Re: "Self"less acts
- --- 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".