So many people I know and respect are smug know-it-all atheists...

[Nixiam]

Is everyone who doesn't obtain love sick?

"How I dream of a female to take away my lonesome heart." - My emo friend.

I love all of you.

Rather than a generic force, I think of love as a binding emotion spawned by nature, and it's many forms we experience daily. Or at least hopefully daily.

Humans I believe are the strongest candidates for love, but I may only think such because of the vast way in which we can feel for another.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I think he meant spiritually sick...as in not being able to really love as a consequence. The spiritually sick can't love by definiton. Because the spirit is weak in them.

Or, if one is too full of ego and negative energies the spirit isn't able to come through. Love is a quality of purity.

I'm a garbage dump of ego, negative energies, and I don't even have any spirits (alive that is) in me. So what does that make me?

Still, my love for my lady is real and pure, and for the coming child. I don't need preachers to tell me how to love my family (since I'm such a spiritual wreck), because I know all about us.

 

[Xorkoth]

The soul doesn't get sick, the temporal human body and egoic consciousness does.

The soul IS love, pure connection to the Source that created it.

The process is about remembering, not acquiring. If you can't feel the love of your own spirit then it's because there's too many egoic layers and self-imposed suffering taking place. Release, surrender, and dissolve, and the love is felt as omnipresent. You can't lose the ability to "channel love"... you can't lose who you really are. You only forget it, temporarily.

Chopra and many others, I think they are full of shit. I'm sorry, but they are. The awakened people I've known have taught through their presence, not going on and on like pompous fools. You already are "it", you don't need to read 10 books or hang onto the words of these people to see it -- well, maybe you do, I dunno.

My awakening came through suffering... so much so that the facade of who I was completely crumbled in the blink of an eye and the truth about what I really was and reality became apparent. It killed me without killing my body. Not for the faint of heart. Not saying it has to be that way for everyone either but... some of these scholarly new age types who use their privilege to reach wide audiences, I question what they've even been through, what processes they've undergone, to really get "it". I'm not king shit or something but... their language is too transcendental, which again convinces people that they have to "go somewhere".

Enlightenment is totally disappointing in its simplicity. You don't get anything from becoming it. It doesn't make your life better, there aren't special powers or rewards. It's just the truth in its purest form. All these new age people, they make it sound like it's out beyond orion somewhere. It isn't! It's right here in this present moment. You want to be enlightened? Presto! You're enlightened. Now what? Because nothing changes. You don't get something, you remember something. That's it!

There's just so much obvious egoic crap spewing out of their mouths. You can talk concepts all day but if you don't feel it in your heart, if the truth doesn't resonate and activate, then it's empty... just like people who pray as a matter of course but have no connection with what they're doing. Fancier isn't better. If it doesn't come from the heart then you're unfortunately deluded. I'd rather go sit in a cave for 10 years than listen to these people.

Thanks for that, I concur fully.

 

[HypGnosis]

I would third Foreigners's sentiments here.

I don't see love as something which has to be accumulated and handed out like money, I see it as a fundamental connection of all things. The original connection to source, and our urge uncover it, to connect, is a repeating fractal which has an infinite amount of manifestations, human emotion being one of them. I like to see an act of love as even just a smile to someone, or a handshake - it's that feeling of connection. Maybe even some of the fundamental forces that bind things together are also an archaic representation of this original connection. I'm not saying particles "love", by any known definition, experience or understanding we have, but maybe when atoms bond to form molecules, there is present that image, or fractal which represents our desire to connect? I don't know, and it's likely BelligerentDrunk will lambast me for daring to use a clumsy chemistry metaphor in an attempt to explain my point so I'll shut up. But I hope it kinda makes sense

I like this quote by Jungian analyst Robert A Johnson which hints at our attempts to undertsand the depths of love, and how many different ways love can be expressed. From his book The Fisher King and the Handless Maiden

"Sanskrit has 96 words for love; ancient Persian has 80, Greek three, and English only one. This is indicative of the poverty of awareness or emphasis that we give to that tremendously important realm of feeling. Eskimos have 30 words for snow, because it is a life-and-death matter to them to have exact information about the element they live with so intimately. If we had a vocabulary of 30 words for love ... we would immediately be richer and more intelligent in this human element so close to our heart. An Eskimo probably would die of clumsiness if he had only one word for snow; we are close to dying of loneliness because we have only one word for love. Of all the Western languages, English may be the most lacking when it comes to feeling."

 

[belligerent drunk]

I don't see love as something which has to be accumulated and handed out like money, I see it as a fundamental connection of all things. The original connection to source, and our urge uncover it, to connect, is a repeating fractal which has an infinite amount of manifestations, human emotion being one of them. I like to see an act of love as even just a smile to someone, or a handshake - it's that feeling of connection. Maybe even some of the fundamental forces that bind things together are also an archaic representation of this original connection. I'm not saying particles "love", by any known definition, experience or understanding we have, but maybe when atoms bond to form molecules, there is present that image, or fractal which represents our desire to connect? I don't know, and it's likely BelligerentDrunk will lambast me for daring to use a clumsy chemistry metaphor in an attempt to explain my point so I'll shut up.

I wasn't going to comment, but since you mentioned my name, I'll add my 2c. I agree with the first part. However, going too far as to say that there is some sort of human love analogue present at the fundamental level of our world in the interactions of fundamental particles... No. And why do you need that anyway? Isn't it enough to have love as is?

Particles and the way they interact don't discriminate.

 

[Foreigner]

I wasn't going to comment, but since you mentioned my name, I'll add my 2c. I agree with the first part. However, going too far as to say that there is some sort of human love analogue present at the fundamental level of our world in the interactions of fundamental particles... No. And why do you need that anyway? Isn't it enough to have love as is?

Particles and the way they interact don't discriminate.

It's more to do with the fact that there are no boundaries between anything. We live in a sea of oneness and everything connects to everything else. Even so-called solid matter is that same substance, but at a denser state.

True love is connection, absolutely. Living on the level of love means the dissolution of the perceived separations between anything. And really, that's all awakening is as well. The awareness that there's no difference between you or anything else, just some stories. Everything is you and you are everything.

 

[Ninae]

Jesus said love thy neighbor as if thyself. He didn't add 'except if they are poorly', as Deunov does.

He didn't mean they don't deserve love. It means they don't know how to love!

It was his life's work "to tease the love out" of people. He said when he worked with people after a while the light would start to break out in them.

Anyway, people don't really appreciate or understand any of that.

 

[Ninae]

Bollocks. The love I have for my children and wife is far more pure than one I have to learn via philosophers or religious scholars.

He was talking about universal love, not human love.

 

[Ninae]

Since you're making such a big deal out of it, maybe you should have the context.


"Only he who is enlightened with Righteousness is capable of receiving divine Love.

Christ is Love, manifested in Righteousness, which shines forth within those who love Him.

Love is only for the great, strong souls.

Enormous energy is hidden within the man in whom Love dwells.

Remember: Love is not for the sick. Love is only for healthy people.

The sick and the dead do not love. Only the living, who are filled with the Divine Spirit - they are the ones whose hearts pulsate with Love.

Do not be deluded: the sick, the spiritually dead, are not illuminated by Love.

And when you hear someone say: "I am a man of cold reason, I cannot love, I have no time to spend on such trifles," know that that man is foolish.

The wisest, the greatest thing in the world is Love.

The wisest Being, of whom it is said that He is Love, loves.

He Who has created the worlds, Who has made everything, Who has filled everything with life, Who has made all sacrifices

He loves, and this pygmy with his "cold reason" has no time to love!"

 

[swilow]

If you can't feel the love of your own spirit then it's because there's too many egoic layers and self-imposed suffering taking place.

Or its because such a spirit-of-love is just an idea that some people entertain?

edit: I often feel that in regards to spiritual beliefs, those who don't believe are often thought to be flawed and deluded. At least a scientific worldview does not discriminate. It doesn't care about your opinions or flaws, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same no matter what. Its an unhelpful part of the debate, to claim that the non-spiritual are that way due to internal flaws. I'm not saying that you are claiming that, but its common to make such statements. Perhaps if the world of love and spirit were more tangible, more people would experience it. As it stands, I see no great benefit to believing the universe exhibits love as a fundamental aspect of itself, or that love is inherent to existence.

I give my love to those who deserve it, those who I choose to love. Not to every object I see around me.

Not to myself either unfortunately...

Anyway.

Chopra and many others, I think they are full of shit. I'm sorry, but they are.

