Non-dual awareness is without attributes. But what about Love?

[freeform]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Wow! Such vehement reactions...😲

 

I personally think the intensity of the reactions is unfounded. I don’t think you’re being any more or less egoic than anyone else.

 

I think the main issue is that love as you describe it seems contrived. That flares up these vehement reactions.

 

My biggest issue (apart from that awful DDJ translation!!) is puting the wisdom of a large number of very different ancient traditions through the meatgrinder. 

 

Not only do I find this incredibly disrespectful and showing a clear lack of humility, but it also creates issues for your own clarity and discernment.

 

When you pick through the resulting ‘minced meat’ of all these traditions, you can pull out any piece of bone or entrail, stick em together - and voila - you just confirmed your personal view.

 

Your ideas are not challenged by the sharp edge of truth (according to one line of knowledge).

 

And your own understanding, although it seem vast to you (because afterall you so cleverly managed to form all these ‘commonalities’ from the mince) is actually formed of your very limited personal biases.

[dwai]

31 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

I personally think the intensity of the reactions is unfounded. I don’t think you’re being any more or less egoic than anyone else.

Thanks  

31 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

I think the main issue is that love as you describe it seems contrived. That flares up these vehement reactions.

What is contrived about it? Could it be that there's something within each of those who reacted so intensely that resists the idea of love as expressed in the article? 

31 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

My biggest issue (apart from that awful DDJ translation!!) is puting the wisdom of a large number of very different ancient traditions through the meatgrinder. 

I saw multiple translations that show the same word "love" being used. Can you post an alternate version you think is better?

As far as the meat grinder is concerned, instead of meat grinder, why not consider that each of these traditions have said pretty much similar things? I'm assuming you have some understanding of Non-dualism. Each of the traditions outlined are non dual traditions. So it is not likely that they will be saying similar things?

31 minutes ago, freeform said:

Not only do I find this incredibly disrespectful and showing a clear lack of humility, but it also creates issues for your own clarity and discernment.

 My clarity and discernment (or lack thereof) don't seem to be getting you guys going...there seems to be something else. Why can't you accept this as another view? Right or wrong, it's a view. 

31 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

When you pick through the resulting ‘minced meat’ of all these traditions, you can pull out any piece of bone or entrail, stick em together - and voila - you just confirmed your personal view.

 

Your ideas are not challenged by the sharp edge of truth (according to one line of knowledge).

Why not challenge it with the sharp edge of truth instead of name calling (such lack of humility, disrespectful, etc)?

Tell me why I am wrong (someone told you so is not a good reason)...  

31 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

And your own understanding, although it seem vast to you (because afterall you so cleverly managed to form all these ‘commonalities’ from the mince) is actually formed of your very limited personal biases.

 It wasn't hard at all. Could it be possible that you feel the way you do because of your biases? 

 

[voidisyinyang]

7 hours ago, Everything said:

So this loving light, as the substance of our consciousness, of who we are. Can be sun light aswell as candle light right? Or starlight. Or moonlight. But what about light from screens andmonitor displays and tv's? I think those are not real light. Dont know why. It doesn feel as real. Dont feel natural and loving to me. Not as loving as the light from a candle flame or the light from the sun even as the sky reflecting the purity of it. But when I look at a lamp, it feels very dense low frequency. Very filtered, very fake. Not real. Like people complain about chemtrails blocking sun light, even tho sky is still appearingly clear. So the monitors or lamps seem Very dark and fake. However, maybe there are forms of electrical light that are very high fast and pure, maybe flashlights? Meh. I mean big fcking military grade pure intense overwhelming white eye blinding flashlights. Nah still not good. Maybe it is about the frequency? Dunno. Maybe green, red or blue laserlight. Or three of those lasers combined and reflected of alluminum? There is something about sunlight that is unmistakingly unreplacable and fire or flame or candle or bonfire light aswell, especially candle as it is stable and has that nice purity to it. Maybe oil lamp too.  Maybe a firefly, nah... Ok flame it is. Sun and flame and stars candles. Right? 

