Love

[Dr. Jacoby]

Hello everyone.

 

This is my first real post here at tao bums, and as such i want to make it a useful one. I intend to address the problems and possible dangers of love (yes you heard me right) in spiritual practice. Let me explain:

 

As i see things, there are two conflicting views on love in most philosophies, and this is especially explicit in the eastern traditions. At one level there is talk of merging with the greater beeing, compassion and all those other things we normally associate with "the greatness of god", god as an inextingushable source of love etc. This love, is supposed to go beyond discretion (the physical and mental realms) and is therefore ineffable and utterly pointless to discuss. Or is it not?

 

The other level (which i personally feel is much "needed" in the western world) is the dispassionate messages of mostly east asian munks, saying that we should observe feelings and cravings as the illusions they are and not act on them as if they were real. This then becomes a question of being passionate about the dispassionate, or at least creates the possibility.

 

The problem i see in both of these perspectives are the normative nature of how they tell us to relate to experiences of pleasure. The former, here representing a somewhat hedonistic approach, tells us that "god's love is the greatest good" "always seek the love of god" and so on, while the latter (asceticism) intuitively tells me to frown upon such notions.

 

Me, wanting to steer clear of passions altogether (including the passion for dispassion, and the want for *anything*) have great trouble sorting out which kind of love that is acceptable and which is not (weird troubles, i know). In short, i'm looking for a method of analysis that will allow me to intellectually separate "good" love from not-so-good love as it happens.

 

So people relate, empathize, do whatever you have to do, because i need an answer on this one. To me it makes total sense that to practise with passion (not denying it) you have to know what is passion and what is not. All that's needed is some practical way to go about this.

 

Ok, enough of the psycho-babble. I hope i've been able to convey even the slightest piece of meaning through all this chattering.

 

Kind regards,

 

Dr. Jacoby

[rex]

Ok this is perhaps the deluded thoughts of a householder who thinks that spirituality and passion are compatible.

 

Passion, informed by love, in some way serves a positive life enhancing and transcendent, yet immanent purpose (shit that sounds like orthodox Catholicism!) Asceticism is fine for monastics and other worthy renunciates but without passion there would be no society, culture or human race.

 

Love is complex and multi-facetted. Ideally it should be integrated fully with all aspects of our being: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. Passion on any of these levels is fine as long as it operates for the benefit of self and other and is informed, where appropriate, by love operating through the other levels.

 

If the application of passion doesn't bring benefit and leaves one feeling isolated or a further step removed from a sense of connection with the transcendent than all the dispassion and advice of the asian monks is appropriate.

 

I guess I'm saying passion is an impulse that can be harnessed so western hedonism and eastern dispassion both have their place. What's the point of having a cake if you can't eat it?

 

Rex

 

P.S. Sean this liberator bedroom gear ad is going to attract the attention of my works's firewall people.

[Dr. Jacoby]

rex, thank you for your informative answer, greatly appreciated.

 

You bring up some good points that i'll use for expanding this discussion a bit.

 

First about the application of passion and its efficacy: if it doesn't lead to good result, it shouldn't be done, that much is clear. This is a golden rule of mine, that i constantly break and apply to large parts of life. However this notion i associate with what from a buddhist perspective might be called karmic self, the one who wants. I hypothesize that there is a "purer" form of experience than karmic self, some would call it (the purer) the one who knows. Actually i claim to experience that reality every time i meditate and focus is not on the will (or detached from it rather). I also like to think alot of meditators can relate to this experience, although perhaps not in the exact same wording. And i'm not talking about total enlightenment or anything, just a pretty mundane experience.

 

This leads me to my second point: it is beyond this karmic self that i regard love in its purest form to exist. However, love seems to be, as you say complex and this gives rise to a problem: true love (or something like that) should encompass everything that can be experienced, and as such is not dismissive of passion. So even the purest love contains experiencing passion, if that is present in the karmic self at that point.

 

And that's my problem with separating the experience of love beyond karmic self (unconditional love), and love born of karmic self (the sort of love that buys christmas gifts etc). They are so similar in experience that i get confused, to be blunt.

 

Ok, that went pretty cut and dry...i guess i'm not used to talk about love.

 

There is a parallel to all this in my "normal life", that i'm sure lots of bums have experienced:

 

Whenever i'm in the flow, not wanting so much, not grasping, life tends to run smooth. The ladies get fond of me, men become brethren and all is well. Having that experience, little wants more, and in that moment i've already lost the flow. Although i usually laugh when this happens i don't exactly idealize it, as you surely understand. So how can this breaking of flow (and on a deeper level love) be handled? Can it be circumvented?

