Greetings,

When we use or avoid the term 'love' in regard to our dealings with retrievals and the afterlife,
we often get into various misunderstandings.   Could we try again with this topic so we can
get our meanings clear?

A wonderful book 'Eros and Agape' (Greek origins and pronunciations: ah-gha-pay, for example) divides love into two parts--- eros as love directed at a single other human, and the other, agape, as a quality of being, aimed towards all rather than at any one object; both types can be selfless at least for some period of time.  ---But these views may not be sufficient.

Bruce got around problems with what the word love represents when he suggested PUL (Pure Unconditional Love) and suggested we think of a memory when we felt most loved, in order that we could generate the energies that make up such a love. We'd need it, he explained, to counteract fear that some have in dealing with the afterlife.

It seems there are many ways to use words to describe what we mean by love. RAther than try to find one way, maybe if we just shared our own ways of thinking of it, we could understand where we're coming from better.----
How would you describe love in the non-romantic sense?

Thanks for any ideas, Bets

 

I'm not sure I agree with those definitions of eros and agape - I always thought eros meant sexual love (as in erotic) and agape meant selfless "christian" (or Buddhist or other)  love. I first learned about this in an RE class. My teacher also mentioned another Greek term which meant (non-sexual) friendship, which I think was philos.

I don't know if Bruce can claim to have invented the term Pure Unconditional Love, though maybe he has popularised it (especially abbreviating it to PUL). I certainly know Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, for example, used to talk a lot about unconditional love, such as in terms of what parents should give their kids - "I love you whatever you do, just as you are"; not "I love you if you do what I tell you to do; or if you go into a well-paid profession; or if you act conventionally and respectably all the time; or if you make me proud of you all the time and I can boast about you to my friends etc

I think unconditional love is a good idea and a good phrase.

I think it is a shame that "love" so often has to mean sexual love in modern English. For example there is no reason for two friends, men or women, not to "love" each other, without it being sexual. I think (straight) men especially are hung about about that, and expressing affection, in case they are assumed to be gay

I can't really think of another good word for it, though friendship is a perfectly nice word as well, as are caring, compassion, empathy  etc

Hi Bets, that's a good topic.

My personal view on this (strongly influenced by experience which tends to confirm Buddhist and other spiritual teaching) is that there's essentially no difference between agape (love for all beings) and love for an individual.  

The experience of the two is for most of us very different because we usually play very different games in the two situations. We feel able to love in close/personal relationships (and these feelings are often amplified by  what are essentially egotistical, societal and/or skill/wisdom (actually lack of) and maybe sexual angles) , but  act in pretty unloving ways in relationships with those outside of our circle.

One view is that the urge to love and be loved flows from the urge to re-experience the sense of belonging and of being loved that we felt prior to separation from God, but lost with our entering this reality and most especially with birth - leading to the sense of 'something being missing' in our lives that most feel.

We spend our lives trying to fill this gap - but most mistake selfish/ego needs for what's really missing, and so power, money, material goods, physical survival and the like unknowingly become substitutes. As may the  selfish sexual urge.

Intense 1:1 romantic love probably follows from a similar misjudgement - we enjoy the sense of completion that we derive from an  intense romantic and/or sexual relationship, and so seek to own and control the object of our attention for fear of losing it. But this selfish and egotistical dimension contains within it the seeds of the destruction of the relationship - clinging behaviours drive what we seek away from us. (as in all aspects of the spiritual search)

There's a genuine dimension to the love felt in this sort of relationship too. We as above feel able put out, to act in a loving way within these limited contexts, and it's returned by family and friends. Leading to a potentially genuine loving environment.

The apparent intensity of this sort of love is probably increased as a result of the way it contrasts with the low vibe in wider, less personal human relationships. Most of us are conditioned to see those outside of our special relationships (wives, children, family etc) as potential competitors, opportunities to be taken advantage of, threats to be protected against and the like. The result of this attitude and the resulting behaviours means that relationships are mostly competition between egos, or are at least overshadowed by a fair amount of fear and trepidation.

We close down, and in trying to make ourselves look strong withhold love and compassion. The result is coldness, in some cases even in 1:1 relationships. (inevitable in a world full of individuals all trying to take advantage of others to get ahead) The challenge is to extend loving behaviours beyond our immediate circle.

Closing becomes a self perpetuating delusion - it requires considerable skill and bravery (warriorship in the words of Chogyam Trungpa -Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior) in this reality to step a little beyond selfish ego (the 'cocoon') and find ways of being loving towards others which won't result in our being taken advantage of and being stripped of all we have.

