Joe, Wrong again. Pure love is the direct experience of Buddha Nature, of interacting with the life force that motivates the entire universe...
You are confusing it with the profane love of ATTACHMENTS that you are familiar with... Edgar On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, et al. (ALL), > > Far be it for me to moderate a co-Moderator. > > But I for one will keep my post on-topic. > > I will refrain from gratuitous _ad hominem_ attacks (here). > > Thus, I will not speak about Edgar, because I do not know the man. And any > knowledge I have of him would not suit this Forum's topic. > > Instead, I'll comment on points Edgar attempted to treat: > > Love is an attachment. > > They say that it is the opposite of the other dualistic pole: Hate. > > To (claim to) love something does not mean you are seeing clearly, or ever > did. > > To play Angels'-Advocate here, I evidence alternatives: > > It can mean at least, that you are Susceptible; easily taken-in; taken in by > self and others; hung-up; attached; wishful; hopeful, and do nor really love; > lazy; self-satisfied; other-satisfied; easily amused; looking for distracting > entertainment; needing the Ego stroked; stuck in the dock; able to claim you > love only by narrowing your vision. > > In other words, not awakened. > > Edgar, I am not talking about you. I instead list a few pitfalls that some > people have at times commonly believed to have been love. > > Yes, all human foibles can be accepted as part of our true nature: but only > if you are limited by Thinking. > > --Joe > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > Merle and myself on the other hand LOVE the world we live in. Merle and I > > LOVE reality because we see how it continually manifests Buddha Nature in > > its EVERY MINUTE DETAIL. > > > > Merle and I love and accept reality. Bill and Joe reject it... > >
