Love!

[Nihil]

Let us talk about Love will ya? ;)
What can we understand by that word? Is that a feeling or a need? Is freud absolutely correct about the sexual impulse idea? I hope you make of this thread something beautiful -> Lovely Thread :)

[bito]

Being, aka... :) ing

[bito]

I hope you make of this thread something beautiful -> Lovely Thread :)

:) Beautiful -> Be-You-Me-Full :scatter: -> Beautiful :)

[sahyo]

Be-You-Me-Full



:lol:

[bito]

Sorry for spamming your Love thread, Nihil, but this is a subject very near and dear to my heart, as I am sure it is for everyone here.

To me, Love is I Am, the I Am that is Existence, Absolute Subjectivity. Love is ’also’ the I Am this and that, the this and that that is individuated subjectivity. Love is Self; love is self.

In its individuation, love is the not knowing Why Absolute Subjectivity ’split’ itself, and thinking, feeling this truth. In the acceptance of this truth, love opens the mind to all perceiving-possibilities; in rejecting this truth, it limits its perceiving-possibilities to the ‘reasons’ it believes ‘Why’ it exists. Love is also accepting that ‘both’ ways of being itself are expressions of love.

This is not Freud’s or anyone else's understanding of love. It is my (as a ‘part’ of Love's) understanding, an understanding that arrived from being naked to Why?

Love is all feelings and no feelings. Love is thought and no-thought.

Love is 'me' writing this. Love is 'you' reading this.

:)

[sahyo]

love is the not knowing Why Absolute Subjectivity ’split’ itself



seems "'split' itself"?

[bito]

seems "'split' itself"?

quotation marks around 'split' meant to imply 'seems'

:P :)

[sahyo]

Love is also accepting that ‘both’ ways of being itself are expressions of love.



what's to "accepting" when ceases imagining 'both-itself-of love '
as though an 'itself-entity' which is expressing?

:P hehe

[bito]

bito implying love an entity :slap: asheera

:D hehe

[Yes]

Love is just when your hormones pick on someone for a super long time; a hormonal thing, if you will. It is not some sort of magical person in your brain making you feel this way, it is all chemicals.Mostly what people think is love is just lust, or an infatuation.

[bito]

what's to "accepting" when ceases imagining 'both-itself-of love '
as though an 'itself-entity' which is expressing?

In light, can love be?

We love-dance in the dark of expression....ALL expression...few words...many words...it matters ;) not...

:) ...or, more to the love-point, B) ?

[bito]

Love is just when your hormones pick on someone for a super long time; a hormonal thing, if you will. It is not some sort of magical person in your brain making you feel this way, it is all chemicals.Mostly what people think is love is just lust, or an infatuation.

No matter how one sees love, does 'why' matter?

To experience it, now that's the Thing!

:dancing:

[sahyo]

oop

[sahyo]

In light, can love be?

We love-dance in the dark of expression



:lol:

[sahyo]

bito implying love an entity :slap: asheera

:D hehe



:D hehehe

seems :love: as though an entity?

[bito]

seems as though :love: an entity?

seems, scheems; entity, schemtity...naming gaming... :lol:

eye cannot see or say itself, so eye dreams grain-of-sanding...

thanking ash :hug: ra for asheera*ing grain-of-sanding...thanking all other blinkings too...:grouphug:

second noting to asheera...seems graining, seems blinking, seems noting, seems seeming... :D

[bito]

my turn for oop...

sorry asheera...I placed the :love: in the wrong spot in the quote from your post...hope meaning was not changed :unsure:

[bito]

asheera

Just in case you weren't pulling my leg, although I don't see how it is possible given the context of my postings to date, I do not believe that love 'is as though an entity'.

:)

[sahyo]

eye cannot see or say itself, so eye dreams grain-of-sanding...



not possible



thanking*



:love:



second noting to asheera...seems graining, seems blinking, seems noting, seems seeming...* :D



.................................................. ................................:thumbsup:

:D

[sahyo]

...I placed the in the wrong spot in the quote from your post...

didn't seem wrong sweeting :) ...

[sahyo]

I do not believe that love 'is as though an entity'.



yet posted


Love is also accepting that ‘both’ ways of being itself

[bito]

perhaps asheera not feeling words beyond what seems literal/conceptualizing meaning to asheera...okay, no problem...loving speaking with 'you'...please see quotation marks...means 'seems' 'you' :)

this 'difference'...please note quotation marks... :lol: 'between' our' languaging...no need to mention quotation marks anymore... :D is loving-dancing-singing...all feelings of loving-dancing-singing, even mis-communicating and mis-interpreting from me-you...if no misses, then love not flowing...love then still...then, no needing communicating...no fun! ;)

sweeting, sweeting, melting, melting...yeslovewater...lovewaterbodymindfeelingb eingbeyoumefull

[sahyo]

perhaps asheera not feeling words beyond what seems literal/conceptualizing meaning to asheera



:lol:

[Nihil]

I haven' t read all the posts yet (time is the essence but I have an existence... :begging: )
I have a topic to include here that I read in a Psichology book:
It says that Love is a pure desire of the self interest in "acquire" someone - I relate that to that impulse, when we're kids, of "Mom please buy me that toy :rolleyes: " and two weeks after we flush it in the toilet because we played with it enough :P !
But a person has different reactions that a toy and that's why a love affair with a PERSON can last for eternity! :thumbsup:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Nihil@Oct 24 2004, 10:53 AM
Let us talk about Love will ya?
I finally tracked down a passage on 'Love' by David R. Hawkins in Power vs. Force, which I wanted to share. Let me preface it by saying that Hawkin's view of soul- or spiritual- "realization" is that it is generally a stage-by-stage, "progressive" process. He articulates a system which "calibrates" (on a scale from 0 to 1000) "levels" of "consciousness" in this regard. His description of the "level" which he classifies as "love" is included in the following excerpt. I thought including his characterizations of adjacent 'lower' and 'higher' "levels" would help readers better grasp his perspective by providing 'surrounding' context. Any underscores in the following reflect my emphasis, not his.

Energy Level 310: Willingness

This very positive level of energy may be seen as the gateway to the higher levels. For instance, at the Neutral level, jobs are done adequaltely, but at the level of Willingess, work is done well and success in all endeavors is common. Willingness implies that one has overcome inner resistance to life and is committed to participation. Below the 200 calibration, people tend to be close-mided, but by level 310, a great opening occurs. At this level, people become genuinely friendly, and social and econommic success seem to follow automatically. The Willing aren't troubled by unemployment; they'll take any job when they have to, or create a career or self-employment for themselves; they don't feel demeaned by service jobs or by starting at the bottom. They're helpful to others and contribute to society. They're also also willing to face inner issues and don't have major learning blocks.

At this level, self-esteem is high and is reinforced by positive feedback from society in the forms of recognition, appreciation, and reward. Willingness is sympathetic and responsive to the needs of others. Willing people are builders of, and contributors to, society. With their capacity to bounce back from aadversity and learn from experience, they tend to become self-correcting. Having let go of Pride, they're willing to look at their defects and learn form others. At the level of Willingness, people become excellent students. They're easily trainable ad represent a considerable source of power for society.

Energy Level 350: Acceptance

At this level of awareness, a major transformaion takes place, with the understanding that one is oneself the source and creator of the experiennce of one's life. Taking such responsibility is distinctive of this degree of evolution, characterized by the capacity to live harmoniously with the forces of life.

All people at levels below 200 tend to be powerless and see themselves as victims, at the mercy of life. This stems from a belief that the source of one's happiness or the cause of one's problems is "out there." An enormous jump -- taking back one's power -- is completed at this level, with the realization that the source of happiness is within oneself. At this more evolved stage, nothing "out there" has the cpacity to make one happy, and love isn't something that's given or taken away by another, but is created from within.

This level is not to be confused with passivity, which is a symptom of apathy. Accceptance allows engagement in life on life's own terms, without trying to make it conform to an agenda. There's emotional calm with Acceptance, and perception is widened as denial is transcended. One now sees things without distortion or misinterpretation; the context of experiece is expanded so that one is capable of "seeing the whole piicture." Acceptance has to do essentially with balance, proportion, and appropriateness.

The individual at the level of Acceptance isn't interested in determining right or wrong, but instead is dedicated to resolving issues and fnding out what to do about problems. Tough jobs don't cause discomfort or dismay. Long-term goals take precedence over short-term ones; self-discipline and mastery are prominent.

At the level of Acceptance, we're not polarized by conflict or opposition; we see that other people have the same rights as we do, and we honor equality. While lower levels are characterized by rigidity, at this level, social plurality begins to emerge as a formm of resolution of problems. Therefore, this level is free of discrimination or intolerance; there's an awareness that equality doesn't exclude diversity; Acceptance includes rather than rejects.

Energy Level 4000: Reason

Intelligence and rationality rise to the forefront when the emotionalism of the lower levels is transcended. Reason is capable of handling large, complex amounts of data and making rapid, correct decisions; of understanding the intricacies of relationships, gradations, and fine distinctions; and expert manipulation of symbols as abstract concepts become increasingly important. This is the level of science, medicine, and of generally increased capacity for conceptualization and comprehension. Knowledge and education are here sought as capital. Understanding and information are the main tools of accomplishment, which is the hallmark of the 400 level. This is the level of Nobel Prize winners, great statesmen, and Supreme Court justices. Einstain, Freud and many of the other great thinkers in history also calibrate here.

