Human Nature...

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

It seems that human beings, while they do act in a manner to avoid discomfort at all times, yet are ready to embrace pain at selective moments.

Since as in the case of a firefighter, when there is a threat to the best interests of the society (as in danger to life of its members), the humans are ready to compromise and seek pain in an effort to overcome this danger. Here, threat to the society is perceived as threat to the individual himself.

Thus we can say that although avoiding discomfort can be the definition for the normal behavior of an individual, modifiers to this are needed. When we think along this line further, we can say that losing an individual is pain of greater kind than subjecting oneself with exposure to fire. Thus a firefighter risks fighting against the fire in an effort to avoid the greater discomfort and pain of losing the life of a society member. Therefore behavior of humans should be defined as 'avoid discomfort - of the worser kind'.

Actually we can look for many more examples where human beings have knowingly sacrificed their life (not just risk it) for a cause, or to save humans or save animals or even save things.

Avoiding discomfort of any kind is a programmed response like those of animals but human being endowed with thinking capacity can choose his or her action. So I maintain that the assertions in the opening post is not right.

 

[a-TB]

The vedic definition of Atma that it is always anandamaya is itself an aphorism on which volumes can be written. Elders have said the Ananda mentioned in the upanishad is not happiness or avoiding discomfort. But it is "எப்போதும் தனக்கு அநுகூலமாகவே இருத்தல்". An exact translation into English is beyond me. Please think about it and you will understand the true meaning of the word and you will become an enthusiast of vedic learning. LOL.

I assume animals and plants have/are Atma too and so the same definition applies to them also. Which means this has nothing to do with the human nature which is the topic of the thread

 

[auh]

Mr Auh - It is well written but I am unable to find the connection to any 'recent post' . I cannot even find anything insightful or correct statements to my 'dense' mind LoL

If the message is : "Avoid discomfort - no holds barred", then I say that all life forms do this, not just human beings. In fact even a cat goes and lies where the sun is nice on its back. If it is summer, the same cat wants a nice place which is shady. Animals fight to seize the best situation for themselves all the time.

I will say that human nature is more complex. A fireman goes into a house on fire to save a child! He may end up losing his life in the process. In this act he is not avoiding discomfort. I heard a fool in Chennai wanted to set himself on fire to free 'Amma' !

Connections drawn to religion also does not make sense. You say:
"food, shelter, clothing and mating - are taken care of, probably religion would be at the lowest priority."
This is the view of those living a good life.

In fact religion and its feudal beliefs are strong only among the poor and they are exploited the world over.

The suicide bombers are mostly recruited out of those living in poverty so they can meet their virgins in heaven (even priority of mating is after religious edict LoL)

That is ok a-TB, things can move on even if you are unable to establish a connection to any 'recent post'; ignore the statement if it would make your mind any less 'dense' And neither does the OP claim to offer any insight...

Are you sure you understood my post when you say this? -

The OP - "food, shelter, clothing and mating - are taken care of, probably religion would be at the lowest priority."
Your reply - This is the view of those living a good life. In fact religion and its feudal beliefs are strong only among the poor and they are exploited the world over.

Perhaps you are trying to convey that 'religion and its feudal beliefs' are not strong if one is not poor ! And perhaps you would care to explain how different that is from the statement that you sought to contradict.

The reason that sacrifice, honour, integrity etc come into play, even at the risk of 'apparent' discomfort, is due to conditioning; due to a belief that there is something more, beyond physical existence. If he were to discard the belief, it might probably cause him more 'discomfort' and hence, an act of rescue, though seen as deviating from the principle of 'avoiding discomfort', is in fact only superficial for there are other invisible variables at work here.

Oh, and LoL

 

[JR]

"எப்போதும் தனக்கு அநுகூலமாகவே இருத்தல்".

I am interested in knowing more about this...

 

[a-TB]

That is ok a-TB, things can move on even if you are unable to establish a connection to any 'recent post'; ignore the statement if it would make your mind any less 'dense' And neither does the OP claim to offer any insight...

