GENIUS FORUMS

What kind of self acceptance do you think is healthy? I know Jesus, for example, teaches the hatred of the self, but don't you think the utter rejection of oneself is kind of crippling?

What is the self?

It's what you laugh at when you slip and fall in front of everybody.

Self, in the manner Jesus was speaking, is the ego. So, considering the ego is actually a delusion, it wont be reasonable to accept it once one has cleared his mind of ignorance. Clearing one's mind begins with reflecting on the things that drives his actions, destroying his ignorance, turning what was once a sub-conscious drive, into a conscious one. Now that his ego has been exposed, he can properly judge his true motivation in life. This may bring about feelings of disgust or hatred towards one's self, knowing how selfish and evil his motivations are. On the upside, now that he has come to this realization, he is able to rectify the situation. And so begins his walk along the path of Truth.

Matt,

It's what you laugh at when you slip and fall in front of everybody.

So, WWJD if he slipped and fell in front of everyone?

Scott,

If you understand A=A, then where else could the self be?

Steven,

What do you mean?

If someone truly understands A=A, that changes their perception so that they don't think "I understand A=A".

Where could the self be?

I know Jesus, for example, teaches the hatred of the self,

Why would you say that?

Matthew 22: 38-40

This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

If you hated yourself then you would hate your neighbor, which to me, would be in direct opposition to unconditional love, which I believe he taught. Did I miss something somewhere?

Matthew 23 kind of goes into where there is a little too much self acceptance.

Scott, to me, self is only a fragment of a continuum that means relatively little if nothing in the grand scheme of things but quite a bit in the moment. To be aware of your own breath, to watch raindrops hit leaves, to listen to a bird sing, can be a joyous event even if it is only in your mind. Why could you not love your self or be joyous in the celebration of being aware of your nature or as being part of Nature? Maybe I just don't get it.

Passthrough,

If you hated yourself then you would hate your neighbor, which to me, would be in direct opposition to unconditional love, which I believe he taught. Did I miss something somewhere?

It should be brought up that Jesus never said, "hate thyself!" His basic message was "die to self" which has somewhat of a different meaning. He said "blessed are those that humble themselves".

So the "self" that you must hate is the thing that causes you to not humble yourself. It is your persona...something that hasn't always been yourself. It isn't your "soul". When a person has a persona, they can be said to have an impure soul.

So when you get rid of all impurities, it can be said you have died to self. To do this, question what you actually are. When you see that who you are hasn't always been who you've been, then it's obvious that who you are isn't real. It's contrived. It will go away, and when you're standing there after it's gone, then what are you?

It's good for you to know yourself fully...to "die to self"...to truly be humble and open. These are the best people in the world. Their lives may not be as easy as other's lives, but they have good lives. They do good in the world, and although they experience bad thing as everyone does, it's not because of who they are. They don't cause harm to others or to themselves. Of course you should find this out on your own. It shouldn't be taken at face value.

To truly begin questioning about this, read the Dhammapada all the way through. That's one of my most treasured books. It's sane...unlike a lot of the other scriptures out there. It will lead anyone down the correct path, who actually opens up to the work.

Once you find that this life is the best, and you open yourself as Jesus suggests (being a "pure soul", meaning you have no impurities), then look at everyone you know. You will see them as the same as you, a human...and they are all like flowers waiting to open up. So to love others as yourself is to spread Jesus' message.

Open up to God's way.

Scott, to me, self is only a fragment of a continuum that means relatively little if nothing in the grand scheme of things but quite a bit in the moment.

You say that's what it means to you. What do you mean to you?

To be aware of your own breath, to watch raindrops hit leaves, to listen to a bird sing, can be a joyous event even if it is only in your mind.

This breath doesn't belong to us, nor do the raindrops, the leaves, a bird's song, or the joy that arises upon witnessing these things. These have all been given to us, and they're out of our control. They happen to us.

Why could you not love your self or be joyous in the celebration of being aware of your nature or as being part of Nature? Maybe I just don't get it.

It's easy to feel great joy being alive, and being a part of life. Sometimes it's so amazing to be me. Just the fact that we're talking about these things on the internet with eachother should cause us to realize how fortunate we are in our lives. We are the peak of creation..look at all of the other animals in the world. None have it as good as we do. I can just walk in my backyard and hear birds singing, see the sun. My friends are right down the street. My parents feed me. I have a great bed to sleep on. Anything I want is a wish away.

