Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. ('Religion and Science' in The World As I See It, p. 23)
Why, then, does Albert Schweitzer devote his life to the care and cure of lepers in Africa? Because, says Albert Einstein, he feels the need to do so; because in doing so he satisfies his desire.
And what does the Buddha say? 'Both formerly, monks, and now, it is
just suffering that I make known, and the ending of suffering.'
<M. 22: i,140> Einstein has, to some extent, understood that
suffering is the fundamental fact and the basis of all action. The
Buddha has completely understood this; for he knows also the way of
escape, which Einstein does not. When, therefore, the question 'What
should I do?' arises,[a] the choice is not between being selfish and being unselfish; for whatever I do I cannot avoid being selfish—all
action is selfish. The choice is between being selfish in Schweitzer's
way—by unselfish devotion to the welfare of others—and being selfish in
the Buddha's way—
The welfare of oneself should not be neglected for the welfare of others, however great; recognizing the welfare of oneself, one should be devoted to one's own welfare. (Dhammapada 166)
How are we to choose between these two ways of being selfish? The answer is: 'choose the way of being selfish that leads to the ending
of being selfish; which is the Buddha's way, not Schweitzer's'. There
are many earnest Buddhists in Ceylon who are scandalized by the Buddha's
words quoted above; but naturally enough they will not admit such a
thing, even to themselves; either they skip that verse when they read
the Dhammapada or else they add a footnote explaining that the Buddha
really meant something quite different. Here is the actual note made by a
very well known Ceylon Thera: 'One must not misunderstand this verse to
mean that one should not selflessly work the for weal of others.
Selfless service is highly commended by the Buddha'. But this itself is a
complete misunderstanding of the Buddha's Teaching. Time and again the
Buddha points out that it is only those who have successfully devoted
themselves to their own welfare and made sure of it (by reaching sotāpatti) that are in a position to help others—one himself sinking in a quicksand cannot help others to get out, and if he wishes to help them he must first get himself out (and if he does
get himself out, he may come to see that the task of helping others to
get out is not so easy as he formerly might have supposed). The notion
of 'Absolute Unselfishness' is less straightforward than people like to
think: it applies, if properly understood (but nobody less than sotāpanna does properly understand it), to the Buddha and to the other arahats (which does not mean to say that they will necessarily devote themselves to 'selfless service'), but not to anyone else.
Footnotes: