Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique
e Xeno, there have been a few times when I have somehow snuck past all the *sleeping elephants* and experienced pure love or something very close to it. It is a way of being that is in perfect harmony with the world and all of its big and little details. It is all forms of human, conditional love happening at the same time so that its unconditional nature shines through. At that level of life, Being, Truth and Love form a trinity of experience, effortlessly eradicating all differences. And at the same time celebrating them! Yeah, pure love, in my experience is chock full of all kinds of paradoxes. One of them is that it is both process and state at the same time. It is both empty and full. It is darkness and light, masculine and feminine. Pure love both enslaves us and liberates us. And it lovingly laughs at my attempting to describe it in words! Pure love says yes to every no. A friend of mine said that and it fits my experience. Can an experience, no matter how sublime, be That which includes and surpasses all experience? Probably not. Maybe that experience is just the builder of another prison in my individuality, another prison which I must tear apart with my own hands. Or which life will tear down for me, out of love for me. And what about God in all this love business? I think what I experienced was the impersonal God. My experiences of personal God are conditioned by my Catholic upbringing and includes the full range from the Old Testament vengeful God to the agape of Christ, healing and forgiving and dying for my sins, Himself feeling cut off from His divinity when on the cross to the image of God as Brahman playing peek a boo with maya. Finally, maybe the last paradox: pure love isn't bothered about being pure or conditioned, directed towards self or other. It just is and is and is and is to the farthest reaches of the universe. I think you're right: we are it and have always been. All of this is just a lila rising up lovingly from all that isness. But I could be wrong. On Sunday, October 20, 2013 9:45 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't know. What is the difference between 'love' and 'pure love'? When people fall in love, they tend to be, for a while, enslaved by that feeling because ego becomes subdued. When one loves, though, there is a flow from subject to the perceived object, but I am not clear on what 'purity' means here. I do not see how loving can enslave anything. Obsession can enslave its object. But loving enslaves the subject that perceives the object. Can one love something completely abstract, like pure consciousness? There does not seem to be anything there for flow to occur. God so loved the world he killed his kid. Now on a human level that is just murder. People are always killing the object of their love, if that focus on the object is not returned by the object. One could take this metaphorically and say something like the universe itself is so in love with itself that it has provided a trap door into which an individual falls and dies becoming in their own awareness the universe itself. That trap door is whatever spiritual path one has chosen, provided it accomplishes that end. Can pure being, which has no definition be considered love? For love to occur some emptiness must exist to be filled, so it seems to me love is not a thing or a state but a process of becoming and is not therefore 'pure' in any sense. But as I do not know the answer to this I can take suggestions. I have never been into bhakti , it is totally unnatural for me, so love of guru or some supposed sacred something would never appeal and never has appealed to me. However one always experiences a flow in the direction of what one likes, so devotion is really a part of anything that appeals to one, in greater or lesser degree, so devotion is not really a path, it is what allows one to stay on whatever path is their path. To my mind, teachers that hawk devotion as a path are trying to package obedience to their wishes thwarting the natural process of flow. Students do admire and sometimes love their teachers, and as long as the teacher does not artificially try to foster that and just gives the students what they need to succeed, I think that is fine. The goal is not to venerate the teacher but to live, understand, and even improve upon what the teacher knows. This tends not to happen in religion, where the situation devolves into focusing on the character of the teacher rather than on what teacher wanted them to know. Does god love? If god is defined as wholeness, then god is complete and has no need of anything, being everything, and why would that be love? There is YHWH in the Torah, who in human terms could hardly be called loving. We throw people in prison today, for doing what YHWH does in the Bible. YHWH in the Bible is not an abstract being, but rather just a magnification of very human
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique
I don't know. What is the difference between 'love' and 'pure love'? When people fall in love, they tend to be, for a while, enslaved by that feeling because ego becomes subdued. When one loves, though, there is a flow from subject to the perceived object, but I am not clear on what 'purity' means here. I do not see how loving can enslave anything. Obsession can enslave its object. But loving enslaves the subject that perceives the object. Can one love something completely abstract, like pure consciousness? There does not seem to be anything there for flow to occur. God so loved the world he killed his kid. Now on a human level that is just murder. People are always killing the object of their love, if that focus on the object is not returned by the object. One could take this metaphorically and say something like the universe itself is so in love with itself that it has provided a trap door into which an individual falls and dies becoming in their own awareness the universe itself. That trap door is whatever spiritual path one has chosen, provided it accomplishes that end. Can pure being, which has no definition be considered love? For love to occur some emptiness must exist to be filled, so it seems to me love is not a thing or a state but a process of becoming and is not therefore 'pure' in any sense. But as I do not know the answer to this I can take suggestions. I have never been into bhakti , it is totally unnatural for me, so love of guru or some supposed sacred something would never appeal and never has appealed to me. However one always experiences a flow in the direction of what one likes, so devotion is really a part of anything that appeals to one, in greater or lesser degree, so devotion is not really a path, it is what allows one to stay on whatever path is their path. To my mind, teachers that hawk devotion as a path are trying to package obedience to their wishes thwarting the natural process of flow. Students do admire and sometimes love their teachers, and as long as the teacher does not artificially try to foster that and just gives the students what they need to succeed, I think that is fine. The goal is not to venerate the teacher but to live, understand, and even improve upon what the teacher knows. This tends not to happen in religion, where the situation devolves into focusing on the character of the teacher rather than on what teacher wanted them to know. Does god love? If god is defined as wholeness, then god is complete and has no need of anything, being everything, and why would that be love? There is YHWH in the Torah, who in human terms could hardly be called loving. We throw people in prison today, for doing what YHWH does in the Bible. YHWH in the Bible is not an abstract being, but rather just a magnification of very human characteristics, rather unsavoury ones at that. But as mankind evolves there seems to be a tendency to more abstract conceptions of what people use the word 'god' for, though it does not seem to have progressed all that much. You find very abstract conceptions of Zeus in some of the pre-Socratic philosophers, based on what survives of their work, and those that followed them in later centuries. While you have that almost daemon-like entity in the Torah, you also have more abstract versions of god in Cabbalah, Jewish esoteric interpretations of scripture, which are much more in line with what people who seek enlightenment are engaged in. You said, Like that, God, or we can call it Life, wants to give us all of itself, but in the end, we are all of it, and have always been, so is that love? Maybe it just depends on how you parse the situation. If you love yourself, there being no other, is that love or vanity? == ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Xeno, is it even possible to enslave out of pure Love? I believe that it is and that it is one of the great paradoxes of life. Like the way a parent will set strong boundaries to protect their child. Like that, God, or we can call it Life, wants to give us all of itself. It will put us through hell in order to do this. But that is an expression of its great love for us. When we see this and stop fighting the river, then the journey of non ending coupling of us and Life is smoother if not ecstatic. On Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:37 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Share wrote: 'OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.' Were I this god, I would love this; you have succumbed to the propaganda of a tyrant. Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of Jesus but not of much else in the Christian Bible wrote of this god of the Torah (as the Christians inherited the scriptures of the Jews) in rather disparaging terms: 'There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence
