Who's to say loving is right and harming is wrong?

[Luminary]

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate. However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong? What am I missing?

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate. However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong? What am I missing?

what an odd question... most people just take such things for granted and don't think about them any further.

love for others is set against the love for money...

but to answer the question directly, my reading of the good book says that the fundamentally 'wrong' thing we all do is assume there are things that are fundamentally right and other things that are fundamentally wrong, and act accordingly. So really, to the gods, doing a 'wrong' thing can seem beneficial, to the extent it frees you from having that kind of point of view. Which doesn't mean there aren't consequences if you do something others don't like, it just means things aren't as easy as just saying 'this is right, and that is wrong' just because others are agreeing to a certain way of looking at things.

Go down that road far enough and you'll get a feel for how fickle the things people say they want really are anyway... in my view we have a nice house of cards, built out of things we don't even like beyond the fact that everyone else says they like them too lol... it is like we are juggling balls high in the sky, and can't make ourselves stop and get grounded.

by the way that kind of statement about right and wrong hasn't been pushed by the gods beyond a simple remark about it early on. I think it is because the tendency, if you buy that kind of statement in the first place, would be to take that statement itself as a proclamation of what is right and what is wrong and so you haven't really progressed past the original problem... then it just becomes another hollow way of living.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate. However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong? What am I missing?

Would you prefer that other people are loving and kind to you? Or would you prefer that other people are malicious and harmful to you?

The answer is self-evident. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Love and harmlessness are qualities of the Soul or Consciousness. When we express love in action then we are aligned with Soul purpose.

Peace

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate. However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong? What am I missing?

If there was an alignment and a beingness of what you are that was all loving then one would act and be self expressing that .

It's a natural expression of your beingness, a true reflection of love .

We speak about right and wrong doings when we are experiencing a diversity of self expressions that at times do not reflect an alignment of that love .

It's easy to be of love and light sat crossed legged in solitude in a nice environment but one can be tested in an environment of fear, corruption, chaos etc etc .


x dazza x

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate.
However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong?
What am I missing?

What are you missing? Possibly a conscience.

[Luminary]

My apologies for being unclear. I assumed readers of this section know those embracing non-duality to understand that all is one - love and hate, me and it, us and them, good and bad, right and wrong - that there are no such labels in oneness. I was playing the devil's advocate - if one seeks to better the world through love, isn't that placing labels of "good" on love and "bad" on harming?

Personally and at this time I believe in something in between what I understand of dualistic and non-dualistic perspectives. I believe in a type of oneness of all things. However, I also believe in a type of duality in what I perceive to be loving and harming, that is a good and bad. More specifically, I do not attribute one's harming behavior to their identity. I suspect we all came from love and will return, the one growing wiser and knowing itself more fully. I just seek to understand and appreciate perspectives differing mine in order to broaden my own and decrease inaccurate assumptions.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate. However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong? What am I missing?

As all is one (not separate), doing harm is harming self regardless of who/what is harmed.

One can also think of it as a price being paid (damage from harm). The question is if that price is justified compared to the benefits.

Still, it probably is more to your (our) benefit to find a way to get the benefit without causing harm.

Of course if you don't care about your self, the issue of right and wrong is irrelevant (to you anyway).

Also if you are of the view that experience is experience and need not be judged, the issue of right and wrong is irrelevant (to you anyway).

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I understand loving others, recognizing one is not separate. However, isn't doing this assuming loving is right and harming is wrong? What am I missing?

I think if you remove love from the quandary it becomes clearer that ethics is primarily about benefit over harm, and it's obvious that benefit outweighs harm by definition alone. Now I'm going to spare you my long essay on goodwill and ill-will. YW.

[Unseeking Seeker]

In my view, love, pure love has no opposite. It’s an outpouring of God consciousness Itself, in eternal renewal.

The love-hate antonym we speak of relates to trade, ego seeking reciprocation or at least recognition, not divine love, which is unconditional, nonjudgmental.

Consider love as a becoming, rising from bubbling joy to selective empathy to universal compassion, unending bliss flowing like our breath, rooted in purity of being; as such the one rainbow displaying different hues. So, we become love which we are, albeit momentarily veiled by delusion of separation from source.

As for harming others, it stems from ignorance doesn’t it, once we recognise that there is only one then each entity is an indivisible part of the whole. This recognition sets us free.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by Luminary

I assumed readers of this section know those embracing non-duality to understand that all is one - love and hate, me and it, us and them, good and bad, right and wrong - that there are no such labels in oneness.

Not one, not two.

Meaning thereby, that existence is neither dual nor non dual. There is a reason why there is a multiplicity of beings, and not just Brahman. Also, let me explain further about what EXACTLY is non dual and what EXACTLY is dual. Consciousness or awareness is non dual, but if you think while you are aware, then that introduces duality to perception, no matter who you are, be it the greatest being of the universe.

Why is awareness mixed with thought dual ? Because it is thought that posits a subject and an object. Remove thinking and all becomes one (not just feels like one just because you are thinking "all is one") but actually your experience will be one of oneness.

So, thought is dual and awareness unmixed with thought is non dual. And because we are both thinking and aware beings, we are both. Not one, not two.

Even after enlightenment you will be thinking also, not just blissfully aware. So, existence as a whole is NEVER non dual.

Also, let us take the physical body, either your own or someone else's. If you can distinguish between the different body parts, your awareness is mixed with subtle thought (of recognition) and will be dual.