The sermon on the mount,jusus said the meek would given the earth as there heaven.Who are the meek? george

Anybody who chooses to be humble.

If thats the case I want to be humble

Me too. Humble like a bumble bee, except for when it stings you. :)

How about a slightly different bend on this one?  What if the saying "the meek shall inherit the earth," is really a call to be bold?  What if the implication is, not that it is great to inherit the earth - we are currently earthbound.  Perhaps, those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven need to be bold and grab the bull by the horns...

The usual interpretation of the "blessed are the meek," is that one should be humble, free of ego based thinking.  However, I like my take on this one - it goes along with something Don cites in christian thought - once he mentioned that if one sins, one is told to "sin boldly."  Its almost as if while incarnate, we have many choices to either become involved with life/others or to be safe, yet less involved.  Perhaps this is a passage of scripture implying that we should put ourselves out there and take chances!


Doc

george stone wrote on Feb 28^th, 2009 at 12:27am:

If thats the case I want to be humble

George, and I mean this in the most loving, humble, possible way. I see by your ID photo you are an older guy...But, you, have posted  over 570 posts/questions on this forum. If you are suffering from 'old age forgetfullness' I'll apologize to you now for my comments in not you remembering past and future replies to your posts . Sorry. Sincerely. Carl and Family

DocM wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2009 at 9:27pm:

How about a slightly different bend on this one?  What if the saying "the meek shall inherit the earth," is really a call to be bold?  What if the implication is, not that it is great to inherit the earth - we are currently earthbound.  Perhaps, those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven need to be bold and grab the bull by the horns... The usual interpretation of the "blessed are the meek," is that one should be humble, free of ego based thinking.  However, I like my take on this one - it goes along with something Don cites in christian thought - once he mentioned that if one sins, one is told to "sin boldly."  Its almost as if while incarnate, we have many choices to either become involved with life/others or to be safe, yet less involved.  Perhaps this is a passage of scripture implying that we should put ourselves out there and take chances! Doc

Interesting proposition Matthew,

In the end, like with many things, it may be a matter of both context and intention, but given that, I think there is plenty of room to accomodate your proposition which seems to be born out in many doctrines. I think you are on solid ground.

I myself am in favor of a synthetic approach which calls for strength and humility (isn't real humility a kind of strength?) as a means to acquire "heaven" while on the physical plane. This is consistent with many traditions and spiritual Masters including some fairly contemporary ones who have indicated a direction in which the current goal for human development, both individual and collective is not an escape from physical plane reality - but the deliberate divinisation of it. This suggests a synthetic/integral approach, with no mutual exclusion between meekness (humility) and strength.  

In support of the theory is the following from the Upanishads:
"Nayam atma balahinena labhyah", translated variously as:

"this soul (atman) no weakling can attain", "one devoid of strength cannot attain the supreme soul", "the soul cannot be won by the weakling", etc.

On the other hand, the more traditional take-away is seen in the originating post, as in meekness, non-assertiveness, humility will bear fruit in the eventual winning of physical plane reality. But is this actually losing? Given that the Christ Who uttered the phrase was Himself violently killed - crucified by the dominant ignorant forces in the world, it tends to call for the statement - "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth" - to be put into proper context, as in - does this relate to how individual beings comport themselves within the collective?  In terms of hostile aggression towards others, certainly the higher intentions of spirituality are not served (besides the obvious exception of the Christ, of course). I think you are correct that this one aspect of the issue does not go far enough however and can be deficient if taken solely in that single dimension.

What about how one relates to their own development internally?  In the previous passage from the Upanishads it seems to suggest that indeed strength, forebearance, etc.- not meekness - are what is needed. One would think that a tremendous vigorous fortitude must be required in order to repeatedly reject and/or transform the various ignorant components residing within any individual life for a complete divine victory ie acquisition of the Soul.

Very much related to this discussion and your proposition, I found this text by Sri Aurobindo - in some ways a very nice essay on the nuances of the theme in which he explores the concept of ego within the contexts of the 3 "gunas" (modes) of nature - - tamasic (lethargic, inertial, entropic), rajasic (active, self-directed), and sattwic (harmonious, illumined, peaceful) - - thus changing the forms, definitions and results accordingly.  I have highlighted some phrases key to this discussion, including one which may even be a reference to the Christ's immortal utterance, and as explained here may give a fuller deeper meaning than is generally construed.

