing to understand that quality.

But the topic of this thread is “COMPASSION”. Here we can probe this aspect of mind from different perspectives.

Hope you understood.:slight_smile:

I don’t see that because this mind has never been “free from all other contents”. If a mind is not free, how can it know that compassion - or anything - can be directly perceived? For such a mind, direct perception, compassion, choicelessness, etc., are just K-isms, what-should-be.

Some researchers, scientists, and doctors will try to perceive the technical situations by shutting down the bias they have accumulated over years and just pay attention to understanding the way it is and try to explain it in a new way. I thought, similarly we can see the nature of mind in the state of compassion by shutting down the bias. I have not observed such a state yet in my system. That is the reason, I am not completely sure about the aspect of compassion.

I started investigating this aspect using the principle of negation, but I do not know how far it will go. As of now, I am not sure that I will understand it.

Thanks for your insight


@Inquiry, @Huguette, @Sakthi

I think compassion is the state of mind in which there is no room for self. Which means there will be no empathy and no anger. The mind will just perceive the situation and act appropriately.

I do not know why I am seeing Compassion in Lionel Messi :blush:

This is just a view of mine :slight_smile: please share your insights.