Edited July 24, 2006 by Dr. Jacoby

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[Dr. Jacoby]

I think that often love is just such an illusion. I agree there is a different type of love also... but the way we can find out if the love we feel is the delusional type or the primordial type is if we feel 'good' about it, and if we want to feel more of it, and if we hope that others feel this in connection to us.

 

The True Love that you speak of is not so much a good feeling but a very simple, subtle feeling of complete, non-judgemental acceptance. It's not a polarity - there is no opposite to this sort of love (like there is with the ego-game version of it) it's like the space that accepts both ends of the fundamental polarity. You can't want it, you cant deny it, you cant control it - you can only accept it!

Yes, now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the game. Still, i sense unresolved matters. There is surely a subtle difference between the two types of love mentioned - one encompasses the other, but not the other way around. But this subtlety is sort of intuitive and hard to grasp, at least for me (and hopefully not for you, i want answers) and causes a lot of confussion.

 

The problem with "feeling" what's right is that you at that point align with (or utilize) karmic self, who quickly starts making judgements and wishes. Maybe that part of me can be used in the process without "tainting" it, i'm open for any suggestions as long as i find them sound and reasonable.

 

I have thought of a probably successful method myself along the lines of your thoughts freeform: getting familiar with this unconditional love so it is immediately recognized on appearance. But i'm not pleased with this solution. I usually go for something more fool-proof, especially when the concepts are as esoteric as todays.

[Yoda]

I'm glad we have a doctor in the house!

 

The True Love that you speak of is not so much a good feeling but a very simple, subtle feeling of complete, non-judgemental acceptance. It's not a polarity - there is no opposite to this sort of love (like there is with the ego-game version of it) it's like the space that accepts both ends of the fundamental polarity. You can't want it, you cant deny it, you cant control it - you can only accept it!

 

Along similar lines: don't think in terms of right/wrong, good/bad, either/or, in/out but rather look on it as a gentle continuum from some love to megacosmic love. But it is a good feeling... it's just that it's such a good feeling that it fills you up to the point that you don't have to worry about what anyone else thinks, whether you are doing it right, etc

 

The problem with "feeling" what's right is that you at that point align with (or utilize) karmic self, who quickly starts making judgements and wishes. Maybe that part of me can be used in the process without "tainting" it, i'm open for any suggestions as long as i find them sound and reasonable.

 

I think when you are in the "tainting it" zone or "out of the flow" you are simply in the very normal state of being at the "some love" end of the spectrum. You've got enough love to maintain your vital signs and kick around, but not enough to be radiant and you find yourself pondering the fly in the ointment type issues. When you are radiant like the happy child or the happy Buddha, then all questions of right/wrong, ego/nonego, good/bad, drop off and you are in the flow.

 

Imo, it is about feeling good... the better you feel, the more in the zone, the greater your service, etc. And that it is completely normal in embodied form to slide around in the spectrum a bit. I think the very realized masters have learned to focus on feeling good to the point that they have been able to stabilize their vibration at a more positive area of the spectrum.

 

But whatever philosophy you care to adopt, make it a simple one!

 

Good luck!

-Yoda

[rex]

Hi Doc, I think the difficulty that we all face is extending the presence of awareness that is experienced in meditation into the post meditation sessions. It's so easy to get swept away by automatic preconscious responses. I suppose the trick is to maintain the recognition of the purer awareness and come from that space in all activities. The qualities of this purer awareness are often described in quite numinous terms like 'openness', 'spontaneity', 'authenticity', 'clarity' and 'naturalness' whose presence is usually directly and inversely proportionate to the qualities of the conditioned karmic self e.g. schemes, agendas, wanting etc.

 

Often, so I have been told by experienced meditators, the energy behind our normal everyday risings, anger, desire and so on are just subtle twists of the spontaneous expression of the purer awareness appropriated by the karmic self. For the most part I constantly fail to recognise this. On one occasion I did manage to let violent anger rise and just be without directing it. After about ten minutes it transformed into an energized sense of clarity that stayed with me for about three hours. Never have been able to repeat this. Suppose my karmic self has invested too much expectation and hope in a repeat experience. Things may be different if I ditch the hope and expectation and try to just be natural and spontaneous and trust. As William Blake said 'He who binds to himself a joy Does the winged life destroy; But he who kisses the joy as it flies Lives in eternity's sun rise.'

 

Rex

Edited July 25, 2006 by rex

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[Trunk]

Hey Doc,

 

It boils down to keeping your center, or losing it. If your centers are aligned, and you're gradually learning to resolve your energies into the higher vibes within your deep centers, then energy is going inward and resolving into the Big Nameless. If you're reaching out and attaching to stuff, then energy is going out and causing confused entanglements.

