GENIUS FORUMS

spelnxpert wrote:That only covers known heroes, are you saying there are/were no possibility of unknown heros who sacrificed sometimes own life but rather have not died still chose death to spare something greater than themselves?
That's a pretty cynical way of thinking, if you were ever a mother you'ld know Im right.

Even a smallest action is motivated by pleasure, some mothers would put down their life for their kids, because this is where their pleasure lies. Because if she had not she would be in torment, the putting down of life and sacrifice is to escape this torment. I think you get the point.

spelln,

That only covers known heroes, are you saying there are/were no possibility of unknown heros who sacrificed sometimes own life but rather have not died still chose death to spare something greater than themselves?

Read what I wrote again. I clearly said that the hero status was an added benefit. It obviously doesn't happen every time.

That's a pretty cynical way of thinking,

What's cynical about it?

if you were ever a mother you'ld know Im right.

I'm a mother and I can't see how a mother can not obtain pleasure / happiness from giving it all for her children, if indeed she deems they deserve it. As maestro already said, the torment of watching your own children suffer is not bearable for many mothers. It certainly isn't for me.

-

maestro,

I think you get the point.

What gives you the impression that he does?

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:Here is another perspective. ( http://www.ochumanists.org/AdyaT03.htm ) There is something besides pleasure if you care to look. Maybe you don't, your definition doesn't leave much room, does it?

What is besides pleasure, do you have an example of something which a Buddha himself does which is free of this principle.

I think one of the points Adya was making was that asking yourself, "what is true?" is not the same as asking yourself, "what feels good?" The two do not go hand in hand.

Some people distinguish between pleasure and happiness, I am not making that distinction.

Well, how do you know the truth will make you happy? My father died recently. The truth of that didn't make me happy, it hurt!

Even the minutest action is not free from this principle. Thus if you want somebody to do something they would not normally do, you have to shift the pleasure pain equation in the action's favor.

I don't think so. If you are interested in what is true, what feels good is going to be a distraction. If this were not so, one would never encounter a moral dilemma. Has that been your experience?

See this is what Adya is doing right here.

But this, the truth simply living to express itself, that was its only concern. The divine moves and expresses itself. It has no concern about how it makes one feel. That is one of the biggest concerns that any human can be relieved of, this immense burden of all the time being dominated by how is this going to make me feel? It's a weight that we humans carry with us until we have enough wisdom to put it down.

Well, he seems to be saying the opposite of what you are so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Sam,

Well, how do you know the truth will make you happy?

Not knowing the truth is painful, or at least uncomfortable. Knowing the truth will relieve you from this pain.

My father died recently. The truth of that didn't make me happy, it hurt!

Would you have preferred to not know that he died? Do you subscribe to the idea that ignorance is bliss? I don't.

-

Not knowing the truth is painful, or at least uncomfortable. Knowing the truth will relieve you from this pain.

This isn't always the case. In politics, hiding the truth is always much more pleasant than revealing it.

samadhi: My father died recently. The truth of that didn't make me happy, it hurt!

sher: Would you have preferred to not know that he died? Do you subscribe to the idea that ignorance is bliss? I don't.

I think you are confusing my point. Knowing the truth can hurt you. It isn't a question of would I rather not know he is dead, it is a question of how the truth of knowing that he died makes me feel. The pleasure principle is not the only thing going on, unless of course, you simply define it as the only thing going on. It's a fatuous argument, as are all arguments by definition.

samadhi wrote:I think one of the points Adya was making was that asking yourself, "what is true?" is not the same as asking yourself, "what feels good?" The two do not go hand in hand.

Yet if you take his advice you are gaining psychological gratification from being a truthful person, who does not hanker after false comforts as others do. Like perhaps the glorious image of a spiritual warrior.

samadhi wrote:Well, how do you know the truth will make you happy? My father died recently. The truth of that didn't make me happy, it hurt!

Yes but where did it illustrate the action of choice in a pleasure pain situation.

samadhi wrote:I don't think so. If you are interested in what is true, what feels good is going to be a distraction. If this were not so, one would never encounter a moral dilemma. Has that been your experience?

I think the dillemas you face are because of you weighing pain/ pleasure itself.

Consider an example, a small kid has the option of stealing cookies and eating them. He would then weigh whether the pleasure from stealing cookies outweighs the psychological pain from being an immoral person (which is programmed in him by his education), or the risk of being caught and shamed.

What Adya is doing here is promising relief from constant stress if you follow him, highly pleasurable don't you think.

Here is a simple hypothetical scenario which will resolve the issue of pleasure/truth

Suppose there is a secret which is not known to the natives of an island, but it is known with certainty that whoever knows this truth will become covered in sores and pus, become an outcaste, and will die a horrible death very slowly. For example a demon does this as a punishment to the one who comes upon this secret, and it is known with 100% certainty that the demon will know when you know the truth and you cannot escape his punishment.

Now do you think some people will seek the truth, who will be those people and why would they do this? Would Adya and you be among them? Suppose Adya knows this truth and is slowly dying his fated agonizing death, would you go to him and ask him to reveal you the secret.

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:I think one of the points Adya was making was that asking yourself, "what is true?" is not the same as asking yourself, "what feels good?" The two do not go hand in hand.

Yet if you take his advice you are gaining psychological gratification from being a truthful person, who does not hanker after false comforts as others do. Like perhaps the glorious image of a spiritual warrior.

You are assuming the psychological gratification. What if the truth is that there is no psychological gratification? You are making a basic assumption of the ego, that surrender to the truth is really a bargain, you are not giving up something but actually getting something better. That of course is how the ego operates. It can only bargain because, well, who wants nothing? You have to give me something! That is why the ego is such a hard nut to crack, it is always looking for the best bargain. But surrender is no bargain, it simply picks your pocket.

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:Well, how do you know the truth will make you happy? My father died recently. The truth of that didn't make me happy, it hurt!

Yes but where did it illustrate the action of choice in a pleasure pain situation.

Well, suppose when my brother had called me, he had said, "Something has happened to Dad, do you want to know?" Wanting to know the truth can hurt you. People do choose to know the truth, even when it is painful.

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:I don't think so. If you are interested in what is true, what feels good is going to be a distraction. If this were not so, one would never encounter a moral dilemma. Has that been your experience?

I think the dillemas you face are because of you weighing pain/ pleasure itself.

Consider an example, a small kid has the option of stealing cookies and eating them. He would then weigh whether the pleasure from stealing cookies outweighs the psychological pain from being an immoral person (which is programmed in him by his education), or the risk of being caught and shamed.

In a bargaining situation, everyone tries to make the best bargain. No one is arguing that. My point is that sometimes we choose to know what's true, even when it hurts.

maestro wrote:What Adya is doing here is promising relief from constant stress if you follow him, highly pleasurable don't you think.

Well, if you want to take that tact, then why is practically everyone choosing the stress of trying to feel better rather than simply going for giving up that weight for the truth? In that light, people are actually doing the opposite of what you are saying, choosing unbearable pain and turning away from obvious pleasure.

Perhaps your pleasure principle needs some re-thinking, eh?

Well, suppose when my brother had called me, he had said, "Something has happened to Dad, do you want to know?" Wanting to know the truth can hurt you. People do choose to know the truth, even when it is painful.

And suppose you fearing for the worst had said no, would you be able to withstand the resulting psychological torment. Is the current pain not far better.

Well, if you want to take that tact, then why is practically everyone choosing the stress of trying to feel better rather than simply going for giving up that weight for the truth?

I do not think that a natural pleasure seeking is anyhow stressful, is breathing stressful? What is this truth that will make an organism give up pleasure seeking, and how will it take any decision or action then. All I am saying is that Adya is making a sales pitch by appeasing his followers ego (by telling them they are sacrificing comfort for truth) and then telling them that constant stress would be removed by finding this mythical truth. This constant stress in my opinion is not due to a drive for pleasure since the drive is very natural and effortless.

I would also like you to reply to the island and demon scenario above to clearly see the relation between pleasure and truth as a motivator of action.

Pleasure seems a little over rated to me.

Better, ataraxia.

at·a·rax·i·a –noun: a state of freedom from emotional disturbance and anxiety; tranquillity.

Sam,

This isn't always the case. In politics, hiding the truth is always much more pleasant than revealing it.

Really? I guess you must always vote for politicians like George Bush, who are the most likely ones to lie to you. Who is your fave presidential runner right now?

