Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

368Re: "Self"less acts

Expand Messages
  • wills_ghost_of_christmas_future
    May 26, 2002
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@y..., eveneon <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Yes, the benefit to the receiver of the selfless act is obvious.But
      > it is the motivation behind the person doing the selfless act that
      > could be questioned.

      My motivation is the fact I care about the other person, and they
      need help. Of course some people only help others if they think they
      can get something in return, but that in itself is not selfish.

      If someone only helped people in order to get something in return,
      but never actually tried to get it, then there is no external
      difference between their actions and truly selfless actions.

      > My question was really more about the "who", the "ego". "Who" is
      > doing the act (and why) and "who" is it for? If both the doer and
      > the receiver of the act are existing in a space of egolessness, who
      > is it for? I would say it is for no one.

      If someone doesn't have an ego, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
      All it means is that their actions are not dictated by their personal
      If I help someone, I am not doing it for their ego, or my ego. I am
      helping them because they need help. I am helping the part of them
      that is *them* - their essence or soul, or whatever. The "good them".
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic