Mmmm! Thought that would get you guys going. Thanks for the replies. UGK was indeed a different gent to JK - JK was the guy the Theosophists decided was to be the world teacher, but who rejected the role. UGK came from a wealthy Indian family who had been told that he came close to enlightenment in a previous life - they apparently put him through intensive spiritual training in his younger years in the hope of getting him there. He later became disillusioned with the fluff surrounding the traditions he encountered, and left his family and fortune for Europe where he went through some sort of process of transformation, wandered the streets of London for a couple of years and was eventually taken in by somebody in Switzerland. (?). He knew J, but didn't gel with his fairly traditional take on matters spiritual.
Comparing what he describes to what Buddhism might have to say my sense is that he probably did achieve one of the earlier stages of enlightenment, but that his intellectual explanation of what happened to him is unconventional. (which seems to be no indication of whether or not he was realised - it's taught that it takes time/lives to integrate the realised view. But he's got a lot interesting to say in that he talks from an almost wholly experiential perspective, and makes no attempt to rationalise it to fit traditional views.
When you read between the lines you can pick up what he's driving at. It makes a lot of sense, to me anyway.
I guess what you've all said on love is pretty much what I'd say if asked too. But I'd to quite a degree be repeating conventional distillations which to me are a little glib. What I'm wondering about is at a totally practical and experiential working level that comes in way below these basically conceptual descriptions.
What in each and every situation is required of us?
Do we know? Can we even figure it out intellectually, or is it something that's largely intuitive? Even those of us that profess to live through love?
For example. I know what we call love is for real in that I'm to varying degrees motivated to help others. That with time we come to identify with them.
But I don't know what this feeling or urge is, I can't in conceptual terms get inside it, and can't quite say what it actually is. It could easily be the sort of subconsciously decided more enlightened self interest that UG suggests. (i suspect it's simultaneously that, being driven by care for others, the influence of God/Grace/higher mind and more besides - that as ever it's a multidimensional entity rather than the polarity or at best duality we like to think in terms of)
It's not permanent, and is influenced by my mind states. I can if treated wrongly be driven into dislike of people I've previously felt love towards.
Whatever urge there is towards loving others is not universal anyway. There are people with whom I have to use a lot of mindfulness to stay fairly positive and avoid getting aggressive.
Finally, and presuming my wish is to act in a loving manner is not diverted by selfishness there's times when I flat don't know what's the right action to take.
So all in all it's quite a morass.
We'd all if asked like to solve world hunger, end all war and fix the environment. Or make a difference. Or even just be truly loving towards our family and friends. But flat don't know how. And probably couldn't even pull it off if we knew what was required of us. And would maybe add the words 'not just yet' if having figured out the answer found the price higher than we were willing to pay. Or that we weren't going to be recognised for it.
It's something I'm trying to figure out a bit better, as I'm in the process of changing my life direction and hope to be of more service to others. But I'm not sure what that means. Do i for example have to enter some sort of caring profession (become a social worker or something? - think not), or is simply a matter of trying to avoid indulging my ego? Is it Ok to make a decent income? (think so if it falls that way, but it shouldn't drive the decision) Does it entail putting my best foot forward by being open to options and letting life do the rest? (think yes) Can it be defined by rules? (think only approximately, that it's ultimately situation specific)
As ever I'm drawing on Buddhist teaching. This is probably the biggest issue there is, yet it's so easy to be fobbed off with vague generalisations which have little practical effect on our lives.
Mahayana Buddhism teaches that it's possible to with spiritual work and life experience awaken the heart and make this a more universal behaviour. To generate loving kindness or bodhichitta as it's termed in Sanskrit. The Bodhissattva teachings address this longing - what it is, how to work with mind to give rise to it, the six paramitas or transcendent (beyond selfishness) wisdoms on which its built and how to maintain and grow it in the face of life. (we're easily driven back from it when the going gets tough)
Meditation is of course central, but so is ultimately is achievement of emptiness/transcendence of self - realisation. At which point it becomes what we are.
A good easy to read basic source on all of this is 'No Time to Lose' by Pema Chodron - her commentary on Shantidevas 8th C but incedibly relevant 'Way of the Bodhisattva. A Bodhisattva is a person who has dedicated their life to helping all other beings achieve realisation. Transcendent Wisdom by the Dalai Lama is a bit more comprehensive, especially on the higher aspects of it. There's lots of plain translations about too - the Padmakara one comes recommended as having an excellent intro., but I've not seen it.