Are you sure you understood my post when you say this? - Perhaps you are trying to convey that 'religion and its feudal beliefs' are not strong if one is not poor ! And perhaps you would care to explain how different that is from the statement that you sought to contradict.

The reason that sacrifice, honour, integrity etc come into play, even at the risk of 'apparent' discomfort, is due to conditioning; due to a belief that there is something more, beyond physical existence. If he were to discard the belief, it might probably cause him more 'discomfort' and hence, an act of rescue, though seen as deviating from the principle of 'avoiding discomfort', is in fact only superficial for there are other invisible variables at work here.

Oh, and LoL

Mr auh!

I did not mean to say ALL poor, but predominantly the poor is exploited by religion. Sections of population which is poor have limited options and hold onto feudal beliefs for their self worth and do get exploited.

When one is rich there are many more options to experience pleasures and move away from religion.

I can think of an elaborate way to make this point. Let us say you Mr Auh hits the jackpot somehow and declared a billionaire (in imagination let us give you huge wealth and not be stingy and give you only a millionaire status).

I assume you are married and live by religious and moral rules of marriage.

Now with wealth comes large number of very attractive woman from around the world who want to surround you , tempting you everyday and opportunities present themselves.

You ask "Am I like Rama, why God why'? Then you may say - after all I could be Krishna who did enjoy life with many Gopis.

My wife with all my wealth will stay with me, where is she going to go. Plus all these women are telling me I am the most powerful and handsome man and I am beginning to believe it. Your mind then tempts you and you become more like Krishna surrounded by many women LoL

What happened to religion, morals etc? Out the window.

If you are poor you would have been holding onto the ideals of Rama - a one woman-man!

So religion has limited hold on rich people (not all rich people, there are exceptions).

There are people who have run across Sahara desert and push themselves to extreme discomfort for the point of achieving something. They did not do it for any beliefs and experienced maximum discomfort willingly.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000856.html

I hope you have nice dreams of being a billionaire but do not dream about any women LOL

 

[a-TB]

The vedic definition of Atma that it is always anandamaya is itself an aphorism on which volumes can be written. Elders have said the Ananda mentioned in the upanishad is not happiness or avoiding discomfort. But it is "எப்போதும் தனக்கு அநுகூலமாகவே இருத்தல்". An exact translation into English is beyond me. Please think about it and you will understand the true meaning of the word and you will become an enthusiast of vedic learning. LOL.

This is glorifying selfishness since there are infinite Atma LoL
I cannot believe that is what the Vedas say

 

[tks]

Upon reading some of the recent posts, I am more inclined to toe the line of reasoning that religious injunctions, about a purported god either as in a conscious, willing and able super power or as an all pervading universal force (in whatever manner it may be), are all a means of regulation - of the self and of the other.

I tend to think that humans are inherently prone to instinctive actions (I use this word to avoid the labelling of good and bad, at least for now!), and thus any rule or policy goes against their will. It would be adhered to as long as the individual and collective needs (as aligned to the self) are satisfied. And perhaps that is why we see societies evolve to the everchanging needs and desires of the sub groups contained within. These needs and desires are given a low priority when survival of the society is at stake, and hence there is a priority scale involved here. For example, if we were to assume that the primary needs - food, shelter, clothing and mating - are taken care of, probably religion would be at the lowest priority.

I dont want to delve too much into imagined situations but the basic premise of this thread is to suggest that the instinctive nature of humans is to seek pleasure and avoid pain (dianetics anybody?), in whatever form and substance it may be. That is why we find even those purported of high morals and ethics falter at times.

The primal nature of humans. Avoid discomfort - no holds barred.

Thoughts anybody?

Dear Sri auh

This topic is such that one can take any position about human nature and make a case for it (or case against it)

Just for fun, let me express a point in a manner that could be deemed as not too sensitive by the 'usual suspects'
After all this topic is being discussed in the General Section!

