Self-less or full of Self?

[Guest guest]

A very interesting posting for our group.. I will pass it on to the list. regards jay

 

-

nithiya.loganathan

vivekananda

Sunday, April 16, 2006 9:41 AM

A doubt

 

Hi Jay,

 

This is my first mail to the group.

I do not know if this mail is appropriate for the group, but..

There is something which I can't really figure out.I recently read the book,"The fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.

There were a few sentences which go more or less this way, 'Every man is selfless without realizing that because, he always seeks to please others, or he sets to seek something which common man has defined asSuccess, Happiness, Kindness,,,, And a selfish man is one who keeps going on without all these boundaries, who seeks the true happiness for himself. If that is the case, are people who renounce worldly life, selfish, or selfless. Because as far as I've rknown, they are the ppl who have no boundaries.

 

Regards,

Nithiya

[Guest guest]

The attitude towards doing things to "Please" others in most cases.....is due to fear or insecurity. Most of the time ..... pleasing others is done for "name and fame" or to avoid loss of it, which translates to self preservation......and therefore what may seem as selflessness is in reality selfishness! otherwise it wudn't be "pleasing" others...it would be "helping others"!

 

So called selfish people.....who have "no boundaries" are actually lost!! A person loitering in the middle of a hot desert rejoicing at some mirages and some oasis ....cannot say he has no boundaries.....he just "does not know the boundaries"!

 

for selfish people....who are for "self preservation" or "to preserve their ego"..."to preserve their sense of identity".....are bound by their own ego...false ego!! the boundary / limitation is not outside but within themselves!

 

Whereas for a person who has renounced all attachments to the external world and who succeeds in annihilating the ego within....has no boundaries without and within!

 

The question of selfless or selfish does not arise !! he just cannot do acts of "self preservation" or " preserve the identity".....because...there is no identity, no ego, no individuality!! where from will there come any selfishness etc!!

 

regards

sunil

[Guest guest]

ANY PERSON WHO RENOUNCES ALL WORLDLY LIFE ARE DEFINITELY NOT 'SELFISH'. THEY ARE UNSELFISH BECAUSE THEY ARE RENOUNCING THE WORLDLY LIFE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEY DO NOT ASK OTHERS TO RENOUNCE WORLDLY LIFE. IF THEY DO IT, THEN YOU CAN CALL THEM SELFISH AS ASKING ANOTHER BEING TO DO SOMETHING OR RENOUNCE PLEASURES COULD BE A CALL TO SATISFY HIS WISH / DESIRE / EXPECTATION, IN WHICH CASE AN ELEMENT OF SEEKING SATISFACTION COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN. SANJEEV.SUGUNENDIRAN

[Guest guest]

From what I have read of Ayn Rand, her philosophy has been that each individual should do what is best for him/herself and that this is the greatest achievement for any human being. Consideration for others, " compassion " etc. and the exisitence of a " welfare state " were among the many concepts that Ms.Rand was against.She treated human success as a zero-sum game in which one person won by the loss of somebody else.ONce again this is just my interpretation of Ms.Rand's ideas. I'm sure there are many websites which will provide a more deteailed analysis.

Best regards,Girish

[Guest guest]

perhaps, sometimes the reason for renouncement is selfish, but in the end it doesn't matter what the reason is as the renouncement itself solves all these issues. from Bijal

Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo.

[Guest guest]

She made a virtue of selfishnessGirish <girishsv wrote: From what I have read of Ayn Rand, her philosophy has been that each individual should do what is best for him/herself and that this is the greatest achievement for any human being. Consideration for others, "compassion" etc. and the exisitence of a "welfare state" were among the many concepts that Ms.Rand was against.She treated human success as a zero-sum game in which one person won by the loss of somebody else.ONce again this is just my interpretation of Ms.Rand's ideas. I'm sure there are many websites which will provide a more deteailed analysis. Best regards,Girish Have you forgiven anyone lately?

Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Canada Messenger with Voice

[Guest guest]

Hi Nithiya,

 

I am not sure what Ayn Rand wants to say. May be you are interpreting it in a different way. But i will try to answer your query.

 

Who will please Whom.

 

There is a difference between a self-realised person doing businness and a person doing bussiness without self-realisation.

 

When a person walks on the path of self realization, he spreads true love, happiness without putting explicit efforts. His mere act of following the path spreads love, happiness and life. Only his interaction with society by living in society can make all the difference. Thats why its great to be self realised but to come back to society after self realisation and live in this world is far more greater act.

