|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 14:55:40 GMT
Unconditional Love, OTOH, is based on knowledge of, and acceptance of, other instead of the expectations inherent in an idealized image, the most important of which is being accepted by other for what one actually is. Being accepted is what makes it possible to lower one's defenses which are the source of the sense of separateness. It's important to realize Love is not a gift given to the beloved. This Love is impersonal in that it moves spontaneously when the person is not trying to love or be loved, not coming to the relationship with needs and expectations. IOW, Love flows when the person gets out of the way. Love is one's fundamental nature and requires nothing from the person but to be what he is and cease being what he is not. The person cannot do Love. One can only BE Love. Such a relationship is devoid of judgment and expectation, and full of gratitude and appreciation. As Love is absent conditions that would define it, it is not the opposite of something. Like Peace, Love is an absence and is beyond understanding. This is because Love IS Peace moving outward to embrace itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:02:00 GMT
Unconditional Love, which is no different to the Peace that passes understanding, requires no experience to activate it. That might confuse you because you refer to Peace as an absence but I doubt whether you would refer to Love as an absence even though they are the same thing. So it is a misperception to say there is impersonal Love in a personal relationship because the impersonal is not dependent on any relationship or object. Unconditional Love just is. It is the divine Shakti Ananda aspect, not dependent on experience but nevertheless permeating experience. This is what is meant by seeing God in everything. I haven't said an experience is required to activate it. What I'm saying is that your state of being is what allows the experience of unconditional Love in a relationship. Love is always present, but it is not always experienced. I would think that would be obvious. Love and Peace are the same in the sense that they are what Being is, but they are not experienced the same, hence the different words. Yes, Love is an absence in the same way Peace is an absence. That's why I say Love moves in the absence of the one who would love or be loved. Likewise, Peace is experienced in the absence of that which perceives non-Peace. I never suggested it was dependent on experience. Again ,Love is always present just as Peace is always present, but not everybody experiences it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:10:19 GMT
Yes I agree, I have already agreed. On the other issue, the way I look at it is that peeps kind of resonate energetically in consciousness, which is to say there are movements in consciousness that one will get pulled into if he aligns with mentally/emotionally. This is why intimate relationships tend to be with the same kind of people, and this can be a useful exploration. It's why it is said that when the student is ready, the teacher appears. It also explains synchronicities, and manifestation to the degree that it works. In the same way, if we're angry, we may attract angry peeps, or peeps who like to push buttons, or even very calm, tolerant peeps, as we're resonating with and exploring a dualistic notion. The opposite is also true. When we learn what Love is, we will resonate with others who also know this, and draw then strongly to us. If we're determined to find happiness, we'll likely draw experiences that show us all the ways we make ourselves unhappy. This is one of the many gotchas found in LOA type manifestation. If the only thing you have in common with another is this energetic resonance on a particular issue, and one or the other makes a major change and no longer resonates, you will likely part ways, but relationships are usually more complicated. There are no center peeps and role playing peeps or a master controller to organize the logistics. It's simply the way consciousness moves when it is moving as one. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:14:19 GMT
I agree, though I see little value in practicing allowance. The issue with love is that what is experienced is typically a conditional, dualistic, mentally arbitrated reflection of the Love that is the true nature of our being, which is to say Love is not actually personal in the way that nearly everyone experiences it. One cannot become more loving, and neither can the person give Love to another, as the person does not have this Love to give. The most the person can do is get out of the way and witness Love as it moves through him, as it surely will. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:15:11 GMT
And at their best, our personal relationships are all ever only a refraction of that nature. An image might draw our initial attention, and some relationships come with life itself, and still others form-up whether we're paying attention or not.  But the quality of the relationship reflects the degree to which our being is obscured in the relating. Yes, hencely the suggestion to 'come empty'. This presents an opportunity for others to do the same, and if two come together in this way, there is love. It cannot be otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:19:04 GMT