All religions including those under the umbrella of Hindu religion (Saivism, Vaishnavism, Sai Baba devotees of all kind, Hare Krishna movement, Iyappa devotes, Godmen, those in Guru business etc) exist for just one reason. That is to cater to human desire to live forever (in heaven, Kailasa, Vaikunta, etc) though most human beings are afraid of death while they live here on earth.

So the 'devotees' do some kind of Jalra for their favorite God here for the opportunity to do Jalra for eternity in their chosen 'tourism spot' for God after death

Poor God, being forced to deal with all these surrendering devotees wanting a ticket to heaven. God's wife reminds him "I told you so, these humans are pain in the ----, please let us change their nature so they stop their Jalra activities - I can't stand it" !

 

[Vaagmi]

......................................<clipped>.....................................................................

So the 'devotees' do some kind of Jalra for their favorite God here for the opportunity to do Jalra for eternity in their chosen 'tourism spot' for God after death

Poor God, being forced to deal with all these surrendering devotees wanting a ticket to heaven. God's wife reminds him "I told you so, these humans are pain in the ----, please let us change their nature so they stop their Jalra activities - I can't stand it" !

The story continues in its natural course:

So the poor God and his wife decided to change their nature. First they changed themselves because they, being God and wife, can not present an inexactitude and change the poor souls . So first they became the universal consciousness. Then the Atmas followed them into it because there can not be two entities and being their very nature they started their jingling activities in that consciousness too. Now God is finding the jingling so loud that they are thinking of keeping themselves aloof and finite by converting themselves back to God and his wife. They are back in square one. LOL.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

For example, if we were to assume that the primary needs - food, shelter, clothing and mating - are taken care of, probably religion would be at the lowest priority.

I dont want to delve too much into imagined situations but the basic premise of this thread is to suggest that the instinctive nature of humans is to seek pleasure and avoid pain (dianetics anybody?), in whatever form and substance it may be. That is why we find even those purported of high morals and ethics falter at times.

The primal nature of humans. Avoid discomfort - no holds barred.

Thoughts anybody?

In such situation - Raman aandal enna Ravanan aandal enna? People donot bother if it is Rama or Ravana!

 

[renuka]

Coming to human nature...today while I was driving and was awaiting the traffic to clear before I made a U turn..I started to wonder about human nature.

In front of me was a motorbike and the rider was waiting a very long time to make the U turn despite the fact the traffic was kind of clear.

I was right behind him..cars behind me started honking but I did not horn the bike rider..cos I started to imagine myself in his situation.
I too have been in situations where people are honking at me(here honking is considered impolite and only done so in extreme situations)...Ok back to story..I have been in situations where I feel I needed more time to make a U turn but cars that honk only added to anxiety and one might be tempted to take a risk and make the U turn when the traffic was still high.

So I did not honk that motorbike rider..he did take a very very long time..but I wondered why..was he feeling unwell or unsure of his driving?
So I thought..just wait..but cars behind me were getting pissed..so I moved my car a bit to let the other cars try to go ahead without forcing the bike rider to make his turn.

Finally he made a turn and I made a turn after he drove away.

Now I was wondering...'why was I so patient with him?"

Is it becos I identified being in a similar situation before where I felt I could not handle heavy speeding traffic?

So would I have been this patient with him if I could always handle heavy speeding traffic and be dare devil enough to speed across?

So was I good to him cos I had some 'weakness' myself?

What if I were a dare devil ..would I have been impatient like all the other drivers that were honking at the motorbike rider?

So what is it?

Are we humans good cos we are not "efficient" enough in some aspects of life?

 

[Vaagmi]

I wanted to take a u turn and reach the petrol station on the other side of the road on the left. I was running out of fuel. If the last drop is burnt out, I will be stuck at the traffic junction and there will hell all around. So moved after continuous honking and pushed away the biker gently. he woke up and gave me a dirty look and drove away. I just took the u turn and sped into the petrol station.

