Love:Question for Monists

there is only one person here, every single one of us

in two person sex, there is the illusion of the other when in fact we are all one person which is god

masteurbation cuts through that illusion of more than one person

 

As I understand it...love can start in duality...as most things do when we are in this state...but eventually, duality falls away and we see that it was and always has been One just as we have and have always been One...we just saw it as duality and different...but it was always One...

...this is just as I understand it...

 

Yay!

Yay again!

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare... arty:

 

Good insight, Chief!

Now, can I call you Chief, Master-bator?

 

If you were a monist you'd be singing to yourself.

Transcendental masturbation?

 

an individualized aspect of god, the jivatma, voluntarily chooses to separate itself from god and experience non-godhood so god can know itself as god

in god's or the jivatma's return to knowing itself as god, discovering oneness in love of another is reclaiming the true identity of that which we are

true, we are always one but there is an intended joy in discovering and awakening to that which we are

 

Thats exactly how Alan Watts puts it Chief. I love him.

 

So god doesn't know itself as god prior to the existence of the manifest universe?

 

we're down the road a few steps on this question without clear definitions... i consider this universe very much to be god to give vitality to god's experience as god

knowing what something is, is possible by knowing what something is not much like having relative definitions of heat and cold from our experiences

in my life's course, i have a clear vibology of love having experienced what is not love and then having the choice to choose love or not to love

in the same way, the total consciousness of that which is god is possible cuz god has in some way experienced unconsciousness... not that god could ever be unconscious but an aspect of god has a non-experience through the jivatma's unconsciousness

 

I know what you're saying Chief. Sri Aurobindo said that the divine must at some stage have chosen that a part of it should become unconscious and go through the process of re-discovering itself. That seems to concur with what you say above.

In a way, my purpose in starting this thread was to initiate some discussion, and also to see if we can arrive at a reasonable definition of love.
No doubt, the Fuller quote is meant to apply to life in this world - in the manifest universe of seemingly diverse beings. In his words, love is focused on 'other than self'. And I tend to agree with that - that is my experience of love - it always has some object. Even ordinary 'self-love' (another good question would be 'is self-love a vice or a virtue'?) is a manifestation of the duality of our own psyche, or our capacity to 'separate oneself from oneself' as Gurdjieff put it.

In my opinion, the problem really is a linguistic one. There is only the one word 'love' in the english language to designate different things.

On the other hand, perhaps entering into the ultimate nirvana would imply the end of love, and everything else - otherwise it couldn't be described as 'qualitiless' as it often is.

According to Crowley's 'Book of the Law', "things are divided for love's sake, for the chance of union". Personally, I tend to accept this view. Like the Tantric side of Hinduism, it is an ecstatic view of the universe as the playground of the gods.

 

Reasonable definition of love: God is Love.

 

So - should I say to my lover "I god you my darling"?

 

The lover, the beloved, the love, the act expressing it, is God.

 

Even so, I still think that there should be different words to designate different kinds of love - as there are in Sanskrit, and even other European languages.

 

ditto

diddee

dincee

 

Perhaps this material on tantric sex might help.

When you are having sex with your own partner, for the sake of your pleasure and nothing else, it is called animal sex.

When you are having sex with your partner, for the sake of your pleasure and also for giving pleasure to your partner, it is called human sex.

When you are having sex with your partner, for the sake of giving pleasure to him or her, and is not bothered whether you get pleasure in return or not, it is called divine sex.

I guess you can state the same about love as well.

When you love for your egoistic and selfish purpose, it is animal love.

When you love for your egoistic and selfish purpose and also for the sake of love, it is called human love.

When you love for the sake of love and not at all for your egoistic or selfish purpose, it is called divine love.

 

yes different words help when we are trying to communicate properly.

 

When you're dealing with words... vocabulary helps. But communication on that level is limited. Sometimes silence makes for a more meaningful conversation.

 

In silence, there is no conversation.

 

...or is there?

I once heard that prayer is when you talk and God listens...and meditation is when God "talks" and you "listen"....