Why is there the need for love ...

If water is considered separate from the self, then ego exists. The ego is not belonging to the self or the water, but exists because of both, so water does have ego, just as much as anything has ego.

😉

All Love and Reiki Hugs

The question is .. does water recognise that it is separate from self .

x daz x

On the matter of communication.

All living things have consciousness and think and feel, the flowers in the fields communicate with each other, just like the birds, ants and bees do, they do not all speak to each other, but they all communicate and are aware, they are all part of the oneness of consciousness.

Just noticed it is a philosophy thread. Indeed it is.

Philosophy complicates things, it is simplicity of heart that holds clarity and understanding. Mind does all kinds of circus to arrive at conclusions and gets in a right twist. Agreements, disagreements....concepts...mine thine...right wrong. That is philosophy.
Love is the least philosophical thing. It is existential. It is.

Things are paradoxical.
So simple that they are complex
So complex that, mind can never grasp it. Never.

Love is the favourite topic of modern society.
Mind cannot love so it wants to understand talk, philosophise about it....it understand less, so talk even more....catch 22
When love happens there is no talk about it. No mention of it.
There is a quality of oblivion to it.

A mother loves, can never start philosophising about love. Does not ask Why? How? The presence of her child melts her...she becomes love. Oblivious that it is even called love. It flows despite her. She is not making a choice to love...love happens, she has no choice. Love has happened and she follows its commands. That is love. Simplicity.

What flows despite you is love. It is at the very core of you, the very essence of you as is wetness the essence of water. But it is filtered through your conditioned mind. Reducing a mighty river to a drip.
What you strive to achieve is Nawt love.
Philosophies etc are there to compensate for real thing.

Philosophy complicates things, it is simplicity of heart that holds clarity and understanding.

Love is the least philosophical thing. It is existential. It is.

The things is everything you have said has filtered through your mind and your intellect in order to communicate that philosophy complicates matters .

I love ironies and I would say they are rife within our understandings of what things are and so by saying 'Love is the least philosophical thing. It is existential. It is.' you have in a sense philosophised such a point to a point where you say philosophy complicates things .

A classic example is a master that once wrote a book just to say don't read my book lols ..

Many when they say 'It just is' (and I have used the term myself) is coming from mind the same mind that relates to 'what just is', 'is something different than that' . It's all mind, the truth is mind .

'It just is' is just how the mind perceives it to be ... just like anything else .

x daz x

Hi Jnani

A mother loves, can never start philosophising about love. Does not ask Why? How? The presence of her child melts her...she becomes love. Oblivious that it is even called love. It flows despite her. She is not making a choice to love...love happens, she has no choice. Love has happened and she follows its commands. That is love. Simplicity.

Unless of cause as sometimes happens, a mother does not bond with her child and so does not create the emotion that is described as love towards the child. 😉

Unless of cause as sometimes happens, a mother does not bond with her child and so does not create the emotion that is described as love towards the child. 😉

In such a situation, would this not create a need/longing to find love?

In such a situation, would this not create a need/longing to find love?

Its a merry-go-round of acceptance and rejection, I love you, I don't love you, I love myself, I don't love myself .

I would say there is a point where rejection is no longer felt or rejection no longer happens . If it happens it is showing you or telling you something .

x daz x

Yes, in humans...I am speaking about in nature. Birds use song to communicate. I doubt if bees or ants use thoughts...bees have a dance they do and ants touch each other's feelers.

I guess we have to disagree. I'm not talking only about humans. I'm sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.

Therefore what we really seek is connection.

I agree with this be it through a connection of another or be it through a connection with our individual selves . Whats needs be done .

There seems to be the necessity to do what we do even if what we do is nothing .

Perhaps there is a point where nothing is necessary .

x daz x

Mostly it's a seeking towards the connection of all that is - towards our soul's memory of oneness which, for the purposes of learning, or for experience, we have separated ourselves from for a while.

Hi Crowan

Perhaps there is a point where nothing is necessary .

Yes, it is called the point of acceptance. 🙂

Hi Amy

In such a situation, would this not create a need/longing to find love?

