|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 24, 2010 12:29:15 GMT -5
Frank: I'm one of those people for whom the sun is always shining, even when it's raining, LOL, but it's been a while since I read BR's books, and since that time I've only read interviews she's given and an essay or two. Nevertheless, I don't think you'll ever know if her experience is similar to your own unless you read all of her stuff and get a better sense of how what she's writing about correlates with your own experience. When I get a chance, I'll re-read some of her stuff (from my massive mystical library) and see if my understanding of her experiences has changed over the years.
Loverofall: I doubt that any conclusions can be reached about Scoma simply based upon his background in Catholicism and the influence of Roberts. I haven't read his stuff, so I don't know much about him other than what Shawn has posted under the spiritual teachers section.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Mar 24, 2010 13:32:12 GMT -5
ZD: I don't feel particularly drawn to Bernadette Roberts to be honest. I watched one video I think and for whatever reason left it at that. I prefer the likes of Adyashanti as you can't help but feel inspired after watching one of his videos. With regards to the dark side lol, as things just happen there really is no point in worrying about anything. It's fun digging though!  |
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by alpha on Mar 24, 2010 16:17:30 GMT -5
one statement by Bernadette Roberts that struck a deep chord with me was "love demands equality" we could say that unconditional love make no demands, yet I feel she is right in her statement and if so, then it's not possible to love anyone "above" or "below" , where then does this leave God, Ramana,Nisargadatta, and the village idiot, I thought I loved all these as "above" and "below", but now maybe a big shift is called for, I try not to enter the "nobody to love,nobody to be loved mode", though maybe I should...
|
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Mar 24, 2010 19:40:41 GMT -5
One theme that now seem so obvious but because of our conditioning and need to differentiate to survive is that we must give up discriminating which is the same as love demands equality.
In the simplest form all of this boils down to a bunch of words that all point to the same thing.
Nondiscrimination, equality, non-judgement, acceptance, gratefulness, love, awareness, allowing, forgiveness, letting go, surrender, presence, silence, peace, joy
When I first started I thought they all meant different things but the more I see, the more they are all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2010 21:07:06 GMT -5
one statement by Bernadette Roberts that struck a deep chord with me was "love demands equality" we could say that unconditional love make no demands, yet I feel she is right in her statement and if so, then it's not possible to love anyone "above" or "below" , where then does this leave God, Ramana,Nisargadatta, and the village idiot, I thought I loved all these as "above" and "below", but now maybe a big shift is called for, I try not to enter the "nobody to love,nobody to be loved mode", though maybe I should... I really think that's where you will find Love hanging out. As much as the person doesn't like the idea, genuine Love is impersonal and therein lies the equality of which you speak. That which is felt, offered, given received is a conceptualized reflection of Love, placed firmly in an imaginary personal context. To that extent, it is, itself, imaginary. |
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by alpha on Mar 26, 2010 14:57:14 GMT -5
enigma,loverofall, thanks for the clarity...
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 26, 2010 17:40:00 GMT -5
one statement by Bernadette Roberts that struck a deep chord with me was "love demands equality" we could say that unconditional love make no demands, yet I feel she is right in her statement and if so, then it's not possible to love anyone "above" or "below" , where then does this leave God, Ramana,Nisargadatta, and the village idiot, I thought I loved all these as "above" and "below", but now maybe a big shift is called for, I try not to enter the "nobody to love,nobody to be loved mode", though maybe I should... Alpha: BR's phraseology is somewhat misleading, because love doesn't "demand" anything, but I assume that she is pointing to the truth of unconditional love. Unfortunately, when people hear about the possibility of a love that is "impersonal," it sounds inhuman and scary, but the truth is beyond that idea also. True love appears when selfhood disappears. It is the love that Oneness feels for Itself, whether as a particular human being or a blade of grass. This kind of celebratory love, which the Greeks called "agape" is profound. It is alive, open, joyous, exultant in the good fortune of others, helpful, kind, merciful, non-grasping, loyal, forgiving, and infinitely patient. This is the kind of love that says to another human being, "Even if you don't want to be with me, that's okay. It won't change a thing. I will still love you, and cherish you, and wish only the best for you no matter what happens. My love for you allows you the total freedom to be yourself. I am happiest when you are happy." This kind of love is inexhaustible, and you can give it away forever. The happiest people in the world are the ones who find this kind of love, and it is what Byron Katie is describing when she talks about "loving what is." The more we see the radiant perfection of who we are, the more we fall in love with THAT--with Ourself. In that kind of love there is no above or below. To experience that kind of love, no effort is required. All that is necessary is to perceive "what is" in deep silence. When we do so, we discover that every flower, every stone, every cloud, every creature, and every sound is calling us home. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2010 19:48:02 GMT -5
Nice, Zen
Without going too far afield with this Love idea, maybe we can say that while it places no demands on illusion, it also fails to recognize it, as Love could be seen as the fundamental nature of reality. So while there is no malice at all involved, if one is turning one's back on the fundamental nature of reality through which one owes one's existence, one is likely in for a bad hair day.
