Best Of

Hmm. Let me put it another way. I don’t really care about society, society will take care of itself and the world needs another Buddha more than someone wanting to get in a fistfight. I care about my relationship with the holy life, and that asks of me that I resolve my relationship with a number of deep issues before I can call my search complete. Winning is one of those, survival at any cost is another.

Is it my place to do battle with Deva’s or Asura’s? It seems to me that the path of a modern buddhist is one of peace, following in the footsteps of Thich Nhat Hanh and Ajahn Chah. I’m beginning to realise that winning, being victorious, can be a consuming desire that causes one to cling to the wrong things and that it is something to be let go of, for me.

The desire to be victorious, to win, causes one to enter conflict situations with something other than a heart bearing peace. Ruthlessness, the desire to strike with fists and clubs, to force submission, is not the path of the buddha. If you feel these things, or can imagine yourself in a situation where they come to the fore like me, you need to meditate on why. It is not suitable for one who aspires to learn at the feet of the Buddha, and it is something one needs to deal with before one’s heart is pure.

I put these questions — often in a general form — on NewBuddhist as a kind of sounding board to see what other people say, but perhaps I should make clear that they are deeply relevant to my practice.

Of course, we have the concept of winning against another person or group.
But there is another type of winning.
It arises not from competition with others or an outside entity or force.
It is the victory, the winning within our own lives, each of us.
There lies the true competition, the true victory.
Yes, we are biologically primed to compete. But when we turn that inward, we achieve a quantum leap forward. We become the true owners of our happiness, of our lives. Thus we are able to extend that victorious life to aid others. Of course, as we aid others, we are aiding ourselves.
That is true victory.

Peace to all

Not sure if I can offer that much insight. I liked sport but wasn't terribly competitive. I do like games and puzzles though. And going off what I've heard others talk about their motives in interviews and such.

I think there are two general sorts of motivations. One is for personal or group excellence and mastery, the other for dominance over others. The former brings people up the latter tears them down. Competition forces people to improve and do the best they can, something we all ultimately benefit from in an interconnected world.

A good movie recently came out on Netflix (at least here in the US) called Molly's Game that, I think, highlights the differences well. On the one hand you have Molly, who wants to build something great for herself, on the other you have player X (Toby McGuire IRL) who is explicitly motivated by the desire to humiliate and ruin others.

Take as another example the way many insular martial arts are being exposed as completely ineffective in mixed martial arts settings. For a long time they've only interacted with themselves, they haven't really been tested. Not going through the testing and refining process of competition the wheat hasn't been separated from the chaff.

At some level pretty much all of the social and moral gains of society have come about as a result of people who wanted to win. Suffragettes wanted to win the right to vote, civil rights advocates wanted to win equality under the law for black people. Thank goodness for people wanting to win, or we'd all still be living as serfs under the dictates of god-kings. There will probably always be takers in the world and if there aren't people of good will willing to push back and win the takers get to decide everything.

The sort of opposite is collaboration, working together for a common goal. Though often we collaborate to compete at a group level.

Spiritual practice teaches us equanimity. Which is great for many aspects of our own individual well being and allowing for greater social harmony. As an absolute I'm not sure how well it works in practice when not everyone has to play by those rules.

At the end of the day, people are diverse and that is a strength. Some people are better suited for collaboration and harmonizing, some are better at competition and success.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the OP contextualizes competitiveness only in a negative light. I think there are lots of positive aspects to it as well, and would advocate for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.