The shortcomings of this level involved the failure to clearly distinguish the difference between symbols and what they represent, and confusion between the objective and subjective worlds that limits the understanding of causality. At this level, it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees, to become infatuated with concepts and theories and end up missing the essential point. Intellectualizing can become an end in itself. Reason is limited in that it doesn't afford the capacity for the discernment of essence or of the critical point of a complex issue.

Reason does not of itself provide a guide to truth. It produces massive amounts of information and documentation, but lacks the capability to resolve discrepancies in data and conclusions. All philosophical arguments sound convincing on their own. Although Reason is highly effective in a technical world where the methodologies of logic dominate, Reason itself, paradoxically, is the major block to reaching higher levels of consciousness. Transcending this level is relatively uncommon in our society.

Energy Level 500: Love

Love as depicted in the mass media is not what this level is about. What the world generally refers to as love is an intense emotional condition, combining physical attraction, possessiveness, control, addiction, eroticism, and novelty. It's usually fragile and fluctuating, waxing and waning with varying conditions. When frustrated, this emotion often reveals an underlying anger and dependency that it had masked. That love can turn to hate is a common perception, but here, an addictive sentimentality is likely what is being spoken about, rather than Love; there probably never was actual love in such a relationship, for Hate stems from Pride, not Love.

The 500 level is characterized by the development of a Love that is unconditional, unchanging, and permanent. It doesn't fluctuate -- its sourc isn't dependent on external factors. Loving is a state of being. It is a forgiving, nurturing, and supportive way of relating to the wqorld. Love isn't intellectual and doesn;t proceed from the mind; Love emanates from the heart. It has the capacity to lift others and accomplish great feats because of its purity of motive.

At this level of development, the capacity to discern essence becomes predominant; the core of an issue becomes the center of focus. As reason is bypasssed, there arises the capacity for instantaneous recognition of the totality of a problem and a major expansion of context, expecially regarding time and process. Reason deals only with particulars, whereas Love deals with entireties. This ability, often ascribed to intuition, is the capacity for instantaneous understanding without resorting to sequential symbol processing. This apparently abstract phenomenon is, in fact, quite concrete; it's accompanied by a measurable release of endorphins in the brain.

Love takes no position, and thus is global, rising above separation. It's then possible to be "one with another," for there are no longer any barriers. Love is therefore inclusive and expands the sense of self progressively. Love focuses on the goodness of life in all its expressions and augments that which is positive -- its dissolves negativity by recontextualizing it, rather than by attacking it.

This is the level of true happiness, but although the world is fascinated with the subject of Love, and all viable religions calibrate at 500 or over, it's interesting to note that only 0.4 percet of the world's population ever reaches this level of evolution of consciousness.

Energy Level 540: Joy

As Love becomes more and more unconditional, it begins to be experienced as inner Joy. This isn't the sudden joy of a pleasurable turn of events; it's a constant accompaniment to all activities. Joy arises from within each moment of existence, rather than from any source; 540 is also the level of healing and spiritually based self-help groups.

From level 540 up is the domain of saints, and advanced spiritual students and healers. A capacit for enormous patience and the persistence of a positive attitude in the face of prolonged adversity is characteristic of this energy field; the hallmark of this state is compassion. People who have attaine this level have a notable effect on others. They're capable of a prolonged, open visial gaze, which induces a state of love and peace.

At the high 500s, the world one sees is illuminated by the exquisite beauty and perfection of creation. Everything happens effortlessly, by synchronicity, and the world and everything in it is seen to be an expression of love and divinity. Individual will merges into divine will. A Presence is felt whose power facilitates phenomena ouotside conventional expectations of reality, terms miraculous by the ordinary observer. These phenomena represent the power of the energy field, not of the individual.

One's sense of responsibility for others at this level is of a different quality from that shown at the lower levels: There's a desire to use one's state of consciousness for the benefit of life itself rather than for particular individuals. This capacity to love many people simultaneously is accompanied by the discovery that the more one loves, the more one can love.

Near death experiennces, characterisitically transformative in their effect, have frequently allwed people to experiennce the energy level between 540 and 600.
=======

And so on .... Happy bouncing! - David

[Nihil]

I attentively read the excerpt of the text and I became astonished by the argumentation and the analysis of human behaviour and motivation. The fact that we have several energy levels is an interesting point but I do have some questions I would like to be answered. For instance, may someone “bounce” from one state to another coming from a higher level towards a lower one?
«That love can turn to hate is a common perception, but here, an addictive sentimentality is likely what is being spoken about, rather than Love; there probably never was actual love in such a relationship, for Hate stems from Pride, not Love.» This is such a truth! The only problem is to understand ourselves: how can we say we love if love is a word that tries to explain a feeling? I could argue that there is some kind of social impulse that impels us towards the almost mythical sentence: “I love you!” But can’t we see in there some kind of persuasion technique? In the excerpt, it is explained the difference between true love and common love; but when they speak about pride, what does that mean? It means that I am pride of myself by loving someone? The problem is that we can be truly in love for someone but the fact that the word “love” is so common, it lost its meaning and it is not well understood, especially by the one we wish to comprehend it. Then we act wrongly because our true love degenerates; it’s the illness of our surroundings that corrupt our feelings…
Then we have the conflict of Love vs. Everything Else! Can we be rational when we’re in love? And can we choose rationally who we love? Perhaps our moral code stored in our super ego can give us the explanation to the choosing – off course, there has to have a sexual appeal to the selection, or am I wrong?

[Nick_A]

Hello nihil

Then we have the conflict of Love vs. Everything Else! Can we be rational when we’re in love? And can we choose rationally who we love? Perhaps our moral code stored in our super ego can give us the explanation to the choosing – off course, there has to have a sexual appeal to the selection, or am I wrong?

As I understand it, there are three kinds of love. The first is the natural attraction to what is similar and complimentary to our nature or our "type". This, I believe, is the highest love that we are capable of without efforts to grow inwardle as human beings.

The second is emotional love which is really the lowest form for us. This emotion is inspired within a person from outside. The value of this emotion is for oneself. When this outside influence is unable to inspire the same emotion, this love can change into its opposite.

Conscious love is consciously learned and requires the desire for the beloved to become itself without concern for self. This is the highest love we can know and when it attracts similar love, I believe that this would be the basis of the true religious relationship. It is not easy. It is easy to say "oh how wonderful" but in practice we can gradually learn how limited we are. Welcome to the human race. :)

Somehow the enormous difference in qualities of love is ordinarily overlooked or underestimated. Even in biblical translations it is lost. For example:

John 21
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different words in the Greek for love used in this passage. One means a conscious love and the other refers to a mechanical automatic quality like in emotional love.

When Jesus asks Peter if he loves him "more than these", it is asking for Peter's conscious understanding which he didn't have. Jesus asks the same question again and Peter still doesn't understand. Finally Jesus asks the third time but here uses the word for mechanical love and Peter responds in the same way.

I would say that the ability to love consciously can be learned, but as valuable a human quality as it is, it is far more difficult then normally assumed.

[sahyo]

the ability to love consciously can be learned


loving not an "ability" and cannot intellectually "be learned"

[Nick_A]

loving not an "ability" and cannot intellectually "be learned"

Consciousness is intellectual. Love is emotional. Both vary in their quality. Love that is just mechanical expression though often appearing more intense, cannot, I believe, be as inclusive as love that has conscious origin and direction.

[sahyo]

loving not like that

[Nick_A]

loving not like that

I remember reading an acount of a time Madam Blavatsky was in India when she and some associates were confronted by a tiger. Everyone was afraid but she walked towards it and "loved" it. The tiger experienced this love, appreciated and respected it and from whom it came, and slowly walked away. The tiger had no desire to attack the source of its experience.

Loving in this way is learned. It is an aspect of the love of life itself that transcends natural fear. It requires consciousness.

[sahyo]

can clarify use word 'learned'?

[Nick_A]

can clarify use word 'learned'?

As I've often said, I believe we exist as a plurality of many small i's. We assume because of our one body and one name amongst other things that we are an individual with inner unity....with "I".

Part of this multiplicity is our emotions. They come and go very quickly and overlap. We do not as "I" initiate them. They are the results of external stimuli. It isn't as though "we love" or we hate" for example. Instead these emotions move through us

When a person begins to become conscious of self and observes themselves, it becomes clear that we do live like a multiplicity and often in opposition to ourselves. Living like this denies us emotional force. Yet emotional force is necessary for a person "to do" when consciously aware.

Love is an emotional force. it is something that can be both given and accepted. However, living as a multiplicity, other emotions are at work when we wish to experience or to give love. All sorts of self doubts and negative emotions enter that neutralize the emotion so we cannot love consciously. We do not have sufficient consciousness to develop the inner unity that would allow us to sustain such an emotion as love that is free of habitual limitation. it is beyond us. Habits are too strong to allow us "choice".

How would you act in front of a tiger? All sorts of fears would enter. The body itself would tighten up. Thoughts would be completely chaotic. In short, as much as we may intellectually see the value of love, these other sides deny it and wish to expreess themselves.

A woman like Madam Blavatsky has done inner work. Her body didn't tighten up nor did fears get the best of her. She had a consciousness that allowed her the presence to love the tiger as a living sentient being. A tiger is advanced enough that it responds.

How is it learned? I remember trying an experiment which was extremely revealing. Everyone has certain lower animals and plants that they are either attracted to or repulsed by. This is natural. I never liked centipeeds. Their long legs and speed made me very uneasy as a child. So I caught one in a box. From a distance I could observe it calmly. As I gradually moved closer to it I learned that there was a point that negative emotion entered and forced a tightening in my presence. So I tried to work with this distance to see how long it would take to get closer without tightening, without losing the sense of myself.

This is what I mean by learned. This is just one of many attempts a person can do to gradually open themselves to experience life itself. To become more open is one step. To love from this new ability is something else.

A horse could not do this. It has emotion but could never see the value in loving a snake. it has a natural fear of snakes. However, a person, can change their attitude and realize what is lost in their humanity by these unnecessary reactions. In my case, a centipeed is a harmless creature, and all my fears in the past deprived me of life in the presence of this harmless creature.

I came to the point that I could intellectually understand that the centipeed is harmless. I could see with my senses that it could not attack me so my body could be relaxed. My emotions could gradually change and allow more positive emotions to enter.

Now this is a very small thing in comparison to retaining ones presence while confronted by a tiger. This is real understanding of and love for life and the ability to sustain inner presence. But as a person grows in their consciousness of themselves and their connection to life itself, it can open the door to a genuine love for life that doesn't just move through them but initiated by something of substance that has been acquired in themselves allowing for real presence. It is from this developed state of conscious presence that real conscious love can radiate from since its unity is not in opposition to itself.

[venom mama]

what love is. it's when you meet that person and your eyes lock and all you can see are the eyes. eveything is cloudy aroud you and noise is muffled. you have a connection that you don't understand but that has been there through time and space. you always know when that person is close even if you can't see them. you could be sitting in your car and they drive by on the far side of the road, but you look up and through window tint and traffic your eyes meet. whenever you're around them the very air is different. sometimes a kind of esp happens and you know your about to run into them. they want you and you want them. it's so much more than physical. it scares you because you loose all thought control and wonder always about them. for some reason whenever you're around them you have to get away quick even though you want to be oh so close. you know you're energies have been one since the very first star. you both know, but it makes you sad because it's so damn beautiful. it scares you. so you run away and never tell them. but they know.

and all they wanted was to love you and be loved by you.

[sahyo]

what vgirl fearing?

[venom mama]

i don't know.

[sahyo]

ok :)

[sahyo]

I remember reading an acount of a time Madam Blavatsky was in India when she and some associates were confronted by a tiger. Everyone was afraid but she walked towards it and "loved" it. The tiger experienced this love, appreciated and respected it and from whom it came, and slowly walked away. The tiger had no desire to attack the source of its experience.



A woman like Madam Blavatsky has done inner work. Her body didn't tighten up nor did fears get the best of her. She had a consciousness that allowed her the presence to love the tiger as a living sentient being. A tiger is advanced enough that it responds.



mb was loving tiger as though tiger was separate-"it", as though "as a living sentient being"?....what "it"?....what "sentient being"....
does seem as though fact?

[sahyo]

Now this is a very small thing in comparison to retaining ones presence while confronted by a tiger. This is real understanding of and love for life and the ability to sustain inner presence. But as a person grows in their consciousness of themselves and their connection to life itself

"ones presence"?....seems as though someones which can ownering as though "of themselves"?

But as a person grows in their consciousness of themselves and their connection to life itself

concepting "connection"?

it can open the door to a genuine love for life that doesn't just move through them but initiated by something of substance that has been acquired in themselves allowing for real presence.

seems as though a-"something" which can initiatering and aquirering a-"something"?

It is from this developed state of conscious presence that real conscious love can radiate from since its unity is not in opposition to itself.

"from" as though can to?....concept "unity" can "opposition" from-to as though a-"itself"?

[Nihil]

Hello Nick_A!
I agree with you in most of you argumentations.
I found your posts to be the most delightful thing to be said in this thread about the subject.
To me love is a word that had lost its true meaning; for me love is only one thing – the perfect religious harmony between two beings that find the way to achieve a loving vision of the whole world through each other – nothing more! You can say “I like that girl” but you need to explain to yourself why! As Davids quoted, only 0,4% of the world population has this “feeling” (let us call it like this): do you believe that every attraction is love due? I don’t think so: you can be attracted by her physical appeals, by her character, by her intelligence – by lost of things. If you discover this, you’ll take out the mystical belief of your feeling, if you can’t… well, I don’t know whether is it better to have conscience on what you feel!
I also believe you’ve got lot’s of “I(s)” into your personality – you take out examples and identifications from the rest of the world: if you were by yourself, you wouldn’t even notice you were existing! You can live without trying to find out who you have inside you or, as I like to do, be someone else different every day!!! :D
Emotions are the fuel of the “bad” love – the love that I would call a “pink friendship”: the true love can only be achieved if all the conditions are awakened by a vision… the vision of the one that gives you access to your inner personality, this is if you believe that all man are naturally good!?
I believe that when you have Love, you loose fear because be in love means be loved, even if it is not by the “access gate” – the loving object (this includes people…)
Chemically, love makes your brain make a substance that takes out all the violent chemicals – I know this is not very explicit, but I have few lights on the matter; I only know that, for instance, it is what make new mothers love their babies. Perhaps you could scientifically build a text on this subject!
What you’re talking about (the centipede experiment) is not what I would identify of learning to love: I still believe that all comes from a mixture of sub-conscientious matters. What you done (I tried it some time ago with a spider) is fight your fear in order to be more aware of who you can be. Love might have been the impulse that forced you to act towards this!
Although my last paragraph goes against your arguing, I would like to hear more about your justifications – I believe I might be wrong, or, at least, not totally correct! :duh:
Hope you keep interested on the subject for further discussions;
Greets,
Nihil

[Nihil]

Welcome venomgirl B)
I see in your explanation a lot of Romanism: I experienced the whole eye scene and I believe that the eyes can tell a lot of who you are! But they can also lie if they are trained to do so!
The love you talk is nothing more, to me, than attraction, instantaneous connection with someone that called your attention because it offered you something you were in need: someone that could look into your eyes and show you a new world, a world you could be a part of!
But Love is much more than that, miss! What you say is merely the gate, and the first feeling is the opening of the door: only when the door is completely opened, you can love!

[Nick_A]

Hello Nihil

Thanks for the compliments. Now I hope I don't inspire some growls. :)

the perfect religious harmony between two beings that find the way to achieve a loving vision of the whole world through each other – nothing more! You can say “I like that girl” but you need to explain to yourself why! As Davids quoted, only 0,4% of the world population has this “feeling” (let us call it like this): do you believe that every attraction is love due? I don’t think so: you can be attracted by her physical appeals, by her character, by her intelligence – by lost of things.

Here IMO it becomes dangerous. Normally this loving vision of the whole is pure imagination. It becomes so only because neither person has had the necessary experience of their nothingness inviting the humility which takes away fantasy and invites reality.

The attraction of love and sex are different though often confused. Unfortunately sex itself has acquired a bad reputation in some religious circle just making matters worse. it seems that several experts got together with someone's grandmother and the result was a disaster where egotism through "right and wrong" entered and we've been suffering ever since. This is why the Song of Solomon is so hard to take in the Bible for example. But the question of sex is for a separate thread.

However, to give a brief description of the difference in attraction as I understand it, I'll try to relate what I remember reading on it that made a lot of sense. The attraction of love is the greatest when the two are the closest together. The sexual attraction is the greatest at a certain distance between the two. This is why when the man and woman unite in the sex act, what remains after completion is love if it is there. What initially starts at a distance as the dominance of sexual attraction can change due to the closeness that can arise and the difference in the energies that become present.

I believe that when you have Love, you loose fear because be in love means be loved, even if it is not by the “access gate” – the loving object (this includes people…)
Chemically, love makes your brain make a substance that takes out all the violent chemicals – I know this is not very explicit, but I have few lights on the matter; I only know that, for instance, it is what make new mothers love their babies. Perhaps you could scientifically build a text on this subject!

Here I would have to disagree if seen to rigidly. First of all, there is both necessary and unnecessary fear. The good side of fear is that it increases our ability to cope physically. Chemicals are released in the body that increase our awareness and ability to fight, run or whatever is necessary. However, fear that becomes unnaturally emotional and without the intellectual guidance that can make use of our heightened awareness becomes horribly debilitating. I believe a real person could love and fear a tiger at the same time for example.

What you’re talking about (the centipede experiment) is not what I would identify of learning to love: I still believe that all comes from a mixture of sub-conscientious matters. What you done (I tried it some time ago with a spider) is fight your fear in order to be more aware of who you can be. Love might have been the impulse that forced you to act towards this!

First you have to approach the state of toleration where fear is not so dominant in depriving us of our conscious possibilities.. After that we can try to love.

I would agree that the first thing is to retain some sense of self as a necessary beginning to increasing the capacity to love beyond are normally unconscuious self imposed limitations.

Although my last paragraph goes against your arguing, I would like to hear more about your justifications – I believe I might be wrong, or, at least, not totally correct!
Hope you keep interested on the subject for further discussions;
Greets,

*sigh* Now if only my ex wife would have had such an attitude. :) Good dialoguing with you.