So this loving light, as the substance of our consciousness, of who we are. Can be sun light aswell as candle light right? Or starlight. Or moonlight. But what about light from screens andmonitor displays and tv's? I think those are not real light. Dont know why. It doesn feel as real. Dont feel natural and loving to me. Not as loving as the light from a candle flame or the light from the sun even as the sky reflecting the purity of it. But when I look at a lamp, it feels very dense low frequency. Very filtered, very fake. Not real. Like people complain about chemtrails blocking sun light, even tho sky is still appearingly clear. So the monitors or lamps seem Very dark and fake. However, maybe there are forms of electrical light that are very high fast and pure, maybe flashlights? Meh. I mean big fcking military grade pure intense overwhelming white eye blinding flashlights. Nah still not good. Maybe it is about the frequency? Dunno. Maybe green, red or blue laserlight. Or three of those lasers combined and reflected of alluminum? There is something about sunlight that is unmistakingly unreplacable and fire or flame or candle or bonfire light aswell, especially candle as it is stable and has that nice purity to it. Maybe oil lamp too.  Maybe a firefly, nah... Ok flame it is. Sun and flame and stars candles. Right? 

 

OK you ask a good question. For example I am growing table top mushrooms - a table top farm kit. The instructions say it needs medium sunlight but also incandescent light can be used - not the new led lights. Why? Because LED light is based on a resonant frequency - like a laser - whereas sunlight is a broad spectrum light.

 

So then animals are like plants. To understand the light as spirit we need to understand the new foundation of science which is quantum physics. Light from computer screens - if they are new monitors like a cell phone - this is LED laser light and so it has too much intensity since quantum intensity is from frequency. So staring at an LED light will cause eye cancer and then electromagnetic radiation based on Western technology is also electromagnetic pollution. Why? Because ecology is based on quantum entanglement which is also the Yuan Qi as noncommutative phase. For example it's proven that birds when migrating, the birds are very sensitive to electromagnetic pollution - in a city - compared to the countryside.

 

So we as animals we rely on the Earth's Schumann resonance which is a very subtle magnetic field but it does not have to be strong since it is synchronized with our free radicals of electron-photon reactions due to pigments in the eyes activating the quantum coherence of the microtubules.

 

So electromagnetic radiation as light as used in electronics or electromotive power - this is based on symmetric Western logic going back to Vedic and Zoroastrian logic. So this creates pollution and since World War II our electromagnetic pollution is by now probably 100 times greater. It was 40 times great about 20 years ago but now with all the cell phones and wifi networks it must be much worse.

 

So the key to understand about the Yuan Shen as the "light of no light" - is that light is actually quantum as a photon, something Einstein discovered with the photoelectric effect, giving him the Nobel prize. So the intensity of light is based on frequency but the origin of the charge of light is from relativistic mass or the ether spacetime of light - it's also called the hidden momentum of light or the super momentum - it is superluminal phase as spacetime that creates the charge. I have corresponded with Nobel physicist Brian Josephson about this - he practices qigong with his colleague at Cambridge. Nobel physicist Josephson invented the Josephson Junction which enables MRI machines and when NIST tests the value of 1 volt, this charge value is measured by a series of quantum Josephson Junctions. Also when virtual photons are now "captured" in the lab - this too is done using the Josephson Junction.

 

So when we "turn the light around" as the Yuan Shen or Shen of No Shen - the "light of no light" - this refers to the source of light in the Ether. Ramana Maharshi stated that he had to "admit" for the "sake of argument" that he is dependent on using the Mind to kill the mind or merge the mind back into Formless Awareness. So he has to use the mind as the Sattva Guna to merge back into the "3 in 1 unity" or the "three gunas of No guna." So this is a logical paradox that the Westernized version of nondualism does not understand - instead just fixating on "enlightenment" and "spirit." etc.

