Metanet Forums

This occured to me the other day. Lets say if Person #1 were to help out Person #2, then Person #1 would create good karma for herself/himself. Eventually, something good would happen to Person #1 in repayance for the good deed Person #1 did for Person #2. If Person #1 understood karma, and wanted to help out other persons so that Person #1 himself/herself would be constantly be reapayed in good ways by karma, then is Person #1 self-centred?? I hope that makes sense.

I guess it all depends on the motivations of Person 1: If they're purely doing 'good' for the payoff for themselves, then I'd say that was pretty self-centred.

However, if person 1 was doing good knowing they'd be rewarded but ALSO because they truly believed it's the right thing to do, then I'd call that credit where it's due.

I must be the most self-centered person ever to walk this earth, whether karma exists or not. O_o

Well does good karma really come back to someone if they were just doing deeds for the sole purpose of good karma?
I don't think so. I betcha a billionaire donating 50 million to a charity won't get karma as good as someone who is poor, and found one dollar, and instead of spending it on themselves, bought a bag of apples (obviously it wouldn't cost a dollar, but you get the point), and gave it to a church or temple or whatever. Why? Because the rich man would still live his life as if nothing happened, and thinks to himself, "Wow, I'm getting 50 millions dollars worth of good karma." Whereas the poor person, would have to struggle more, and regardless that they are having a hard time, they can think to themselves, "Hey, I might've of needed that dollar, but I'm sure helping out a whole group of people there is better than just having it all to myself".

So really, in your case, Person #1 could be the rich man and be self centered. Or could be like the poor man, who isn't, and did it for the cause.

I don't think there's any good reason whatsoever to think that karma exists. That being said, we can still examine your situation from a hypothetical standpoint.

This notion that people should fight against their own interests, and should only do good if they ignore the benefit to themselves seems sort of backward to me. The idea that the goodness of an act is determined by the amount of damage done to the actor is ridiculous. If someone does something good for another human, they should be called good. Why they do what they do should not be a factor to be considered.

Basically: Helping people is admirable, but self-sacrifice is not. I don't see what's wrong with doing good things for one's self.

This is a similar conundrum that you find in many world religions. Nuns can be proud of how extremely humble they are, and Buddhist monks get satisfaction from fulfilling their desire to be free from desire. In my mind, a belief that rewards not wanting reward hasn't been thought out very much at all; if you follow the belief and don't want reward, then what happens to the incentive not to want reward anymore? It's counter-intuitive and stupid.

I don't think our wants are things we need to act like we don't have, because that necessarily fails.
Instead, we need to understand them, accept them, and learn to deal with them.
(And I say you should indulge a good deal of 'em. :p)

I read the title and all I could think of was this...

I agree with suki

That's it? The only thing you can think of was three walls of "Dilbert"? That's sad.

In any case, Suki here is right in only one instance. This only happens with organized religions and people who aren't wise enough to realize that if they get a desire to rid themselves from desire or being proud of being humble, then they should stop right there, hire Obi-Wan Kenobi to mind trick them, and go home and re-think their lives.

That said, the Buddhist monks example is FALSE. I know, because I actually met a few. They were on tour making sand mandalas. The incentive is only to get them going, if at the end they still want that incentive, then they haven't earned it. But if they realize that there was more than just the reward in their journey, then they become wiser people, and then will know that they don't need any incentives anymore. They can do what they want without there having to be something at the end. Remember: the journey is more important than the destination. So all those people who are proud of being humble were probably average members of an organized religion. Some goal-rethinking is needed for those people.

Zelda wrote:That said, the Buddhist monks example is FALSE. I know, because I actually met a few. They were on tour making sand mandalas. The incentive is only to get them going, if at the end they still want that incentive, then they haven't earned it. But if they realize that there was more than just the reward in their journey, then they become wiser people, and then will know that they don't need any incentives anymore. They can do what they want without there having to be something at the end. Remember: the journey is more important than the destination. So all those people who are proud of being humble were probably average members of an organized religion. Fools.

And they carry on with the journey because they want to be wise.
Unless you want to come out as a psychic, I'm just going to laugh at you if you try to tell me that there's no desire keeping them doing what they do. That's why Buddhism is so appealing in the first place. You do know what "appealing" means, don't you? It means it plays to people's desires.
If it didn't, it wouldn't be around today. People wouldn't have any interest.

