Another view of acceptance (Acceptance of What-IS: giving up to desire/fear??)

[Guest guest]

An acceptance of What-Is,

can be a surrender of one's intelligent,

one's intuitiveness, and better yet,

giving up one's instinct totally...

 

This happens when the mind is weak,

In a sense that one's cannot say 'no'

to garbages etc...!

 

Acceptance of what-Is,

is like being passive to nagativity...

 

In a case of denial of what-Is not,

one's neither fight nor give in to the instincts....

which we are born with...and we must adapt to changes

and understand the consequences of What-Is not,

that we are not accepting

 

Must we fight against what one's believe in

Maharaj said, " If you like what is given, then accept it,

If not, you must fight against what you don't like... "

In this case, we all must fight with patience, wisdom, silence,

against what we don't like being done to our own loved ones,

that is true love here, doing for the purpose of humanity...not for the sake of

pride, or satisfaction etc, it is like a meditation, we do it not for the

purpose of ourselves, it's done because one's doesn't accept the on-going

mind-battle with desire and one's own fear.

 

~no-me~

 

Let's say...

 

 

 

 

dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33 wrote: --- In

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:33:20 -0800 (PST)

> no-me <nomemxp

> Re: Re: Another view of acceptance (no-me: Acceptance or

Denial of

> What Isn't)

>

>

>

> billrishel <illusyn wrote: --- In

> Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what

do I

> mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want

> > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress,

> think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened,

> > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what

ALREADY

> is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two.

> > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined

> splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed

in

> > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again

an

> *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or

> > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become

enlightened,

> etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as

> > yelling at an echo to go away!

> >

> > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when

contraction

> melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no

> > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or

space.

> >

> > Michael

> >

>

> Yes, acceptance isn't *done*.

>

> Acceptance is unconditional surrender to What Is.

>

> And yes, acceptance means no-resistance.

>

> When immersion in the Now is complete

> acceptance is not an issue, cannot be

> an issue.

>

>

> Bill

>

>

> ...Just curious....here!

>

> What happens when there is " What Is Not " ?

>

> Isn't it true that there must not be either " Acceptance or Denial "

in a

> concept of Avaita? Isn't 'Acceptance' implying " Denial " . And

acceptance must

> imply 'taking' instead of 'giving'? Since the avaitar concept,

Taking or

> Giving are not also Two.

>

> For example, acceptance of what is given can put a recipient into

a very

> uncomfortable situation. For example, when a child is let playing

with

> poisonous snake. There must be conditional there implying that

the snake is

> dangerous. In this case, predisposition is needed. In this case,

a gift must be

> given!

>

> When a giver and receiver are separated, then the situation cannot

be

> unconditional. What is given, must not be kept, like gifts, or

presents, which can

> only be given, not kept!! Since both giving and taking imply the

same

> thing.

>

> For example, the gift of love, which cannot be kept. And the

recipient

> cannot and should not accept or denial this either.

>

> Should a gift is denied, in this case, the owner of that gift must

not be

> satisfied. So he/she must neither accept or deny the

consequences. Another

> word, whatever the consequences of acceptance or denial of

such " What Is or

> What Isn't " , depends on one's own pre-disposition (Samsakara)!!

And samsakara

> is learned...based on Karma.

>

> ~no-me~

>

>

>

>

> I have no idea what's being said here. Why must such a simple

concept as

> acceptance be made so complex?

>

> Phil

 

 

 

yes Phil....the subject is about " acceptance " .....aren't

you " conscious " about?

 

Marc

 

Ps: you seem to be the one who " see " something " complex " ....

maybe you should start...to ask yourself about the reason why

 

 

>

>

>

>