You can't describe real LOVE you can only decribe what it isn't.

by frankiespeakin 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Markfromcali

  Just because love is not personal in nature that doesn't mean the real love cannot be found in a personal expression, it would just mean something deeper than that personal aspect is going on. In other words, even though love may not be the function of a person, (like "I, Bob Smith, am the lover - and I will give unto you love from within myself") love can function through and take the form of a phenomenon which we describe as personal. And there is nothing wrong with that, with all the affections and feelings that may be involved - but you don't have to be under the belief that it is personal in nature. Of course, if you identify with a particular feeling then you are actually limited in your experience, whereas it is rather common to have this experience of all feelings mixed into one.

  And yes, we can say it is not any kind of feeling, even the all-in-one one, but if this love is all inclusive then you can't exclude any feelings either - it is just not only that. A strictly intellectual treatment is limited in scope just like a purely emotional consideration is. So I think it is more important to make our expression an act of love, which is quite different than an intellectual consideration or an expression of affection. Even if the message is interpreted as something personal in nature by someone who thinks that way, that doesn't change the fact of it being an action of love - it just means that reader is not totally conscious of the nature of that love. Frankly though I think love comes through alot of people who are not really conscious of it anyways, so it isn't just the receiving end. I can't actually limit it to one side either, sometimes it is both - like when certain people get together and they just click. The people involved may be more concerned with their common intererest, (including such strange things like being former Jehovah's Witnesses or something related to that ) but of course that commonality is really quite irrelevant as far as love itself is concerned. Even when it's barely concious, there is a response when love is actually there - that mental aspect doesn't really matter so much, love happens in spite of degrees of unconsciousness. But of course the conscious experience is kind of interesting, you might find it with a total stranger who isn't particularly attractive. And it isn't one sided, coming from there to here. It's just present, and there's a recognition. That's what they call bliss.
• 

  Markfromcali

  This actually reminds me of a story I heard told by this Sufi teacher. I guess it was originally a dream his teacher had, which was this Jaguar driver was driving down the highway, when all the sudden he was overtaken by a four legged chicken. Well the driver speeded up and passed the chicken, only to be over taken by the chicken again. So they kept racing and went into the farm yard, and then the chicken sped past the farm house with a farmer sitting on the front porch sitting in a rocking chair. The Jaguar driver got out and asked the farmer: "Did you see it???" The farmer goes "Oh yes, I saw it." "It was a four legged chicken!" said the Jaguar driver. "Oh yes, you know we bred these chickens." said the farmer. The driver said "What? You bred four legged chickens??" "Yes, you see the wife and the two kids - we each like chicken legs, so we did the sensible thing and bred four legged chickens so we don't have to waste a whole chicken." "Well, what does it taste like??" asked the driver. "Don't know, never caught one." said the farmer.

  My thought on this is most people are fixed on their experience, whether it's a matter of their experience of being in a particular relationship or something like tasting the four legged chicken. But being part of that action - in this case a really fast bird running - is quite different than your experience of it. The point is though, even if you don't have the experience of tasting it, it doesn't change the fact that it works - I mean you can imagine a chicken like that really goes places. So the moral of the story is, love is a four legged chicken - and no sense in wasting money on an expensive car and gas trying to catch it.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Mark,

  Just because love is not personal in nature that doesn't mean the real love cannot be found in a personal expression, it would just mean something deeper than that personal aspect is going on.

  Yes I agree, with this,,and the point I'm debating is that we can't "discribe" it except thu negation. But I whole heartedly agree with the above.

  In other words, even though love may not be the function of a person, (like "I, Bob Smith, am the lover - and I will give unto you love from within myself") love can function through and take the form of a phenomenon which we describe as personal. And there is nothing wrong with that, with all the affections and feelings that may be involved - but you don't have to be under the belief that it is personal in nature.

  Yes I think that's the way I'm leaning right now is that the "bare bones" of love can not be of a personal nature,,but can function thru a person as well as non-person. (as if love is the primal force of everything???).

  Of course, if you identify with a particular feeling then you are actually limited in your experience, whereas it is rather common to have this experience of all feelings mixed into one.

  I think feeling this love if it does exist should be a very subtle thing. I would think with my mind that it is the glue that holds everything together and allows for existance.( It's all guesses I know.) And feeling are all just sensory illusions anyway,,products of thought.

  Just a side thought on this feeling thing. Does the Sun the one our planet revolves around,, have feelings of love? I would say that if it does they won't be same feeling we have. Asking this seemly rediculous question I think can point to a non-personal nature of love. (I mean the sun may very well be a living things with feelings for such things as hot and cold but I can assure if he does the temparature range is far differnt than our feeling for hot and cold.

