|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:45:23 GMT
Tolle: When you have removed the two factors that are destructive to relationships — when the pain-body has been transmuted and you are no longer identified with mind and mental positions — and if your partner has done the same, you will experience the bliss of the flowering of relationship. Instead of mirroring to each other your pain and your unconsciousness, instead of satisfying your mutual addictive ego needs, you will reflect back to each other the love that you feel deep within, the love that comes with the realization of your oneness with all that is. This is the love that has no opposite.” Yes, it's called unconditional Love, and it moves in the absence of the one who would love or be loved. How many time s have you heard me talk about it? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you're posting these quotes. Yes, they're good quotes.) |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:46:15 GMT
I get and agree whole heartedly with the first, but could you give an example or expansion of what you mean by the underlined? I see the personal movement as the machinations of the personal mind, which of course is dualistic in nature, and presents itself as the movement between the poles of any given dichotomy. This dichotomy is, at best, a conceptual reflection of the impersonal, which does not present as sets of opposing pairs. (i.e. there is no non-Love from the impersonal perspective, simply the recognition of it or the failure to recognize) Using our example of love, one moves rather continuously between love and that which is not love, and therefore defines love. (hate, anger, fear, need, resentment, expectation) If we're honest, we can all admit to having ridden that roller coaster many times in our relationships. It's unavoidable when the conceptual polarities are mutually defining. We know what love is because we keep reminding ourselves what it is not. This is the personal movement that obstructs the recognition of what I'm calling the impersonal movement of Love. Hencely, there is naught to do but cease obstructing, which ultimately is effortless. True relationships are effortless because there is nobody trying to make something happen or not happen. At that point, Love enters unbidden and undirected. The person does not Love, cannot Love. That which is actually relating IS Love, and is Loving itself. It's quite humbling, and wonderful, and as such it's not difficult to honor that movement by remaining absent. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:48:40 GMT
agree. I think love v Love is a classic apples and oranges discussion .. and not even that! more like a cheap plastic apple gathering dust in some bin at Wal-Mart vs a succulent orange ripening on the vine  Yes, love as most folks understand it is dualistic, defined by it's opposite. It's essentially a concept being experienced, and everybody has a different experience of it and so it becomes very subjective and changes as one matures. What I refer to as Love here points to an impersonal movement at the heart of creation, and is not dualistic. It's not something one does but rather what one is, and ultimately is indistinguishable from Truth, Peace, Being and similar pointers. Obviously, it's just one way of talking about it, and others will talk about it differently because it can't really be talked about. In any event, Love is seen to move in the absence of illusion, and is obscured in the presence of illusion. Love moves in the absence of the one who would love or be loved, which is a delicious irony. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:49:45 GMT
Yeah...The way I experience it, there is a kind of feedback loop so to speak...desire generates thought and movement impulses, which in turn compound our desires, which in turn compounds thought and movement impulses in a kind of perpetual patterned cycle which is our individual Karma. But desire is at or near the root of it....going back to high-school psychology, probably all of the desires we have as adults relate back somehow to the basic desires for food, shelter, advantageous mating, etc... On a macro level, Desire seems to be that aspect of omni-presence that keeps a kind of loose and evolving continuity to this semi-shared experience that we are all having as humans on this planet....Desire arranges the medium of expression here so to speak, and maintains a kind of continuity. I think its probably impossible to consciously engender a desire that is outside of the set paradigm of this particular appearence of existence, unless one can say that the kind if seeking that happens in these circles is a desire for something outside of the standard paradigm of this sphere of reality (woe, thats a conversation all by itself lol), but one may be able to consciously generate desires that are derivative of the greater pattern of desire inherent to this sphere of perceived reality. I think I'll run an experiment for a few weeks, and see if I can shape a desire, and nurture it into a deep fruition, such that the desire generates its own patterns of thoughts and impulses that 'override' the current pattern of thoughts and impulses that arise. Life/experience is movement, and desire could be seen as the catalyst for that movement. This might imply that desire is required, but there is something else that 'moves' in the stillness. Life is imbued at it's core with a kind of sweetness, for lack of a better term, that moves in/as the experience itself and does not require the contrived desire of an individuated experiencer motivated by his conditioning. To the desiring mind, it's a mystery why the rose blooms, and yet there it is effortlessly moving in the absence of desire. The rose has always been closer to 'God' than man knows how to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 1, 2024 15:50:55 GMT
Experiencing the person as a unique expression has nothing to do with seeing otherness as self, though it has a great deal to do with 'coming empty' to that encounter, and so removing all boundaries is key. However, this is not done with the hands but with the heart. One must 'fall into' the other with the knowing that the painter of the pictures will catch you. This is Love, and it moves in your absence. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:23:59 GMT
