unconditional love, regardless of others' ignorance

Originally Posted by arive nan

The 'those other people's love is not authentic unless it fits these certain criteria' type messages are another example of what I have been talking about... People feel what they feel. There are no degrees of authenticity to that. It is what they feel because it is what they feel. In reality that is the only criteria for feeling something.

My whole life people have been telling me 'you're not really feeling ____. If you were you would be ____.' "I feel sad." "No you don't. If you did you would be crying." "I am depressed lately." "No you aren't. If you were really depressed you wouldn't be here. You would have stayed in bed. People who are genuinely depressed don't get out of bed." What I was feeling wasn't authentic enough for them to consider it real. And that hurt. It hurt so much. I find it painful to have any feeling invalidated like that. And I feel that pain when I see someone who has has felt the same thing I have get invalidated that way.

So when I see people communicate about the same kind of love I have felt only to be told they are not authentic, they are judging others by describing the feeling, they are imposing on others by communicating about it, it's not real or genuine because it does not fit all these criteria.... it is painful for me. I know from how they are describing it that they have felt it. One would not come up with their own descriptions that speak to exactly how it has felt for me unless they have actually felt it. I am in the same boat as them. I am one of them. If they are being treated as inauthentic and etc. because they felt this love but don't meet the strict criteria set by others for its authenticity... I am being treated that way along with them.

I mean, if a public speaker says negative things about women on account of them being women, I am being treated that way along with them because I happen to be a woman. There's no separating out some of the women so that it doesn't apply to them because the negative things are said on account of women being women. I have felt the infinite ocean of love. And believe me I will certainly not fit your criteria for authenticity. So just from that I am among the ones being accused of robbing people of their own personal authenticity.

But I am simply someone who has felt this profound love. I have simply felt it. I know what I have felt. I know it is real to me. But I am not perfect. I am not humble or caring or probably anything else that is a part of the criteria for authenticity. I don't meet the criteria. So does that make what I felt inauthentic no matter how profoundly and intensely real it felt to me? Were my feelings not really felt if I don't meet the criteria of others?

No. My feelings have always been real because they are real to me. I really was sad even though I wasn't crying at the time. I really was depressed even though I pushed myself to get out of bed. I really have felt this unique kind of love that during the experience seems to be everywhere in everything, even though I am not an ideal human being. If I were to believe that what I have felt is really not authentic because I don't fit the criteria set by others, wouldn't that amount to being robbed of personal authenticity? I am going to make a conscious effort not to believe that feeling that ocean of love is only authentic if it meets someone else's criteria. I will believe that those who say they have felt it and describe it in ways that speak to me have actually felt it. The feeling is real to them because they felt it. No other criteria is necessary as far as I am concerned.

Well said Arive Nan.

There is a book on Amazon called 'Controlling People' by Patricia Evans.
http://www.amazon.com/Controlling-Pe...8059133&sr=1-1

The blurb on the back jacket says:

Does this sound like someone you know?
*Always needs to be right
*Tells you who you are and what you think
*Implies you're wrong or inadequate when you don't agree
*Is threatened by people who are 'different'
*Feels attacked when questioned
*Doesn't seem to really hear or see you when you don't agree

This is exactly the case - When someone insists that others who see something different from them are somehow broken or inferior, they are in fact attempting to control them.

Now there are those who feel victimized when there is in fact no attempt to control. The difference between those who are controlling and those who are controlled is simply this: The controlling person is the one assuming to speak for the other person. Just as you say, they tell you what you are feeling and thinking, over your own thoughts and feelings.

The book is highly recommended.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Humm

So, when someone says there is a better way, different from how you see it, I take it you feel marginalized and used by those who say there is a better way than yours, as proven by the use of a capital letter?

I don't have a way of seeing things in the same way. The capital letter is used to differentiate between love and Love... the capital letter is a distinction between the Love I don't know (yet) and the love I do know (which isn't True Love).

I see that people love, so I have no weird ideas like Love/love, because the love anyone feels is what's heartfelt, and the stuff preached to us is only something we imagine Love to be.

In the past I get the lecture about, just coz I haven't experienced it doesn't mean it's not real, but that is beside the point, what people feel is love, and what these SF preachers do is distract people from the actuality of loving by invoking some crazy spiritual imagining in them by TELLING them there's 'this other thing', Love.