It's so easy to love this.

But I yearn for something more. I long to know the truth. My soul has no rest in this great life of mine. It's as if God lit my heart on fire, and now I seek him above all else. Anything I get in this life is worthless to me, because it's not knowing the truth. I am discontented.

This discontent with the world is the beginning of the opening of a person.

"What if who you are is a network of conversations?"

We think we are who we are because that's the way it is. Nope. We are who we are because of conversations that say we are that way.
The extent of the trap is massive. Know the trap, and you can learn how to stand outside of it.

There is a Kurt Vonnegut quote that captures the essence of this:

To the as-yet-unborn, to all innocent wisps of undifferentiated
nothingness: watch out for life.

I have caught life. I have come down with life. I was a wisp of
undifferentiated nothingness, and then a little peephole opened
quite suddenly. Light and sound poured in. Voices began to describe me and my surroundings. Nothing they said could be appealed. They said I was a boy named Rudolph Waltz, and that was that. They said the year was 1932, and that was that. They said I was in Midland City, Iowa, and that was that. They never shut up. Year after year they pile detail upon detail. They do it still. You know what they say now? They say the year is 1982, and that I am 50 years old.. BLAH BLAH BLAH...

It really is Hilarious.

frank

Frank,

I have caught life. I have come down with life. I was a wisp of
undifferentiated nothingness, and then a little peephole opened
quite suddenly. Light and sound poured in.

We think we are who we are because that's the way it is. Nope.

We are who we are because of conversations that say we are that way.

The extent of the trap is massive. Know the trap, and you can learn how to stand outside of it.

"What if who you are is a network of conversations?"

So if you read your own “conversation” in that sequence, you remain still UNSURE of what you are actually trying to say itself, isn’t it? And that, my friend….

really is Hilarious.

BTW, UG Krishnamurthi translates his “death of knowledge” in exactly the same kind of understanding, in essence, as this Kurt Vonnegut guy, but I don’t agree to either descriptions. However, there is not only one way to Realization, and I am quite aware of that, so I do understand what either is trying to “describe”, using WORDS, with meanings, HOWEVER, to say the least.

Want to argue? Then do that without using words my friend, because you know that words are “empty”, isn’t it?

Hilarious! Ten times over. :D

“That it is Empty and Meaningless”. IS also but a stepping stone. One couldn’t understand what it means, if it was not for meaningful understanding being around. I just question myself, how can one disregard THAT Reality?

It really is Hilarious! And I actually mean it… :D

Could something actually be “hilarious” if one did not really understand and mean it? I wonder!?

Damn good to see you're Posting again Sapius.

Want to argue? Then do that without using words my friend, because you know that words are “empty”, isn’t it?

Yeah, but that's all we've got via the Internet...Language, so it will have to do...hehe

When a Body came up Languaging its head off the Daoists would slap its Face to get it to realise its Nature...

You'd get arrested for that these days.

There was an aboriginal culture that would dig a hole as deep as a man's shoulders...they would place the Chronic Languager in the hole and backfill it so only the dude's head was above the ground...
A minder was left with the dude 24/7 to provide food and water when required...
The dude would scream his tits off for days...beg, plead, cry, swear, threaten, spit, scream, laugh hysterically...
It usually took 5 or 6 days and nights for the 'trance' to break...for the dude to realise his Nature...
Sort of like 'breakin' a horse...

You'd get arrested for that these days.

In Zen, its the Koan.

Of course when you've grokked the hypnotic spell of the Language Stream...you can still play with it.

frank

Matt wrote:

What kind of self acceptance do you think is healthy? I know Jesus, for example, teaches the hatred of the self, but don't you think the utter rejection of oneself is kind of crippling?

If you value the self, exposing it as a fraud can feel extremely “crippling”. You may feel that you are lost and alone, and no longer special and unique. But if you value living truthfully, knowing the truth about the self is freeing. No longer shackled to the lie, you are able to stride across the universe without fear, uncovering more and more truths with ease.

Jesus also said:

What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

The self, or God – you can’t have both.

-
Sue

Does accepting oneself equate with valuing oneself?

