|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 20:17:06 GMT -5
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. same love, difference is in the filter/interference or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:26:10 GMT -5
Today at 7:27am, heterodox wrote: Heterodox: This post seems to have been deleted. However, if all viewpoints are equal, why are you disagreeing with Top's and offering your own? Probably didn't make him look clever enough after he read the responses. Status report! Damage to shields, captain! Delete post immediately!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:27:07 GMT -5
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. same love, difference is in the filter/interference or lack thereof. Problemo is that it's just a concept. So it basically could be hate in love clothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:28:13 GMT -5
Today at 7:27am, heterodox wrote: Heterodox: This post seems to have been deleted. However, if all viewpoints are equal, why are you disagreeing with Top's and offering your own? I'm not disagreeing. Just sharing another viewpoint. You sure do have a lot of questions for an awake guy. You even have to deny it?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2013 20:33:33 GMT -5
same love, difference is in the filter/interference or lack thereof. Problemo is that it's just a concept. So it basically could be hate in love clothing. If it is hate then there is mucho interference. We point to 'what is prior to/beyond concepts' because it is helpful sometimes, but its just a pointer, there is no such thing (by definition). In the end, its all conceptual or as Niz says ''a play of ideas''. So 'love' shouldn't be demeaned just because it is in the realm of the conceptual. I have no issue with talking about non-dual Love in certain contexts, but its a load of hogwash really. In reality, there is just 'love', either filtered or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 20:56:05 GMT -5
Problemo is that it's just a concept. So it basically could be hate in love clothing. If it is hate then there is mucho interference. We point to 'what is prior to/beyond concepts' because it is helpful sometimes, but its just a pointer, there is no such thing (by definition). In the end, its all conceptual or as Niz says ''a play of ideas''. So 'love' shouldn't be demeaned just because it is in the realm of the conceptual. I have no issue with talking about non-dual Love in certain contexts, but its a load of hogwash really. In reality, there is just 'love', either filtered or not. If we see it in the way Living presented it as "Love is all there is and you are that and I am that" then even filtered/unfiltered would be hogwash and love becomes a kinda meaningless word. Hate would then be love. Are you leaning into the Living direction? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Jan 24, 2013 22:41:27 GMT -5
It doesn't fail because it doesn't matter if love is an idea or a love. It obviously does fail. It obviously doesn't. There always are Ideas that are prior to All. First there exists an Idea. Then the concept, the thing, the action, - anything - come into being. The idea about love is the idea about love as such. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 23:29:59 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? It's not. A mountain and a molehill are fundamentally the same substance, but you would make one out of the other, and they are not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 23:33:24 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. 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. Best find out what Love is, and what it is not, first. You might find Love doesn't need your choosing, extending, embodying tools. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 23:39:31 GMT -5
Insights bring truth, which is love in action. It's a verb. Insights bring truth, which is love in action. - Deepak Chopra Again.  I'm sure the (") button isn't working on his puter..... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 23:42:09 GMT -5
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. Si. Es mucho importante. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 23:45:36 GMT -5
Today at 7:27am, heterodox wrote: Heterodox: This post seems to have been deleted. However, if all viewpoints are equal, why are you disagreeing with Top's and offering your own? Probably didn't make him look clever enough after he read the responses. Status report! Damage to shields, captain! Delete post immediately! There was also another post where he said he didn't delete the first one, but it's also deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 23:46:42 GMT -5
same love, difference is in the filter/interference or lack thereof. Problemo is that it's just a concept. So it basically could be hate in love clothing. Yes, which is what has happened in this here conversation.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 23:56:18 GMT -5
Insights bring truth, which is love in action. - Deepak Chopra Again. I'm sure the (") button isn't working on his puter..... I'd rather think he wants to be seen as infinitely clever but has realized that his cleverness is finite so he has to constantly borrow from someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 0:07:36 GMT -5
Problemo is that it's just a concept. So it basically could be hate in love clothing. If it is hate then there is mucho interference. We point to 'what is prior to/beyond concepts' because it is helpful sometimes, but its just a pointer, there is no such thing (by definition). In the end, its all conceptual or as Niz says ''a play of ideas''. So 'love' shouldn't be demeaned just because it is in the realm of the conceptual. I have no issue with talking about non-dual Love in certain contexts, but its a load of hogwash really. In reality, there is just 'love', either filtered or not. The Love that is pointed to prior to concepts is not hogwash. When Niz talks about a play of ideas, he's referring to the conceptual, obviously. I guess you think his pointing is just to distract you because all you can see is the finger waggling. Perhaps what would be useful to notice in much of what we call dualistic love are the qualities of absence. The lovers surrender themselves to each other. The mother places the welfare of the child above her own. Great heroism and compassion borders on the selfless. These aspects are hints, perhaps, at a Love that transcends the lover and all ideas of love. Most would admit that something about love is known to be unknown. The teacher is pointing to something more 'real' than your ideas about it. |
|