[sahyo]

searching net for using words differently than happens called-lehish wording, just read:

Thought engenders pleasure. Thinking about the sexual act becomes lust, which is entirely different from the act of sex. What most people are concerned with is the passion of lust. Craving before and after sex is lust. This craving is thought. Thought is not love."

Love is not the product of thought which is the past. Thought cannot possibly cultivate love.

j krishnamurti

:)

[bito]

Thought cannot possible cultivate love

Yes, for the moment we think about loving someone or something, we are implying a 'because' and the moment we imply a 'because', it is no longer love. :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

:) yes

yet called bito posted
"Human beings are aware of variables of cause and effect"
as though 'because' can happen

[Nick_A]

Asheera

Love is not the product of thought which is the past. Thought cannot possibly cultivate love.

Bito

Yes, for the moment we think about loving someone or something, we are implying a 'because' and the moment we imply a 'because', it is no longer love.

As you know, I believe that there are different qualities of love. One kind, emotional, is for ones own self image. Another kind is conscious which wants the best for the beloved regardless of self image.

What kind of thought is being referred to? Is it pure association and the results of previous experience or something more?

If one wants the best for the beloved, it is necessary to know the needs of the beloved. Lots of room for self deception here. How many people have said: "but I did it for your own good" without having a clue as to what that means. A rare, honest, and different quality of thought seems necessary. This is the problem. The same words can have so many different meanings. Words like "thought" and "love" are very misleading without context.

This idea of "because" is explained well in Christianity which advises to love the sinner and not the sin. A certain separation between the two is necessary that is very difficult to acquire.

[bito]

Nick

As you know, I believe that there are different qualities of love. One kind, emotional, is for ones own self image. Another kind is conscious which wants the best for the beloved regardless of self image.

I would question whether emotional 'love' as per your definition is love at all. If the experience of this emotion is, as you say, for one's self image, is this not need or fear or lust?

What kind of thought is being referred to? Is it pure association and the results of previous experience or something more?

The moment I think about a person or a place or a thing that warms or lightens my being, I am light and warm. If I linger on that one moment for even an instant, I am trapped in the because and the warmth and the light disappear into memory and imagination. Love and eternity are one - step into memory and imagination and poof! hello time and space! :) Which leads me to...

If one wants the best for the beloved, it is necessary to know the needs of the beloved. Lots of room for self deception here. How many people have said: "but I did it for your own good" without having a clue as to what that means. A rare, honest, and different quality of thought seems necessary. This is the problem. The same words can have so many different meanings. Words like "thought" and "love" are very misleading without context.

If one holds to the purity of love as unconditioned being, then one cannot help but do 'what is best' for another. Simply by loving their being, you are 'doing what is best'. This is not to say you would not give thought to as to what knowledge or practical plans the beloved might need to see what needs to be seen, or to do what needs to be done, but this is not love, this is wisdom, no?

This idea of "because" is explained well in Christianity which advises to love the sinner and not the sin. A certain separation between the two is necessary that is very difficult to acquire.

Do you believe we acquire, rather than realize, knowledge?

[Nick_A]

Bito

I would question whether emotional 'love' as per your definition is love at all. If the experience of this emotion is, as you say, for one's self image, is this not need or fear or lust?

This is a hard question for me anyhow. The emotion is one thing and what inspires it is another but yet they are related. Love of self image is selective and invites its opposite as soon as this self image is threatened. Now how about animal mother love. It is also selective and changes as soon as her young is threatened. Can the love of her young be similar to the protection of our self image? Can the emotion be similar even though mother love is natural and love of self image is learned? This is not so easy to determine.

If one holds to the purity of love as unconditioned being, then one cannot help but do 'what is best' for another. Simply by loving their being, you are 'doing what is best'.

Maybe so but it beyond our ability. The scattered nature of our being prevents it. Before we can begin to know another and exhibit such unconditioned being, you would have to become unconditioned. This is basically buddhahood and there are not that many Buddhas around even though many have plunked down there $99.95 to get the course on how the achieve Buddhahood in ten easy lessons.

Do you believe we acquire, rather than realize, knowledge?

It depends on the knowledge. Associative knowledge, a product of the relationship between before and after, is learned or acquired. Great knowledge or knowledge of the structure of being, the relative quality of "now", is already within us. It just has to be remembered. Not so easy with all the distractions. there is knowledge and there is knowledge

[bito]

Maybe so but it beyond our ability. The scattered nature of our being prevents it. Before we can begin to know another and exhibit such unconditioned being, you would have to become unconditioned. This is basically buddhahood and there are not that many Buddhas around even though many have plunked down there $99.95 to get the course on how the achieve Buddhahood in ten easy lessons.

Once being is known as truth, then unconditioning is happening.

[Nick_A]

Bito

Once being is known as truth, then unconditioning is happening.

Perhaps so but only up to a point where it meets resistance. Then you become as Paul said "the wretched man".

This sounds very offensive but it is up to those truly interested to verify it for themselves in their own inner states. If not careful, conditioning can become even stronger.

The Bible has a lot of good stuff in it if read with the right mind. Consider the following in the context of the above:

Matthew 12

43"When an evil[1] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

Some very nice people having experienced something real start consulting local experts in the art of self deception. They may pass along some meditations and the like that have a psychological cleaning effect. However, the seeker, not having experienced their nothingness, quickly becomes egotistically involved with this inner cleaning and the results they produce are often much worse than before as they begin to become experts. This is much harder to repair.

[bito]

Matthew 12

43"When an evil[1] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

These seven wicked spirits - could they not refer to any spiritual drama/constructs/techniques 'added to' nothingness? Including meditation, cosmological thinking, occult practices, etc.?

[Nick_A]

These seven wicked spirits - could they not refer to any spiritual drama/constructs/techniques 'added to' nothingness? Including meditation, cosmological thinking, occult practices, etc.?

Its not techniques, cosmological thought, or anything else that is the problem. If it were objective art could not have its benefits. The problem is how the results of these are maintained. The process is pure but the results can be captured by the corrupted ego and strengthen it. That is the strength of humility. Ones being can benefit since humility denies the corrupted ego.

In numerology seven is a number of completion. It is the octave itself. I interpret these additional seven spirits as meaning a higher octave of negative spirit or the seven facets of this higher evil that can profit from this cleansed inner state. The greater our own inner quality, the greater is our opposition. The more inner value we have the more valuable we become to higher processes.

[bito]

Its not techniques, cosmological thought, or anything else that is the problem. If it were objective art could not have its benefits. The problem is how the results of these are maintained. The process is pure but the results can be captured by the corrupted ego and strengthen it. That is the strength of humility. Ones being can benefit since humility denies the corrupted ego.

Awareness of being awakens the soul, and it is the soul that speaks the language of symbols, myth and archetype, both light and dark. This is the 'true' battle of good and evil, the one that happens within. Remaining centred in one's awakening (faith that this awakening is THE most valuable self-experience) and love for being can keep one from falling 'prey' to the belief that the images themselves are truth, and not pointers (rememberings) to the truth (being).

Are we on the same page, or are we reading a whole different book?

:unsure: :)

[Ronagon]

"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine-gun."

~Matt Groening

[Ronagon]

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."

--Matt Groening

[bito]

I guess that means that Matt's a pretty awake guy. Doh!

:D

[Nick_A]

Awareness of being awakens the soul, and it is the soul that speaks the language of symbols, myth and archetype, both light and dark. This is the 'true' battle of good and evil, the one that happens within. Remaining centred in one's awakening (faith that this awakening is THE most valuable self-experience) and love for being can keep one from falling 'prey' to the belief that the images themselves are truth, and not pointers (rememberings) to the truth (being).

Its close enough and really hard to find major differences. I believe that we have the potential for a soul so it isn't the soul that awakens. We consist of various parts and some parts are natural for higher cosmoses and some are lower and natural for the earth level. Awakening is self awareness where the higher is observing the earthly self. Awakening cannot remain since there is no true connection between these levels. Longer periods of awakening can establish a mid point between heaven and earth so to speak establishing this connection. This midpoint is the soul when it becomes established. It is receptive to the higher and can "do" on the lower earthly realm helping to spiritualize it which is our natural "work in the garden".

I would agree that men with souls have established links to great knowledge through myths and symbols in order to bypass associative thought incapable of understanding great knowledge. Like you I agree that the struggle is within and for those that see man as having the possibility for conscious evolution, good and evil in the objective sense considers evolution as the good and what struggles against it as the evil.

The belief is that faith is a valuable quality. Faith itself is the establishment of an inner organization that can grow from the conscious reception of the impressions external life has to offer as opposed to the normal way in which our life is sucked from us through attachment to our egotistic interpretations.

Like you, I believe love to be the universal unifying force of attraction and our being is attracted to its source. However, our corrupt egos deny the experience so love exists for us in a degraded state in comparison to what man is capable of. A natural mistake is to associate the intensity of "love" with quality. They are not necessarily related.

I agree that a symbol can indicate something beyond our ability to comprehend. Take for example the equilateral triangle where the sides are equal. This has meaning in earthly life but is also symbolic of the union of the three forces of creation. This union, beyond time and space, is beyond our comprehension. One needs to know how to ponder such a symbol without being taken by associative thought so that it can open you to what it can.

[bito]

Nick

Except for that potential for a soul concept (would you consider the baby, young, mature, old soul model? :D ) - close enough to call it a draw :) .

