KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

RJ · 2012-05-26 13:05:20

Roots wrote:
Roots wrote:
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.
Well RJ . . . . . . I thought you'd have offered a slagging-off at least . . . .

oh! I'm so sorry, i missed it the first time.
It's marvellously well written Roots though I feel it is your judgement that may be corrupting love rather than its many manifestations.

do you think you have a soul?

Roots · 2012-05-28 08:22:48

RJ wrote:
It's marvellously well written Roots though I feel it is your judgement that may be corrupting love rather than its many manifestations.

do you think you have a soul?

Listen close scallywag: it’s not an English exam or a creative writing course what I want to hear is if any content got through? Or are you determined to view it all from the immaturity of romance and egoism?

As for the impudent ‘soul’ question, there have been many ideas: for Aristotle it was the light from the eyes; for Plato the ‘forms’ constituting the underlying reality, of which the manifest could only ever (for him) be an imperfect reflection. The old religions of the Indian subcontinent tend to make it the reincarnating principle; whilst for Christianity it’s that part of humanity that partakes of divinity, etc. etc. I think we can say they all stem from the observation that when you boil down the body to its elements, carbon, water, fat etc., it’s all very dead and definitely lacking some ‘ingredient’ it had when alive. However, having said that, they’re all just vacuous ideas and as such anathema to the likes of Siddhartha Gautama and K, both of whom recommended ‘no ideas’, ‘no theories’, ‘no philosophy’. Their reasons for this seem very sound, i.e. thought, knowledge, memory (of the psychological variety) all debar from reality. So - to answer your question - I couldn’t give a toss if I have a soul or not and neither, if you’re wise, should you; so why are you asking?

But of course I know full well why you are asking: you think I’m a cold fish. And the reason you think I’m a cold fish is because I write critically and don’t dance with words the way you and Willy do. And of course anybody who isn’t a born poet or word dancer - as RJ is – must be deficient in some way; isn’t that so? We are all prejudiced and all our prejudices begin from the point of our own assumed correctness.

Well look at it another way young varmint: I write critically here on the forum because I know what I’m talking about and want to get it across tidy. I work hard to get said what I want to get said because I’m not here to play or mess about with words and language. Willy does that partly as a ruse to cover up the fact he doesn’t know (is not a knower), but his subconscious mind is honest enough to admit that, confessing himself as he does a dilettante and dealing in UF. You observe the charade as a more human face, that’s your prerogative, but if it’s a less than accurate observation then of course there’ll be a price; there’s always a price for error. My way is to write critically despite it may appear to lack humanity; it’s not a popularity competition either. I wrote critically about love because I know about love and because I consider it an important matter here and hence respected your thread lead. K equated love to intelligence and to insight and he was right (as ever), they come as a job-lot. As references, through sighted eyes they’re interchangeable. The fact that what I had to say didn’t suit your particular, present, romantic, young and egotistical mindset is neither here nor there to me. So keep up the good work and I’ll look forward to further valuable thread leads from you - unless of course you really can’t handle the responses.

wilbro99 · 2012-05-28 11:28:21

Well skewered, R00ts, both of us, RJ and myself, right through the belly button!

RJ · 2012-05-28 15:54:27

Roots wrote:
RJ wrote:
It's marvellously well written Roots though I feel it is your judgement that may be corrupting love rather than its many manifestations.

do you think you have a soul?
Listen close scallywag: it’s not an English exam or a creative writing course what I want to hear is if any content got through? Or are you determined to view it all from the immaturity of romance and egoism?

As for the impudent ‘soul’ question, there have been many ideas: for Aristotle it was the light from the eyes; for Plato the ‘forms’ constituting the underlying reality, of which the manifest could only ever (for him) be an imperfect reflection. The old religions of the Indian subcontinent tend to make it the reincarnating principle; whilst for Christianity it’s that part of humanity that partakes of divinity, etc. etc. I think we can say they all stem from the observation that when you boil down the body to its elements, carbon, water, fat etc., it’s all very dead and definitely lacking some ‘ingredient’ it had when alive. However, having said that, they’re all just vacuous ideas and as such anathema to the likes of Siddhartha Gautama and K, both of whom recommended ‘no ideas’, ‘no theories’, ‘no philosophy’. Their reasons for this seem very sound, i.e. thought, knowledge, memory (of the psychological variety) all debar from reality. So - to answer your question - I couldn’t give a toss if I have a soul or not and neither, if you’re wise, should you; so why are you asking?