 

A person walking on the path of self realization doesn't renounce this world rather one renounces ones own illusions of the world. One does that so that he/she can think/ experience straight. World just exists, Its us who interpret it in different ways. Once one realises the self its then the one comes face to face with truth about oneself and about this world. And having realised it shouldn't really matter what one does. But non-dual state exist only in samadhi and once a self realised person comes out of samadhi state world becomes dual again. Hence its important for a self realised to come back to society/ universe or to interact with society / universe.

 

If a self realised person refuses to come back to society its then that a self realised person becomes selfish. For a self realised person it doesn't matter whether he lives in society or not. He chooses to live or not to live in society according to the need of the dual world.

 

 

I guess what Ayn Rand would is saying is everyone is "I AM THAT I AM" but everyone is ignorant of it. Soul along with mind is what makes us to interact in this world. Mind makes us do things and achieve many things, mind becomes sad/ happy on non-achievement/ achievement but soul doesn't, hence its at these moments that the soul reveals itself. Life is not about achieving/ non-achievemnt its about realising the self. A person who realises self as a result on non-achievement will still be the winner. And accordingly one modifies ones thinking and actions because of this experience and in the end one will become self realised.

 

Hence so called selfish acts can lead to self realisation. I guess her argument is, if so called "selfish acts" can lead to self realisation then are selfish acts really selfish. My answer will be they are niether selfish nor selfless its our perception which makes them selfish or selfless.

 

One can realise the self by either living in this society or by renouncing this world. Both paths will lead to self realisation. I guess both are niether selfish nor selfless its the perception of the individual which makes every path as selfish / selfless. Meaning even the path of renouncing can be selfish. And on other hand when one realises the self ones life becomes a clean slate no matter how many sins one would have done. Because its not you who did it it were the corruptions in the mind which misguided you. Once one realises the self, ones mind exists and knows the fact that soul exists in all oneness. And then mind and soul co-exist in harmony

 

Real truth is one and until one realises self one sees the world as two and lack of oneness is selfishness.

 

To begin with all paths are selfish they become selfless once we attain self realisation.

 

 

Jai Gurudev

[Guest guest]

Hi Anurag, In reply to your below mentioned statement: "If a self realised person refuses to come back to society its then that a self realised person becomes selfish. For a self realised person it doesn't matter whether he lives in society or not. He chooses to live or not to live in society according to the need of the dual world". I believe that we certainly have no right to judge the action of a Self realized person, meaning in which way he should work --> there cannot be any authority on this because, a self realized person is Free from any prejudice or obligation or duty. Only duty binds those who have a heart of sympathy or kindness (which in a sense a tinge of impurity mixed with the realization of absolute truth). It is improper to tell

them who do not return to this world after Self realization to be Selfish because they have already crossed the barrier of Selfishness and Unselfishness both. As we say that the Lord is Nirguna--> meaning He is beyond qualities...kindness or hatred, love or abhorrence, sympathy or apathy. So, when a person really reaches the highest mark of realization, for him no duty remains to be done. So, there is no question of his being selfish to the world because by that time he really does not belong to the world. Satrajit Gupta

[Guest guest]

I vaguely remember an incident from Shree Ramnakrishna's life. When Shree Ramakrishna was in Samadhi state Guru Totapuri used to feed him with liquid diet, i guess he did that for 3 days. A person in samadhi state in such an enjoyable state that he never wants to come out of it. Its Guru who then brings him back in to this world from Samadhi else the shishya in samadhi state will leave his/ her body.

 

Guru knows that there is something beyond samadhi and Kundalini Jaagran. Samadhi is just one of the states there are many more lessons to be learnt beyond that stage.

 

Thats why Shree Ramakrishna asked Vivekananda to do what he did. Its the duty of the Guru to create Vivekananda's.

 

Vivekanda could have gone to Himalayas and spend time with people of equal calibre, Arjun might not have fought the battle .... But its not so.

 

There have been several incidents which we may or may not know. And i state this with utmost respect to the gurus, rishis and enlightened ones. Gurus who know the truth have objected the behaviour of rishis who just sit in Himalayas / or the most divine places in this universe and just do tapasya and have made them realise of their duties. If the intervention from divine would not have been there this earth would gone in smoke of Nuclear weapons by now.

 

If every country starts firing nuclear weapons on each other i guess its becomes much more than their duty to save earth/ universe. Remember Lord always interfered when someone has fired a Brahma Astra.

 

In a dual world everyonr one has to play a role. But a self realised person plays that role as "Moksha" and not as "Paapa" or "Punya"

 

Even meditation/ spiritual rites or rituals can be an act of "Moksha" or "Papa" or "Punya". It all depends on the mindset of the individual. Self realisation is nothing more than a clean and clear mind. It all in the mind. When there is no mind, soul reveals itself.