|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 16:25:10 GMT -5
So in your world, when people love each other, that love never fails? Nobody ever gets hurt in the name of love? Seriously? Didn't say that. You did. WE come into this world in innocence. Love. It gets covered over. It's still love. And a tree covered in giraffe skin is still a tree, but you think it is a giraffe. What you think it is, is not what it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 16:25:38 GMT -5
Innocence is the ability to give and receive love without holding on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 16:28:59 GMT -5
Didn't say that. You did. WE come into this world in innocence. Love. It gets covered over. It's still love. And a tree covered in giraffe skin is still a tree, but you think it is a giraffe. What you think it is, is not what it is. I wouldn't think for a minute that a tree covered in a giraffe skin is a giraffe. That's your imagination at work again. I would simply see the image as something arising in awareness. Like an awareness giving birth to another aspect of awareness. You're a strange ranger, e, with all your assumptions. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 16:29:28 GMT -5
Not suggesting excluding love or even the idea of love or the expression of the idea. Just saying personal love is conditional. That's a condition in itself. Love is everywhere and everything. I am that, and you are that, and this is that, and That's all there is. Yes, but you don't know that. If you know that you ARE Love, then you would know that you cannot DO Love. Whatever 'you' do is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 16:32:08 GMT -5
Its because the love is the same whether its conditional or unconditional love, that the act of extending love, or choosing love, or being love can usefully break conditioned beliefs which tell us that we should only love or choose to be loving under certain conditions. In a sense, its a giving ourselves permission to love under any condition, and the ability to choose to love under any condition is a gift. You cannot choose what is not yours to choose. You cannot give what is not yours to give. The best you can do is to personally define love and try to act accordingly. I have no problem with that but Love doesn't work that way at all. It doesn't have to be 'ours' (or 'yours') in order to choose it or to be it or even to extend it. Again, you are creating a whole new 'Love' there, when there is no such thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 16:32:29 GMT -5
That's a condition in itself. Love is everywhere and everything. I am that, and you are that, and this is that, and That's all there is. Yes, but you don't know that. If you know that you ARE Love, then you would know that you cannot DO Love. Whatever 'you' do is wrong. Insights bring truth, which is love in action. It's a verb. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 16:34:25 GMT -5
no, no, no, no. I said 'love' is unconditional by definition, not 'Love'. The reason we speak of 'Love' or 'unconditional love' is for pointing purposes only. Whether its conditional or unconditional, its still the same love. People that experience interference/attachment DO still love, CAN still choose to extend love, and CAN choose to be unconditionally loving. Its all still the same love. Again, this is a classic example of you putting yourself above others, creating a firm dividing line between the haves and have nots, and claiming a 'love' that normal folk have no knowledge of. No wonder you think we can't love our way to realization. We really can. And do. Its possibly the only way. Love is not what you think it is. This means nothing. I haven't said what I think it is, I have just said that 'unrealized' people have knowledge of it. I have said that there is no Love and love, and that 'Love' is just a pointer away from conditioned beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 16:35:03 GMT -5
What you call 'Love' is love without condition. That's right. Love without condition is not the same as love with condition. Why is that so hard to understand? Its fundamentally the same love. Why is that so hard to understand? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 16:36:54 GMT -5
That's a condition in itself. Love is everywhere and everything. I am that, and you are that, and this is that, and That's all there is. Yes, but you don't know that. If you know that you ARE Love, then you would know that you cannot DO Love. Whatever 'you' do is wrong. We can embody love and also love, be love, choose love and extend love. Being loving, choosing love and extending love can be useful on the path to embodying love. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 17:06:26 GMT -5
andrew and enigma, you guys makin love again?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 17:17:20 GMT -5
andrew and enigma, you guys makin love again? Haha. With a bit of wrestling thrown in! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 19:39:06 GMT -5
What is being put forth as love prior to realization is not love at all, but some imagined idea of what love should be. This is why it fails. Negativity is born in the gap where love has been excluded. Gaps occur in places where we are afraid to see ourselves. - Deepak Chopra What a copy cat you are, Living!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:09:55 GMT -5
Innocence is the ability to give and receive love without holding on. Innocence is the ability to give and receive love without holding on. - Deepak Chopra Someone reading Deepak lately? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:12:47 GMT -5
Yes, but you don't know that. If you know that you ARE Love, then you would know that you cannot DO Love. Whatever 'you' do is wrong. Insights bring truth, which is love in action. It's a verb. Insights bring truth, which is love in action. - Deepak Chopra Again. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:14:28 GMT -5
That's right. Love without condition is not the same as love with condition. Why is that so hard to understand? Its fundamentally the same love. Why is that so hard to understand? One is with intermediary, one is without intermediary. Same same but different. The one with intermediary is a concept, the one without intermediary is not a concept. |
|
