The Art of Selflessness - Distribution of Self
The hardest part of living a right and noble path is to learn the art of selflessness — to give of one’s self freely, without hesitation or consideration… to remove the consideration of “self” in preference to the importance of “sacrifice.”
This is something I have subtly known for as long as I can remember, and my friend Paul Martin can echo this sentiment — the divesting of “ego” in order to perfect a position of service. His book, Original Faith, is a testament to the pursuit of such a spiritual existence.
I realize, from Christ’s and many others’ teachings, the ultimate purpose of any human being is to fulfill a service of some sort — life supporting and perpetuating itself. In the journey, though, we often struggle with a sense of identity. Is it even possible to be wholly selfless and self-preserving at the same time?
RSS, Atom, more...
2009/03/18 12:10 -0700Z
Interesting, I was just thinking of this in the context of karma yoga - the idea in some Hindu texts of service to others as a path to enlightenment (also found in Mahayana Buddhism in Boddhisattva practice). One teacher I was reading (Vivekananda) talks about how through truly serving others, if we get beyond martyrdom or ego-aggrandizement, we can come to recognize others as ourselves - that serving others and our self is the same thing.
2009/03/21 06:55 -0700Z
Very good post. Will respond later …
2009/03/21 16:35 -0700Z
On the level of your actual words, I could nitpick all night. To take your first sentence: The hardest part of living a right and noble path is to learn the art of selflessness — to give of one’s self freely, without hesitation or consideration… to remove the consideration of “self” in preference to the importance of “sacrifice.”
I don’t think that living a right and noble path is a matter of anything hard to learn. That would seem the wrong way of going about things. To give of one’s self freely without hesitation or consideration would be to act like a fool. (Though this is just what Dostoyevsky’s Idiot does and the author thinks of him as the perfect human being and nearest to Jesus Christ.) Of course it is hard to remove the consideration of self in preference to the importance of sacrifice. Our whole instinct is against sacrifice and for self. What you describe is hard because it’s carazy and against nature.
However, it was the word “noble” which attracted me. I was interested as to why someone would want to live a noble path. I wanted to challenge you on that: why do you want to be selfless? That is, until I realized that there is in me too an urge to nobility, and indeed rightness. However, these days I see it as something innate, and therefore not to be achieved with effort. I see selflessness as an advanced form of selfishness. So it cannot fight with itself.
Certainly I think we remain unfulfilled and fail to achieve life’s purpose if we don’t perform service to something greater than our solitary self. But I don’t think this can be our ultimate purpose. It would be more accurate to say that action for others is one of life’s joys, without which our joy is not complete. If the ultimate purpose were to give, then the rich would be more blessed than the poor maimed beggars who are blessed in being able to receive rather than give.
I find that one noxious byproduct of Christianity, or the mere imitation of Christ without being a Christian in the full panoply of beliefs, is that it has the tendency to turn a person into a judge of others: judging for example that the giver is more virtuous (and therefore “noble”?) than the receiver.
I like the word “noble”. But I don’t (any more) see the noble man as wrestling with himself, trying to replace selfishness with selflessness. I see nobility as the giving in to the deeper desires, the divinity within, the simple human being.
In some ways, Tim, I stand exactly opposite you. I believe that if you want a religion, pick the one you were brought up in, follow it as best you can, find the good in it, find the good in your own heart through its teachings. Follow the outer observances and don’t quarrel with your co-religionists, for you can think what you like. Don’t judge the others. But if you are going to chuck out religion, you have to do it very thoroughly indeed. Inventing your own religion is a waste of time.
2009/03/29 16:47 -0700Z
Tim, thanks for the mention.
Lisa says that in Hinduism serving others and the self is seen as the same thing; I think this is correct. In Christian terms, imagine if the narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion had him declining to go through with it!
It seems to me that he would have died profoundly unfulfilled…
2009/04/04 16:44 -0700Z
@Lisa: Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts! I tend to think about Christ’s teachings in much the same light as Eastern philosophies built on the teachings of Buddha — they’re so simple they seem complicated to us, when we try to explain them in context of our own complications. In the context of simple community, serving others turns into self-service in a very visible way — yet in an aggrandized society, there is a delay factor in the benefit to self that leads us to believe there may even BE no such thing.
@Vincent: You have said so much here, and in the interest of our newfound non-argumentativeness, I want to agree with you and say, “Yes! In some ways, we do stand exactly opposite.” That is because I have a tendency toward critical analysis — or judgment — at this stage in my own spirituality, vice simple acceptance. It’s true that being nonjudgmental is indeed at the core of the “panoply” of things Christ tried to explain.
Perhaps it’s this analytical judgment at the root of “hesitation and consideration.” We could liken Dostoyevsky’s Idiot to Jesus, but perhaps it’s just ingrained in the Russian societal culture to be self-serving — as Americans are indoctrinated to be “capitalists.” That’s probably a conversation for elsewhere, I’m just saying. That’s why we have separation of Church and State — the ideologies are nearly by definition incompatible.
True “nobility” in every culture I can think of is apart and separate from social achievement — the noblest of spirits is expressed in the form of self-sacrifice, isn’t it? Isn’t that what we aspire to — the conquering of self in order to fulfill a more noble purpose? Even politicians echo that moniker of self, because it stimulates such a basic human assumption. As you mentioned, “It would be more accurate to say that action for others is one of life’s joys, without which our joy is not complete.”
It has nothing to do with rich or poor. Those are social statuses — nothing to do ultimately with the human condition. When we divest ourselves of all our possessions, are we all not flesh and blood with a similar purpose?
@Paul: Well, I think he would have lived a long life wondering, “What if?”
2009/10/03 14:06 -0700Z
hey i did not get any thing but yeah go religion!!!!!
2009/10/06 02:10 -0700Z
ela: Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Care to expand on what you mean by that?