Non-Attachment, Selfless Service and Kiva Lending

[Guest]

.

[RichardF]

Hi Russell, your recycling thought reminded me of this pay it forward quote.  Benjamin Franklin wrote in an 1842 letter to Benjamin Webb, "I do not pretend to give such a Sum; I only lend it to you. When you [...] meet with another honest Man in similar Distress, you must pay me by lending this Sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the Debt by a like operation, when he shall be able, and shall meet with another opportunity. I hope it may thus go thro' many hands, before it meets with a Knave that will stop its Progress. This is a trick of mine for doing a deal of good with a little money."

Paying it forward feels like an interesting form of detachment to me.  And I expect most Kiva loans are paid forward in many ways as well.

By the way Russell, is there suffering without attachment?

[Karuna]

When there is the intention and thought of doing good while giving, that creates karma.

To understand non-duality is to understand non-attachment. In non-duality the difference
between the one who is helping and the one that gets the help disappears. It's like the left
hand that's taking care of a wound on the right hand. The left hand never claims merits for
itself by doing that. So the left hand doesn't create karma by helping the right hand and
therefore it wil never suffer from a help-the-right-hand-addiction.

 

[Tatiana]

Welcome, my dear friend Karuna, how nice to see you here! You finally found a topic of your alley here?

My spiritual teacher always said when it came to our humanitarian efforts that we should not feel we are doing the people we help a great favour, because that will make you only feel superior. Instead we should be grateful for the person that he offers us a chance to serve the Supreme (or God, Jesus, inner Buddha, whatever you prefer...) in him. And grateful for the opportunity to be His instrument.

[Tatiana]

As far as it comes to my Kivaloans. I get a lot of joy reading the stories, and to feel that I can use what is given to me in a way that benefits other people as well. I really like the global feeling, that we are all connected.

Yes, that is not completely selfless and probably creates some karma for me somehow, but that is actually the least of my worries...

[KivanSteven]

Kiva, along with recent Gandhi books and financial studies, has definitely detached me from the world of consumerism and materialization.  Some call it being cheap, I call it prioritization.  I would even go so far to say that Kiva has played a role in helping me better determine and understand the direction I want my future to head towards, even as far as planning finances and being more responsible with and goal orientated with them, all the while being as big a part of that future as anything else.  But I would still be far from sacrificing it all to live as a nomad in the desert meditating on the meaning of life in an ashram somewhere--though I probably wish I had the spiritual ability to actually do something like that.

I've studied some Buddhism as well in religious philosophy classes and it can go so far as not even suppressing emotion at, lets say, a family member's death, but having no emotion to suppress to begin with.  It's very much riding a "flatline" in life and possessing, or at least trying to possess, entire control over the self, where in time, no control is even needed.  The philosophy in motion is almost inhuman, while at the same time it perhaps is perfectly human.

How far does it go and what are the limits?  Can giving even erase the need and/or desire to give?  Is there an attainable level beyond giving, where giving doesn't play a role, but one where giving is required in order to reach that point?

[Henry]

uhhh, if we all  changed to this:    detached from the world of consumerism and materialization.  Then would the country end.   ohhhh....  maybe it wouldn't matter anymore?     

(i'm just thinking - not poking fun)

[wind5001]

Henry,

at least your KSC would break down right away...

[KivanSteven]

In theory maybe it would, but I think we can count on humanity's material obsessions to ensure this country is around for a long long time and that when it does falter, as every great country does, it wont be on account of casting off our exorbitant "needs".  Maybe then we can say consumerism is not so bad if in fact it is presently responsible for this countries's presence and existence in the world.  As the old adage goes, "money makes the world go 'round."

[rusty2]

By the way Russell, is there suffering without attachment?

Richard,

When one reaches the point where there is no more attachment, desire, aversion, then there is, I think, no more suffering.  That is my current understanding at this point in my studies and practice.

Welcome Karuna!   I really like your explanation of non-duality. It was really a difficult concept for me to grasp when I first began my studies.  Once I fully understood that we are all interconnected and interdependent it all fell into place. 

I often think of what a wonderful world we would live in if "we" rather than "I" was the norm.  So many problems could be solved. Homelessness and hunger eradicated.  War would be nothing more than a word in the dictionary and a chapter in a history book.

Random acts of kindness, giving a buck to a homeless guy (I see so many on my way to work everyday in San Francisco), a loan to a hardworking Kiva borrower who simply wants a better life for himself and his/her family.

Its a start................

[Sherri]

It's my understanding that once all attachment, desire, ill-will etc are let go, there is still the natural suffering of simply being human - illness, aging, death, etc. But because there is no clinging, we won't end up making those natural sufferings into more than they really are.

For example, I suffer from some stomach problems due food intolerances. This isn't fun and is a source of suffering. But because I'm aware that it could be worse, and I'm thankful that it's not, I am not always fixated on wanting to be free of this condition. I'm not wallowing in pity for my situation. So the suffering of it is still there, but I am not amplifying my suffering by constantly desiring to be better or different than I am.

I've studied some Buddhism as well in religious philosophy classes and it can go so far as not even suppressing emotion at, lets say, a family member's death, but having no emotion to suppress to begin with.  It's very much riding a "flatline" in life and possessing, or at least trying to possess, entire control over the self, where in time, no control is even needed.  The philosophy in motion is almost inhuman, while at the same time it perhaps is perfectly human.

I have not encountered any Buddhist teachings so far that say the goal is to be devoid of emotion or 'flat line'. For Buddhists the goals are to become a happy, compassionate person. It is definitely not suppressing emotions, but rather not clinging to them.