There is a measure of thought that sees love or compassion as actions that have occurred or will occur. There is a measurement of more or less compassion, or more or less love. But is there more or less love, or only love? More or less compassion, or only compassion? What is the instrument making these measurements? Are these measurements necessary at all?
{ 40 comments }
I have not abandoned “regular” posts in favor of these short asides, by the way. Just trying something new.
There is only love. Sometimes love is hate and helplessness concerning the partnership, my own experience. But there is love unmeasurent love. If you really feel in different situations there is love everywhere it is there, mostly hidden behind personal fear, wounds and anger. I am impressed by situations with people I have problems, quarrels. When situations change, suddenly there is love. To love and wanted to be loved. You look at someones face and you see your reflection. You are everyone, we are one.Even you look at the most awful persons in history, your see your own reflection, try it.
Fast direct thoughts out of my mind.
best regards
iamasimpelman
On love:
1. as I experience it, it takes tremendous
courage to understand what’s the difference
between love and acquisitiveness.
2. how “i” love myself has been a useful guide
for me. if i am possessive of myself,
i notice that i am possessive of others.
when i let go of this possessiveness with
myself, i let go of my need to possess.
3. for me measuring love and compassion
is like measuring “thirst”: are we more or
less thirsty or are we thirsty?
this is an interesting topic. I think that love is universal, there’s only one love but it can be hidden under other stuff – usually fear, low self-esteem/self-acceptance, etc. For love to fully blossom, the fear has to be dissolved, as it is also the root of possesiveness. BUT this is theory, in practice we experience more or less love, the whole or just a part of it, so I think the mind can measure it.
and to Sass: I experience thirst, but then, without satisfying it, I feel it become stronger and the urge to get something to drink gets more vivid in my field of consciousness. I think it could be similar with love. Towards one person (or at a certain moment) I feel different things, love among them. But at other times I feel only love, I’m surrounded by it and urge to do good things is overhelming
Takuin, thanks for inspiration I’m sitting down to write something on this subject on my blog
Love is. Indeed, there is no isness, no existence without love as love is what draws silence into being.
There can be a sense of more or less love only because we experience more or less clarity, more or less connection with who we are. If we lack a clear sense of being, how can love shine through?
Does one need measure? No, but if there seems to be less, that is when we look.
Such wonderful responses from everyone. I’ll add a bit, and you can take it from there if you wish.
If there is a measurement of love, isn’t it limited by the mechanism of measure? One can only measure what they believe to be known, and in this instance, love becomes just a memory or a belief.
This is all fairly clear. If there is measure, there is limitation. The instrument of measure is thought, and in order for thought to measure, it must convert love (in this case) into something it can control and manipulate. It must be solidified in some way.
I am not saying this is good or bad, but you cannot measure what you do not know. It must be placed into the “known,” and then measurement can take place.
In order for something to be made “known,” it must be solidified into something unchanging; something that is known to be this way or that way. (It may indeed change from one state to another, but is that really change?)
Is love this way or that way? Whether you say yes or no, why do you say it? If you have a conclusion, how does it come about? It can only come from what you know, or what you believe to be true.
If you say “Yes,” it is because of what you know. If you say “No,” it is also because of what you know. But do you really want to trust love to the whims of thought?
Follow this in yourselves. You might think Person A loves you, but Person B doesn’t. How do you know it? What tells you one does, and one doesn’t? How does the distinction between the two arise?
Whatever reasons you may give, is that love?
This inquiry isn’t something you do in order to solidify an answer you can keep. Just see what is happening and follow closely. If there has ever been a question in your mind about love, the answers are right there. Just pay attention, and ask questions with no thought of being right or wrong. Find out.
Any ideas we have about love are insignificant. We can only capture the essence, transform it into an idea, and worship at that altar.
I can’t say this is the way it is, or that I, or anyone else, am right. But be bold enough to reject what you believe to be true, just for a moment. You may be surprised at what is really there.
Joanna,
Thank you for the kind words. I am grateful to have you here.
I wish I could read your article on the subject.
One of the curious things about measurement is that it is always relative to something else. To say that we are walking at a certain speed, for example, is relative to things around us. It ignores that we are walking on a mass that is moving much faster. That in turn is orbiting a star moving even faster. And so on. It is all relative to the observer, as Einstein noted.
If we do not measure against something else, there is no measurement possible. As love simply is, it can never be measured, not really.
Davidya,
You have pointed out something so important, and it is very exciting.
This goes on and on. Always relative to this or that. But what happens if there is no one to measure anything? What happens if there is nothing relative to anything else? (within the mind) What happens if none of it is there?
