Love and Compassion

Poetry, religion, novels, movies, etc... often purvey the idea that love conquers all; That love is the balm for all wounds. I take offense to this. Only because it is inaccurate. What is often characterized as love is more akin to compassion. The two are intertwined, certainly -- like DNA helix's constructing something gorgeous and genuine. There are differences though, subtle as they are. Compassion is religious or poetic love, the ability to empathize and appreciate and accept. Love, as I have come to know with friends, family, and lovers, is more tumultuous. It will shake you, change you, and keep your ego and vanities on a teetering see-saw. Compassion can be extended to all creatures, to every man, woman, and child. Love, though, requires a more immediate and passionate participation. Buddhism cites that love and compassion are the same (not all sects). How though? Compassion can be complacent. Active compassion may very well have elements of love, but this does not mean they are interchangeable. So often when we say "love will conquer all" we truly mean compassion. Compassion is precise, it is a word that means I understand and I want to help. Love does not always do this. At its best it will. But love, its failing at least, is that it tries too much as a word. While we as collective people can construct infinite rumors of celebrities and fad diets we have trouble coming to terms with the word love. It is important. Look up love in a dictionary and at least 20 different definitions arise. We need to re-think and renovate the word. No easy task. For my own part I propose we make love more personal: a strong upwelling of emotions directed to a person in whom we believe in. Compassion can suffice for the more impersonal and broad uses of the word love. By recapturing this word in our imaginations perhaps we will be more careful in dolling it out. Still, one must not be too careful, eh? But then again, what do I know?