Human beings live according to their pressing needs. If I had a tank full, I would have just idled for hours waiting for the biker to wake up from his siesta. My pressing need made me press him to wake up. LOL.

 

[renuka]

I wanted to take a u turn and reach the petrol station on the other side of the road on the left. I was running out of fuel. If the last drop is burnt out, I will be stuck at the traffic junction and there will hell all around. So moved after continuous honking and pushed away the biker gently. he woke up and gave me a dirty look and drove away. I just took the u turn and sped into the petrol station.

Human beings live according to their pressing needs. If I had a tank full, I would have just idled for hours waiting for the biker to wake up from his siesta. My pressing need made me press him to wake up. LOL.

LOL!


But you know..I never let my petrol tank go lower than half tank.

When it reaches half tank..right away I make it full again!

 

[auh]

...

So religion has limited hold on rich people (not all rich people, there are exceptions).

The first part of your rather long post seems to indicate the above as the crux; if this is not so pls correct me. I am not for against what you have stated. In fact you seem to have stated this earlier also. The OP states

...These needs and desires are given a low priority when survival of the society is at stake, and hence there is a priority scale involved here. For example, if we were to assume that the primary needs - food, shelter, clothing and mating - are taken care of, probably religion would be at the lowest priority.

I agree with what you say! And you seem to agree with the OP !!:-D

There are people who have run across Sahara desert and push themselves to extreme discomfort for the point of achieving something. They did not do it for any beliefs and experienced maximum discomfort willingly.

The source says that they are athletes who trained for this; not poor people who could think that their feudal beliefs are important. So now what is your conclusion from this? From the looks of it, would you conclude that they (the athletes) are experiencing discomfort? And how could you possibly say that they were not harbouring any beliefs?

Could it be possible that it is probably a discomfort to you (since you have labelled it so) but were it a discomfort to them, they wouldnt have undertaken it... ?

I hope you have nice dreams of being a billionaire but do not dream about any women LOL

Does LOL mean 'love only lives'?

 

[auh]

In such situation - Raman aandal enna Ravanan aandal enna? People donot bother if it is Rama or Ravana!

correct ! were they not ruling at the same time?

 

[auh]

Dear Sri auh

This topic is such that one can take any position about human nature and make a case for it (or case against it)

Dear Shri tks, very true; I have only made some observations about the reason for our meaningless faith and tried to see why we are covering up with many blankets.

You would know that when questioned "why" repeatedly for all the acts that we see around us, the great philosophers have but one answer - Leela. Pastime (pozhuthupokku), which seems to be the very reason that humans too do what they do. ;-)

 

[tks]

Dear Shri tks, very true; I have only made some observations about the reason for our meaningless faith and tried to see why we are covering up with many blankets.

You would know that when questioned "why" repeatedly for all the acts that we see around us, the great philosophers have but one answer - Leela. Pastime (pozhuthupokku), which seems to be the very reason that humans too do what they do. ;-)

Sri Auh - Faith based on a theology is not subject to reasons and questions like 'why' !
If a person keeps a small amount of poison in the mouth any food swallowed becomes poison and stops being food .

1. belief + logic = belief (read it as add logic to belief it is still belief)
2. belief + belief= belie
3. logic + belief = belief
4. logic + logic = logic (but it is limited in its application in the world and cannot be applicable to the topic of limitlessness!)

So any of the above possibilities will only provide blankets on closer examination.

However, equation 4 is a good starting point but not the ending point.

Human nature is to live mainly with equation 1 and 2 and think they are logical in their beliefs.
Faith is more real if one does not pretend to be logical.

There is another aspect that requires religion and its theologies. This is best illustrated as a conversation.

