Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree ... there is an inevitable impasse if we cannot agree on a common definition of "love". We must ultimately follow what we each know for ourselves.I truly do understand that from your perspective and from within the particular path you follow that Love seems is meaningless. I get that. But that does not make it so for myself or others or even others who follow Buddhism.
Well, as mentioned earlier, knowing Love is something of the Heart. So it experiential in nature. Defining things is stuff of the thinking brain. The thinking brain likes to give understandable form to thought. It lives in duality. Your wanting to give Love some sort of defined form. My spiritual path is of the Heart and thus very experiential in nature. So yes, there is an impasse because it seems to me that your insisting on giving form to non-form. Be free from that attachment.I agree ... there is an inevitable impasse if we cannot agree on a common definition of "love". We must ultimately follow what we each know for ourselves.
It's not that I wish to give "love" a defined form - I just wish to come to a common understanding as to what it is. If we can't come to a common understanding, we can't discuss it.Well, as mentioned earlier, knowing Love is something of the Heart. So it experiential in nature. Defining things is stuff of the thinking brain. The thinking brain likes to give understandable form to thought. It lives in duality. Your wanting to give Love some sort of defined form. My spiritual path is of the Heart and thus very experiential in nature. So yes, there is an impasse because it seems to me that your insisting on giving form to non-form. Be free from that attachment.
Thanks for the confirmation
What do you claim that I am stating, then?
Yes, from (this) Buddhist's perspective, compassion (karuna, the 2nd Brahma-vihara) is born from love (metta, the 1st Brahma-vihara). So, I would agree with you, love gives rise to compassion; where we differ is that we recognize compassion as something unique and different from love.Confirmation of what? You state compassion is a higher state than love, and yet the feeling I had internally for all life gives rise to compassionate acts, to show that I care, thus its of a higher nature than compassion. I call that feeling love, because it literally creates a love for all life. As I said prior it's that feeling that is an expression of who you are creating the action, not the action creating the feeling, because the feeling was born initially from no outside stimuli. Perhaps it's all semantics, it matters not.
I cannot speak of this because I have no direct knowledge of this.for example you don't tell me that if we don't work for overall salvation in the true One now,
You speak of "personalities" as if we have static, unchanging personalities that remain in the next reality.nor will the same personalities that we are now work for our salvation in the next/future eternities (when we will successively be in the places/positions of others), and it seems that you don't even suppose/admit that there may be such a thing...
Blessings
This seeking here is because God's grace has done a work in the heart of the believer, not because they seek Him, in and of themselves.
I don't base my whole theology solely on Paul. Nor did Paul despair or exaggerate. This is a completely wrong characterization.
That would be a stereotype. Faith, hope and love (interestingly written by Paul) are meaningless without understanding the total depravity of man and the grace and mercy that God grants in Jesus Christ.
Yes, from (this) Buddhist's perspective, compassion (karuna, the 2nd Brahma-vihara) is born from love (metta, the 1st Brahma-vihara). So, I would agree with you, love gives rise to compassion; where we differ is that we recognize compassion as something unique and different from love.
All in all, however, both love and compassion creates action, and action causes dukkha.
All activity produces some form of dukkha, even "good" ones.So if I act with compassion (the act of showing mercy) that creates dukkha?
How so?
All activity produces some form of dukkha, even "good" ones.
I've tried that. You weren't interested.It's not that I wish to give "love" a defined form - I just wish to come to a common understanding as to what it is. If we can't come to a common understanding, we can't discuss it.
The common definition and expression of "compassion" is the active intervention (interference) in another being's lifestream, in an attempt to circumvent the natural expression of the law of cause & effect - without the ability to truly know that individual's motivations. E.g. We try to save another person from his low state, suffering a multitude of bad choices in life, e.g. by mindlessly giving him money, etc. He uses that money in bad ways, adding to his bad kamma, multiplying his dukkha.That's not an explanation that's a statement. Please explain and instance when you have been compassionate and it's created dukkha.
An interested person has curiosity and inquires for deeper understanding.When did I say I wasn't interested?
I have every problem with walking into a thread like this and tossing out "total depravity" while not bothering to go into the nuances.
If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have created this thread, and contributed to its growth to 46 pagesAn interested person has curiosity and inquires for deeper understanding.
As I understand "love", it is my claim and extrapolation from personal experience that the Buddhist Path is the pinnacle and completion of the Path of Love.If that's so, lets see you explore Love than.
The common definition and expression of "compassion" is the active intervention (interference) in another being's lifestream, in an attempt to circumvent the natural expression of the law of cause & effect - without the ability to truly know that individual's motivations. E.g. We try to save another person from his low state, suffering a multitude of bad choices in life, e.g. by mindlessly giving him money, etc. He uses that money in bad ways, adding to his bad kamma, multiplying his dukkha.
The greatest compassion is equanimity/detachment - refraining from forceful attempts to change others or the world, or to bypass kamma - but remaining as a source of wisdom (a guide) to those willing to initiate change in themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?