No, until we have personally experienced something, we cannot have a need to re-experience it or a longing for it, it is something outside of our current life experience, so at that point of our life experience it does not exist.

Mostly it's a seeking towards the connection of all that is - towards our soul's memory of oneness which, for the purposes of learning, or for experience, we have separated ourselves from for a while.

The connection of all that is I suppose is not at the forefront of most minds where many just want to connect with something that supercedes their current mind set .

I think many relate to love firstly but then eventually realize that this love is what they are .

x daz x

Hi Crowan

Yes, it is called the point of acceptance. 🙂

So in order for one to no longer entertain necessity it becomes necessary to entertain acceptance . 😀

x daz x

HI Daz

So in order for one to no longer entertain necessity it becomes necessary to entertain acceptance . 😀

I would say simply that we are born with an awareness and acceptance of what is, but we then replace our awareness and acceptance of what is when we choose to judge and separate it and self. 😉

If water has an ego...then, presumably, it is capable of being egoistic!!! This is looking like crazy talk to me.

Just read what I said again..

"The ego is not belonging to the self or the water, but exists because of both, so water does have ego, just as much as anything has ego."

A pen exists because it has ink. That does not mean that the pen can write.

Crazy talk, or philosophy... just labels.... 😉

All Love and Reiki Hugs

HI Daz

I would say simply that we are born with an awareness and acceptance of what is, but we then replace our awareness and acceptance of what is when we choose to judge and separate it and self. 😉

Hi Paul .

It could be said that all individuals are in awareness of 'what is', its just that there are as many views or perceptions had of what 'that is' as there are individuals . Physically being born or dying wont bring the self realization to the fore unless they are already at that point . So I would say that being born within the awareness of what is doesn't happen unless they are already entertaining the realization . If they are, they won't know that they are unless they become aware of something different to that .

What you have spoken of above doesn't relate to the necessity to have acceptance in order to entertain beyond whats necessary .

x daz x

Hi Daz

Ah but 'what is' is not a perception, it is what is, a perception of what is, is something which we create, we can create by placing a judgment upon what is, or we can simply acknowledge and accept what is in an open and non-judgmental way.

Knowing we are and putting a judgment upon self is two different things. It might help if you consider that we are all born with awareness and acceptance of what is because we are an integral aspect of the whole or oneness, but no one is born judgmental.

What you have spoken of above doesn't relate to the necessity to have acceptance in order to entertain beyond whats necessary .

That is because acceptance is not a necessity, it is simply what we are in our true form, to fully experience the full diversity that this life experience can make available to us, it is necessary for us to replace our natural acceptance of what is and become judgmental, this then allows us to create and experience division and conflict and the multitude of experiences that are formed through judgmental attachments to things, ideals, people and our emotional ways of being, when we let go of the judgments we go back into simply being in acceptance. 🙂

Hi Daz

Ah but 'what is' is not a perception, it is what is, a perception of what is, is something which we create, we can create by placing a judgment upon what is, or we can simply acknowledge and accept what is in an open and non-judgmental way.

Knowing we are and putting a judgment upon self is two different things. It might help if you consider that we are all born with awareness and acceptance of what is because we are an integral aspect of the whole or oneness, but no one is born judgmental.

Hi Paul .

'What is' that is in someway beyond perception 'is one's notion' concluded within mind .

'What is' in any shape or form does not exist until one perceives it in some shape or form . It is a common flaw for those that suppose 'what is' - is how it is that is somehow outside of one evaluation or know how .

Pray tell Paul how you concluded that 'What is' is not a perceived . What one constructs within mind is a concept . That's why Truth, free will, choice and all that jazz are all concepts . 'What is' is a concept that one has related too .

That is because acceptance is not a necessity, it is simply what we are in our true form, to fully experience the full diversity that this life experience can make available to us, it is necessary for us to replace our natural acceptance of what is and become judgmental, this then allows us to create and experience division and conflict and the multitude of experiences that are formed through judgmental attachments to things, ideals, people and our emotional ways of being, when we let go of the judgments we go back into simply being in acceptance. 🙂

Acceptance I would say is not an necessity in it's own right but how you put across acceptance in relation to my thoughts on 'where nothing is necessary' you gave value in acceptance, a value in acceptance that would in essence rule out necessity .

x daz x

Hi Crowan

Yes, it is called the point of acceptance. 🙂

By you. I might call it the point of surrender. Different people, different words.

