anyway..I beleive in Buddhism but never got the right channels to start or go thru…

Having said that, empathy is a cause of compassion and should not be suppressed in my opinion. However we should couple this practice with the practice of non-dual wisdom. Therefore any associated discomfort felt through seeing others suffering will diminish over time as our wisdom increases. Just like two side of a scale – as one goes up, the other goes down.

Also I don’t believe the compassion of a Bodhisattva on the path of accumulation/merit could be described as painful. Sure it is contaminated in the sense that there is an appearance of duality but, it is by no means painful.
Bodhisattvas on the path of accumulation have Calm Abiding a mediative state that is described as blissful, yet they have not realized non-dual wisdom directly. Is their compassion painful? I don’t think it is.
However from the prescriptive of a Buddhas it would be contaminated.

Pain is relative and for this reason I don’t think it is helpful to describe ALL emotion as painful. Not for ordinary people anyway, as there is the possibility that some people will think they should give up compassion altogether. Mistaking empathy for compassion. So I like the word contaminated better.

In an attempt to further clarify the meaning, and the place of emotions in Buddhism, and specifically the meaning of “compassion,” I am quoting two sources that I was relying on:

In THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EMOTIONS IN BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE
Dr. PADMASIRI de SILVA writes:
Under The Place of Emotions in Buddhism:
“Emotions are generally regarded in the mind of the Buddhist as aspects of our personality that interfere with the development of a spiritual life, as unwholesome states ethically undesirable, and road – blocks to be cleared in the battleground between reason and emotion. In keeping with this perspective emotions are described as states of “agitation” or “imbalance”.

Then, under The Four Sublime States
“Not only does compassion form the basis for a wholesome dimension of emotional warmth and positive concern for others, but it is specifically advocated as a corrective to the elimination of hatred, fear and allied states. But it has its own alluring disguises and as stated earlier it must be saved from the near enemies of worldly sorrow and pseudo-love and superficial attachments.
The four sublime states (the Brahma Viharas) are metta (loving kindness), karuna ( compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy) and upekkha (equanimity.) In the early part of the lecture it was mentioned that morality has a significant relation to the psychology of human emotions. In the context of the four sublime states, this observation has much relevance. Gunapala Dharmasiri has pointed out that one type of moral justification advocated by the Buddha was the appeal to sympathetic feelings. “The simple fact that others are living beings is the reason why I should not harm and this is based on an inference from one’s personal experience to that of others: As all people dislike punishment and are scared of death, one should not kill or harm others”. In the context of the four sublime states, a kind of disinterestedness or neutrality is a safeguard against the emergence of sentimental attachments.
These states are considered as boundless, as they are not limited, narrowed down to a special person or persons. These are not merely principles of conduct , but subjects of methodical meditation, and these could only get rooted in a strong affinity with this unbounded outlook by the integration of the meditational level and the practical level of conduct. It is by meditative practice that they sink deeply into the heart and thus later become spontaneous attitudes. In the four sublime states we see the finest base for a creative emotional response, and moreover a response related to the emotion of natural sympathy and concern for fellow beings.”

It seems that when we are talking about compassion-in-action, we are not talking about feeling related to a particular person, but a principle of conduct deeply rooted in one’s personality.

Also, in Buddhism In a Nutshell: The Four seals of Dharma, the second seal states: “All Emotions are painful.” Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s comments on the second seal include: “The Tibetan word for emotion in this context is zagche, which means “contaminated” or “stained,” in the sense of being permeated by confusion or duality.

Further, he writes: “(This is why) Buddhists conclude that all emotions are painful. It is because they are impermanent and dualistic that they are uncertainy and always accompanied by hopes and fears.”
Then: “Is compassion an emotion? People like us have dualistic compassion, whereas the Buddha’s compassion does not involve subject and object.”

This is what I also hear in your statement: “Compassion (as defined in Buddhism) on the other hand will never feel pain, as compassion is a mind that will do something about another’s suffering. When empathy morphs into compassion your compassion become solution based. That is your focus is on solely helping.”

I think I was confusing the two levels of reality: the conventional, where we confuse compassion as an emotion with emphaty, which is often intertwined with clinging and other emotions, and the ultimate reality where compassion is an non-dualistic state of being?

Thank you for helping me to clarify this
Yolanda

Yes you are correct.
Attachment is a sticky, clingy mind, one that is difficult to remove once it is generated.

> “all emotions are suffering”
This is slightly incorrect. Because compassion and loving-kindness are emotions but they are functional emotions. So there are some emotions that we want to encourage and develop. While there are others that need to be gotten rid of, only because they bring us and the people around us more problem not less – these include anger, attachment etc.

You also mentioned

>A feeling of pain or anger when a loved one suffers, stimulates the need to provide care, while allowing the emotion to dissipate.

I think that the stimulation to action, to take care of people and to act, is born from compassion NOT anger. Although you could debate whether the mind of empathy does feel some pain as it voluntarily experiences a similar pain as that it is apprehending. That is why when we see someone get hurt on TV we sometime wince in pain. It is as if we also feel the same pain.
Compassion (as defined in Buddhism) on the other hand will never feel pain, as compassion is a mind that will do something about another’s suffering. When empathy morphs into compassion your compassion become solution based. That is your focus is on solely helping.

The word “attachment” seems to mean getting stuck in the emotional state (and a need to change things), while following with a compassionate action without clinging to results, seem to be the meaning of “detachment.”
I
s this an accurate understanding?

With metta
Yolanda

Thanks for your valuable advice.
I now clearly understand that the problem I have is attachment. In fact the last paragraph sums up my situation.
My attachment is due to the fact that ‘I’ can feel good if I take care of my parents. This is a self-centered wish.

If I develop compassion and non-attachment then I can take better care of my parents since I won’t have any expectations out of this work.

I’ll definitely try practicing non-attachment.
Thanks for the timely good advice.

Warm Regards,
Anwesh

Good question!

The quick answer is a resounding yes it is absolutely possible, in fact I would suggest that you would take better care of them
with non-attachment. Remember attachment is a clingy mind that wants something out of the relationship.
By not having this mind you are free to really take proper care of them as you will not be expecting anything back from them.

The definition of attachment is: a mental factor that perceives an object as attractive, exaggerates that attractiveness and wishes to possess it.
It’s the last part of that definition that is the worst part (wishes to possess it) as it is this grasping onto and not being able to let go that is a big problem.

Imagine if you just had the wish for your parents to have happiness and you would do what you could to facilitate that by improving their living conditions.
It seems to me that this state of mind is more open and caring than one filled with attachment. Attachment to me seems slightly self-centered.

It is said that attachment is like oil on a cloth, it is very difficult to remove on the first wash. So you will find that as you practice the course levels of attachment will be removed first.

I think that people sometimes believe attachment means they care, that this makes them a good person and if you don’t have this clingyness they are a bad person.
This is simply not the case…but try it for yourself and see which one you think it better. :)