Buddhism & Immortality

[sono2]

Another "old" lecture, which I have just reread. . .& was especially struck by this paragraph, admittedly now taken out of context:

"This conflict of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, of which the so-called self is the centre, is the basis of morality. Broadly speaking, what is done for one's self is bad; what is done for some one else is good. Consciously or unconsciously, this idea lies at the foundation of all the highest moral teaching. The highest virtues are those that conduce to the extinction of terrestrial types. The struggle for existence is the struggle for terrestrial, that is, material existence. If a selfish man and an altruist are wrecked on a desert island with only food enough for one, the selfish man will survive. The penalty of altruism is extermination. Yet no one p. 47 would maintain for a moment that the altruist is not the higher type of man."

The entire lecture can be downloaded here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bai/bai01.htm

[Korpo]

Broadly speaking, what is done for one's self is bad; what is done for some one else is good.

That would not be my understanding of equanimity. Equanimity is - "broadly speaking" - treating all beings equal. How can then, by inference, doing something for oneself (as a being) be bad and doing something for another being be good by default?

[sono2]

(My second attempt to reply, the first time the flag said that my message was too short & should be more than 1 character in length!!). . .but yes, I do agree, & feel that either the author has misread the teachings, read only superficially, or else that we, in the present day, have evolved beyond this point. It seems that many of the older writings are "out of date" for our time.
Edited: Just had a thought, he may have been speaking as if from the point of view of the "material" evolutionst.

[eyeoneblack]

That would not be my understanding of equanimity. Equanimity is - "broadly speaking" - treating all beings equal. How can then, by inference, doing something for oneself (as a being) be bad and doing something for another being be good by default?

I think the underlying theory is that the enlightened soul knows he/she is well cared for, and dismisses actions for one's self in favor of actions for others.

It seems to me...

Richard

[Korpo]

The underlying theory of whom?

[Korpo]

May stance on equanimity has been heavily influenced by reading a similar reference as this one for the first time:

In the Visuddhimagga Acariya Buddhaghosa gives a very apt analogy for the breaking of the barriers:

"Suppose bandits were to come to the meditator who is sitting in a place with a respected, a dear, a neutral, and a hostile or wicked person and demand, 'Friend, we want one of you for the purpose of offering human sacrifice.' If the meditator were to think, 'Let him take this one or that one,' he has not broken down the barriers. And even if he were to think, 'Let none of these be taken, but let them take me,' even then he has not broken down the barriers since he seeks his own harm, and metta meditation signifies the well-being of all. But when he does not see the need for anyone to be given to the bandits and impartially projects the thought of love towards all, including the bandits, it is then that he would break down the barriers."

(from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel365.html)

Emphasis added by me.