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

Re: "Self"less acts

Expand Messages
  • eveneon
    ... meditationsocietyofamerica@y..., wills_ghost_of_christmas_future ... performing ... benefit. ... the ... Yes, the benefit to the receiver of the selfless
    Message 1 of 4 , May 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In
      meditationsocietyofamerica@y..., "wills_ghost_of_christmas_future"
      <yahooaccount@s...> wrote:
      > The selfless act is for the benefit of the person you are
      performing
      > it for, of course!
      > If you help an old lady across the road, it is for her benefit.
      > If you share a sandwich with a hungry person, it is for their
      benefit.
      > If you give all your money to the needy, it is for the benefit of
      the
      > needy.

      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.


      >
      > We do this because we recognise that everyone is equally important,
      > and since there is only one of us, and millions of other people -
      we
      > must spend most of our time helping other people in order not to be
      > selfish. Make sense?

      Doesn't this imply that the selfless action is actually for the person
      doing the act?


      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.



      >
      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@y..., eveneon <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:
      > > -- When you do things for others, it is for one of two reasons:
      > > 1)because it makes you feel good (which is actually a
      > selfish
      > > reason)
      > > or
      > > 2)because you recognize that your ego(self) is not who you
      are.
      > > Your actions are truely in the service of others. They are
      > true
      > > selfless actions because there is no "self" motivated to do
      > > the action.
      > >
      > > But then this lead me to ask, "Who" is the selfless act for?
    • wills_ghost_of_christmas_future
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 4 , May 26, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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
        needs.
        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".
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.