KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

RJ wrote:

where does that put us in relation to the cosmos?

Well, I had to say something, else my pithy post would have ended up at the end of the prior page...

RJ wrote:

firstly the premise that we know love in the flesh and so might know it in the spirit bears further thought.

what is the difference between physical and spiritual love, is there any?

Wilbro uses the extreme example of romantic love with its inevitable corollary of love lost but why not bring friends, children, anyone into that equation?

Does 'love' somehow exclude conflict, hate, violence just by its (wished for) presence?

Doesn't a truly loving relationship between people, any people, inevitably and eventually involve hurt, and therefore anger, with the possibility of reconciliation if their love was real?

And if that is true where does that put us in relation to the cosmos?

I do not know of any happy coming together of two people in which a party has ever considered that they would be personally lowered, lessoned, or reduced (or even come to that that they would be caused even to stay the same) by such matching. In other words there is always an element of worldly gain involved; an improving of personal circumstance. Of course I’m not talking about gross material gain, I’m thinking in terms of perhaps a reduction in loneliness, or of pride in the company of the other and such like, but I think it should be recognised that such do nevertheless fall under the heading of material or worldly gain, and that this element is never (in my observation) missing. All individuals feel improved by their new arrangement. To this extent then romantic ‘love’ can never be unconditional; it always carries the ‘condition’ of improving the lot of the parties concerned or it will not be allowed. This inevitably means that the proceedings are, even if perhaps subconsciously, diligently watched over, monitored.

Spiritual love however has no such attached conditions. Spiritual loves comes about naturally when the true circumstance of existence is seen as from the heart and the separating factor the ‘me’ becomes dissolved. It is effectively an innate function of the human brain, actually its default mode, and a condition to which it hence naturally falls when completely relieved of stresses created by the strictly irrational everyday practices of the ‘I’. Personally I do not see how this spiritual state can bear any relation whatsoever to the romantic version which, after all is said and done, is one of those practices of the ‘I’ and hence an obstacle to the realisation of this ‘real’ spiritual version. I think that if rudimentary spiritual love is evidenced at all it is evidenced rather in terms of empathy and compassion; perhaps in the rescue of a worm from its plight on a hard surface just because one can; or in the private shedding of a tear or two at witnessing the smallest of human kindness to which one might be no personal party whatsoever, just because it is of itself beautiful. These things evidence unseen connections.

The love for one’s own children is a special case because the preservation instincts natural to all mammals come into play in addition to all the stuff that belongs to the romantic type of love. I’m sure most of us (who’ve got children anyway) will know the feelings of protection that gets felt for them. How emotions at news articles of abuses of kids a similar age to one’s own become heightened etc. Then there is the pleasure and reward of their company and closeness, which once more brings into play the ‘conditions’: as the kids get bigger and more able to look after themselves so the closeness of the relationship will be determined by how much it ‘suits’ the parties concerned. I would say that friends fall essentially into the same category as romantic love and for all the same reasons, but with limitations set by societal requirements (obviously) and a corresponding reduction of intensity.

Patently from what has been said spiritual love must exclude conflict, hate, violence etc. as a matter of course. Where it is the other cannot be any more than where light is darkness cannot be or where intelligence is stupidity cannot be. Romantic love however has the capacity to heighten conflict, hate, jealousy, violence etc. just as readily as it has to ameliorate them.

Regarding the cosmos and what relationship we might bear to it: if as I have claimed here the human brain’s default setting is spiritual love, which is the unconditional love of all things great and small; given that that selfsame brain is the product of the cosmos, doesn’t that mean that we are the cosmos? Or, described differently and in strict metaphor, ‘Ye are gods; ye are all sons of the most high.’(?)

I have defined three differing ‘loves’: the romantic, which appears to be reflected spiritual love but with the added ingredient the ‘I’: compassion and empathy, which appears as embryonic spiritual love: and spiritual love, the real article itself, which is unrestricted love of being.

R00ts, on you #106, it is all orchids, and no onions. You have, imo, in a serious and scholarly manner, covered all of the bases on this matter of love.

