God is not love

[Cadcam]

Though it is a nice idea, and I'm sure God appreciates our love, I don't believe that God must love each of us individually as is often suggested by Christianity. 

 

God gave us free will to choose to love, and loving everyone unconditionally leads to problems.

 

No, people have to earn love.  

 

God too, has the free will to choose who to love, and can you imagine, with the billions of people born throughout history, and all their virtues, deeds, and talents; how hard it would be to attract God's attention and earn God's love?

 

 

[wstein]

My definition of 'Love' is 'divine expression' AKA creation.

 

-----

An analogy I use for this topic is that of the Sun and the life giving radiation it provides life on Earth. The Sun just shines (unconditionally). Its light rays go in all directions without regard to where they might fall (or may never fall). Those rays can feed plants, light the day, or burn the skin. This is of no concern to the Sun.

 

Free will comes into play in how these bounty of light rays are responded to. One can ignore them, use them to help find their way across the landscape, or get a sunburn.

----

As to humans, God's expression is available to all without condition. It's up to each human if they want to receive the Love. Nothing changes for God depending on each human's choice.

 

I agree that something provided always unconditionally can not be 'earned'. Unconditional Love is more a matter of acceptance.

[Cadcam]

I get it. God radiates love and it's up to us to accept it. Sounds like a psychological trick

[Nungali]

Well, what is love ?  Its usually qualified by something else ;   " I love ..... " 

 

but unqualified , ie. 'pure love'  isnt a 'type' of love, it is love itself . So what is it ?  Its that universal force that causes certain things with  a potential to come together  in a new 'unity' .   Think of hydrogen and oxygen ... they are 'made'  to  'fall in love'   -  combine with each other ,   to make  water .

 

In many cases we dont choose to 'love'   ( and that isnt really 'love' except on a biological level )  its the  euphoric sense we get as a driver to associate and mate with someone to produce offspring due to unconsciously sensing their   potential genetic match .

 

Hows that for being 'romantic' .  

 

Anyway , if one feels separated from God, or whatever ... even their 'higher self '  , I think that is why people say 'God is love' ; when they find or reconnect with that source it triggers the feeling of lost/ renewed  or new unity .

 

But when everything gets literal and personalized  .... no, it doesnt make much sense ,  does it ?

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Well, what is love ?  Its usually qualified by something else ;   " I love ..... " 

 

but unqualified , ie. 'pure love'  isnt a 'type' of love, it is love itself . So what is it ?  Its that universal force that causes certain things with  a potential to come together  in a new 'unity' .   Think of hydrogen and oxygen ... they are 'made'  to  'fall in love'   -  combine with each other ,   to make  water .

 

In many cases we dont choose to 'love'   ( and that isnt really 'love' except on a biological level )  its the  euphoric sense we get as a driver to associate and mate with someone to produce offspring due to unconsciously sensing their   potential genetic match .

 

Hows that for being 'romantic' .  

 

Anyway , if one feels separated from God, or whatever ... even their 'higher self '  , I think that is why people say 'God is love' ; when they find or reconnect with that source it triggers the feeling of lost/ renewed  or new unity .

 

But when everything gets literal and personalized  .... no, it doesnt make much sense ,  does it ?

 

 

What is this thing called love?
This funny thing called love?
Just who can solve its mystery?
Why should it make a fool of me?

I saw you there one wonderful day
You took my heart and threw it away
That's why I ask the Lord in Heaven above
What is this thing called love?

[old3bob]

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

 
It’s a many splendored thing.

[dwai]

I'd written an aritcle about this a while back - https://www.medhajournal.com/non-dual-awareness-is-without-attributes-but-what-about-love/

[心神 ~]

24 minutes ago, dwai said:

I'd written an aritcle about this a while back - https://www.medhajournal.com/non-dual-awareness-is-without-attributes-but-what-about-love/

 

Thank you for writing this and sharing it. 

 

"The testimony of realized masters (and direct experience) will clearly show that love is not an emotion. It is a fundamental quality of Being. For those who haven’t had the direct experience yet, the testimony of masters is the only recourse.

