Jealousy

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Why does jealousy arise? Also, if a person next to me is getting jealous about me isn't it some fault in me as well?

Isn't that a sign that I am not sharing something that I have with me?

Is jealousy appropriate? also is the feeling of jealousy sprouting in someone due to me appropriate? (responses from other groups: http://wp.me/p2JWH-5h)

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Why does jealousy arise?

Because mean people don't like those who are superior in a way they
want to be, and jealousy is a result..

> Also, if a person next to me is getting jealous about me isn't it some fault in me as well?

No, you are not responsible for the shortcomings of others. On the
other hand, if you show off too much, then yes that is a fault.
Avoiding those of jealous nature, being very careful in general, not
showing off, etc. are good defensive tactics but still they may not
work.

> Isn't that a sign that I am not sharing something that I have with me?

No, the jealous person will be jealous no matter how much you share or
give. In fact, if you share them he may become even more vicious, as
that will show up his own meanness. As a great benefactor, Shri
Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, said about a person who was harming him,
"What good have I ever done to him?"

> Is jealousy appropriate?

No, but it will exist so long as mean people exist.

> also is the feeling of jealousy sprouting in someone due to me appropriate?

It is never appropriate for it is always destructive, but it is
understandable when too much showing off is done by those with no real
worth.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:45:09 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > Why does jealousy arise?
>
>
>
> Because mean people

Are people mean by birth? Why does a person become mean?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 6, 9:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:45:09 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Why does jealousy arise?
>
> > Because mean people
>
> Are people mean by birth?

A few are, most others are not. One has to be a primary or
kindergarten school teacher to have a good grip of such statistics.

> Why does a person become mean?

If he is not mean from birth, his meanness could arise from bad
upbringing, deprived status, lack of talent, feeling of insecurity,
physical inadequacies, national or group shames, low cultural
environment, immoral political leadership, all-round opportunism,
wrong racist and bigoted ideologies, commitment to snobbery, desire to
enslave, necessity to pay bills etc etc etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
>
>
> > don't like those who are superior in a way they
>
> > want to be, and jealousy is a result..
>
> > > Also, if a person next to me is getting jealous about me isn't it some fault in me as well?
>
> > No, you are not responsible for the shortcomings of others.  On the
>
> > other hand, if you show off too much, then yes that is a fault.
>
> > Avoiding those of jealous nature, being very careful in general, not
>
> > showing off, etc. are good defensive tactics but still they may not
>
> > work.
>
> > > Isn't that a sign that I am not sharing something that I have with me?
>
> > No, the jealous person will be jealous no matter how much you share or
>
> > give.  In fact, if you share them he may become even more vicious, as
>
> > that will show up his own meanness.  As a great benefactor, Shri
>
> > Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, said about a person who was harming him,
>
> > "What good have I ever done to him?"
>
> > > Is jealousy appropriate?
>
> > No, but it will exist so long as mean people exist.
>
> > > also is the feeling of jealousy sprouting in someone due to me appropriate?
>
> > It is never appropriate for it is always destructive, but it is
>
> > understandable when too much showing off is done by those with no real
>
> > worth.
>
> > Cheers,
>

> > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:16:09 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Mar 6, 9:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:45:09 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Why does jealousy arise?
>
> >
>
> > > Because mean people
>
> >
>
> > Are people mean by birth?
>
>
>
> A few are

Why would that be true? Seen a research?

[casey]

On Mar 6, 10:53 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:16:09 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 9:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:45:09 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Why does jealousy arise?
>
> > > > Because mean people
>
> > > Are people mean by birth?
>
> > A few are
>
> Why would that be true? Seen a research?

A possible evolutionary answer:

Jealousy is a motivator giving a reproductive advantage.
If you are happy for other men to "have your woman"
then your low "jealousy genes" would not have been
passed on. If you a female and your mate spends time
with other partners it decreases the care to your own
children thus decreasing your reproductive success.

If you are not jealous of those who have things you do
not have you will not be motivated to compete and thus
again increase your chances of reproductive success.

[Immortalist]

Jealousy might not be a pre-wired anatomical circuitry like other
known instincts are. Once humans left the nomadic hunter gatherer
lifestyle and entered the prison house of civilization or the human
zoo, many weird behaviors were mapped over what were harmonious
circuits adapted that earlier lifestyle. Jealousy may be a pathology
something which didn't occur much in he right kind of hunter gather
society. But if we compare early civilizations with later
civilizations and say one is natural and primitive we have confused
civilizations with natural societies.

Buss and other evolutionary psychologists who argue that some degree
of jealousy is part of human nature may have a point, but they’re
overplaying their hand when they universalize their findings to
everyone, everywhere, always. Human nature is made of highly
reflective material. It is a mirror - admittedly marked by unalterable
genetic scratches and cracks - but a mirror nonetheless. For most
human beings, reality is pretty much what we’re told it is. Like
practically everything else, jealousy reflects social modification
and can clearly be reduced to little more than a minor irritant if
consensus deems it so.

Among the Siriono of Bolivia, jealousy tends to arise not because
one’s spouse has lovers, but because he or she is devoting too much
time and energy to those lovers. According to anthropologist Allan
Holmberg, “Romantic love is a concept foreign to the Siriono. Sex,
like hunger, is a drive to be satisfied.” The expression secubi (“I
like”) is used in reference to everything the Siriono enjoy, whether
food, jewelry, or a sexual partner. While “there are, of course,
certain ideals of erotic bliss,” Holmberg found that “under conditions
of desire these readily break down, and the Siriono are content to
conform to the principle of ‘any port in a storm.’

Christopher Ryan - Vancouver, BC, Oct 28 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbtGlg0Rck

"Lewis Henry Morgan ... [is] the only American scholar to have been
cited by each of the other three intellectual giants of his century,
Darwin, Freud, and Marx, [and] many consider Morgan the most
influential social scientist of his era and the father of American
anthropology.

... Morgan was especially interested in the evolution of family struc­
ture and overall social organization. Contradicting Darwinian theory,
he hypothesized a far more promiscuous sexuality as having been
typical of prehistoric times. 'The husbands lived in polygyny [i.e.,
more than one wife], and the wives in polyandry [i.e., more than one
hus­band], which are seen to be as ancient as human society. Such a
family was neither unnatural nor remarkable,' he wrote. 'It would be
difficult to show any other possible beginning of the family in the
primitive pe­riod.' A few pages later Morgan concludes that 'there
seems to be no escape' from the conclusion that a 'state of
promiscuous intercourse' was typical of prehistoric times, 'although
questioned by so eminent a writer as Mr. Darwin.'

"Morgan's argument that prehistoric societies practiced group mar­
riage (also known as the primal horde or omnigamy -- the latter term
apparently coined by French author Charles Fourier) so influenced
Darwin's thinking that he admitted, 'It seems certain that the habit
of marriage has been gradually developed, and that almost promiscuous
intercourse was once extremely common throughout the world.' With his
characteristic courteous humility, Darwin agreed that there were
'present day tribes' where 'all the men and women in the tribe are hus­
bands and wives to each other.' In deference to Morgan's scholarship,
Darwin continued, 'Those who have most closely studied the subject,
and whose judgment is worth much more than mine, believe that com­
munal marriage was the original and universal form throughout the
world. . . . The indirect evidence in favour of this belief is
extremely strong... .'

"Indeed it is. And the evidence -- both direct and indirect -- has
grown much stronger than Darwin, or even Morgan, could have imag­ined.

But first, a word about a word. Promiscuous means different things to
different people, so let's define our terms. The Latin root is
miscere, 'to mix,' and that's how we mean it. We don't imply any
randomness in mating, as choices and preferences still exert their
influence. We looked for another term to use in this book, one without
the derogatory sneer, but the synonyms are even worse: sluttish,
wanton, whorish, fallen.

"Please remember that when we describe the sexual practices in vari­
ous societies around the world, we're describing behavior that is
normal to the people in question. In the common usage, promiscuity
suggests immoral or amoral behavior, uncaring and unfeeling. But most
of the people we'll be describing are acting well within the bounds of
what their society considers acceptable behavior. They're not rebels,
trans­gressors, or Utopian idealists. Given that groups of foragers
(either those still existing today or in prehistoric times) rarely
number much over 100 to 150 people, each is likely to know every one
of his or her partners deeply and intimately -- probably to a much
greater degree than a mod­ern man or woman knows his or her casual
lovers.

"Morgan made this point in Ancient Society, writing, 'This picture of
savage life need not revolt the mind, because to them it was a form of
the marriage relation, and therefore devoid of impropriety.'

"Biologist Alan F. Dixson, author of the most comprehensive survey of
primate sexuality (called, unsurprisingly, Primate Sexuality), makes a
similar point concerning what he prefers to call 'multimale-
multifemale mating systems' typical of our closest primate relations:
chimps and bonobos. He writes, 'Mating is rarely indiscriminate in
multimale-multifemale primate groups. A variety of factors, including
kinship ties, social rank, sexual attractiveness and individual sexual
preferences might influence mate choice in both sexes. It is,
therefore, incorrect to label such mating systems as promiscuous.'

"So, if promiscuity suggests a number of ongoing, nonexclusive sexual
relationships, then yes, our ancestors were far more promiscuous than
all but the randiest among us. On the other hand, if we understand
promis­cuity to refer to a lack of discrimination in choosing partners
or having sex with random strangers, then our ancestors were likely
far less promis­cuous than many modern humans. For this book,
promiscuity refers only to having a number of ongoing sexual
relationships at the same time. Given the contours of prehistoric life
in small bands, it's unlikely that many of these partners would have
been strangers."

http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_sresults.php?2062

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 6, 10:53 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 5:16:09 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 9:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:45:09 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Why does jealousy arise?
>
> > > > Because mean people
>
> > > Are people mean by birth?
>
> > A few are
>
> Why would that be true?

