Why seek "God"?

[ananda]

I think part of the disconnect is your equating Love to emotions. It can be, but that's necessary so. I'd turn your examples around and say that we love entertainment, so we seek it. We love to sleep, so we seek it. You love the motivation you find in dukkha, thus you seek seeing it in how you approach life. Because you talk about nothing else, the love of dukkha must be great in you.

I think where we are talking pass each other is in the difference between how east and west approach awakening. The processes of the east are of a more gentle approach where the ego is swept away though the process of meditation. In the west, the ego is crushed by the flash experience of the Divine with various images and experiences of God. ie, God is Love! God is life! God is Creation! Both processes though, I believe, lead to the same place of consciousness.

How would you define "love"?

 

[dlamberth]

How would you define "love"?

It can't be defined. Yet, it's one of the things that makes us human beings. It's a verb that has unlimited vitality and life about it. It has infinity as well as finite with in it. Mystics ride Love like an arrow into the Heart of God. Poets write about it, Singers sing about it, mystics point towards it, yet no one can define it. Love pulls you in to be a part of something, it unites and brings together things. It's that aspect of bringing together for why I wrote that it's your love of dukkha that makes you seek it. Here on this forum you talk about it consistently. I know I've said this before, but if someday you desire to learn about mystics path of Love, I highly recommend reading Rumi.

edited to add: Oh, if any attachment is involved, it's not Love.

 

[toLiJC]

I disagree. It brings us to a higher plane of wisdom, and we can act more appropriately and wisely from that higher plane, versus acting from a lower plane of wisdom.

I presented this example before:

Think about a child trying to help another child out of a bad situation. The child's vision and wisdom is generally less than an adult's. Although a child might possess great compassion to do what he can and what he knows to help the other child, the adult instead can (usually) help much more effectively, since the adult (hopefully) possesses greater vision and wisdom ... It is the same with the mind and consciousness further developed in training with jhana. In jhana [with even greater degrees of equanimity], we transcend the comparatively lower states of mind possessed by an ordinary adult, and can gain higher states of vision and wisdom. Thus, we can help others in even more effective ways.​

what has been so effective in buddhism since its advent?!, Jesus and His true disciples presented in the biblical books of the New Covenant had reached the pinnacle of spiritual perfection for several years, buddhists have never achieved any aspect of that perfection for so many centuries since its advent - if a doctor can only cure cold and no other disease/illness, will you say that doctor is the best doctor in the world?!...

Blessings

 

[dlamberth]

what has been so effective in buddhism since its advent?!, Jesus and His true disciples presented in the biblical books of the New Covenant had reached the pinnacle of spiritual perfection for several years, buddhists have never achieved any aspect of that perfection for so many centuries since its advent - if a doctor can only cure cold and no other disease/illness, will you say that doctor is the best doctor in the world?!...

In looking around at what we see today in Christian believers, could you please point towards said pinnacle of spiritual perfection so we can go and examine it's Truth? From what I see, Buddhist and Christians are pretty much on the same par, spiritually speaking.

 

[ananda]

It can't be defined.

If you cannot define "love", then it becomes a useless word, as it cannot be used to communicate your intent effectively. And, if it can't be defined, then it is meaningless to say "the path of love".

My use of the word "love" was according to its standard dictionary definitions, all of which denotes various stages or states of attachment.

Yet, it's one of the things that makes us human beings. It's a verb that has unlimited vitality and life about it. It has infinity as well as finite with in it. Mystics ride Love like an arrow into the Heart of God. Poets write about it, Singers sing about it, mystics point towards it, yet no one can define it. Love pulls you in to be a part of something, it unites and brings together things. It's that aspect of bringing together for why ...

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post: you began by stating that "love" cannot be defined, yet here you attempt to define it - and, in terms of qualities which reflect states of attachment, as I pointed out?

I wrote that it's your love of dukkha that makes you seek it.

