Why be Kind?
It appears to be counter intuitive to extend kindness selflessly, as selfishness, or at least pursuit of self interest is seen as rational. So why be kind?
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Miram · 31-35, F
I will only approach it from Sankhya philosophy , Hinduism, since that's my current focus.
I think they state kindness should not be performed with doership because it is believed that when we mean kindness as an action it requires someone being kind to another person. So someone at a higher position helping someone needy. (lot like Nietzsche's view).
But that position is an illusion according to Sankhya because the one being kind had no say over being at that position. Kindness is a permitted action, not one done with will. He does it because he is able to.
It is like taking some soil from one part of the world and depositing it elsewhere, because the agents involved were not individuals but forms only.
Also the feelings of doership and having been kind to someone is not useful to a seeker who is on a path to become one with the world. He does but not as the illusory self but as an agent run by the world. Instead of doing an act of kindness, so one could exist in compassion which almost literally means feeling for them as you would feel for yourself if you chose to, in terms of pain and joy. The difference in the two points of view is not very solid. It is the difference like one in being in love compared to doing love as an action. In the first case you just give in and flow with love, in the second case there will be confusion and stress intermittently.
Flowing is free but doing causes friction. Also when we do, our attachment with the illusory self becomes stronger. We understand this self as one who does and one to whom something is done. The one that judges the rest of nature based on security and utility and the one judged by the rest for the same.
The yogi is in path of giving away this self ,and then even though he/she is in a dynamic state, being an agent of transfer for the universe, he is neither in the giving end nor in the receiving.
In practical words it means that the action of serving someone in distress be done only and only with them in mind and not because we think it is good that we do so. The thought about self is unnecessary and when the self is not brought up at all, the doership is not obtained and it is the performance of an agent and not an individual.
So even if the help wasn't accepted or the effort brought no results, there is nothing to be sad about. That's the strength of the approach as opposed to self-interest. You try again taking into account your restrictions. Like a wildfire which burns a forest, it is the most passionate action you will see, but to do so is only the nature of the fire, not its plan or choice. Same is supposed to be the action performed by yogi.
First the yogi purifies her/his nature and then flows with it. Purification is achieved by dissolving self and then referring to Dharma, that is what is doable according to this purified nature for[b] harmonious living[/b].
What I understood is that to Sankhya, self is illusion and the latter is suffering unless by accident. If there is no self, nothing to be selfish of. When we are not selfless we are in the past and future, thinking about self preservation. We lose the [b]peace and the present[/b].
[To be edited later.]
I think they state kindness should not be performed with doership because it is believed that when we mean kindness as an action it requires someone being kind to another person. So someone at a higher position helping someone needy. (lot like Nietzsche's view).
But that position is an illusion according to Sankhya because the one being kind had no say over being at that position. Kindness is a permitted action, not one done with will. He does it because he is able to.
It is like taking some soil from one part of the world and depositing it elsewhere, because the agents involved were not individuals but forms only.
Also the feelings of doership and having been kind to someone is not useful to a seeker who is on a path to become one with the world. He does but not as the illusory self but as an agent run by the world. Instead of doing an act of kindness, so one could exist in compassion which almost literally means feeling for them as you would feel for yourself if you chose to, in terms of pain and joy. The difference in the two points of view is not very solid. It is the difference like one in being in love compared to doing love as an action. In the first case you just give in and flow with love, in the second case there will be confusion and stress intermittently.
Flowing is free but doing causes friction. Also when we do, our attachment with the illusory self becomes stronger. We understand this self as one who does and one to whom something is done. The one that judges the rest of nature based on security and utility and the one judged by the rest for the same.
The yogi is in path of giving away this self ,and then even though he/she is in a dynamic state, being an agent of transfer for the universe, he is neither in the giving end nor in the receiving.
In practical words it means that the action of serving someone in distress be done only and only with them in mind and not because we think it is good that we do so. The thought about self is unnecessary and when the self is not brought up at all, the doership is not obtained and it is the performance of an agent and not an individual.
So even if the help wasn't accepted or the effort brought no results, there is nothing to be sad about. That's the strength of the approach as opposed to self-interest. You try again taking into account your restrictions. Like a wildfire which burns a forest, it is the most passionate action you will see, but to do so is only the nature of the fire, not its plan or choice. Same is supposed to be the action performed by yogi.
First the yogi purifies her/his nature and then flows with it. Purification is achieved by dissolving self and then referring to Dharma, that is what is doable according to this purified nature for[b] harmonious living[/b].
What I understood is that to Sankhya, self is illusion and the latter is suffering unless by accident. If there is no self, nothing to be selfish of. When we are not selfless we are in the past and future, thinking about self preservation. We lose the [b]peace and the present[/b].
[To be edited later.]