Is selflessness devilry as much as selfishness is? Is good as evil as evil?

[BipolarGrowth]

Practically any spiritual teacher I’ve ever heard of has ultimately fell into relative moralism and a collection of “shoulds” we need to partake in whether it is stated explicitly or rather implicitly. This just doesn’t seem accurate from the Absolute perspective at all. Isn’t the goal to eradicate human suffering a selfish goal when it is deconstructed? This is one example, but it seems to apply to everything. With an infinite circle of concern, would you really limit yourself to such a goal? Would you even consider such a thing to be good at all? 

[AdamR95]

2 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

Practically any spiritual teacher I’ve ever heard of has ultimately fell into relative moralism and a collection of “shoulds” we need to partake in whether it is stated explicitly or rather implicitly. This just doesn’t seem accurate from the Absolute perspective at all. Isn’t the goal to eradicate human suffering a selfish goal when it is deconstructed? This is one example, but it seems to apply to everything. With an infinite circle of concern, would you really limit yourself to such a goal? Would you even consider such a thing to be good at all? 

@BipolarGrowth it goes full circle

saying there shouldnt be "shoulds" is another "should" 

If you completely let go of "shoulds" then you will end up back with "shoulds"

its a strageloop

Edited March 19, 2021 by AdamR95

[Seraphim]

Yes some people needs to be more selfish and take care of their own needs before helping others. But selflessness is good as long as it is in alignment with your needs and feeling and intuition. My teacher always tell this to people with cancer, he has seen many heal when they begin to take care of themselves and follow their feeling, the cancer is just teaching them that they are out of alignment, if the lesson is understood then the cancer goes away.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Seraphim

[Carl-Richard]

Is there a goal from an absolute perspective? No. Then what would your goal be as a spiritual teacher; maybe help people to get in contact with the absolute? Well, how does a disregard for human needs help with that? Morality is all about satisfying human needs. Satisfying lower needs directs your attention towards higher needs. Therefore, morality does not contradict the goal of raising consciousness.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[aurum]

5 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

Practically any spiritual teacher I’ve ever heard of has ultimately fell into relative moralism and a collection of “shoulds” we need to partake in whether it is stated explicitly or rather implicitly

The trap is that true morality looks like what happens after awakening.

But since most people aren't awakened, the best a spiritual teacher can do is give a sort of list of things you'd do after awakening. Golden Rule and all that. But Jesus didn't come to the Golden Rule through some other spiritual teacher, he derived it for himself by awakening.

In that sense, preaching morality is like giving the answers in the back of a math book to students.

The transformation and wisdom comes from having going through a process where you discover true morality for yourself. Not because someone just told you to. That would lead to devilry, because you wouldn't actually understand it and would abuse all the teachings. Which is of course if often what happens, thus religion becomes corrupted.

Edited March 20, 2021 by aurum

[Mu_]

5 hours ago, AdamR95 said:

@BipolarGrowth it goes full circle

saying there shouldnt be "shoulds" is another "should" 

If you completely let go of "shoulds" then you will end up back with "shoulds"

its a strageloop

You sure about that?

[GreenWoods]

Love loves unconditionally. No difference between selflessness and selfishness. Only from the ego's pov.

When spiritual teachers advocate moralism, they act from a relative perspective. If they acted from the absolute perspective, they wouldn't be teaching in the first place. 

Edited March 20, 2021 by GreenWoods

[freejoy]

1 hour ago, GreenWoods said:

Love loves unconditionally. No difference between selflessness and selfishness. Only from the ego's pov.

When spiritual teachers advocate moralism, they act from a relative perspective. If they acted from the absolute perspective, they wouldn't be teaching in the first place. 

There are no morals. Morals are rules. Like the 10 commandments.

Love can never be bound by rules. Everything is contextual.

I suppose love is the only rule.

So a burglar enters your home, your children sleeping. What would love do?

The Enlightened Ones only serve. Only selflessly. They are beautiful to watch. 

They probably wouldn't comb their hair or bath but only to not smell in order to do their function. : )

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

The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

The Tao Te Ching
by Lao Tzu

Translated by Stephen Mitchell

 

7 hours ago, AdamR95 said:

@BipolarGrowth

[Najim]

@BipolarGrowth

I deny extreme relative moralism.

Extreme relative moralism meaning: that there is no such thing as right or wrong, that these things are only perspectives relative to who you are and your beliefs.

This notion that torturing innocent babies using an axe is only "relatively wrong."

-

Again, I deny the notion that there is no inherent wrong whereas in one of the actualized.org videos it was said that: There is nothing inherently wrong with dropping a nuclear bomb and mass murdering an entire population. This is just the ego talking smack!

-

There is a natural law or right and wrong inherent to you, selfishness is an inherent wrong, loving and giving is an inherent right. This is the foundation of ones moral compass. This is built into your feelings and it is the very nature of God. 

By "wrong" I imply lesser right, lesser good (lesser by huge amounts). There is no "wrong", that is impossible in this universe. However that being said, you  want to stay away from these lessers because self-worship creates suffering not only for "you" but also for "others".

 Some will say: "whats wrong with self worship and causing suffering". How deceived they are. 

Speaking of which, selfishness manifests itself in forms of pride, arrogance and many other forms. 

A prime example is @Leo Gura displaying an arrogant prideful attitude.  There is selfishness there no matter which way you flip it. Ta-Daaaa!!!

You wanna be enlightened? Go clean the toilets and filth of your biggest enemy's house for free daily. Eradicate selfishness and you automatically fall into love and into the "arms of God".

Much love.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Najim

[GreenWoods]

6 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

. If they acted from the absolute perspective, they wouldn't be teaching in the first place. 

That's not true.

Some reasons why an awakened one wouldn't teach if acting from the absolute perspective:

• others are imagination
• there will be no future
• there is no good or bad

In that sense, there is no reason to teach. However, by the same 'logic' there is also no reason not to teach. 

That's the mindfuck I'm currently struggling with (not only in terms of being selfless, but doing anything at all). And knowing that there is no self to decide either way only adds to the mindfuck.

If that paradox gets integrated, teaching others can happen even from the absolute perspective.

There is only Love. Love is the only 'reason' to do anything (or nothing). And even though Love loves unconditionally, good and evil equally, I still feel like there is a tendency towards selflessness and maximizing Love. It's hard to put into words, and I might be deluded here, but that's what it seems to me. This is what happens if the paradoxes are integrated and transcended. It might seem contradictory, and in some sense it might be, but what I'm trying to point to is beyond logic.

 

 

@freejoy Maybe this is also an answer to that question/situation:

5 hours ago, freejoy said:

So a burglar enters your home, your children sleeping. What would love do?

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by GreenWoods

[Ajay0]

There is a saying by Georges Hébert, one of the pioneers of Parkour,  "Être fort pour être utile" (Be strong to be helpful).

 

Imho, I think you need to work on developing yourself to optimal levels before being selfless. If a man who does not know how to swim jumps into a lake to help someone else out of selflesness, it will only increase the  casualties.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Ajay0

[BipolarGrowth]

@GreenWoods “...I still feel like there is a tendency towards selflessness and maximizing Love. It's hard to put into words, and I might be deluded here, but that's what it seems to me.”

Trying to extinguish a key aspect of reality does not seem like the most developed Love to me, but ultimately that is just Love at work in an attempt of dominion and destruction. Existence is Love no matter how you cut it it appears. Why we would push the agenda of relative love only comes from selfish desires. 

[GreenWoods]

@BipolarGrowth I did some more inquiry and I think you are right.