I do not love dukkha. What makes you believe that? I seek sukkha, the opposite of dukkha.

Here on this forum you talk about it consistently.

I don't recall spending much time on this topic in CF, actually, besides this thread.

I know I've said this before, but if someday you desire to learn about mystics path of Love, I highly recommend reading Rumi.

If it cannot be defined, then how would reading Rumi help? Does he define or explain the undefinable?

edited to add: Oh, if any attachment is involved, it's not Love.

... yet you interpreted "love" in terms which denote attachment ("into" or "pulls you in" implies something is being bound/attached to something/someone else ... "unites" implies two objects bound together, as does "bring together", etc.)?

 

[ananda]

what has been so effective in buddhism since its advent?!, Jesus and His true disciples presented in the biblical books of the New Covenant had reached the pinnacle of spiritual perfection for several years, buddhists have never achieved any aspect of that perfection for so many centuries since its advent - if a doctor can only cure cold and no other disease/illness, will you say that doctor is the best doctor in the world?!...

Blessings

I can only speak for myself: the Path of Buddhism has brought me greater peace, bliss, inspiration, and joy than any other path, including that found in your biblical books.

 

[dlamberth]

If you cannot define "love", then it becomes a useless word, as it cannot be used to communicate your intent effectively.

That's true, love can not be effectively communicated. It can be pointed towards, experienced, seen...yet can not be defined. The more I think about it, try moving away from a duality perspective when looking at mystical Love.

And, if it can't be defined, then it is meaningless to say "the path of love".

I truly do understand when you say it's meaningless to yourself. The Path of Love is hard to grasp when in this materialistic, dualistic world we live in. All I can say is that it means everything to the millions of mystics who do tread the Path of Love. This Path of Love is a key element for the Wisdom traditions.

My use of the word "love" was according to its standard dictionary definitions, all of which denotes various stages or states of attachment.

And that's the problem. The dictionary attempts to define a verb as if it's a noun. It can't be done except very poorly. It's one of those words that needs to be experienced to be understood.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post: you began by stating that "love" cannot be defined, yet here you attempt to define it - and, in terms of qualities which reflect states of attachment, as I pointed out?

It was just my sorry attempt to point towards Love. If an interest in the Path of Love were to ever grab your curiosity beyond a dictionary definition, look at it from the mystic's perspective. These days there's a fair amount of material to work with. When I started down this path some 45 years ago, there was very little material or resources available. Interest in the Wisdom traditions has grown a lot in the past few years.

I do not love dukkha. What makes you believe that? I seek sukkha, the opposite of dukkha.

You have a desire to seek. What one seeks, they Love or they would not be seeking it. That's just human nature.

I don't recall spending much time on this topic in CF, actually, besides this thread.

I stand corrected. Sorry.

If it cannot be defined, then how would reading Rumi help? Does he define or explain the undefinable?

Rumi points, he does not define OR explain. By the way, Rumi is the most read poet here in America.

... yet you interpreted "love" in terms which denote attachment ("into" or "pulls you in" implies something is being bound/attached to something/someone else ... "unites" implies two objects bound together, as does "bring together", etc.)?

In a mystical sense, Love opens a person up with no attachment. The dichotomy in Love is such that in opening a person up, union happens all of it's own. No binding, no attachment...just union. Love gets really extended when the whole of the cosmos is opened up to and even more so when it's infinity.

As try as I might, as long as your bound to the dictionary definition of Love, which comes from a duality perspective, there is absolutely no way to explain this Path of Love. But I gave you what little I could with my limitations of words and space.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Love is a word that relays a meaning, so the word without the meaning is like many other things, open to interpretation, or indeed a dictionary analysis.
For me there is love with attachment and science and see this, in that there are chemical processes that are triggered within the body in relation or as a response to some external physical sensory thing. But also there is unconditional love, and it's a creative expression. It's something you become and I suspect it's to do with how you feel about yourself and then how that feeling expresses itself in the world as an activity. For me that activity is 'to show care' and that is the universal love that pervades, bringing about functionality, creative functionality. This I believe can be seen in synaptic firing in the brain, in that both brain hemispheres fire in unison creating a feeling within the person, bringing about a different type of love that the mystics have written about throughout the ages. It's to love unconditionally, in that it's a love about who you are, not what can be had or got from another person or thing, and in that sense it's unattached

 

[ananda]

That's true, love can not be effectively communicated. It can be pointed towards, experienced, seen...yet can not be defined. The more I think about it, try moving away from a duality perspective when looking at mystical Love.

I truly do understand when you say it's meaningless to yourself. The Path of Love is hard to grasp when in this materialistic, dualistic world we live in. All I can say is that it means everything to the millions of mystics who do tread the Path of Love. This Path of Love is a key element for the Wisdom traditions.

And that's the problem. The dictionary attempts to define a verb as if it's a noun. It can't be done except very poorly. It's one of those words that needs to be experienced to be understood.

It was just my sorry attempt to point towards Love. If an interest in the Path of Love were to ever grab your curiosity beyond a dictionary definition, look at it from the mystic's perspective.

Walking in the Buddhist Path, would it be legitimate in your eyes for me to call it the "path of love"? Why or why not?

You have a desire to seek. What one seeks, they Love or they would not be seeking it. That's just human nature.

I do not seek dukkha, but the escape from it. I am merely stating that it stands behind all activity.

I stand corrected. Sorry.

No problem.

Rumi points, he does not define OR explain. By the way, Rumi is the most read poet here in America.

I would suggest that if he uses words to point to love, then he is in effect defining and explaining love.

In a mystical sense, Love opens a person up with no attachment. The dichotomy in Love is such that in opening a person up, union happens all of it's own. No binding, no attachment...just union. Love gets really extended when the whole of the cosmos is opened up to and even more so when it's infinity.

As try as I might, as long as your bound to the dictionary definition of Love, which comes from a duality perspective, there is absolutely no way to explain this Path of Love. But I gave you what little I could with my limitations of words and space.

... union with what?

 

[ananda]

Love is a word that relays a meaning, so the word without the meaning is like many other things, open to interpretation, or indeed a dictionary analysis.
For me there is love with attachment and science and see this, in that there are chemical processes that are triggered within the body in relation or as a response to some external physical sensory thing. But also there is unconditional love, and it's a creative expression. It's something you become and I suspect it's to do with how you feel about yourself and then how that feeling expresses itself in the world as an activity. For me that activity is 'to show care' and that is the universal love that pervades, bringing about functionality, creative functionality. This I believe can be seen in synaptic firing in the brain, in that both brain hemispheres fire in unison creating a feeling within the person, bringing about a different type of love that the mystics have written about throughout the ages. It's to love unconditionally, in that it's a love about who you are, not what can be had or got from another person or thing, and in that sense it's unattached

IMO it's attached in the sense that you are loving another person or thing. Unconditional love still has an object to love.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

IMO it's attached in the sense that you are loving another person or thing. Unconditional love still has an object to love.

IMO the difference is they are receiving your love, as defined, showing that you care. This can be without any desired return, thus no attachment is made because there's nothing you need nor want from them, although they are an object of course. They are not an object of your love, but an object that receives your love, and whilst the difference in wording I appreciate may appear subtle, the difference is not.
All of our waking reality is subject to objects, that's how it rolls, but it doesn't mean we are attached to them, although that's what waking reality asks of us in an activity sense, by virtue of their existence.
You and I are attached to some degree. I am attached to you in a small way because we are in dialogue, and yet there is nothing I want nor need from you, so I remain unattached.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Dictionary definitions only collect the most agreed-upon meanings we associate with a certain collection of sounds and sights. They are neither etched in stone, nor do they necessarily encompass all that there is to it.

