Love and Acceptance from a Nondual Perspective

[Portto]

What is love from a nondual perspective?

Various religions and teachers insist that we should love everything.
But this seems very similar to accepting everything.
Is it even possible to love everything and accept everything?

Accepting everything may actually create a lot of tension. It sounds a lot like wishful thinking.
Zendancer mentioned in one of his posts that non-conceptual awareness is neither acceptance nor rejection. This sounds right to me.

So, what do you think? Is it possible to accept/love everything?

[karen]

When I started seeking I did all sorts of stupid and silly things to "love all". But I figured out soon that is like trying to apply gold leaf to a turd. Sure it looks like gold, but it's still crap through and through.

And Nisargadatta has stated that you shouldn't try to love others and he instructed his students to not deny who they were by pretending to be loving.

Instead the goal in this arena for me has been to learn to be OK with myself - to accept myself - no matter what happens "out there". That is if I was genuinely 100% OK with myself in all situations, I'd probably be more loving to all.

[Portto]

Thank you for your reply, Karen.
What you're saying is true, but since getting into the nonduality business, there is a definite increase in love, acceptance, and tolerance - although I don't know where it's coming from!

[desertrain]

I too have noticed feeling a lot a more acceptance and tolerance since getting into nonduality; maybe not love, as that's a strong word for me.

For me it has to do with watching those judgemental thoughts and accompanying feelings appear in awareness but not identifying with them or taking them seriously, at the same time realizing that this awareness has no problem with whatever is happening. It's simple but not always easy, as there has usually been heavy investment into those shoulds and should-nots and this gets reflected in the emotional response. I've only dealt with pretty minor everyday things thus far, but I can imagine how hard it would be accepting (or rather, letting go of non-acceptance) when faced with a really intense situation.

Another thing that makes one feel more accepting is seeing how everyone, including oneself, is just "marching to their own conditioning", as one person put it.

[klaus]

To deny Love is to deny what you are.

Love flows through the path of least resistence.
And what is that resistence?

You.

[Portto]

How would you define love, Klaus?

Although, defining something is putting limits to it...

[klaus]

Hi porto,

That's just it, Love can't be defined. It is beyond words. I can only tell you what it is not....you know not this, not that.
Love is not a subject, Love is not an object, Love is not a thought.

I can only tell you when I fell in Love there was no I or thou or should I say I recognized I and thou are Love.

[Portto]

Nice posts Klaus. You are especially poetic today.

Just for fun, I'm listing the "American Heritage Dictionary" definition for LOVE; it's interesting that they recognize the feeling of oneness:

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

[loverofall]

The bible has a definition of love that I think is a pretty powerful pointer. Most people don't really know what love is because I agree it gets covered up with all the crazy ego desires, attachments and aversions.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

[lightmystic]

Hey porto,

I find that love, acceptance, and appreciation are the natural results of realizing that we are not limited to anything. As long as something appears limiting, or we don't feel connected to it, then we cannot love/accept it. To the extent that we see through it and realize our connection to everything, then we cannot BUT love/accept. So it's not a choice, and so, of course, is it something we are "supposed" to do. It's not a process. It's a description of what happens when we recognize, for real, that we are not limited to anything.

I suppose that's why I instinctively feel tentative around those who are overly focused on love and light (though I'm not saying you are).... it's like they are trying to make themselves feel something, rather than let their feelings come out of their spontaneous recognition of what life really is...
If you realize that life IS wholeness, then love and light are implied, why go looking for it? And if one does not feel that way, then looking for it only is getting in the way, as it's just the result of seeing clearly. So the focus, in that instance, need only be on seeing what's in the way and releasing it. And then all the things we are trying to avoid by getting love and light in the first place are accepted, and we can be free to enjoy what's there....

What do you think?

Feb 14, 2010 11:09:25 GMT -5 Portto said:

What is love from a nondual perspective?

Various religions and teachers insist that we should love everything.
But this seems very similar to accepting everything.
Is it even possible to love everything and accept everything?

Accepting everything may actually create a lot of tension. It sounds a lot like wishful thinking.
Zendancer mentioned in one of his posts that non-conceptual awareness is neither acceptance nor rejection. This sounds right to me.

So, what do you think? Is it possible to accept/love everything?

[Portto]

Thanks Lightmystic! Saying that loves comes from connectedness and lack of limitation sounds good.

I must admit it, my mind was very active yesterday trying to clearly define "stuff" in order to build some sort of nondual foundation.

Zendancer noticed that, when I tried to define past, future, love, acceptance, etc.
The mind needs clear strict definitions in order to build stable imaginary structures. Marvelous!

[lightmystic]

Definitely porto. And none of this stuff is limited, and so it cannot really be understood conceptually except in the roughest of approximations....but it's valuable to try perhaps....and it also perhaps helps the mind realize that it cannot, ultimately, get it. And the mind really seeing that is amazingly useful. And there's often no way to see that the mind cannot possibly "get it" other than to really try to "get it" with the mind. So it's a very worthwhile pursuit from my perspective!

Feb 15, 2010 14:47:07 GMT -5 Portto said:

Thanks Lightmystic! Saying that loves comes from connectedness and lack of limitation sounds good.

I must admit it, my mind was very active yesterday trying to clearly define "stuff" in order to build some sort of nondual foundation.

Zendancer noticed that, when I tried to define past, future, love, acceptance, etc.
The mind needs clear strict definitions in order to build stable imaginary structures. Marvelous!

[drunkenlady]

Lets see- there is only ONE, the we are illusion, yet we must do something -love, peace etc in order to experience what is already ONE? If there's no me in the equation then who is accepting and being tolerant? I'm confused-oh wait there is no me so I guess I'm not confused or angry or loving or......... screw it. And if love can't be defined and there's no me in the picture why all the head scratching? Maybe I should not pay any mind to this no-me with all its thoughts and also all the other me s with all there thoughts ? Then there would be no me which I guess there wasn't in the first place. I think I am going back to reading Dr.Seuss! I'm melting, melting, melting.....

[lightmystic]

Hey drunkenlady. I appreciate your point, but this stuff is not intellectual, but a direct experience that actually cannot be understood by the mind. So it's a clear, simple experience, but doesn't actually "make sense" as such, because the mind is very either/or, and this is always something which includes both, IS both, but is not limited to both.

So, there is no more "one" than there are "many". The dichotomy doesn't exist. There are no more "experiences" and "feelings" than there are "not experiences" or "not feelings". The negation of one implies the other. And this is more what happens if the lens is removed. It's actually a lot like ZD's arm, elbow, hand analogy. It is an arm or is it a hand? Or is it molecules? And where is the hand that is separate from the arm? It doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that there is an arm without at hand. That's an important recognition. Saying there is not two does not mean there is one. And it does not mean there is nothing. It's what happens when you remove the one, the two and even the nothing. What is left?

Feb 19, 2010 5:39:38 GMT -5 @drunkenlady said:

Lets see- there is only ONE, the we are illusion, yet we must do something -love, peace etc in order to experience what is already ONE? If there's no me in the equation then who is accepting and being tolerant? I'm confused-oh wait there is no me so I guess I'm not confused or angry or loving or......... screw it. And if love can't be defined and there's no me in the picture why all the head scratching? Maybe I should not pay any mind to this no-me with all its thoughts and also all the other me s with all there thoughts ? Then there would be no me which I guess there wasn't in the first place. I think I am going back to reading Dr.Seuss! I'm melting, melting, melting.....