Krishnamurti, spirituality, egocentricity, and freedom from self

[rex]

For what it's worth ...

Altrusim and ego identity aren't necessarily mutually incompatible. It's called working for the profit of self and the profit of others, as opposed to the other three possibilities:

Working for the profit of self and the detriment of others
Working for detriment of self and the profit of others
Working for the detriment of self and the detriment of others

 

It's clear that there's an intrinsic tension between altruism and ego identity - that's where the art of life and following a spiritual path enter, though arguably basic decency is not the preserve of any ism.

Ordinary aspiring practitioners are work in progress, so do what they can according to ability and circumstance without being holy fools, naive or unworldly.

In the Mahayana there are ten bodhisattva levels. It is only when progress is made on these levels that practitioners can start being what to outsiders are holy fools. The typical teaching story is the bodhisattva who fed themselves to a starving tiger and her cubs. Ordinary practitioners can't do this but bodihsattvas on the higher levels can, as they are said to be able see the connection between interdependence, karma, action and circumstance.
 

Edited November 16, 2016 by rex

[Karl]

Altruism is selflessness, completely non egoic. so, they are in complete opposition.

 

We cannot begin to make others 'needs' as the prime virtue or we are suggesting suicide. Consider that breathing might in some way deprive someone else of oxygen, that ones own life may deprive another of their life. It's an impossible situation.

 

We do not work for profit of self in some weird spiritualist capitalist sense. Our primary value, or at least my primary value as everybody seems to disagree, is my life. I have chosen to live and now I must nourish that life by obtaining the values to sustain it. I have a pain/pleasure nervous system and a suffering/happiness emotional system. I have to obtain values that produce happiness and so this becomes the moral purpose of my life.

 

Despite the strong disagreements there seems no disagreement on the point of happiness. Of course we each choose differing values and differing ways of achieving those values.

 

Everybody is going about life doing exactly the same thing unless they are so fed up they have chosen oblivion of the mind in one sense or another-usually hedonistic pleasure seeking which is really suicide of the mind. Instead of seeking values a man seeks pleasure first through activities which are usually not supportive of his happiness or life.

 

All these men looking for values to gain, or ways to keep them, are drawn to other men in the search for these values and will trade with them value for value. These values are not necessarily material in and of themselves although all values are ultimately based on existents.

[steve]

Steve you said this:

 

"The Mahayana approach solves the problem of spiritual egoism and materialism through the teaching of Bodhicitta. The spiritual adept vows to achieve liberation specifically in order to liberate others. This is extremely sophisticated and beneficial on many levels. This is reinforced when the aspirant becomes an arhat and has direct contact with the nature of self and the direct experience of unconditional love.

 

One cannot expect to liberate others from a position of ignorance and confusion therefore you must first cultivate and liberate yourself first. Not for selfish reasons but with the intention of continuing to work on behalf of other living creatures. If one liberates oneself for one's own sake only, that is a selfish act and the very nature of such an act is in direct conflict with the path as you point out."

 

"Unconditional love" and you condemn a "selfish act" that is very clear. I'm not being presumptive, you havent implied it, you have said so specifically.

 

I'm not twisting your words, you are preaching selflessness and Love without any 'I' in it. In the previous passage you mention that self liberation is ONLY for the purpose of liberating others. That one should not liberate themselves purely for the self.

 

The church and dictators have been preaching this kind of thing for millennia. It is an impossibility, a state which man cannot reach and thus his failure will result in suffering from guilt from failure.

 

I get the sense Roger knows this, but you are evading the truth by mixing it with notions of 'some sense of self' but with no specifics about how one can go from this to that except by some guru who tells you that it can be done. Your reply to me proves you are still trying, you haven't succeeded, but your tone is that of some adept.

 

Why do you insist on a claim to know something is true, but yet your actions are proof that you haven't attained the state that you talk about with such alacrity ?

Denial and more presumption.

 

I'm not going to work too hard to debate as I suspect you are not interested in seeing an alternative perspective but rather dedicated to solidifying your own. As others have mentioned your MO is to modify or exaggerate another's statement and then argue against the corrupted position.

 

None of us knows what the other experiences, particularly if there is no shared experience or frame of reference.

The alacrity is a symptom of confidence born of practice, not belief - my apologies if that sounds arrogant.

[steve]

But my 'perspective' isn't a perspective. I'm not pretending to be something I'm promoting. Anyone can be like I am because they already are, it's their thinking, or non- thinking that is skewed.