Question (Question) : Why do you need God?
Person (P) : he he he .. He loves me
Q: why does he love you?
P: he he he .. he created me and I am part of him , what a God - he loves me unconditionally
Q: Your God created a world where serial killers and rapists are possible, do you think he loves them also
P: he he he .. I dont care, It is all his Leela, He loves me, and I show my true love by doing what I do to myself. I take a bath so I give Him a bath, I eat, so I offer my food to Him. He simply loves me
Q: Why do you need to be loved? you dont have anyone else in the world to love you
P: Not like the way he does , It is all his leela (feeling emotional with a tear)...
Q: since you are tearing up about your God let me not bother you anymore

You cannot have logical conversation with the above person but just respect him as a person of faith

Having said all this, it is possible to have all the 'why' questions answered until the root aspect which become self evident beyond which question of why will not make sense. Our Upanishads do have a cogent and complete teaching of what Isvara is without need to make apologies like the theologians or need to cover up anything with a blanket. But it is an area humans for most part are not interested. They want their magician God who is there to intervene and help them and love them unconditionally in their mind.

Plus they want to do Jalra here on earth, make deals with God, and even do a ritual for surrender to have vacation at heaven. Though they want their vacation spot reserved they dont want to die any sooner. That is also human nature

 

[JR]

Are we humans good cos we are not "efficient" enough in some aspects of life?

In another site, I posted the OP of Mr. Auh ji and a wise mod replied that he believed humans are capable of true altruism. That while Freud categorized people as acting according to their 'instincts', Jung proposed that individuals acted on the basis of their altruistic instincts, that is manifested in varying degrees and at various circumstances!

I thought this is a good reply.

 

[Vaagmi]

Faith based on a theology is not subject to reasons and questions like 'why' !

There is a different definition to theology.

1. belief + logic = belief (read it as add logic to belief it is still belief)
2. belief + belief= belie
3. logic + belief = belief
4. logic + logic = logic (but it is limited in its application in the world and cannot be applicable to the topic of limitlessness!)

Why this obsession with logic when logic itself is limited by several factors? And why should we bring logic into everything? To satisfy the demanding ego?

Belief starts where logic ends accepting its inability to explain things. Period. If you find logic in belief it is a freebie. Don't look for the wrong things in the wrong places.

There is another aspect that requires religion and its theologies. This is best illustrated as a conversation.
Question (Question) : Why do you need God?
Person (P) : he he he .. He loves me
Q: why does he love you?
P: he he he .. he created me and I am part of him , what a God - he loves me unconditionally
Q: Your God created a world where serial killers and rapists are possible, do you think he loves them also
P: he he he .. I dont care, It is all his Leela, He loves me, and I show my true love by doing what I do to myself. I take a bath so I give Him a bath, I eat, so I offer my food to Him. He simply loves me
Q: Why do you need to be loved? you dont have anyone else in the world to love you
P: Not like the way he does , It is all his leela (feeling emotional with a tear)...
Q: since you are tearing up about your God let me not bother you anymore
You cannot have logical conversation with the above person but just respect him as a person of faith

The whole conversation appears to be with a person with his faith Christianity. In the faith that is derided here (he he he...... included) the question will have to be, 'why do you love God?' and not the other way round. Christianity says God is love. But here I love God. All the questions above are thus standing on their head and naturally the conclusion drawn is also standing on its head. LOL. And if you ask me, 'why you love your God' I will tell you to first hang up your ego and logic in the coat stand at home and then come to me. When you do that I will ask you to dig deep into yourself to know the answer. If you do not get it still I will ask you to go back to your life and live it as it is not yet time for your understand such difficult things. Love for God can not be spoon fed or intravenously fed. It has to come at a certain stage of maturity in life's long journey. It comes when you feel helpless like a chicken let lose in the midst of a forest, when your logic completely fails to answer your questions and when your ego is at its nadir.

Having said all this, it is possible to have all the 'why' questions answered until the root aspect which become self evident beyond which question of why will not make sense.

Yeah. At that stage the ego is triumphant- a pyrhic victory. And we can pat ourselves on our back loudly and several times for our great victory over our own selves. And continue to flounder in our listless and wasteful journey with logic as the walking stick to help us tentatively.

