Selflessness and Altruism
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
I had an experience in one of my TTRPG games recently that got me thinking a bit about a distinction that helps define the virtue of non self. I'll use some definitions that are maybe my own, its the idea behind them rather than any precise dictionary definition. I'm thinking of selflessness as doing something without thinking of yourself and altruism as you doing good for someone else.
So in my game there was a sort of test to determine the character's quality. In the test my internal experience was pragmatic, it was about the best solution for the most people, myself included. It wasn't about doing good, or being a good person. I wasn't being sacrificial, I took risks that put my character in danger, but it was benefiting me, I just included everyone else in the benefit. Anyway, this was just pretend, I didn't have any real skin in the game, I'm not trying to humble brag, I doubt I would have acted the same IRL. The point is in my mind I was acting pragmatically but in the eyes of the person giving the test I seem to have come across as virtuous.
Which got me to thinking, what is the internal experience of selflessness? Is it an attempt to be good to others, or is the internal experience one of doing good without regard to self and other? You see suffering or a problem and regardless of whether its yours or someone else's you act to remedy it.
Comments
Like responding to a forum post.. I think one can respond as it relates to the text or they can respond as they relate to the person. Probably a mixture of both as they're not mutually exclusive and can overlap. Maybe the internal experience also changes as a result of that mixture?
I help others when I'm in a position to do so/as the situations arise....I just do it without giving too much thought on the whys and what fors..In a sense it's like being on autopilot ...and the only thoughts passing through the mind are how can I be of assistance...However there seems to be a feel good feeling after the act, but this is not the goal. it's just a by-product of the experience
I'm not sure what the internal experience of selflessness is for me .... I just do it before the (often emotionally charged) self ( the selfish side) tries to talk me out of it...
At times I find I'm not in a position to help and there's an acceptance in the self that this is the case...
… there I was wondering about in the game called life when …
I began to wonder if Dharma uses free software
Free books, Free social media etc
Not all do but being a free crustacean, I like to swim Free of all constraints AND remember on this forum we have been largely hosted, moderated, kept free of dangerous lobsters etc …
🦞
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page#Query_or_Browse
Selflessness in the Prajna sense allows us tremendous freedom. Freedom from the reference point of the central figured called me. It's not as much of a freedom for or freedom to in the usual sense. People want freedom to do such and such thing or freedom from the oppression. But Dharma offers the potentiality of realizing freedom from ignorance. And ignorance is a particular assumptive axiom that we consider very intuitive and unquestionable.
So, from this pov prior to this actualization or seeing of selflessness, all motivation is tainted by the center. And that's very realistic and honest to admit that. You can't actually be selfless or have unconditional altruism. It is always influenced by the lens of self, mine, me, etc. Nonetheless, we practice the vector towards eliminating non virtue and cultivating virtue. This is paramount on a path, with a self, leading towards the recognition of selflessness.
In a very pragmatic sense, selflessness frees up pretty much all strategies and ways of being which typical occupy our existence. You're just free, but not only free, you have tremendous energy. That energy has a communicative urge, it demands expression and response. Thus compassion is essentially the out pouring of a vacuum (selflnessness).
It's somewhat remarkable that this is a natural process, which showcases the structure of non delusion. i mean it could of been something else entirely. What if instead of virtue and altruism, we got meanness and anger?
But it isn't the case. It just happens that the core of reality, is actually very tender, loving, and joyful.
the irony and something one can never really wrap one's mind around, is without a center, there is no circumference. so without self, there is actually no other. And yet without a self, the "otherness" really shines. This means we never particularly saw others or situations clearly from their own point of view. Rather, we only saw from the filter of ourselves. With the barrier or filter gone, the shocking presentation of otherness becomes very obvious. There actually is whole worlds and whole beings apart from myself. This is remarkable. And simultaneously they are inseparable from this whole arising, which includes the self as in this particular individual and the particular other individuals as well. Both are mutually accepted and completely coreless, yet here I am, and here you are.
I apologize for rifting, just something to write to past the time. Drive by musings as they say.