 

So we are talking about the 5th dimension that is accessed at the speed of light but in fact the 5th dimension is the future and past combined together and is in eternal motion. The spiritual ego merges back into the 5th dimension as logical inference. So we can never SEE the formless awareness but we can logical infer it and also we can LISTEN to the 5th dimension. So this 5th dimension is called "time-like" or a phase that is no phase - as it is eternal synchronization as a primordial time. This is not some "woo woo" New Age nonsense but rather the highest level of science. For example Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes has a lecture on the 5th dimension, as explained by noncommutative nonwestern music theory. So the "three gunas of no guna" is actually from music theory as is the Taiji of Daoism - the yin-yang-Emptiness is also from music theory.

 

So since we left the forest where LISTENING is our primary perception, then on the savannah and plains - our bias slowly switched to a visual focus and around 10,000 years ago when the earth cooled during the Younger Dryas, then we developed farming worldwide. This caused a slow switch from our Lunar Mind of the Pineal Gland third eye psychic prana or qi - into a Solar calendar focus. The solar calendar focus is actually left brain and right hand dominance - so we make plans and scheme with our left brain. This is the Yang Shen as we delusionally then think that 3D spacetime as the Yang Shen is the final reality - but in fact it is controlled by the yin qi of the liver - the Hun Soul is still a Yin Shen. So then the Yuan Shen has to rely on the Yang Qi of the po soul - our deep subconscious. This can only be activated by CLOSING the eyes in meditation - through alchemy as a logic of paradoxical complementary opposites or non-local non-dual, non-western, non-commutative, meditation.

 

So just as in deep dreamless sleep our mind returns to the formless awareness - but only in IGNORANCE - so too in deep meditation does our mind return to the formless awareness but now with the spiritual ego MERGING back into the formless awareness VIA the spirit light or sattva guna, the Yang qi as the Yuan shen.

 

So it is a subtle difference and yet profound. When the yang qi is deep enough into the Yuan Shen, the light of no light, then the Yin qi blockages of the Yang Shen are cleared out - and this Yang Shen is able to leave our physical body more easily. The final stage then is the literal vaporization of our old physical body - and then a new golden immortal yang shen body is created. But this process ONLY works through the Yuan Shen or light of no light then going deeper in to the Yuan Qi and it is the Yuan Qi that is the "pilot wave" or spacetime Emptiness that guides the process of the Yuan Shen transformations.

 

So this OP was about LOVE. In fact it is true that "unconditional love" is actually NOT the emotional love as joy but Unconditional Love is actually the Yuan Qi itself as the truth of reality that is this synchronous primordial deep time as the 5th dimension, what the ancient Greeks called Harmonia or the Egyptians called Apopis (Neith or Nut) - origin of our term "Nothing" or Nut-case.

 

So the origin of the Yuan Qi is on the right side of the heart - beyond death - and so Ramana Maharshi has to meditate nonstop for 9 years to achieve eternal liberation by the cutting of the Knot - the permanent cutting of his spiritual ego on the left side of his heart from his Yuan Qi on the right side of the heart. So the Yuan Qi is activated by the kundalini which is the right side vagus nerve connecting the reproductive organs to the right side of the heart. Then as the Yuan Qi is built up in the body this requires the reproductive organ to return back to an infantile state - like a baby - called like a Horse - that hides inside - and in its final stage - it is completely used up.

 

Then the body Yuan Qi has to "envelop" the Yuan Shen - as the Emptiness is able to create more Yuan Shen spirits that heal other people as well. So this is a type of immortal healing that is like creating multiple Yang Shens. So the Yuan Qi is embodied by the qigong master.