This is how illusion is burned in the heart, and though it can, at times, seem merciless as it brings you to your knees, it's simply the nature of What Is to deny the reality of that which is not, or as I sometimes say, God is going to win this war.
|
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by alpha on Mar 26, 2010 20:44:52 GMT -5
ZD wrote
Alpha: BR's phraseology is somewhat misleading, because love doesn't "demand" anything, but I assume that she is pointing to the truth of unconditional love.
Unfortunately, when people hear about the possibility of a love that is "impersonal," it sounds inhuman and scary, but the truth is beyond that idea also. True love appears when selfhood disappears. It is the love that Oneness feels for Itself, whether as a particular human being or a blade of grass. This kind of celebratory love, which the Greeks called "agape" is profound. It is alive, open, joyous, exultant in the good fortune of others, helpful, kind, merciful, non-grasping, loyal, forgiving, and infinitely patient. This is the kind of love that says to another human being, "Even if you don't want to be with me, that's okay. It won't change a thing. I will still love you, and cherish you, and wish only the best for you no matter what happens. My love for you allows you the total freedom to be yourself. I am happiest when you are happy." This kind of love is inexhaustible, and you can give it away forever. The happiest people in the world are the ones who find this kind of love, and it is what Byron Katie is describing when she talks about "loving what is."
The more we see the radiant perfection of who we are, the more we fall in love with THAT--with Ourself. In that kind of love there is no above or below. To experience that kind of love, no effort is required. All that is necessary is to perceive "what is" in deep silence. When we do so, we discover that every flower, every stone, every cloud, every creature, and every sound is calling us home. [/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for response ZD, full of compassion as usual, and helpful too, one of the great things about this forum is the feedback from people further along the path/no path, I feel privileged to be here, though I find that at times,I would like to leave everything behind, all the analyzing, planning, books, insights, forums, and just "witness" in the simplest way possible, but "life" in the form of this bundle of nothing, keep coming back for more, lol . so thanks to "Life" in the form of everyone on this forum.
my understanding of "love demands equality" is like "light demands darkness disappear" I meditated on this and what came forth was "equality is Love" I think Nisargadatta said " the first love of self is for self (total equality) thats why now I can't understand unconditional love, I really feel that the condition for love is equality,( I'm stepping back from oneness in making that statement)
I agree when you say "True love appears when selfhood disappears"but could this also be "love demands selfhood disappear"
of course I don't like the word "demand", its a cold word, sounding almost the opposite of "love" and maybe BR could have chosen a more approprate one,but thats a minor thing,
would you say that only "equals" can truly love,
this "bundle of nothing" is being asked where it got the sense "alpha", maybe the no answer will come through that love...
sorry ZD I feel you have given the answer in "It is the love that Oneness feels for Itself"
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 26, 2010 21:46:35 GMT -5
Alpha: You wrote: "thats why now I can't understand unconditional love, I really feel that the condition for love is equality." That's why I wasn't crazy about the BR quote. I suspected that this might be a possible interpretation of it. There are no conditions for the kind of love I'm talking about.