Because many criminals (the stupider sort punished in jails, the
cleverer glorified in business or parliament) exist, who need not have
been criminals given their privileged backgrounds. Their mean actions
may be accounted for in terms of their being basically mean from
birth.

> Seen a research?

Lived long enough.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 7, 12:27 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Arindam Banerjee-

Take, for instance, the famous Biblical story of Joseph. He was loved
more than his brothers, and they were all jealous. So they sold him
as a slave, took his coat and rubbed the blood of some animal on it,
and told their father that a wild animal had killed Joseph. (I hope I
have got the story right, it was a long time ago that I read it!).

Those brothers were mean from birth, and their jealousy came from such
meanness. When all men become that mean, for whatever reason
something drastic has to be done!

Jehovah, the God of the Jews, does not like such quality of meanness
in his creations. So, as stated in the Bible, he genocides the
meanies using floods, letting only the likes of Noah remain alive. I
suppose, one of these days He will send an asteroid to rid the planet
of the evil einsteinised humanity.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

I remember an incident from my own life. At first I was born, I got all the love and care from my mother. But then, around my age of 1 and a half year my brother was about to be born. My mother was taken to the hospital and I was left all alone back with one of our neighbors.

Jealousy aroused in me in the following manner
==============================================
At first I missed my mother.
After my mother was back she had my brother in her arms.
She but naturally paid additional attention towards by brother.
She was not there for me at all.
I started to feel my brother was the reason why I missed my mothers attention.

Was I feeling wrong? at age 1 1/2 year do we understand what is right and wrong?
are we in a good position to reason our actions and thought developments?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 7, 1:30 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

Your feelings were normal and natural for a 1.5 yr old, and nothing to
do with the jealous emotions of the grown-up brothers of Joseph.
Growing up means becoming more controlled, more understanding, more
sharing, and thus giving up on anxieties that lead to jealousy. The
brothers of Joseph could not manage that, as they were born mean.

> are we in a good position to reason our actions and thought developments?

With proper nurture, and over time, yes, unless we are basically
flawed or limited. Not that our reasoning may be accurate. But we
have to try.

>
>
>
> > So they sold him
>
> > as a slave, took his coat and rubbed the blood of some animal on it,
>
> > and told their father that a wild animal had killed Joseph.  (I hope I
>
> > have got the story right, it was a long time ago that I read it!).
>
> > Those brothers were mean from birth, and their jealousy came from such
>
> > meanness.  When all men become that mean, for whatever reason
>
> > something drastic has to be done!
>
> > Jehovah, the God of the Jews, does not like such quality of meanness
>
> > in his creations.  So, as stated in the Bible, he genocides the
>
> > meanies using floods, letting only the likes of Noah remain alive.  I
>
> > suppose, one of these days He will send an asteroid  to rid the planet
>
> > of the evil einsteinised humanity.
>
> > Cheers,
>

> > Arindam Banerjee.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

I was harboring that feeling even as a grownup ... age 15-20 for certain. I am still trying to access why I did not realize I am harboring the same.

Only now days I am realizing I was wrong.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Here in my case I became a bit bad as I grew up... I started to harm my brother as that feeling took bad shapes. I did not know why he was getting all the attention from my mother. Now, I realize she was trying to save him from me. She married very early and was someone immature. She did not know why I was reacting that way. So, in my case the more I started hating my brother more my mother started to hate me. So, that ended up with my mother ensuring being more protective towards my brother. I started to see he used to get better things that I got. So, I ended up becoming eviler and eviler... and that continued.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Only after I achieved substantially in my life my jealousy started fading away.

Now from this point I see all the wrongs I was committing. Had I not achieved, I guess my evil nature would not have ceased.

So, apparently others who continue to display jealousy must be going through something similar.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 8, 10:51 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

Feeling jealousy is being human, overcoming it is divine, and giving
in to it (as Joseph's brother did) and letting it rule you, is evil.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

"letting it rule you"
In my case I did not realize it was ruling me.
Me feeling only vanished after I was satisfied with wealth of money and knowledge that was over poured. (perhaps 1st reason)

Also, I realized my mother's pain only after the task of getting my brother out of trouble automatically shifted from my mother to me about 10 years ago. I realized the problems he was entangled into etc. So, eventually I realized what was my mother was having to go with etc. (perhaps 2nd reason)

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

This seems to have played an important factor.

>
> Also, I realized my mother's pain only after the task of getting my brother out of trouble automatically shifted from my mother to me about 10 years ago. I realized the problems he was entangled into etc. So, eventually I realized what was my mother was having to go with etc. (perhaps 2nd reason)
>

The responsibility was shifted to me on multiple occasions even in the past (i.e. before the 10 year mark I mentioned above) but then it did not strike.