I agree. I dislike that new age ideal of a conscious, living universe. Its spiritual apologism IMO. It tries to use scientific knowledge to further something highly unscientific. That alone dos not make the ideas unworthy, but it means they don't hold up to sustained enquiry. The science used to claim a living universe will also tell you that most of the universe is inert.

You might find this book interesting though: War of the Worldviews. Its a seqence of debates discussing the nature of reality between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow. I admire how courteous and polite it is. I heartily disagree with much of Chopra's nebulous idea's; I feel more sympathy to Mlodinow but he loses me at times.

My awakening came through suffering... so much so that the facade of who I was completely crumbled in the blink of an eye and the truth about what I really was and reality became apparent. It killed me without killing my body.

Just wanted to say that you seem good these days . You seem to have passed through some darkness and I'm glad for you.

Still, my love for my lady is real and pure, and for the coming child. I don't need preachers to tell me how to love my family (since I'm such a spiritual wreck), because I know all about us.

Did not know of the incoming human- congratulations Do you know what sort?

I would third Foreigners's sentiments here.

I don't see love as something which has to be accumulated and handed out like money, I see it as a fundamental connection of all things. The original connection to source, and our urge uncover it, to connect, is a repeating fractal which has an infinite amount of manifestations, human emotion being one of them. I like to see an act of love as even just a smile to someone, or a handshake - it's that feeling of connection. Maybe even some of the fundamental forces that bind things together are also an archaic representation of this original connection. I'm not saying particles "love", by any known definition, experience or understanding we have, but maybe when atoms bond to form molecules, there is present that image, or fractal which represents our desire to connect? I don't know, and it's likely BelligerentDrunk will lambast me for daring to use a clumsy chemistry metaphor in an attempt to explain my point so I'll shut up. But I hope it kinda makes sense

I like the artistry of your idea. But. On earth, we can't really say for certain that any other species experiences the emotion that we call 'love'. There is, of course, biological evidence that the same hormones that are released when we self-report feelings of love exist in the animal kingdom, and the behvaiour of certain animals is suggestive of love (or dependance at least). But I do not think there is much of a reason to think that love exists amongst inanimate objects- of which, the vast majoirty of the universe is comprised. I don't think love is a factor in the binding of molecules together. You can call it love, or you could call it the strong force. Or weak force, I forget which is involved in the binding together of atoms.

Atoms will come together if physical circumstances permit it. In outer space, there may be singular hydrogen atoms floating alone for eternity. If gravitational conditions are right, it may bump into another hydrogen molecule. It may not. It doesn't really have a choice or even a way of choosing.

 

[Nixiam]

Indeed B_D, how many months are you preggers?

You weren't even showing!

 

[HypGnosis]

I wasn't going to comment, but since you mentioned my name, I'll add my 2c. I agree with the first part. However, going too far as to say that there is some sort of human love analogue present at the fundamental level of our world in the interactions of fundamental particles... No. And why do you need that anyway? Isn't it enough to have love as is?

Particles and the way they interact don't discriminate.

Sorry, I didn't mean to call you out or anything, I was only messing around

One side of me agrees with you completely, but the other side maintains its Idealist assumptions. There is no need, and likely no epistemological advantage within materialist science to veiw the bonding atoms as an act of "love". I wouldn't go round saying "don't worry, it's ok, I've figured out atoms and molecules and all that shit, they're basically just fucking in some giant eternal orgy!" It is entirely correct to use scientific langauge to explain the forces and processes involved.
I'm just saying the idea that two things coming together to create something, even if it's just stability, is an image, an idea, that you can see from top to bottom, and vice versa.

It's not that I need to see love present at the fundamental level, it's just an idea I hold currently. I could discard if necessary, but at this stage of my evolution it seems to fit nicely.

He didn't mean they don't deserve love. It means they don't know how to love!

Ohhh Tiddlywinks! Who is he to judge?

He loves, and this pygmy with his "cold reason" has no time to love!"

It's this type of shit, this judgement that grinds me. He's no better than some evangelist that approached me once and told me that because I didn't know Jesus I had no love in my heart! Who the fuck is he to tell me, or anyone else for that matter that we don't know how to love!


Anyway, as you can see I do have, or I should now say, had a slight grievance with this archetypal Peter figure ( Ya know "heaven's" gatekeeper, urgh)

This assumption...

Remember: Love is not for the sick. Love is only for healthy people.

The sick and the dead do not love. Only the living, who are filled with the Divine Spirit - they are the ones whose hearts pulsate with Love.