They want their magician God who is there to intervene and help them and love them unconditionally in their mind.

People who do not have the time and inclination or ability to work with logic and understand the brand of God dished out in the so called upanishad with a lot of 'dukrinj karane' have found a simple solution. They imagine him to be a magician, a servant, a dealer, a king with valour, a friend who is at your beck and call, a mother-more than a mother பெற்ற தாயினும் ஆயின செய்யும் elixir, anything that is the need of the person . If that be the case I, the brilliant mind with a penchant for logical deduction, should not have any objection to that. If I tend to rub my brand on them, I should reasonably expect that they will tell me to go and hang.

Plus they want to do Jalra here on earth, make deals with God, and even do a ritual for surrender to have vacation at heaven. Though they want their vacation spot reserved they dont want to die any sooner. That is also human nature

If those who do not do what is called derisively as 'doing jalra' with their all time seriousness and glum face explain what they are going into at the end of the journey (journey will end for them too) it will be revealing. Rituals are repetitive. Surrender is done only once. Surrender is not a ritual. Period. Facts should be researched properly and understood before the handmaid of logic is let lose on them. LOL. There are instances where prapannas have asked for immediate death after surrender and it has been granted by God. A little bit of research would have helped understand surrender better. I am sure the glum-faced's would also like to live despite their logic letting them down at the cruicial point. Or do they just fall down and die? LOL.

Elephant is not a pillar or a rope. Get your eyesight checked and get an operation done. LOL.

 

[a-TB]

The first part of your rather long post seems to indicate the above as the crux; if this is not so pls correct me. I am not for against what you have stated. In fact you seem to have stated this earlier also. The OP states I agree with what you say! And you seem to agree with the OP !!:-D

The source says that they are athletes who trained for this; not poor people who could think that their feudal beliefs are important. So now what is your conclusion from this? From the looks of it, would you conclude that they (the athletes) are experiencing discomfort? And how could you possibly say that they were not harbouring any beliefs?

Could it be possible that it is probably a discomfort to you (since you have labelled it so) but were it a discomfort to them, they wouldnt have undertaken it... ?

Does LOL mean 'love only lives'?

By citing the hold of religion on poor (like suicide bombers comomg from mostly underprivileged families ) I was showing incompleteness in your original assertion that religion is the last priority for people (which is likely to be true for most rich people)

Athletes case I cited was to show counter view that not all humans go for avoiding discomfort. What they believe is irrelevant in this example. I think running across Sahara is not likely to be a cakewalk LOL (now dont get going on some weird dreams about love) LOL

 

[a-TB]

There is a different definition to theology.



Why this obsession with logic when logic itself is limited by several factors? And why should we bring logic into everything? To satisfy the demanding ego?

Belief starts where logic ends accepting its inability to explain things. Period. If you find logic in belief it is a freebie. Don't look for the wrong things in the wrong places.



The whole conversation appears to be with a person with his faith Christianity. In the faith that is derided here (he he he...... included) the question will have to be, 'why do you love God?' and not the other way round. Christianity says God is love. But here I love God. All the questions above are thus standing on their head and naturally the conclusion drawn is also standing on its head. LOL. And if you ask me, 'why you love your God' I will tell you to first hang up your ego and logic in the coat stand at home and then come to me. When you do that I will ask you to dig deep into yourself to know the answer. If you do not get it still I will ask you to go back to your life and live it as it is not yet time for your understand such difficult things. Love for God can not be spoon fed or intravenously fed. It has to come at a certain stage of maturity in life's long journey. It comes when you feel helpless like a chicken let lose in the midst of a forest, when your logic completely fails to answer your questions and when your ego is at its nadir.



Yeah. At that stage the ego is triumphant- a pyrhic victory. And we can pat ourselves on our back loudly and several times for our great victory over our own selves. And continue to flounder in our listless and wasteful journey with logic as the walking stick to help us tentatively.



People who do not have the time and inclination or ability to work with logic and understand the brand of God dished out in the so called upanishad with a lot of 'dukrinj karane' have found a simple solution. They imagine him to be a magician, a servant, a dealer, a king with valour, a friend who is at your beck and call, a mother-more than a mother பெற்ற தாயினும் ஆயின செய்யும் elixir, anything that is the need of the person . If that be the case I, the brilliant mind with a penchant for logical deduction, should not have any objection to that. If I tend to rub my brand on them, I should reasonably expect that they will tell me to go and hang.



If those who do not do what is called derisively as 'doing jalra' with their all time seriousness and glum face explain what they are going into at the end of the journey (journey will end for them too) it will be revealing. Rituals are repetitive. Surrender is done only once. Surrender is not a ritual. Period. Facts should be researched properly and understood before the handmaid of logic is let lose on them. LOL. There are instances where prapannas have asked for immediate death after surrender and it has been granted by God. A little bit of research would have helped understand surrender better. I am sure the glum-faced's would also like to live despite their logic letting them down at the cruicial point. Or do they just fall down and die? LOL.

Elephant is not a pillar or a rope. Get your eyesight checked and get an operation done. LOL.

Mr Vaagmi :
You seem to be expert in topics of ego and surrender since you seem to bring it up often.

Q1) Why do you always talk about other's ego and not your own
Q2) I asked you this in another context twice - When you did your surrender action to God once, did you surrender your ego to God ? Or you kept that around. If you did surrender ego I have many more questions. If you did not then also I have many more questions . Hope your ego LOL or ego-less LOL will be able to answer my question

Mr tks - Mr Vaagmi says bringing up logic in discussion is about your ego. Could you care to comment.

 

[zebra16]

In another site, I posted the OP of Mr. Auh ji and a wise mod replied that he believed humans are capable of true altruism. That while Freud categorized people as acting according to their 'instincts', Jung proposed that individuals acted on the basis of their altruistic instincts, that is manifested in varying degrees and at various circumstances!

I thought this is a good reply.

I have a Q on this. Is altruism an "instinct" or a cultivated trait? My belief is altriusm is a thing learned and cultivated from observations. It can be seen in the game of innocent little babies/children (too innocent to know the wicked ways of the world), that the altruism to give away the surplus toys arise only after the child in possession of toys, retains the one or a few it likes most.

This doesnt change much even on the thresh-hold of "enlightenment or knowledge" as brought out in kaThopaniSad, when vAjashravasa was donating only barren and useless cows even though he was doing the yajna to derive "gift" from the gods. vAjashravasa was learned enough to know that he needed to give away all his material possessions in the yajna, but was still trying to retain the best with him.

 

[auh]

By citing the hold of religion on poor (like suicide bombers comomg from mostly underprivileged families ) I was showing incompleteness in your original assertion that religion is the last priority for people (which is likely to be true for most rich people)

I have nowhere stated that religion is the last priority for people. Could you pls point it out?

Athletes case I cited was to show counter view that not all humans go for avoiding discomfort. What they believe is irrelevant in this example. I think running across Sahara is not likely to be a cakewalk

avoidance of discomfort has crossed several layers for athletes. They are no longer in the state of the 'poor' where 'religious feudal beliefs' are likely the sole motivator. Perhaps it may be so. But now they themselves have created layers of beliefs that has now become part of the society. A society that has undergone huge changes. If we start to remove the layers of beliefs and notions that we humans harbour now, the core would be the principle of 'avoiding discomfort'.

Consider this as an analogy - We will assume that primitive human might have accidentally rubbed two stones and realized the potential of fire. Later on it was preserved 24x7x365 to ensure that it is readily available on all weather mode. With advancement, people now just flick on the switch to start a fire.

What you say is akin to sayin that people do not rub stones now, and I agree with that. I say that the reason for fire, to be used by humans, was the accidental rubbing of stones.

LOL (now dont get going on some weird dreams about love) LOL

i dont think that should interrupt your LOL...

