Selflessness?

[methylatedghosts]

Random thought popped into my head yesterday:

Selflessness. - doing something purely to help another

But is being truly selfless - doing something because you recognise that doing to another "self" is doing to your own "self", because there is no "self" - as in - we are all a part of the whole?

Not sure if this is a real "mystic" view or not...

But I think it is my view, anyway.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Works for me.

The extremes of both selfishness and selflessness can lead to the same place: the view that there is only the One. If there is only the Self, then everything is of that Self. If there is no Self, than the individual is indistinguishable from the whole.

I think many mystics share the view that there is both Self and No-Self. Because we distinguish ourselves from the whole, we are individuals. But the act of distinguishing requires removing something from a uniform state.

It's all good. And bad.

 

[Sunstone]

But is being truly selfless - doing something because you recognise that doing to another "self" is doing to your own "self", because there is no "self" - as in - we are all a part of the whole?

Not sure if this is a real "mystic" view or not...

I think that's the genuine article. My hunch is a lot of mystics would agree with you.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Works for me.

The extremes of both selfishness and selflessness can lead to the same place: the view that there is only the One. If there is only the Self, then everything is of that Self. If there is no Self, than the individual is indistinguishable from the whole.

I think many mystics share the view that there is both Self and No-Self. Because we distinguish ourselves from the whole, we are individuals. But the act of distinguishing requires removing something from a uniform state.

It's all good. And bad.

And on that note of "selfishness", I had another sort of "brainwavey" thingy.

That to get to true selflessness, one must experience true selfishness. That you cannot experience just one of the two, because not knowing one means you don't really know the other. Just like with light and dark, up and down, small and big. Now, what I mean here, by selfishness, is being selfish to the point that you concentrate only on your self, through meditation (etc), and then experience the self-less.

Or something like that...

 

[Sunstone]

The sort of selflessness you speak about in the OP might be a prerequisite for agape.

 

[methylatedghosts]

possibly, yes.

Or simply that they occur at the same time. An awareness explosion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts
But is being truly selfless - doing something because you recognise that doing to another "self" is doing to your own "self", because there is no "self" - as in - we are all a part of the whole?

Not sure if this is a real "mystic" view or not...

According to a Chinese saying,..

Superior Virtue does not know virtue,
Inferior Virtue practises virtue!

There is a subtle distinction indicated here that implies that so long as one is aware that an action is correct, it remains 'inferior virtue' due to the shared, but not yet integrated self with Self. With integration, there is only Self, and no awareness of good or evil is now present. I think this would equate with the Christian concept of the Word of God being written into the heart.

 

[Alex_G]

This reminds me of that joke on Friends about selfish acts. Though a joke it shouts a strong point, that all concious actions we do are in effect completely selfish, (as in u can create an argument for indirect selfish motives in anything). For example, giving your life to save another is selfish because you wanted to do so. If there was any mental initiation of an action by your brain, it can be viewed as selfish on the basis of its origin in your cerebral cortex. (A selfish thing). The only true selfless acts dont involve the concious parts of your brain (the self), like reflexes. Accidents could also be seen as selfless aswell.

 

[DallasApple]

Also if you enjoy doing something purley for someone else you are in fact benefitting so it isnt 100% selfless...

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Willamena]

Works for me.

The extremes of both selfishness and selflessness can lead to the same place: the view that there is only the One. If there is only the Self, then everything is of that Self. If there is no Self, than the individual is indistinguishable from the whole.

I think many mystics share the view that there is both Self and No-Self. Because we distinguish ourselves from the whole, we are individuals. But the act of distinguishing requires removing something from a uniform state.

It's all good. And bad.

Well said.

 

[Raymond Sigrist]

Also if you enjoy doing something purley for someone else you are in fact benefitting so it isnt 100% selfless...

