Christians have taken this simple statement to mean that he who endured persecution and death because of his espousal of Christianity, would be rewarded in the way that a king bestows lands and titles, for defense of his person and throne. This is the limited viewpoint of the personal self; it is far from being consistent with the wisdom of the Illumined Master. He who has sufficient spiritual consciousness to desire the welfare of _all_, even though his own life and his own possessions were the price therefore, can not lose his life. Such a one is fit for immortality and his godhood is claimed by the very act of renunciation--not as a reward bestowed for such renunciation. By the very act of willingness to lose the self we find the Self. Not the self of externality. Not the self that says "I am a white man; or a black man; or a yellow man; or a red man." That says "I am John Smith"--or any other name. The awareness of this kind of selfhood, this personal self, is like looking at one's reflection in the mirror and saying, "Ah, I have on a becoming attire," or "my face looks sickly to-day." It is the same "I" that looked yesterday and found the face looking excellently well, so that there must have been consciousness behind the observation, that could take cognizance of the difference in appearance of yesterday's reflection and that which met that cognizing eye to-day. Eagerness to retain consciousness of the personal self blocks the way of Illumination which uncovers the real, the greater, the higher Self--the _atman_. This constant adjuration to sink the self into The Absolute, is what has given rise to so much difference of interpretation as to the meaning of _mukti_, liberation. It sounds paradoxical to state that it is only by giving up all consciousness of self, that immortal Self-hood is gained. Thus has arisen all the confusion as to the meaning of "absorption into a state of bliss." How may the Self realize a state of selflessness and yet not be lost in a sea of _un_ consciousness? Only one who is capable of self-sacrifice were he called upon, can correctly answer this question, and by what may be termed the very _law of equation_, the sacrifice becomes impossible. Should any one seek to bargain with himself to pay the price of loss of self, so that he might gain the higher, fuller life, his sacrifice would be in vain because it would not be selflessness, but selfishness--there could be no _sacrifice_, were it a bargain. Let no one think that this unchanging law of the Cosmos is in the nature of either reward or punishment, or that it was devised by the gods, as a method of initiation--a test of fitness for Nirvana. Even though the test be applied by the gods, it is not of their planning. It _is_, just as the absolute _is_, and analysis of the way and wherefrom is not possible of contemplation.