My first spiritual epiphany could be best summarized by the term "Love", but it's but a poetic approximation of trying to communicate something that went beyond the narrow framework of language and its familiar categories.
Using the most technical language as an analogy, "Love" in this case was the principle that draws everything together, not just sexual desire or familial affection, but a far more universal, less personal principle - like the force that holds atoms together. (Again, analogies.)

 

[ananda]

IMO the difference is they are receiving your love, as defined, showing that you care. This can be without any desired return, thus no attachment is made because there's nothing you need nor want from them, although they are an object of course. They are not an object of your love, but an object that receives your love, and whilst the difference in wording I appreciate may appear subtle, the difference is not.
All of our waking reality is subject to objects, that's how it rolls, but it doesn't mean we are attached to them, although that's what waking reality asks of us in an activity sense, by virtue of their existence.
You and I are attached to some degree. I am attached to you in a small way because we are in dialogue, and yet there is nothing I want nor need from you, so I remain unattached.

If something/someone receives your love, and they do not perform to your expectation, does it affect you in any way?

 

[ananda]

Dictionary definitions only collect the most agreed-upon meanings we associate with a certain collection of sounds and sights. They are neither etched in stone, nor do they necessarily encompass all that there is to it.

My first spiritual epiphany could be best summarized by the term "Love", but it's but a poetic approximation of trying to communicate something that went beyond the narrow framework of language and its familiar categories.
Using the most technical language as an analogy, "Love" in this case was the principle that draws everything together, not just sexual desire or familial affection, but a far more universal, less personal principle - like the force that holds atoms together. (Again, analogies.)

If you're drawn via love to others, is that not a form of attachment?

 

[toLiJC]

In looking around at what we see today in Christian believers, could you please point towards said pinnacle of spiritual perfection so we can go and examine it's Truth? From what I see, Buddhist and Christians are pretty much on the same par, spiritually speaking.

why must we spy others when the purpose of faith is that we work for overall salvation in the true One?!, what if we examine the whole world of human spirituality/religiosity but don't work for overall salvation?! - remember, in the hitherto prevailing circumstances every hour someone dies or suffers somewhere - there is definitely no time to waste, because whatever we do for/to others in this eternity, the same will be done for/to us in next/future eternities, it definitely doesn't pay to be irresponsible for the present and the future...

we have an example of how to practice the faith, and it is presented in Scripture(the biblical one) - just read or remember how Jesus and His true disciples (presented there) believed and pleased God...

Blessings

 

[toLiJC]

I can only speak for myself: the Path of Buddhism has brought me greater peace, bliss, inspiration, and joy than any other path, including that found in your biblical books.

the faith presented in the Bible is fundamentally not a means of self-indulgence...

Blessings

 

[ananda]

the faith presented in the Bible is fundamentally not a means of self-indulgence...

Blessings

As I see it: for each individual, it's ultimately about their own salvation. If Christians did not experience dukkha in regards to their eternal destiny, the Bible would have disappeared a long time ago.

 

[toLiJC]

As I see it: for each individual, it's ultimately about their own salvation. If Christians did not experience dukkha in regards to their eternal destiny, the Bible would have disappeared a long time ago.

no one can save himself/herself if doesn't save others, because every soul will be in the place/position of any other during the course of the eternal judgment/circle...

Matthew 7:1-12 (NASB) "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you... In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Blessings

 

[ananda]

no one can save himself/herself if doesn't save others, because every soul will be in the place/position of any other during the course of the eternal judgment/circle...

Matthew 7:1-12 (NASB) "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you... In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Blessings

I have no knowledge of your dogma for myself

On the other hand, I do know that self-training helps, through personal experience.

 

[toLiJC]

I have no knowledge of your dogma for myself

On the other hand, I do know that self-training helps, through personal experience.

only the true One is the (primary) source of the perfect truth, buddha had not explained it and therefore had not used the (biblical) doctrine of eternal judgment as a basis of his teaching(s) - the true One and His(the biblical) prophets are the only ones explaining the perfect truth...

Blessings