 

Do you grasp what I'm saying ? I discovered what was me, minus the evasion of what I thought was, or should be me. I saw that trying to be selfless was causing me to evade and then reality would intrude in my little quiet circle that had been created.

 

You do offer your view as correct, please don't kid yourself, it's your philosophy and you can hardly pretend that it is divorced from you.

 

Nor am I. I'm promoting nothing, just responding to roger's questions from my experience.

Anyone can be like me because they already are. It's their thinking that's skewed.

 

Yes, I grasp what you are saying, it is not a challenge. I can relate to what you discovered as I share that experience. You did not go far enough. You did not connect with anything deeper. It is still there, waiting, if you ever choose to look further. If not, that is fine. I'm not pushing anyone to do or believe anything, just sharing my view and experience. Your choice to indulge in objectivist philosophy is your prerogative and it is certainly an effective tool, as is thought in general - no doubt about that. 

 

My view is correct for me at this moment. It is reinforced by my personal experience. I acknowledge that others have different and equally valid points of view. I offer my view as one path that is working for me, nothing more. 

[steve]

Most of that is redundant explanation. You already admitted that you don't sacrifice your happiness in the first paragraph, so why go trying to justify altruism after you have admitted that you are both selfish and egoistic ?

 

All that hogwash about organisms and being no individuals is destroyed by one words in your opening sentence 'my'. You cannot be rid of the sense of it, so why pretend that you can, or that you have ?

 

Having the sense of 'my' destroys nothing, it only obscures. It is just that, as sense. A feeling and a tendency to ascribe the label of thinker to a particular flavor of thought. As I said in my original reply to roger, we will always live with the ego and that sense of 'me.' That is not unique, it is common to all individuals. That does not change the fact that all life is interconnected and mutually dependent on each other and their shared environment. Your inability or refusal to see that connection does not render it hogwash. As I've said before, you have tendency to negate others' views and experiences simply because they are outside of your limited scope of experience or do not comport with your model. It gives you the illusion that your philosophy is more powerful when in fact it is more limiting. 

 

I am pretending nothing. 

[steve]

Altruism is selflessness, completely non egoic. so, they are in complete opposition.

 

We cannot begin to make others 'needs' as the prime virtue or we are suggesting suicide. Consider that breathing might in some way deprive someone else of oxygen, that ones own life may deprive another of their life. It's an impossible situation.

 

We do not work for profit of self in some weird spiritualist capitalist sense. Our primary value, or at least my primary value as everybody seems to disagree, is my life. I have chosen to live and now I must nourish that life by obtaining the values to sustain it. I have a pain/pleasure nervous system and a suffering/happiness emotional system. I have to obtain values that produce happiness and so this becomes the moral purpose of my life.

 

Despite the strong disagreements there seems no disagreement on the point of happiness. Of course we each choose differing values and differing ways of achieving those values.

 

Everybody is going about life doing exactly the same thing unless they are so fed up they have chosen oblivion of the mind in one sense or another-usually hedonistic pleasure seeking which is really suicide of the mind. Instead of seeking values a man seeks pleasure first through activities which are usually not supportive of his happiness or life.

 

All these men looking for values to gain, or ways to keep them, are drawn to other men in the search for these values and will trade with them value for value. These values are not necessarily material in and of themselves although all values are ultimately based on existents.

 

 

Would you give your life for your child?

Would you offer an organ to a sibling?

 

When we begin to practice Bodhicitta, we begin with those closest to us. It's very easy. As we develop more sensitivity, we are able to extend that to an incrementally larger sphere of influence. Ultimately, the ideal is to include all living beings, even those you feel challenged by. 

 

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I consider it valid and your prerogative. 

I do not deny or belittle it. I do not ask you to change. It makes sense and you argue it well.

It is not hogwash. 

You get to live your life as you see fit, as do I, and I applaud your commitment to your ideals.

[Karl]

Denial and more presumption.

 

I'm not going to work too hard to debate as I suspect you are not interested in seeing an alternative perspective but rather dedicated to solidifying your own. As others have mentioned your MO is to modify or exaggerate another's statement and then argue against the corrupted position.

 

None of us knows what the other experiences, particularly if there is no shared experience or frame of reference.

The alacrity is a symptom of confidence born of practice, not belief - my apologies if that sounds arrogant.

