Fundamental Differences of Understanding..

Greetings..

Originally Posted by andrew g

Okay...I think Bob has a great respect for 'the experience' and I respect that. So I think Bob's big issue with the idea that 'love is all there is', is an implication that what is being experienced on a day to day basis is somehow false. He might think the statement is made by those wanting to deny the experience at hand. He might think that those that think that 'love is all there is' are telling stories in their mind about 'love' in order to avoid or deny reality. That we live in a dream world of love, basically incapacitated by our stories, while all the while the world ploughs on in a fairly disastrous way.

Now I dont think that those that are saying that 'love is all there is' are doing any of that. I see very grounded people saying that 'love is all there is'.

Am I kind of on the right lines though Bob?

No, Andrew.. but you raise valid points.. as you posted earlier, non-duality is only valid as a counter to duality, making my case, precisely.. even you experience the duality of non-duality.. regardless, what is more meaningful, to me.. would be to let those issues go, and just get back to sharing experiences without the preference of insisting on specific labels, labels that actually separate more than unite..

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


No, Andrew.. but you raise valid points.. as you posted earlier, non-duality is only valid as a counter to duality, making my case, precisely.. even you experience the duality of non-duality.. regardless, what is more meaningful, to me.. would be to let those issues go, and just get back to sharing experiences without the preference of insisting on specific labels, labels that actually separate more than unite..

Be well..

How do you share an experience on an internet forum without 'labels'?

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Humm

How do you share an experience on an internet forum without 'labels'?

specially when it is ineffable.
i think it's okay to use words, labels, jargons as long as we are wary not to get lost with our words.

language is a barrier but shouldn't be a cause of disunity.
so if we are seeking reconciliation of fundamental differences,
we may have to look for something else to blame.. .

Originally Posted by hybrid

specially when it is ineffable.
i think it's okay to use words, labels, jargons as long as we are wary not to get lost with our words.

language is a barrier but shouldn't be a cause of disunity.
so if we are seeking reconciliation of fundamental differences,
we may have to look for something else to blame.. .

Yes. This thread, "Fundamental Differences In Understanding", highlights the inadequacy of words to describe "what is". Lao Tzu said it best when he said that Tao is "the un-utterable"; "the nameless".

Also, as we've been using the English word "Love"....although this is the word that is popularly used in Bible translations, the original Greek word is "agape" which has a deeper meaning than "Love" in the traditional sense; but it has been said that even "agape" does not do justice to what is (trying) to be conveyed.

IMHO it seems the entire exercise in the recording of all of the sacred texts throughout history was meant to be "cussed and discussed" by humanity and discover our own individual meaning....which is what we are all doing in this forum.

We are all winners in the growth opportunity this forum offers.

Again, just my humble opinion...

Namaste,

Bodhi

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

of course we all feel those things.
it is calling them opposites or contrasting or distinct and then based on that wordings/labels, we call it DUALITY. this is where i object.

feelings come and go as movements of consciousness. so in general ,, fundamentally they are simply consciousness alone moving that generates these feelings. the movement is not a thing, only consciosuness.

I guess we can call them contrasting principles in that they are made distinct, but if the feeling is 'as it is' then it just happens to be this way and is not compared, in which case no contrasting principle applies.

so the relationship between a thing and its movement is imho not a duality.

It's a distinction which is being made between the thing and it's movement. That's quite an important distinction which reflects upon the distinction between the being and the feeling.

so the relationship between a thing and its movement is imho not a duality. neither the relationship between two feelings. this belief is probably a by product of the ancient religious theory of cosmic duality of good and evil . so since it is perceived that love is good and hate is evil they must be opposite and dual.

Yuppers.

love has intensity that you can scale as a spectrum. so as hate.

but the transition from hate to love and vice-versa have no " in between" so they cannot be linked together to form a continuous stream of spectrum of two opposing dual things.

It's just that the distinction has been made between love and hate, but they are not essential opposites, just the way feeling are passing, however, there is a more pertinant distinction to be made. The distinction between the feeling which is there and the secondary reaction to it. Hatred might be the sensational experience of the turning guts of revultion, or it might be the adverse reaction to that sensation.

the only distinction to be made is the appearance and disappearance of our percepts/feelings.
but appearance and disappearance are not dualities, they are processes, and processes are not dualities.

Yes I understand, and really the reduction of human nature to a simple 'yes/no' fundamental is in itself not a valid theory, and duality is intangible (as opposed to definable).

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Humm

Gem - ***? No one here is out to fool you into thinking they're enlightened, or abuse you, or humiliate you, or steal your trust, or break your heart.

Why - HOW - could you think such a thing??

If you have heart burn about some of the things said around here, then why don't you just accept that you have heart burn about it and stop trying to horn into a group you'd rather not have anything to do with apparently anyway and then insist everyone do things your way.

I mean, really.

\

Your little psyche assessment was quite blatent, and I already addressed it very clearly.

Originally Posted by hybrid

yes, that's how it is basically.
a heart felt relationship and resonance with oneself.
after all how can you not love yourself?
you loved your siblings, spouses, friends, and others
because they are an extension of yourself.

now imagine that you are everything,
the small self dissolves and you are now universal in scope.
you realized you are everything,
so how can you not love everything as yourself ?

love is like an energy,
we say for all things, everything is in synergy.
so we say for all beings all is love.

the argument there is hate and there is love... therefore "all is not love" at the surface seemed inconsistent.
but it's like a fellow who insists that the ground in his feet does not move because that's how he felt it ... therefore the earth does not rotate/move.
or the earth is flat because that's how he see it therefore it cannot be round.

that is how i understand the statement all is love.
the insight may be personal, but ...
there are reasons to believe that the scope is universal.


also those who see that all is love, does not live in denial.
neither it is a form of escapism from the harsh reality of the world.
most often these people are the most active charity workers in the world.
and they face their own sufferings head on with much grace.

Fine words...

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your insight.

It is bringing a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Expressing some thoughts this brings.

In my view what you present is how Love is when interacting or reacting to another. It is how one feels and to me this is still emotionally based. Although it may be a strong emotion and a preferred way one desires to be or interact with others.

The word that is getting me is Everything. So it does bring the question to mind, Is Everything Love?

Yes when one opens the self to be loving it does change one thinking and the way one interacts with the world. But everything is not just of the individual or even of us.

Although may be considered being abstract, I think it is not. For if looking outside of us (humans) and looking towards the things around us (the plants, other creatures, sun, stars, ect.) these are also of the everything.
Do they contain Love?

May be going beyond what is being discussed in regards to us, but to say Love is everything, to me, also includes all these things as well.

Yes in regards to us it is more beneficial and can be something held dear. To me though it is still how or what one feels. Even when the feeling remains.

I appreciate the reply and perhaps in its essence it is how we are. I see it more as cooperating though, which gives the feeling of acceptance.

Hi again Moonglow.

Language can be a subtle thing and I often try to choose my words with some care. Personally, I wouldnt often say that 'love is everything' (even though I dont disagree when other people say it), because although I do consider fear and anger to be love, they are not directly experienced AS love. Neither would I really say that rocks and moons and plants 'contain' love, I am more likely to say that they are 'composed' of love, or are an expression OF 'love'.

So the key point for me isnt that all things are loving and express love to other things, the key point for me is that all things are born out of love, and that some things do actually express this love to other things, and I think perhaps the more creative our potential is, the greater the capacity we have for expressing this love that we fundamentally are.

And again, for me, the reason that I think about this in the way that I do, is a) because it logically and experientially seems like the truth to me....and b) even if it isnt the truth, it enables me to experience connection and unity.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

There is only what 'is', it is the beliefs of the experiencers that inspires them to choose to believe that their understanding of how they prefer to use a 'word' is sufficient for everyone else.. that someone chooses 'love' as their 'word', and that they insist that that 'word' represents 'all that is', is a degree of separation from direct experience.. it is like choosing a restaurant where the menu has only 'one' item, and insisting that if people want to dine with you, they must eat at their restaurant.. but, if it is suggested that there are other restaurants and other menus, it is rejected on the grounds that there is no better restaurant, and not better food.. forgetting times before restaurants and menus..


Be well..

I think it is more like we are saying the menu is love itself. We are still free to choose an experience from the menu though. We can still experience hell or heaven and anything in between or beyond those things.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


No, Andrew.. but you raise valid points.. as you posted earlier, non-duality is only valid as a counter to duality, making my case, precisely.. even you experience the duality of non-duality.. regardless, what is more meaningful, to me.. would be to let those issues go, and just get back to sharing experiences without the preference of insisting on specific labels, labels that actually separate more than unite..

Be well..

yes I do experience the duality of non-duality. I experience a tree and a space around the tree. But duality is no longer primary in my experience.