Think of it as the greek definition of Agape. Love no matter what...forgiveness no matter what.

Yours,
Beau

One possible definition is that you don't require a person to show you his or her resume before you'll love he or she.

An example, if your kid does good on a spelling bee that's great, but even if he (or she) takes last place you'll still love him completely.

Another example, you won't conclude that people are more deserving of love and respect than other life forms. We're all sacred.

Sergio, unconditional love is a state of being that comes from the heart. It is a kind of radiance which you can feel that eminates from this place in your body. When you are aligned with this quality, you will feel a warmth toward all that is, a warmth and a comfort and a caring, which feels fuller and more real than any other concern you may have. It is not something you want but it is something you can receive. It is not something you take but it is something you can give. It is an openness of heart, and it is ever expanding, and it has no limits. All that is small, all that is tender, all that is vulnerable is easily contained in it. All that is great, all that is mighty, all that is strong is easily contained in it. Therefore, where you find struggle, where you find resistance, know that unconditional love is the solution. It is the missing link. It is invisible, and yet people notice it. When you feel it, you know it.

B2ifull !

I want to share with you what Frank Kepple wrote about love. It is very interesting.


"Love is a state of mind and fear is an emotion or a feeling. Now, I fully understand where people are coming from when they might disagree, saying love is not a state of mind, but a feeling.  Myself, I can agree in the sense that we tend to interpret love as a feeling, but I would respectfully point out that this is merely an interpretation.

So here’s what it means:

When the traditional works say that love is truth, what they mean is, love is a Truth. Now, when something is defined as a Truth, what they are defining is a particular kind of reality. They are making a specific distinction between what we might call a local, physical-focus reality. Say, for example, a chair. This could be said to be a reality, it exists as a physical truth. But it is not a truth in the wider sense of it being a Truth. This distinction is sometimes made more apparent by capitalizing the word Truth, when it is meant in a wider sense.

So a Truth, then, has a reality in a wider sense. In other words, a Truth is a reality that is not limited to any particular realm of existence; but is a reality that is present in all realms of existence. So in every realm of existence, you will find there is the expression or manifestation of love.

Love is a fundamental energy, that permeates all dimensions. However, within our physical dimension, we experience merely one aspect of the reality of this Truth we call love.

Given certain conditions, it is possible to adopt an alternate mental state that will allow us to merge our sense of consciousness with the energy of love. Thus we can allow the feeling of this mergence to become manifest within our objective awareness. The actual sensations we feel as a result of this merging (which are rather nice!) we interpret as a particular range of feelings.

There are many other reams of existence where people consciously merge with the energy of love. While their interpretations of the experience may be different from our own interpretations, the actual energy they interact with is the same… it’s just their interpretation that is different.

It is unfortunate (though perfectly understandable) that we then put two and two together, and conclude that love is merely a feeling… because that is how we interpret it. But we fail to recognize the wider reality of love as a Truth. This, of course, is something that basic spiritual teachings have been trying to point out for thousands of years! But, like I say, for some reason people took the basic teachings and made religions out of them, and we are only just now learning how to unravel the mess.

Okay, so now I come to the “fear” aspect, in the sense of where it was claimed that fear is the opposite of love.

First, there are no opposites. They are merely belief constructs that we harmonize with for a variety of reasons. Our belief constructs shape our reality. Our reality is not good or bad, negative or positive, etc. Our reality simply is. It is our misinterpretation of reality that leads us into making all manner of erroneous judgements. The concept of “polarity” does of course have its practical uses, for instance, when replacing the batteries in your Walkman. But when we take this idea and apply it to energy, in terms of mental energy, our thinking tends to go way off base.

I’m not going to go into any detail here about how we create our reality, as I wish to remain focused on the theme of love and emotions. But in short, the BIG mistake we make is, we start to think of our lives as something that happens to us, rather than something we create for ourselves. Anyhow, back to emotions:

So fear is an emotion, but is fear a Truth?
No
Hate is an emotion, but is hate a Truth?
No
Is any emotion a Truth?
No
Is emotion a reality?
Yes
Then why is it not a Truth?

Because for a reality to be a Truth, it must be a reality that is present in all realms of existence. Our emotions are physical-realm constructs only.

So emotions are realities that each of us generates, in a local sense, from our core beliefs. More specifically, emotions are communications that present us with feelings about the way situations are interacting with our core beliefs. These feelings are entirely of our own individual creation. Whereas love, being a Truth, is a universally present energy.

In other words, love is not something we generate or something we create, as we do with our ordinary feelings. Love is a universally distributed, ever-present energy we can merge with, and feel the effects of. There is no opposite to love. Love simply is. We confuse it with our locally generated feelings through faulty interpretation."

Hi

When we generate unconditional love ala Moen's or b2's explanations, we put ourselves back in harmony with that all pervasive caring, giving Love energy field. 

Kepple is wise but he is ignoring that most of us need to be reminded how to become re-immersed within love as of the essence of all life.  Due to the word 'generated,' Kepple and b2 seem to be contradicting each other, but I think they're just discussing the field of Love with different focusses/focii.

Bets

Very good, folks! I agree fully with B2, as well as with Kepple. The styles to describe it are different, but I see the same "thing" is meant.

I, too, have spoken in my post of a "feeling" regarding PUL. Kepple gives a very good specification. It isn't a mere feeling beneath other feelings. It is something much more encompassing: It still remains, while all those "feelings" have been dropped. He as well pointed out, that we, as physical human beings focused mainly on the physical, tend to interprete it as an (exceptionally astounding good) feeling, when we aren't aware of the greater reality. Kepple, in another script, doubted that "love" is an adequate word for this universal "thing". He, as far as I recall, interpreted it as the energy which is radiated when the realisation is there that all of the physical (including the own person) is a concept, founded in the "final" focus level beyond Focus 27.

Spooky