Higher consciousness and experience (and spiritual teachings) eventually show us that this very magical world is actually constructed in such a way that the ego reality is only one - that there's a second love based reality which simultaneously merges with it. And that this second reality means that it's possible to live through love, that loving acts bring all sorts of unexpected benefits into our lives. (that we can't see the possibility of while thinking through ego)

But it takes time to figure this out and gain the necessary confidence and skill to start to live this way. And it's not a step, more of a gradual transition. One which at times is painful.

Those of us at an earlier stage on the path (and many have not even got this far) may have figured out intellectually that love is the way to go, but still are strongly influenced by ego and the above conditioning. Which I think is why agape or generalised love feels so intellectual, studied and lacking in passion for most of us.

It seems however that for the realised person the distinction between self and others evaporates so that a similar intensity of love is felt towards all - this greatly intensified by loss of the selfish and societal conditioning mentioned above. Christ mind or Buddha nature if you like.

Is it for real? I can't say for sure, but I know it's possible to go from being totally absorbed by the selfish view to feeling spontaneous and often quite intense compassion for  people well outside of one's circle.

This is not some intellectual position, although the intellectual determination that this is the way to go is a step on the way. My personal experience has been that meditation has somehow led to at least the beginning of a  spontaneous opening of the heart which is in no way dependent on the intellect.  Working with some of the Tibetan Buddhist compassion practices like Tonglen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonglen has helped too I'm sure. While I still have a lot of work to do, I now know that I was living with my emotions and especially my heart closed right down.

Buddhist teaching says that this change is not something that is fabricated - that it's rather the beginning of a return to our true or natural state of mind as a result of the stripping away of conditioning and other delusion. The clouds revealing a sun that was always there is what they often say.

Chogyam Trungpa's book is here:  http://www.amazon.com/Shambhala-Sacred-Warrior-Chogyam-Trungpa/dp/0877732647 He's so good on what the tough job of opening, softening and bringing this stuff into reality in the world is all about.

Pema Chodron (a Buddhist nun, and pupil of his) has written even more extensively on these topics: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search?search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=&author=Chodron%2C+Pema&select-author=field-author-like&title=&select-title=field-title&subject=&select-subject=field-subject&field-publisher=&field-isbn=&chooser-sort=rank%21%2Bsalesrank&node=&field-binding=&mysubmitbutton1.x=56&mysubmitbutton1.y=11

We all get there in the end, but I can't over emphasise the central role that meditation can play in accelerating this sort of change.....

Thanks Orlando and Vajra. You're both helping my understanding!

Vajra, I'm surprised by your post as I've been influenced for decades by the distinctions between two types of loving as described in the little book I mentioned.

Maybe briefly at a reunion or picnic I've felt PUL towards all members present. Maybe at a larger celebration, I'm proud to be a part of the humanity that created and enjoys such an event. But when it's time to clean up the dirty dishes, etc or maybe even into the next day's back-to-the-workaday-routines, PUL doesn't remain.
I experience PUL as a faint hum or buzz throughout my whole system along with a feeling of a full heart, and these would be the same 'symptoms' of love I'd have for an individual. Other than that, I've relied more on a concept of brotherly love, hopefully understanding that everyone is 'my brother.'

So are you saying that living in a continuing state of such PUL is possible?

Bets

hi Bets, good topic good responses, can't add much. I do believe it is possible to be continually in a "feel good" state all the time, especially if you have a comparison state to look back on, say a depressive state period, so the comparison value. but hard to say how another is feeling, what they feel may be private, that they wish it to be private.

I like the writing of Gibran, his explanation of love and I like Ian said, there comes a time what you feel with your mate, is same love feeling (with spiritual unfoldment) felt for everyone, or agape.

Love is conditional for the most part for most of humanity right now, but we may be advancing quickly (to mean this century) into a more pure love, for instance like Oliver said the word philos, or to feel friendly, is also to be feeling love. feeling good while doing hard labor or dishes takes disapline I suppose to feel good even then.
but is possible to feel appreciation, a relative of PUL. to appreciate, to cultivate gratitude or service ideals.

distorted love I see as distorted by the business deal, how a rich person might buy love, turning it into a commodity. then it's distorted by the conditions on it. there may be human vice, like greed, possessiveness, lust, these interfere with the free nature of love to express, then that is distorted love, not "pure" as the term we were given PUL to define something like energy, that is much more than eros expressing.

the will to love, that has something to do with disapline, like Ian says, he talks of meditation, it takes disapline to meditate, so it's a pathway to walk, or a lifestyle, say if one wished to examine the heart path, or the opening of the heart chakra.

but not an easy subject to discuss! therefore a really good subject to discuss, but requires meditation on it.

