In the below, capitalization is vital for delineations of meanings. I've used the caps systematically and consistently.
If it is an experience, it is not LOVE; it will be merely a trinity of ego, attachment (solely an act of identification,) and object -- duality's manifesting of an action is loving not LOVING. On one end of duality's spectrum, lust, and at the other, love, but LOVE is there at every part of the spread. Consciousness is SOLELY this LOVE. Actions of love are necessarily very limited in expression and must fall far short of LOVE's divine immensity. A kiss, a fuck, a prayer filled with ardor, doesn't matter, it will not symbolize LOVE in any way that can really be said to be respectful, honorable, sacred -- though a personality might find itself unable to imagine anything better than a particular kiss, loving is always insignificant compared to LOVE which will always, literally, BLOW YOU AWAY. Pun intended, but don't miss the point, LOVE dissolves not just identification, but also the identifier -- YOU, ego. (Ego is pretending to be the identifier when it is merely the activity of a nervous system that symbolizes the creative intelligence of amness.) I'm about to present, here, now, an evil disgusting concept that will go through your mind as you read the words -- forgive me, but this is a scientific experiment which I think will help show the mechanics of love as opposed to LOVE. Again, forgive me, but it must be done. So pay attention to your experiencing of the following concept and see if you're fast enough and subtle enough to linearly delineate it. The concept: clubbing baby fur seals. Ugh, right? Who wants to imagine that concept "happening in real life," eh? Yet, what actually happened when you had the concept in your mind? Chronologically, here's what happens in my mind -- see if you had the same progression of events: before an emotion of "rejection -- moral indignation -- repugnance" for the concept came into "full roar" in my mind as a reaction, before that, it was merely a thought being harbored in a mind like any other thought. The rejection emotion did not arise with that concept as a part of it -- it came, swiftly yes, but also, linearly, momentarily afterwards. Consciousness, LOVE, was the awareness of that evil concept. Perhaps a scientist might hold a black widow spider that he's studied for his entire career and have the emotions of adoration, utter amazement at the specificity of the spider's complexities, awe at how perfect an expression of its ecology it is, etc. -- these emotions are love -- but the simple awareness of anything is LOVE. The icky feelings most non-scientific people get from attentioning a spider are also objects of consciousness. One person loves the spider, another runs from the spider, but both are LOVING the concepts and emotions they're having. The killers of baby seals are loving their families and working their day jobs, right? Nothing is good or evil except thinking makes it so, but thinking itself resides in LOVE. Like this, consciousness's sole activity is to be a canvas that LOVES all objects "upon" "itself." That's why the "movie screen" analogy is so often used -- a screen can have images of fire, evil, good, divine, but they're all just photons bouncing off a screen -- a screen that cannot be changed in any way by the process of reflection -- even the reflections labeled as "divine." No God ever was that could make a change in consciousness by, what?, being so bright an object that the screen is set afire? Yeah, right, sure Indra, let's see you do that. Amness is that screen, that awareness, that consciousness, that GOD, not a God like Indra, in which all possible manifestations reside. Any object appearing in this "field" is merely that LOVE now attenuated, limited, filtered, veneer peered. When Michaelangelo saw his statues still residing within a large block of uncarved marble, that was symbolic of a saintly ego seeing the potentialities of amness in that Michaelangelo could see ANY statue in there, but chose to carve away all of them except one. Which "statue" will emerge from consciousness is a parochial, local, egoic, matrix driven, decision. Each thought one has is just such a statue being carved out of consciousness -- all other possible thoughts end up being chips at the sculptor's feet -- entirely ignored by the sculptor. If I have a thought about an evil person doing an evil action, I am LOVING that thought as an experience -- that is, my consciousness does not reject the thought, and in fact fully supports its existence, is the basis of it. When the negative reaction, the emotion that arises, is attended to next, it too gets the same LOVING attention placed upon it. But just because the negative emotional reaction attended by justifying concepts is lauded as appropriate and "better than enjoying that evil concept," in no way does consciousness become less ABLE to LOVE the next negativity-triggering concept that passes through the mind. Yes, the personality may train itself to not have certain evil thoughts, so as to avoid the discomfort of the "follow up" emotion, but that is entirely different than training consciousness to eschew FULLY ATTENDING THE NEXT EVIL CONCEPT. This cannot be done. Not even by God. Awareness cannot be turned off. Even deep dreamless sleep is witnessed. I don't ordinarily say to myself, "Ugh, that's a bad thought, why'd I have that thought, what kind of person must I be to have that thought." Instead, usually, it's more like, well, nothing. Consciousness cannot be sullied by any sort of experiencing. Don't make me create a list of ughs here to prove that you can read such crud without, you know, going UNconscious. If the concept "Hitler" can't make your spirit abandon all experiencing, well, NO THING can. Hell, women can faint at the thought of their child being hurt, but they always wake up not long afterwards eager to slurp more thoughts. The thirst for humanness is deep. How concepts affect my personality is quite another thingy, and persistent indulgence in a particular type of experiencing can be a negative influence on the kinds of material the personality will be found ordinarily dwelling upon afterwards. If one does bad things all day, expect bad dreams all night -- that sort of thingy -- a brain will always flesh out conceptual reiterations of indulgence by making the neural pathways "more hard wired and more likely to be expressed" -- a samskara is born. Saying, "I love