Blessings

Dallas

Good point Dallas, here is a related article:

New York Times:

What Could You Live Without?
By Nicholas Kristof

It all began with a stop at a red light.
Kevin Salwen, a writer and entrepreneur in Atlanta, was driving his 14-year-old daughter, Hannah, back from a sleepover in 2006. While waiting at a traffic light, they saw a black Mercedes coupe on one side and a homeless man begging for food on the other.
“Dad, if that man had a less nice car, that man there could have a meal,” Hannah protested. The light changed and they drove on, but Hannah was too young to be reasonable. She pestered her parents about inequity, insisting that she wanted to do something.
“What do you want to do?” her mom responded. “Sell our house?”
Warning! Never suggest a grand gesture to an idealistic teenager. Hannah seized upon the idea of selling the luxurious family home and donating half the proceeds to charity, while using the other half to buy a more modest replacement home.
Eventually, that’s what the family did. The project — crazy, impetuous and utterly inspiring — is chronicled in a book by father and daughter scheduled to be published next month: “The Power of Half.” It’s a book that, frankly, I’d be nervous about leaving around where my own teenage kids might find it. An impressionable child reads this, and the next thing you know your whole family is out on the street.
At a time of enormous needs in Haiti and elsewhere, when so many Americans are trying to help Haitians by sending everything from text messages to shoes, the Salwens offer an example of a family that came together to make a difference — for themselves as much as the people they were trying to help. In a column a week ago, a I described neurological evidence from brain scans that altruism lights up parts of the brain normally associated with more primal gratifications such as food and sex. The Salwens’ experience confirms the selfish pleasures of selflessness.
Mr. Salwen and his wife, Joan, had always assumed that their kids would be better off in a bigger house. But after they downsized, there was much less space to retreat to, so the family members spent more time around each other. A smaller house unexpectedly turned out to be a more family-friendly house.
“We essentially traded stuff for togetherness and connectedness,” Mr. Salwen told me, adding, “I can’t figure out why everybody wouldn’t want that deal.”
One reason for that togetherness was the complex process of deciding how to spend the money. The Salwens researched causes and charities, finally settling on the Hunger Project, a New York City-based international development organization that has a good record of tackling global poverty.
The Salwens pledged $800,000 to sponsor health, microfinancing, food and other programs for about 40 villages in Ghana. They traveled to Ghana with a Hunger Project executive, John Coonrod, who is an inspiration in his own right. Over the years, he and his wife donated so much back from their modest aid-worker salaries that they were among the top Hunger Project donors in New York.
The Salwens’ initiative hasn’t gone entirely smoothly. Hannah promptly won over her parents, but her younger brother, Joe, was (reassuringly) a red-blooded American boy to whom it wasn’t intuitively obvious that life would improve by moving into a smaller house and giving money to poor people. Outvoted and outmaneuvered, Joe gamely went along.
The Salwens also are troubled that some people are reacting negatively to their project, seeing them as sanctimonious showoffs. Or that people are protesting giving to Ghana when there are so many needy Americans.
Still, they have inspired some converts. The people who sold the Salwens their new home were so impressed that they committed $100,000 to the project. And one of Hannah’s closest friends, Blaise, pledged half of her baby-sitting savings to an environmental charity.
In writing the book, the Salwens say, the aim wasn’t actually to get people to sell their houses. They realize that few people are quite that nutty. Rather, the aim was to encourage people to step off the treadmill of accumulation, to define themselves by what they give as well as by what they possess.
“No one expects anyone to sell a house,” said Hannah, now a high school junior who hopes to become a nurse. “That’s kind of a ridiculous thing to do. For us, the house was just something we could live without. It was too big for us. Everyone has too much of something, whether it’s time, talent or treasure. Everyone does have their own half, you just have to find it.”
As for Kevin Salwen, he’s delighted by what has unfolded since that encounter at the red light.
“This is the most self-interested thing we have ever done,” he said. “I’m thrilled that we can help others. I’m blown away by how much it has helped us.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and then there is Laozi: "Why do I put my own agenda aside? It is precisely to get what I want."