No I was referring to what is, we are born with an acceptance and awareness of what is, the perception of what is follows the realisation of our awareness, we cannot from a perception about something until we have become aware of it. 😉

Hi Crowan

Yes the meaning can be perceived in that way, acceptance from division is a form of letting go of separateness, so that could be seen as a form of surrender to wholeness. 🙂

I think there's a clear distinction between 'true love' (love without attachment) and selfish (for want of a better word) love (love with attachment).

True Love is not a need or a longing, and exists between all things
Selfish love creates need/longing, and is not true love;

Selfish love is the sort of love that, when the object of the love is removed; creates conflict (manifesting as various emotions in the mind etc.) That is the nature of attachment in this dualistic type of love.

True Love, when the object is removed, remains, without causing conflict. That is because the object is recognised as being something that cannot be truly removed as it is part of us in the oneness; and we cannot remove our Self from our Self.

Hello Giles,
Nice reply. Would you describe the removal of the object as someone who is part of a couple (say) goes away for a while and yet returns? Would you say that true love is when this happens but the other person in the relationship is not fazed by the 'removal' of the other person? In other words, just because one half of the relationship is out of sight of the other, the first one is content that he/she will return?

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxx

Hello Giles,
Nice reply. Would you describe the removal of the object as someone who is part of a couple (say) goes away for a while and yet returns? Would you say that true love is when this happens but the other person in the relationship is not fazed by the 'removal' of the other person? In other words, just because one half of the relationship is out of sight of the other, the first one is content that he/she will return?

It's not even about being 'content' which is just an emotional response to the thought that they may not return to satisfy the mind that they will indeed return.

To go along the lines of your analogy, true love is when it makes no difference if the people are together or apart, or whether they will ever see each other again or not, it's about awareness of being all one and knowing that any emotional responses are due to attachments that need to be let go.

It's not easy to express in words. 🙂

It's not even about being 'content' which is just an emotional response to the thought that they may not return to satisft the mind that they will indeed return.

To go along the lines of your analogy, true love is when it makes no difference if the people are together or apart, or whether they will ever see each other again or not, it's about awareness of being all one and knowing that any emotional responses are due to attachments that need to be let go.

It's not easy to express in words. 🙂

Ah - yes I understand now.

I was at the Southbank Centre yesterday where they had a "Festival of Love". (Worth going there just to see the kids and some adults having a joyous time playing in the Appearing Rooms fountain!)

I had always known about the 3 Greek words for love - Eros, Philia and Agape but hadn't realised that they actually had 30!

The Ancient Greeks had around 30 words to describe Love in all its shades and complexities. At Southbank Centre’s Festival of Love, we have chosen seven of the most powerful of these words to guide us towards a greater understanding of the emotion which makes the world go round.

Apparently one (not included in the 7 above) is:

Mania – Manic love is almost not a love at all. The word “lust” is probably not strong enough – “obsession” is closer to the word. This is the love of possession. I “mania” that which I obsessively desire to own. It is generally seen as taking over the “lover” like insanity – thus the connection to modern concepts of madness (kleptomania, pyromania).

To me, all aspects of human love are but a mere shadow of the one infinite divine Love - which is actually the core of our being and what we all need and seek, whether we know it or not, and tragically we sometimes seek it in its counterfeit (like with paedophilia) which can never satisfy, only harm.

Love and peace,

Judy

I was thinking about love today, and trying to work out how to describe it. It is a shame that Love has been confused with sex.. I sometimes feel that when people talk of love it is akin to sex and it is almost as though the word love should have been reserved for something else. Nothing physical, or materialistic, almost Divine.....

I was listening to this audio programme today and felt it explains well what spiritual, infinite Love is - absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with human emotions. And then I remembered this thread Scomm, There are some inspiring experiences in it too.

"The most powerful force in life—Love "

Love and peace,

Judy