Pride is the excessive love of one’s own excellence.
You compete in a sport - say the 100m sprint - you come first and win the gold medal. That feeling you get at your accomplishment at the end of it is called pride.
Now don’t pretend you have never felt good about any of your achivements 
I think that there are at least two meanings for this word, and that’s the problem.
Some say you must take pride in yourself and keep yourself clean and neat, etc., and there is nothing wrong with that kind of pride. Some would take pride in a great achievement for which they have studied or trained hard and made much sacrifice, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that kind of pride. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being proud of your children or parents, etc.
But I think a line is crossed when someone thinks he’s “all that and a bag of potato chips,” or when he thinks he’s better than everyone else and deserves special treatment.
Is All Pride a Mortal Sin?
What if you are proud to be an American, a Canadian, or an Australian? What about parents and teachers who always tell children to take pride in their achievements? And employers who want workers to take pride in their work? Are they all wrong? What’s wrong with pride?
Well, in the context above, nothing. Being proud of your country, your race, or your association with a group isn’t a sin, neither is being proud of a job well done or of reaching a goal. This kind of pride is experiencing joy in achievement or having gratitude for a sense of belonging. That’s okay; it’s not a sin.
Sinful pride is an inordinate love of the self: super-confidence and distorted self-esteem that ignores one’s shortcomings.
Pride is a sin when it becomes arrogance, conceit and vanity. Sinful pride exaggerates one’s abilities and accomplishments and ignores one’s imperfections and failings.
Why is Pride the “Number One” Deadly Sin?
Pride is the first of the deadly sins because it is the key to all other sins.
Pride makes people believe that they are better than everyone else and “above the rules” so they can rationalize behaviors such as lying, cheating, stealing, insulting, and refusing to accept authority over them.
Sinful pride is an inflated ego; it is the unnatural, unbalanced tendency to exalt oneself over others, and even over God.
Anti-Authoritarianism as a Form of Pride
“No one is going to tell me what to do” is an example of anti-authoritarianism: a common modern-day expression of pride.
This pride is expressed by the refusal to obey those in authority because the ego can’t accept the idea that someone else is more powerful, more intelligent, or has more influence. Pride prevents people from seeking necessary help and wisdom from others and from working effectively together.
Overcoming Pride
Overcoming pride requires humility. Humility is not false self-deprecation (insulting yourself so others can say otherwise), rather it is recognizing that all gifts and talents come from God and acknowledging as such.
For example, if someone were to compliment your good singing voice, a prideful response would be: “You’re right, I do have an incredible voice, it’s about time you noticed it.” A self-deprecating response would be: “Oh, no, I can’t sing. My voice is terrible.”
But a humble answer would be: “Thank you. I’m grateful that God has blessed me with this voice and I’m glad I could share it with you.” Humbly giving God the credit He deserves is the antidote to sinful pride.
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-first-deadly-sin-pride-a108714
But I think a line is crossed when someone thinks he’s “all that and a bag of potato chips,” or when he thinks he’s better than everyone else and deserves special treatment.
Yep, I can agree with that.
I certainly do not think I am better than anybody else. I am just average joe from the street.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42093]Yep, I can agree with that.
I certainly do not think I am better than anybody else. I am just average joe from the street.[/QUOTE]
You’re definately not an “average joe.” You’re way above average in intellect. And certainly way above average in determination and focus. And extremely above average in being a pain in the *ss. 
[QUOTE=thomas;42094]You’re definately not an “average joe.” You’re way above average in intellect. And certainly way above average in determination and focus. And extremely above average in being a pain in the *ss. :p[/QUOTE]
Haha, I will take that as a compliment
…[B]Drum Roll.[/B]… …[B]God save our gracious Surya
…Long live our noble Surya,
…God save the SD
…Trumpets…Send him victorious,
…Happy and Glorious,
…Long to reign over us;
…God save the SD [/B]
[QUOTE=kareng;41772]But Surya…something is wrong I feel…the ageless and placeless wisdom has been taught for centuries and with the communication systems we have in place, still, they cannot reach the masses to take action…Look at India, the capital of the wisdom being offered shall we say, look where it is going now…Materialism…,and look what it has been through in terms of hunger, lack of medicines, why are you so sure that an enlightened Master teaching ageless wisdom will reach the billions when all the others havent…why?