 

As Chunyi Lin says Taichi is very good for developing the qi of the mind and body but for the really deep intelligence - the Yuan Qi - then you want the full lotus meditation of qigong. As Wang Liping states, only in full lotus in deep meditation does then the lower body nerve channels fully open up. So this is why the cave meditation is considered the highest level of meditation - a 49 day no sleep, no food meditation in darkness. Of course for this to be possible then the Yuan Shen light actually fills the cave so that the cave walls also emit light and the person's spirit goes into heaven. But as Ramana Maharshi points out - even all these astral realms and spirit travels are just manifestations of the spiritual ego. Only the Formless AWareness or Yuan Qi - the Emptiness is the eternal reality. As the main student of Ramana Maharshi stated, with the title of his memoir: Nothing Ever Happens.

 

 

[rideforever]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

When you pick through the resulting ‘minced meat’ of all these traditions, you can pull out any piece of bone or entrail, stick em together - and voila - you just confirmed your personal view.

 

Boom

[rideforever]

9 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

As Chunyi Lin says Taichi is very good for developing the qi of the mind and body but for the really deep intelligence

 

No such a thing as "the unconditional lurve".   Life is alive, means it is .... a-live ... meaning it is not fixed.   It is exploring.   
The Sun shines on everything so that is a beginning, unconditionally everyone gets Sun.  Small brain stops after.
Big brain also thinks :
Yes but Sun also goes to sleep and darkness comes and eats up Sun, then darkness shines.
Also Sun not so concerned who shines on, Sun concerned with inner brightness, Sun in Zazen 24hrs a day for billions of years, is quite good now, so shines.   Maybe you too if you work hard.
Life is a-live, meaning it is a-live.
What does life do ?   
> What do you do ?   
> What can you do ?
> What could you do ?
I don't know, maybe you find out what you could do one day.

First stop being ego and do inner work from whichever floor of elevator is on, even B3.

Edited January 9, 2019 by rideforever

[Spotless]

From Dwai’s article:

 

“Awareness is love in action

Awareness is dynamic, love is being. Awareness is love in action. By itself the mind can actualize any number of possibilities, but unless they are prompted by love, they are valueless. Love precedes creation. Without it there is only chaos.”

 

I have only had a bit of time to look at this but find wording in some of this problematic though I agree with the general premise of the article.

 

“By itself the mind can actualize any number of possibilities, but unless they are prompted by love, they are valueless. Love precedes creation. Without it there is only chaos.”

 

The use of the word mind diminishes the scope entirely and the idea that love precedes creation is a misuse of “time” and again diminishes “Divine Essence” as In time. Actions need not be “prompted by love” for value in the relative and in non-dual they would not be preceded by it but rather IN love.

 

Love is not a dirty word - it is Divine Essence - it is all heart - with no localization. It does not “precede” nor “linger”. It is the Light in all.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Spotless

[freeform]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

why not consider that each of these traditions have said pretty much similar things?

 

I honestly don’t think they are. Yes if you squint a little, blurring all the distinctions, then yeah they’re similar. But I have found that terms in spiritual traditions are very subtly specific, very exact and very much context dependent. This is not by accident or through stupidity or short sightedness.

 

As a very basic example - some people equate the different Dan Tien to the chakras. Yes if you squint and blur, it looks similar - but actually they’re describing completely different things! It’s a fundamental critical error.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Why not challenge it with the sharp edge of truth instead of name calling (such lack of humility, disrespectful, etc)?

 

My intention was not to hurt you in any way. I’m calling your approach of making a cat’s dinner out of spiritual traditions disrespectful and lacking humility. I have no doubt that I regularly behave disrespectfully and without humility - it’s pretty normal. I have absolutely nothing against you as a person - in fact you seem nice and I imagine we’d get on very well. But I would still strongly disagree with your approach.

 

I’m not averse to casual conversations about the similarity and differences of systems and lineages - it’s interesting. But mixing it all up and then using this hodgepodge of ideas to reach some level of understanding is a big mistake. Teaching this way, I believe is deplorable. Sorry.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

saw multiple translations that show the same word "love" being used. Can you post an alternate version you think is better?

