From: Thyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Selfishness and Spirituality
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:53:48 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

93!01.23 e.v.

It is not my intent to here argue about the actions of others, only the
words which have been posted.  


Roger Adams writes:

...That is, I don't think it proper to assume that she did
it for some reward in ...this life or the next life - this is a cynical
assumption apparently posed for the mere sake of argumentation. You cannot
judge someone by their religion or nationality that they are doing things for
rewards. 


Response:

It can be argued that one gives to others, even self-sacrifices
for the joy that such actions bring.  Preferring the joy that
comes of self-sacrifice to the joy of sensual indulgence does
not mean that one is attached to it, but it also does not preclude
egotism in the sense of doing what one wants to do with a goal in
mind that leads us toward satisfaction.

More specifically, argumentation can be beneficial, and characterizing it
as 'mere' doesn't make it less so.  Anyone can judge anyone else.  This
is the nature of the world.  Your claim that we cannot does not make
this facet of nature go away.  If you mean that we OUGHT not do so,
then I'd like to hear why you think it is detrimental (and I agree
that it can be).


Roger:

Naturally we do like how it feels when ego is transcended even for a
little while. If this were not so, it would mean that the power of delusion
would be stronger and more attractive than enlightenment which would mean that
none of us would be on a spiritual path. The Joy of God, Spirit, Self, Nirvana,
whatever you want to call it is more attractive and stronger than the power of
delusion otherwise it would be utterly impossible to overcome delusion.


Response:

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Whatever 'transcending the ego' means, I can agree that it is probably
a very wonderful experience, given all the hooplah about its occurence.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the next assertion, however.  If this
experience were not something we enjoy, then why does this say anything
about 'the power of delusion' or 'enlightenment'?  By the current
game-score it would seem that 'delusion' is winning in the 'power game',
quite handily.  

The effort it seems to take to 'transcend the ego' (judging by the actions
and words of busibody bodhisattvas and yogis) does not seem at all
attractive to the majority, and only comparatively recently in
human experience (with the advent of group-consciousness and mass-
communications) have the utterances regarding the 'joys of ego-
transcendance' come under serious scrutiny.

As you continue I become further perplexed.  If the experience you
point toward isn't enjoyable, and delusion is indeed 'winning', then
how do you draw the conclusion that we therefore are not on 'spiritual'
paths?  I would even ask for clarification here, given that I'm about
to agree with your logics and stress something that you may find
repugnant.  What do you mean by 'spiritual'?


My own feeling about this is that there is no such thing as the
'spiritual' (apart from the physical).  To me it is all one path
and each person's life is equally valuable (or valueLESS, if you
wish to see the glass half-empty ;>).

The way I approach the entire issue of 'delusion' and 'enlightenment'
is to watch what people are doing with themselves and each other.
I see that many supposedly 'spiritual' people who are supposedly
'enlightened' contribute greatly to the confusion and pain that
happens every day.

One problem lies in the very postulation that such divisions
between 'delusory' and 'enlightened' behavior exist to begin with.
People who talk like this are speaking in terms which are laden
with delusion if there is any to be found.

The power of 'delusion' (i.e. that there exists a wonderful and true
perspective from which to see things) is quite a bit more obvious
and operative in our world than that of 'enlightenment' (which is
part and parcel of the same package).  It is well reflected in those
who strive for the 'good side' of an organized mass-genocide and
continue to portray the 'bad side' as powerless and ultimately
both harmful and worthy of destruction.

Those who claim that they know what 'deluson' is and where it
stops and 'enlightenment' begins are no more on a spiritual
path than any other propaganda artist.  Bringing in terms like
'ego' and 'transcendance' only adds confusion to the mire.

Delusion cannot be 'overcome'.  It can only be left behind.
However, leaving it behind includes seeing that 'enlightenment'
is ALSO a concept which is delusory and that it too
must be left behind before many wonderful experiences
begin to take place.


The way I like to characterize the situation is as follows:

We begin in the world.  We move into the society in which we
are born and we play the game very well.  At this point we are
essentially 'enlightened'.  At some point we encounter a sort
of anxiety, something which inspires us to stick to it and
hold on, not giving it our acceptance.

For many this is part of what our parents have told us about
the world.  For some it includes how other authorities in our
lives are going about their activities (religious, political, etc.).

At this point we must make a choice to change our lives or face
continued agitation.  Some accept the notion that something called
'enlightenment' may be sought and reached.  This I would call
'substituting enlightenment for the delusion of enlightenment'.
It is as this point that the UNspiritual of activities are
engaged so as to bring to our awareness just what spirituality
is.  Often a dogma or 'truth' is accepted and held tightly
while we make very necessary changes in our lives so as to
address (finally) this anxiety we feel.

Eventually, sometimes through much fanfare and travail, we come
to discover that all this 'enlightenment' stuff is a trick to
get us away from fearing change.  I.e. when we believe in a goal
(however idealistic) then we can justify letting go of what
we've been taught is the 'right way' yet about which we are feeling
very uneasy.

It is very pleasurable to do things we enjoy.  This can include
doing things on behalf of others.  This can ALSO include doing
things on behalf of ourself.  This 'ego' is no cruel monster.
If anything it is a phantasm which, while sometimes valuable,
will dissolve like so much haze when we leave 'enlightenment and
delusion' behind.


Roger:

Loving your family is greater than just loving yourself. Loving friends
is greater than only loving yourself and family. Loving everyone is greater
than loving yourself, family, and friends. There is an apparent expansion of
love alluded to here which is not an extension of ego but a diminishing of
it. 


Response:

Are we lesser than our family?  Are we lesser than our friends?  What,
really, does 'greater' mean?  'Better'?  Better for whom?  When?
Can we love our ego too?  Why must the horrible little ego be battered
and bruised into diminishment?  What did it do wrong?  Whom does it
really serve?  Is that source so evil?  so worthy of our opposition?

I hope you see what I'm asking.  I'm an egotist and would like to
defend all the other egotists for my own benefit.  :>


Thyagi the merciless egotist