Sri Aurobindo,
Quote:

The meaning of the word, ahankāra, has become so distorted in our language that often a confusion arises when we try to explain the main principles of the Aryan Dharma. Pride is only a particular effect of the rajasic ego, yet this is the meaning generally attributed to the word Tan'ahkdra; any talk of giving up ahankāra brings to the mind the idea of giving up pride or the rajasic ego. In fact, any awareness of 'I' is ahankāra. The awareness of  ' I ' is created in the higher knowledge Self and in the play of the three principles of Nature, its three modes are revealed: the sattwic ego, the rajasic ego and the tamasic ego. The sattwic ego brings knowledge and happiness. 'I am receiving knowledge, I am full of delight'— these feelings are actions of the sattwic ego. The ego of the sadhak, the devotee the man of knowledge  the disinterested worker is the sattwic ego which brings knowledge and delight. The rajasic ego stands for action. 'I am doing the work, I am winning, I am losing, I am making effort, the success in work is mine, the failure is mine, I am strong, I am fortunate, I am happy, I am unhappy'— all these feelings are predominantly rajasic, dynamic and generate desire. The tamasic ego is full of ignorance and inertia. 'I am wretched, I am helpless, I am lazy, incapable and good for nothing, I have no hope, I am sinking into the lower nature, my only salvation is to sink into the lower nature'— all these feelings are predominantly tamasic and produce inertia and obscurity. Those afflicted with the tamasic ego have no pride though they have the ego in full measure but that ego has a downward movement and leads to death and extinction in the void of the Brahman. Just as pride has ego,  in the same way humility also has ego; just as strength has ego, in the same way weakness also has ego. Those who have no pride because of their tamasic nature are mean, feeble and servile out of fear and despair. Tamasic humility, tamasic forgiveness, tamasic endurance have no value whatsoever and do not produce any good result. Blessed indeed is he who perceiving Narayana everywhere is humble, tolerant and full of forgiveness. Delivered from all these impulsions coming from the ego, one who has gone beyond the spell of the three modes of Nature has neither pride nor humility. Satisfied with whatever feeling is given to his instrumental being of life and mind by the universal Shakti of the Divine and free from all attachment, he enjoys invariable peace and felicity. The tamasic ego must be avoided in every way. To destroy it completely by awakening the rajasic ego with the help of knowledge coming from 'sattwa' is the first step towards progress. Growth of knowledge, faith and devotion are the means of liberating oneself from the grip of the rajasic ego. A person predominantly sattwic does not say, 'I am happy'; he says, 'Happiness is flowing in my heart'; he , does not say, 'I am wise' he says 'Knowledge is growing in me.' He knows that this happiness and this knowledge do not belong to him but to the Mother of the Universe. Yet when in all kinds of feelings there is bondage to the enjoyment of delight, then the feeling of the man of knowledge or the devotee is still proceeding from the ego. Simply by saying 'It is happening in me' one cannot abolish the ego-sense. Only the person who has gone beyond the modes of Nature has completely triumphed over the ego. He knows that the 'Jiva', the embodied being, is the witness and enjoyer, the Supreme is the giver of sanction, and that Nature is the doer of works, and that there is no 'I', all being a play in knowledge and ignorance of the Shakti of the sole Brahman without a second. The sense of ego is only a feeling born of  illusion in the nature established in the 'Jiva', the embodied being. In the final stage this feeling of egoless ness merges into Sachchidananda, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. But having gone beyond the modes of Nature one who still stays in the divine play by the will of the Lord respects the separate existence of the Lord and the 'Jiva', the embodied being, and, considering himself a portion of the Divine in Nature, he accomplishes his work in the Lila, the divine play. This feeling cannot be called the ego. Even the Supreme has this feeling. There is no ignorance or attachment in Him, but His state of beatitude instead of being self-abosorbed is turned towards the world. One who possesses this consciousness is indeed a soul liberated in life. Liberation by dissolution can be gained only after the fall of the body. The state of liberation in life can be realised in the body itself .

The same synthetic approach could also be seen in the following, perhaps saying much the same as in the above, but in a much simpler, abbreviated form:

Sri Chinmoy,
Quote:

Soulful humility itself is a form of divine power. There is no difference between divine power and soulful humility. Real divine power is an aspect of the highest transcendental Power; and the Mother-power, the divine power, the power of the Supreme Mother, also has its soulful humility. You cannot separate soulful humility from power. So if you just develop soulful humility, automatically you will cultivate divine power within yourself.