But of course I know full well why you are asking: you think I’m a cold fish. And the reason you think I’m a cold fish is because I write critically and don’t dance with words the way you and Willy do. And of course anybody who isn’t a born poet or word dancer - as RJ is – must be deficient in some way; isn’t that so? We are all prejudiced and all our prejudices begin from the point of our own assumed correctness.

Well look at it another way young varmint: I write critically here on the forum because I know what I’m talking about and want to get it across tidy. I work hard to get said what I want to get said because I’m not here to play or mess about with words and language. Willy does that partly as a ruse to cover up the fact he doesn’t know (is not a knower), but his subconscious mind is honest enough to admit that, confessing himself as he does a dilettante and dealing in UF. You observe the charade as a more human face, that’s your prerogative, but if it’s a less than accurate observation then of course there’ll be a price; there’s always a price for error. My way is to write critically despite it may appear to lack humanity; it’s not a popularity competition either. I wrote critically about love because I know about love and because I consider it an important matter here and hence respected your thread lead. K equated love to intelligence and to insight and he was right (as ever), they come as a job-lot. As references, through sighted eyes they’re interchangeable. The fact that what I had to say didn’t suit your particular, present, romantic, young and egotistical mindset is neither here nor there to me. So keep up the good work and I’ll look forward to further valuable thread leads from you - unless of course you really can’t handle the responses.

hey, this is even better!

I'm starting to feel the love me old Don:))

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 20:21:00

joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
what, reading back to previous posts?!?!?! Well good on ya bruce, glad you can do that now.
Only because you seemed to be talking about the perpetual first step statement, which was made on another thread, while here it was about what denies compassion, so I had to double-check, in order to be sure.
I was being clever, bruce...just kidding you as it has been a long held stance of yours to never look back at an old post.

I know that, but I don't see it as being clever-you just made an accurate observation, and I've explained why I did that.

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 20:22:51

joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
ok, tell me again, how reality actually works.
It is fresh, new, it has never happened before, it has no death, so it's 'immortal'.
what's 'immortal'? Reality?

Life. Or reality which is not illusion.

Eden · 2012-05-28 20:25:30

bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:

It is fresh, new, it has never happened before, it has no death, so it's 'immortal'.
what's 'immortal'? Reality?
Life. Or reality which is not illusion.

False. Illusion is life also...as is camouflage and mimicry.

Eden · 2012-05-28 20:26:31

(stick to chess)

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 20:28:37

Eden wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
joe wrote:
what's 'immortal'? Reality?
Life. Or reality which is not illusion.
False. Illusion is life also...as is camouflage and mimicry.

Life is not illusion.

I'm talking of the psychological illusion, of course, one not present in animals.

Eden · 2012-05-28 20:47:52

(no need to fragment it into different kinds, it is still all life)

Eden · 2012-05-28 20:50:30

Humans are slightly more complex organisms, so naturally the illusions we fall for are slightly more complex. To suggest that certain illusions are life, and certain one's are not, is just more fragmentation and duality. Life generates illusions of all sorts. Ideas and beliefs are just patterns. Illusions of all types are just patterns.

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 21:13:59

The illusion of color doesn't lead to war, the illusion of the self does-so there's a big distinction: let's not put everything in one bowl.

Eden · 2012-05-28 21:24:43

You mean let's fragment the bowl? Nothing "leads" to anything else....life is one movement. All movements lead to the source, and all movements are the source.

Eden · 2012-05-28 21:27:13

case in point...you (and 6 7/8 billion others) fall for the illusion of a fragmented universe. Enjoy your reality!

