I’m curious what the standard interpretation is for this, jesus phrase.
I just started this very interesting book, “the psychology of religion” and it really made me think of this quote drastically differently than I have before…
I used to look at it, in terms of innocence, and naivete… after starting this book, I realize christ may have been talking about dependence.
We must enter the kingdom of heaven dependent on god, as a child is dependent upon it’s parents for survival.
As I understand it, there is nothing by definition naive about experience without preconception. In fact I believe reliance on preconception is naive.
Being as little children for me means the attempt at freedom from preconception but at the same time the acknowledment by experience that we need help from above for this. In this way we are also dependant.
Dostoievski tried to exploit this idea in his novel The Idiot, through Prince Mishkin. Interesting enough that in a world where all others were sly as serpents, his innocence and earnestness caused more harm than good. Eventually, even Dostoievsky accepted that this is not the perfect prototype for the true Christian he sought, and eventually moved on to a more complex rendition of what he thought is a good follower of Christ.
I don’t think my point got across…
God is a projection of our anima-us, created when we were dependant upon our parents like they were god. They are in complete control of our destiny, and much of our “god image” comes from this age.
It’s not idiocy… it’s dependancy… when we feel we can no longer go through the world by our own means we turn within and find a god formed out of the clay of our parents.
Preconception is a product of the ego. Even though eastern cultures downplay the importance of ego (which is our individuality), the ego is VERY important.
What are we without our individuality?
A similiar example is someone who identifies who they are by their culture, or belief and not by I AM.
What I believe in the quote of Jesus said, " In order to go to heaven we must be open and trust worthing like the children"
I think children is like a freedom person, but as he grows older, he faces issues, problems, academic problems, social problem, education, questions, puberty and all those things like a parent are. Parents cannot have the same freedom as children do because they need to work for a living, therefore, enslaved to security no longer do they have the real passion of freedom and righteousness until they denouce life, retire, or the point of dying. But children they are not slave to money and security yet, but only the slave of honoring ones parents and honoring oneself. Fullfiling his duty either a student or a son or a daughter. But once a choice that is deliever to a child, to say, do you want to be cool or do you want to be a nerd? Therefore the freedom of a child is lost through time because of overload of social problems. Unless he fulfill his duty as being a real human being, which, philosophers strive to do. The true philosophers.
This is my ulimate interpretation .
scyth wrote:
As you know I’ve used the term “corrupt ego” to preserve the value of the ego but agree also as to why the ancient traditions are wary of it. The objective ego or self is a product of the conscious relationship between the higher and lower or heaven and earth. It acts in life in accordance with the old Hermetic axiom “as above so below.”
The corrupt ego is an unconscious creation formed from misguided fear and imagination. It gives the appearance and sensation of individuality but built on imagination it replaces reality with an imaginary self importance. So both the ego and corrupt ego give a sense of individuality but the former is developed from the impartial experience of self knowledge and the latter is built on fear and imagination. The true seeker must learn to distinguish between the individuality of self corruption or ones potential individuality. Regarding this problem, here is a favorite of mine as to the beginning:
This is why I’m against a lot of New Age practices. The concern for preconception isn’t to deny individuality in favor of la la land but rather for the goal of non-illusory individuality.
Hello All!
Scythekain,
I believe Jesus was referring to the fact that children play with, and create their reality. As adults, we have come to accept our beliefs, making for our realities to be as so. But with children, they play house, cops and robbers, etc. and they are truly living in this world of make belief. We live in a world of made belief. So, in essence, I believe He means that we must forget about all the beliefs we thought we knew, all the knowledge we thought we had, and know that none of it is real. In the pure kingdom, there is no thought, therefore no world or reality. Nothingness, the true source. So we must be as children. We will have the realization that we have created for ourselves this entire illusion of reality, or life. The kingdom of Heaven is realizing this.