[Nick_A]

A human baby is a shell. What it may become is something else. Consider this from the Gospel of Thomas:

(4) Jesus said: The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a little child of seven days about the place of Life, and he will live. For many who are first shall become last and they shall become a single one.

As with everything in this Gospel, the real meaning is internal. The old man in us is what finally begins to realize that his normal life that has gone on and on is meaningless. The child within begining to live (7) is the essence of (re-birth) and brings meaning and with it, life.

Bito, if we were in battle, I, as an Aries male, would of course be winning (at least in my own mind but forget that I just said that). But since we are pondering together, it will always be a draw. :)

[bito]

And, as a female Scorpio, well, do I need to say anything more? :lol:

BTW, I am married to an Aries male and my best friend of 40 years is an Aries female. Lots of battle practice - mostly lots of sword-brandishing-ducking-laughing... :)

[Nick_A]

You're a Scorpio and he's an Aries. That's a tough one. He's either got to have the patience of a saint or you've gotten an occasional spanking over the years in the purusit and preservation of domestic bliss. :)

[bito]

You're a Scorpio and he's an Aries. That's a tough one. He's either got to have the patience of a saint or you've gotten an occasional spanking over the years in the purusit and preservation of domestic bliss. :)

Surprisingly, a 30 year harmonious, delightful meeting of mind, heart and soul. B)

[Nick_A]

Wow! Congratulation are in order. Something very gratifying to read in this day and age and may you continue to proceed on course. :thumbsup:

[NeverMind]

Love is so yummy. From what I know, it is to be captivated in whole by a single person and drawn towards them at all times. There is more than a hormonal connection, there is more than a mental connection, it is spiritual and it is beautiful. Love should be cherished and held close. Love is an emotional commitment which your mind has no control over. Love is a deep connection. Love is a yearning when you are apart, and a comfortable warmth when you are together. Love is never wanting to leave her side. Love is pain when goodbyes are whispered. Love is anticipation. Love is passion. Love is a multitude of emotions and states of mind, all encompassed in a deep desire to know another person inside and out. I have finally found love and I don't know how I lived without it. I can't imagine a life without love. :)

i totally used "the L word" like 12 times. :lol:

[Nick_A]

I appreciate your enthusiasm. Hopefully it never comes to this: :unsure:

A beautiful woman once told her sullen much-married-looking lover: "When you are seen, monsieur, in society with my husband, you are expected to look more cheerful than he does." CHAMFORT

[bito]

NeverMind, this piece was given to me by someone very dear, and now I share it with you:

"I have spent the entirety of my life in preparation for the writing of this letter...do not allow that it should become wasted...

Since I am well into the autumn of the days of my life upon this earth, there can surely be little to gain from my propagation of any falsehoods. It would be far simpler for me to swallow a whale and the sea in which he swims, than to mislead you with misconceptions founded in folklore and of fantasy. For two quarters of a century, for the entirety of my life, I have sojourned in the desert for an enigmatic empire. I wandered into the middle of a desert in search of a forest, and I stumbled onto an ocean.

And the name of this ocean, I did not recognize: for it was a forest that even I, had expected never to find. And if I was unable to locate that upon which my search was vainly focused, how then, should it be that I could fathom this mysterious body of water?

For it was a vast and mighty ocean. It stretched everywhere and touched everything. It permeated the sand beneath the soles of my feet, and was the cause of the color of the skies above my head. How could it be that such a magnificient body should escape detection, for it covered the earth and the skies with its enormous presence?

And while I knew that I understood perfectly, yet I also understood that I did not perfectly know what I understood. I expressed an evidence of this knowledge fully eleven years preceding the writing of this confirmation:

A Song of Love

And being quite alone and comfortable,
on a day that was the prized calf of
serenity, I, frolicking among the
wild straws which would never know harvest
lay upon an earth of rush as green as
Mint leaves, pungent

And finally waking, gazed up and saw
(in wood, upon which saws would never gaze)
such sprightly covered sails -
tugging at their moorings,
anxious to cast off bridles -
to frisk and gallop I
in the open-ranged blue sea
which saddled the earth

And pondering loud as the land was
peaceful, blessed the foothills which led myself
down the cleverly concealed trail which
began and ended near this moment:
reacing high as lilacs' fragrance spicy,
with questions, steeped as starless nights, I,
waited in the silence warmer than the sun

And resonding in the lull succeeding
a trilling dockside choir's spontaneous invocation, I,
listening loudly in silence, heard
wisdom skitter loquaciously over pulpits
hewn from bedstones,
projections rising to form syllables
rounded as the stones -
perfect as the ground-smell lusty

And as I stood upon this earth of rush as green as
Pine boughs, poignant,
boisterously shouting, I was enthralled
with this moment of life immersed
in bright visions I was happy and free, as sagely
serene as the threshold-crossing moment of death

And I vowed to discover for my own person, only that which was true and only true, accepting nothing, lest it should be contaminated with the diseases of distortion and opinion. All manner of speculation and suppostion withered, swirling beneath my feet like winter leaves in the wind.

Even so, I have examined from among the many works of the sighted and the seeking, the mighty and the meager. Yet I found only glowing coals to dispel the discomforting chill of realization. For I could find no one in all the world, in all of time, who understood what I understood, nor in the way that my understanding defied understanding. Who, in all the world could possibly comprehend my claim, for my wisdom originated not from within, but from without?

Of what use are your opinions, though sometimes clever, some profound, when the keys you vainly search for can't unlock the door that can't be found? For to know these things is grass beneath my feet and wind against my cheek.

- Anonymous

[sahyo]

:)


Yet I found only glowing coals to dispel the discomforting chill of realization

not "discomforting chill of realization"?


Who, in all the world could possibly comprehend my claim, for my wisdom originated not from within, but from without?

not "from without" either

[sahyo]

I appreciate your enthusiasm.* Hopefully it never comes to this:* :unsure:



A beautiful woman once told her sullen much-married-looking lover:* "When you are seen, monsieur, in society with my husband, you are expected to look more cheerful than he does."* CHAMFORT





imagining "Hopefully"-imagining-future which not happening?

[bito]

Yet I found only glowing coals to dispel the discomforting chill of realization

not "discomforting chill of realization"?

Perhaps you did not mean to include the question mark? :think:

Who, in all the world could possibly comprehend my claim, for my wisdom originated not from within, but from without?

not "from without" either

Quelle killjoy! ;) :)

[Nick_A]

Asheera

imagining "Hopefully"-imagining-future which not happening?

The trouble with many of these kinds of statements is that it needs context. I posted that quote in the context of the love being written about. There was truth to it plus a dash of humor.

Just so that I can understand better where you are coming from, just tell me if you are influenced by ACIM. This way I can put some of what you say into context. I ask since I see some of the same words emphasized like "choose" and "separation".

http://www.acim.org/about_acim_section/wha...at_it_says.html (http://www.acim.org/about_acim_section/what_it_says.html)

I may disagree but never worry about me being nasty. I do enjoy discussing but a person must be open to it and desire it. My aim is to understand, not to condemn so I can disagree nicely and politely. I ask you only to put your expressions into a better context for myself.

Bito

And I vowed to discover for my own person, only that which was true and only true, accepting nothing, lest it should be contaminated with the diseases of distortion and opinion. All manner of speculation and suppostion withered, swirling beneath my feet like winter leaves in the wind.

But can one really suffer in the quest for understanding, for "being"? Modern Buddhism wants to avoid suffering so no help there? In Christianity, the rich man seemed to have had a similar desire but could not suffer his own inner objections. He could not sacrifice the attachment to possession. How many could? In all fairness, Mat 19: 26 suggests the necessity for a certain help. From Matthew 19:

20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

When the chips are down, what will we do? Really an impossible question to answer until the chips are down.

[sahyo]

couldn't loving without?:


Hopefully it never comes to this:*



Just so that I can understand better where you are coming from, just tell me if you are influenced by ACIM.

hasn't happened


This way I can put some of what you say into context. I ask since I see some of the same words emphasized like "choose" and "separation".

um?


I may disagree but never worry about me being nasty.

hasn't happened


My aim is to understand, not to condemn so I can disagree nicely and politely.

like that image? ;)


I ask you only to put your expressions into a better context for myself.

what 'context'?

[sahyo]

Yet I found only glowing coals to dispel the discomforting chill of realization

not "discomforting chill of realization"?



Perhaps you did not mean to include the question mark? :think:

hehe...oop '?' left over from removed sentence :)


Who, in all the world could possibly comprehend my claim, for my wisdom originated not from within, but from without?

not "from without" either

Quelle killjoy! ;) :)

just


not "from without" either



;)

[bito]

But can one really suffer in the quest for understanding, for "being"? Modern Buddhism wants to avoid suffering so no help there? In Christianity, the rich man seemed to have had a similar desire but could not suffer his own inner objections.

When the chips are down, what will we do? Really an impossible question to answer until the chips are down.

For me, this prose/poem was about (re)discovering the truth in one’s awakening.

[Nick_A]

Bito

For me, this prose/poem was about (re)discovering the truth in one’s awakening.

When it fist appears it is often "a gift". But wouldn't you also say that the effort to (re)discover is very difficult since we must struggle with ourselves and its many forms of denial?