It's pretty straight-forward, Zelda. People don't choose to do things without some want to do them. Buddhist monks are doing things. Therefore, they must want to do them. If they didn't want to do those things, they wouldn't do them. Therfore, Buddhists want for something. They are wanton. The only thing that differentiates them from others who want is the thing that they want.

Is any of this getting through?

Zora_S_Kenneth: consider this a verbal warning for putting "Fools." You didn't need to add that last word to that post at all.

@ Zora, Buddhism is about enlightenment of the body, mind and spirit. It's not about being proud of being humble.
Buddha's goal in life was to enlighten people with his knowledge, and to his knowledge, he believed that when doing a good deed, something good will come back to you, hence karma. But he didn't believe that doing good deeds will make someone proud of humbleness. Obviously Buddhism isn't only about karma and such, it has many factors behind it, it's just for the sake of argument, I'm talking about karma.
Suki was right in more ways than one. I know, cause I'm actually Buddhist. The wording of it was a bit off, but it's essentially saying, a Buddhist will go and rid himself of desire, and when he can accomplish that, then he doesn't get his reward, he is enlightened.

Wait a minute! Suki was the one saying that ridding oneself of all desire is incredulous and religions attempting to do so are poorly thought out. And you say that one is enlightened when they rid themselves of all desire. And I was talking about Buddhism being partly about ridding the need for incentive (I think I should have said personal). I thought you two would be against each other and I wouldn't be corrected by you! Or is there something I'm not getting here?

@Keron: Modified. Sorry.

@blue_tetris: Apparently, it's not that simple.

No, I said that his wording was a bit off in my opinion. And stated it in the way that it was make more sense.
I mean you're both right, cause factually, it's true. It's just when said in a certain way, it can easily create bias, which is why we debate. =)

Tsukatu wrote:This is a similar conundrum that you find in many world religions. Nuns can be proud of how extremely humble they are, and Buddhist monks get satisfaction from fulfilling their desire to be free from desire. In my mind, a belief that rewards not wanting reward hasn't been thought out very much at all; if you follow the belief and don't want reward, then what happens to the incentive not to want reward anymore? It's counter-intuitive and stupid.

I don't think our wants are things we need to act like we don't have, because that necessarily fails.
Instead, we need to understand them, accept them, and learn to deal with them.
(And I say you should indulge a good deal of 'em. :p)

You're right, in a sense. The traditional translation suggests a logical fallacy, and so I believe that the wording is not quite correct. Here's what I propose:

The reward for being lowly is being lowly, therefore if and only if being lowly "satisfies" you, you will be "satisfied" by the (aforementioned) reward you recieve.

The tricky word there is "satisfy," because I don't believe there is an English word that quite describes what I am trying to get at there. It's not a traditional feeling of satisfaction, but a spiritual fulfillment (spiritual not necessarily being religious) which is deeper than emotion. Under this system, "lowliness" is relative. Of course you're not going to be Jesus Christ, but if you do what you can to attain it, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised. It also does not disregard emotion; the reward is something beyond emotion and the day-to-day swings of life are usually irrelevant.

(Lowly, in this sense, being a placeholder for 'humble,' 'free from desire,' etc.)

I don't think you're going to get very far telling an atheist he's going to get a spiritual reward.

I see this exact same thing among christians. Mormons are pretty set in the belief that if they pay tithing, it will be paid back in excess through blessings. People pay their tithing directly because of this, not because of the knowledge that tithing goes primarily to church humanitarian aid efforts.

I often wonder if this makes these people selfish. I think it does. I'd say that if you pay your tithing only for 'blessings', you are not deserving of them.

Zora: Disregard what TribulatioN says. You're correct - he should be disagreeing with me.

Turiski:

Turiski wrote:The reward for being lowly is being lowly, therefore if and only if being lowly "satisfies" you, you will be "satisfied" by the (aforementioned) reward you recieve.