And one has to be careful, because it is never a matter of saying, “I’ll just ignore all of this in order to achieve an effect.”
This is very important. If this is the first time for one to meet this topic, it must seem very strange. But please sit with it. Things may be relative to other things in the phenomenal world, but that is only through the eyes of the one deciding (if “deciding ” is the right word).
This is hard to convey, but it is important.
That is right. But what else is there? If there is no measurement possible, what is there? What happens?
This is magnificent.
perhaps, the experience is a measure….EXPERIENCE
Dove – to compare there must be 2. It may be the current experience – and what? Memory. Often it is simply memory to memory. Where is memory?
If we are comparing experience to memory, where is our attention? In the experience?
What is also interesting is that the mind is only on one thing at a time? So how does it compare? Does it make something new?
Takuin – what is there without measurement? What is. Who we are. Everything, even the small idea it should be measured.
“Follow this in yourselves. You might think Person A loves you, but Person B doesn’t. How do you know it? What tells you one does, and one doesn’t? How does the distinction between the two arise? ”
1. measuring love
is like chasing the horizon
2. defining love
is but a convenience
3. how do i know that someone love me?
that’s such an impossible question…perhaps one would rely with “standards”
handed over by “someone else”…yet those standards are already dead,
experiences already experienced.
4. i cannot really know whether someone “love” me just like i cannot
even really know if someone is hungry…
i can only know that i’m hungry but using “know” here is quite misleading
as there’s not even any “thinking” involved in being hungry…
and love is like being hungry it’s not of thought…
I would not say “love is like being hungry”.
Hunger points to need, to personal drive. Love is all absorbing fullness, richness. Hunger is that which feels a lack of that.
hi davidya…
just some points of clarifications: i mean ” hunger” as the natural phenomena of the body; i didn’t use the “metaphorical” sense of hunger here. when i said that love is like being hungry, i mean that you cannot tell that someone loves you just as much as you cannot tell that someone is hungry.
certainly, love isn’t about lack or need – and it’s even beyond the phenomena of hunger. yet both points to, for lack of a better word, “an experience” that happens inside. but love, i found, is the deeper of the two – it is mind-body-sense shattering
sass – yes, deeper. Literally deeper than we can know.
more love is better than less love. somtimes less love is better than more hate.
but somtimes hate tells you more about love than love tells you about love.
hate does not include love but love includes hate.
words are very proud things, very selfish but words are nothing, literature is everything. Poets can tell you from the heart, they dont measuring like Davidya does in a sentence like “Literally deeper that we can know” Words are measuring all the time. Wrong right left right i know better I am nearer to the truth etc.
So I end with a poet Bert Brecht who uses words to play the game called lyricism.
Bert Brecht german writer translation by J. Beilharz
I WANT TO GO WITH THE ONE I LOVE
I want to go with the one I love.
I do not want to calculate the cost.
I do not want to think about whether it’s good.
I do not want to know whether he loves me.
I want to go with whom I love.
PARTING
We embrace.
Rich cloth under my fingers
While yours touch poor fabric.
A quick embrace
You were invited for dinner
While the minions of law are after me.
We talk about the weather and our
Lasting friendship. Anything else
Would be too bitter.
Best regards
iamasimpelman
Dove,
It is great to have you here, and thanks for your input.
I suppose measurement can be seen as an experience of the person experiencing. But let’s not make it more complicated (than it already may seem). I think Davidya has said it all quite well.
iamasimpelman,
Those are beautiful and powerful words from Brecht. Although I appreciate Parting more than the entire piece, overall.
Words are merely sounds, and it is up to the interpreter to build a feeling. There may be a specific meaning of the words; green is apparently different from red, and so on; but any feeling of good or bad is determined by what one believes to be true.
I do not see pride in words, but I do see pride within the beings that build sacred images around them (and I am not necessarily speaking of religion here).
I do not see selfishness in words, but I do see selfishness within the beings using them for their own personal gain.
We are seeing this very clearly here. Poets can tell you, but Davidya cannot. How did this measurement arise within you? It is not the word that measures, but the person using those words.
This is your teaching. Anything you may have a question on can easily be answered by seeing these things within.
The poets are correct? Is that really true? What happened during your short life that has brought you to that conclusion? I am not saying it is right or wrong, and i am not questioning in order to say “You are mistaken.” Nothing of the kind. I just hope we can see how we have built these structures within, and how they move our arms and legs, our mouths and ears, making us into automated beings, with no real clear way of seeing.