I think you are confusing my point. Knowing the truth can hurt you. It isn't a question of would I rather not know he is dead, it is a question of how the truth of knowing that he died makes me feel.

But It is a question of what you would rather know or not know, because you will make this choice based on which state is more pleasurable or less painful. Yes, knowing the truth will hurt you, but not knowing the truth will hurt you even more. You will always choose whatever hurts you less, or whatever you think hurts you less, as your knowledge is never perfect. This is not something you can escape. You have no reason to.

The pleasure principle is not the only thing going on, unless of course, you simply define it as the only thing going on. It's a fatuous argument, as are all arguments by definition.

I did not define it that way; more than 40 years of observation have led me to this conclusion. It doesn't matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or spin it: your decisions will be based on your desires and goals, and the latter will be based on maximizing pleasure, and minimizing pain. And what gives you pleasure and pain is not a choice you make anyhow, but that would be another thread.


Maestro,

I haven't addressed you because there's nothing to disagree with. Oh, and I love your hypothetical scenario.

-

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:Well, suppose when my brother had called me, he had said, "Something has happened to Dad, do you want to know?" Wanting to know the truth can hurt you. People do choose to know the truth, even when it is painful.

And suppose you fearing for the worst had said no, would you be able to withstand the resulting psychological torment. Is the current pain not far better.

But the point is, knowing the truth can hurt more than not knowing it. Yet we still want to know it.

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:Well, if you want to take that tact, then why is practically everyone choosing the stress of trying to feel better rather than simply going for giving up that weight for the truth?

I do not think that a natural pleasure seeking is anyhow stressful, is breathing stressful? What is this truth that will make an organism give up pleasure seeking, and how will it take any decision or action then. All I am saying is that Adya is making a sales pitch by appeasing his followers ego (by telling them they are sacrificing comfort for truth) and then telling them that constant stress would be removed by finding this mythical truth. This constant stress in my opinion is not due to a drive for pleasure since the drive is very natural and effortless.

Pleasure seeking is stressful. Do you have any money in the stock market? Believe me, it's stressful. Or the dating market. Stressful? Absolutely.

Pleasure-seeking is really just an identification with one's biology. The more that one identifies oneself as a product of the senses, the more pleasure-seeking will come into play.

And Adya is the first to say that the truth isn't a bargain, it is not a product of giving up something of lesser value for something of greater value. That is the ego's view of it because that is its view of how everything works. If that was what it's about, why wouldn't everyone simply give up pleasure-seeking and go for it? They don't do that, do they? The truth is the recognition that that which always wants to bargain for something better is itself the impediment to finding something better. Just to be clear, the finding isn't something better in terms of an ego, that's why egos aren't interested in it for the most part.

maestro wrote:Suppose there is a secret which is not known to the natives of an island, but it is known with certainty that whoever knows this truth will become covered in sores and pus, become an outcaste, and will die a horrible death very slowly. For example a demon does this as a punishment to the one who comes upon this secret, and it is known with 100% certainty that the demon will know when you know the truth and you cannot escape his punishment.

What about the truth of leprosy? Sure, a lot of people wanted nothing to do with it. But some people did. Why did they want to do that when it was almost a sure thing that dying a horrible death would be the result? The truth is a powerful motivator, much more so than the pleasure principle.

You know, I certainly see the point you are trying to make. My real problem with it is that it is a vacuous truth. Suppose I were to ask you which statement tells you more about people's actions, that everyone acts to seek pleasure/happiness or that everyone acts. Since every action by your definition falls into the category of pleasure-seeking, it is saying nothing other than that people act. Which we already know. To believe that every action is about pleasure turns the experience of suicide and skiing, murder and music, war and windsurfing, and whatever else you can think of into the same thing. Without differentiating these experiences, life is just billiard balls bumping together. Maybe that is life for you. But do you really want to say that's what it is for everyone?

Shahrazad wrote:

samadhi wrote:This isn't always the case. In politics, hiding the truth is always much more pleasant than revealing it.

Really? I guess you must always vote for politicians like George Bush, who are the most likely ones to lie to you. Who is your fave presidential runner right now?

My quote was in reference to the politicians who enjoy duplicity much more the being forthright.

Shahrazad wrote:

samadhi wrote:I think you are confusing my point. Knowing the truth can hurt you. It isn't a question of would I rather not know he is dead, it is a question of how the truth of knowing that he died makes me feel.