That's an empty statement, for starters. Like, "if you like the color red, then you like the color red."
But also, if you take your pick of human religions, humans are spiritual creatures in it. Therefore, the realm of spiritual things completely applies to what their desires might be. If Buddha tells you to free yourself from desire and you'll achieve enlightenment, achieving enlightenment is still a pretty frickin' huge thing to want. It doesn't matter what the thing desired actually is if what you're being asked to rid yourself of is the desire itself.
After a Buddhist monk works past his desire to achieve enlightenment, and he -- much like me -- has no desire to achieve what Buddhism calls enlightenment, then he has absolutely no motivation (from Buddhism, anyway) to A) try to rid himself of more desires; B) continue to resist the desires he has already successfully resisted; and C) follow or care about any other Buddhist teaching.

To me, it's freeing to know that people everywhere -- people in charge, old people, people with lots of money, nice people who've spent their entire lives sitting around and thinking -- can be idiots. For many, it's not their fault. I don't think it's senior Buddhist monks' faults that they've been deluded into believing any of this Buddhism stuff, and I can respect them for following so intently a system of beliefs that they believe is correct, but I still think that they're incorrect, and that I know better. And I do that just as I imagine anyone else who actively believes that Buddhism is false to think the same, from Christians to Muslims to Voodoo shamans to strong atheists. They're serious about their beliefs, and they're probably very nice people, but they're doing silly things.

jean-luc wrote:I often wonder if this makes these people selfish. I think it does. I'd say that if you pay your tithing only for 'blessings', you are not deserving of them.

Well said, but I would disagree that selfish people are necessarily undeserving of things.
And I just got hit with the craziest feeling of deja-vu. I could have sworn I've responded to something like this in a Debate thread on this forum, to a statement of jean-luc's, which he posted after I started posting, while I have an unread message in my Inbox. Weird.

Well I think I misunderstood Suki's reply then, cause they way I saw it, it was how I posted before, so it looks like I'm the one that's missing something now.

But I can easily disagree with Suki's post now, since achieving enlightenment, can't be interpreted as a desire. It's a big paradox. Because explaining it would be misleading, much how I've already mislead myself between Suki and Zelda. As I admit, I misunderstood some points.

The common perception of it was explained almost the same way Suki did, whereas the truth behind it is a bit confusing.
Since I'm not hardcore Buddhist, I can't give the exact definition of enlightenment without desire. But I can state some points. Like how enlightenment with the desire to be enlightened is not enlightenment, but more-or-less a selfish goal, thus degrading one's enlightenment. One's need to be enlightened will very well make them self-centred. But one's enlightenment without need is the exact opposite. It's about enlightening without the desire to be enlightened, therefore reaching true enlightenment is a hard task, and might not be accomplished by many. I mean, myself, I'm not enlightened. I am nowhere near, but I'm don't try to be, I'm just living my life how I want to. And to be enlightened, I'd have to to look back upon myself, and fix all things gone wrong, without thinking about how fixing them will make me enlightened. By then, I still won't be, as it was my sole purpose to reach it. Gah, I'm just blabbering now.

So summarizing it, enlightenment is a state of body, mind and spirit. Not a physical point in life, but the realisation of enlightenment within oneself.

Well I hoped that cleared things up about what I meant, and what I didn't mean.

@ T: Well, I did never say that any of these beliefs were right. I have a system of beliefs, but I don't share it because I doubt there's anything anyone can do/say to change them.

It does sound like an empty statement, doesn't it? It's not, though, and I phrased it that way to explain why. It's not saying "if you appreciate the reward, you appreciate the reward," it's saying "if you appreciate the cause of the reward, you will appreciate the reward." It just so happens that the cause and the reward are the same. You must appreciate the fact that being lowly is your reward to appreciate being lowly (your reward). Hope that made sense.

((It looks like I went switching verbs on the argument. Feel free to substitute 'appreciate' for 'are "satisfied" by'))

OOH! Quick math analogy. Consider the statement "if f(2) = 9, and f(3) = 9, then f(2) = f(3)". Since you know that f(2) = 9 = f(3), you could substitute and say that that was the same as "if f(2) = f(3), and f(2) = f(3), then f(2) = f(3)". You'd be right (and the statement would be empty), but you'd be missing the point.

EDIT: But, oh yeah: the whole thing about idiots is nice to remember sometimes. That's why I still hang around the WoW General forums :/

TribulatioN wrote:Like how enlightenment with the desire to be enlightened is not enlightenment, but more-or-less a selfish goal, thus degrading one's enlightenment. One's need to be enlightened will very well make them self-centred.