:)

:) Thanks for answering LR. Please understand Bets that I'm speaking only partly from personal experience and mostly interpreting Buddhist teaching on the subject. There's other views out there. But at least my limited experience so far has paralleled the teaching I've had.

I think we'd be very surprised just how inconsistent and patchy PUL is for almost all of us if we could  strip away ego driven self interested behaviours within interpersonal exchanges - the socially dictated and ultimately self interested stuff we all go on with which passes as friendliness. Much of the smiling, the rubbing up the right way and so on is probably just self interested posturing  - engaged in to allow social, business or even some family co-operation while it suits, but easily discarded when the game changes.

Much of the intensity of the romantic stuff we take to be 'true love' is often (at least in part) strongly due to the selfish streak running through it too - as above a lot to do with possessiveness, fear of loss and the contrast with so called normal impersonal relationships.

Even love for our children gets screwed up - we so often see kids being driven through life by parents not so much for the right reasons, but out of concern that they 'don't let them down'. Love is routinely  witheld from kids to force compliant behaviour.

My suggestion is that genuine agape does not entail quite the same intensity as the ersatz variety unless its expression is blocked - the more realised person once the dust settles seems to experience rather more equanimity than most of us.

That's not to say that we don't all experience flashes of genuine love and loving. The problem is possibly that we experience very similar competing impulses as well, and often struggle to recognise  the difference.

The 'science' on this stuff (trust and trusting behaviours) I've read suggests that all relationships start out as calculations as to benefit and only over time and with successive successful exchanges transitions to involve love. (termed 'affect based trust')

While this confusing mix of selfish and genuine love experience is probably the reality for most of us I'd go beyond the science and say that in the context of reducing obscuration spiritually evolving people access more and more love for others regardless of context. And gain skill in expressing it wisely.

And that they move towards a scenario where it's expressed in a wholly natural and spontaneous way -  not so much as a result of their 'getting good at some intellectual game' but of it's having literally become what they are and the basis of their instinctive responses....

Hi aylsia and all  You can have a loving friendship with someone of the opposite sex, as i love my friend eddie so much and he loves me but it is just a freindship and we would do anything for each other and i thank God everyday for bringing eddie into my life,he is the sunshine that takes away my dark clouds,so love can exist in many ways.

Love and God bless   Love Juditha

That's a lovely way to out it.

A Course in Miracles suggests what we do is put barriers in the way of love expressing in our lives, and our process is to remove those barriers to allow the flow of the love which is our birthright. Why would you want the wings of a sparrow, it suggests, when you already have the wings of an eagle!

The Love which gives all and requires nothing ....requires nothing. It comes from within, and does not depend on another except as far as knowing that "other" is really just you in another disguise....

Thomas

To me PUL is more than an emotion.  PUL is the experience of our individual essence that is deep within each of us.  It is the ground of our very being and it is also the portion of our energetic makeup that is never separated from God.  This energetic essence is pure and will always remain pure.  It is also always in movement and is the basis of our creativity.  As this divine energy of our core penetrates downward in vibration through the many layers of our energetic bodies (our aura or energy field) it can become distorted or blocked because of our fearful beliefs and other stressors that humanity is subject to such as being tired or hungry or in some other way where our needs as a human are not met.

When the energy of our essence up wells and moves through us unhindered it is expressed in its purity.  This brings to us the experience of great pleasure, love, joy and peace in all that we do.  For example, we may feel a sudden impulse to show our love to someone else by giving them a hug, but then just as suddenly we might feel a little embarrassed and back off a bit and in the process we stop or block PUL from flowing freely.  There are many subtle ways in which we block or distort the energy of our core that we don’t even realize because of habitual responses that stem from our beliefs.

Love, Kathy

I agree with the below. I've found that fear really can cause a block. When I have a block in my heart chakra, I can really feel the resistance it presents as my energy tries to push past it. The first time I experienced divine love in a very strong way was while I was meditating one evening.  I felt a heart chakra block before doing so. My spirit guidance showed me the remote control to my television set. At first I thought they were suggesting I stop meditating and watch TV. Then I realized they were telling me to tune into another channel while meditating. I tried but didn't succeed. I told them I'll get it one of these days. They said: "We know," in a really loving way. This caused me to let go, the block went away, and Wow! :)

The next night I was thinking about the divine love I experienced, my guidance flashed some white light, and told me: "It's available any time you want."