 

It's not the word love that I have issue with. Its the extremely Buddhist approach that the translator took... and in the process made the verse meaningless.

 

One version I prefer:

 

13 Loathing Shame

 

To favour or to blame are both afflictions that will lead to anxiety; to highly regard something and to feel distress are both aspects of our self.

 

What does it mean to say that both favour and blame are afflictions that will lead to anxiety? It means that no matter whether a person gains or loses these two, the feel distraught. This is the meaning of both favour and blame being afflictions.

 

What does it mean to say that to highly regard something and to feel distress are both aspects of the self? We only suffer with these things because of our sense of self; if there is no self, how can we suffer so?

 

Therefore it is understood that only those who value themselves as being below the realm of Heaven are fit to rule the world. Only those who care for their subjects like they care for themselves are fit to govern the people.

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by freeform

[freeform]

Try as I might, I couldn’t find the full verse 13 as translated by the guy you quoted in your article. But here’s the bit you had:

 

The reason why we have trouble is that we have a body.  

 

When we have no body, what trouble do we have?  

 

Therefore: he who loves the whole world as if it were his own body  

Can be trusted with the whole world.

[rideforever]

4 hours ago, Everything said:

Don't you love knowing that, and your ability to write it. With such great detail.

 

The video of the yinyangtorus type thing ... this isn't true energetic connection of the world, it is energy imagined by the mind.
True energy-being is subtle and described more by ChangTsu Laozi words, very different.
Likewise your sentence here seems to be a mental comprehension of things, and because of that it does not catch the reality and importance of things, it is excited about things but it does not actually feel their reality, neither energetically nor conceptually, this is because the mind is virtualising things .... true connection comes from a different awakened part of the being.

Edited January 9, 2019 by rideforever

[voidisyinyang]

51 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

No such a thing as "the unconditional lurve".   Life is alive, means it is .... a-live ... meaning it is not fixed.   It is exploring.   
The Sun shines on everything so that is a beginning, unconditionally everyone gets Sun.  Small brain stops after.
Big brain also thinks :
Yes but Sun also goes to sleep and darkness comes and eats up Sun, then darkness shines.
Also Sun not so concerned who shines on, Sun concerned with inner brightness, Sun in Zazen 24hrs a day for billions of years, is quite good now, so shines.   Maybe you too if you work hard.
Life is a-live, meaning it is a-live.
What does life do ?   
> What do you do ?   
> What can you do ?
> What could you do ?
I don't know, maybe you find out what you could do one day.

First stop being ego and do inner work from whichever floor of elevator is on, even B3.

yes electrons are much smaller than photons and yet the source of an electron is actually from the hidden momentum of the photon. Why? Because a photon has no rest mass but it does have relativistic mass or "hidden momentum" - the superluminal momentum of light. This is what qigong master Yan Xin calls the "virtual information field" that does the healing - at his mass qigong healings that he did in the 80s and early 90s.

 

So there is a paradox to light because light on its own experiences no space nor time because we measure spacetime based on the relativistic limit of the speed of light. But that is just science based on technology using math for measurements. Logic is more powerful than science - as qigong master Yan Xin says, qigong is the "Highest technology of all technologies."

 

So even science now admits that the Universe was created from Zero energy as a phase shift that is "faster than time-frequency uncertainty." This uncertainty is due to the Measurement Problem of quantum physics encountering relativity due to the speed of light paradox. So you can have a zero/infinite rest frame of measurement based on the speed of light but even that zero/infinity is RELATIVE to the superluminal momentum of the 5th dimension.

 

 

[freeform]

This verse is about the nature of self and the value of humility... not about loving your own body 

 

And even if you replace ‘care’ with ‘love’ in my version, the meaning is clearly the same and it’s not about Divine Love or anything like that.

[rideforever]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

science

You use the words of "men" far too much, and your own explorations far too little.