Acceptance = Value?

Is to love universally, what Jesus also taught, valuing?

It is clear that one could possess a self-centric love that would be narsasstic and violate Matthew 6:24.

passthrough wrote:

I know Jesus, for example, teaches the hatred of the self,

Why would you say that?

Matthew 22: 38-40

This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

If you hated yourself then you would hate your neighbor, which to me, would be in direct opposition to unconditional love, which I believe he taught. Did I miss something somewhere?

Yeah, you missed the greatest commandment at Matthew 22:37 - "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind". But I don't really agree with the idea of a "commandment". I think you should only follow something if it makes sense to you, because there's just too much bullshit out there to trip you up.

Anyway, here are the passages I was thinking of (they are on David Quinn's Jesus page):

"Those who want to be my disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me will find it." Matthew 16: 24

--

"Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be." John 12: 24

--

"No one can be a slave to two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot be a slave to both God and Money." Luke 16:13

--

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14: 26

Matthew 23 kind of goes into where there is a little too much self acceptance.

Yeah, well there's quite a lot of garbage in the gospel. For example, in Matthew 5 he says "do not swear at all", but in Matthew 23 he gives lessons on how to swear properly! If he was that inconsistent, then he was just a lunatic anyway.

Yeah, you missed the greatest commandment at Matthew 22:37 - "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind". But I don't really agree with the idea of a "commandment". I think you should only follow something if it makes sense to you, because there's just too much bullshit out there to trip you up.

Well, I was trying to make a point with the other one. However, I think the “commandment” part should perhaps be taken in context with the question posed to Jesus: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Asked and Answered. And yes, it would make no sense to love something that one doesn’t believe is true.

In response to your quotes:

I figured the you cannot serve God and money quote as I used it in my questions to Sue (different book though). I would like to hear from her because there are lots of themes going on here and most of it deals with value. Can you love without valuing the beloved? Can you accept yourself without valuing yourself? Is unconditional love value-less?

Yeah, well there's quite a lot of garbage in the gospel. For example, in Matthew 5 he says "do not swear at all", but in Matthew 23 he gives lessons on how to swear properly! If he was that inconsistent, then he was just a lunatic anyway.

Unfortunately for us, he relied on his witnesses to get it right. Eventually what is true will come forth, it always does.

passthrough wrote:Unfortunately for us, he relied on his witnesses to get it right. Eventually what is true will come forth, it always does.

The Gospels were written at least 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

If you can imagine a time with no books and no film - imagine someone today writing a biography of Elvis, based strictly on what people say about him (including sighting of him after his death). It's hard to imagine how that would be, because you can see movies and so on and see how he actually was, pretty much, and there are other records of his life. The authors of the Gospels had none of that.


Also, the Gospels were written as symbolic literature. The people at that time did not have the same ideas about literal truth and journalism that we have today. There are events described in the Bible that almost certainly did not happen.

The evidence that there ever was a historical Jesus is weak, in my opinion - unreliable, and certainly biased. I think it is reasonable to think of him as a fictional character - just as we would think of Santa Claus as a fictional character, even if there was a historical Saint Nicholas that he was loosely based upon.

David,

I think it is reasonable to think of him as a fictional character - just as we would think of Santa Claus as a fictional character, even if there was a historical Saint Nicholas that he was loosely based upon.

I think it's more reasonable to not come to such conclusions on something that's unverifiable.

What do you mean?

If someone truly understands A=A, that changes their perception so that they don't think "I understand A=A".

Where could the self be?

Scott,

Think of it like this:

Self=Self

--

Or don't

The conversation we're having over at Cosmic P's thread might be interesting to consider in relationship to self acceptance.

First of all, to not be accepting of the world is to not be accepting of yourself.

Can we agree on that?

If Gene Therapy takes root, surely it will be highly elitist and well monied.

The whole world will probably begin revolving around the progress of gene therapy.

Or perhaps humanity will be split into those who think gene therapy is good and those who think gene therapy is bad.

Those who think gene therapy is bad will be those who are bent on self/world acceptance.

However, they will be in contradiction, because by rejecting the gene therapy movement, they will be non-accepting of the world, and there for non-accepting of self.

Those who are keen on gene therapy will probably be non-accepting of self/world.