 

Many nondual (advaita) masters across various traditions have said emphatically, that the Self/Being IS Love. We can start with the Brihadārańyaka Upanishad, where the great sage Yajnavalkya expounds the true nature of love to his wife Maitreyi."

 

I have yet to read the Upanishads, and the verse / section (?) you included was a beautiful introduction.

 

[Cobie]

1 minute ago, 心神 ~ said:

… Yajnavalkya expounds the true nature of love to his wife Maitreyi." …

 After which, fed up with being lectured, surely she divorced him. 

[dwai]

42 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 After which, fed up with being lectured, surely she divorced him. 

Ah, but she was a great sage in her own right...so she didn't divorce him  

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

 After which, fed up with being lectured, surely she divorced him. 

 

Yeah .... I was wondering  what that part of it was going to lead to . 

 

I tried it on a girl friend once  ;  " Let me expound the true  nature of love to you  ......  " 

 

 

She waited until I finished - and then  .....  

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[心神 ~]

2 hours ago, Cobie said:

 After which, fed up with being lectured, surely she divorced him. 

 

10 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Yeah .... I was wondering  what that part of it was going to lead to . 

 

I tried it on a girl friend once  ;  " Let me expound the true  nature of love to you  ......  " 

 

 

She waited until I finished - and then  .....  

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

@Cobie & @Nungali

 

I know we're being silly here, or at least it seems so, but I'm curious: Does the word expound mean to lecture? Or is it to make something clear? Or something else?

 

Is it disrespectful to discuss one's views on life and love with a spouse?

 

As I mentioned, I'm not familiar with the Upanishads, so perhaps misogyny abounds. But it seems a shame to dismiss his views on love because he shared them with his wife. Perhaps in other texts, she shares her views with him as well.

 

Maybe you've already visited the article, but this is the passage that was shared:

 

Spoiler

 

He said: It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one’s own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one’s own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brāhmaṇa, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kṣatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the beings, my -dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one’s own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyī, should be realised—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.

 

 

I think standing on its own, the concept is clear and rings true to me.

 

Would there have been more value and virtue in this thought if it were expressed by Maitreyi to her husband?

 

[Cobie]

 

12 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

… Does the word expound mean to lecture? …

 mansplaining  

 

 

Edited Thursday at 10:18 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

1 hour ago, 心神 ~ said:

[from the quoted bit, my layout]

 

He said:

It is not for the sake of   the husband,  my dear,   that   he is        loved,   but for one’s own sake   that he is        loved.

It is not for the sake of   the wife,           my dear,   that  she is       loved,   but for one’s own sake   that she is     loved.

It is not for the sake of   the sons,          my dear,   that  they are    loved,   but for one’s own sake   that they are loved.

It is not for the sake of          wealth,        my dear,   that it is          loved,   but for one’s own sake    that it is         loved.

It is not for the sake of   the Brāhmaṇa, my dear,   that he is         loved,   but for one’s own sake   that he is        loved.

It is not for the sake of   the Kṣatriya,    my dear,   that he is         loved,   but for one’s own sake    that he is       loved.

It is not for the sake of   the worlds,       my dear,   that they are.   loved,   but for one’s own sake   that they are  loved.

It is not for the sake of   the gods,          my dear,   that they are    loved,   but for one’s own sake   that they are   loved.

It is not for the sake of   the beings,      my -dear,   that they are    loved. , but for one’s own sake   that they are   loved.

It is not for the sake of         all,              my dear,    that all is           loved,   but for one’s own sake   that it is          loved.

 

It’s a bit repetitive. 
 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:15 PM by Cobie

[心神 ~]

8 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

It’s a bit repetitive. 
 

 

The Buddha's teachings are similarly so. I believe it was a helpful technique for oral transmission. Honestly, when I read the Suttas, I do mentally skip forward through repetitive bits. I understand why teachings developed in that way, though I don't know that it's exactly the same for the Upanishads.

