What does 'Unconditional Acceptance', 'Accept people as they are' mean?

An obvious truth?
'Accepting people for what they are' is a statement that is taken for granted when it comes to talking about love and relationships. As an absolute truth that is undeniable. Even if it is often the most abused.

"We should accept people for what they are" Really? Would you say that to the spouse of an alcoholic? Or the wife who is battered daily by her husband? Or a rape victim? In short, does this truth apply when you are at the receiving end of abuse?

Another problem. What if the statement itself ends up being used as an excuse for bad behaviour. Like the alcoholic husband saying "If you loved me, you would not have tried to change me. You would have accepted me for what I am". The interpretations don't just end there!!

"We should accept, regardless if other's dont"
Some might argue that it should be used as a self-monitoring statement. WE should accept people for what THEY are. Like WE should not rob or kill - regardless if others do. So maybe the statement should be revised to "We should accept people for what they are - regardless if they do" But there is a difference. The former is about the action, the latter is about acceptng the doer of that action. So we should not rob. It is unnacceptable. Nor should we expect others to accept us. But if others do, it is acceptable? Confusing... Isn't it?

"Hate the sin, not the sinner"
Others might say 'Accept the people, not their behaviour'. Meaning we should accept the alcoholic husband, but not his alcoholic behaviour. Accept the robber, not his robbery. Hate the sin, not the sinner. How exactly do you do that? By hiding when he is drunk? Lashing out? Hitting him back to discipline him? By hiding his liquor? And what exactly are you "accepting" about him now? That he exists? That he is a human being? So are the other 6 billion people on this planet! Whats the big deal?

Compounding the confusion
Lets increase the confusion a little more. What about more common, greyer areas? What if the wife thinks the husband is lazy? And tries to accept him but not his 'lazy behaviour'? What if the husband thinks EXACTLY the same way about her? Who is right? Who will be the judge about what is 'acceptable' and what's not? Besides, doesn't 'judging' someone as lazy amount to non-acceptance? If I say to you - "I think you are lazy, irresponsible, dishonest. But I accept you for what you are" Is that acceptance?

So where do we draw the line? The line is extremely important because the above cases might become justifications for very bad actions(tolerating abuse, justifying abuse, justifying violent responses, being judgmental) under the guise of something as noble as acceptance!

A glimpse of the answer might be visible by not trying to search for it and instead trying to understand the problem better.


"I disagree" Vs "You are wrong"
When I judge someone or his behaviour as bad, it is from MY perspective. It means that I DISAGREE with his action under that specific context. There might be a dozen others who might agree with him. I might too if I am able to see his perspective completely. Or I might not. But even if I do not - it is from MY (refined) perspective. It means I DISAGREE, not that he is WRONG.It is crucial to understand the difference.

But my perspective is the only tool I can work with. But the awareness of its limitation helps. It might help me put more efforts in understanding his perspective, thus making disagreements easier to live with. Not eliminate the disagreement, nor to tolerate it. But to understand it, and hence accept it

Understanding Vs Agreeing
Now lets examine what we mean by 'understanding HIS perspective'. For the sake of simplicity, lets assume we understand his perspective ENTIRELY(rarely possible). Now it becomes NATURAL(not an exercise in tolerance) to accept his opinion, his action. Not to APPROVE of it. We might still not have done the same had we been in his shoes. But now we see where he comes from("I still wont have done it. But I see why you did") What has changed? Only our OWN perspective.

But wait, has our perspective really changed? If so, we would have AGREED to his actions, and called our own earlier perspective wrong("I understand and AGREE with you now. I would do the same. My earlier opinion was wrong")

What has changed is our REACTION to his perspective. Earlier it invoked negativity, anger, judgment("HOW could you have done that!!!!"). Now it invokes empathy, and if the person is harming himself - compassion. There is no room for negativity. That is acceptance. Understanding being the tool.

It is important to note that understanding did NOT lead to AGREEMENT, but only in elimination of OUR negative REACTION to his opinion. Because it makes more 'sense' to US now. It always made sense to him though! Acceptance is not about HIS action, but OUR reaction. It makes OUR life easier, not his. He might still be angry at us for even disagreeing at all, for being late to understand. But that's HIS problem

But is even 'understanding' a necessity? Bringing in Self-acceptance
What if there was no opportunity to understand? What if an explanation was not forthcoming? Then how will we change our reactions?

