Re: "Self"less acts
- --- In
> The selfless act is for the benefit of the person you areperforming
> it for, of course!benefit.
> 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
> If you give all your money to the needy, it is for the benefit ofthe
> 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 -
> must spend most of our time helping other people in order not to beDoesn't this imply that the selfless action is actually for the person
> selfish. Make sense?
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...>
> > -- When you do things for others, it is for one of two reasons:are.
> > 1)because it makes you feel good (which is actually a
> > reason)
> > or
> > 2)because you recognize that your ego(self) is not who you
> > Your actions are truely in the service of others. They are
> > 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?
- --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@y..., eveneon <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Yes, the benefit to the receiver of the selfless act is obvious.ButMy motivation is the fact I care about the other person, and they
> it is the motivation behind the person doing the selfless act that
> could be questioned.
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" isIf someone doesn't have an ego, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 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.
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".