 

cheers,

Trunk

 

p.s. Welcome aboard!

 

 

--- edit ---

There's a couple of posts I made some time back on this topic of forward and reverse, here are the links: #1, #2. Its a fundamental topic.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Trunk

[DustWalker]

Welcome to taobums Doc! Great to finally have you here mate! See you are allready making a stir here on taobums with a great first intital topic! Looks good! I'm not gonna add anything to this discussion as we've allready been served some very wise and thinkworthy replies from Rex, Freeform, Yoda & Trunk. I'll just lean back in my chair and enjoy the show hehe..

 

/Martinsson

[rex]

First off Doc, sorry if the rest of this post is going too much off topic. By way of a quick re-orienation the unconditional love is inherent in the spontaneity and naturalness of the presence of awareness.

 

Freeform, I see what you mean by meditation being passive and respect your appliance of science approach too. If only someone could come up with an enlightenment pill that isn't temporary! Not that I'm knocking a biochemical neurological approach; there are energy practices whose effects are enhanced with herbs. It's excellent that different folks using different methods end up in the same or similar place though I think its useful to identify methods, their level of application and distinguish what they're designed to address.

 

In the tradition I practice in mediation is divided into two broad paths, each informing the other: the path of liberation (formless awareness types of practice) and the path of means (energetic practices).

These can be combined in one practice session. In these paths problematic emotions can be delt with in a number of ways: avoided/circumvented, transformed or embraced. Each way is related to the level of insight and wisdom of the practitioner. Your approach Freeform seems to have something to offer here by way of integrating meditation experiences into daily life. Broadly speaking what are the main influences?

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[Dr. Jacoby]

Oh my, you people are swifter and wiser than i had hope of.

 

Ok, first on "feeling": i agree to large extent with freeform, examining the different types of feeling (as an activity) could be helpful. And yes, although there is a feeling involving judgement, pure experience can also be said to be accompanied by sorts of a feeling, although this feeling lacks the dualistic awareness of "me feeling". I like to see this non-dualistic feeling activity as related to the concept of intuition, which exists only in the instant moment and thus is free from causality (causality requires a time-frame).

 

However, talking about experiences outside causality is very hard, since all concepts (i.e. words) are in themselves conditioning, giving cause and result. Therefore i think we might be better of sticking to examining that which is "added" rather than talking about the "pure". So how can one sense with certainty when there is adding, tainting the pure? Just practicing detachment (of nihilistic flavor) i have found it easy to make such distinctions in many situations. But with love, in it's all-inclusiveness and completeness, this tool doesn't suffice anymore.

 

rex, you bring up the parallel of expanding awareness beyond times of practice. This i consider being the other side of the coin of the love dilemma. Because love (the pure one) can indeed be rewarding, and all these rewards are making me loose my centeredness/balance/what-you-will.

 

Maybe we can fuse these issues to one solution, one that makes possible to know "tainted love" and still be open to pure love? This way we can learn from being in continous states of pure love, seeing the impurities as they arise and not be suprised or overwhelmed when it's already to late.

[rex]

So how can one sense with certainty when there is adding, tainting the pure?

---

Because love (the pure one) can indeed be rewarding, and all these rewards are making me loose my centeredness/balance/what-you-will.

---

Maybe we can fuse these issues to one solution, one that makes possible to know "tainted love" and still be open to pure love?

These are tricky ones Doc. This exposition on view and application might be helpful: What is Awareness?.

 

Thanks Freeform, your approach seems useful when, as Doc says, the 'impurities' arise and it's already too late.

[thelerner]

Philosophy, Shlimosophy. I don't care about theoretical aspects of enlightenment. IMO half of enlightenment is keeping your mouth shut, eyes and heart open. Love is a shared smile, a longing, a passion. To over analyze is to douse a reality with the cold water of the intellect.

 

Ofcourse if we're not here to chew the fat, then why are we bothering to type?

 

Michael

[rex]

Philosophy, Shlimosophy. I don't care about theoretical aspects of enlightenment. IMO half of enlightenment is keeping your mouth shut, eyes and heart open. Love is a shared smile, a longing, a passion. To over analyze is to douse a reality with the cold water of the intellect.

 

Of course if we're not here to chew the fat, then why are we bothering to type?

 

Michael

 

 

Horses for courses Michael . Jnana Yoga (intellectual analysis and discrimination) is seen as valid as any other yoga - hatha, raja bhakti, karma etc - and can be practiced in conjunction with any of these.

