--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> <ruthsimplicity@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> > > <ruthsimplicity@> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > There are many who say some variant of "good works are not the
> > > > way to heaven." I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong
> > > > in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the
> path.
> > >
> > > Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not
> > > make a good person, but a good person will do good
> > > works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective.
> > > ("Good person" = enlightened person; "good works" =
> > > spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you
> > > can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't
> > > enlightened.)
> >
> > Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true.
> > A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness
> > by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To
> > give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do
> > good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is
> > rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are
> > a good person.
> >
> > But for people without any empathy, doing "good" probably is just a
> > means to an end.
>
> I don't know that it's quite so simple.
>
> I remember in junior high school we had to write
> an essay on altruism. I said I didn't think there
> was such a thing; you always got your money's
> worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of
> feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there
> was always some reward, as you suggest, some
> element of selfishness involved, no matter how
> profound one's capacity for empathy.
>
> Obviously that doesn't mean doing good based on
> empathy is a *bad* thing, but it's not the same as
> "spontaneous right action" as long as there's some
> expectation of a quid pro quo, even if it's just
> getting to feel magnanimous.
>
> Of course, when I wrote the essay I didn't know
> anything about the nature of "enlightenment," but
> I think my reasoning holds up with regard to those
> in "ignorance."
>
> Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of
> salvation, not just everyday "goodness." To him,
> a "good person" was one who had achieved
> "righteousness" through faith, and good works were
> an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving
> for righteousness through works was detrimental to
> salvation.
>
Maybe our difference is that I do not know that I believe in
spontaneous right action. The problem with spontaneous right action
is one another poster pointed out. You don't know it was right until
you die. I sometimes shudder when I hear the words because I have
heard people who firmly believe that what they are doing is right and
good because they had a vision, or just came back from a course, or
whatever. Certitude can be dangerous.
Vaj, I think, said he trusts his experience. I take the opposite
view. I have seen in the course of my life many people whose
experiences have led them astray. Serendipity happens and suddenly it
is a sign and all subsequent experiences are interpreted in that
context. Feedback is vital.
I think maybe children do good things in large part because they are
rewarded for it, maybe first directly from positive feedback and then
through feeling good about it. I think one sign of being an adult is
that you do good whether or not there is a perceptible reward. Even
if there is a touch of selfishness in altruism, I don't think it is
the primary driver of altruism in adults. After all, some die for
others. You could argue even that is selfish as it may preserve your
genes (in the case of family) or preserve the social order. But, at
least today, I am not inclined to take evolutionary biology that far.
I strongly disagree with Martin Luther that striving for righteousness
through works is detrimental to salvation.
A hypothetical: If Hitler instead of committing suicide began
meditating, could he have reached enlightenment in this life? I say
no. I say that he was incapable of spontaneous right action and
incapable of good.