But It is a question of what you would rather know or not know, because you will make this choice based on which state is more pleasurable or less painful. Yes, knowing the truth will hurt you, but not knowing the truth will hurt you even more. You will always choose whatever hurts you less, or whatever you think hurts you less, as your knowledge is never perfect. This is not something you can escape. You have no reason to.

But wanting to know the truth is not about feeling better! It makes me feel worse in the above reference. Everyone wants the truth but the truth doesn't always make you feel better.

Shahrazad wrote:

samadhi wrote:The pleasure principle is not the only thing going on, unless of course, you simply define it as the only thing going on. It's a fatuous argument, as are all arguments by definition.

I did not define it that way; more than 40 years of observation have led me to this conclusion. It doesn't matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or spin it: your decisions will be based on your desires and goals, and the latter will be based on maximizing pleasure, and minimizing pain. And what gives you pleasure and pain is not a choice you make anyhow, but that would be another thread.

Again, you are simply defining your conclusion. Everyone seeks pleasure because everyone seeks pleasure. How illuminating.

Sam,

It makes me feel worse in the above reference.

No, it doesn't. I already dealt with that point, maestro dealt with it, and I'm not going to rehash the same arguments. Rehashing for the heck of it gives me no pleasure.

Everyone seeks pleasure because everyone seeks pleasure. How illuminating.

I don't remember getting into why we seek pleasure / avoid pain. If you wanted to know my take you could've asked. The reason we do it is because we are programmed that way.

-

samadhi wrote:What about the truth of leprosy? Sure, a lot of people wanted nothing to do with it. But some people did. Why did they want to do that when it was almost a sure thing that dying a horrible death would be the result? The truth is a powerful motivator, much more so than the pleasure principle.

What kind of a response is that to my hypothetical scenario. I had around 4 questions based on the scenario and you come up with leprosy!! What has leprosy got to do with it.

My real problem with it is that it is a vacuous truth
To believe that every action is about pleasure turns the experience of suicide and skiing, murder and music, war and windsurfing, and whatever else you can think of into the same thing. Without differentiating these experiences, life is just billiard balls bumping together. Maybe that is life for you. But do you really want to say that's what it is for everyone?

It is not a vacuous truth, for example it directly tells you what is the purpose of life. Since each action is implicitly trying to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, then the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, quite simple. Once the problem is formulated this way, it is much easier now to attack the problem.

I was suggesting if the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, then it is better to rewire the mind/body such that ordinary moments are pleasurable and not filled with the pain of unfulfillment and desire. Let us define the normal body/mind state of a person as the ground state, most people's ground state is filled with anxiety and want, over the course of a lifetime they accumulate a lot of unhappiness in this way.

Is it possible that the ground state is one of joy and bliss, or at least peace and contentment. In this way one would fulfill one's destiny much better.

It also shows that running after material achievement is a vain course. While say pursuing an expensive car, you spend a lot of days and years in desire and suffering and want. The pleasure you get from acquisition of the car may be great but it will last for a while, and the fact that you spent years in yearning implies you have habituated your mind to a state of lack and want which is going to give you pain in the future. It would have been much better to have had a well ordered and content mind all the time, the overall pleasure would have been greater, even if you could not have acquired that Ferrari, without the intense desire and effort.

In such a way you can give up various vain pursuits and break lots of social conditioning. On top of it you are maximizing happiness directly, what more do you want.

Shahrazad wrote:I did not define it that way; more than 40 years of observation have led me to this conclusion. It doesn't matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or spin it: your decisions will be based on your desires and goals, and the latter will be based on maximizing pleasure, and minimizing pain. And what gives you pleasure and pain is not a choice you make anyhow, but that would be another thread.

It seems that many people do realize this fundamental truth. However it seems they do not realize the important implications of this fact some of which I covered in my last post.

maestro,

It also shows that running after material achievement is a vain course. While say pursuing an expensive car, you spend a lot of days and years in desire and suffering and want. The pleasure you get from acquisition of the car may be great but it will last for a while, and the fact that you spent years in yearning implies you have habituated your mind to a state of lack and want which is going to give you pain in the future. It would have been much better to have had a well ordered and content mind all the time, the overall pleasure would have been greater, even if you could not have acquired that Ferrari, without the intense desire and effort.