 

[Mr Cheese]

In Kabbalah there are only two things in the universe...

the intereaction between vessels and light

light can only give
vessels can only receive

This interaction is selflessness...

give and receive....
that is all there is...

of course there is also "take" and "store"... but these would be "short circuits"

...
“All life is just a progression toward, and then a recession from, one phrase — I love you.”

–F Scott Fitzgerald

I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment
It is for that very reason, it is called supreme enlightenment

-The Buddha

 

[Luminakisharblaze]

Simply people. It is all about doing something for another "self" for no other reason then you see that "self" in need and helping that "self" brings you inner joy and peace because you have brought another inner joy and peace. The great circle of the super subconscious at work.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes Luminakisharblaze, helping others is a virtue, but for it to be selfless giving, there is an absence of duality of one self helping another self. Selflessness is the absence of a personal self in the equation, only Self exists.

The only enduring service that can be rendered to 'that' which is perceived and interpreted in phenomenal existence as 'others', is to awaken to Cosmic consciousness. - Wei Wu Wei

 

[Luminakisharblaze]

The definition of selflessness is the act or state of being selfless. Selfless is defined as without regard for one's own interests. (dictionary definition) For it to be true selflessness, you have to act knowing that the giving comes with no recognition. If you expect recognition, you add self into the equation.

 

[Quagmire]

According to a Chinese saying,..

Superior Virtue does not know virtue,
Inferior Virtue practises virtue!

:yes: If you're trying to determine whether or not you're being selfish, you're thinking about yourself, which is selfish.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For it to be true selflessness, you have to act knowing that the giving comes with no recognition. If you expect recognition, you add self into the equation.

But surely if you act 'knowing' that you giving with no recognition, 'you' the knower is still a part of the equation!

Don't worry Luminakisharblaze, this is just being a little pedantic, but the subtlety of this subject is such that ultimately nuance is important for the aspirant's fuller understanding.

 

[Raymond Sigrist]

I suspect:

1. Everything I do is motivated by self-interest. The thing I enjoy most is helping other people find out how they can become capable of solving their own most difficult problems.
2. The less ego I have involved, the more successful I am in helping others.
3. I suspect it is my ego that wants to pretend that it can act without self-interest.
4. The less I pretend to be helping without self-interest, the better I am at helping.
5. I might be completely wrong about the above. If I think that is impossible, then there is my ego again, trying to be right, and of course, selfless.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Random thought popped into my head yesterday:

Selflessness. - doing something purely to help another

But is being truly selfless - doing something because you recognise that doing to another "self" is doing to your own "self", because there is no "self" - as in - we are all a part of the whole?

Not sure if this is a real "mystic" view or not...

But I think it is my view, anyway.

I see this is an old thread, but it's just caught my attention – I hope you don’t mind?
I must say methylatedghosts; I disagree with the above idea of mystic selflessness. Perhaps it rather be a pantheistic selflessness?

One mystical encounter is enough to make you approach life with a child's uncensored curiosity and a saint's whole heartfelt good-will. The/your gratefulness that follows, may very well also result in a growing sense of humility, which of course, would trigger a strong desire for selfless living, in which case selflessness could become your highest goal.

Repeated mystical experiences however, most commonly lead to the abandoning of the Ego and, in my opinion; this is when true selflessness really makes its entrance. Now, a most general sense of good-will and humility guides you; there is no thought of "[your]self" in anything you say or do any longer and "you" play no part in whatever it be you imagine your actions to lead to.

The joy felt in living this way, I think some would say, is a hedonistic incentive in the choice of such a lifestyle. But I do not know if this be correct; it is after all, not the joy that one is focused on

Regards,
Hermit

 

[wmjbyatt]

First of all, kudos to this thread for having been discussed in the first place.

Second, so long as a self exists, the ethical ideal of selflessness is unattainable. If we take selflessness more literally, then yes, it is indistinguishable from utter selfishness.

Selfishness is, indeed, the direction from which I personally choose to approach this whole mess. Instead of losing my self into the cosmos, I incorporate the cosmos into my self. It's all isomorphic, though--there isn't a real difference.