OccultForum.org

Original post: Yog-Sothoth

I didn't find this thread, and i thing it fits in Theology, because many religious teachings use this, "love and compassion for others" as a wise teaching.
However i have trouble understanding this frase that supposedly Jesus said, and many occultists cite, in most cases in ways that seem dogmatic, like saying no man can be wise if he dosen't apply this "law".

I understand it as a way to free yourself from ego, and this ends with discarding duality, because you also see others as if they weren't individuals but a manifestation of the etheric principle. If it is this, there are other ways to do this.
The problem i have with this is that generally occultists i've read mean it literally, put others ahead from yourself and be hard on yourself. It is good to be hard on yourself, and it is good to respect others, but i think one should first appreciate themselves in a critic way, (not having a surreal view of yourself).
I think if one aims at his/her spiritual development, when he/she acheives it, no one will have the need to help others, but also this is would result in contradicting myself, because if no one helped mutually many (i include myself) would get stuck in development, but where do this great teachers get their knowledge, maybe the first great teacher discovered it individually, it is like which came first, the egg or the hen?

First i should define love to understand this, i understand it as a way of comformity with all existence, the internal love of yourself is projected outwards to all existence which would be the same. But i find this too religious

Post your comments and opinions. I'm off to read related topics in this forum.

Original post: MagiAwen

Well... maybe this isn't the same thing you are referring to...but I have never noticed anything that said to "love others more than yourself" I have though...heard of "love others as you love yourself" or "love your neighbor as yourself."

Boils down to treat other people as if they are yourself.... so... if you wouldn't do it to yourself...don't do it to other people. Same principle as "treat others as you would like to be treated/"

We could delve deeper into this though into something called the Ethic of Reciprocity or The Golden Rule.

More info: http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama

"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths"

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.

"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk

Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

There are some situations in which a strict application of the Ethic of Reciprocity is contraindicated because it can lead to harming others.

Original post: Yog-Sothoth

Thank you.
I read this phrase from a Rudolf Steiner book, and he quotes it from "the master of christianity"
What i mean is that sometimes this doesn't apply because many people are very ungrateful and one should not treat them in a good way, better avoid them.
Yes you can treat people very nicely, but let's say these people don't, you know? this is up to each person, because not necessarily if you treat people as you would like to be treated, you will be treated the same because their view is different, so obviously you change how you treat these people, you won't continue to be nice if you see it is not appreciated.

So i think sometimes it doesn't work in a religious context because many say don't take vengeance, but you should treat others the same as they treat you right?

But i do understand that when you've just met someone you treat him/her as you would want to be treated, regardless of the result.

Original post: MagiAwen

Yog-Sothoth wrote: So i think sometimes it doesn't work in a religious context because many say don't take vengeance, but you should treat others the same as they treat you right?

But i do understand that when you've just met someone you treat him/her as you would want to be treated, regardless of the result.

Sometimes it doesn't work at all. Of course, whether or not you treat all people nicely, because you would want to be treated that way...does not mean they will be nice to you at all. Everyone has their own will.

Not everyone subscribes to "The Golden Rule" either. Some try to...but it's not 100%

In theory it works...but in order for it to work perfectly, we would also all have to be perfect. And if everyone were perfect, we would not be human. However, if part of spiritual enlightenment is obtaining a state of transcendence...or divinity...then we are striving toward perfection, no? So in this way of thinking...to not strive towards the goal of The Golden Rule...is basically ruling out your own enlightenment.

There is no fool proof way of behaving that is going to keep you from someone else being an asshole....unless you simply never interact with another human being for the rest of your life.

However... treating others how they treat you can also backfire on you. If someone robs me does that mean I need to go steal something from them? I'm not a thief...and yes, I would be mad that they stole from me....but would me doing the same to them be right?

As a human I have the option to steal from them...slap them...kill them...ignore them...turn them in to the police or...if I was the type of person to do it...I could actually pray for them that they see the error of their ways and become a better person.

Original post: Levite

I do think that Jesus was most likely relating teachings that were common to the Perushim (Pharisees) at that time, including Hillel's famous summarization of the Torah: "'Love your fellow-man as you love yourself;' the rest is commentary, now go forth and learn it."

