Fundamental Differences of Understanding..

[Mathew James]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

It is an observation of past experiences, each new experience reveals its own appropriate interaction..

If you are only observing or looking at an experience, only as a watcher, can any emotions be felt by the observer. If a person is only observing, without any thoughts to clutter the observation, imo, there can be no emotionial connection to the experience. Emotions are created by being focused on what we feel and they require thoughts based on what we believe is happening. And as such, the concept of something like "all is love" can not be observed. It can only be believed.

mj

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

...even when they believe 'all is love', their mind and awareness has no other options, no freedom for limitless potential to reveal itself...

Thre is something rather interesting about this "all is Love" proposition. If everything is ultimately an expression of "Love", then this "Love" can't be said to be anything in particular. It couldn't be associated with any particular expression because it isn't that expression any more than it is any other- remember, Evereything is "Love".

Therefore, this "Love" is expressed no more or less in acts of malice and cruelty than acts of kindness and altruism. Remember, everything is the expression of "Love".

Therefore, this "Love" can no more be associated with our human sense of love than any other experience since, it is all. So this begs the question, why give it the name "Love" when it has ho more to do with love than with hatred, or anything therein between.

Once again, if all experience is "Love", then it is no experience in particular. The particular experience of love is applied because of its human favorability, but it is ultimately arbitrary what attribute/value is chosen as representative of beingness. They are all equally inappropriate.

This "Love" has no particular meaning...and we arrive wherein we started.

[Mathew James]

Originally Posted by LIFE

...This "Love" has no particular meaning...

the concept of love needs to be given meaning, but it needs to be desired by a participant before it can have a meaning, so what creates the need for love? or is there a need for love?

mj

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by LIFE

Thre is something rather interesting about this "all is Love" proposition. If everything is ultimately an expression of "Love", then this "Love" can't be said to be anything in particular. It couldn't be associated with any particular expression because it isn't that expression any more than it is any other- remember, Evereything is "Love".

Therefore, this "Love" is expressed no more or less in acts of malice and cruelty than acts of kindness and altruism. Remember, everything is the expression of "Love".

Therefore, this "Love" can no more be associated with our human sense of love than any other experience since, it is all. So this begs the question, why give it the name "Love" when it has ho more to do with love than with hatred, or anything therein between.

Once again, if all experience is "Love", then it is no experience in particular. The particular experience of love is applied because of its human favorability, but it is ultimately arbitrary what attribute/value is chosen as representative of beingness. They are all equally inappropriate.

This "Love" has no particular meaning...and we arrive wherein we started.

Love is the energy of creation itself. All creative expressions are born out of, and express this love because it is fundamental, but they do so diversely and and contrastingly and relatively. Some expressions express a greater amount of love, some expressions express a less amount of love. It is impossible for any expression (such as hatred and fear) to be totally devoid of love. It wouldnt be an expression if it was totally devoid of love.

It is entirely possible that there are realities in which there is no experience of negative emotion. On the other hand, if this was the case, there would also be no conscious recognition of love, there would only be the experience of it (to relative degrees). Many humans have yet to understand that there are no absolute opposites, and that there is no 'objective reality' in which objects have separate existence in and of themselves. Many spiritual peeps understand this idea to be false, and yet because we all still think and speak in terms of 'nouns' i.e. we are able to recognize life as a 'thing', we are also able to recognize that love is a constant/fundamental. If there was no negative emotion, this would not be recognized. The idea of 'love' itself would fall away (with all the other nouns!)

This is why a world of peace and harmony is a possibility, but a world totally and utterly devoid of love is not. Though having said that, that doesnt mean that nightmarish realms in which the degree to which love is expressed is relatively very small, are not possible. If it can be imagined, the potential is there.

I guess what Im trying to say is that for as long as we recognize love and fear....as long as we have a reference for these qualities, then in my opinion, it is fair and correct to say that love is fundamental.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Mathew James

If you are only observing or looking at an experience, only as a watcher, can any emotions be felt by the observer. If a person is only observing, without any thoughts to clutter the observation, imo, there can be no emotionial connection to the experience. Emotions are created by being focused on what we feel and they require thoughts based on what we believe is happening. And as such, the concept of something like "all is love" can not be observed. It can only be believed.

mj

The word 'belief' is a tricky one I have found, and means a hundred different things to a hundred different people....but I would say that kind of statement (all is love) is an 'understanding'. I might also say it is an understanding that reflects 'truth' to a greater degree than the understanding that love and fear exist as absolute opposites (i.e. without relation).

That understanding can be dropped (and is dropped) if we are sitting in quiet watching. That doesnt negate the truth of the understanding though.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


I am not sure or unsure that others or wrong or that i am right.. i only advocate observation for the the purpose of observing what 'is'.. what is certain, is that when one is looking for 'something', their focus is limited and exclusionary.. if one is looking for 'love itself', even when they believe 'all is love', their mind and awareness has no other options, no freedom for limitless potential to reveal itself.. so, i don't even strive really, i just look..

Be well..

The idea of observing 'what is' is a slightly strange one. I think I understand what you mean by it, but a problem is that we are not separate from 'what is', so the observing 'what is' is an act of creation itself i.e. we are not standing back at a distance from creation, neutrally and objectively observing.

Therefore, we are not REALLY observing 'what is', it just seems like we are sometimes. Im not even sure there is a 'what is'. We are actually constantly busily engaged and active in the creative process. Given this, a pertinent question becomes....well, what am I creating and what do I want to create? Whether love is a constant or not, the potential is there to create what we recognize to be harmonious and joyful expressions or what we recognize to be hellish expressions.

[hybrid]

the prime directive of love is union.
the lover is attracted to be one with the beloved.
this is the nature of things

for oneness consciousness, love is a fundamental aspect.
it is out of self-love that consciousness unfolds to individuated consciousness
and out of love to bring back everything to its fold.

Well said Andrew.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

I am not sure or unsure that others or wrong or that i am right.. i only advocate observation for the the purpose of observing what 'is'.. what is certain, is that when one is looking for 'something', their focus is limited and exclusionary.. if one is looking for 'love itself', even when they believe 'all is love', their mind and awareness has no other options, no freedom for limitless potential to reveal itself.. so, i don't even strive really, i just look..

Be well..

A lot is being said about words here. In the OP a statement is made how some are putting absolute values on words, and that is sidetracking threads.

What is the value of 'What is' vs 'Love itself'? Is it the same relative value as 'right' vs 'wrong'? What is the relative value of the words 'clarity', 'accuracy' or 'fundamental' vs. any others?

What does 'certain' mean? What does 'meaningless' mean?

What is the point of striving to point fingers at words with other words if they are all limited and exclusionary?

Greetings..

Originally Posted by andrew g

Love is the energy of creation itself. All creative expressions are born out of, and express this love because it is fundamental, but they do so diversely and and contrastingly and relatively. Some expressions express a greater amount of love, some expressions express a less amount of love. It is impossible for any expression (such as hatred and fear) to be totally devoid of love. It wouldnt be an expression if it was totally devoid of love.

It is entirely possible that there are realities in which there is no experience of negative emotion. On the other hand, if this was the case, there would also be no conscious recognition of love, there would only be the experience of it (to relative degrees). Many humans have yet to understand that there are no absolute opposites, and that there is no 'objective reality' in which objects have separate existence in and of themselves. Many spiritual peeps understand this idea to be false, and yet because we all still think and speak in terms of 'nouns' i.e. we are able to recognize life as a 'thing', we are also able to recognize that love is a constant/fundamental. If there was no negative emotion, this would not be recognized. The idea of 'love' itself would fall away (with all the other nouns!)

This is why a world of peace and harmony is a possibility, but a world totally and utterly devoid of love is not. Though having said that, that doesnt mean that nightmarish realms in which the degree to which love is expressed is relatively very small, are not possible. If it can be imagined, the potential is there.

I guess what Im trying to say is that for as long as we recognize love and fear....as long as we have a reference for these qualities, then in my opinion, it is fair and correct to say that love is fundamental.

Hi Andrew: It is admirable to argue for what you believe, can you 'not' do that? can you be still, and simply observe.. yes, i know all of the observed/observer relationships, and.. i experience a 'stilled mind' condition where there is simply the relationship and the experience of it, not thoughts describing it, no expectations, just the continuum of experience..

Yes, authentic emotion manifests as a function of the unique perspective that 'i' am, as body, mind, spirit 'sensation', and.. the 'still mind' experiences the emotion as an energetic interaction with the situation, a communication of the 'part/whole' relationship..

What is evident, is the attachment to words and concepts.. the defensive tactics to protect the concept of 'love', reveal the attachment.. it is possible to set-aside all thought, belief, and knowing, to hear the silence.. but, when people insist that a concept is true and 'fundamental', they cannot get past their 'fundamental belief' to the silence..

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

Hi Andrew: It is admirable to argue for what you believe, can you 'not' do that? can you be still, and simply observe.. yes, i know all of the observed/observer relationships, and.. i experience a 'stilled mind' condition where there is simply the relationship and the experience of it, not thoughts describing it, no expectations, just the continuum of experience..

Yes, authentic emotion manifests as a function of the unique perspective that 'i' am, as body, mind, spirit 'sensation', and.. the 'still mind' experiences the emotion as an energetic interaction with the situation, a communication of the 'part/whole' relationship..

What is evident, is the attachment to words and concepts.. the defensive tactics to protect the concept of 'love', reveal the attachment.. it is possible to set-aside all thought, belief, and knowing, to hear the silence.. but, when people insist that a concept is true and 'fundamental', they cannot get past their 'fundamental belief' to the silence..

Be well..

Can you do what you suggest Tzu?

You too have just stated a list of words describing your perspective - 'being' still, 'stilled mind', 'simply' observe - rejecting anything that does not fit your description.

Is this entire thread not evidence of your attachment to your perspective - and your chosen words to describe it - in your arguing for the words and concepts?