Right, and that's the problem - humans don't do things without motivation; if a human is doing something, it's because he has some desire moving him. What's not making sense is how a human could perform the obviously supernatural task of not wanting enlightenment but still strive for it. It seems that one would have to be enlightened before they pull that off. Does this mean that just before Buddhists become enlightened that they travel backwards through time to replace their unenlightened selves with their enlightened future selves, hope that the universe didn't notice, and then achieve the enlightenment they'd need to exist as an enlightened person in the future in the first place?

TribulatioN wrote:But one's enlightenment without need is the exact opposite. It's about enlightening without the desire to be enlightened, therefore reaching true enlightenment is a hard task, and might not be accomplished by many. I mean, myself, I'm not enlightened. I am nowhere near, but I'm don't try to be, I'm just living my life how I want to. And to be enlightened, I'd have to to look back upon myself, and fix all things gone wrong, without thinking about how fixing them will make me enlightened. By then, I still won't be, as it was my sole purpose to reach it.

I want you to give this a careful reading-through again, because you're attempting to explain the problem but you're introducing the problem again with every other sentence.

Let me show you what I mean:

TribulatioN wrote:But one's enlightenment without need is the exact opposite. It's about enlightening without the desire to be enlightened, therefore reaching true enlightenment is a hard task,

I agree that it's a task. In order for humans to motivate themselves to perform tasks, such as achieving enlightenment, they must desire that the task be completed, or at the very least desire the consequences of the task's completion.

TribulatioN wrote:and might not be accomplished by many.

"Accomplishment" applies to processes that one undertakes, such as the road the enlightenment. One would only undertake such a process if one desired the task to be accomplished.

TribulatioN wrote:And to be enlightened,

...which is to say, "if I desired enlightenment..."

TribulatioN wrote:I'd have to to look back upon myself, and fix all things gone wrong,

"...I'd be motivated by my desire to work toward enlightenment..."

TribulatioN wrote:without thinking about how fixing them will make me enlightened.

"...but I have to do it without being motivated in the first place."
Doesn't that put you right where you are now, if you're not lying about currently not desiring enlightenment? Then frickin' ignore Buddhism. What's the problem?

Tribulation wrote:By then, I still won't be, as it was my sole purpose to reach it.

*sigh* Exactly.
Y'know, one of the things that bugs me about people is the way they tend to associate irrationality with spirituality. To them, if something is irrational, clearly it means that it's a higher truth that we can't understand. Buddhism is a perfect example.
Gautama Buddha was a man. He was a mere mortal human who came up with this idea. His mental faculties were not necessarily any greater than yours or that of any other human when he got this idea that could be enlightened (cuz, if you remember, he was not enlightened for a while after).
Anyone can come up with an irrational idea and then say that you're just too ignorant to understand how rational it actually is. What most people miss is that this is not a supporting argument. What it is is nothing. Unless Buddha can back his ideology up or explain it in some way, then it has no more meaning than the ramblings of a madman.

Or you could think of it this way:
I'm a classic example of someone who does not desire enlightenment. For this reason, I don't follow any of the tenets of Buddhism (specific to the end of attaining enlightenment, anyway).
A Buddhist monk continues to do what he does so that he can achieve enlightenment. Clearly, he wants to be enlightened, otherwise he wouldn't have joined the monastery (alternatively, he could just be a schizophrenic, because in that case it's not a far stretch that he'd do something without any desire related to it).
That final desire the monk must rid himself of, the one that so many Buddhists likely struggle with -- the desire for enlightenment -- I have already rid myself of effortlessly. Holy crap, I think I might be Buddha! Well, along with every other non-Buddhist.

I ask that you address me as Buddha from now on. Thank you.

TribulatioN wrote:So summarizing it, enlightenment is a state of body, mind and spirit. Not a physical point in life, but the realisation of enlightenment within oneself.

It doesn't matter that it's not a physical thing - it's still an object in the human mind, and therefore still a thing that can be desired.
When you say "enlightenment," clearly you're referring to something you understand. The fact that your mind can grasp it means that it's something that you can desire. Otherwise, you're striving for something that is so unnatural and nonsensical that your mind couldn't dream it up in the first place, and clearly you're not doing that because the enlightenment that Buddha talks about came from the mind of a human. You're screwed in any case. If you can't comprehend what enlightenment is, then you can't rise above "Ordinary Person" in the Four Stages of Enlightenment," and you're screwed no matter what you do. But in any event, Buddha's talking shit, and I don't understand why you're dignifying any of it.