But, on reflection upon the construction of the phrases of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, as set forth in Matthew (the so-called Gospel to the Jews, the canonical gospel most effective in drawing on the tools and constructions common to the Hebrew Scriptures and their early-Rabbinic interpretation), I think Jesus was attempting to teach his version of a common Rabbinic lesson that has been slightly altered in translation and redaction.

One of the common lessons of the Rabbis of the Talmud was the notion of acting "lifnim mishurat ha-din," "between the lines of the Law;" that is, not merely to follow the letter of halakhah (Jewish Law), but to follow its spirit as well, and not to be, as the Rabbis put it, a "nahvahl bireshut ha-Torah," literally, "a wastrel in the domain of Torah," but more colloquially translated, "an asshole who squeaks by in the confines of Torah law." In other words, for example, if you accidentally injure a poor man, and you reimburse him for the cost of his medical bill (as the halakhah requires you do), if said medical bill comes to $449.01, don't give him $449 and a penny, give him $450 (or even $500), because he is poor, and you injured him, and God loves generosity, and when you niggle and haggle with the poor, everyone is demeaned.

Jesus was a renegade Perushi (Pharisee), and his outlawry came from adopting more radical interpretations than they wished. Thus, it makes sense that for Jesus, if, for example, the halakhah tells us that we should only injure others in self-defense or defense of others, one who is truly righteous-- one who acts lifnim mishurat ha-din, in Jesus' view-- would not only not injure others save in those circumstances, but would not do so at all: that person would go so far as to turn the other cheek to their attacker. And so forth.

What I think that Jesus was trying to do was to teach people that it is not enough, when deciding how to behave, to rely on the minimums of behavior established by the law: one should strive to be better than the minimum requirement.

As a Rabbinic Jew, of course, I don't necessarily agree with the degree to which he emphasized this teaching (nor do I necessarily agree with some of his other teachings, to say nothing of those who came after him); but I think that to some degree, he was right. The minimums of the law are not sufficient for anyone: they are starting points, not ending points.


A b M

Original post: Venefica

I like my ego and I want to keep it. I love myself the most, the my family, then others. It is not that I do not wish the best for others. But I think of myself an mine first, and that is how I like it. Why would I want to destroy my ego, the thing that is me? Why would I want to be an anonymous, spirit part of a whole when I can be an individual?

Original post: Homura Goredoun

i like what Venefica said.

i practice loving myself first before loving others

i do not slap people when saying Hi to them. whats the purpose right? i try to not have enemies. but they do so come day by day.as the Count of Montecristo would say *Do your worst and i will do mine*. i will just mirror back what you have given me.

if you dont fight back, then you just hurt yourself more.. you dont love yourself that way.

Original post: astral projectionist

Yog-Sothoth;371815 wrote:I didn't find this thread, and i thing it fits in Theology, because many religious teachings use this, "love and compassion for others" as a wise teaching.
However i have trouble understanding this frase that supposedly Jesus said, and many occultists cite, in most cases in ways that seem dogmatic, like saying no man can be wise if he dosen't apply this "law".

the commandment 'love thy neighbor' is an old testament law which no one can fully keep.

Original post: Shadow of Legend

[QUOTE=Venefica;371916]I like my ego and I want to keep it. I love myself the most, the my family, then others. It is not that I do not wish the best for others. But I think of myself an mine first, and that is how I like it. Why would I want to destroy my ego, the thing that is me? Why would I want to be an anonymous, spirit part of a whole when I can be an individual?[/QUOTE]

^This.

My ego is too massive for me to love anyone more than myself. Naturally, there will probably be an exception to this if I find (as in trip on/over) my soul mate, whoever she may be.

Original post: Venefica

Mine to. I may love my husband to be almost as much as myself, and I do have allot of love to give, but my ego is large. I just plain love me and I am proud of that.

Original post: Yog-Sothoth

I too, like my ego that's mainly why i asked this, because i disagree with some magical systems saying that one should eliminate the ego.

Original post: Levite

astral projectionist;372258 wrote:the commandment 'love thy neighbor' is an old testament law which no one can fully keep.