Best regards,  :)

- u

george stone wrote on Feb 27^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:

The sermon on the mount,jusus said the meek would given the earth as there heaven.Who are the meek? george

Think of the little children whom Jesus asked to come to him. What/who is the most primary, essential, pure and innocent part of You? That is where your Heaven is.

The meek is kneeling. The flipside of meek is pointing a gun. The meek says 'I love to suffer, and I love you for making me suffer, but I do not love myself, so do what you love to do'. Brains on the wall, and the spirit doesn't animate that body anymore. The kids of the meek inherit a signpost that says 'The two paths most travelled are clearly marked. Can you find a third?' - Who's to inherit another spirit (Earth) anyway? None, me thinks.

Humility is partly about "not" putting yourself before the greater good.

It is also partly about realizing that there is something far greater than little old me. Much reverence is in order.

It is also about not being conceited about what grace has enabled you to obtain. We couldn't be loving, if God never got around to creating love.

"The meaning of "meek" must be understood in tendem with the first  beatitude: Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3).  "Poor in spirit" clarifies the nature of true humility. We must be "emoty" of selfish ego to be filled with God's love and goodness.  Most of us walk around with a rubust self-image that we cnnsult when we feel the sting of criticism or when our own behavior challenges our self-concept.  To be poor in spirit is to be empty in spirit--empty of a fixed self-image that blinds us to our true behavior patterns.  In other words, we can't walk around carrying virtues like love. The crucial question is, how many loving acts have we performed recently?  

St. Paul expresses a similar point in his denial of his own spiritual maturity and the sarcasm he directs at believers who deem themselves "mature" (Philippians 3:12, 15).  Spiritual maturity implies that we are spiritually whole and complete.  But this notion only reinforces unseemly pride because it overlooks the fact that we are always works in progress.  Whatever acts of moral heroism we have performed in the distant past may be irrelevant to the kind of people we are today.

The "meek" are people who are "gentle" as a result of their humility in this sense.  St, Paul identifies "gentleness" as a manifestation of the "fruit of the Spirit," wothuot which there is no true love (Galatians 5:22-23).  The opposite of gentleness is assertiveness, which keeps our minds full of ego and manifests our need to feel right.  The human mind rarely admits that it is unequvocally "wrong" about moral and spiritual issues.  People will almost always counter with a defenisive "Yes, but..."  The meekness or gentleness of true love creates the space for others to discover if they are wrong at their own pace and in their own way.  

Don  

Hi recoverer,
The greater good. What is that?

If there are two different paths then there are three.

That which looks out for the happiness, peace and love for all beings.



Volu wrote on Mar 7^th, 2009 at 6:26pm:

Hi recoverer, The greater good. What is that?

Berserk2 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2009 at 3:01pm:

"The meaning of "meek" must be understood in tendem with the first  beatitude: Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3).  "Poor in spirit" clarifies the nature of true humility. We must be "emoty" of selfish ego to be filled with God's love and goodness.  Most of us walk around with a rubust self-image that we cnnsult when we feel the sting of criticism or when our own behavior challenges our self-concept.  To be poor in spirit is to be empty in spirit--empty of a fixed self-image that blinds us to our true behavior patterns.  In other words, we can't walk around carrying virtues like love. The crucial question is, how many loving acts have we performed recently?   St. Paul expresses a similar point in his denial of his own spiritual maturity and the sarcasm he directs at believers who deem themselves "mature" (Philippians 3:12, 15).  Spiritual maturity implies that we are spiritually whole and complete.  But this notion only reinforces unseemly pride because it overlooks the fact that we are always works in progress.  Whatever acts of moral heroism we have performed in the distant past may be irrelevant to the kind of people we are today. The "meek" are people who are "gentle" as a result of their humility in this sense.  St, Paul identifies "gentleness" as a manifestation of the "fruit of the Spirit," wothuot which there is no true love (Galatians 5:22-23).  The opposite of gentleness is assertiveness, which keeps our minds full of ego and manifests our need to feel right.  The human mind rarely admits that it is unequvocally "wrong" about moral and spiritual issues.  People will almost always counter with a defenisive "Yes, but..."  The meekness or gentleness of true love creates the space for others to discover if they are wrong at their own pace and in their own way.   Don

This is the best description of humility I ever read. I'm glad you wrote it here at these forums.

smidee