[thelerner]

Jnana yoga? With a name like jNahna, how serious can it be? Sounds like a yoga kid making fun of others

 

Seems to me that intellect is like a map showing the way. But we spend our lives with our nose in the map, when we need to fold it up and get walking.

 

 

Yours

 

Michael

 

 

and lets leave horses out of this please, why if I had the enlightenment of a horse, I'd ..

[rex]

Seems to me that intellect is like a map showing the way. But we spend our lives with our nose in the map, when we need to fold it up and get walking.

Yes and no. Pontification by itself is myopic. Based on practice and experience it can be an expression of clarity. Of course another's clarity is another's hot air.

[thelerner]

Actually I'm preaching to myself . I have a tendency to get way to intellectual about these things. Too head heavy. Thats why I found a martial art like Ki-Aikido, something hands on. I've been shunning books on philopshy lately. Unless it has a to do practice, I've been leaving it alone.

 

Yours

 

Michael

[Ian]

Just practicing detachment (of nihilistic flavor) i have found it easy to make such distinctions in many situations. But with love, in it's all-inclusiveness and completeness, this tool doesn't suffice anymore.

 

 

As I'm being taught it, detachment is all-inclusive. To really detach from something you just allow it to be part of the bigger picture. Not in any sense reject or ignore it, as that's a subtle connection.

 

I think human selfish love is a very useful gateway to something more universal, and should not be seen as the enemy. Enjoy it, express it, observe it. Otherwise you get all wrinkly.

 

Welcome, anyway.

[thelerner]

I agree. I had a book that made a great argument that we do not want to live in the Void, (um ego absolution). We want to live in the All. The void is part of the all. To be full human beings we need it All. The love, the lust, empathy..the full range of human emotions.

 

But we need to have enough space with these experiences and emotions so that we can act rightly. Feel them without becoming them.

 

Michael

[Dr. Jacoby]

Michael, you're absolutely right, one shouldn't over-conceptualize in practice, and yet that is all we can do communicating with words. Speaking of which:

 

You said "feel things without becoming them", words that went straight to my heart. This is something i understand! On the other hand (and this is really at the root of all my spiritual doubts): isn't life/enlightenment about becoming all the things rather than none? Sure, one could say that it's ultimately just play with words, and that both are the same. However, i sense that true love is much closer to the concept of becoming all rather than none. But maybe there is also a strong tie between (using buddhist terms) compassion and detachment, i just haven't seen it yet. Reading suggestions anyone?

 

This love-pondering has made me realize how affected i (choose to) become in social milieus sometimes. Worst of all, the more i like the person i interact with, the more i try to adapt her point of view. Note that i don't see this as a problem in it self, i think empathizing is a mostly useful activity. The problem i find is in maintaining "integrity" while at the same time connecting with other people. How can you do it?

 

But ultimately i think the love-problem goes beyond these trivial situations. Sometimes i feel integrity is lost although no one else is around to affect me, and often the cause is something that started out as a "good thing". In the past i've had more experience with being thrown of by "bad things", so i've learnt to deal with that to some extent. The "good things" are still a hard nut to crack though. There is simply no big stop-sign when the good vibes gets going. So i sense that maybe i should handle those circumstances differently? On the other hand i don't want to slant or tilt my spiritual practice...

 

Ok, i've had some time to reflect, and sorry for going so personal in this post. It couldn't be helped!

[Ian]

Maybe there is also a strong tie between (using buddhist terms) compassion and detachment, i just haven't seen it yet. Reading suggestions anyone?

 

No reading suggestions, but agreement. I have been taught, and sort of accept, that the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is simply to perceive them exactly as they are.

 

Which requires detachment. (Which is inclusive)

 

I think the main problem with this subject is that we can't have any idea what genuine detachment is until we've practiced it a lot. We (I) tend to think of it as similar to the sort of indifference, or coldness, shutoff if you like, we experience when people just don't care in an ordinary way.

 

I suspect that genuine detachment, like so many good things, can't be conceptualised, but has to be experienced, and then described in metaphors.

[thaddeus]

This love-pondering has made me realize how affected i (choose to) become in social milieus sometimes. Worst of all, the more i like the person i interact with, the more i try to adapt her point of view. Note that i don't see this as a problem in it self, i think empathizing is a mostly useful activity. The problem i find is in maintaining "integrity" while at the same time connecting with other people. How can you do it?

 

are you talking about losing your sense of self when in love with someone?

 

along the same lines, I saw a show recently that demonstrated people naturally tend to modify their opinions when in a group..over time, group beliefs tend to become extreme. It was showing how communities become polarized in their views and explains the beliefs of terrorists.

[Dr. Jacoby]