That's just subjectivism Steve. We all consciously experience the same existent universe, we all live by its laws. We can evade of course and we can be in error through some ignorance, but there is a price to be paid for that evasion.

 

I put it to you that altruism is selflessness, that there is no 'I' nor 'my' and you have no answer to that other than 'practice'. You are saying you know 'intrinsically' and that 'it maybe true for me, but not for you'.

 

I have the same answer here which I always use. If I am debating an open question as here and you are refuting then I'm going to continue to push for an answer. If, on the other hand, what you are saying is that you have a belief, an intuition, a revelation then no answer can possibly be forth coming. It's like saying 'just believe' or 'have faith' and then I quit bothering you. However, everytime you try and bring logic and concepts into the discussion to try and create a proof that, by admission of faith, you cannot possibly give, then of course I'm going to respond.

 

There is no requirement to rationalise whatever practice, faith, belief you have to me, I will just accept that is good for you and move on. Objectivism isn't a 'belief' there is no intrinsic faith or revelation, it's nuts and bolts and so if you challenge me I'm going to respond.

[Karl]

Would you give your life for your child?

Would you offer an organ to a sibling?

 

When we begin to practice Bodhicitta, we begin with those closest to us. It's very easy. As we develop more sensitivity, we are able to extend that to an incrementally larger sphere of influence. Ultimately, the ideal is to include all living beings, even those you feel challenged by.

 

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I consider it valid and your prerogative.

I do not deny or belittle it. I do not ask you to change. It makes sense and you argue it well.

It is not hogwash.

You get to live your life as you see fit, as do I, and I applaud your commitment to your ideals.

I would if the child or sibling were of value to me. That's the point. It isn't altruism, but value to my life that decides the course of my actions.

[dwai]

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

 

Imho, when the True Self is identified with, there is no duality. So no need for either "me" or "you".

So the question is "who is being spiritual?"

Krishnamurthy's position is one of extreme non-duality. When we are there or have had experiences of the True Self, it makes sense to agree with this position. Until then, we have to practice "spirituality" (it can mean different things to different people and not all will lead to the True Self). 

 

Do some do it for subtle (or not so subtle) self-aggrandization? Sure!

The key imho, is to practice something (spirituality) that progressively loosens the hold that the Ego has, thereby obscuring our True Nature/Self. Eventually the mind turns back to the witness and becomes still -- and further more, from where consciousness itself rises (and disappears).

[Brian]

That's just subjectivism Steve. We all consciously experience the same existent universe, we all live by its laws. We can evade of course and we can be in error through some ignorance, but there is a price to be paid for that evasion.

 

I put it to you that altruism is selflessness, that there is no 'I' nor 'my' and you have no answer to that other than 'practice'. You are saying you know 'intrinsically' and that 'it maybe true for me, but not for you'.

 

I have the same answer here which I always use. If I am debating an open question as here and you are refuting then I'm going to continue to push for an answer. If, on the other hand, what you are saying is that you have a belief, an intuition, a revelation then no answer can possibly be forth coming. It's like saying 'just believe' or 'have faith' and then I quit bothering you. However, everytime you try and bring logic and concepts into the discussion to try and create a proof that, by admission of faith, you cannot possibly give, then of course I'm going to respond.

 

There is no requirement to rationalise whatever practice, faith, belief you have to me, I will just accept that is good for you and move on. Objectivism isn't a 'belief' there is no intrinsic faith or revelation, it's nuts and bolts and so if you challenge me I'm going to respond.

Dang, Karl! That whole "my belief system isn't a belief system" thing is practically a challenge, especially when you try (still? again?) to wrap it in "logic."

 

Really wanna go down that path again?

[Karl]

Having the sense of 'my' destroys nothing, it only obscures. It is just that, as sense. A feeling and a tendency to ascribe the label of thinker to a particular flavor of thought. As I said in my original reply to roger, we will always live with the ego and that sense of 'me.' That is not unique, it is common to all individuals. That does not change the fact that all life is interconnected and mutually dependent on each other and their shared environment. Your inability or refusal to see that connection does not render it hogwash. As I've said before, you have tendency to negate others' views and experiences simply because they are outside of your limited scope of experience or do not comport with your model. It gives you the illusion that your philosophy is more powerful when in fact it is more limiting.

 

I am pretending nothing.

