Vmarco

I'm quite sure I articulated that Unconditional Love is not dual, or has an opposite,...for example post #251. The connection with love and hope arose in much earlier dialogues where someone was continuously SENDING love ans hopes with various intents. In any authentic spiritual reality, love and hope would never intermingle, because hope is a condition fully associated with duality. People can believe they can SEND love and hope,...yet no one can send Love,...the instant someone even thought that they could send love, the radiation of love would be veiled. V

As I explained above,...thinking is IRREFUTABLY in the past,...IRREFUTABLY! Your thinking that it is not, does not change that changeless fact. No one, anywhere, can think in the present. Second, from my observation, nothing is faster than the so-called-speed-of-light,...although I would not say that is an absolute truth. I can understand that the sciential minded like to dream up nonsense about energy/mass hidding itself in bubble and tricking Undivided Light that such a condition (the bubble)is not in the Unconditionality of the non-dimension of Undivided Light,...but it's surely ridiculous. I'm not saying that Consciousness cannot realize Undivided Light, that is, cross the threshold into the timeless, energyless, massless, Unconditionality of Clear Light,...but no amount of imagination (which arises from the skandhas)is going to. On another thread I wrote: Although most object-ive scientists often experience revulsion when encountering the idea of universal correlation, that is, the understanding that everything in nature is instantaneously connected with and affected by everything else, Bell's theorem showed experimentally that this is so. If A is instantly aware of where B is, even though they may be located at opposite ends of the universe, this implies that A and B, although perceptively different, have some fundamental sameness. At the so-called-speed-of-light,...nothing travels any distance, in any time, and thus there is no need for speed. Two Baylor scientists are playing with fantasies based upon a String Theory that doesn't exist. This is why I mentioned in the 'What is Light' thread that it is doubtful that science will ever get it,...especially not filtered through their current belief systems. Other than that, I'm not going to repeat here was was posted there. I will say, that it would be of the utmost importance for you to ponder on "thinking",...I worked through it in a univsersity setting some 24 years ago,...even had access to sensory deprivation tanks,...one cannot think in the present. It's irrefutable. With all respect,...If you cannot grasp that, you will not uncover the next level. V

Just because compassion can relate to those who haven't, doesn't mean that those who haven't can recognize compassion. For example, I just posted a related story of compassion on post #46 http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19943-disinformation-campaign/page__st__32 V

The natural, organic if you will, radiating of the love you are, is not an INTENT to send love or hope. As the previous posts stresssed, the act/intention of sending is fundamentaling an intrusion or attack upon another, no matter what the presumed good intentions of the sender. I must assume that your failure to see this is my failure to communicate it. The intentional sending of love or hope is premeditated rape. Just because society accepts it, doesn't make not so,...just as physical rape in totalitarian or feudal places were accepted. V

Seriously? You do not recognize that "honest" and "belief" are direct opposites? If a belief were true it would not be a belief. V

I think "Honest Belief" definitely qualifies as an oxymoron. V

Natural for those who have shed a sufficient amount of beliefs so that love is less obscure. V

My son's are fully aware of my feeling of them. Perhaps through EJ Gold's description of Real Emotion, you could see my point about Real Love. "Real emotions are communicated by outward radiation of the mood, and originate through an awakened emotional center, which has no reverberational effects in other parts of the body, and is not necessary to verbally communicate the emotion. Positive and negative emotion are subjective mental states occuring in reflex, and must be verbalized and elaborately described, explained, rationalized and mentally communicated and understood. Those who can produce real emotions in themselves never communicate about emotional states in mental language; they just radiate the emotions, allowing the emotion to speak for itself. In the presence of someone who is able to produce real emotion, we experience feelings - perhaps for the first time. Very often, someone who has awakened the higher Emotional Body and who has learned to radiate emotions becomes a celebrity-guru, and people gather like cattle to bathe in the higher emotions. These higher emotions are often mistaken for some mysterious cosmic force or interpreted in some pseudo-religious way, but really they are just emotions. What a pity that human beings are so unaccustomed to emotion that they feel compelled to submissively huddle together in the warmth of the emotional radiation of someone just as mechanical as they are, but who happened to have activated, by accident, the higher Emotional Body." EJ Gold

I wouldn't consider radiating love, as sending. Radiating the love you are is quite natural,...and the more that the barriers of love, like hope, fear, beliefs, etc., are dissolved, the more Love radiates. The person who truly radiates love, is the one with few beliefs,...those with beliefs are operating within a dualist construct, which obscures love. V

From my position on the planet that we live, I see the conditions of love and hate as sensory delusions. Unconditional Love does not have an opposite, like say, Christian love. For example, Christian love is often considered the highest love, but that too is merely a conditional love. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs. Unconditional Love is beyond beliefs,...and beyond the conditions of opposites. I agree, that floating in imaginary wisdom can delight the senses in a myrad of personal imagry,...and those who cling to such imagry will fight to the death to protect it, killing everything and anything that could shine light upon their beliefs,...which ultimately isn't who they are. People are not their beliefs,...they merely think they are. Compassion is a key. An authentic compassionate person would never attempt to "send love or hope." In fact, any intention to "send love or hope" is a clear indication that compassion is void in the sender. Compassion is a level of understanding that suffering is the consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are. And by understanding that last sentence, Siddhartha uncovered Buddha,...nothing more, nothing less,...understand that sentence and you are Buddha,....it is the Great Noble Truth of Buddhism. Everytime one attempts to "send love or hope", thet deny what is. V

I have obviously made some comments about the activity of "sending love" in reference to those who feel I'm lacking it,...which have disturbed a few,...most likely those who like to "send." Here are a few comments of some others on the topic of SENDING LOVE. In the 90's there were some studies on the geometry of Sending Love,...especially that of projecting love to others without their consent. During that study and subsequent debate, Constance Demby wrote, "is it the THE 'SENDING' THAT CAUSES THE BACKLASH, or THE "INTENTION TO ENFORCE A CHANGE!" In fact, the backwash begins EVEN BEFORE THAT with the PERCEPTION that there is something WRONG in the first place! That initial perception of a wrongness is what begins stirring the waters, not the "sending." Bob Dratch argued, "True Service is the spontaneous outflow of a loving heart and an intelligent mind; it is the result of being in the right place and staying there; it is produced by the inevitable INFLOW (not SENDING), of spiritual force and NOT by strenuous physical plane activity (doing a "something"). The Master INFLOWS, the universe responds by expressing the energy out not by a push but by a pull). Pushing is invading the space of another. Sending is pushing. Dratch said, Link a planet up by telling innocent people to SEND LOVE (or ANY SENDING ACTION), or any other way where the resultant action is to "create an effect" in others by having others who are aware and those who are NOT AWARE of what is going on receive the SENDING action, is to open us globally up for a fall. AND we are seeing that globally now. God help the innocents that were subjected to this violation of spiritual law! Folks, I don't know if this negativity can be stopped, I am very disappointed that these people who purport to us that they have a RIGHT to do this. The negative effect is not stopping, or diminishing, it is growing, and it is not LOVE or LIGHT that is growing, but as Dan Winter noted, it is another way for expressing a wave of death. If you setup your nervous system to simply BE instead of the going through the "action of sending", you create a nervous system "template" that allows all patterns of love, light and radiance (if that is your intent) to naturally come into existence. Sending however, incurs the electromagnetic inversion. Consider it people, the truely classical meditators say BE, the ones that haven't the foggiest about how energy works in space say SEND IT OUT - your choice folks! If you are happy with your personal meditation, by all means, PRAY to ALL the GOD's and BE what you are, but if you send that action out to God, be prepared for the negative response." Those comments seem reasonable to me. V

I am one of those people who as I recently mentioned in another post, that when driving into an amazing Arizona sunset, said to my young son, "isn't that beautiful", and the words from the childs mouth replied, "why are you being so judgmental?" Interestingly, ACIM suggests that "the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality. Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it." Regadless of your "earth bound senses", when you uncover real love, the love that has never left, nor from which you can never leave, you will understand that love cannot be sent anywhere,...because love was never missing. SEEK NOT LOVE, BUT SEEK AND FIND ALL THE BARRIERS THAT YOU HAVE BUILT AGAINST IT. Seek not love, but shine a light of compassion upon all the beliefs that step between sentient beings and their direct experience. Real compassion does not avoid, appease, nor sends what cannot be sent. Being "grounded" in the delusions of a sentient mind only leads to suffering. V "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti

Yes, people surly ridicule those who have experiences that they haven't. But the facts indicate that we all perceive our lives from within electrodynamic fields, and within such, when our attention and intention is focused, or projecting, as in prayer, things can happen,...for example, look at the contemplative prayer that produces stigmata,...now that's some powerful thinking/projecting into form. For myself, my attention and intention is on Vajrayana practice, and lowering the electrodynamic field so it can maintain (a lowering of the holographic screen) no belief,...it's often called by its practioners, the Short Path. Interestingly, those who seek no beliefs, no visions, get ridiculed far more than you can imagine. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741 V

That's an excellent point,...always refer to the first Absolute Bodhichitta,..."treat everything you perceive as a dream" Of course, while in that dream, "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire V

Correct, WhiteRabbit, there was nothing wrong with what I said,...it was not offensive, and it was on-topic,...but a few cyber-bullies here have decided to make me a perpetual target for their victimization. I understand that you have been gone for awhile, but if follow my posts, they occur just like this thread,...I make an on-topic post, and they attack the messenger with the intention to hurt or embarress,...and attempting to chase me off the forum. CowTao writes "nor am i applying any subversive tactical maneuver to oust Vmarco from this board. The way things are going, he seems to be showing himself the exit door, with hardly any assistance at all" Yet, his posts show that he is using "subversive tactical maneuvers to oust me." One of his fellow Trolls exclaimed that CowTao is the second most important Buddhist teacher on Tao Bums, and somewhat demanded that I follow him,...I responded that I'm not a follower,...so they esculated the ad hominem. Unfortuately, I think CowTao mentioned he lives in an Asian Country, or was Asian, where Legislation geared at penalizing cyber-bullying doesn't exist. So I don't expect these offensive individuals to stop. Anyway, as I'm not one to be bullied, I responded to each of their diatribes on another thread, thinking maybe if I fought back, they would go away,...but it didn't work. My new stategy is not respond to them directly,...some appeared to want to make a fresh start, and discuss the messages, and not bully the messenger. CowTao on the hand appears to have a deeper agenda,...my guess is that he thinks I'm a threat to his high Buddhist expert teacher status, as proclaimed by others,...but I've mention over and over in my posts that I have no desire to teach or be anyones expert. Thanks for your concern. But the truth is, that even here on the Tao Bums, not everyone is into Welcome. In Vajrayana it is said that the highest quality of a human is the ability to Welcome. As the bumpersticker says, LOVE WAITS ONLY ON WELCOME. V PS... I just read on another thread: Tao bums is a moderated, privately owned, web site; all who agree with our guiding principals are welcome to join our discussions: Treat other members with respect. No personal attacks. Moderators are present to enforce this, please abide by their decisions. Please treat other members here with respect, if you feel that respect is not being returned. Then please report the post. So, perhaps things will work themselves without us having to get involved. V

Honesty,...of course we all believe or think we are honest,...but are we? René Descartes, concerning the senses, must have considered the impasse of object-ivity when he articulated, All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once. So, let's say that Real Honesty cannot arise from the senses. Then what is honesty? A fellow from India said, Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really dont know. Somebody asks you. Is there a God? and you say, Yes, God is. Remember: Do you really know? If you dont know, please dont say that you do. Say, I dont know.. . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge. Whoa! Who has that kind of honesty? I'm asking this for a selfish reason,...are there enough honest people, or people open to honesty, on this form? For me, somewhat raised in a Vajrayogini environment, honesty is quite important to me. I am not suited to polite society, To social striving, upward mobility, and making good impressions, I am radically honest, sensitive, brilliant, and blunt , I hold up a mirror to the best and worst facets of human life. - ~Vajrayogini IT IS REQUESTED that only those in resonance respond,...those in disonance, whose only intent is to injure, there are many other threads to troll in. V

This observation is a good sign for you,....although it can lose you many friends. If you choose to look closely, the percentage of this presence is staggering. We live in a world where belief is more important than what's real, and must be defended at all costs. Belief will always seek to kill what's real, because what's real is a threat to belief. "A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind." Robert Oxton Bolton "It’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti Anyone who gives you a belief system is your enemy

I am indeed writing a book,...my 4th,...it was actually drafted two years ago,...and yes, this and all dialogue, certainly influences me to some degree. It doesn't influence the content, but how the content may be delivered. V