I was looking through one of my old books a few days ago searching for some information. It is an old classic by Bucke called "Cosmic Consciousness". He gives case histories of people having their lives changed through these vivid periods of awakening.

Anyhow, he was a friend of Walt Whitman's and describes Whitman's awakening in the context of nature during the writing of "Leaves of Grass". Quite something. Your prose/poetry post reminded me of that.

[bito]

When it fist appears it is often "a gift". But wouldn't you also say that the effort to (re)discover is very difficult since we must struggle with ourselves and its many forms of denial?

Some say that it is belief in effort that causes our sleeping, and 'keeps/holds' eternity at a distance (as you say, "as a gift"). This distance, of course, is an illusion, but seemingly, our sleeping/belief in this illusion of distance is 'necessary'...:duh: :).

I was looking through one of my old books a few days ago searching for some information. It is an old classic by Bucke called "Cosmic Consciousness". He gives case histories of people having their lives changed through these vivid periods of awakening.

Anyhow, he was a friend of Walt Whitman's and describes Whitman's awakening in the context of nature during the writing of "Leaves of Grass". Quite something. Your prose/poetry post reminded me of that.

Both Bucke and Whitman sit in my library as well. If memory serves, Bucke said that Whitman was the only truly fearless man he had ever known.

"Song of Myself", by Walt Whitman...IMO...:star:

[Nick_A]

Some say that it is belief in effort that causes our sleeping, and 'keeps/holds' eternity at a distance (as you say, "as a gift"). This distance, of course, is an illusion, but seemingly, our sleeping/belief in this illusion of distance is 'necessary'... .

True, but that is only because they faill to distinguish between conscious and unconscious efforts. Being caught up in unconscious efforts increases sleep. Conscious efforts though are never lost. They serve to reconnect the higher with the lower within our collective being.

I bet you have a good library. :) Whitman was a very special person.

[bito]

True, but that is only because they faill to distinguish between conscious and unconscious efforts. Being caught up in unconscious efforts increases sleep. Conscious efforts though are never lost. They serve to reconnect the higher with the lower within our collective being.

As long as one is interactive with the (mostly unconscious) world, energy is indeed expended in applying eternity-awareness 'concepts/principles' - if this is what you mean by conscious effort, then yes, I agree. The world, as it is today, is collectively time-bound - for most, eternity is a concept related to foreverness (future) rather than timelessness (no past, no present, no future).

As for the lower and the higher in relation to awareness of timelessness, our physicality 'demands' connection with this awareness - do we have a choice? No. Our sense of energy (emotions/feelings) must be expressed; it is a physiological truth. Energy + eternity awareness = ecstasy, joy, delight. Ergo, poems such as Whitman's, music such as Mozart's and art such as Van Gogh's.

Whitman was a very special person.

When I first read "Song of Myself" I wept with relief. Someone understands how I understand...I wasn't :blink: after all...yes, Whitman is a very special person...:loveyou:

[Nick_A]

Bito

As for the lower and the higher in relation to awareness of timelessness, our physicality 'demands' connection with this awareness - do we have a choice? No. Our sense of energy (emotions/feelings) must be expressed; it is a physiological truth. Energy + eternity awareness = ecstasy, joy, delight. Ergo, poems such as Whitman's, music such as Mozart's and art such as Van Gogh's.

Here I must disagree. Positive emotion is one thing but must negative emotion be expressed? Not as I understand them. It is often thought that negative emotions must be either expressed or suppressed. This suppression can lead to all sorts of problems so it is often thought better to just express them.

In ancient times they knew of a third possibility and that is in the "non-expression" of negative emotion while consciously experiencing them. The idea of "turning the other cheek" was an exercise in this. A person reacts to the slap and asks to be hit again so as to experience it consciously rather then just react.

It is natural to ask why one should bother with what appears as so useless. The reason is that it is preparation for the eventual transformation of negative emotion in oneself.

Emotion is our force of life. Normally it is drained from us through the expression of negative emotion denying us the force necessary to retain consciousness. Being drained "feels" good but leaves us without force for anything but reaction. Consciously experiencing the presence of negative emotion without allowing its expression allows for a transformation of emotion where it is no longer drained from us but used for the good of our own being.

The transformation of negative emotion is a topic in itself. The pearl of great worth may lie beyond the pearls of "ecstasy, joy, delight" produced through the expression of negative emotion.

These types of efforts are only for those with the aim for inner growth. It is foolish for those satisfied with what life offers and better then to just "let er rip".

[bito]

Consciously experiencing the presence of negative emotion without allowing its expression allows for a transformation of emotion where it is no longer drained from us but used for the good of our own being.

This is the conscious suffering you were referring to. I would express it as a 'withdrawing' into one's awareness of eternity when belief in time overcomes one's being. There is pain experienced, and rather than project it outward, it is burned away in the tension of the 'withdrawing'...the 'holy' fire.

The transformation of negative emotion is a topic in itself. The pearl of great worth may lie beyond the pearls of "ecstasy, joy, delight" produced through the expression of negative emotion.

I do agree that there is suffering 'built into' ecstasy, joy and delight, for any expression of emotion and feeling includes its opposite (we are unable to completely transcend our belief in time). An awareness of eternity, by default, means suffering this awareness. As for this pearl of great worth that lies beyond this positive suffering of ecstasy, joy and delight (I'll include peacefulness and compassion as well; the first being the 'state of rest' and the second being the knowledge of suffering), I am unable to intuit how being can physically exist without the 'tension' of awareness of heaven/timelessness and belief in hell/time? Or are you referring to a non-physical existence?

[Nick_A]

This is the conscious suffering you were referring to. I would express it as a 'withdrawing' into one's awareness of eternity when belief in time overcomes one's being. There is pain experienced, and rather than project it outward, it is burned away in the tension of the 'withdrawing'...the 'holy' fire.

Here is where language gets in the way since I'm not sure I know what you mean. When I read the word "withdrawing", red flags go up but you may mean it differently..

There is one paragraph referring to Karma Yoga that deals with the distinction between conscious experience and escapism very well:

Karma-Yoga is the science of action with non-identifying. This phrase must be remembered by everyone. It must not be changed into "the science of action without identifying". The essence of the idea of Karma-Yoga is to meet with unpleasant things equally with pleasant things. That is, in practicing Karma-Yoga one does not seek always to avoid unpleasant things, as people ordinarily do. Life is to be met with non-identifying. Life becomes a teacher, for life taken by itself is meaningless, but taken as an exercise it becomes a teacher. It is not life that is a teacher, but ones relation through non-identifying makes it become a teacher...............

So if by "withdrawing" you mean "action without identifying", I take it as a form of escapism.

Action with non-identifying requires presence. You have to exist. The expression "be here now" initially referred to this but its depth has largely been forgotten. Presence for me is really the opposite of withdrawal. It is more the coming into being. It is inclusive rather than exclusive with no need for withdrawal. The state of "presence" allows one to experience life itself consciously rather then the usual denial of life through misguided habitual avoidance. It can allow us to experience our conceptualizations for what they are: rationalizations from defense mechanisms that largely deny our ability to acquire the value of perception.

I am unable to intuit how being can physically exist without the 'tension' of awareness of heaven/timelessness and belief in hell/time? Or are you referring to a non-physical existence?

Lucky for you. The conscious awareness of the scale of being requires just this distinction between what is commonly known as linear time as opposed to the QUALITY of the moment itself.

[bito]

Here is where language gets in the way since I'm not sure I know what you mean. When I read the word "withdrawing", red flags go up but you may mean it differently.

Language - a big part of the hell of time :) .

I included quotation marks around 'withdrawing' for just the reason you are questioning my meaning. Since I am not a follower of 'a' spiritual path, my language may seem awkward - bear with me.

Withdrawing, as I mean it, is not escapism, rather, a 'collection of being' or 'awareness of stillpoint'...a state of being that allows for a non-judgmental/non personal response to engagement in the world.

It is when we meet perceivings of 'hurt' that 'withdrawal into eternity' becomes necessary. And by 'hurt', I am referring to all observations/feelings of suffering - to self, to others, to all sentient life.

A 'to self' example: If my boss were tell me I was lazy, I would, at first experience a twinge of pain. Negativity. Belief in time (hey, I need my job). Rather than acting upon this feeling of being 'attacked' a 'withdrawal' into eternity 'happens'...a remembering of truth...and I am able to respond calmly and openly. And, even though I have expressed this as a three or four 'step' process, from the moment of hearing 'lazy' to the moment of response, a mere moment has passed.

Obviously, as born out in a previous post of mine in response to one of yours, I am not always successful in this 'withdrawing into eternity'... :)

So if by "withdrawing" you mean "action without identifying", I take it as a form of escapism.

If our choice is to remain engaged in the world once we have experienced awakening, then there is identifying, no? Identifying with our knowing of truth, with eternity.

Methinks we are saying the same thing, only differently... :unsure:

Having said this, I do not view experiencing joy and delight and ecstasy in 'being', in existing, as escapism. It is also presence, the presence of pure 'aliveness'...of 'love for the sake of being and being for the sake of love'. And, as I said, suffering (awareness of the human condition - 'spirit-in-matter') is 'included' in this delighting. Laughter is one of the purest expressions of ecstasy, and what is laughter but awareness of despair?

[sahyo]

Having said this, I do not view experiencing joy and delight and ecstasy in 'being', in existing, as escapism.