you," always is an egoic statement, and the ego is non-sentient, so how can it LOVE? An ego cannot LOVE, but ego can love a God. That is, a process of the brain can be said to symbolize the all-acceptingness of LOVE, but it will always be, in fact, identification only -- an attachment to an object labeled "divine." LOVE! And that's the only meaningful statement one can make about LOVE. To say instead, "LOVE is," would be a lie. Once LOVE manifests into isness, it, by definition, is dealing with qualities and conditionals -- duality. Its every expression is necessarily merely "love, lust, attachment, object addiction, prideful worship, etc." The experience of amness is LOVING all conceptuality in one unifying hug that cannot be improved by applying a veneer interpretation upon it of ego/attachment/object. In truth, LOVE cannot be found anywhere, anytime, because it is the omnipresent source of space/time. One can find a fish and smugly declare, "I've found water!" But, just because thoughts "are caught" in consciousness, doesn't mean one is attending to consciousness when one hooks a thought. If one pulls out a whale of a thought, the concept that the ocean that it was contained within may be augmented and imagined to be "even bigger, cuz "how could a whale live in a small pond," but even a visit from Indra is not proof that LOVE exists. When a saint (one whose only identity is the harmonizing with the buzz of amness, (OM,) or when an enlightened saint (one whose only identity is the Absolute) says, "I love you," then that is merely an expression of wholeness spontaneously emerging from a local nervous system as a symbol of the moment that seems appropriate to that nervous system. If a saint or an enlightened saint studies-practices the sidhis, then that would be a case of a nervous system starting to move towards more refined thoughts and refined mechanics of the body which could eventually end up with that person's nervous system being able to "speak/act as if Brahma Himself were in the person's sandals." Then, it might be appropriate to muddy the clarity a bit and say, "Oh, the cosmos said, 'I love you.'" A saint is immersed in LOVE -- everything is LOVE expressed, consciousness in action. It is the ultimate attachment, and a saint can fall from grace -- stop being a human angel that follows the divine plan to the letter. A saint is the Absolute pretending to be amness. But, enlightened saints are no longer persons. They are cosmically conscious of SELF, LOVE, CONSCIOUSNESS, AMNESS which are as close as possible to being the Absolute, but falls so short of the goal as to be utterly without significance. The enlightened's "person" is now an abstraction, a convenient way to refer to the history of the nervous system being studied, but there's no one home except the ONE that is omnipresent in all experiences -- not just egoic identifications. The enlightened's nervous system, as an object of consciousness, is PERFECTLY EQUAL to ANY other expression of amness -- there is nothing about it that can grab the Absolute any more than any other object of consciousness. The enlightened's Identity is not projected. The Absolute retains its transcendent status, unsullied by isness. The unenlightened who are still caught up with any or all the forms of identification will project their attachment upon their "comprehension of the enlightened," but they will be wrong, of course. The Absolute is never involved, because there's nothing to be involved with! The thirst for expression of infinity is a sin of amness -- it must drink of itself, but the Absolute has no thirst for amness in the least. That's LOVE. Freedom from desire. Freedom from being small, limited, locked in isness, biased. Freedom even from amness' perfections. Mother Divine cannot get the Absolute to abandon its freedom and jump in bed with Her. She can have her way with Narayana, Shiva and Brahma though, of course, since they can be conceptualized, and Mommy D does concepts!!!! We're all expressions of amness, and we're just one single identification wrong. Just one. Abide in amness in meditation, get used to that unity, express it daily in activity, chop wood, carry water, but, suddenly, while kissing space or killing time, the Absolute sees itself as if a long lost parent -- at last coming over the horizon. When that happens, who doesn't drop everything, even a sense of self, and run with tears flowing to the open arms of Para? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, thats a view. If God is Everything, then it follows that, Loving > God means loving Everything. Unless, of course your God is less than > Everything. But for those loving an Everything God, then that is > substantial. Far deeper, and significant -- and motivationally > inspiring,IMO -- than bland, even smug, IMO, propositions that the > world is Perfect as it is. (But even bland and smugness can be Loved) > > Some it seem, across religions, proclaim that they love God. But not > the followers of the wrong God. Which means their God is a limited God > (an oxymoron -- or just a moronic dogma?). > > If they loved the Everything God, then they would love everyone, > unconditionally. And when you love someone, you will do most anything > for them. Help them in all ways possible. If someone proclaims to love > the Everything God, and isn't helping, or at open to, if not seeking, > in some ways, to help, aid, comfort, and cherish people outside their > family, faith, nationality, beliefs and socio-economic / educational > status, then it seems to be a rather weak, even cold love for God. Not > a flaming, intense bhakti love, spreading to an unconditional and even > intense, consuming Love for Everything and Everybody, and all of Nature. > > Loving even seemingly moronic leaders, past and present, no matter > which countries they rule(d). If one Loves Everything, and yet has no > love, not to speak of Unconditional Love, for the mentally challenged > or even seriously depraved, then this seems to be a weak love of a > weak god. > > A side note, Loving the Vacuum-State? Since that is part of, or > underlies Everything, Love for God includes, or even is that. But,IMO, > Love for God implies, as much, or more, though not exclusively, a Love > of the manifest God. Even if illusory. The God and the Love. Otherwise > its just Vacuum State loving Vacuum State. Sort of dry. And of course, > there is nothing wrong with that. Its just thats not the stuff of hot, > bhakti Love. >
