Selfishness

John Doe

This may be my own idea, but I probably picked it up somewhere. Here goes, this is just a theory:
There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Everything that a human does is calculated (sometimes not very well calculated, but calculated none the less) to make its perpetrator happy. You are ultimately incapable of making any decision that isn't solely based on the desire to please yourself. Consider the following case studies:
1. A man has two sweets. His friend asks him for a sweet. He gives his friend the sweet, not because he expects something in return, not because he wants to wow anyone with this stunning display of generosity but because it is a nice thing to do. Doing this nice thing will make him feel better, or at least he believes at the time that it will make him feel better.
2. A woman chooses to spend the rest of her life working solely for the benefit of others, for instance as an aid worker for Médecine Sans Frontiéres in darkest Africa. She does this because she believes at the time that this will make her happier than not going to darkest Africa to spend the rest of her days helping others.
This is not a bad thing, it is an intrinsic part of humanity. It does, however, create some interesting problems when we consider religions who put forward the idea of an afterlife or reincarnation the nature of which depends on your actions in your current life. Seeing as all acts are ultimately selfish, in a situation where (for example) you can either remain a pacifist and secure your place in the afterlife/gain positive karma, or kill someone to save others, doing serious damage to your immortal soul (or whatever you want to call your essence) it is undoubtedly a nobler deed to do the latter. It's still just as selfish though. Weird. I've confused myself.
Anyhoo, please discuss the above from a Buddhist perspective, if you can make any sense of it at all.

The Free Man

i think selfishness can have more than one meaning. i would not take the examples above as being selfish because they would make you feel happy. in these examples, you would be giving up material goods/benifit to help another human being, and of course that is going to make you happy, but in a sense that you are realising that you can give up material things to help others.

i would say that selfishness is holding on to a material thing (money, goods, an easy ignorant life) to please yourself.

John Doe

There is no doubt a need for a second definition of 'selfishness' as the original one just means doing something to please oneself, which I think we can see is fairly meaningless. It is very hard to find an absolute second definition of selfishness though. Your suggestion is quite a good one I think, but does that mean that all it takes for someone to stop being selfish (new definition) is the knowledge that materialism won't necessarily make you happy? It's hard to draw the line. Perhaps a new meaning for 'selfish' could be the traditional meaning of the word 'ignoble'?

Bodhidharma

In that case everything you do is selfish. Getting up in the morning, eating an apple, talking to a friend. Everything you do is for the benefit of yourself, that doesn't make it selfish. A Buddhist monk goes off into the forest and shuns the rest of the world in order to attain Enlightenment, is that selfish?

Of course not, selfishness isnt doing things for your benefit, its doing things to your benefit when you know your action will have a detremental affect on another person and not caring.

John Doe

Good definition. It isn't what selfishness is by definition, but that's pretty much what it's accepted to mean and indeed should mean. I'm just pointing out that just because something gives you a psychological benefit rather than material doesn't mean it's necessarily the better thing to do.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

Weird. I've confused myself.

I`m not surprised:) . You have a lot of stuff mixed up in this thought pattern. this will explain a little about selfishness from the orthodox Buddhist perspective and lets see how things develop from there. Please bear in mind that this is only a general overview, and subject to change according to each school, and to each individual.


Many people confuse loving themselves with being selfish. This can manifests itself in two quite different ways.
1. One group, thinking selfishness is bad and wanting to avoid it, also stop loving themselves. This is often associated with having a low opinion of themselves or of feeling guilty if they are too happy, so they deny themselves pleasures. From a Buddhist viewpoint, low self-esteem and this type of self-denial are as caught up with self-centeredness because they all over-estimate the importance of the self and focus on it in an unhealthy way.

2. The other group, thinking loving themselves is good, fall to the extreme of self-indulgence and selfishness. To show their love for themselves, they say, for example, "I’m going to buy myself a present of a new coat." If our current coat is torn or very old, fine we may need to buy ourselves a new coat. This is not self-indulgent. However, if “buying ourselves a present of a new coat” is permeated with self-centeredness, i.e. “I want this expensive coat so that I will feel good and look good to others.” then one could say they are no longer just taking care of themselves but are being self-indulgent. Activities done with this attitude do not really make them happy, because their mind is focused on only their own immediate pleasure.

