Suffering . . .

February 16, 2007

Umm...*sigh*.

Number 1: You yourself made the point that love can create more

suffering. The onus is on you to support your statement with a

logical argument.

Number 2: The story of Orpheus and Euridyce is probably the worst

argument you could choose, and I wonder if you even read it. It would

seem that there is more compassion amongst those who dwell in the

Underworld than I thought! Thank you for showing me that.

http://www.online-mythology.com/orpheus_eurydice/

:-)

Silver

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Silver,

>

> I could ask the opposite question: can you give any example where

such

> kind of attachment does *not* cause suffering?

>

> But gladly I will give you an example. It is from Greek mythology. I

> guess you know the story of Orpheus and Euridyce.

>

> http://www.online-mythology.com/orpheus_eurydice/

>

> Out of love Orpheus was following his dead beloved to the

underworld,

> to gain her back. See how the story ends.

>

> I will give you more examples if you are interested.

>

> Greetings

> Stefan

>

> Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069@> wrote:

> >

> >Would you mind giving an example? I don't understand.

> >

> >Silver

> >

> >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

wrote:

> >>

> >> This may sound heretical to some, but I say it anyway:

> >> Love can create a lot more suffering than indifference.

> >>

> >> Stefan

>

February 16, 2007

Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069 wrote:

>

>Umm...*sigh*.

>

>Number 1: You yourself made the point that love can create more

>suffering. The onus is on you to support your statement with a

>logical argument.

Silver, no need to sigh, it is not my intention to present theories

which I then have to defend at all circumstances (for the mere sake of

being right). This does not mean that I deny logic. What I want to

make clear: I talk about my personal experiences, my past and present

struggles, my world view, my opinions - aiming at an exchange. In this

sense my statements are also meant as questions. So, if you are

interested, my question still stands.

I am familiar with Greek mythology and with the story of Orpheus.

Those myths are not easily digested, one can chew on them a whole life

long. To me this particular story shows the tragic of love. I mean the

love of Orpheus which was so big, that he could not let the beloved

go, even not when she had to die. This exactly is the tragic, because

love is unable to let go of the object although everything must pass.

Orpheus even got a chance to get his dead beloved back! But there was

a condition. On the way back from the underworld he was not allowed to

look at his beloved. He was unable to follow this condition and the

story ended tragically. We could ask: why the heck did he look at her?

He could have saved her life! But... love is foolish attachment: " is

she really there? " ... " I just want to have a glance! " ... human love

cannot follow such divine conditions!

You wanted one example where love leads to suffering, and this was one

example. But there is much more in that story.

Those who are able to transcend the tragic circle of love and

suffering are reaching the next step: compassion. This is also

contained in the story, you are mentioning it in your reply. But

compassion is not love. True compassion is not attachment. It is said,

that Buddha is waiting at the gates of heaven until everybody is ready

to enter. Why does he wait? He just could go in! Well... it is only a

paradigm, but here is why: it is =not= because he loves us. This would

mean that he is unable to enter because he is still attached. His

motivation is pure compassion. He sees us all as one.

In monotheistic religions we are presented a God and his

representatives who " love " us - like a father loves his children.

This is nice, but it also makes us appear small, it creates dependence

and guilt. And through that door come all those crimes that have been

committed in the name of " love " . Those millions of men and women that

have been burned alive because they did not want to be small and

dependent. Burned in the fire of Gods " purifying love " !

Well, I am deviating from the main point... but maybe my ranting is of

interest to some. Everybody feel free to use words like " love " and

" compassion " as he likes! I just hope I could convey something which

is behind those words and well worth looking at.

Greetings

Stefan

>

> Number 2: The story of Orpheus and Euridyce is probably the worst

> argument you could choose, and I wonder if you even read it. It would

> seem that there is more compassion amongst those who dwell in the

> Underworld than I thought! Thank you for showing me that.

>

> http://www.online-mythology.com/orpheus_eurydice/

>

> :-)

>

> Silver

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Silver,

> >

> > I could ask the opposite question: can you give any example where

> such

> > kind of attachment does *not* cause suffering?

> >

> > But gladly I will give you an example. It is from Greek mythology. I

> > guess you know the story of Orpheus and Euridyce.

> >

> > http://www.online-mythology.com/orpheus_eurydice/

> >

> > Out of love Orpheus was following his dead beloved to the

> underworld,

> > to gain her back. See how the story ends.