Why should we have faith in this and what you are saying when the ‘capital’ of it all is turning to Materialism.
PS…I wont go into the differences between Buddhism and Hinduism…but there are enough to make it a separate movement, however, I am in agreement as to its foundations.[/QUOTE]
It is entertaining to see people cite India’s mass poverty as more reason to degrade its cultures without taking into account centuries of debilitating foreign rule (Muslim and British).
I beg your pardon Nietzsche…if you follow the posts in the thread you will see this is in answer to Surya suggesting that someone will come and save all…well they haven’t so far have they?.. and my citing of India’s poverty is not to degrade its culture but to state a fact, that India is/was fully aware of. The factors that have caused this are not simply invasion of other peoples as you simply suggest.
The point is that no one person has ever arrived to lift all from poverty, and suffering.(in fact, in any part of the world).this was the point and I am half Indian.
PS…
I had to come back in to answer that one…my half Indian side which I am extremely proud of, would not allow otherwise.
Bye x
Look for stirring on another post somewhere…and India is set to be a world leader with full on materialism in years to come…thank you.
It was merely something I was pointing out. I did not know you were half-Indian; forgive me.
And yes, invasions and exploitation played the largest role is bringing India to the condition it is today. If you want to, look at how prosperous it was prior to British rule, during tolerant times of Mughal rule, and the centuries characterizing India before the invasion of Muslims.
Much of the economics of India has been successful is reducing the poverty in India (though there is still much work to be done). Do you not pay attention to the economic advancements India has been making? Did you not see that 300 million more people have risen to the middle class status in India? Numerous organizations are there to help the poor in India but the large numbers of poor = taking a long time before anyone starts to see changes on a national level. Be patient kareng; change will come. And if it takes a long time, its all the more experience India will get in its path of becoming a great nation.
Kareng said: “Why should enlightenment not be progressive?”
Personally, I don’t believe we get to choose for it to be progressive.
There have been practices for achieving enlightenment that have not changed for millennia. In my opinion, hoping they will change now, because they don’t suit us, is unreasonable.
I agree entirely with this from Surya: “What I am talking about here is not an extreme. It is a choice that every soul is going to have to have make eventually when they become dispassionate about the material world. Every master has had to make this choice, including the Buddha.”
I believe this to be true. We are not going to achieve enlightenment without this renunciation.
However, I disagree with this from Surya: “The reality many of you are going to have to face is you are not living a spiritual life.”
I don’t believe it’s as simple as “if you are a renunciate you are spiritual, if you are not a renunciate you are not spiritual”.
This completely contradicts, in my opinion, the teaching of the Gita!
Maybe we cannot achieve moksha living in the material world, but I believe it is certainly possible to live a spiritual life. One can perform ones actions with a spirit of non-attachment to their fruits. One can do everything one does for the glory of God and Guru, even if one is programming a computer for a living. One can follow the Yamas and Niyamas in ones life. One can spend ones time reading scriptures rather than watching TV.
True, nobody I have heard of reached the final goal this way, but we are not all ready for the final goal this lifetime. But one can make enormous strides along the path by living a spiritual life, in the material worked, as taught by Lord Krishna.
What I think people do have to accept is not that they are not living a spiritual life, but that they are very likely not going to achieve enlightenment this lifetime. To expect to do so is unreasonable. I hope to be proved wrong in this! But I doubt it.
Also, I do not accept arguments against renunciation for this who choose to do it. A frequent objection is “But if everyone did it”, which is sheer nonsense. The burden to society argument does not hold either. In those cultures where renunciation is relatively common, renunciates are rarely seen as a burden, but rather as a blessing.
If you feel an urge to renounce the world, then it is something you should investigate. It means either you are quite a long way down the spiritual path due to work in previous incarnations. Or that you are having trouble adjusting to society. Either way, find out the real reason.
If you feel a pull to a spiritual life, but not to renounce the world, then by all means, adopt as much of the spiritual life as possible, and be assured that in doing so, you are progressing down the path, so that in a future life you can renounce in order to give 100% to God, and in that life or another, achieve your final liberation.
