Self-Denial; and Love

I always took for granted the meaning of the phrase self-denial. Having being raised in, and taken fervently to, the traditions of Islam, I had accepted the conditioning that taught self-denial as a virtue without grasping the significance, meaning or purpose of this magnificent phrase.

As I began to question everything in Life I found myself rejecting all forms of self-denial as I had been taught or had read about. Consequently, even the practices of those like Ghandi and Mother Teresa as I generally understood them, were perceived radically differently.

Initially, in my enquiry, the thought that one could attain external peace through internal violence (starving the body of sustenance) as Ghandi did appeared ludicrous. Now I understand that perhaps, in essence, Ghandis starvation stint was simply an inner reflection of the violence occurring externally in society (poverty and deprivation). After all, Ghandi is on record as having said that poverty is the worst form of violence and he, Ghandi, embodied (literally) the society he was a part of through the extensive fasting he undertook. His fasting was no more voluntary than poverty is for those who participate in its state. Thus, when the external violence ceased, the internal state of violence also ceased. He was one with and as the

society he lived in.

So, what is self-denial? Many traditions have spoken of (then written on) self-denial. It has often taken the form of frugality; minimalistic living and the denial of worldly materials or matters. Fasting and celibacy are two prime examples of how past traditions have exemplified self-denial. Yet none of these capture the meaning or significance of self-denial; quite the contrary they negate its meaning and purpose by strengthening the very self that is to be negated in practices of self-denial. For the one that fasts is very often the self/ego that then pats itself on the back for achieving or experiencing what is considered difficult, unattainable or out-of-theordinary. Over time, self-denial, as embodied by the various traditions has taken the form of personal achievement in the sphere of religion or spirituality. The one achieving is the self hence the self is not denied at all but strengthened through identifying with lack and the achievement of enduring physical or material denial.

To the writer, self-denial is, literally, the denial of the self; denial of the ego. Otherwise stated, it is the negation of the centre that calls itself I and separates itself from all else. Self-denial is the return to wholeness (whol-e-ness or holiness) and Oneness of Being. It is the recognition that ALL IS ONE. That, I am all that is and one with all. It is thus that I understood J. Krishnamurtis statement, You are the World and the World is You.

Krishnamurti spoke repeatedly against discipline and self-denial that simply enhanced the self through a sense of achievement. Instead he pointed to the meaning of self-denial as setting aside of the self and embodying a wholeness and oneness of being. He spoke of the prevalent state of fragmentation afflicting humanity; that

individualism focused on the centre that calls itself I separate from an-other/others is an internal state of conflict that leads, inevitably to an external state of conflict, whatever form it takes.

Self-denial is the awareness of Oneness not just superficially but an awareness that is felt and lived through embodiment. In this light, fasting is not an act of denying ones self undertaken by the very self that is being negated but rather a communion in spirit with those who do not have food; or simply a communion with the rest of the community through the partaking in a common practice that strengthens the sense of oneness and sets aside the distinction between the various classes and hierarchies in any given community. The same applies to the experience of any communal worship or activity; it is not to strengthen the self/ego by giving one an emboldened sense of achievement up a ladder of righteousness in any given tradition but rather it is intended to join the community in a spirit of oneness by setting aside the distinctions erected by a false sense of self/ego. Prayer, I feel, is intended to have this purpose. In prayer one communes with God or All that is and, in that, one

literally communes with All that Is. Hence through prayer one negates/denies the self/separateness and abides as One.

In oneness with All that is, one feels Love and Compassion for All that Is. Thus, it is well known that those who embodied a state of oneness walked this Earth in Love. Jesus exemplified this through what I call inclusive Love. He loved the down trodden, the outcasts, the lepers, the birds in the air and the flowers in the fieldbecause he knew his oneness with All that Is. In and through oneness Jesus embodied Love - not as the exception as an example. We have adulterated and sold cheap that example by idolising him and using him to excuse our selfenhancing and indulgence whilst claiming eternal salvation through him.

I often ask myself; why is it so easy to indulge in self aggrandisement, whether through the accumulation of money and materiality or charades of religiosity with its rituals and asceticism? Why is the illusion of the self as the I, separate and special from the rest, so alluring?

Perhaps in this question lies the answer to why so many of us veer far from the example of Jesus. To me, the self; the I; the ego, is so threatened by oneness (because oneness inevitably shatters the illusion of separateness or exclusive specialness) that it turns the

very practices that were offered as means to embodying oneness into self-enhancing rituals that bring acknowledgement, recognition, and sometimes power and position to the self; the very self that the practices were intended to deny.

The irony of it all is that Oneness IS the origin and the return of everything. It is the highest state of being; it is ultimately where and who we are; what we yearn to be. Yet we are so caught in the illusion of separateness trapped in a cage less prison that we do not perceive and thus cannot embody our natural state of being. As Krishnamurti put it, the fragment cannot become the whole; yet the fragment is always trying to be the whole. The self must relinquish fragmentation, otherwise stated as surrender then wholeness simply IS. There is nothing to become; Oneness is the state of All that Is.