:lol:



It is also presence, the presence of pure 'aliveness'...of 'love for the sake of being and being for the sake of love'.



not purpose/"sake"



And, as I said, suffering (awareness of the human condition - 'spirit-in-matter') is 'included' in this delighting. Laughter is one of the purest expressions of ecstasy, and what is laughter but awareness of despair?



how bout only laughing? ;)



:D

[bito]

how bout only laughing? ;)

'only' not possible :P :)

[sahyo]

tickle baby tummy

[Nick_A]

Bito

I really don't know what to say. What you describe appears like classic escapism; avoiding inner experience.

It is when we meet perceivings of 'hurt' that 'withdrawal into eternity' becomes necessary. And by 'hurt', I am referring to all observations/feelings of suffering - to self, to others, to all sentient life.

But this is the whole point. In this way our inner states are determined by negative emotion. We don't want to experience it so we hide from it.

Action with non-identification allows you to experience it and not hide from it. Once the light of conscious attention begins to illuminate the inner surroundings, the unreal must vanish. Of course it is easier said than done but it is one aspect of spiritual work. It is only of value for those that seek this freedom.

There is a big difference in saying "I am angry" and "anger is in me". In the first one has become completely identified with anger. Their "I am" is now nothing but anger. They are not present so there can be no presence.

"Anger is within me" suggests a recognition that this temporary emotional state has entered oneself but has not become dominant since something recognizes that it exists within a higher context, that of your collective presence. However, identification nullifies consciousness making this impossible.

If our choice is to remain engaged in the world once we have experienced awakening, then there is identifying, no? Identifying with our knowing of truth, with eternity.

No. Identifying with is not acknowledging the isness of something. It is losing your presence, self awareness, to it. Deciding on the choice to fall under influences doesn't deny self. Identification denies self since in a state of identification "you" do not exist; instead we lose ourselves and become what we are identified with;.

Having said this, I do not view experiencing joy and delight and ecstasy in 'being', in existing, as escapism. It is also presence, the presence of pure 'aliveness'...of 'love for the sake of being and being for the sake of love'.

It may or may not be escapism. Suppose a person has some problems and feels great guilt. He desires to escape these feelings and gets lost in dreams to escape this guilt. He may take more alcohol or drugs but anything that will allow him to escape into a self created magical world that feels good. It can be very joyful and even ecstatic under the right drug influences but still it is escapism.

However joy for example can be a positive emotion and both natural and delightful to experience. Just the experience of nature at the right time can produce such a profound joyful affect. But nothing has to be suppressed to experience it. This feeling of joy is aliveness.

This is very confusing and it is no wonder that sex has become so misunderstood. It is only because its energy can either serve as a source of fuel for negative emotion or as a necessary nutrient for our being. In more ancient times, there were more of those who could distinguish here. The point is that it's not sex that should be the spiritual concern but the effect of its energies on negative emotion and its necessity for our being. But who would understand this today? It is the same with emotional experience. It can be either meaningful or escapism but how many can differentiate? It requires real impartial self knowledge.

Laughter is one of the purest expressions of ecstasy, and what is laughter but awareness of despair?

In my understanding emotional laughter comes from the clash between yes and no in ourselves. This is humor. We both affirm and deny the same thing and the energy released from this clash escapes us as laughter. Christ never laughed because he was pure affirmation. There was no denying equal that could result in laughter. He was not caught up in duality. This is not something we can comprehend in the real meaning of the word.

[bito]

Nick

What can I say, except if my experiencing is escapism by your definition, then it is escapism by your definition.

[Nick_A]

Bito

We're both speechless. :)

Again the trouble with words. How do you understand "escapism"? For me it is the avoidance of the experience of unpleasant circumstances. It is neither good or bad in itself. Its value is determined by my goal.

[sahyo]

Laughter is one of the purest expressions of ecstasy, and what is laughter but awareness of despair?



tickling(babytummy)laughing,
does seem "awareness of despair"?

[bito]

Again the trouble with words. How do you understand "escapism"? For me it is the avoidance of the experience of unpleasant circumstances. It is neither good or bad in itself. Its value is determined by my goal.

I would agree with your definition of escapism, and by saying that, if I impled in my post that the ideal response to a sense of negativity would ever be to hide, then I communicated my message very poorly.

The ideal 'whole' response is to never hide from unpleasant circumstances. I wish I could say that I meet this ideal, but, alas, this is not so. Most guilt and shame experienced is in the hiding from unpleasant communications and/or tasks. I have yet to meet one person who does not suffer, in varying degrees, from this duality.

In my understanding emotional laughter comes from the clash between yes and no in ourselves. This is humor. We both affirm and deny the same thing and the energy released from this clash escapes us as laughter. Christ never laughed because he was pure affirmation. There was no denying equal that could result in laughter. He was not caught up in duality. This is not something we can comprehend in the real meaning of the word.

I would agree that it would appear that Christ faced all unpleasant experiences, but he certainly experienced the inner yes - no conflict - the withdrawal from his disciplies prior to his crucifixion, the fear expressed to His Father of the task he must perform, and his accusation of abandonment in his darkest moment. Christ experienced doubt - is this not the yes - no confict?

I must ask this question - how do you know that Christ never laughed? I can't imagine that anywhere there is proof of such a claim.

[bito]

tickling(babytummy)laughing,
does seem "awareness of despair"?

To a degree, all positive emotions expressed by a baby (and adults for that matter) are 'awareness of despair' - albeit unconscious, but it is awareness all the same. A baby is literally nourished on love from outside sources - if it is denied this love, it despairs and dies. Do you not believe that somewhere, seeded in our consicousness, is a knowledge of this truth? That we literally need each other to grow?

Were you aware that we cannot tickle ourselves? That it is the element of surprise (other) that causes the laughter, not the physical sensation of fingers moving on skin?

:)

[sahyo]

To a degree, all positive emotions expressed by a baby (and adults for that matter) are 'awareness of despair

laughing isn't always emotional all people

[sahyo]

Were you aware that we cannot tickle ourselves? That it is the element of surprise (other) that causes the laughter

haven't tickled children,
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcircling then tickling?

:D

[bito]

laughing isn't always emotional all people

Could there be two sources of laughing? asheera imagining duality? ;) :)

[bito]

Were you aware that we cannot tickle ourselves? That it is the element of surprise (other) that causes the laughter

haven't tickled children,
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcircling then tickling?

Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzcircling starts the laughter before the tickling begins...the exquisite dualistic ( ;) ) tension between wanting to be tickled and not wanting to be tickled...the anticipation of loving the sensation and hating the sensation at the same time...one feeling, but built-in aware of two-in-one...if this awareness were not present, laughter would not happen.

asheera applying tip of feather to bottom of bito's feet...bito :rofl:...asheera holds feather one inch from bito's foot...bito :rofl:...asheera holds feather 10 feet above bito's foot...bito :rofl:

:)

[Nick_A]

Bito

Most guilt and shame experienced is in the hiding from unpleasant communications and/or tasks. I have yet to meet one person who does not suffer, in varying degrees, from this duality.

I agree. We are governed by these emotions. We underestimate the degree that they keep us asleep. All these emotions are aspects of our corrupted ego.

Just as an aside. From my understanding guilt is ego based. Yet there is something called objective remorse which is natural for our being and an aspect of conscience itself. They are vastly different though they can appear as similar.

Of course there are a small minority who have acquired some inner stability or degree of presence, so they are not always taken by the power of these emotions but they have no reason to be known and just remain inconspicuous.

I would agree that it would appear that Christ faced all unpleasant experiences, but he certainly experienced the inner yes - no conflict - the withdrawal from his disciplies prior to his crucifixion, the fear expressed to His Father of the task he must perform, and his accusation of abandonment in his darkest moment. Christ experienced doubt - is this not the yes - no confict?
The difference is that Christ was not identified with the conflict. His conscioousness wasn't part of a duality The "yes" was a conscious confirmation of the "no"; all the protests of the body and lower emotions. "Doubt" was consciously witnessed. It didn't have the power over him but added to the intensity of the struggle that could invite such a high level of reconciliation. The conscious confirmation invited a reconciliation of a very high order. This reconciliation is re-birth.

Of course this is beyond us. We lose our presence just if we stub our toe or someone looks at us the wrong way. But the path of conscious participation was revealed and some could follow to a certain extent and develop a state of presence because a certain help from above made it possible.

As far as Christ laughing, there is no record of him having laughed. You'd think that somewhere someone would have written something like "Jesus laughed and then said". Seen from the point of view of conscious affirmation, this lack of laughter makes perfect sense.

[sahyo]

laughing isn't always emotional all people



Could there be two sources of laughing? asheera imagining duality? ;) :)

not two/one/zero

:D

[sahyo]

Were you aware that we cannot tickle ourselves? That it is the element of surprise (other) that causes the laughter

haven't tickled children,
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcircling then tickling?

Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzcircling starts the laughter before the tickling begins...the exquisite dualistic ( ;) ) tension between wanting to be tickled and not wanting to be tickled...the anticipation of loving the sensation and hating the sensation at the same time...one feeling, but built-in aware of two-in-one...if this awareness were not present, laughter would not happen.



the example was responsing:


what is laughter but awareness of despair?



