Is to conquer one's self to surrender or to fight?

Inasmuch as the "world" is our own outward projection, we must turn inward to find what some might call the "battlefield." But wisdom tells us that it is within where surrender is required. The question is: Surrender from or to what? In this presumed life, and also in our many presumed lives, we have struggled to overcome the illusion of separation from our true and original Self and from our Creator. Herein lies the root of all our woundedness...we are incomplete, unwhole, broken, split.

Yet, we are told, this condition is, in the end, unreal, the ego's scheme to keep us in thrall and working hard (fighting) to go nowhere, running frantically on a gerbil's wheel, our original goal of returning to oneness forgotten in the mad dash to continue the endless rounds of ego's games. So, then, this is a battle that can't be won in the context of the illlusion itself, for the illusion's tools are designed to keep the wheel turning with no hope of exit.

The only solution is to surrender, remove the power of the wheel by allowing it to come to a stop, and step into the stillness and silence where the guiding Voice can be heard. At last, with patience and willingness, it will be known that there is no battle to be fought, indeed, no battleground...it was all an illlusion, unreal, merely a sleeping dream. And when surrender has brought us to waking, we will realize our original, uninterrupted, eternal perfection, knowing with certainty that the "self" we thought we were never existed...sweet, sweet surrender.

i am Sirius

If you're speaking of conquering negative personality traits, such as excessive anger, doing so does not necessarily constitute "surrender" but self-control. If somebody cuts you off and you get out of your car to fight them, you are not "fighting" for anything worth winning. Gandhi and his followers defeated the entire British Empire by refusing to fight, but by turning the other cheek. If they had fought the British with guns, would they have won? Very unlikely. So, by NOT fighting, they were the conquerors both of their own destructive impulses and what was at that time probably the mightiest empire in the world. Conquering themselves was FAR from "surrendering" to the British, it was by conquering their primitive aggressive impulses that they ended up the victors. You can also use the American civil rights movement and the life of Christ to make the same point.

Conquring oneself can be done with humility and not mistaking the self for what one is not. In this way the world is a tolerable place despite external conditions. As the self is placed in proper perspective so is the world. Therefore there is no need to conquer the world, which is futile, because one already is all that can ever be wanted or needed. What greater Peace and Happiness exists outside that?

Subordinating passions to right reason is one conquest which could benefit more people. As for it being better, sure is, but, it's actually also harder to conquer oneself, which is why so many would gladly take the opportunity to conquer the world if there wouldn't be all these international conventions and laws against hostile conquests getting in the way :)

As per your original question - self-conquest is to surrender those negative areas of one's life which ought be mastered by the positive, as such, involves "struggle" as such change does not happen overnight or easily. -Pat

One's self is also the world, from which all of its ideas came into existence.

The self is the all, and the all is the self, both playing and dancing, aware one moment and unaware the next.

Knowledge fluctuates, gravitates, integrates and reverberates in such a way that it finds itself proposing the need to conquer itself.

In conquering yourself, you essentially conquer the world. Afterall, reality is based around personal perception. While what you experience may greatly differ from what the rest of the world is experiencing, by conquering yourself, you manage to enlighten yourself personally.

Dilemma - Surrender, or fight?

Dilemma - To Be, or not to Be?

One must first come to an understanding of exactly what "It" is, that one is surrendering to.

One must also come to an understanding of exactly what "It" is, that one is fighting for.

"Be in the world, but not of the world."

How does one accomplish such a tumultuous task, one might ask?

There is no definitive answer to such a question.

The answer differs from individual to individual.

Every individual has created their own set of attachments and desires.

Questions:

How might one break the unnecessary attachments and desires?

How might one acquire the necessary attachments and desires?

Which attachments and desires are necessary, and which attachments and desires are unnecessary?

Which should one surrender to, and which should one fight?

That is the dilemma that all human beings must eventually face.

Does one fight or surrender to attachments?

Does one fight or surrender to desires?

That is the primary dilemma that man faces within this kali yuga, or illusory age.

We are presently living within the age of illusion!

One must recognize illusion for what it actually is, for only then will one know whether one should surrender or fight.

One must first conquer the world within, in order for one to become victorious and finally know one-self.

One must learn to divide and then one may eventually be made ready to conquer.

Peace be always within you.

Salaams,

Sometimes you need to fight, but sometimes you just have to surrender to yourself.

Conquering yourself means to control all the urges. To order your mind and be ordered by it.

It means to work in harmony with your mind and soul.

To do it, you first need to forgive yourself and give up all your regrets. Know your mistakes, but do not let them scar you forever. Make them your bridge to future. Know yourself and love yourself.

Its like befriending yourself. When you make friends you don't really have to conquer them or surrender infront of them; you have to understand them.

You are your own world, and to be happy you don't have to conquer it; you have to love it just the way it is and if anything is wrong you have to fight to set it right and never give up.

To conquer oneself is to adopt the style of the more astute more rational material and spiritual fighter.

To conquer yourself is to more be adopting the cunning style of the proverbial astute good old fox, no matter how young you still are, for hopefully your own and better survival.

On the path or avenue of your own existence, you can tame your life through more diligently exercising, through great exertions also perhaps with the help of professional mentor for your good money or from good friend for free.

In your more cunning more magical style of life, and also especially in your necessary interactions with hopefully supportive good others in your world, you may decide that you do want to be the good actor, then you are the good actor, the braver manager of your own life, the fiercer hardy more daring higher flying pilot and co-pilot unto your own future, unto your own destiny.

Dear good friend of ours from within the wider bounds of this great cyberspace, so also you might try and be thinking and behaving in your efforts to conquer yourself. Do also all the while be more open for chances of great merry thoughtless laughs in good company, if and when good loving company is there and available for you, or more often most sublimely all on your own.

I am not joking! Ah! ah! ah! ah! ah! ... ha! Good luck!

both.

when you cure a pain, you fight it with medicine and surrender it completely. you're not going to keep any trace of it even if you love it.

when you build a house, you set up scaffolds but you will remove them when the job is done. you're living in a house, no on the scaffolds.

Self is a pain, and the pain in fighting it is the scaffolds.

You fight for enlightenment and freedom from delusion. Just surrender to enlightenment and give up the delusion.