Lights of Love wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 1:19pm:

To me PUL is more than an emotion.  PUL is the experience of our individual essence that is deep within each of us.  It is the ground of our very being and it is also the portion of our energetic makeup that is never separated from God.  This energetic essence is pure and will always remain pure.  It is also always in movement and is the basis of our creativity.  As this divine energy of our core penetrates downward in vibration through the many layers of our energetic bodies (our aura or energy field) it can become distorted or blocked because of our fearful beliefs and other stressors that humanity is subject to such as being tired or hungry or in some other way where our needs as a human are not met. When the energy of our essence up wells and moves through us unhindered it is expressed in its purity.  This brings to us the experience of great pleasure, love, joy and peace in all that we do.  For example, we may feel a sudden impulse to show our love to someone else by giving them a hug, but then just as suddenly we might feel a little embarrassed and back off a bit and in the process we stop or block PUL from flowing freely.  There are many subtle ways in which we block or distort the energy of our core that we don’t even realize because of habitual responses that stem from our beliefs. Love, Kathy

Interesting thread, Bets. Reminds me of the copntroversy when Carl Rogers and his followers attempted to use the idea of love as a psychotherapy tool. There was so much flack and misunderstanding that they finally had to back off and come up with a new expression, "unconditional regard".

Love is often more easily defined in the negative, as the opposite of rejection, separation, hatred, harm, exploitation etc. Then all the numerous forms come up as possibilities.

The level at which we are told that we will experience total PUL all the time is called "satchitananda" or sometimes "liberation". Both Hindu and Buddhist philosophy define this as the state in which we have ceased to be harmful, ceased to be uncaring and apathetic, and ceased to be deluded. In their place we have learned what Buddhists call "loving kindness", enthusiastic joy in what we do, and fascinated awareness of life. By ending the aspects that are selfish, grasping, exploitive and so on, we end the processes by which karma is generated, hence the term "liberation".

Because this is not a key to nirvana, it is a level of spiritual development that is largely ignored by the general public. However, this is the step from which we can choose our next incarntion etc, as it has eliminated many of the issues that separate us from God and the infinite.

As a purely practical matter, satchitananda is also the level at which psychic powers
begin to manifest, which can be a trap if we start craving and grasping at them. However, when we have generally made adequate progress in this area we can find parking spaces, people cooperate with us, and things go better, life is easier, and in most things we find cooperation rom the world. Life is more fun. :-)

d

Hey there,

a try to explain "love". It has become a worn out phrase, so I try to explain how I think it is connected to the topics we deal with

What is the idea behind that word? Regarding the point bets brought up, the connectedness with afterlife travelling, retrieving, love in a romantic sense is not the way to go.
Since love in a romantic sense is instable, a hush of weird feelings, that calm down, and don't ask me why some want to be in such a stage forever.

What comes with retrieving, boring as it sounds, a lot of responsibility. That is what I think is the most important thing, when acting "wrong" on the other side might also leave negative aspects, that might disturb the order over there (if the C1-bound mind is entering the higher planes, a travel should be handled with care).

Acceptance, as the other side of the coin, showing that you accept this being you try to communicate with, showing, that it does not matter who it is, strenghts and disabilities, this is also the point where responsibility and acceptance cross each other's border, acceptance for me in this case means something like not thinking devaluating (it is a similarity to treating people with carefulness and open-minded approach), responsibility in this case refers to the intention to go out to help, to say, no matter who you are and how you are like, I am serious about what I am offering, I am reaching out for you, because your weal is important to me.

So I would definitely say, selfless loving (that is attached to giving up oneself) is what I would not consider to be the expression of what is shared there, more like a superlative equality, that means, treating everyone (every being out there) equal, so why selflessness, your ego (better said, your set of ideas, ego often sounds like having a connection with egotistical behaviour, ego itself (correct me if I am wrong) is latin for "me/I") in this case is as important as everyone elses.
Life itself is a chain of meeting individuals, each one has his/her own strenghts and disabilities, you have your own, so definitely equality, oneness.
But when speaking of oneness in this case, it sounds a bit contradicting, but in fact, it is not really that much of a contradiction.
All as one, that means, the one is formed by everyone, like a superlative over-I, it is really not like giving up yourself, just realizing, that you are not more or less important than everyone else.
Like everyone living "overt" amongst anyone else.
So all the "egos", surely better to talk about different set of ideas, mind/mind states (think about it for a moment, if you reduce yourself up to only using thoughts, you are a set of ideas/ wave funtions/vibrations),
are completing the shape of the universal truth.
Noone gets lost along the way, there is not really a giving up on oneself, but to push oneself to a point of understanding, where everything is that equal, that there is no need to show up/ being the center of attention.
I don't believe that we would ever lose what we are, with transition only our judgements towards other would be cut down to zero.
That is what makes this system convincing, first you learn how to stand on your own, as an experience, then learning how to interact as an individual with others, learning the ability to find compromises, in order to push the "common weal", the next step would be a mind state/ understanding point, where pure equality is the rule, as a superlative of what we had to learn here on C1, about respect and acceptance.