Selfishness in Buddhism means self-centeredness and self-preoccupation – that is, thinking of ourselves first and foremost. Whether we think of ourselves as the worst of all or the best of all, we are nonetheless exaggerating the importance of the self. Both self-hatred and self-indulgence are extremes. Neither brings happiness or eliminates misery. We are one among countless sentient beings, all of whom want to be happy and to avoid suffering as intensely as we do. We are neither more important nor less important than others. Thus, in wishing all beings to be happy and free from suffering, we must include ourselves. Doing so is appropriately loving ourselves and having compassion for ourselves.

John Doe

Asiaprod wrote:

over-estimate the importance of the self and focus on it in an unhealthy way.

This is a very basic question, but I take it from this that Buddhism believes that life is more than just what you experience through your mind and senses, i.e. 'self'?

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

This is a very basic question, but I take it from this that Buddhism believes that life is more than just what you experience through your mind and senses, i.e. 'self'?

Sorry JD, I really don't understand the question. Could you ask me it again in a different way.

John Doe

Yes, it wasn't a very well asked question. Let me see... I was kinda asking if Buddhism is generally in opposition to empiricist philosophies, y'know the idea that we can know nothing except that which we experience throught our senses, and so you can't be sure of anything in the world except that you yourself exist.

If we are all looking at this having grown up in the western world it is a more difficult concept to grasp as the sense of self is very much kind of engrained into you..Buddhism seeks selflessness as in non self as in no sense of self..The entire universe is one being/entity of which we are all a small part..Its interesting that apparently when the white man went to australia first the aboriginies didnt have very much of a sense of self..there was pretty much a group consciousness and the almost saw themselves as part of the landscape..when you are born it develops as you differentiate you from everything else..buddhism promotes the fundamental interconnectedness of all things (to paraphrase douglas adams)..this is being shown to be true now with the observations of quantum physics..on a subatomic level absolutly everything is just kind of a web...the only thing that can observe this universe is this universe itself..The sense of self that develops brings up the question of the soul which leads to the idea of reincarnation..i dont think this is the case as the universe is all there is..other than that you exist on a fundamental level in your dna..and the goal of all life is to pass on their particular strand of dna..so we live on in our family...other than that the beat goes on..these questions of selfishness and doing an unselfish act to make yourself feel better is really a question of karma which is what keeps the good and the bad (either side if the yin/yang) balanced..if you do something that is truly good (selfless) you are inviting good karma back kind of...i dont know if ye get me..my thoughts are kind of all over the place, but i hope ive cleared something up or caused ye to ask a different question...

UU

Selfishness or Egotism is a very difficult subject to grasp but I'll explain what I think of it. I don't believe there is such a thing of a total unselfish person as once we are aware of ourselves - that we exist - we are inviting thoughts of self in. I think there is sentience and egotism.

Sentience is awareness of oneself, one's actions, thoughts, feelings and senses. It exists within the human mind and is the seat of knowledge and memory. It enables one to relate to the past, present and future as well as avoids danger, developing plans and considering alternatives. So basically when I wake up in the morning, it is sentience. When I decide to study very hard in my exams for me so that I can be successful in life, that is sentience.

On the other hand, if I study very hard in my exams to make myself look better than everyone else who didn't do as well, that is egotism. See the difference?

I developed this way of thinking from "The Church Of Scientific Humanism" http://scihuman.org/ who really make sense.

They say that Egotism is caused by an overblown sense of self-importance and that person feels that everything that he or she says or does is more important than what others say or do. It is caused by too much sentience.
Basically, we all need a sense of self-importance but when this becomes overblown over others, the result is selfishness.

Scientific Humanism certainly changed the way I thought. They call themselves a religion but they are more a way of human thinking but are rather good so I'd recommend having a look at the website: http://scihuman.org/.

I hope I helped!

Asiaprod

Nice answers CQD and UU. This is a tough topic. I am also learning a lot from it.
Anyone else have any imput ?