[voidisyinyang]

14 minutes ago, rideforever said:

You use the words of "men" far too much, and your own explorations far too little.

if you're interested in my own explorations - you can read my free 2012 pdf called "Alchemy of Rainbow Heart Music" - but that was before my understanding of the void as yin-yang was truly crystallized. So the WEstern misunderstanding is to think of Formless Awareness as some static geometric "state" like "space." Actually it is eternal motion that is time-like. So this was, of course, the big debate between Buddhism and the Brahmin Vedic worldview. The answer is because from the perspective of Yuan Shen then there is an infinite rest as zero/infinity and this is the light that is turned around in meditation. This is the difference between Shakti as Shen and Siddhis as yin qi psychic energy. So we can say, as the book Taoist Yoga explains, yin qi is just an immature form of yuan qi.

 

To explain this difference - we can quote someone who personally taught me about this - experientially - AFTER I wrote the 2012 memoir of my experiences. So this was in 2015. I'm talking about qigong master Jim Nance http://guidingqi.com the only 2nd level qigong master of http://springforestqigong.com So he told me that you can be a qigong master with the third eye fully open but that is not the same as a true heart opening as real enlightenment. So what does that mean? Here is how he describes the difference. He told me that at first he was using his own mind to do the healing but this was not working. So he had to learn to let the Emptiness do the healing for him.

 

just a second

 

Quote

not so subjectively pulled into the experience, it would be like taking a snap-shot, looking at the snap-shot, keeping it steady while I was breathing. I could then keep my focus on something for an extended period of time. All I had to do was wait and the energy would shift on its own.

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[rideforever]

7 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

just a second

 

 

bla bla bla .... perhaps you would benefit from something grounded like gardening
 

[voidisyinyang]

32 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

 

bla bla bla .... perhaps you would benefit from something grounded like gardening
 

well of course celibacy is the first requirement to true meditation. Most WEsterners are not willing to make that commitment to celibacy.

[dwai]

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

I honestly don’t think they are. Yes if you squint a little, blurring all the distinctions, then yeah they’re similar. But I have found that terms in spiritual traditions are very subtly specific, very exact and very much context dependent. This is not by accident or through stupidity or short sightedness.

We have to start with our intellect, which may or may not be accurate in its assessment. Eventually it comes down to direct experience. So long as one doesn't have a direct realization of the non-dual truth, the understanding remains the realm of the intellect. After realization, it becomes clear that they are all essentially pointing to the same thing. I 100% agree that different paths (non dual traditions) have different courses mapped out, but they eventually lead to the same mountain top. We might call it by different names.

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

As a very basic example - some people equate the different Dan Tien to the chakras. Yes if you squint and blur, it looks similar - but actually they’re describing completely different things! It’s a fundamental critical error.

They work at different levels. But there are overlaps. One version I've heard is that the chakras exist purely in the subtle layer while dantiens have a physiological component to them (Damo Mitchell says this a lot - I have all his books, and have read them, though I don't agree with everything he writes).

 

But in the indian/yogic system, the chakras also work at the physiological level (ie have effect).

 

The reason why this mistake is made, imo, claiming that Chakras and dantiens are different -- is because of different theoretical basis (as opposed to empirical). In the Yogic system, there are three bodies that are said to exist. The Causal Body, the subtle body and the physical body. The Causal body is essentially just awareness with countless impressions dormant (or in seed form). From this causal body arises the subtle body, which is where the mind, subtle energies (five winds including prana) work, as do the subtle organs associated with the outer sensory apparatuses. From the subtle body rises the physical body, and therefore the subtle body always controls the physical body. The chakras in a sense are the interface between the subtle and the physical bodies. 

 

But lets not get sidetracked by this -- which can be its own topic of discussion and draw extended and (even more vehement) commentary  

 

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

 

My intention was not to hurt you in any way. I’m calling your approach of making a cat’s dinner out of spiritual traditions disrespectful and lacking humility. I have no doubt that I regularly behave disrespectfully and without humility - it’s pretty normal. I have absolutely nothing against you as a person - in fact you seem nice and I imagine we’d get on very well. But I would still strongly disagree with your approach.