I figured this out decades ago, and I am not a genius. I know some otherwise very intelligent people who have not figured this out. I can't figure out why they can't figure it out. It's not rocket science.

Just in case you're wondering, I do live my life according to this truth.

-

Shahrazad wrote:spelln,

That only covers known heroes, are you saying there are/were no possibility of unknown heros who sacrificed sometimes own life but rather have not died still chose death to spare something greater than themselves?

Read what I wrote again. I clearly said that the hero status was an added benefit. It obviously doesn't happen every time.

That's a pretty cynical way of thinking,

What's cynical about it?

if you were ever a mother you'ld know Im right.

I'm a mother and I can't see how a mother can not obtain pleasure / happiness from giving it all for her children, if indeed she deems they deserve it. As maestro already said, the torment of watching your own children suffer is not bearable for many mothers. It certainly isn't for me.

-

So you two are claiming no person has ever made the smallest sacrifice for another unless they expected to receive some nice feeling in return? That's ridiculous.

What about a charitable woman who hates the man who once raped her but when she finds him one day in need and desperate she helps him even though it pains her to assist she hates him so?

What about a charitable woman who hates the man who once raped her but when she finds him one day in need and desperate she helps him even though it pains her to assist she hates him so?

She's a good-natured person, and good people invariably enjoy helping / giving to others.

Lest you think I have no idea what I'm talking about, I know a man who is good-natured. He gives of himself to others more than anybody I have ever met. Through the years I have observed him a lot, and one thing is for sure: he gets enormous pleasure out of giving his money and time to whomever needs it. It's not an ego thing, as he is not the arrogant type. I have specifically asked him if there is pleasure in giving to others. His answer was "yes, there is huge pleasure in it".

Edit: There is another possibility about the raped woman. She may believe in God, or some higher power, and she's doing it because she believes God would be pleased. In that case, it gives her pleasure to please her God.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Edit: There is another possibility about the raped woman. She may believe in God, or some higher power, and she's doing it because she believes God would be pleased. In that case, it gives her pleasure to please her God.

Or more likely, she has a sense of what her duty is. Being adult, she knows what discomfort she feels when she realizes she has failed to do what she feels was supposed to do. So she goes with the lesser of two discomforts. This one might actually be an easy case, because she is likely to spend some time agonizing over the decision. In the end, it is inevitable that she will decide to take the action that she thinks will cause her the least mental anugish afterwards.

But it does bring up a good point, which I think may be the same as the one I brought up earlier. After the rape victim decides to help her attacker, she may regret her decision. In fact, it seems likely. But having made it, she cannot undo do her actions. So this is a case where someone has acted in a way that does not follow the pleasure principle in actuality. She will call it a mistake and learn from it. The pleasure principle can be seen to fail quite often in this respect, that humans are imperfect creatures and do not know what the consequesnces of their actions are in every case. They seek to maximize pleasure and/or minimize pain, but may fail to do so.

Sher,

samadhi: It makes me feel worse in the above reference.

sher: No, it doesn't. I already dealt with that point, maestro dealt with it, and I'm not going to rehash the same arguments. Rehashing for the heck of it gives me no pleasure.

Your argument seems to be, people always choose what makes them feel better because what makes them feel better is what they choose. Do you really think that is a convincing argument? I told you in the above example how I am choosing what makes me feel worse and all you can say is, "no, that really is about feeling better." If that's your argument, there really isn't anything more to say.


maestro,

samadhi: What about the truth of leprosy? Sure, a lot of people wanted nothing to do with it. But some people did. Why did they want to do that when it was almost a sure thing that dying a horrible death would be the result? The truth is a powerful motivator, much more so than the pleasure principle.

maestro: What kind of a response is that to my hypothetical scenario. I had around 4 questions based on the scenario and you come up with leprosy!! What has leprosy got to do with it.

It's a real world response. You talked about what if the truth gives you some horrible disease. I don't think anyone wants to contract leprosy. Yet some people worked with lepers because they were interested in the truth of the disease and thereby caught it. Why did they do that?

Here are your questions:

Now do you think some people will seek the truth, who will be those people and why would they do this?

Some people did seek the truth, doctors and those who had compassion for lepers. I imagine they did it because they wanted the truth of the disease and the people who contracted it.

Would Adya and you be among them?