Respect and acceptance, equality, in the purest sense, that is how I imagine that, what some of you call pure unconditional love. It might be called (pure unconditional) love, because the C1-idea set learned how to integrate itself into the universal idea/ mind set without insiting on it's own thoughts, and the feeling attached to it, might reveal for us as similar to how we experience love in C1.
In fact, love means also finding compromises, so the pul that we feel, might be a sneak preview of that what I would call universal equality. A state, where the mind has learned to integrate itself in the big picture/dual life principle/ universal mind, not by giving up on oneself, but with being pleased to be a part of the mechanism, but I would say that in such a state, we would never judge that hard, like we do here.
At least the first state where we could say "I am?". Because there you would just exist (feeling like you are yourself, that made a transition, to forget about easy made judgements, maybe it is what you mean when you say "selfless"). But I still have problems with the word selfless, when you get merged with the universal mind, you might be just an insignificant particle on the first sight, but on the other hand help the universal mind to exist. It might be that it is just a higher state of interaction, not insisting on "your own pov, ideas" does not mean that they become unimportant. Only a part of something, that spreads equality, in fact is equality.

Much babbling, much confusion, to cut it down to size, my problem with selflessness how it is often told how it should be shared, wouldn't that mean also to give up on responsibility (at least in small doses!), and it is the case, that responsibility is the driving force of the universal mind, to take care, but being careless to oneself cannot be the answer. So it is just giving up on several point of "yourself". In most cases egotistical behaviour is referred to as the root of all evil. But I tend to say, that your real self is not egotistical or driven by cravings, and giving up on this essence of you as a being, would end up in disorder.
So nobody would lose the real self, no matter how hard he/she would try to. You cannot give up on your essence.

As always, all words In My Humble Opinion.

yours sincerely,

pulsar

pulsar wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 5:28pm:

So I would definitely say, selfless loving (that is attached to giving up oneself) is what I would not consider to be the expression of what is shared there, more like a superlative equality, that means, treating everyone (every being out there) equal, so why selflessness, you ego in this case is as important as everyone elses.

I think that's reasonable. Also, who can ever claim that they never think about themselves and devote all their time and love and concern to others? That's a pretty unrealistic goal I guess. Loving yourself and loving others and seeing them all as just as important as you, but not more so, each with their own gifts etc, yes that seems a healthy outlook to me

1. Love in a very broad sense might be just "like" as opposed to "dislike".

2. With human understanding, (1.) would develop into "avoid painful situations, seek joyful situations". (While it can be difficult to figure this out)

3. More specified, there is
(a) the "fall in love with" type- that's the pop-song-love, you know going like "I can't get you out of my head", "Can't live without you" and such. In my younger days, I had that; from my viewpoint now, I imagined obsessively to be together with that girl, and made her in my imaginations to a person who she most probably wasn't. This kind of love has something of possession- the lover is possessed by the image he/she has made of the beloved object, and as well, in a way, wants to possess the object. With a cool mind, it's plain to see that this can't work out well.
(b) the type that isn't necessarily bound to a single object, but more when you say about someone to be "a loving person", or to feel about yourself to be in a really good mood, so that you find yourself approaching the world and most people in it with a friendly smile. This is a sort of openness. Fear is diminishing. From this, when you feel fear decreasing, this might be an indicator for this kind of love (if you need this sort of indicator).