Do not be deluded: the sick, the spiritually dead, are not illuminated by Love.

This is racism (lol..?) against the dead. I know the dead, I have been dead, and whilst there, have loved. Him keeping all these dead people locked in a state of purgatory (via contracts he placed on their souls - another story), was causing disturbances all accross the universe. A backlog had accumulated and the natural order of progression, or Ascension had ground nearly to a halt (you write about this quite abit, and are correct a fair amount).
So me and my posse, we got together, amassed an army of the dead, and approached his gate. We warned him that unless he opened the gate and remove the contracts, we would kick that fucker down and wreak havoc upon his haven. Suffice to say he agreed, and everything appears to be moving along smoothly
[/psychosis]

But. On earth, we can't really say for certain that any other species experiences the emotion that we call 'love'.

But. Up here, above the coulds, Eye can get a different perspective :D I'm not saying it's right, or any more valid than your opinion, just something I see, and feel.

 

[RDP89]

He didn't mean they don't deserve love. It means they don't know how to love!

It was his life's work "to tease the love out" of people. He said when he worked with people after a while the light would start to break out in them.

Anyway, people don't really appreciate or understand any of that.

That's all assuming the man actually existed though, which is pretty dubious.

 

[Ninae]

What are you talking about? There are over 100 biographies written about him. Peter Deunov saved 48,000 Bulgarian Jews during the war and was a hero to many. He is widely renowned in Bulgaria and was recently voted second greatest Bulgarian in history by the public.

About the Einstein quote - it's funny how freaked out people get when something threatens their world view. In their mind, of course there couldn't be any connection between a world-renowned scientist and a spiritual figure, that obviously doesn't happen! Einstein wouldn't let the side down like that.

In reality, though, Einstein was very spiritual and left behind many quotes about God and the spirit. He said the mind isn't capable of anything in itself and it's the spirit that does it through you. Peter Deunov died in the 1940s and there wouldn't have been as many spiritual teachers around then, so that's not too unlikey.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Did not know of the incoming human- congratulations Do you know what sort?

The one with 47 chromosomes.

Sorry, my sense of humor doesn't appeal to everybody. I don't know yet.

 

[No one]

I'm not conceited, I'm convinced. Knowing it all is a heavy, heavy burden. But, being the magnanimous soul that I am, I do it so you don't have to.

 

[HypGnosis]

About the Einstein quote - it's funny how freaked out people get when something threatens their world view. In their mind, of course there couldn't be any connection between a world-renowned scientist and a spiritual figure, that obviously doesn't happen! Einstein wouldn't let the side down like that.

Kind of ironic since you've spent the last two and a half days desperately huddled over your computer ploughing through the internet in a vain attempt to find a source for that Einstien quote

And now you're having a little cry at ME, because you think this is offensive to MY worldview?!



There are a good many world renowned scientists that have an openly mystical bent, but Einstien not so much. Although I get an impression he may have been a closet mystic.

 

[Xorkoth]

My impression was always that Einstein was a spiritual man. Some things I have read seemed to paint him as one who found spirituality in the infinite complexity and beauty of the universe, and I can relate because so do I. I don't think science and spirituality are mutually exclusive at all.

 

[Ninae]

I think this has sunk low enough, to be honest. It's sad that people feel the need to throw around crap about people without even bothering to inform themselves first, but if that's what makes you happy.

Anyway, Peter Deunov actually graduated in theology AND science. See, on the higher levels spirituality and science work together, which is only the natural thing. It's only small people and small minds who's had this false divide imposed on them, to keep them in ignorance.

 

[belligerent drunk]

My impression was always that Einstein was a spiritual man. Some things I have read seemed to paint him as one who found spirituality in the infinite complexity and beauty of the universe, and I can relate because so do I. I don't think science and spirituality are mutually exclusive at all.

There is a fine line between accepting that nature is very complicated and intricate, and proposing a higher power in the form of god(s) or whatnot. Einstein was a very bright man, but I don't think he was spiritual in the mainstream sense - he was careful with what he believed in as far as spirituality goes. Besides, he was not aware of half the things that a modern human has access to (in terms of information about the world), so using his views as an argument is a bit silly in my opinion.

@HypGnosis: there is no need for personal attacks/sarcasm no matter how innocent. I suggest we just stick to debating the topic at hand.