To add to this, concluding that others are self aware (or only a figment) would be the equivalent of 'dipping into the intellect for answers.'...and the importance of the cessation of those kinds of conclusions, has everything to do with the unimpeded expression/flow of love. Yes, ultimately the question is irrelevant, as we engage with an 'otherness' that cannot be other. Love moves between you and a rock or a tree just as well as it moves between you and a lover. It is the origin of beauty and wonder. A tree can bring one to tears precisely because it cannot not Love. It IS Love. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:20:22 GMT
Yes! And this can be 'known' when we finally stop dipping into the intellect for answers. (And then to be 'lived' - well, that's a whole other conversation). Mostly, the embodiment of Love is a literal no-brainer because it is already our natural movement in the absence of that which is not natural, which is to say human fear and need. In that way, Love moves in the absence of that which seeks to love or be loved. Another way to say it is to 'come empty', but Love moves between that which it binds, and so two or more must come together in the name of Love, as the servant of Love and not a master. This is a rare and wondrous thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:22:00 GMT
Recognition that you are Love can only be known only if Love is expressed,Is it not? No, relationships are just a striking example. Love moves in all of nature. The creatures of the forest are Love in motion, and so there is beauty and wonder and power. It's only man who has sacrificed Love, who 'pulls himself from the ground of his being with each step". (see sig) |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:26:01 GMT
The distinction, and I believe where we differ, is that Love is impersonal, and the Love that flows between individuals is not the province of the individual. The individual does not Love, God Loves. To surrender to that actuality is to be immersed in Love in one's personal experience. Not as the lover, but as the beloved. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:37:18 GMT
People like some stuff and dislike other stuff. Enjoy others, get attached to them, devoted to them, intimately connected to them. If it's strong enough, we call it love. If we want to mystify it, we call it bhakti. If we want to empower it, we say we can't live without it. Love (not love) already is a spiritual power, and you can watch it move by getting out of the way. What is it like to encounter another with no expectation, no judgment, no fear? Come empty and let God fill the void between self and other. Truly, that void is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:39:39 GMT
I don't know what cosmic mind is, but Love is experienced as it moves through form, otherwise there's no experience. It's like you want to mystify Love and place it outside of the human experience, while Andy takes the opposite view and wants to equate the personal idea of love with Love itself. Neither is true. I am the witness of Love as it moves through my relationship with Marie. It is not my Love, and I must come empty to the relationship if I want to experience that Love. The impersonal expresses in the form of the personal. Nothing is experienced in the Absolute. The Absolute is not some kind of experiential realm. It's essentially just an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:41:57 GMT
No....I was thinking more along the lines of 'Love without condition.' I talked about relationships based on appreciation rather than expectation. Interesting that you don't recognize that as being absent condition. I guess where you're going with your painting is to show a Love that continues as before absent the form? Love does not 'move' without form. You are not that which loves, but you are the beloved, in motion. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:42:46 GMT
Very interesting, Could you please explain me the bolder line above? You meant to say you would not express the love, but someone would express the love for you? you would not care, but someone would care? What do you mean by the word 'form' in the above line? I'm saying there is dualistic, conceptually based love, which the person feels and expresses, and there is nondualistic, unconditional Love, which is not under the person's domain. (impersonal) This Love moves of it's own accord when the person is 'empty', or absent, or not interfering. (A logical analysis of Love will result in a 'win' for you very quickly.) |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:43:46 GMT
How does one identify Love if it's not a feeling? We could say it's an aspect of Being, but ultimately it's not other than Being. Love, Truth, Peace, Being, Self, all refer to the same. What is noticed is that Love moves in the absence of that which would love. Love is impersonal. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:44:55 GMT
You have denied there is such a thing as unconditional love. You have denied that there is a love that has no opposite. You are happy to speak of Impersonal Love, but your 'Impersonal Love' seems to be subject to the absence of the one who would love or be loved, so that is not 'unconditional love' exactly. What I have said is that the person is not capable of unconditional Love. The person must get out of the way. To suggest that the person is then making that Love conditional by being in the way, is a nonsense. |
|
But the quality of the relationship reflects the degree to which our being is obscured in the relating. 