That is the final subtelety. Note that acceptance was never about AGREEING to the rightness of his opinion(out of our revised understanding). It was about eliminating our own negative reaction. Understanding gave us a REASON to eliminate our own negative reaction. That does not mean a reason was NEEDED. Because the negativity harms us, not others! So if the reasons are not forthcoming, we accept that the negativity is our own creation anyway. A result of our OWN lack of understanding. We might have had compassion or even agreement had we got an oppportunity to understand. In short, acceptance is not about accepting OTHER people or OTHER'S actions. It is about accepting our OWN reactions to them. Positive or negative. Since we are accepting our own creations, there is no question of right or wrong, agreement or disagreement, of jusdgment. We will be the victims of any suffering that arises out of contradicting our own creation("I created the negativity, but I will blame him for it")

Self-acceptance is all there is. Because it is not possible to KNOW others, only to PERCEIVE them. Understanding simply helps reduce the gaps between reality and our perceptions of it. But the perceptions and subsequent reactions are still our OWN. When we accept others, we accept our own perceptions and our own reactions. Unconditional acceptance, even in the face of total disagreement then becomes possible. We dont hate them, but we dont agree. Our disagreement might be extremely strong, but we do not harbor violence. Our own negative reaction might be so strong, that it becomes impossible to work with them at all. But the responsibility is on us - not them. We accept ourselves completely. Limitations, weaknesses and all. We are no longer victims of others actions. We are free.

"Fear is the opposite of love, and the cause of hate"

"The first step to do something right is to accept that you have it wrong right now"

"The cure to hurt is not happiness; but sorrow"

"The best way to avoid mistakes is to learn from them"

"Freedom lies not in knowing the truth, but in overcoming our fear of it"

"An argument is about finding out who is right, a discussion is about finding out what is right;Both lose in the former; both learn in the latter"

"The search for a soulmate is unnecessary. All souls are compatible, egos are not"

"Our past determines only who we ARE, not who we WILL be. That is determined by what we choose to DO with who we are. "

"Being good and working hard leads to joy. Working hard to prove we are good leads to stress"

"To make something right <-- Find out what's wrong <-- Accept there is something wrong <-- Accept responsibility to make it right <-- Conquer fear of failing in your responsibility. Conquering this fear becomes much less scarier if we ask 'What is wrong?' rather than 'Who is wrong?'"

"The best philosophy is not the one that provides all the answers, but the one that provides all the right questions. The former means a fullstop; the latter "

"Fear of change makes security impossible; Fear of insecurity makes change impossible"

"'What opinion can we agree upon?' leads to a discussion, 'Whose opinion do we agree upon?' leads to a battle"

"Genuine acceptance of ourselves serves as the catalyst, not the hurdle, for change"

"The fear of change can be reduced if we see change as a movement from good to better, instead of bad to good"

"The fear of change can be eliminated if we realize that we fear not the change, but the acceptance of who we are before the change."

"An optimist sees the glass half-full & becomes happy. A pessimist sees it half-empty and becomes sad. The realist does not care about either. He simply tries to fill it up. The optimist might say: "You are unable be happy with what you have". The pessimist might say: "You are impractical. It's too late to change anything now". Our view of reality is what separates us from reality itself."

"We do not need the ability to create solutions; just the clarity of mind to see them"

"If we don't make a choice to impact our circumstances, eventally, our circumstances will make one for us. But to wait until they do so is our choice in the first place. "

"Self acceptance is not about seeing and acknowledging our mistakes(That's a responsibility). It is overcoming the need to justify them. Funny thing is, less the need, the more mistakes we see - yet we are peaceful.More the need, less we see - yet we are bitter!"

"The space between thought and decision is analysis. Between decision and action is fear. Staying stuck in the first to avoid the second is analysis paralysis"

""Why did they do this?" is a question. "How could they do this?" is a blame. "

"Stress is nothing but our futile resistance to reality"

"The cure for stress is not less difficulties, but acceptance of those difficulties. "

"Acceptance of difficulties makes them produce exhaustion instead of stress"

"Exhaustion provides a good nights sleep. It is stress that takes it away. "

"Denial is faith without acceptance"

"When we know 'I CANNOT', no validation is necessary. When we decide 'I WILL not', no validation is enough. "

"Other's can tell us if we SHOULD. Only we can know if we CAN."

"'I cannot' is a fact. 'I will not' is a choice. Confusion is possible only when we are making a choice."

"Facts can only be accepted. Only choices can be debated. "

"We cannot do better than our best even if we should. "

"Knowing what is the best we CAN do, eliminates the need to worry about what we SHOULD do. "

"Regret is about what we could not. Guilt is about what we did not."

"If we can prove we tried your best, we can prove we are happy"

"Saints might have their state of being in common, but not necessarily their actions"

"Saints are not people who are sure they are saints, but people who are able to accept that they might have their devilish moments too"

"We all have saintly moments. Saints just have them more consistently"

"We can become devils by trying to do saintly acts without being in a saintly state"

"Bad Karma is the effort spent in separating ourselves away from reality, good karma is the effort spent in coming closer to it. If we are in tune with reality, then our acts become effortless - karmaless. Because we are not 'trying' to get anywhere. A better, non-judgmental term would be 'wasteful Karma', 'useful Karma', 'no need for any Karma'"

"Confidence does not come from the conviction of being right, but from overcoming the fear of being wrong"

"Being a perfectionist sad at making small mistakes in doing something; is better than being a pessimist happy at making no mistakes by doing nothing"