> >

> > I will give you more examples if you are interested.

> >

> > Greetings

> > Stefan

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069@> wrote:

> > >

> > >Would you mind giving an example? I don't understand.

> > >

> > >Silver

> > >

> > >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> > >>

> > >> This may sound heretical to some, but I say it anyway:

> > >> Love can create a lot more suffering than indifference.

> > >>

> > >> Stefan

> >

>

February 16, 2007

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >Love, awareness, truth, being, these are aspects of *what is*, which

> >isn't divisible, hence has no qualities. Words require division -

> >it's how words operate. Hence, I'll talk about qualities, as if these

> >could pertain. Otherwise I couldn't talk about *this* -- and it's

> >worth communicating about. It is the resolution of the conflicts

> >involved in trying to have a located self.

> >

> >Wouldn't want to miss out on talking about that -- regardless of the

> >impossibility of doing so.

>

> I am with you, Dan. After all, we are here to talk. Now, here follow

> some random thoughts:

>

> I wonder, when love is just one aspect of the indivisible, why do we

> usually prefer to call it " love " over calling it " hate " ? Is hate not

> just another word on the infinite list of aspects we could set up for

> the indivisible? Maybe this our usual preference indicates our

> attachment. Is this attachment not the golden calf of " spiritual

> seekers " ?

Good question!

It's not necssarily an attachment, but rather a way of honoring being

human by communicating. And when communicating, one says what one has

to say, the best one can. Love says it more clearly than hate,

although all states are included in the being-which-has-no-state.

Love, when released, open as love. Hate, when released, opens as

love. So, love says it better Hate tends to try to hold onto itself,

as a protection. Love dissolves the need for protection.

You used the word " indivisible. " That's also an attribute. Why not

say " the divisible " ? Does using the word " indivisible " constitute an

attachment?

Why not speak incoherently? Is emphasizing coherent speech and

attachment when the indivisible includes incoherence? By

communicating, am I showing that I'm attached to speech that has a

certain order to nouns, verbs and adjectives?

Why stop at the curb when crossing the street? The indivisible

wouldn't be divided if I stepped in front of a bus? LOL.

Okay, I'm going on and on about this. Enough for now.

> The issue of love and suffering is quite essential for me at my daily

> struggles. I find that I do not want to hurt and cause suffering. But

> by trying to avoid that, I only cause more suffering. I think we must

> look at this. Often I find, that my undercurrent motivation is simply

> my desire to be loved.

Yes. We attach and separate, then try to form a loving connection.

The love that shows itself as the stars and sky, also shows as viruses

and hurricanes. It doesn't allow separation or attachment, so the

love that a separated individual wants to have is not the same as the

love that open freely on all sides. Human beings each come to their

time to die, and sometimes suffering is very much involved. Where's

the love in that? This is what makes insight difficult and demanding,

imo.

And of course, I'm aware that anything we say is conceptual. " Love "

becomes conceptual once spoken about. So, perhaps, as you say, a good

antidote for getting attached to the concept would be to call the

indivisible " hate. " Unfortunately, though, there already are people

who organize hate rallies as a way to manifest what they consider to

be the ultimate truth of their being. Sad, at least to me.

> I came across this quote from Woody Allen:

> " To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering one must not love. But then

> one suffers from not loving. Therefore to love is to suffer, not to

> love is to suffer. To suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love. To

> be happy then is to suffer. But suffering makes one unhappy.

> Therefore, to be unhappy one must love, or love to suffer, or suffer

> from too much happiness. I hope you're getting this down. "

>

> Quite funny.

Yes, that's good.

What about the love that moves fearlessly into, through and beyond

suffering?

-- Dan

February 16, 2007

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>What about the love that moves fearlessly into, through and beyond

>suffering?

Well, I guess the love which moves in is different from the one that

goes beyond. It is very interesting to research how only recently (and

only in some languages) the same word is used for both.

Greetings

Stefan

February 17, 2007

Silver, no need to sigh, it is not my intention to present theories

which I then have to defend at all circumstances (for the mere sake of

being right).

>>>I sighed because you chose a bad example, not because you

presented a theory.

This does not mean that I deny logic. What I want to

make clear: I talk about my personal experiences, my past and present

struggles, my world view, my opinions - aiming at an exchange.

>>>Right. And I asked you for more " exchange " because I'm interested

in your views.

In this sense my statements are also meant as questions.