4. Pure Unconditional Love (PUL): Now, Bruce has pointed out frequently that fear cannot endure together with love, BUT that doesn't mean PUL is the absence of fear, nor the opposite of fear. That being said, there must be more to this PUL. In my experience, what makes love in the under 3.(b) sketched type to PUL, is what I only can describe as an energy, or, sometimes, a force. Not literally in the physicist's sense. But it is, when you're in a 3.(b) type of state, like something, a power, is moving through me, makes me move, makes me think and remember many people who have given a part of themselves to me, makes me not only accepting, but even radiating out this acceptance; in meditations and mind journeys it makes me very fastly thinking/acting and communicating, up to a point where I am not longer able to handle it physically, as it feels like my circulation is going to break down due to overload. This PUL, through it's connecting and somehow expansive characteristics, can make you appearing strange to others, and it can make you feel strange to yourself, as when it gets pretty intense, you sort of only laugh at the narrow physical existence you're normally used to be- but me, I cannot stay in this euphoric state for a long time, so sometimes it's hard to come back and get myself together. Find a job and those things, you know.
 I'd like to point out that this PUL might not be very easy to discover in the first time; but the like/dislike, the object-love, the general loving attitude are stages which leads one (at least me) to this special energetic type of love.

Spooky

P.S. haven't read the other posts on this yet.

hey, nice to see everybody here at once! hello Pulsar, lots of thought there, hello Spooky, great points, Juditha, you're lucky, a male friend who doesn't want to possess you as a lover, amazing! rare.
attention: not making a statement about males, it's just hard to find something like what Juditha talked about, as I tried.
well, just recently a forum member visited me, and he was male and it was, heavenly to be platonic friends with him, so thats what I meant to say, eros is heavy in our world. well, its certainly doing well on myspace!

Bets, you picked a good topic.  :) Dave, satchitananda, I'm trying to memorize it, I've heard u mention it before. I relate strongly to the word time and again. after 60 yrs of work on myself, sometimes I admit in spurts, I experience life as fascinating and strangers in public places become like old friends. Life is funny too, I had a man into eros love in a hardware store offer to come to my house, he was leering...lol..the  problem was he was about 195 years old with a lopsided grin to boot...but this not what I meant to say, even though I'm laffing to get that response, most people are returning my affection to them right away and it's not eros for the most part which makes the day go smooth as it's so energizing when they look at you, they are so grateful that you know they are alive, its easy to make others laff too. I think its because what I'm expressing I don't expect a response or need one. too bad I think I'm so funny.

Satchitananda....interesting...one time in 2003 two girls at a yard sale were doing a duet of a 50's tune I knew (yea, I'm old, so what?  :)  and they forgot part of it so the three of us began singing the tune right there at the garage sale, putting on a show, and there was much enjoyment all around, so I'd say it is liberating feeling to express one's inner nature when karma seems to be all burned off, meaning time to start planning new adventures. well, I remember going home that day thinking a couple of years ago I would never sing spontaneously at a GS! good heavens, there had to be a place to sing, not on the street for heavens sake! hey, the kids liked it.

I was not going to talk about this. got rambling. I do like the thread though Bets and I like it whenever Kathy comes a'calling.

love, alysia

It's kind of tough to define what love is. As in the case of many aspects of especially higher experience we're somehow not equipped to describe it. Anything that's sensed directly is actually tough - describe the taste of whiskey for example - we inevitably just end up building layers of concepts around the reality which is maybe why those in the enlightened state don't take much account of conceptual thought.

So in the case of love we end up defining consequences, what it isn't and so on but not the entity itself. (it seems we can't actually describe anything that is real)

Robert Pirsig wrote about this at length (he used the word 'quality' to group lots of these experiential indefinables together) in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - a very lovely and profound book which looks at ways we try to make sense of the world and the distortions they can cause. He basically argues that while we can find intellectual ways to infer aspects of quality that in the end it's indescribable - it's something that as a result of higher consciousness you just 'know'.

He also suggests that to attempt to tie it down intellectually ensures that we'll miss the point. He goes on to show how (as a result of our present 'heart' hostile addiction to an almost exclusively rationalist scientific quantitative intellectual way of making sense of things which has largely displaced a more feminine intuitive knowing) in trying to do this we've rubbished and lost contact with so much of what is beautiful in life.

It's not an argument for a return to an animalistic instinct though, as this when uninformed by higher consciousness is equally selfish with the added problem of lack of reason.

I suppose he in the end shows how as a result of this only partial 'view' we are faced with a struggle to bring love into our lives, and into world affairs. Since he wrote we've become concious that the situation is so much more pressing - it's not just a matter of happiness, but of survival.

It's really hard to define love in words. I guess it has to be as you guys say some sort of energy which naturally expresses through us, though blocked by selfish egotistical conditioning. It's experienced as direct perception before thought, can somehow be transmitted or passed on (or at least triggers the same phenomenon in others) and leaves us with a basic orientation towards 'goodness'. Thought only kicks in afterwards when we're not too sure how best to express it in practice, or  ::) need to rationalise our way out of our obligations.