John Doe

I'm delighted with these responses, they're really opening up a new level of inquiry for me! CQD, I have never really thought before about whether it is healthier to be oneself or to be consciously connected with all other life, though I suppose it's not much of a dilemma. Would your general philosophy be that life is the pursuit of 'one-ness' with the world? And with reference to UU's post, do you think that both sentience and egotism are to be avoided if possible in favour of the aforementioned collective consciousness? I would imagine it is true for most people that while pursuing elimination of the latter seems a noble goal, elimination of the former would be a very difficult sacrifice. Unfortunately, I'm rather fond (but hopefully not too fond ) of myself and it would be hard to sacrifice sentience at the moment.
In absolute terms, which I tend towards due to the scientific/empirical part of my personality, it seems very hard to differentiate satisfactorarily between sentience and egotism.
In practical terms, though, which I tend towards due to the artistic/humanist part of my personality, your differentiation makes perfect sense to me UU.

This question of sentience & the ego...I think the egoic mind seems to have developed from the sense of self and the thinking mind..the realisation of the concept of the passage of time made us realise that at some point in the future we will all die & that we could work to prolong our life..i think that this is what would be referred to as the fall from grace in the western relgions, kind of..adam and eve left the garden of eden when they stopped living like animals..i think you see a lot when you look at the behaviour of animals..a shoal of fish, or a flock of birds..& when attacked..theres so many of them..swimming about in a big ball..if a couple get picked off it doesn't matter because the majority of the group survive..
I think that sentience is just being..existence..every lifeform exists..there is a fundamental joy of being also..meditation enables us to feel this..communion with the buddha inside..to just stop, be still & concentrate on your body and your breathing..you can feel this sense of serenity..& the energy flowing through you..its a beautiful thing..& anyone can do it..with only stillness & concentration.."Be still and know that I Am"..The goal of meditation is to quieten the egoic/thinking mind..& yes, to touch the buddha inside..
The mind and the sense of self, ive seen it described as a wave travelling accross a mass of water..Looking at it, it appears to be one moving wave, but its more a movement than an entity i suppose..its all just part of the mass of water..I've read a lot about the chaos & complexity theories & its all just in the patterns..God is a mathematician..
This wasn't supposed to be as erratic..apologies if im going off topic or confusing people..

Asiaprod

Hum, there are too many individual point to answer in the last three mails with out incurring pages of HTML tags. Please permit me the liberty of lumping a lot of these together in order to provide some answers and pointers for you all to think about.

Up to the point of we are at one with everything I agree with.
I differ on the view of the beat goes on and of Karma. The Buddha very clearly stated that Karma exists from the past, is created and acts in the present, and will continue to act on into the future. If this one life is all we have, then the statement would not hold true. It would also go against one of the principle teaching which is that our current condition (fortune) is based on the causes we made in the past, and the causes we make in this life will determine the fortune in our next. That is why we say a Buddhist lives in the three existences of Past. Present and Future. If there was only one life why even try keep the good and the bad (either side if the yin/yang) balanced. For what purpose, just for the sake of being good. Why not go out and rob a bank and live like a king on the money. All you have to do to enjoy a good life then is not to get caught. No, this idea on having one shot at life does not in my, or in the Buddha's teaching apply at all.

Selfishness or Egotism is a very difficult subject to grasp but I'll explain what I think of it. I don't believe there is such a thing of a total unselfish person as once we are aware of ourselves - that we exist - we are inviting thoughts of self in.

Yes, up to a point, but why do people then assume that by being aware of ourselves automatically turns to selfishness. I think we all need to redefine what selfishness is. I have met many unselfish people. Also I would like to point out the meaning of the two words that are all to often misquoted so we can all get on the same page.

Egotism is an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Sentience is a feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought

In the case of Egotism, yes it is wrong, but note the use of the word exaggerated. This is what Buddhism taught about. Nowhere does Buddhism say that the individual is unimportant, quite the opposite is true. We are very important, and should act that way by showing example to others, by learning and by teaching. The idea that we are not important, or that by being important we will become selfish is simply not true.
In the case of Sentience it is very important to pay attention to the fact that it relates to feelings or sensations such as love/hate/fear/hot/cold/pain/hunger ect, and not to perception or thought. This is a major differentiating point to bear in mind when we talk about Humankind and all other living species on this planet. Yes we are connected, but we are very different. Show me an animal that has invented an engine or a plane. The closest you will be able to come is to the apes that use crude tools, like stones for breaking nuts or sticks for gauging water depth. Just being sentient does not enables one to relate to the past, present and future or in developing plans and considering alternatives, other than in the very vaguest terms.

