By Dent Gitchel, PhD

This is a synopsis of a presentation given at the 3rd International Symposium on Contemplative Studies, San Diego, CA, November 2016

As we begin to develop and widely implement secular-based compassion cultivation programs, there are many challenges to be confronted. I would like to briefly discuss some of them here. Discussing these challenges is in no ways meant to belittle the importance of Compassion or its cultivation, but to hopefully in some small way contribute to the scientific understanding of compassion. Often, science is conceived of exclusively in terms of measuring material or behavioral phenomena, and experimental designs. Equally important are critical analysis and reflection. I would like to briefly describe and discuss six challenges: 1) We lack a consistent definition of what Compassion is, 2) The cultivation of Compassion in some ways may involve radical changes in self-identity, 3) There are a wide variety of experiences and responses to meditation and contemplative practices, including possible harmful ones, 4) The question “what good is Compassion?” needs to be addressed in a clear and systematic manner, 5) The implications of de-contextualizing practices from ancient traditions needs to be explicitly examined and 6) Questions of best practices and institutional supports need to be examined.

Again, I would like to emphasize the importance of Compassion and Compassion Cultivation in my own life. I consider it one of the most important human values and my own perspective is highly influenced by the Indo-Tibetan Mind Training tradition. I am not a Buddhist scholar, simply someone who has struggled and intended for several decades to implement these teachings into my own modern existence. More recently, as a facilitator of Stanford’s CCT program, I have been privileged to watch others as they engage in systematic compassion cultivation practices. Colleagues and myself are currently embarking on a qualitative examination of this topic, but the ideas presented here are a result of my own observation, reflections and conversations.

First, I think it is important to acknowledge that we lack a consistent operational definition of compassion. One of the first questions to come up in the compassion cultivation process is “what is compassion?” A standard definition would recognize compassion as a response to suffering   It needs to be more fully distinguished from other human responses to suffering, such as pity, sympathy etc. Moreover, the relationship between compassion and empathy needs to be explicitly examined. Empathy is often associated with experiencing the feelings or perspectives of others, but as we know, this can be overwhelming and lead to “sympathetic distress.” In other words, experiencing or witnessing the suffering of others can be a trigger to self-suffering. Klimecki and others have distinguished compassion from empathy but much more work in this area needs to be done.

And these are not merely academic problems. They are problems that emerge early in the Compassion cultivation process. People want to know what compassion is and what good is it. The question even gets trickier when compassion is presented as a state that can be broadened or globalized. Compassion, here, is experienced in reference not only to individual instances of suffering but also to the suffering of large groups, even to all of humanity, or “all sentient beings.” What exactly is going on here, and importantly, how is this to be understood and explained in secular terms?

Underlying all definitions of Compassion is an understanding of suffering. A complete operationalization of the construct of Compassion will require a well-articulated definition of suffering. What are the types of suffering and how do they manifest? The Indo-Tibetan tradition, for instance, acknowledges different levels of suffering such as acute suffering, the suffering of change and profound or pervasive suffering. Compassion cultivation is understood in relation to these distinct levels. The extent of a person’s understanding of suffering, on a very existential manner, largely determines an individual’s capacity for compassion. To my mind, we do not have a clearly articulated understanding of suffering from a secular perspective, which inhibits our ability to truly define Compassion. Moreover, in the religious tradition compassion is tied to a soteriological goal whereas in the secular case this is not so.

A second challenge in facilitating secular compassion cultivation protocols is that compassion cultivation meditation may profoundly change individuals. In meditation in general, we are familiarizing ourselves to new ways of thinking and experiencing the world and ourselves. This is not a linear process, and one that may involve various levels of discomfort. In compassion meditation, this process may be exacerbated by the explicit focus on suffering. The habitual modes of confronting suffering often entail shielding ourselves from the suffering. In compassion cultivation we are, in a sense, reversing this habitual default relationship to suffering. In compassion cultivation, suffering becomes the object of our mindfulness. The suffering of self and others becomes the fuel for the compassion cultivation process. In the Tibetan lo-jong tradition this process is described as one involving a total reversal of habitual thought processes.

This reversal occurs not only in reference to our own suffering, but even more so in the emphasis on others. Particularly in the context of broadening compassion, or cultivating Global Compassion, the focus hones in on the suffering of others. In traditional teachings, and in secular compassion cultivation programs, compassion is extended to broader and broader groups of individuals. This can be very challenging. Part of our self-definition is in perceived group status. We associate ourselves with certain groups, and view others as different, in varying degrees. As Keltner and Fiske and others have demonstrated, our response to the suffering of others is very dependent on attributed group status. Similar acts of suffering may result in compassion on one hand, or sympathy, pity or envy on the other. In compassion cultivation we begin to break down such barriers. In doing so, naturally, all sorts of resistances emerge. Additionally, persons may become more aware of how much of the suffering of the world has been previously blocked out and may become guilty, ashamed, or overwhelmed.