  And yes, we can say it is not any kind of feeling, even the all-in-one one, but if this love is all inclusive then you can't exclude any feelings either - it is just not only that.

  That makes sense, if love is all inclusive.

  A strictly intellectual treatment is limited in scope just like a purely emotional consideration is.

  True very true.

  So I think it is more important to make our expression an act of love, which is quite different than an intellectual consideration or an expression of affection.

  Now I'm kinda against the idea of "makeing" our expressions an act of love. I think that would lead us to enslavement and not real love.

  But of course the conscious experience is kind of interesting, you might find it with a total stranger who isn't particularly attractive. And it isn't one sided, coming from there to here. It's just present, and there's a recognition. That's what they call bliss.

  Now you are talking about a mystical experience of this love. (Undescibable).
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Mark,

  My thought on this is most people are fixed on their experience, whether it's a matter of their experience of being in a particular relationship or something like tasting the four legged chicken. But being part of that action - in this case a really fast bird running - is quite different than your experience of it.

  So if love is the "whatever" behind existance then we can only be part of the action, we can never have this love or posess this love we can only be apart of it. That is if we are an "I". If we desolve the I then do we become one with this "whatever" we call love?

  The point is though, even if you don't have the experience of tasting it, it doesn't change the fact that it works - I mean you can imagine a chicken like that really goes places. So the moral of the story is, love is a four legged chicken - and no sense in wasting money on an expensive car and gas trying to catch it.

  Well it might be worth chasing just for the health benefits. Even though you never get a chance to sink your teeth in one.
• 

  Balsam

  I never knew the love of a good man until I was 50 years old. Prior to that I just tried to make my long time JW marriage work. I didn't understand that when someone loves you they don't hurt you, or hit you, or call you ugly degrading names.

  There is a vast difference in how people view love of any kind. I can only say that real love does not hurt physically or emotionally. It feels good and wonderful. I am talking about adult relationships not children & adults. It makes you smile and feel happy when your rejoined by your partner at the end of the day. The make you feel happy, safe and loved

  Children sometimes think they are being hurt or their parents are cruel for stopping them from running in the street. So that relationship is different.
• 

  Narkissos

  A l'alta fantasia qui mancò possa; ma già volgeva il mio disio e 'l velle, sì come rota ch'igualmente è mossa, l'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle.

  Here force failed my high fantasy; but my desire and will were moved already? like a wheel revolving uniformly? by the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.

  Dante, concluding words of the Divine comedy.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Balsam,

  I'm so glad you found a good man,,and a better understanding of love in the process.

  Nark,

  That nicely puts love in a universal setting. Love that is not just for almighty man so superior to every creature,,but even for things we concider to be lifeless,,or not conscious.
• 

  Markfromcali

  So if love is the "whatever" behind existance then we can only be part of the action, we can never have this love or posess this love we can only be apart of it. That is if we are an "I". If we desolve the I then do we become one with this "whatever" we call love?

  Well Frankie we can talk about this, but any conceptualization of course falls into the domain of the separate I. And you can draw the logical conclusion, but the question is does that actually get you there?

  There is a zen saying that goes:

  The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection.
  The water has no mind to received their image.

  Between any two things, be it two people, a person and a thing or whatever, there is the relationship. Even if you got someone that is more conscious of the two, (like someone looking in water) that's really something other than what is actually happening - there's the experience of seeing and the image being reflected. You can look, but that doesn't mean you made the reflection happen, but it just happens to be the property of water to reflect back your appearance.

  The point is reflected in what you said earlier, you don't make an act of love happen - not in that ultimate sense, or any sense of force. The other part of it is "you" don't make it happen, you can't actually - it just happens. You can have the subjective experience of looking at the image or whatever, but that's about it. So it is a kind of relaxing, there is actually less and less energy invested (in the "you") as you become more conscious, because it is not energy in terms of efforting and pushing for things to be a particular way. Besides, whose energy is it then? There's just a dynamic interchange, but when there is no impedance in it's flow in the form of "me" then you don't really place it anywhere.

  About the most specific thing I can say is it's not about the way anyone is - actually fully being yourself, even on the personal level can be very liberating. The key is the tendancy to hold yourself in a certain way, not that particular way - but just the tendancy of holding - the way you hold is not really significant. The dissolving of that can only be called responding to life. It's not some kind of self improvement thing where you got this system and you're trying to make things a certain way, to create your own paradise, but actually relating to reality. This is where the idea of dancing with life is very appropriate, and there's nobody leading.

  I suppose if we're going to call love anything, we might say it is an inclusive collective harmony. Again you can still have some sense of a personal self, but in that harmonius dynamic you just can't take it too seriously. It is just a small part of a bigger whole.