This is a very interesting thing that goes on within. It is not right or wrong, and if one is not interested in seeing, they’ll just go on living the same life. That is fine. But there may come a time when it will not be enough. You may have a suspicion there is something more, or that something is hidden just beneath the surface. And if one in really interested at that point, he or she will have to leave their false security behind.
We all hold the answers to these “dilemmas.” It is beautiful, but not such a mystery.
I think we may begin to see that “love,” as we are speaking of here, is not the love of jealousy, of pride, or any measurement of thought. It is not the “love” of memory.
One might believe that love is grown, perhaps through action. “Person A has done this and that for me, and because of that, they have shown their love for me. Also, because of that, I love them in return.” So what will happen if they did nothing for you? If love only exists based on your conditions, what does that mean?
Really look into it; if you only feel love because of things that have happened, or if you feel lack of love because of things that do not happen, what is really going on within you? What is this limited action that is taking place?
What we have been discussing is the love beyond memory; beyond what is remembered. Your ideas and beliefs about love are insignificant in the face of love.
It may require a great deal of sitting, but it is worth it to see for yourself.
Davidya,
Ah, it is far too easy to say, isn’t it? We may be able to sit and say it is all so wonderful and simple, but that may be meaningless to one that has never considered it.
It does seem to be problematic, but what can we do?
Sass,
Nicely put. But I have a question that others may not have considered:
Is it possible for someone to love you at all?
Forget about whether you can tell or not. Is that action at all possible in the first place? (And I am not necessarily questioning YOU on this, Sass. Just exploring.)
I can already hear so many people shouting, “YES, I can be loved!!” But please, think on what we have been discussing here, and take it step by step.
It may be helpful for everyone to see how certain things arise upon approaching the question. One may feel some danger or a threat, and that is fine. Just do not ignore these feelings, or try to displace them with something else.
I suppose if one is particularly courageous, you might want to begin with the question:
Is it possible for me to love anyone? Can I give love?
Takuin – yes, easy to say, harder to communicate.
How does one quantify what is infinite in all 23 dimensions?
Eric
Have you experienced 23 dimensions? Or is it just a concept?
Do you see non-physical experiences as other dimensions? Or is that simply the idea of separation making them other?
Why is infinity different in different dimensions?
Its also worth noting that as our capacity to experience grows, the value of infinity grows too. There is only one, but it may seem like infinities within infinities within…
That was an off the cuff answer. I didn’t have much time. The 23 dimensions refers to string theory ( at least I think that’s how many it postulates).
But seriously I don’t know if the ego can even approach the truth of love. It seems whatever concept it holds will be tainted by it’s belief in separation. From my experience when I achieved Stillness, Love and I were One. No separation, differentiation or perception of Love. Just the Being of Love.
But try to approach it, we must. Over on Davidya’s blog I said that the memory of my experience is my biggest hindrance. But I would rather have the memory and not come any closer to that revelation again, than live in the ignorance of my/our potential that I once did. It is the beacon of truth that gives me hope.
So for me, I try to realize that with love there is no subject and object. I try to see love as such an absolute, the source, if you will, of all things that to think about quantifying it is ludicrous. But that’s just me.
Anyhoo, great question. Outa time again. Peace to All.
Off the cuff means what arose in the moment. It is always just what arises now. Does Eric say this or that? Or does Eric simply notice the person writes this or that? Where did the idea of 23 dimension arise? In memory? In someones theory?
Ego, as in the idea of being a separate person, is mind. It cannot comprehend its own source. Love can only be understood by being it. Sounds like the experience was much more than just silence. Unexplainable as you suggested.
Memory is not a hindrance unless it is taken as truth. If it is seen as memory, it is just there, not held to. But if we hold it as reality, that is the hindrance. By your wording, you are holding it as the beacon of truth and hope. Just allow it to be as it is. That’s all.
Going into the subject of memory and experience is very interesting; finding out what really happens, seeing the process as it unfolds, etc. It is fascinating.
There is one, but not the other.
Takuin – I am curious which you see as not.
Memory is a very curious thing. There is no physical location of memory, just brain points that may trigger one. Sheldrake demonstrates they are stored in shared “morphic” fields.
In Vedic literature, they have a term, Smriti, memory, from which Shruti, Veda or knowledge arises. Essentially all movement arises in memory. All sound arises in movement. All sensory experience arises in vibration (sound). Thus, all experiences arise from memory. That’s the gist anyway.
Of course, this is not personal memory that is referred to. Personal memory is as much an illusion as personal perception or personal anything else.
Davidya,
I meant memory in the sense of a function of the organism. Without this function, we could not live or survive.