I'm not hurt at all. I am amused however 

I've been where you are...so I know where you are going to be eventually...call it arrogance if you will, though that is not my intention at all. It's just that "been there, done that" thing for me.

 

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

I’m not averse to casual conversations about the similarity and differences of systems and lineages - it’s interesting. But mixing it all up and then using this hodgepodge of ideas to reach some level of understanding is a big mistake. Teaching this way, I believe is deplorable. Sorry.

 That seems to be a result of your personal bias because you are not able to go beyond your reaction. Your mind says "no...not going to consider it...purity of traditions are sacrosanct". When you get to a point where you see that no system is the end, but all systems are the means to an end...you will realize that all traditions eventually need to be set aside. There's an old allegory about crossing the river on a raft, but then to walk to the other side, the raft must be left behind. 

 

That is not unusual for people to do. We develop attachments. In the Advaita Vedanta world, this attachment is called "Shāstra vāsanā"  and is considered the hardest hurdle to overcome in the path to liberation. 

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

It's not the word love that I have issue with. Its the extremely Buddhist approach that the translator took... and in the process made the verse meaningless.

Could be. But David Loy is a highly respected Zen teacher and scholar. His works have been cited here on TDB many times too. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Loy

 

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

One version I prefer:

 

13 Loathing Shame

 

To favour or to blame are both afflictions that will lead to anxiety; to highly regard something and to feel distress are both aspects of our self.

 

What does it mean to say that both favour and blame are afflictions that will lead to anxiety? It means that no matter whether a person gains or loses these two, the feel distraught. This is the meaning of both favour and blame being afflictions.

 

What does it mean to say that to highly regard something and to feel distress are both aspects of the self? We only suffer with these things because of our sense of self; if there is no self, how can we suffer so?

 

I found several translations that use the word "love". 

http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu13.html

https://www.centertao.org/essays/tao-te-ching/dc-lau/chapter-13-commentary/

https://ttc.tasuki.org/display:Year:1972,1988,1996/section:13

37 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Therefore it is understood that only those who value themselves as being below the realm of Heaven are fit to rule the world. Only those who care for their subjects like they care for themselves are fit to govern the people.

 

What does the word "care for" connote? Is the "caring for" here used in the sense of someone doing a job, or does it connote something else..."love" perhaps?

 

[freeform]

35 minutes ago, dwai said:

I'm not hurt at all. I am amused however 

I've been where you are...so I know where you are going to be eventually...call it arrogance if you will, though that is not my intention at all. It's just that "been there, done that" thing for me.

 

This fake ‘amusement’ - it’s a sign of contempt. It’s your armour. Just like the laughing icon you leave when people disagree with you directly. You endear yourself to no one with that attitude.

 

 

[dawei]

13 hours ago, Everything said:

Dualism doesn't exist. It is just referring to Contrast that is the aspect of that which gives you the ability to focus on this or that. But to describe a more accurate representation of existance, you should define it rather as "Infinityalism".

 

Your just using dualistic constructed words. You can call it whatever you want.  Tomorrow maybe we'll call it something else too.

[manitou]

Love means so many different things in different circumstances.  Love might be stopping, getting out of the car, and giving a homeless person a few bucks.  Or it may be picking up a piece of trash in an otherwise beautiful park.  I still have remnants of Carlos Castaneda in me, wherein his nagual Don Juan Mateus was forever reminding him to be "impeccable" in his life.  This is to be in the here and now, to take responsibility for our words and actions, to be a blessing when needed.  Or love may be the power of attraction that is the glue that holds the universe together.  It is to know that we are One with the earth and all other things/animals/minerals/worms/etc. and to act accordingly.  Love's demands change continually and eternally.  Sometimes it's just listening to another person, without opinion getting in the way.