off topic, but something has come up.. what are your thoughts on .. Love specifically when prefaced by the word unconditional Love is impersonal, and moves in the absence of the personal perspective. That is, the absence of the one needing to be loved, or to love, to give or receive love. It is unconditional because it is not about somebody, but rather is at the foundation of all spontaneous movement. One does not and cannot Love. One IS Love and cannot do Love, and to act as the conveyance of Love is to deny it. The person cannot Love unconditionally. The person is, itself, a condition. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:27:12 GMT
There are two kinds of Love...Big Mind Love or God's Love, or Impersonal Love, etc, etc,... Then there is the Small Mind Love, or the Ego's Love, or Personal Love, etc, etc,... From the second group we seek from others what we feel is 'lacking' in ourselves, IOW we 'Love' others in an attempt to get 'Love' for ourselves... From the first group 'Love' is incapable of asking for anything because 'Love' is all there is... Yes. Love moves when there is nothing seemingly in it's way. The person does not need to do something. If there is the willingness to drop all mental/emotional barriers of separation, Love will be seen for what it is. It moves of it's own accord and in it's own name. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:35:49 GMT
I'm struggling to put together the pieces of your frame of reference here....you say that mocking is not a loving action of the person....and then you bring 'impersonal love' into it and I don't understand why. If we really must make a distinction between personal love and impersonal love, I would say that ALL behaviour is loving from the impersonal perspective, which really makes it irrelevant to this discussion, because the question here is, in the context of behaviour being loving or not, is mocking loving? If all behavior is ultimately loving, who cares? I would not say all behavior is ultimately loving, which seems to be a confusion of contexts. Love moves in it's own name and isn't interested in your personal qualifiers. It's neither loving nor not loving. One way to observe 'Love in action' is to watch nature because for the most part, personal motivations are absent in all but the human. You would interpret what you see as kind and cruel, beautiful and ugly, gentle and violent, because you will look through your personal filters of what you like and what you fear. Impersonal Love doesn't appeal to your personal wants, but it does acknowledge your needs in the context of wholeness. It will offer endless opportunities for self recognition, not because it is personally motivated to get you to recognize Love, but simply because it IS Love being, and it has not deferred to your personal whims. To the extent that you value your personal ideas about what love should be over Love itself, it's most likely going to hurt. In this case, Love is not trying to hurt you, it is simply being what it is because it cannot be otherwise. Some would call this 'arguing with reality'. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:40:08 GMT
Yes. E, your argument is that because 'love' is an idea, that that makes 'love' somehow less real than this other 'Love'. Its actually the other way round. It is 'Love' that has absolutely no basis in reality. It doesn't exist. Its just a pointer away from conditioned ideas ABOUT the 'love' that we all have a reference for. Because you have got it the wrong way round, you ignore the 'love' that does exist and that we all have a reference for. Ignoring actual love for a non-existent Love is a dodgy game to play. You're on a roll now. ;D I've just been pointing away from those conditioned ideas ABOUT love. Among those ideas is that we all know what it is to act loving and that we can therefore choose it and practice it and ask Mr Love what he would do and such. As I've said many times, Love moves in your absence. You don't want to be absent. You want to make love happen and bludgeon others until they make love happen too. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:41:08 GMT
Why should one practice unconditional love? All practices belong to the realm of the personal and are therefore conditional. When the person practices unconditional love, the person will have it's way with unconditional love which basically is just following an idea to get somewhere else. It's like practicing a series of ego deaths. Nothing really happens except that time goes by. The practice only works as long as the person can remember what it intended to practice. When the person gets distracted that will be the end of the practice again. True unconditional love means that love will have its way with the person which basically means the person has to be wiped out so love can flow freely. As long as there's a person somewhere hiding and trying to play games of unconditional love there won't be a free flow and the love will be conditional again.That's precisely it. As with surrender, Love is not a doing. Love moves in the absence of the one who would love. Love is the mover. The person is, at best, a witness to that movement. The notion that a person can unconditionally Love is absurd, as the person is, itself, a condition only. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:52:33 GMT
The Love that moves between us has nothing to do with either of us. Since we both know that and since we both value this Love above all else, we stay out of the way. Neither of us has ever felt more loved in our lives. I can't really talk to you about the nature of Love, Michael. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2024 16:58:09 GMT
"God, whose love and joy are present everwhere, can't come to visit you unless you aren't there." Very nice. Everything sought is present only in the absence of the one seeking, which is to imply that the belief in the seeker is the source of the perceived need; beliefs gorging themselves on their own conclusions, and eventually starving to death. This seems at once wondrous and tragic, the death being the wondrous part. To be more better clearer, all virtue is present only in your absence, meaning that true humility has no interest in either humility or arrogance; selflessness is devoid of self. Love moves in the absence of the need to give or receive love. Peace is seen to be present in the absence of the peacemaker. Freedom has no interest in freeing itself. I would say, come empty to every encounter. Therein lies the Peace of God. |
|
