Socrates practiced QiGong!

[Faux Newbie]

The "reward" you speak of is given freely not earned "so that no man may boast". The moment we do something to get a reward, the intent has forever tainted the act.


No, not really.
Remember that prayer is OTHER centered not self centered and when one is in communion with Christ ( actual oneness) there is no ego because one isn't "like we are now".





The gift of God's grace is an unmerited gift, nothing we do makes us merit it.
There is no ego when you realize that you can't do anything to merit His grace and that He has done EVERYTHING for you already.
Heaven isn't what is at stake, that is just an end destination, it is return to Man perfect state of relationship with God that is at stake BUT the price for that has already been paid, by the Son of God.
Because any action we would do would be with the intent to "get something" then those actions will never be good enough, the intent is tainted, it is full of EGO.

But isn't what you are arguing, in effect, correct Christian prayer vs. incorrect Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian contemplation and enaction? None of those traditions claim you can do anything on your own without outside help.

Again, Confucius and Mencius specifically call seeing the merit of others one of the greatest teachings.

Buddhist meditation almost immediately seeks to focus on practices that erode the sense of an isolated self.

Taoism is entirely based on observing the world, not merely the self.

The starting point in all three traditions is quieting the mind so that one can see what is beyond yourself. In all three, it is assumed that one can hardly give an accurate representation of the self without seeing its place in the world, and, once one sees that, there is no need to define it, as defining it gives it a false existence as a discrete entity.

I do not know of any Buddhist scholars who would refer to Buddhism as self based.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But isn't what you are arguing, in effect, correct Christian prayer vs. incorrect Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian contemplation and enaction? None of those traditions claim you can do anything on your own without outside help.

Again, Confucius and Mencius specifically call seeing the merit of others one of the greatest teachings.

Buddhist meditation almost immediately seeks to focus on practices that erode the sense of an isolated self.

Taoism is entirely based on observing the world, not the self.

The starting point in all three traditions is quieting the mind so that one can see what is beyond yourself.

I do not know of any Buddhist scholars who would refer to Buddhism as self based.

Differences do not = correct/incorrect.

The central tenets of Buddhism is the denial of self, yes?
Deny wants and you deny suffering, no suffering and you get satori/nirvana ( cliff notes version, I know), to deny self and ego.
How is it done though?
You do it yourself since there is no deity or outside force to help you, is there?

[Faux Newbie]

Differences do not = correct/incorrect.

The central tenets of Buddhism is the denial of self, yes?
Deny wants and you deny suffering, no suffering and you get satori/nirvana ( cliff notes version, I know), to deny self and ego.
How is it done though?
You do it yourself since there is no deity or outside force to help you, is there?

Your last point is incorrect. There are the three jewels, the lessons of the Buddha as examples, the community of Buddhists, and the teachings of enlightened beings.

Further, the key to the four noble truths is one can end suffering by ending desire based in ignorance. To understand one's own ignorance requires knowledge of samsara and cause and effect. Which again, are outside what we are calling the self.

Buddhism's goal, for many, is escaping samsara. However, how this is done is by total engagement in it, the quality of that engagement, and having one's consciousness opened by an observation and understanding of it. Without samsara, it cannot be done, therefore the self cannot, on its own, do it.

Even expedient means is an act of samsara, cause and effect. All Buddhist practices are based in samsara. Still the mind allows observation, observation reveals flaws and events and their repercussions, observation causes contemplation, contemplation causes action, action causes effects, effects cause more effects which cause disruptions to stillness which causes contemplation of the aftermath which causes refined action which leads to positive choices which leads to less negative complications which leads to less disruption of stillness which leads to deeper stillness which leads to...

The entire process is engaged with things beyond the self. Even meditations and contemplations always reinforce this.

[Faux Newbie]

To use the Taoist example, the Tao is always approached, one merely comes closer to it. One can only do this by engagement with the world. Even so-called non-action, in order to do it, requires long contemplation and practice at acting. To do this, one is utterly dependent on things outside the self.

[Faux Newbie]

And to make clear, I am not in disagreement on what constitutes a genuine acceptance of God, I merely do not find the "Self/other" distinction to be true, and I do find that, without some ways for those pursuing a path to distinguish ego from non-ego, ego is a real problem, as much for Christianity as anyone else.

[RenDaHai]

If randomness is imposed on you, then you are not making a free choice, random events are forcing your hand.

A random event that occurs to me is, itself, random, but my response may be determined by it, and thus, not random at all.

But randomness is not a good answer. Randomness can mean 1. hidden variables we don't know or 2. True randomness. In the event of 1 then our free will could be the hidden variable here and yet appear as randomness. 2. True randomness, but what is that anyway? Its AS mysterious as free will.

[David Jamieson]

Guys, guys.

Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.
While it's happening, it's worth our while to not be asses.

[Faux Newbie]

Guys, guys.

Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.
While it's happening, it's worth our while to not be asses.

Is it worth our while, or are we generally inclined to not be asses until delusions set in that cause us to seek benefit in being asses or not be asses?

[Syn7]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

Cool to see you weigh in SR.

[Faux Newbie]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

I don't see this as the case. I do not think people do things solely out of selfish goals. Members of species often do things that aid the survival of the whole, but as individuals, that is not necessarily their goal, just a result. Just because the result is positive does not mean the motivation was for that result.

[Syn7]

Wouldn't all acts of self be defined as selfish though? I may buy you a gift because I feel you will enjoy it, but that primary motivation would be that I feel good about you feeling good. Selfish, no?

One thing I'm pretty sure about is that there is no such thing as a purely selfless act whereas I do feel there are purely selfish acts. As for what that mix would be if it's both, I dunno.

[RenDaHai]

If we think of the Taijitu, the Yin and Yang symbol, we see that the opposite extremes do not ever separate, they always contain the seed of the other.

I suppose it must depend how we define selfishness, it seems to me the category could be very large. Do we mean it to be things which lack the consideration of others? Or things that benefit you mainly? Or only? Or even slightly?

Surely dying for a child for example has a larger element of the selfless about it?

If an act has both selfish and selfless elements, then surely we must sum them and see which is greater (not that this is easy)? It would be strange to define a mainly selfish act as selfish if we also described a mainly selfless act as selfish, it would not be even.

[Faux Newbie]

Wouldn't all acts of self be defined as selfish though? I may buy you a gift because I feel you will enjoy it, but that primary motivation would be that I feel good about you feeling good. Selfish, no?

If that were the motivation. I don't see it that way. The effort in choosing entails that you actually care about how I feel, if your example were true, you would probably focus more on buying gifts for people you better know how to buy the perfect gift for, instead you selected me. I am honored!

One thing I'm pretty sure about is that there is no such thing as a purely selfless act whereas I do feel there are purely selfish acts. As for what that mix would be if it's both, I dunno.

How I view it is this: we view selfishness as irrespective of the cost to others, not simply for the self. The term definitely has that negative connotation in how we use it.

If I wish to do a thing, but would not do it if it cost others, then selfishness has little to do with it.

Likewise, if a thing makes me happy and harms no one, then my happiness will make me better to be around. I don't see this as similar to how we define selfishness, since we do not define it as being for the self, but ONLY for the self regardless of the cost to others.

If what I choose to do for myself is always predicated by not harming others, then, based on how we actually define selfish, I am not selfish. In fact, how I define myself intrinsically takes into account the reality of others and the belief that my desires should not affect them unduly. Even Buddhism would say that if I do a thing that harms no one, myself included, and it makes me a better person, than it is good. Buddhism does not say that you are someone that peace should not come to, but that you are part of everything, and equally deserving of peace.

"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." That is a fair definition of how we use that term. Not simply "for one's self" but lacking a concern for others in regards to what one does for the self.

[Faux Newbie]

If we think of the Taijitu, the Yin and Yang symbol, we see that the opposite extremes do not ever separate, they always contain the seed of the other.

Agreed. Discrete separation does not occur.

I suppose it must depend how we define selfishness, it seems to me the category could be very large. Do we mean it to be things which lack the consideration of others? Or things that benefit you mainly? Or only? Or even slightly?

I think the normal definition entails not caring about the effect on others. So it doesn't mean not enjoying things, but seeing how enjoyment is based in ignorance if the cost falls on others.

Surely dying for a child for example has a larger element of the selfless about it?

This is actually a good example. Some might say it is a selfish way to continue yourself, except for the fact that what you identify as self is being wiped out by the act. It is much easier to make an argument for selflessness in this case than to make one for selfishness, which requires motivations so subtle that they could also be used to argue for selflessness on a lot of other issues.

[Faux Newbie]

To clarify some of the argument regarding Christianity and meditation and prayer (and meditative prayer), it is not my view that it is automatically ego driven, but that, in my experience, Sanjuro is among the handful of Christians I have met for whom any attempt to divest ego from a sense of God is made, and a great many others are clearly ego driven. My point has more to do with what I see as a lack of a tradition on dealing with this, and how this, in my opinion, muddies any definition based on not relying on personal judgment and the self for Christianity compared to other traditions.

In my opinion, neither Eastern or Western views are self based in their ideal expression, but outside of that, I see the Eastern traditions having more fail safes to prevent abuse by those who are selfish, with the exception of state run Confucianism.