“There’s not much difference,” I said. And I still basically think that’s true.

Since our conversation though, a few differences have occurred to me.

• Compassion is a response to suffering. Since suffering is presented in Buddhism as a core feature of existence, compassion is an appropriate response in almost any circumstance and something we can offer to every single thing that is alive. I think this is beautiful and useful.
• At the same time, compassion is only one of what Buddhists know as the Brahma-Virharas or “Four Immeasurables”: compassion, lovingkindness, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.
• Love seems to me to encompasses all four immeasurables, not just compassion. But love also includes aspects like appreciation. We wouldn’t really say we feel compassion for someone when we notice how lovely their eyes look in the sunlight. We appreciate it; we love it.
• Love also of course has some interesting relationships to sex, though of course not necessarily. More on sex in a future post.
• The Brahma-Virharas are traditionally emphasized as wholesome mind-states—skillful places to which you can turn your mind and avoid creating negative karma. In Christianity, love is not usually taught as something that you cultivate within and offer out, but rather something that you let in and are thus able to share.

But regardless of directionality, cultivating compassion or letting in love can often feel like conjuring something out of nothing. This can feel bothersome (e.g., what is the source of the compassion? is the love really real?). Most of the time, I remind myself that these questions are a bit beside the point. Making something out of nothing is a creative act, and if, in that creativity, more compassion and more love come into our lives and communities, it seems like a good practice to continue.

When I want something a bit more to wrestle with, my mind has been turning lately to this from Thomas Merton: