Beyond the Ego: Pity & Compassion.

Pity and Compassion seem to be synonymous in the dictionary, and we are also usually found to be using both words in the same way. Pity is circumstantial, and compassion is the outcome of a psychological state. They are fundamentally different.

Compassion means coming from within the heart of the person, having nothing to do with the outer circumstances. Compassion will go on emanating from the heart of a compassionate person even if he is sitting alone. It is like a flower blossoming in solitude; it will go on spreading its fragrance. It has nothing to do with any passerby. The fragrance of a flower is not concerned whether somebody is pasing by or not. Even if nobody passes by, the fragrance will still permeate that solitary space. If somebody happens to pass by and is enchanted with the fragrance, that is a different matter, but the flower has not blossomed for that person.

Inner consciousness is the fountainhead of compassion. Compassion arises from it like a fragrance. Hence it wrong to call Buddha or Mahavira 'full of pity'. They are full of compassion; they are supremely compassionate.

Pity is born in those who don't have compassion in their hearts. Pity is born under the pressure of circumstances. Compassion is born out of the evolution of the heart. What arises in you when you see a beggar on the streets is pity; it is not compassion.

It is good to understand one more point here: Pity strengthens the Ego whereas Compassion dissolves it. Compassion arises only in those who have become egoless. Pity is a means of nourishing the ego. It is a good means, used by good people, but all the same, it is used to nourish the ego. If you search deep inside yourself in those moments when you are giving something to somebody - when pity arises in you upon seeing a beggar, when you get pleasure from being a giver, from being in the position of being a giver - you will hear the murmuring voice of your ego.

A compassionate person doesnot want there to be a single beggar on the face of the Earth, but a man of pity wants beggars to exist, otherwise he will be in difficulty. Societies based on the concept of pity dont eradicte begging, they nourish it. If a compasisonate society can be created, it wont be able to tolerate begging - it shouldnt exist!

The ego can sacrifice itself. The ultimate act of the ego is 'Martyrdom'. And often the ego becomes a martyr - but in its martyrdom it only strengthens itself.

Pity only enhances the ego; pity is also an act of the ego. Pity is the act of a good man's ego and cruelty is the act of a bad man's ego.

Remember, the ego strengthens itself with bad acts as well as with good acts. And it often happens that only when the ego has had no opportunity to strengthen itself with good acts that it tries to nourish itself with bad acts. Hence, there is no basic difference between those whom we call "good people" and those whom we call "bad people". Both good and bad people are tethered to the same axis called the ego. The only difference between them is that the bad person will hurt others to fufill his ego and the good person will hurt himself to fulfill his ego. But as far as hurting is concerned, there is no difference between the two.

If we use the language of today's psychology, a bad guy is a sadist, and a good guy, while fulfilling his ego, becomes a masochist(Masoch was a man who used to beat and torture himself).

All those people who hurt themselves can become "good people" very quickly. If I starve you, I will be called a bad guy. The law and the court can arrest me. But if I go on a fast, no court or law can arrest me. On the contrary, you will turn me into a hero. But if starving the other is a crime, how can it become a good deed if I starve myself - just because the other body belongs to you and this body belongs to me? If I make you stand naked and whip you or make you sleep on a bed of thorns, it will be a crime, but if I do all these things to myself, how does it become ascetism? How does just a change of direction, the arrow pointing towards myself instead of towards the other, make something religious?

And remember, one's ego is not fulfilled as much by killing the other as it is by killing oneself - because the other can still show his defiance before dying and spit in the killer's face. But when someone kills himself, he is helpless, unprotected, unable to respond. Killing the other is never complete; that person can survive even in his death. His eyes may proclaim, "you may kill me but I am not defeated!" But while killing oneself there is no escape. The joy of defeat is utterly complete!