People love, and I state the obvious.

I want to thank you so much Tzu for posting this. It is very refreshing to have such clarified thoughts for open discussion.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I experience X directly, and X is all there is.. if you don't agree, you haven't experienced X, and so you cannot add value to this discussion..

I agree. In the same way, a discussion about the rebuilding of a car engine can have nothing to do with a discussion on nautical law. What is topical is what is topical, after all. That is just logic and common sense.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

of course, X is supplemented with quotes by gurus who use exactly the same tactics, and.. X is embellished with brilliant poetry, and group support of the local guru, but.. when faced with sound and well reasoned inquiry, the inquirer(s) are diminished in the same fashion and the group acts to defend the guru and the message..

Now you know isn't that just the way it always goes? Someone wants to interject their 'well reasoned inquiry', but when faced with contrary references, better writing, and the dissent of the other more knowledgeable participants, they feel they are not being allowed to dominate the discussion. This is clearly unfair!

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

the real flaw in the process is when the proponents of X are successful at convincing others that logic and reason are incapable of revealing the truth about their beliefs.. the only valid truth of their statements is when they approve of your agreement with them..

Again, that's just how it goes, I quite agree. The real truth in this argument is ownership of what constitutes logic and reason. Clearly, the one who defines those terms owns the discussion. Just as clearly, the opponents of X must ALWAYS be allowed to set these terms, otherwise they would only be able to prove their truth valid when their positions genuinely warranted it.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

The process described above has been successfully used in this forum on numerous occasions, and it robs the inexperienced seeker of their own personal authenticity.. if someone experiences authentic love, i celebrate with them.. but, authentic love is not exclusive, it does not claim sole authority over existence, it is humble and caring..

To sum up then;
Allowed: Love is [Tzu's wording].
Not allowed: Love is [Any other wording].

Thanks again for the clarity.

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't have a way of seeing things in the same way. The capital letter is used to differentiate between love and Love... the capital letter is a distinction between the Love I don't know (yet) and the love I do know (which isn't True Love).

I see that people love, so I have no weird ideas like Love/love, because the love anyone feels is what's heartfelt, and the stuff preached to us is only something we imagine Love to be.

In the past I get the lecture about, just coz I haven't experienced it doesn't mean it's not real, but that is beside the point, what people feel is love, and what these SF preachers do is distract people from the actuality of loving by invoking some crazy spiritual imagining in them by TELLING them there's 'this other thing', Love.

People love, and I state the obvious.

But aren't you telling the Love crowd here that what they experience isn't real?

I'm not telling you what you think - I am agreeing with you. Love is to you what love is to you.

Why is it I cannot say publicly the same for myself? Why is it I have to accept the motivation you give me for my statement?

[Silver]

Why does "love" have to be a battlefield?

Who will 'win' the war?

What will they profit when it's 'over'?

I wonder.

Originally Posted by Silvergirl

Why does "love" have to be a battlefield?

Who will 'win' the war?

What will they profit when it's 'over'?

I wonder.

Where you see war and a battlefield, I see Love.

It never ends.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Humm

Where you see war and a battlefield, I see Love.

It never ends.

You're one of the combattants.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Humm

But aren't you telling the Love crowd here that what they experience isn't real?

I'm not telling you what you think - I am agreeing with you. Love is to you what love is to you.

Why is it I cannot say publicly the same for myself? Why is it I have to accept the motivation you give me for my statement?

I'm not telling anyone anything. I'm saying this a hoax which distracts people from what is love into a silly dream about Love.

My concern is someone will believe their love which is heartfelt is 'not True Love', so I'm indicating that the gurus parade themselves in a charade.

If people want to, they can pay attention to that love which is heartfelt.

[sound]

Originally Posted by Humm

But aren't you telling the Love crowd here that what they experience isn't real?

There is a specific Love crowd here? Dont we all make up the crowd here?

[Silver]

Along about uh, page 1 of this thread, pearldiver posted a very calm, kind, thoughtful and seemingly enlightened post (#7) but that wasn't good enough for some, I guess. *shrug* Idk why, though. Check it out ~ again.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...35&postcount=7