:)

[sahyo]

laughing,
without paining,
happens without reason

:D

[jesupocaplypse]

During the first week while I was recovering from an assault, (entirely superficial damage, except for the kick in the groin, that resulted in internal bleeding, and my scrotum swelling up like a softball :knockout: ) All I could do was, laugh. I'd wake up, and I'd be laughing already. Endorphins, from the incredible pain. It'd rise and fall through out the day, until i'd pass out because it was too much to take. But even when it wasn't causing laughter, i'd laugh anyway. Helped to make the pain go away. But then, i only had to move or bump it, and I'd be lost to a fit of laughter.

The other day I was walking up to my house with a case of Heinekans I just bought, and the box ripped open and all 12 bottles shattered on the ground. I stared in disbelief for a moment, and then burst out laughing. I continued to laugh, side splitting tear jerking laughter, inside and to the sink to wash and remove broken glass shards from my flesh.

Laughter as the result of pain induced neurochemicals.

Laughter from looking at a despairing situation, as if i were sitting in the clouds and watching this poor saps beer all smash at his feet, after walking 2 hours to and from the store... :lol:

Whatever the source. Laughter is the best medicine.

I remember a funeral for my grandpa, many years back. Every one was sullen and dejected, and I couldn't take it, Gramps was too lively and fun filled to mourn over... must celebrate instead! But how do I cheer every one up? While everyone was sad and silent, looking at the corpse in the coffin. I walked up to the pulpit and turned the mic on, and started telling some of grandpas old jokes. Spirits lifted, and fond memories dominated.

ah laughter. is there anything you can't do? Maybe, instead of bombing our enemies, we should drop translated and tested, joke books with little parachutes on them, into enemy territory. Or teach our soldiers how to tell really funny jokes in the enemies language... (something tells me Monty Python tried this already...)


:lol:

[sahyo]

Hindus have a word, Ananda: ecstatic bliss, uncaused bliss, for no reason and for no rhyme. That's why whenever someone is blissful the world will think he is mad. They will ask, "Why are you so blissful? Why are you laughing?" as if laughing is a crime. And if you say, "I am just laughing! It is so good to laugh!" they cannot understand. For their laughter also tension is needed. And this is the base of all jokes.

[bito]

Laughter from looking at a despairing situation, as if i were sitting in the clouds and watching this poor saps beer all smash at his feet, after walking 2 hours to and from the store...

Touche, jesu!

During a time when I thought I would never see light again, heavy-weighting-thinking-suffering, something broke inside me, like a dam, waters of laughter, oceans of opening - tearing, laughing, loving, joying. The joying-loving was the feeling, but it was the laughter that was the catalyst. Perhaps I still cling to the memories of the darkness that preceded the laughing-breakthrough so I won't forget the why of the laughter...and then again, maybe it's just withdrawal symtoms... :lol:

Whatever the source. Laughter is the best medicine. :lol:

I remember a funeral for my grandpa, many years back. Every one was sullen and dejected, and I couldn't take it, Gramps was too lively and fun filled to mourn over... must celebrate instead! But how do I cheer every one up? While everyone was sad and silent, looking at the corpse in the coffin. I walked up to the pulpit and turned the mic on, and started telling some of grandpas old jokes. Spirits lifted, and fond memories dominated.

Perhaps laughter is the pop of the cork that releases the champagne. And perhaps the champagne is for drinking and drinking and drinking until we get so drunk we throw the cork away. :D

Hindus have a word, Ananda: ecstatic bliss, uncaused bliss, for no reason and for no rhyme. That's why whenever someone is blissful the world will think he is mad. They will ask, "Why are you so blissful? Why are you laughing?" as if laughing is a crime. And if you say, "I am just laughing! It is so good to laugh!" they cannot understand. For their laughter also tension is needed. And this is the base of all jokes.

Perhaps Ananda 'also' remembering no bliss, believing in causing, believing in reason, believing in rhyming...so blissing happening...not returning to believing, but remembering believing, like unwhispered whisper whispering? ;) :)

[NeverMind]

Laughter is a funny thing. I just got a big huge test back in history. I got a 42% on it. I started laughing. I have no idea why. I studied and I tried hard and I got a HORRIBLE grade. WHat made me laugh about that? It wasnt funny, it just sucked!

[sahyo]

Perhaps Ananda 'also' remembering no bliss, believing in causing, believing in reason, believing in rhyming...so blissing happening...not returning to believing, but remembering believing, like unwhispered whisper whispering?



did seem when?:


During a time when I thought I would never see light again, heavy-weighting-thinking-suffering




;)

[bito]

yes

:)

[Nick_A]

I would agree. The worst option is suppression. There is an old saying that I am rather fond of: "He who sh-t's well prays well. " The worst thing is to be burdened with either physical and/or emotional waste. Best to clean out the system

[bito]

"He who shi-ts well, prays well."

Nick, I love it! There it is, in all its splendour - 50 years in the cooking - a smelly, lovely little bito-turd!

:loveyou:

[the greek]

Frank Sinatra (or Rogers & Hammerschtein or whoever wrote the song) sang,

"Who cares to define, what chemistry this is? Who cares with your lips on mine, how ignorant bliss is? As long as you kiss me, and the world around us shatters, how little it matters, how little we know."

Love just is. Some of us might have had some bad experiences with romance. We're all warped by our experiences. A product of our environment. This makes us see things differently.

Through it all, we can still close our eyes and envision love in a Platonic sense. Meaning, in form. If for only one fleeting moment, we have all experienced such bliss. With proper focus, we can conjure up that memory once more. We never lose that ability. It's always there. For some, it's a love of hate. Whatever your poison, the ability is inherant in every single human being.

To what degree, that's up to you. ;)

[wacawacany]

its like when youre together and theres that one instant so randomly when the world just falls away behind you both as you forget everything you left behind down there, im lucky enough to have experienced that! but kind of moving off into another area of this topic, do you think sex goes with love? or is sex just sex in and of itself? can you say "i want to have sex with because i love you" or can it be both?? "i want to have sex with you because its sex and i love you" ???? do the two really come together or is it something we've had planted in our heads so that we wait until marriage?

[NeverMind]

love is just sitting there, with my head on your lap, silent. just feeling the bond and letting the sparks flow. we dont have to move or talk or do anything. we can just sit and feel the love moving from one to the other through the air.

[the greek]

Blessed are truly those who have experienced the aforementioned, my friend. Unfortunately, such moments are far too few and far between for 90-percent of all human beings.

"What the world needs now, is love sweet love. Not just for some, but for everyone." -- Burt Bacharach

I would add that you have to want love - and BAD - in order to receive and/or give it the way any perfect love would be best manifest. Love takes a bit of work before you can just sit there and let it flow. Otherwise, maybe it's just...hollow and meaningless energy (???)

[NeverMind]

I would add that you have to want love - and BAD

But every human is born wanting to be loved. Its a basic human need ingrained into our species.
It definitely does take work. It is so rewarding though.

[sahyo]

Love takes a bit of work



when loving, no 'trying'

:D

[avttas]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 31 2004, 04:23 PM

Love takes a bit of work



when loving, no 'trying'

:D
:loveyou:

[sahyo]

:loveyou:

[NeverMind]

wow 3 replies and nothing is said.
you lazy bastards!
happy 2005
hope it doesn't suck.

[nronesquid]

Let me give you this amateurs take on what "Love" may or may not be. It very well may just be a chemical imbalance in the brain, it also could be that most tremendous feeling that a person seems to get when they either come around another or just think about another. On the other hand it could be such a deeply moving feeling and thought process that tells one that their love is actually thinking of them at that particular moment and not matter the distance between them causeing that person to have all of his senses boiling as if they were sitting in the middle of a lava flow. Love could be that one concept that makes a person want to do whatever may be necessary to ensure their loved one is the safest they possible can, that no harm ever will come to that one person they care for the most, and maybe love is that one idea/concept that would make another step in front of an onrushing car, train or bullet for that one they feel such terrible love for without thinking about it. Would you say I am there yet? Yeah I would say so. It is and can be such a crushing feeling and at the same time euorphic mind blowing experience that simple words cannot fully describe the basic thought.

Ok I am done for now....


M(ICC's) :P :o :P

[NeverMind]

That was beautiful. :thumbsup:

[venom mama]

Originally posted by Nihil@Nov 28 2004, 10:49 PM
Welcome venomgirl B)
I see in your explanation a lot of Romanism: I experienced the whole eye scene and I believe that the eyes can tell a lot of who you are! But they can also lie if they are trained to do so!
The love you talk is nothing more, to me, than attraction, instantaneous connection with someone that called your attention because it offered you something you were in need: someone that could look into your eyes and show you a new world, a world you could be a part of!
But Love is much more than that, miss! What you say is merely the gate, and the first feeling is the opening of the door: only when the door is completely opened, you can love!
the eyes can lie? no

they can be misunderstood,
but not lie.

[mischief]

[FONT=Optima][SIZE=7][COLOR=red]

Love. I've loved. I've been Loved. That's all i Know.

And the love made me write a lot of poetry!!!
Raj's Personal Homepage (http://www.midnightlove.tk)

[skywalker]

Said I loved you but I lied 'Cause this is more than love I feel inside.
I think aptly describes the feeling a kind of devotion to someone special. I think everyone has or have felt this way sometime in their life










---------------------------------------------------------
There is only one thing that feels better than to be loved... to love!