By experience I meant the essential stories that make up the self. Not necessarily something encountered, undergone, or lived through, although that may be seen as experience, as well. I am talking about what one attaches oneself to, in order to try and bring about security of some kind.
Experience is important to the person that needs the experience to be important. It is a story that “proves” one exists. These are the events we hold on to and say, “This made me what I am today.” Another person might have seen the exact same event and shrugged it off, never to remember it again.
It may be important to see why these distinctions are made in the first place.
But I suppose there are many definitions of experience, and all seem to be related at some point.
With the above in mind, I guess I could say:
Memory is a function of the organism; Experience is a function of the self.
“Experience is important to the person that needs the experience to be important.It is a story that “proves” one exists.”
It would seem to me then that memories are just beliefs , if we can agree that beliefs are how we define ourselves.
And if what to remember is a choice who is doing the choosing? It doesn’t seem to me that I do it consciously. Hmmmmm…….. a little too deep for my first cup of coffee. More thought is required before I can formulate a belief. (laughs)
Takuin – you put it well when you said “in mind” (laughs)
Eric,
Not a belief and not a choice. Memory is the result of natural functioning. It does not need the heaviness of belief.
Remembering is a natural function, and something we need, to survive. It is not necessarily built up into a story; that is the job of the self.
It is what we do to the memories that causes trouble. When I said it, ” ‘proves’ one exists,” I meant the games of the identity. There is no proof that anyone exists within the mind. But there is of course, a lot of hearsay. (There may be apparently different physical entities walking around outside, but that is not what I am talking about.)
Experience is the person holding a signpost that says, “I was there.” It is the self, attaching itself to one particular set of memories and not others. Without this need to hold on, without the need to build these stories, there is only memory.
Beyond the games of the self, there is the functioning of the organism.
Have you ever questioned why experiences are important to you? Why is it, certain memories you hold onto, while others are just thrown aside? You may hold onto the memory of the greatest sexual encounter you’ve ever had, or the time you had the hell beat out of you. But why?
What is the purpose (if that is the right word) of holding on to these things? They seem to mean something to someone. But why do they have to mean anything?
Hi Takuin. Your questions gave me goosebumps.
Using this dear little self as the laboratory, here I share my reflections as i inquire on this….
1. I see that in “giving” love there is a separation among the giver, what’s being given, and the receiver. But this separation is the very negation of love.
2. Love is this unity. I cannot give this unity. For me to say that I can give this unity of which I’m but a part of is nothing but the romantic arrogance of the mouth which only speaks about love but can never speak the language of love.
3. There is love between us which comes from within you and i. Perhaps when one is “in love” one is “in the realization” – and not in the conceptualization – that there is no separation, no “other”. Yet one understands that there is distance but not separation.
4. I can fall in love with someone, something, whatever form it is. But what i mean by “falling in love with” here is not akin with “giving love”. As I fall in love the walls of separation collapse even for just a moment. But as these walls collapse something in “me” resists, at this point jealousy, possessiveness, and all the smoke associated with the flame of love waft and resurrect the walls of separation.
5. yet I understand: what is this one that falls in love? can the “I” and the you in the “I love you” still survive in love?
This very annihilation makes love very dangerous, very dangerous to the “one” who would rather give and receive than be in love.
Sass,
I am glad to know your laboratory survived the experiment.
You have said this all beautifully. And what you wrote in #4 may be a too common occurrence. What YOU (the self) wants, is the smoking gun. All of the answers are there in that activity.
If most people did this “questioning of themselves,” we would have an entirely different world.
And you are absolutely right. It IS dangerous to the identity that needs separation in order to survive. For without separation, it would not exist.
“I am glad to know your laboratory survived the experiment. ”
quite a painful inquiry….
Sass,
I cannot quite remember that feeling, but i certainly understand what you mean.
There are memories, just flashes really, of what went on before. I remember as one watching the movie of someone else, and with no emotional or otherwise personal attachment. I don’t mean to say it should be this way for everyone, but it seems to be this way within.
It all seems like a great work of fiction implanted into my brain. It is funny…sometimes I have to ring up another person to verify if a certain event actually happened.
But I suppose, even that verification is not trustworthy.
Yes, it’s like trying to remember what it’s like to be 12 again. We may recall certain events, but always from how we are now.
Davidya,
I may write a post on this. It might be interesting for others.
Have you ever covered this particular topic? If you have, feel free to post a link here for all of us.
Takuin,
I forget. (laughs)
I did a search and it seems I have touched on it a few times but not as the focus of a post.
{ 1 trackback }
Comments on this entry are closed.