As you say 'it's a feeling' then we are not talking reason. The same goes for mutual dependence, it has no meaning unless applied specifically not as a generalisation. We are entities with natures that react and interact, the nature of man is man qua man.

 

I challenge, refute or rebut views and that should be seen as a good thing, not as an attack.

 

I don't really know what you mean by 'more powerful' it isn't a description I understand. It's like saying the laws of motion are more powerful than the idea of God pushing things around. Something is right, something is wrong, both cannot be correct. That's what we are here to discover.

[C T]

I I I I nothing substantial yet so full of animation

[Karl]

Dang, Karl! That whole "my belief system isn't a belief system" thing is practically a challenge, especially when you try (still? again?) to wrap it in "logic."

 

Really wanna go down that path again?

Again ?

I was imprecise in my definition of the word 'belief' only because that was the word used by Steve and I re-used it in that sense.

Suffice to say everything is a belief, or what we believe to be true. Truth is as proof is. In other words we must relate the conceptual directly to the perceptual view of existence. Is what we think exactly what we see 'out there'. If it correlates then we have a reality which matches and thus we have proof. If we have something for which we cannot offer a proof - such as God, then we have faith, this is the way I used belief.

[Brian]

Again ?

I was imprecise in my definition of the word 'belief' only because that was the word used by Steve and I re-used it in that sense.

Suffice to say everything is a belief, or what we believe to be true. Truth is as proof is. In other words we must relate the conceptual directly to the perceptual view of existence. Is what we think exactly what we see 'out there'. If it correlates then we have a reality which matches and thus we have proof. If we have something for which we cannot offer a proof - such as God, then we have faith, this is the way I used belief.

Everything is a belief but Objectivism isn't a belief?

[Karl]

Everything is a belief but Objectivism isn't a belief?

I said 'everything'. However it isn't a faith.

[Brian]

I said 'everything'. However it isn't a faith.

Yes, Karl. It is.

[Karl]

Yes, Karl. It is.

A faith is something that doesn't wish to be proven, it is deliberate evasion. That is to say 'I cannot prove it, but I feel it's true'.

 

If as Steve implies 'that may be true for you but not for me' then he says there are two proofs, but then is unable to formulate a proof.

 

I know exactly where this is going, for you A is not always A.

[Nungali]

Yes

 

Your second question is a fallacy of presumption. I do not sacrifice my happiness for others sakes. 

I genuinely enrich my life through helping others.

 

...

 

 There it is again

[Nungali]

You're quite good at putting words in my mouth and making inaccurate assumptions. 

Not so good at being open to the possibility that there are alternative perspectives that are as valid as your own.

There are many different perspectives and many different ways to approach life.

I do not offer my view as correct or better than anyone else's.

I do not ask anyone to adopt it.

I just offer it as my own.

 

... and again  .....

[Nungali]

So, I will speak for myself .

 

If I do something , 'altruistic' or not  ... its because I want t do it and  choose to do it , because it makes me feel good .  Simple as that ! 

 

I am selfish . 

 

How else do I explain my lavish white westerner  lifestyle otherwise, at the expense of all the others that enable it  ?  

 

I remember some time back , talking to a Hare Krishna ; he gave me this 'selfless' rave, about he did everything for Krishna and how seeking pleasure was  a  no-no .  I scoffed.  He came back with ;  up early pre -dawn , chanting, temple, duties, study, chanting, temple   etc ... 

 

I asked him if he actually really deep down enjoyed doing that and if he really wanted to do it and if it gave him a good feeling and ... yes ...  'pleasure'    . 

 

He thought on that , and admitted that it did . 

 

Was his motivation purely  pleasure ?       That's his business, I suppose . 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Nungali

[Brian]

A faith is something that doesn't wish to be proven, it is deliberate evasion. That is to say 'I cannot prove it, but I feel it's true'.

 

If as Steve implies 'that may be true for you but not for me' then he says there are two proofs, but then is unable to formulate a proof.

 

I know exactly where this is going, for you A is not always A.

You merely substitute a phrase like "it's axiomatic" for "I feel it's true" and a vaguely applied claim of authoritative "reason" for the religious fundamentalist's authority of "God" but you are in denial of parallel. You have told us that "true knowledge" is when you become completely convinced of your own beliefs yet you maintain that this belief system you embrace is strictly based on facts, logic and reason. I don't argue that A isn't A because that's a non sequitur you repeatedly use to deliberately evade challenges to your belief system. Painted into a corner, you abandon logic, contradict yourself, become nasty and then eventually cut off discussion with the claim that the other person has clearly abandoned reality. That's faith, and an ugly form of it at that.