Roots wrote:

… I have defined three differing ‘loves’: the romantic, which appears to be reflected spiritual love but with the added ingredient the ‘I’: compassion and empathy, which appears as embryonic spiritual love: and spiritual love, the real article itself, which is unrestricted love of being.

I especially like your placement of the love that expresses as compassion and empathy between the reflected and unreflected spiritual love; there being components of the individual and the universal as that swing between the other two pillars.

I don't mean this as the kiss of death, but I see nothing in what you have said that I would change. Well, I might quibble with this:

Roots wrote:

… Regarding the cosmos and what relationship we might bear to it: if as I have claimed here the human brain’s default setting is spiritual love, which is the unconditional love of all things great and small; given that that selfsame brain is the product of the cosmos, doesn’t that mean that we are the cosmos? Or, described differently and in strict metaphor, ‘Ye are gods; ye are all sons of the most high.’(?) …

I agree that what you have tagged as spiritual love is the default position of consciousness. I would rather define it as the undifferentiated ground of being that, given our evolved position in the cosmos, we are capable of registering as the experience of.

Here is one crazy Dane making the same point:

"But in eternity, conscience is the only voice that is heard. It must be heard by the individual, for the individual has become the eternal echo of this voice. It must be heard. There is no place to flee from it. For in the infinite there is no place, the individual is himself the place." (Kierkegaard; Purity of Heart, Steere, p. 186) 

"In eternity there are chambers enough so that each may be placed alone in one. For wherever conscience is present, and it is and shall be present in each person, there exists in eternity a lonely prison, or the blessed chamber of salvation. On that account this consciousness of being an individual is the primary consciousness in a man, which is his eternal consciousness." (Ibid. p. 193)

RJ wrote:

willy wrote:

So, love is still in the forum air. Last time I tackled the meaning I find in the word was to take what I had found to be one sensation that had two different effects, and that because of where the energy of that sensation was directed.

In one effect, there was a particular other toward which this energy was directed, while in the other effect, that energy was directed at whatever was being observed. The sensation and its direction could be described as the arrow of love.

One of them could be described as between the two, while the other of them could be described as between the one. The latter describes as a source filling everything with the same concern.

This time, however, love is in bloom and my backyard is alive with bees, birds, and blossoms. The question is one of asking what love is when it can be divided between the secular and the profane? I think this is the question RJ has been antsy to get at.

The question itself divides the meaning of love; it is no longer one sensation taken differently, it is two different sensations, each occupying their own niche.

Here, the difference becomes palpable. Does one ask my question of what makes us think love is so divided, or does one enter that division and try to sort out that difference in love?

And what is the difference in those two choices? Gotta love it, you does...

I think that you cannot go to it.

RJ, I am not sure how your response answers my question other than as a general negation of my question in the first place. The sense I get from your general response to what I post here, anywhere, is that you will allow the old coot his rumpus room, with occasional quips from you tossed in about your making allowances for his dementia.

Please understand that I take, more or less, the same stance toward what you post. I suspect your rumpus room contains a *beyond* that cannot be grasped and any talk about knowing something about *it* is just that, talk, and you are here to let everyone who thinks they know about *it* that they know shit.

Of course, I could be mistaken here, and your response is one of desiring to continue a discussion with me on the ways of thought. If I am mistaken, please understand that this old coot gets lost in his tomato patch from time to time…

And speaking of which, when those luscious, ripe and red orbs begin their trek from the garden to the kitchen, I shall provide a running total of the #'s that cross the threshold.

[all edits to the above are contained in these brackets]

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-05-24 12:26:56)

RJ, I can imagine that; thanks for the chuckle.

As for the stumped business, think redwood...

so where are we...ah yes, love. 

Being a parent shows things

Being in enduring relationships shows things

Being in group relationship shows things

about love that can not be known until they are known.

wilbro99 wrote:

turn the page...

That's quite a skill, willly...

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-05-24 20:16:19)

Only if one cares about being on top of the page, or the bottom of the page.

I'm sorry to hear that...

I'm double-sorry now: that you seek cleverness AND pleasure. Or perhaps that cleverness as a form of pleasure has not died.

But being clever denies compassion, so what good is it to you that another responds compassionately?

  The denial of compassion is the our main concern here.