This process can lead to a radical re-formulation of self-identity. The familiar self that has been constructed may literally be de-constructed in the Compassion cultivation process.

A third challenge is the importance of acknowledging the plurality of responses to compassion cultivation. On one level this is common sense, but this fact has not been thoroughly explored. In presenting a contemplative training in a secular context, one of the duties of the facilitator will be to address possible effects of the intervention. Ideally, this would be presented in terms of benefits and risks. However, in compassion cultivation protocols, and other contemplative interventions, risks, or even a plurality of possible responses, have not been adequately evaluated. What is the range of effects that may be experienced by persons undergoing compassion cultivation? What are the various effects of distinct practices? What are the correlates of such effects? (i.e. contextual factors etc.). What are typically reported in research studies and in the popular press are benefits, with little to no recognition of contextuality or plurality of effects. For instance, positive effects of compassion are reported as positive affect, emotional regulation, decreased stress, happiness, more positive thoughts of self-refernce and acts of altruism.

There is little emphasis placed on the range of effects or on contextuality of effects, not to mention on possible adverse effects. This puts a facilitator in a bind when facilitating compassion cultivation. What to do with adverse or unpleasant effects? Should they be normalized as a natural part of the process? When should they not be? Should they all be viewed as resistance? How do we understand attrition? And importantly, what conceptual framework is used to evaluate these effects? Each facilitator will have her own perspective. In a secular program, does secular refer only to the context of the delivery or also to the philosophy behind the intervention? If the second is true, how are we to understand and investigate the multiplicity of experiences of participants, and translate this understanding to people in the front lines who are providing these interventions?

This leads to the fourth challenge, which is articulating the desired effects of compassion cultivation training. In short, what good is compassion? Science, at least quantitatively based science, is largely concerned with outcomes. Above, some of the outcomes of compassion cultivation research were identified. People who show up for Compassion cultivation classes carry this question with them to the class. In addition to the previously mentioned “what is compassion?” question people also want to know what good is it and why it should be cultivated. These are interesting and challenging questions. These training protocols come from a tradition that has its own answers to such questions, but some of these answers are not applicable in a secular setting. From a secular perspective, what should be the ultimate outcomes? Is compassion itself an outcome or is it important only in relation to further outcomes? Again, these are not merely academic questions? They are real questions that have real implications. Both participants and facilitators of compassion cultivation programs will deal with these questions, whether implicitly or explicitly. Facilitators will address these questions based on their own traditions and experiences with the practices. Many participants will seek answers on their own and will be drawn to books from authors embodying spiritual traditions such as Pema Chodron and Sharon Salzberg.

Which brings us to the fifth challenge, that of presenting traditional practices in de-contextualized settings. Traditions, whether religious or secular, have their own assumptions. The implication of divorcing practices from their traditional contexts needs to be fully teased out. The compassion practices themselves largely derive from a tradition with its own Buddhists beliefs and assumptions. To what extent is the effectiveness of these practices dependent on such contexts? For example, in the Tibetan Mahayana mind training tradition, meditation is but one tool used in the cultivation of compassion. Indeed, contemplation and the development of view/wisdom may in some ways be prerequisites for engaging in the meditative practices, something that Robert Thurman has frequently pointed out. In what ways is Wisdom necessary for the development of Compassion, what does such Wisdom look like when cultivated from a secular perspective, and is it necessary? In my own experiences with CCT, the wisdom component emerges through group dynamics and contemplative discussions but this needs further investigation. And in general, what are the effects of these practices on individuals who do not share the traditional beliefs and assumptions underlying the practices?

Finally, a challenge of providing Compassion cultivation interventions in secular settings will be to develop best practices and institutional supports. Traditional helping professions in secular culture have codes of ethics and established best practices. As contemplative practices become more prevalent, and as more training programs emerge, it will be important to discuss best practices and credentialing. A lot is at stake in these interventions. They can be very transformative and there is a great responsibility in providing such opportunities for transformation. Equally important will be to develop institutional supports necessary for both facilitators and participants engaging in such transformative work. Facilitators will need support to navigate the challenges that emerge from bringing these profoundly transformative practices into various and diverse contexts, and participants frequently remark about how important the group process and support is. When the eight weeks is up, what support is available to them? If it were to be provided, what would it look like?

I have highlighted some of the challenges that I see in bringing Compassion cultivation practices into secular culture. These practices can be very transformative and they have great promise to transform the greater world. There is a growing and emerging global interest in Compassion, and many memes floating around about its importance. It is important to have critical reflections about how to ethically bring secular based compassion protocols into diverse settings, how to evaluate the effectiveness of such protocols and how to provide ongoing support to those engaged in this process. In this piece I have attempted to highlight some of these challenges. Compassion is far and away the most important value in my life and I view these challenges as opportunities.