 

[Cobie]

 

12 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

… a helpful technique for oral transmission. …

 

That’s what I think, the DDJ does it too.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:19 PM by Cobie

[心神 ~]

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

That’s what I think, the DDJ does it too.

 

 

Yeah, that's true. And I suppose the Gospels, although not in the same literature style, are repetitive in a way.

 

I caught your post about unconditional love. I agree, I think. I think affection is conditional. I think very few beings have experienced the essence of love.

 

Gnostic thought says that we are not human, we are not the true Hum-Manu. We are the intellectual animals, a beast with three brains instead of two. It is the brain that allows us to observe and comprehend our animal nature, our demanding ego.

 

Various teachings suggest that after constant and deep observation, contemplation, understanding, and releasing of the ego, then we become human. Hum-Manu. And that that crystal clear state of connection to the source, to the tao, etc is love. It's not a feeling, it's the the divine spark freed from the animal ego.

 

[Cobie]

39 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

… We are the intellectual animals,  a beast with three brains instead of two. …

 I think I have only one brain. ??? Two brain-halves and intestines?

 

Edited Friday at 12:12 AM by Cobie

[Nungali]

51 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

 

That’s what I think, the DDJ does it too.

 

 

 

Maybe thats why Buddha's wife got pissed off with him  ?

 

1. Saying the same thing over and over again .

 

2.  Suggesting the best path was 'oral transmission '  .

[Nungali]

26 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 I think I have only one brain. ???

 

 

More manspeak ....  man has two brain locations ... and two 'organs' he thinks with .   One of them he doesnt use that much . 

[Nungali]

40 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

 

Yeah, that's true. And I suppose the Gospels, although not in the same literature style, are repetitive in a way.

 

I caught your post about unconditional love. I agree, I think. I think affection is conditional. I think very few beings have experienced the essence of love.

 

Gnostic thought says that we are not human, we are not the true Hum-Manu. We are the intellectual animals, a beast with three brains instead of two. It is the brain that allows us to observe and comprehend our animal nature, our demanding ego.

 

Various teachings suggest that after constant and deep observation, contemplation, understanding, and releasing of the ego, then we become human. Hum-Manu. And that that crystal clear state of connection to the source, to the tao, etc is love. It's not a feeling, it's the the divine spark freed from the animal ego.

 

 

 

We are not human until we undergo training for it  - initiation .    Stripping it back to its basic function ( across time and locations  * ) its essential purpose is to make  acceptable socially based humans out of wild animals .

 

* I'm an anthropologist .   That means I dont ignore the spiritual; aspects , I just dont give them prime importance  of focus , they are part of it , not the whole picture .

[心神 ~]

30 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 I think I have only one brain. ??? Two brain-halves and intestines?

 

 

Keep in mind, I'm only relaying information I've read. I recently read the Gospel of Judas which led me to looking into additional Gnostic teachings.

 

I've been reading through this lecture archive: https://glorian.org/learn/courses-and-lectures/lecture-archive

 

I especially enjoyed this one about the ego and the animal nature, and this one about meditation.

 

The three brains refers to the mind, the emotion, and the genitalia. Other animals only operate with the emotional brain and the sexual brain, whereas we have both of those in addition to the intellectual brain. 

 

Within Buddhism, though there is suffering in the human realm, it is a preferable birth to the hell, animal, and even deva realms. Animals cannot contemplate their nature, and while Devas likely can, they are in a much more comfortable realm that makes it easy to be unconcerned with escaping samsara.

 

So our intellectual brain makes us "superior" to animals, but it is also a place from which our ego expresses itself. Lust of the mind, if you will. So it is a tool that helps us, but also hinders us.

 

[Cobie]

I really don’t think I am superior to animals.

[心神 ~]

14 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

We are not human until we undergo training for it  - initiation .    Stripping it back to its basic function ( across time and locations  * ) its essential purpose is to make  acceptable socially based humans out of wild animals .

 

 

Yes, I think that is what I'm understanding from Gnostic thought, although the lectures I've been reading incorporate similar teachings of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. So I'm not promoting anything as superior, just sharing.