The next bunch I just want to list and make a small comment to. Please feel free to press me for more in-depth answers if you require them.

They say that Egotism is caused by an overblown sense of self-importance and that person feels that everything that he or she says or does is more important than what others say or do.

Correct

It is caused by too much sentience.

Not correct as explained above.

Basically, we all need a sense of self-importance but when this becomes overblown over others, the result is selfishness.

This is very correct

Would your general philosophy be that life is the pursuit of 'one-ness' with the world?

No. There is a lot more to it that just that. What about enlightenment?

And with reference to UU's post, do you think that both sentience and egotism are to be avoided if possible in favor of the aforementioned collective consciousness?

No, as a Buddhist one takes responsibility for ones own actions. This is the beauty of Buddhism, you decide what is wrong and you take full responsibility for it.

I would imagine it is true for most people that while pursuing elimination of the latter seems a noble goal, elimination of the former would be a very difficult sacrifice.

The sentirence part would be impossible. If I stick a pin in you, you will feel it. The selfishness part is what we are currently working on

In absolute terms, which I tend towards due to the scientific/empirical part of my personality, it seems very hard to differentiate satisfactorarily between sentience and egotism.

You don't have to, they are both independent of each other, unless we make it different. That is actually what we are trying to do as Buddhists: not to be controlled by our feelings or emotions, and not to be swayed or led by our own ego. In other words, not so much eliminate them. as keep them in balance or in check.

This question of sentience & the ego...I think the egoic mind seems to have developed from the sense of self and the thinking mind..the realization of the concept of the passage of time made us realize that at some point in the future we will all die & that we could work to prolong our life..

This is very good, very perceptive, and I go along with it 100%.

There is a fundamental joy of being also..meditation enables us to feel this..communion with the Buddha inside..to just stop, be still & concentrate on your body and your breathing..you can feel this sense of serenity..& the energy flowing through you..its a beautiful thing..& anyone can do it..with only stillness & concentration.."Be still and know that I Am"..The goal of meditation is to quieten the egoic/thinking mind..& yes, to touch the buddha inside..

Wonderful, wonderful stuff, well done. Write more on this.

AARRRGH

Everything humans do is either for selfish or ego reasons.

I always find it funny, reading Buddhism books (I've read a few), why does the monk always have a picture of himself in the inside cover?

The ego and selfish self conquers all unfortunately. How do we channel this into something positive?

Asiaprod

Everything humans do is either for selfish or ego reasons.

Not true, I do many thing that are driven by neither. I am sure you do too.

I always find it funny, reading Buddhism books (I've read a few), why does the monk always have a picture of himself in the inside cover?

Not all books do. It could be for many reasons, some good, some bad. Why did the Buddha sign his name at the end of many of his teachings, to show their authenticity. I believe that any monk that lived according to the ideals of Buddhism is probably doing the same thing. Then again, he could be advertising his temple, his school or any number of reasons, including pandering to his ego--I have seen a lot of this.

The ego and selfish self conquers all unfortunately. How do we channel this into something positive?

By putting them in their right perspective and by reversing your statement. In other words, do not let them conquer all, rather you conquer them. How, by studying their nature, and by practicing doing the reverse. IMHO, parts of Buddhism are not that great a mystery, it really is just a matter of common sense. We practice to develop this common sense. The hard part is putting what your have learned to use.

John Doe

Fascinating. I'll post more on this when I've thought about it.

UU

All very interesting indeed. I think people are getting confused about Sentience. Sentience is one relating to one's senses to gain an awareness of oneself and that is the simplest definition I can find for it. Sentience is a very broad word and I think self-importance is probably more appropriate word in my terms. Self-importance is vital as without it we are either selfish or too modest which are both bad. That is just my view.

Now egotism is just another word for selfishness. It is basically where the individual thinks that he/she is greater than everyone else and only his/her self-importance (beliefs, actions, etc.) matters so therefore it could be said that Ego is an imbalance of self-importance as it is an overblown sense oneself and so modesty and lack of self-importance as one thinks that oneself is worthless.

Balanced Aspect: Self-importance
Over-balanced Aspect: Egotism / Selfishness
Under-balanced Aspect: Over Modest / No self-importance