 

I don't bust your chops because you have faith in your chosen belief system, or because I see flaws in your belief system -- all models are wrong. I bust your chops because you charge into thread after thread to assert the unassailable veracity of your belief system while you harangue other forum members about the delusion and irrationality of their belief system. It seems that your faith is imperiled by presence of anyone who fails to recognize the completeness and correctness of your belief system. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish but that becomes a problem when you derail thread after thread with your bullying and dissembling tactics. State any firmly held beliefs you wish and I am unlikely to interject. Use axiom and scripture to label someone else as denying reality and rejecting reason, however, and I am likely to pick up the flag.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Brian

[Brian]

They're not quite the same. The axioms of objectivism are actually empirical. But they are of a general formulation such that they refer to things that are present no matter the empirical situation. The designation of "God" is different. It has the specificity of a distinct entity without any necessary direct empirical content.

 

The biggest issue is the one we've brought up before---the promotion of ideas from received forms into "objects" that are considered reality. This places the limit to "reality" on things that that are received as forms and (usually) communally verified as particular "objects". The cutting edge of spiritual phenomena doesn't get the same standing because not everyone is stable enough in the perception of it so as to enable it to be promoted from a received "form" to an ontologically distinct object (in this framework).

 

Since Objectivism has individualism as a core element, there is no built-in regulation for harmonizing "object" demarcations made by people who experience things differently.

 

This is the main and recurring problem.

 

Edit/addition: the only place where there is faith is in the belief that the system of objects recognized by one particular objectivist are the only ones that should matter to anyone else. But, on this point, that is not an actual part of objectivism; it is a tendency of a particular objectivist.

Yes, "A is A" is A perfectly valid and empirical axiom. When one follows that statement with a leap of faith, however, and then claims anyone not accepting the leap rejects both reason and reality, we have left the realm of empiricism.

 

EDIT: Your edit/addition showed up when I posted and is precisely the point I've been making with Karl all along. Just because he convinces himself something is "true knowledge" doesn't make it "True" beyond his own faith that it is, regardless of his fervent belief in his own belief system.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Brian

[roger]

Karl,

 

Someone once said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

 

My honest opinion is that it requires more faith NOT to believe in God (or at least in some kind of ultimate or supreme intelligence or Self), than it does TO believe.

 

Of course, it depends on the person, right?

[steve]

So, I will speak for myself .

 

If I do something , 'altruistic' or not  ... its because I want t do it and  choose to do it , because it makes me feel good .  Simple as that ! 

 

I am selfish . 

 

How else do I explain my lavish white westerner  lifestyle otherwise, at the expense of all the others that enable it  ?  

 

I remember some time back , talking to a Hare Krishna ; he gave me this 'selfless' rave, about he did everything for Krishna and how seeking pleasure was  a  no-no .  I scoffed.  He came back with ;  up early pre -dawn , chanting, temple, duties, study, chanting, temple   etc ... 

 

I asked him if he actually really deep down enjoyed doing that and if he really wanted to do it and if it gave him a good feeling and ... yes ...  'pleasure'    . 

 

He thought on that , and admitted that it did . 

 

Was his motivation purely  pleasure ?       That's his business, I suppose . 

 

Anthony Demello offers a wonderful discussion of charity and selfishness in his CD series Wake Up to Life.

It's an amazing series, highly recommended.

 

He likes to boil charity down to 3 types -

1. I give myself the pleasure of pleasing myself

2. I give myself the pleasure of pleasing others

3. I avoid negative feelings by pleasing others

 

Then, of course, there are selfless acts such as the person who jumps on the grenade to save his buddies. 

These are spontaneous acts that seem to be done through us without our interference. 

[Nungali]

Ahhh ....  spontaneous acts ... another rather different  and very interesting dynamic.   I have been in discussion about that here before. 

 

Some 'questions of morals or help '   (in relation to the 'karmic cop-out theory' )  dont even need consideration , just automatic response .   Someone falls down, you help them up.  Automatic . 

 

yet some dont seem to get that either

 

A lot depends on how personally involved  one is in any situation .  Starving kids overseas tend to fade into background consciousness ....  even a hungry one at my door gets instant attention and 'devotion' .