In response to the larger question posed by this thread, I would say yes. Let us all retire to the wilderness and live life according to what pleases our Nature and satisfies the requirements of a just life while respecting others views (if they respect your own). This world with all its technology, political systems, religions, economic struggles, and etc can really instill ennui in someone…One step towards the Nihilism Nietzsche believed in…hence my name.
Hello Nietzsche apolagy accepted.
Do you not pay attention to the economic advancements India has been making? Did you not see that 300 million more people have risen to the middle class status in India? Numerous organizations are there to help the poor in India but the large numbers of poor = taking a long time before anyone starts to see changes on a national level. Be patient kareng; change will come. And if it takes a long time, its all the more experience India will get in its path of becoming a great nation.
if you read my very last sentence you will see that I do actually know that India is rising rapidly in the world and one day, along with China, Brazil and Russia will be amongst the big players…this is information is from someone prominent world Economic affiairs whom I am acquainted with…these are the eventual world leaders.
Kind Regards Kareng
[QUOTE=kareng;44938]Hello Nietzsche apolagy accepted.
if you read my very last sentence you will see that I do actually know that India is rising rapidly in the world and one day, along with China, Brazil and Russia will be amongst the big players…this is information is from someone prominent world Economic affiairs whom I am acquainted with…these are the eventual world leaders.
Kind Regards Kareng[/QUOTE]
Yes…my hope is that people will learn to perceive India for its considerable contributions to the world. However, for that to happen, I have to have a greater hope: that India will rise from its poverty and will one day become intellectually, socially, spiritually, and philosophically formidable.
I thought I would use this opportunity to quote fro the bible of yoga -The Bhagvad Geeta.
Chapter 6 verse 8 & 9
A yogi is called Self-realized
Who is satisfied with knowledge
And understanding of the Self,
Who is equanimous, who has control over the senses,
And to whom a clod, a stone, and gold are the same.
A person is considered superior
Who is impartial towards companions,
Friends, enemies, Neutrals, arbiters,
Haters, relatives, saints, and sinners.
That being so, where do Christians , Muslims , Westerners, Easterners enter these discussions ?
I’m definately not a yogi.
I’ll pick a gold coin over a clump of mud every time. They are not the same at all to me. I can do much more good with the gold than with the mud.
[QUOTE=reaswaran;44948]I thought I would use this opportunity to quote fro the bible of yoga -The Bhagvad Geeta.
Chapter 6 verse 8 & 9
A yogi is called Self-realized
Who is satisfied with knowledge
And understanding of the Self,
Who is equanimous, who has control over the senses,
And to whom a clod, a stone, and gold are the same.
A person is considered superior
Who is impartial towards companions,
Friends, enemies, Neutrals, arbiters,
Haters, relatives, saints, and sinners.
That being so, where do Christians , Muslims , Westerners, Easterners enter these discussions ?[/QUOTE]
I guess they would be either companions, friends, enemies, neutrals, arbiters, haters, relatives, saints or sinners, depending upon the individuals concerned.
[QUOTE=thomas;44954]I’m definately not a yogi.
I’ll pick a gold coin over a clump of mud every time. They are not the same at all to me. I can do much more good with the gold than with the mud.[/QUOTE]
Far to literal in your interpretation. That line basically meant someone who sees no worth in material objects. And this person would view gold as hardly any more valuable than the sand or stone its surrounded by.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;44968]Far to literal in your interpretation. That line basically meant someone who sees no worth in material objects. And this person would view gold as hardly any more valuable than the sand or stone its surrounded by.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where three men, one of them an evil scientist, stole a truckload of gold, then locked themselves in a cave. They went into some form of suspended animation, with the idea of waking up 100 years later, free of any problems with the law, and free to enjoy their wealth.
When they awoke, they had a long walk through the desert hauling their gold, and one of them died or was killed by one of the others, and one of them had water, and the other didn’t and he ended up selling a sip of water for a gold brick.
Eventually, the only one left was the evil scientist who started it all. He finally got to a road and was semi-conscious when discovered by some passersby, who marveled at the man’s interest in his gold, which the considered to be worthless, since (100 years later in their day) it could be cheaply manufactured.
Anyway, I get the point now, but it’s not always obvious when a scripture is taken out of context.
Haha thats interesting.