:) :D Maybe the game is to let go of the urge to intellectually define it, to instead simply accept that there are other ways of knowing and get on with grounding and practicing it. With bringing it into existence, into our experience rather than just talking about it......

one definition of love or that energizing substance of course is the tried and true already coined phrase love is god.
seems to work ok over here Vajra, I think you must be right, we tend to over intellectualize it, and create all sorts of mazes like love is a cube, and have to get all the little boxes lined. rubix cube thing.

maybe its just we each have a part of it defined correctly and we put all our ideas together like we have on this thread, that is where I get a feeling of togetherness, it is a feeling of love to consider, love enjoins as opposed to separating.

also love, no matter what the situation or what type of relationship should be a simple thing, if you live by the golden rule truly, to do unto others as u would have done unto you, which entails compassion, I like to say give others the benefit of the doubt. if it turns out you were wrong to do that, then its back to forgiving your own self for the error in judgment, which leads us back to loving your own self, as someone else mentioned is so important a priority here. we all make mistakes and important to be generous with your own self before u can be generous with life.
essentially one cannot be blaming anyone else for a lack of love perceived in the lifestream as nobody owes anybody anything unless they think of it themselves, that they want to extend love as unconditionally as they can. spontaneously I should say.

but although we cannot conceptualize it all that well we can pass on stories of interactions where love was felt. these are just feel good instances throughout the life, and taken for granted as our due frequently, so they become cheapened when we take those moments for granted.

heres a brief description when love began to show up between my mother and I:
I'd waited 55 years for it to show up. one day after not speaking to her for many years she had no place to live. this was not coincidental. she came to me, her third child. her other children had no home. one had died. she was needy and it was a strain but I enjoy taking care of people. I have other lives as a nurse, and as a healer.

my grandmother was giving her dreams, working as her guide from the other side.
One day mother sat down and said to me and got the saddest look on her face. she said "I didn't treat you right, I just realized this when you were little."

there was all this silence in my heart as a great weight flew off my chest. The child that had yearned for her love at that moment died. we had just cleared the air. love was about to be born. She had just set me free with her confession of the denial that had taken place all those years.

whew!   so we can express moments like these, although we can never share the impact of the feelings we felt, like being free at last of guilt and fear and yearning.
and I think this is PUL also, along with a sort of balance occuring in the relationship where another takes responsibility for themselves, instead of making the other person do all the work. Nanny was working mother, to have her view her life, preparing for her later transition. so when these older folks began recounting their memories, we can do them a favor, to listen to them with the inner ear, they are doing early life review process.

love you guys! I know I toss that word around everywhere, but I don't mean to cheapen it. I just lightened up a bit on it.

alysia

Love

 I’m not concerned about exactly what love is (meaning the exact wording, classification, etc. of same), but rather what brings self and collective growth towards a more full and pure love which can be known and felt beyond an intellectual doubt.

 Many spiritual sources say that this comes through service and seeming self sacrifice for the benefit of others or the collective as a whole.   And it comes from daily thinking, feeling, and acting positive thoughts or intentions out to others.  Combine these two major avenues (along with the 3rd balancing one of meditation), and one has a potentially sure recipe for growing well and powerfully in love, whatever it is exactly.   This is the way of and example of Yeshua, pure service, seeming self sacrifice, and compassion daily to all others around him, with no thought for the separative, little self.  

  At some point in my path, I had to seriously ask myself some important questions about my life, and the way I was living it.   One of the major ones, was, is countless hours of reading and posting on I-net sites being surrounded by mostly those of like mind and beliefs, really benefiting me or those around me?   Was this true ‘service’?    What was the pattern and example of Yeshua, did he seek to be surrounded by those of like mind who liked and innately understood or more easily accepted his words or beliefs?  Or rather, did he hang out a lot with those who were not innately of like mind, and with whom if he had a set personality, there would have easily been personality clashes with?  

It is so easy and tempting to surround oneself with those of like mind and beliefs.  But unfortunately, when one spends too much time in that kind of situation, like I did at one point, it tends to block the growth of real love which is garnered in the nitty gritty, difficult and challenging world outside of beloved groups, forums, and the like.   There is nothing wrong with being part of these or growth blocking, if it is a more part time, re-focusing and charging up type of seeking.  