And to finish, consider, again, what it actually means to rid yourself of the desire for enlightenment. After all, Gautama Buddha didn't achieve enlightenment until he rid himself of that desire. But think of what it means to toss that desire out the window -- it means you've given up! The whole point of Buddhism is then to struggle with suppressing all of your desires in favor of achieving enlightenment, and by doing that you're counter-balancing all of it with your larger desire of becoming enlightened. Once you're at the point where your only desire is to be enlightened and you have to get rid of that last desire, then what does that moment of enlightenment amount to? "Fuck it, I'm going to be a hedonist?" And if that realization is what makes you enlightened, then what you've really realized is that Buddhism is a crock, and since you still don't have that need for enlightenment then clearly not following Buddhism is the enlightened path.

...and that's another reason I want you to call me Buddha.


------------


Turiski:

Turiski wrote:Well, I did never say that any of these beliefs were right. I have a system of beliefs, but I don't share it because I doubt there's anything anyone can do/say to change them.

It does sound like an empty statement, doesn't it? It's not, though, and I phrased it that way to explain why. It's not saying "if you appreciate the reward, you appreciate the reward," it's saying "if you appreciate the cause of the reward, you will appreciate the reward." It just so happens that the cause and the reward are the same. You must appreciate the fact that being lowly is your reward to appreciate being lowly (your reward). Hope that made sense.

I have correctly understood what you're trying to say, but it still doesn't make sense. You're still not accounting for the fact that humans need motivation to pursue a goal or adopt an ideal. If you're necessitating that a person wants to be lowly in order to appreciate being lowly, then that's completely circular and there's no way someone could enter into that. Not to mention you haven't given any explanation as to why being lowly is even a good thing in the first place, other than to say a random person might enjoy it.

Well I've already explained that it is seemingly a big paradox for a religion. And for a belief, it barely makes sense. You are right, and people do think that it's dumb how enlightenment in Buddhism works, and I can't deny that.
But it's about understanding what enlightenment is, and when you can actually understand it, you'll see that it would make sense, that the desire to be enlightened doesn't exist. Enlightenment. You can't strive to be enlightened, otherwise you won't be enlightened.

My god, you gave quite the "hard-to-comeback" argument.

In one of my recent youth retreats at a temple, the monk there told us that, each and everyone of us can be a Buddha, it's just whether or not we can realise and accept the fact that we can be. Now being a Buddhist, I don't long to be enlightened, I have no desire to be enlightened. Can I still be labeled as Buddhist? Yes, because it is my set of beliefs. But since I don't want to be enlightened, doesn't that make me enlightened already? No, because I can't be enlightened, I don't fully understand the concept. I don't have the means to be enlightened. And I'm merely the Ordinary person.

I'll save you, TribulatioN!

Suki wrote:I ask that you address me as Buddha from now on. Thank you.

Somehow, from everything our Buddha wrote before that, it really seems like he is in desperate need of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. And maybe a bit of remedial logic (if there is such a thing). Little does he realize that he cast off only one belief. Now, he only has to deal with the rest of them. Although maybe he has already done that, after all, he is "TOTALLY SERIOUS" and serious people show little desire for at least the act of clowning around...


...oh...never mind.
[/jokes]

In any case, I do quite a few things without any desire to do them, just because I am a good person. There doesn't have to be a personal reward at the end of everything, Tsukatu. Is that how you work? Requiring payment for everything? That is very, very, sad (and selfish). If everyone in... say... Mexico started dying, and you had the power to save them, yet you would not gain any personal reward from it, would you do it? Not everything has to reward the rewarding. Not everything.

-Zora_S_Kenneth

It's not so much a matter of payment, but of desire. People only willingly behave in a certain way because they want to.

If Tsukatu saves everyone in Mexico, it wouldn't be because he's getting paid, it would be because he wants to save them. I don't think it makes any sense to say that people willfully do things that they don't want to do. It seems tautological to me. If someone is aware of how he/she is acting, then he'll things the way she wants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the use of the word "desire" here is a wish for personal benefit. Eliminating all desire in its normal definition, now that would be pointless.