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 21:46:09

Eden wrote:
You mean let's fragment the bowl? Nothing "leads" to anything else....life is one movement. All movements lead to the source, and all movements are the source.

No. The self doesn't lead to the source; illusion doesn't lead to the source; confusion doesn't lead to the source.

joe · 2012-05-28 22:19:06

Source? What the hell are you two talking about?

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 22:21:47

The source of all things.

Eden · 2012-05-28 22:22:04

I like to mix up my words, else I be accused of being stuck to a label. God, The One, The Uni-verse, Love, Higher Self, All-that-is, Source, The Otherness, Life, The Infinite.

Nitpickers, take your pick.

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 22:25:16

Higher Self??

joe · 2012-05-28 22:28:31

bruce sean wrote:
The source of all things.

who said there was a source of all things?

joe · 2012-05-28 22:29:33

Eden wrote:
I like to mix up my words, else I be accused of being stuck to a label. God, The One, The Uni-verse, Love, Higher Self, All-that-is, Source, The Otherness, Life, The Infinite.

Nitpickers, take your pick.

ha pick any of em, doesn't matter too much to me eden...they all stink to high heaven, pardon the pun.

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 22:34:01

joe wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
The source of all things.
who said there was a source of all things?

Yes, we must discover it first, so inquiry is necessary.

Eden · 2012-05-28 22:38:27

bruce sean wrote:
Higher Self??

what part of "take your pick" didn't you get? Seriously....make an appointment: http://www.amenclinics.net/

Eden · 2012-05-28 22:40:43

joe wrote:
Eden wrote:
I like to mix up my words, else I be accused of being stuck to a label. God, The One, The Uni-verse, Love, Higher Self, All-that-is, Source, The Otherness, Life, The Infinite.

Nitpickers, take your pick.
ha pick any of em, doesn't matter too much to me eden...they all stink to high heaven, pardon the pun.

The stink is in the eye of the beholder.

bruce sean · 2012-05-28 22:40:58

No: the higher self is an abomination. You are mixing everything, putting all the terms into one bowl, and giving them the same meaning. This intellectual simplification means very little.

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#151 2012-05-26 13:05:20

Re: Love:

Roots wrote:

Roots wrote:

RJ wrote:

#152 2012-05-28 08:22:48

Re: Love:

RJ wrote:

#153 2012-05-28 11:28:21

Re: Love:

#154 2012-05-28 15:54:27

Re: Love:

Roots wrote:

RJ wrote:

#155 2012-05-28 20:21:00

Re: Love:

joe wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

joe wrote:

#156 2012-05-28 20:22:51

Re: Love:

joe wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

joe wrote:

#157 2012-05-28 20:25:30

Re: Love:

bruce sean wrote:

joe wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#158 2012-05-28 20:26:31

Re: Love:

#159 2012-05-28 20:28:37

Re: Love:

Eden wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

joe wrote:

#160 2012-05-28 20:47:52

Re: Love:

#161 2012-05-28 20:50:30

Re: Love:

#162 2012-05-28 21:13:59

Re: Love:

#163 2012-05-28 21:24:43

Re: Love:

#164 2012-05-28 21:27:13

Re: Love:

#165 2012-05-28 21:46:09

Re: Love:

Eden wrote:

#166 2012-05-28 22:19:06

Re: Love:

#167 2012-05-28 22:21:47

Re: Love:

#168 2012-05-28 22:22:04

Re: Love:

#169 2012-05-28 22:25:16

Re: Love:

#170 2012-05-28 22:28:31

Re: Love:

bruce sean wrote:

#171 2012-05-28 22:29:33

Re: Love:

Eden wrote:

#172 2012-05-28 22:34:01

Re: Love:

joe wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#173 2012-05-28 22:38:27

Re: Love:

bruce sean wrote:

#174 2012-05-28 22:40:43

Re: Love:

joe wrote:

Eden wrote:

#175 2012-05-28 22:40:58

Re: Love:

Board footer