Love in any sense isn't a choice for people. It is somewhat a strategy to well attain union. We are somewhat victims of love so to speak. But selflessness marks the capacity to choose love, in any circumstance and situation.
That's probably the oddest thing of all. You know it just completely turns upside down normal logic. You know people have to deserve love. Or there has to be some kind of exchange. OR even preferences. Or love is something that just happens by chance. But actually its a choice at that point. always a choice, always available.
And if you have it available all the time, well you then tend to love others. It's really strange, really. I mean i am speaking as someone who particularly doesn't enjoy being overly emotional and sentimental. But its really like that. You are forced to love.
Anyways some random thoughts from a npc. much love.
That's not selflessness; at least not in a Buddhist sense. It's generosity.
Self-less action can be characterized in the Buddhist teaching of 3-fold Purity: There is no gift, no giver, no recipient.
What's not selflessness? The former, what I was defining as altruism (what you refer to as generosity?), an individual doing good for another?
Definitions are important, they are the finger that points to the moon, have a mistaken definition and your practice might not take you to the goal.
Well, if selflessness = without self. What you say here, according to Mahayana teaching ...
Is incorrect, because if the action is without self (essentially pure) there can be no other. Both are conditioned one upon the other, so if there is no self, there is no other.
Because you recognize the other, the action can only be seen as generous. It is more concerned with the other, a self giving to another.
This forum is supposed to be at least nominally Buddhist, right?
Your definition doesn't really synch with Buddhist teaching. There's nothing wrong with that, if you want to put it in those terms. Like you said, definitions are important.
What you seem to describe as selfless is actually self.
I think @IdleChater has it right, an action as you describe @person, benefitting the self as well as others, in Buddhist terms might be seen more as generous than as selfless. If it was an action that didn’t benefit your self then you’d have a stronger claim to be called conventionally “selfless”. A Buddhist selfless action is without consideration of self, and so also without a consideration of other, those two come together as subject and object.
I guess I'm not communicating very well. I was attempting to juxtapose two differing views, or definitions, of selflessness. And essentially agree with @IdleChater 's take but wanted to ask an open question rather than take a firm stance.
This gets a little tricky, because of human wiring and our interconnectedness many actions that are primarily directed towards another also have a positive impact on oneself.
A few years back I took a deeper look at altruism and how it is defined and it becomes kind of hard to find many truly selfless acts.
From the perspective of non-duality, altruism is incoherent because, as John Lennon said, "I am he as you are he as you are me, And we are all together." Fine, but it's valuable to explore from another POV.
Is there an inherent problem with there being a self-incentive aspect to generosity? I don't think so. I'm not a biologist, but as far as I know there's a self-incentive for almost every action that every organism, including a Buddha or Bodhisattva, takes. There's a self-incentive built into the 4NT, people! Karma, rebirth, enlightenment... All of them have a self-interest component.
We can care about our own well-being and that of others simultaneously. It works better that way.
I dunno. According to Buddhist teachings (again), karma, rebirth, and enlightenment, do not include a "self" component. Our interest in such things involves self-interest, but not the things, themselves.
In Buddhism, is compassion, and the ideal, pure compassion is without giver, given, or gift. Again, no self, as such.
Cool! What are you? Lolz
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are beyond notions of self. They are beings of pure compassion.
From the Buddhist perspective of the gradual path, teachings on generosity start with giving where you feel inclined; and even if it is done with an expectation of some personal benefit, it's better than not being generous at all (e.g., SN 3.24, AN 7.49). And eventually, when one breaks down their attachment to self and sees the interconnectedness of all tbings, the distinction between self and other disappears and generosity becomes 'altruistic,' done without expectation of praise or reward, but spontaneously out of kindness and compassion. The path is often started for self-interested reasons, but ends with selflessness—our well-being becomes everyone's well-being. And this is the foundation of the golden rule to treat others as yourself, whether it be Mt 7:12 or SN 3.8.
@IdleChater & @Jason, I appreciate the respectful correction. I'm a secular practitioner, and I approach Buddhism from a philosophical and psychological perspective. I think, maybe, I should begin some of my posted thoughts with a disclaimer 😜
You folks might not agree with this idea, but as far as I know there are lots of folks, who consider themselves to be Buddhists, who practice generosity in order to gather merit/"good karma" . Isn't that correct? If so, isn't that self-incentive?