Adya has contracted his own disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_palsy ), related to his teaching probably, so the answer would be yes.

Suppose Adya knows this truth and is slowly dying his fated agonizing death, would you go to him and ask him to reveal you the secret.

Ayda does transmit a kind of disease, the withering away of the ego. I have already contracted it.

samadhi: My real problem with it is that it is a vacuous truth …
To believe that every action is about pleasure turns the experience of suicide and skiing, murder and music, war and windsurfing, and whatever else you can think of into the same thing. Without differentiating these experiences, life is just billiard balls bumping together. Maybe that is life for you. But do you really want to say that's what it is for everyone?

maestro: It is not a vacuous truth, for example it directly tells you what is the purpose of life. Since each action is implicitly trying to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, then the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, quite simple. Once the problem is formulated this way, it is much easier now to attack the problem.

But you could just as easily say the purpose of life is to act. You still aren't giving any information, but simply defining your conclusion.

I was suggesting if the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, then it is better to rewire the mind/body such that ordinary moments are pleasurable and not filled with the pain of unfulfillment and desire. Let us define the normal body/mind state of a person as the ground state, most people's ground state is filled with anxiety and want, over the course of a lifetime they accumulate a lot of unhappiness in this way.

Is it possible that the ground state is one of joy and bliss, or at least peace and contentment. In this way one would fulfill one's destiny much better.

This is actually an enlightenment teaching that you are backing into. The problem with your approach is that it tries to make joy and bliss about the ego. Everyone is already acting from that standpoint so what does that say about your approach?

It also shows that running after material achievement is a vain course. While say pursuing an expensive car, you spend a lot of days and years in desire and suffering and want. The pleasure you get from acquisition of the car may be great but it will last for a while, and the fact that you spent years in yearning implies you have habituated your mind to a state of lack and want which is going to give you pain in the future. It would have been much better to have had a well ordered and content mind all the time, the overall pleasure would have been greater, even if you could not have acquired that Ferrari, without the intense desire and effort.

Right. Your approach doesn't work, does it?

In such a way you can give up various vain pursuits and break lots of social conditioning. On top of it you are maximizing happiness directly, what more do you want.

All you are saying is that being happy all the time would make you much happier. Uh, yeah. But how are you going to do that?

Dear Sam,
I would define the ego as a mind created image of the self. The pain/pleasure principle interacts with the ego, but remains so even if the ego as defined above disappears.

This principle is empirical. Why not you yourself test it for some days and see how your decisions are made? Record any action of yours which contradicts this principle and let me know.

Your problem with this principle is that it puts the sinner and the saint the high and the low on the same platform, but that is its main strength, here is nonduality for you.

This principle is enough to shatter the self righteous self image that many seekers seem to have

We condemn the deluded masses, but must remember that in doing so we are seeking our self righteous pleasure, and they are seeking their pleasure, so at the core there is hardly any difference. Our truths and philosophy are for pleasure, and their baser pursuits provide their pleasures. Our knowledge and vision limit our pleasures just as their knowledge and vision theirs.

In view of this principle the search for absolute truth is again a desire for timeless power and pleasure, where is the difference then from the common man. Let us be honest in our motives and not cover it up with high sounding words.


Let the Buddha be naked.

Shahrazad wrote:

What about a charitable woman who hates the man who once raped her but when she finds him one day in need and desperate she helps him even though it pains her to assist she hates him so?

She's a good-natured person, and good people invariably enjoy helping / giving to others.

No, in this example it was given it pains her to assist, with no mention of God because she's an atheist.

Lest you think I have no idea what I'm talking about, I know a man who is good-natured. He gives of himself to others more than anybody I have ever met. Through the years I have observed him a lot, and one thing is for sure: he gets enormous pleasure out of giving his money and time to whomever needs it. It's not an ego thing, as he is not the arrogant type. I have specifically asked him if there is pleasure in giving to others. His answer was "yes, there is huge pleasure in it".

Huge pleasure but no ego? Then who is it that's experiencing the pleasure?
I read only Buddahs lack ego and act without pleasure, or pain. They do the Right thing, so this P/P Principle doesn't apply to them.

Edit: There is another possibility about the raped woman. She may believe in God, or some higher power, and she's doing it because she believes God would be pleased. In that case, it gives her pleasure to please her God.

-