 

[auh]

In another site, I posted the OP of Mr. Auh ji and a wise mod replied that he believed humans are capable of true altruism. That while Freud categorized people as acting according to their 'instincts', Jung proposed that individuals acted on the basis of their altruistic instincts, that is manifested in varying degrees and at various circumstances!

I thought this is a good reply.

Then why is this 'true altruism' not prevalent everywhere?

I had, earlier, cited an accident where none helped. Could the good mod explain why 'true altruism' was absent there?

 

[Vaagmi]

Mr Vaagmi :
You seem to be expert in topics of ego and surrender since you seem to bring it up often.

Q1) Why do you always talk about other's ego and not your own
Q2) I asked you this in another context twice - When you did your surrender action to God once, did you surrender your ego to God ? Or you kept that around. If you did surrender ego I have many more questions. If you did not then also I have many more questions . Hope your ego LOL or ego-less LOL will be able to answer my question

Mr tks - Mr Vaagmi says bringing up logic in discussion is about your ego. Could you care to comment.

Mr./mrs./Miss a-TB (I do not know who-of the three- has posted this particularpost and so the appropriate salutation may be taken,

I speak about whatever I gave up-the ego. LOL.
Q-1. I do not understand this question. I only respond to what other bring in here. Go and ask them.
Q-2. That question was answered long back in that context itself. Please go back and read the thread carefully. If you do not get it come back and tell me. I will repeat my answer.

Without any prologue you could have asked your "many" questions. Why waste my time beating around the bush. Ask them all and I will try to answer if they make sense. LOL.

If you do not like to LOL you can try COL (crying out loud) for a change. Dont waste time on LOLs. You may end up writing a bhashyam on LOL.

LOL.

 

[JR]

I have a Q on this. Is altruism an "instinct" or a cultivated trait? My belief is altriusm is a thing learned and cultivated from observations. It can be seen in the game of innocent little babies/children (too innocent to know the wicked ways of the world), that the altruism to give away the surplus toys arise only after the child in possession of toys, retains the one or a few it likes most.

This doesnt change much even on the thresh-hold of "enlightenment or knowledge" as brought out in kaThopaniSad, when vAjashravasa was donating only barren and useless cows even though he was doing the yajna to derive "gift" from the gods. vAjashravasa was learned enough to know that he needed to give away all his material possessions in the yajna, but was still trying to retain the best with him.

Then why is this 'true altruism' not prevalent everywhere?

I had, earlier, cited an accident where none helped. Could the good mod explain why 'true altruism' was absent there?

Dear Auh ji and Zebra ji,

I agree with the theme of this thread, as proposed by Mr. Auh, that is, 'avoid discomfort' being the motivator of human behavior. But I would say, it seeks modifiers. For example, a phrase like, 'avoid discomfort within the confines of one's chosen affiliations and/or the society at large'... (perhaps different modifiers altogether). This is because humans while seeking pleasure, also act as firefighters, etc (as someone, perhaps a-TB ji suggested here). Humans are seeking pleasure and avoiding discomfort of different kind, and different degrees, depending on their altruistic instincts...

This is what the same moderator writes in the other site:

There are many factors, and also levels or maturity of the souls who inhabit these bags o' nine holes. So immture souls (reflected as immature people) are motivated by instinctive drives like greed, lust, pleasure, fear of discomfort, etc. Their awareness spins in lower chakras.

But then there are more mature souls who view all that stuff (or try to) as necessary but not in the overwhelming way of the previous type. They understand intuitively or by logic that there are benefits from the opposite traits. In other words, they've reached the muladara and Ganesha's guidance, can see ethica, and try to act ethically. They care less about being uncomfortable, and are decent net contributers to society. They give.

And then ... there are the yogis, sadhaks, etc, the serious spiritual aspirants, awareness well established in higher chakras, modest, humble, and motivated by a drive for Self-realisation.

So, what motivates humans varies, depending on the qualities of each individual.

Thanks,

JR