--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quick comment below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > So I'm gonna stick with selfless service, as noble > > > an idea as "All you need is love" may be. Yours may > > > actually be a more *advanced* teaching than mine, for > > > those who have gotten to the point where they *can* > > > love most of the things or people around them. I was > > > thinking more of lowlives like myself, who just aren't > > > there yet, and need something more remedial, something > > > they can *do*, Here And Now, that will make their > > > lives a little happier. For me, that "something" is > > > selfless service. It always works, and always puts a > > > smile on your face, whether you love the person you > > > are helping or not. Ya gotta love it. :-) > > > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > > makes you happier? > > > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." > > > > **end** > > It seems to me that the use of the term 'selfless' isn't meant as a > descriptive of the service provider, but of the service provided. > In other words, the service, whatever it is, is done completely > engaged and without any other purpose than the service itself. > It's not done 'for' any purpose of the provider, though there may > be this collateral expansion of love and happiness that we're > talking about. It's just engaged activity without any other > thoughts or moodmaking about it. > > (Reading that back, it seems to be an exercise in tail-chasing, but > I'll leave it for now.)
Well, but that's just what I was trying to get at. If your motivation for doing the service is the desire for the happiness you derive from the service, then there's a purpose other than the service itself. If it didn't make you happy, you wouldn't want, or at least you'd be less motivated, to do the service, in other words. I'm *not* saying you shouldn't do service if you can't do it without anticipating the reward of happiness, just that you perhaps shouldn't pat yourself on the back thinking how selfless your service is in that case. The "selfless" in the phrase "selfless service" may refer to the service and not the person doing it, but it seems to me that in order to do selfless service, one must first be selfless. I've actually been struggling with this since junior high, when we were assigned to write an essay on altruism. At the time, I insisted there was no such thing as true altruism, that a person always *got* something out of doing good, even if it was just feeling better about oneself. Now I'd say that the only truly altruistic actions are those of a selfless (i.e., enlightened) person.