 But for myself, I realized I was too dependant on these, and on this kind of “love”.  This kind of love is better called, “affection” which is personality affection and involves like attracts like on the personality plane.   This kind of love if over indulged in and concentrated on, can actually block the real kind of love from growing more fully.  I also know that real love is not always fluffy, super feel good to the personality/ego type of love.   It can be the love that Yeshua had for those who were part of the Pharisee group, when he called them out as both individuals and as a group, on their erring bluffs.  It is the love that my guides have for me, when they point out something important for me to know and change about myself, but what I or rather my personality ego self might not like and maybe even negatively react against hearing and knowing.  

 The former, affection type love is what is in the astrology world, commonly called Venusian love, called that after the planet Venus.   It contains real and pure love, but in a limited and somewhat distorted reflection.   It is more affection and like attracts and LIKES like.   It is the love of close friendships, close romantic relationships, even individual group love, and all special type relationships.  

 Service is another very big word, and covers many aspects and areas of life and living.   Are Soul retrievals service, of course, especially with the right intentions.   And yet, these can become distractions and escapism from concentrating on more worldly and immediate “service”.    Balance is always important in all things.   Soul Retrievals are very important and a very necessary service, but it is not the end all of service, and there are those physically incarnate who could benefit from our linear time and efforts.  I wouldn’t say that Soul Retrievals are necessarily easy, in some ways sometimes they can be quite difficult…but they are often easier than dealing with the more purely physical and thus very heavy and dense energies relating to bodies and body reactions (e.g. aspects of personality and the like).

 Again, to point out the full picture, I look to and point out the example of Yeshua.   He is said to have been involved in nonphysical retrievals, and yet he spent so much of his daily time in service to physically incarnate folks and on various levels.   Did he not say that we could and would become like him?   But, to do so, we have to be like he was and to live how he lived—not part way, not half way, but completely and in  total way.   We need to ask ourselves some important and often difficult questions about our lives and our ways of living and being.  We need to focus less and less on the personal, affectionate, Venusian type love and concentrate ever more on the Galactic Center, Arcturian, Solar, Jupitarian, and Neptunian type love (the beginning the fastest vibrating and pure, to the lesser expressions of same), which is impersonal and universal and not based on like attracts, likes and treats well those whom either it likes or is well treated by.     Anyone can do the latter, it is easy to love those who treat you well, or who puff up your personality ego self because you puff up there’s.   As Yeshua once said, even the basest of criminal types, can and do this.  Yet it brings no divine and satisfying fruit—it is yet another barren and lifeless tree of illusion.  

 One thing I know about love, and my attaining to a pure and complete love, there is ever more work and practice to do, ever more letting go of hindering beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and material activities.  Ever more needing of self honesty and squarely facing all of one’s self.   What I’m trying to do lately as a simple but very important first (and yet also last) step, is to honestly ask, and then more importantly to honestly listen to the answers of the question, “what in my life is serving me and all those I may come into contact with or affect in some manner?”    As with me and what I’ve found, you may not like the answers you get, but they are the answers you need, the living of same, brings lasting joy and peace.  Like attracts, likes, and surrounds oneself with like, is a very subtle but very enticing ego trap.   It is yet another distraction on the path to the Home we never ultimately left.  

 Holistic service is showing your own Soul and the Creative forces that you understand, love, want to and are trying to further the plans of Love (Planning Intelligence/Christ) and Source.  And the constant practice/living of same eventually enables YOU to become like the Planning Intelligence, a true and FULL Co-Creator with Source.  

May you live only that which brings this, may you let go of all that hinders this from becoming your immediate and fully conscious reality.   May you follow in and on the path of the one who blazed a pure and true trail for all to follow.

 Thank you for listening.  

What is "love"?

yes, there are lots of kinds and perhaps it is kind of cold to analyse it, I don;t know. With close family members etc it is bound up in shared memories and emotions and gratitude etc, including from happy, innocent childhood times, or (I suppose) if it's children, pride and possessiveness of feeling that they came from part of us, and the memories of the shared times as they grew up and being protective of them. If it's a friend - again memories of shared good times, younger times, of helping and being helped etc. If it's a partner it's a mixture of these things, plus sexual closeness as well, and the intensity of being part of a group of just two and knowing the other person very well. If it's a stranger, just the human empathy of knowing that we all have hopes and fears and joys and sufferings. I guess love is about connecting with another person, with other people, with our world, etc, and wishing them well and feeling ackknowleged by them in return as being OK, being a valid part of this whole. Spiritually, I guess it is about affirming oneness and interconnedness, of which the opposite is feeling very alone and misunderstood, which i expect is how some people feel who commit evil acts, like school massacres etc