First of all, I would resist the implicit generalization that no one can fully keep "Old Testament Laws." But in either case, this particular verse is resolutely difficult to translate and understand, as I mentioned here:

http://www.occultforums.com/showpost.ph ... ostcount=7


A b M

Original post: Venefica

I think it is good to strive to care for others, to help others when one can, what I disagree with is that one should love others more than oneself, that make no sense to me. Nor is it necessary to love others more than one self, to care about others. But there to I care the most for my family and friends, my pets, then pepole I know, then occultists, pepole in my nation and so on, in circles out from me. The closer to me somone is, the more I care.

Original post: hunterwitch_bloodpact

hows about this phrase

"help thy self to help others"

i made the phrase up


so in a way it kinda defeat the purpose of the phrase

"love others more then thy self"

Original post: Kath_

I understand it as a way to free yourself from ego, and this ends with discarding duality, because you also see others as if they weren't individuals but a manifestation of the etheric principle. If it is this, there are other ways to do this.

I'm confused, how is this a discarding of duality?

I'm guessing you mean a discarding of the idea of the separateness of the self identity as an island unto itself?

because often when people discuss 'duality/dualism' in a religious context, it refers to the psychological trap of simplifying and polarizing your paradigm and your view of reality into a black & white, right & wrong, or a scale from one to the other, aligning all of reality along this arbitrary axis.

maybe i'm just sleepy :p

anyway, he said love others AS yourself, not 'more than'. although in practice, you will see putting others before yourself as idealized behavior.

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=Kath_;373766]although in practice, you will see putting others before yourself as idealized behavior.[/QUOTE]

Idealized by people who, more often than not, don't love themselves.

Original post: Qez

[QUOTE=Yog-Sothoth;373256]I too, like my ego that's mainly why i asked this, because i disagree with some magical systems saying that one should eliminate the ego.[/QUOTE]

Who is this "I" that likes 'my' ego? If one is constantly looking with one eye open and another closed, and swapping between them in an attempt to get both eyes open, this will never happen. Either open both your eyes and see everything as it is (via positiva) or close both eyes and reject everything (via negativa).

To eliminate the ego is accepting the ego actually exists. Show me this 'ego' first before you put energy into eliminating something you don't even know you have.

When you are loving others, you are loving yourself. Where does love come from? Does loving someone mean that they own that love? Self-enquire and find out. Loving another is your own experience of love, and this is love itself. Just because you attach the emotion to an 'idea' in your mind of some other person, does not mean that the love is for them. Love is for you. Loving your neighbour is loving yourself, because you are love - it comes from you, for you alone. Does your neighbour experience your love? Self-enquire and find out!

Original post: Yog-Sothoth

[QUOTE=Kath_;373766]I'm confused, how is this a discarding of duality?

I'm guessing you mean a discarding of the idea of the separateness of the self identity as an island unto itself?

because often when people discuss 'duality/dualism' in a religious context, it refers to the psychological trap of simplifying and polarizing your paradigm and your view of reality into a black & white, right & wrong, or a scale from one to the other, aligning all of reality along this arbitrary axis.

maybe i'm just sleepy :p

anyway, he said love others AS yourself, not 'more than'. although in practice, you will see putting others before yourself as idealized behavior.[/QUOTE]

I mean the thought of "me" and "others" or "me" and "god", or as you said good and bad, human inventions.
I know the phrase Jesus said, but many hermeticists change it to love more.

Lately i have been reading Rudolf Steiner and Georg Lomer, and this concept seems quite dogmatic to me, in seven hermetic letters by Lomer he always says that you and others are a great brotherhood from god and that you should be hard on yourself, but love others. Also these hermeticists say that hating others is hating yourself and god. I know hating is a waste of time, but you won't exactly go loving everyone if you don't even know them.

To me it seems as if he was saying don't judge others, but of course one has to judge, this world is not utopic and not everyone is great.

Original post: Yog-Sothoth

[QUOTE=Qez;373891]Who is this "I" that likes 'my' ego? If one is constantly looking with one eye open and another closed, and swapping between them in an attempt to get both eyes open, this will never happen. Either open both your eyes and see everything as it is (via positiva) or close both eyes and reject everything (via negativa).

To eliminate the ego is accepting the ego actually exists. Show me this 'ego' first before you put energy into eliminating something you don't even know you have.