 

I love OldDog's previous comment about not being really here, but loving to argue with other people on the internet who aren't really here either.  As I see it, the construction of an atom is approximately 99.99% space.  Which to me means that the only thing that makes anything appear real is the fact that the other components of the atom, the electrons, neutrons, quarks, etc - are circulating at such a fast rate that they appear solid.  I don't know, are the components rotating at 186,000 MPS?  Maybe the whole concept of mutual attraction (love?) is the cohesion for everything in the galaxy or beyond, as everything is rotating with everything else.  It also occurs to me that without rotation we would have no concept of Time, as there would be no days and nights.

[dawei]

15 hours ago, dwai said:

If we’re using words, it is in dualism. All concepts are also only in dualism.  

 

do you disagree with the article? 

 

I'm just not sure if its trying to force a point.  Why pick love then define it as not an emotion ?  We could likely choose other words too.

[dwai]

20 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

I'm just not sure if its trying to force a point.  Why pick love then define it as not an emotion ?  We could likely choose other words too.

I'm just using a word used by others who were masters with non dual realization.  
We could call it abacabadaba for all I care  

[dwai]

42 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

This fake ‘amusement’ - it’s a sign of contempt. It’s your armour. Just like the laughing icon you leave when people disagree with you directly. You endear yourself to no one with that attitude.

 

 

If the amusement was fake, it would be a really sorry thing. Fortunately for me it is not. I genuinely find the fact that so many people react so strongly to some unknown person's post on the internet, amusing. Its always is a good idea to introspect and see what part of one's psyche reacts so strongly to another's thoughts and ideas. 

[manitou]

20 hours ago, dwai said:

https://www.medhajournal.com/non-dual-awareness-is-without-attributes-but-what-about-love/

 

 

What a beautiful article, Dwai.  Thank you.  And when we see beautiful attributes in another, we are seeing our own Self.  Like any third grader can tell you, "it takes one to know one".  Love becomes a whole different situation altogether when we try to look at the world non-judgmentally.  I try daily.  I often fail and have to bring myself back to right-seeing.  This is a lifetime work.  The kind of movie-love that poses for the real love is so misunderstood.  As it alludes to in the article, this type of love, that one "falls into" is trying to find a sense of completion within ourselves.  Your article is mindful of the fact that the love we feel for another is not for the other, it is for ourself.

 

Love can even be to let someone else have the last word in an argument.  The ego stings for a moment, then it's over.  You've come out ahead because your ego is diminished - enabling more light to enter.

 

 

 

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Spotless said:

From Dwai’s article:

 

“Awareness is love in action

Awareness is dynamic, love is being. Awareness is love in action. By itself the mind can actualize any number of possibilities, but unless they are prompted by love, they are valueless. Love precedes creation. Without it there is only chaos.”

 

I have only had a bit of time to look at this but find wording in some of this problematic though I agree with the general premise of the article.

 

“By itself the mind can actualize any number of possibilities, but unless they are prompted by love, they are valueless. Love precedes creation. Without it there is only chaos.”

 

The use of the word mind diminishes the scope entirely and the idea that love precedes creation is a misuse of “time” and again diminishes “Divine Essence” as In time. Actions need not be “prompted by love” for value in the relative and in non-dual they would not be preceded by it but rather IN love.

I think we've noted this with Nisargadatta Maharaj's words in the past as well. Maybe due to the fact that he spoke in vernacular marathi and his words were later translated to english.

 

3 hours ago, Spotless said:

Love is not a dirty word - it is Divine Essence - it is all heart - with no localization. It does not “precede” nor “linger”. It is the Light in all.

 

 

Beautiful!  

[mrpasserby]

9 hours ago, dwai said:

I wonder what makes so many react with such intensity  

Its okay if you don't like "love"...I love you all...even you, Drew  

Thanks, for the unconditional love.