You wrote: "I agree when you say "True love appears when selfhood disappears"but could this also be "love demands selfhood disappear?" No. Love does not demand that anything disappear, much less selfhood. The perfection of selfhood is also fully loved. Imagine Ramana saying to a seeker, "I'll love you as soon as your selfhood disappears." Or, imagine a lover saying to her sweetheart, "I'll love you just as soon as you lose your selfhood!" LOL. BTW, when people fall deeply in love, romantically, it is a kind of mystical experience in which personal selfhood falls away for a while. The only difference between this kind of love and what I'm talking about is that the absolute loves everything "equally" and does not limit that love to a single human being. I think that is what BR was pointing to.
You asked, "would you say that only "equals" can truly love?" How could that be possible? There are not two here. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 26, 2010 22:21:08 GMT -5
I heard a Bernadette Roberts quote before that really puzzled me. It was something to the effect of that it would be the most compassionate gift of all for one to realize just before death rather than while one has years left - implying that there is something very undesirable about realizing whilst one is still here.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2010 2:39:15 GMT -5
I want to say something about Love but I don't have the words. Something that could be seen as unwelcome if I am too clumsy. There's a tendency to bind Love within our judgments, but this is freedom itself in motion, and is bound by nothing. It is it's own master. The heart of the most violent storm is at once the rapture of Love and devoid of malevolence. The glory of the eagle diving for it's prey, wings swept back, magnificent in it's singular focus and deadly accuracy. This too is Love far beyond any concept of Love. The unfathomable power and majesty of a collapsing star.
Our private worlds are too small, and our minds too feeble for such Love that universes are given birth and death in it's embrace, and yet nothing is there that is not there, all of which arises within the timid mind that it would slough off and assign to it's own demons.
There is no demand because it is not needed. Love is sovereign and moves as it will, and is fiercely gentle, tenderly violent. Too say what it is not is already to fall into mind's error of thinking it knows what Love should be. Love has no particular interest in our foolish notions, least of all our fear.
I suppose I've been clumsy because I don't really know what I'm looking at, but I know it's not to be wrapped in a pretty bow. This would not begin to do it justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 27, 2010 2:45:30 GMT -5
Karen: It would be interesting to know the context of that statement. As it stands, it is certainly bizarre.
|
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 27, 2010 4:50:26 GMT -5
I want to say something about Love but I don't have the words. Something that could be seen as unwelcome if I am too clumsy. There's a tendency to bind Love within our judgments, but this is freedom itself in motion, and is bound by nothing. It is it's own master. The heart of the most violent storm is at once the rapture of Love and devoid of malevolence. The glory of the eagle diving for it's prey, wings swept back, magnificent in it's singular focus and deadly accuracy. This too is Love far beyond any concept of Love. The unfathomable power and majesty of a collapsing star. Our private worlds are too small, and our minds too feeble for such Love that universes are given birth and death in it's embrace, and yet nothing is there that is not there, all of which arises within the timid mind that it would slough off and assign to it's own demons. There is no demand because it is not needed. Love is sovereign and moves as it will, and is fiercely gentle, tenderly violent. Too say what it is not is already to fall into mind's error of thinking it knows what Love should be. Love has no particular interest in our foolish notions, least of all our fear. I suppose I've been clumsy because I don't really know what I'm looking at, but I know it's not to be wrapped in a pretty bow. This would not begin to do it justice. enigma: This seems to speak to unconditional love, although you have not used that term, for 'it' plays both sides of all interactions, abuser and abused, predator and prey..........all that manifests without distinction or discrimination. -amit- |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 27, 2010 5:08:42 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, once one really start talking about Love, IT does appear clumsy...at least for me. IT struck me once when I heard it said, "Distance has no way of making love understandable". The sentence seemed to say/point to what IS once the desires of the mind and needs of the body are transcended (i.e., understand what "separate/divide" or "cloud" Realization). IT has always amazed me to find so many of these natural phenomena in this universe to be such beautiful poetic metaphors for patterns/aspects of our own lives. When the phenomena is sensed with a facility beyond mere"rational" thought/mind, one seems to slip into a relationship with What Is, and then beyond, merging as What Is. No boundaries, no distance. IT'S as if when the mind is prepared/cleared/whatever, the phenomena/patterns are seen as Reflections of Love, through and through part of our eternal Being, Perfect...but only felt in absence of self, as Oneness/Love in Realization, and of which explanations can only point to. There's nothing to say about IT, so there's always more to say! Yep, still clumsy!  |
|