When you are loving others, you are loving yourself. Where does love come from? Does loving someone mean that they own that love? Self-enquire and find out. Loving another is your own experience of love, and this is love itself. Just because you attach the emotion to an 'idea' in your mind of some other person, does not mean that the love is for them. Love is for you. Loving your neighbour is loving yourself, because you are love - it comes from you, for you alone. Does your neighbour experience your love? Self-enquire and find out![/QUOTE]

Thank you Qez, i cannot answer right know. I should self inquire the things you mentioned and a lot of other things, i should let these ideas cultivate inside me for a long time before i can answer. As you said, i should let go of my prejudices and inquire deep within me.

Original post: Qez

[QUOTE=Yog-Sothoth;373957]Thank you Qez, i cannot answer right know. I should self inquire the things you mentioned and a lot of other things, i should let these ideas cultivate inside me for a long time before i can answer. As you said, i should let go of my prejudices and inquire deep within me.[/QUOTE]

Ideas allow me to see who I am? Is this true? Can I absolutely know that an idea, a thought, a definition can allow me to see who I am?

You are prejudice. Is this true? Can you absolutely know that "you" are prejudice. Again, self-enquire.

When I self-enquire, should I get an answer? Is this true? Self-enquire now and find out how true this is for you.

Many times, when we self-enquire we get an answer. Many times when we self-enquire we may get a feeling. Many times when we self-enquire we don't get any answer at all. Which is more powerful, which is more real?

When I self-enquire, I know that there may be no answer, and that too is very powerful. In silence, everything is revealed. In self-enquiry, when the enquirer, the respondent, the enquiry and the answer becomes one, then something great happens. Is the answer great? Self-enquire and find out again. If there is ever any answer, or prejudice left over from self-enquiry, it is also another point of self-enquiry. Self-enquire until you know yourself.

When we start off self-enquiry, we think we know the answers, we even think there actually is an answer. In self-enquiry we enter knowing everything that should be, when we leave self-enquiry we lose a little bit more of that knowledge. Have I actually lost or gained knowledge or stopped my self-enquiry? Who is this "I" that was actually self-enquiry? Again another self-enquiry! I cannot give you the answers, because you already have all the answers. This is the power of love, that it is for you, by you and for you alone. And if you think that is selfish, then self-enquire!

Original post: Venefica

Putting others before one self only work in an ideal world, this is not an ideal world. If everyone cared more for those around them than for themself then you would receive so much love and care from those around you you did not need to put yourself first. Give your money to charity? No problem for when the roof on your house fails, others will fix it for you just like you have for them. However this is a dog eats dog world, and the one that only give end up with nothing, and in addition. I do not think it is a good idea to have a world where everyone just depend on the goodness of others, it give others allot of power over you. I do not see loving others more than myself as more ideal, I see it as unnatural and ideal created by Right Hand Path religions and not a natural thing in the human mind.

Original post: Aurum

Compassion is the complete round of passion between you and another (or more). You love something that they possess as do yourself have. I don't believe that people should be taken advantage of negatively. I don't think virtues are fickle either.

Original post: Venefica

I am not saying one should not love others, or be compassionate or a generally nice person. I am saying that if you love others more than yourself and then expect them to give you the love you do not give yourself but give to others, then you are laying power over your life in other's hands and I prefer to control myself thank you.

Original post: Aurum

I was writing in relation to the topic. I personally am a believer in do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You're right it is difficult to see how it could be healthy to love oneself less. When it comes to the act of caring for others, and thereby putting someone before yourself, I don't think that means you love yourself less. The expectation of a returned love sort of denotes that you don't love yourself less.

Original post: Venefica

Do onto others as you would have others do onto you is common sense, meet somone with friendliness and you stand a greater chance of getting the same in return, that do not have anything to do with loving others more than you love yourself, it has to do with treating others with common decency. I am not here advocating being a total asshole. I am advocating that we are individuals, and as individuals our first duty are to ourself, then we can help others. I care deeply for others, that do not mean I ever put others before myself. If I had a piece of bread and was starving and there was a child there that was also starving I would eat that bread myself. However if I had more food than I needed to survive then I would share with the child. I care for others but if it comes down to them or me, then I will always choose me.