Probably would be more skillful for me to leave descriptions of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to folks who've learned more than I. Now I'm curious... What's the most efficient way to find how the Buddha described himself?
No correction on my end, just my thoughts on the topic and specifically your last post. A lot of it differs depending on one's POV. And you're correct, many Buddhists practice generosity as a way to create merit. I've found that this is true for many traditional Buddhists n countries like Thailand, specifically with offerings to monks.
From my friend Bot
In a world where shadows linger long,
Altruism's light, a melody, a song.
Hearts reaching out, hands intertwined,
A selfless dance, of the noblest kind.
Compassion blooms in every gaze,
A symphony of kindness, in altruistic maze.
Metta's whisper, a gentle breeze,
Echoes of love, rustling through the trees.
Bodhisattva's vow, a sacred art,
Nurturing the flame in every heart.
Dana's grace, a river flowing wide,
Generosity's current, a boundless tide.
Interconnected threads, weaving fate,
In altruism's garden, we cultivate.
A tapestry of care, vibrant and bright,
Guided by love, in the altruist's light.
'
Perhaps?
I was taught to dedicate the merit of practice to the benefit of beings. Most, if not all, of the Buddhists I know personally perform a dedication of merit after practice.
Not all "Buddhists" do this, though. Some simply don't know. They think that it's"Buddhist" to do Buddhist things and have "good" karma and stuff like that. It's all pretty self-centered. So if you're talking about Buddhists of that sort, you may just be right.
Read the Pali Canon.
Read the Pali Canon.
I get that, I was hoping someone could point me towards a sutta or two. 😜
The last time I looked, he just said he was awake!
Straight answers really are hard to come by sometimes.
Y' think?
My response was pretty awesome. If you want to know more about what the Buddha said about himself, you'll have to crack a book, I'm afraid. There is no "The World-Honored One Talks About Himself Sutra".
It's an unusual question you ask. What the Buddha thought of himself, isn't high on most folks Dharma Bucket List. But WTF!! If it's important, find an answer.
Jeeez..... the more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes. Not so interesting that I'll undertake more research, though. Nope. I'm 70, and I don't have to do research anymore.
@ScottPen
Dude!
Figure this out, man! Find out what the Buddha thought of himself and then report back, with your findings. You can do this.
This is a serious answer. There's probably some more detailed stuff out there, but in general when asked about himself, that's what he said.
@IdleChater - I think I wasn't asking the right question. I was looking for descriptions of the characteristics of a Buddha or an arahat. A person who has reached enlightenment.
I have a very difficult time connecting with reading the suttas. The language in the translations is often so old-fashioned and I find myself mentally chipping away at the vocabulary instead of learning something. The old fashioned formality of it is exhausting.
OK. A Buddha and an arhant are two different things. An Arhant is an enlightened being. A Buddha is an enlightened person who also turns the Wheel of Dharma. It's a bit more complicated, but that's a good starting place
And you asked for a pointer to a sutta or two. Facinating.
It's really not THAT bad.
There was Gotama, the ascetic who went to homeless life in search of enlightenment, who was married and had a child Rahula, a mother and father.
Then there is the Tathagata/Buddha, the awakened One which is beyond beyond mind and body.
In other words, the Buddha does not think of "himself".
Some say that the most helpful way that the characteristics of enlightenment can be described is simply as ignorance's absence.
This is to avoid the ego/identity's tendency to relate to it as something possessable when its actual manifestation depends upon the very deconstruction of that which would try to possess it.
Perhaps renunciation, over acquisition, might better provide the answers that you seek.
@pegembara - thanks. That seems to be a wordy definition of anatta. Am I missing something?
Are you?
That is because thinking, people and Buddhas are bent by life, the universe and dukha BUT as a principle or idealisation they are Pure. In fact every yang is a bit yin and vice verses
Always! All of us do until we are Dodo or extinguished ...
I always like a natter ...
I am definitely missing my mind but it was not much use at the worst of times ...