Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World

by Matthieu Ricard

Ordinary preoccupations with loss and gain, pleasure and displeasure, praise and criticism, fame and anonymity, were regarded there as puerile and as causes of suffering.

Yes but altruism in nature is directed primarily at kin or in-groups.

Those who live in ease are often reluctant to alter their lifestyle for the good of those less fortunate and for the benefit of generations to come, while those who live in need aspire understandably to more wealth, but also to enter a consumer society that encourages acquiring not only what is needed to live a decent life, but to keep on chasing after superfluous things.

it is given or denied by the nature of external conditions and by the way in which our mind translates these conditions into happiness or misery.

“Voluntary simplicity” does not involve living in poverty, but in moderation.

I feel like this goes against nasic human nature and would require systematic education or training to work on a large scale.

Authentic altruism does not require that you suffer from helping others and does not lose its authenticity if it is accompanied by a feeling of profound satisfaction.

Indeed. I believe the idea that one needs to suffer to do good is a Christian concept. It's been the source of much needless suffering.

It seems legitimate, then, to speak also of altruistic or selfish dispositions according to the mental states that usually predominate in a person—all the stages between unconditional altruism and narrow-minded selfishness are conceivable.

The Dalai Lama deserves credit for promoting the well being of others above religious dogma. No other religious leader has been able to do that.

I feel a more accurate view of reality has been a huge stressor for me personally.

What’s more, history has shown us that when one defines good and evil in a dogmatic way, all kinds of distortions become possible, from the Inquisition to totalitarian dictatorships.

Loving-kindness and compassion are the two faces of altruism. It is their object that distinguishes them: loving-kindness wants all beings to experience happiness, while compassion focuses on eradicating their suffering.

By using empathy we effectively mate another person equal to ourselves and short circuit the selfish desire to reduce suffering. I think tricking the brain or utilizing it's dispositions is key to achieving results.

Altruism should be enlightened by lucidity and wisdom.

This ability to be pleased about the qualities of others also serves as an antidote to competitiveness, envy, and jealousy, all of which reflect an inability to rejoice in the happiness of others.

I have a really hard time feeling happy about other's accomplishments and happiness. I feel a strong competitiveness. It has served me well to motivate me to improve myself but makes me unhappy.

Impartiality adopts the attitude of a kind, dedicated physician who rejoices when others are in good health and concerns himself with curing all sick people, whoever they are.

Sentience is a relative thing and isn't even a scale but a combination of traits and abilities of an animal's brain. Hard to draw a clear distinction between sentient and non-sentient.

I do think practical concerns and the animal's capacity for suffering plays a role. Humans can't be expected to care for each and every ant, bug, pest, or bacteria equally to humans.

One of the important aspects of altruistic love is courage. A true altruist is ready to move unhesitatingly and fearlessly toward others. Feelings of insecurity and fear are major obstacles to altruism.

The Dalai Lama distinguishes two types of altruistic love: the first manifests spontaneously because of the biological dispositions that we have inherited from evolution. It reflects our instinct to take care of our children, those close to us, and more generally whoever treats us with kindness.

This natural altruism is innate and requires no training.

Extended altruism, however, is impartial. In most people, it is not spontaneous and must be cultivated.

Instinctive altruism, acquired in the course of our evolution, especially the mother’s for her child, can serve as a basis for more extended altruism, even if that was not its initial function.

This is in a sense tricking our functions to do other things than the were intended.

This is the same idea that Steven Pinker wrote about in "Better Angels"

Even if they wanted to suffer, they would be better off not suffering. Not to mention how suffering in one person causes it in or can be transmitted to others.

This too is, I believe, an overworking feature in our genes to willingly die for the benefit of our close kin when our prospects for life are low.

It may be depending on the size of the leak and effectiveness of the pumps. There is obviously a better, more ideal, solution but achieving it is easier said than done.

If the root cause cannot be remedied then it's better to alleaviate the symptoms than do nothing.

not imagining a unitary, autonomous, and constant “self” in what is nothing but an endlessly changing stream of experiences dependent on countless causes and conditions.

Since all beings are interdependent, their happiness and their suffering concern us intimately. To want to build our happiness on others’ suffering is not only immoral, but unrealistic.

True altruism consists of wishing that the harm-doer become aware of his deviance and thus stop harming his fellow beings. This reaction, which is the opposite of the wish to avenge and punish by inflicting more suffering, is not a sign of weakness, but of wisdom.

If we want to prevent the recurrence of evil, it is essential to grasp first why and how it can arise.

ALTRUISM IS NEITHER A REWARD NOR A MORAL JUDGMENT

I wonder if this is practical given human nature of reinforced learning.

the truth of the causes of suffering, ignorance, which leads to anger, greed and many other mental obscurations.

It seems that suffering could never be stamped out completely because we can never be all knowing. I have doubts ignorance is the root of all suffering though.

Authentic altruism rests, then, on understanding the various causes of suffering and on the conviction that everyone has the necessary potential to free oneself from it.

It turns out that people who have difficulty clearly distinguishing their emotions from another’s can easily be submerged by emotional contagion and, because of this, do not reach empathy, which is the next stage.

It feels like thes states of compassion are great for helping one be happier and motivated. I feels a bit blind or naive. Like Mother Theresa. A more systematic approach would probably work better to reduce suffering. i.e. rather than care for the children yourself, enact policy to change their environment, increase funding for care.

when subjects devoted a week to cultivating empathy alone, and entering into affective resonance with others’ sufferings, they continued to associate their empathic response with negative values, and showed an increased perception of their own suffering,

This group of participants also experienced more negative feelings toward ordinary, everyday scenes, which shows that training in empathic resonance increases sensitivity to negative affect in ordinary situations.

I often feel that inadequacy often makes me inward focused as I work to improve my own knowledge and skills, perhaps even at another's expense. Here inadequacy rather than self importance causes selfishness.

The selfish person hopes to construct his personal happiness in the bubble of his ego. He says to himself basically, “It’s up to each of us to construct our own happiness. I’ll take care of mine, you take care of yours. I have nothing against your happiness, but it’s not my business.”

Common perception of our daily life can lead us to believe that things have an objective and independent reality, but, in fact, they exist only in dependence on other things.

The happiness or enrichment of another's life may be a reward in and of itself.

As La Rochefoucauld observed, “We often persuade ourselves to love people who are more powerful than we are, yet interest alone produces our friendship; we do not give our hearts away for the good we wish to do, but for that we expect to receive.”

A harmonious society would be one that discovers a fair balance between the interests of each individual and those of the community, and one that favors an atmosphere of reciprocal benevolence.

But, based on your argument, is that just for humans?

This system of reciprocity is very different from an agreement or a commercial transaction. No one is bound by a contract and no one can force anyone to repay his debt.

Yes but it's a probabalistic thing. No one is cooperative all the time and society can permit a small amount of moochers.