>>>Then say what you mean. If you mean to raise a question, frame it

that way. Don't make a statement if you don't mean to. Confusion

arises like that.

So, if you are interested, my question still stands.

>>>Yes, I'm still interested. I'll treat it as a question instead of

a statement.

I am familiar with Greek mythology and with the story of Orpheus.

>>>Well, your interpretation of the story is different than mine.

Those myths are not easily digested, one can chew on them a whole life

long.

>>>I think you're exaggerating a little.

To me this particular story shows the tragic of love.

>>>Tragedy of love? There is no tragedy in love. If there is, then

it's not love.

I mean the love of Orpheus which was so big, that he could not let

the beloved go, even not when she had to die. This exactly is the

tragic, because love is unable to let go of the object although

everything must pass.

>>>Love does not put another human being on a pedestal. To treat one

person as more special than another is not love.

Orpheus even got a chance to get his dead beloved back! But there was

a condition. On the way back from the underworld he was not allowed to

look at his beloved. He was unable to follow this condition and the

story ended tragically. We could ask: why the heck did he look at her?

He could have saved her life! But... love is foolish attachment: " is

she really there? " ... " I just want to have a glance! " ... human love

cannot follow such divine conditions!

>>>Love is not " foolish attachment. " Attachment is foolish.

You wanted one example where love leads to suffering, and this was one

example. But there is much more in that story.

>>>Foolish attachment leads to suffering.

Those who are able to transcend the tragic circle of love and

suffering are reaching the next step: compassion.

>>>Love does not lead to suffering. Love moves one to show compassion

for the suffering of others.

This is also contained in the story, you are mentioning it in your

reply. But compassion is not love. True compassion is not attachment.

It is said, that Buddha is waiting at the gates of heaven until

everybody is ready to enter. Why does he wait? He just could go in!

Well... it is only a paradigm, but here is why: it is =not= because

he loves us. This would mean that he is unable to enter because he is

still attached. His motivation is pure compassion. He sees us all as

one.

>>>I'm not attached to Buddha's opinions.

In monotheistic religions we are presented a God and his

representatives who " love " us - like a father loves his children.

This is nice, but it also makes us appear small, it creates dependence

and guilt. And through that door come all those crimes that have been

committed in the name of " love " . Those millions of men and women that

have been burned alive because they did not want to be small and

dependent. Burned in the fire of Gods " purifying love " !

>>>It seems ridiculous to me too.

Well, I am deviating from the main point... but maybe my ranting is of

interest to some. Everybody feel free to use words like " love " and

" compassion " as he likes! I just hope I could convey something which

is behind those words and well worth looking at.

>>>Interesting but I'm not convinced that your 'question' is resolved

yet.

Silver

February 17, 2007

Hi Silver,

didn't you ask me to give an example where love leads to suffering?

Thats what I did! What do you want now?

Stefan

Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069 wrote:

>

> Silver, no need to sigh, it is not my intention to present theories

> which I then have to defend at all circumstances (for the mere sake of

> being right).

>

> >>>I sighed because you chose a bad example, not because you

> presented a theory.

>

> This does not mean that I deny logic. What I want to

> make clear: I talk about my personal experiences, my past and present

> struggles, my world view, my opinions - aiming at an exchange.

>

> >>>Right. And I asked you for more " exchange " because I'm interested

> in your views.

>

> In this sense my statements are also meant as questions.

>

> >>>Then say what you mean. If you mean to raise a question, frame it

> that way. Don't make a statement if you don't mean to. Confusion

> arises like that.

>

> So, if you are interested, my question still stands.

>

> >>>Yes, I'm still interested. I'll treat it as a question instead of

> a statement.

>

> I am familiar with Greek mythology and with the story of Orpheus.

>

> >>>Well, your interpretation of the story is different than mine.

>

> Those myths are not easily digested, one can chew on them a whole life

> long.

>

> >>>I think you're exaggerating a little.

>

> To me this particular story shows the tragic of love.

>

> >>>Tragedy of love? There is no tragedy in love. If there is, then

> it's not love.

>

> I mean the love of Orpheus which was so big, that he could not let

> the beloved go, even not when she had to die. This exactly is the

> tragic, because love is unable to let go of the object although

> everything must pass.

>

> >>>Love does not put another human being on a pedestal. To treat one

> person as more special than another is not love.

>

> Orpheus even got a chance to get his dead beloved back! But there was

> a condition. On the way back from the underworld he was not allowed to

> look at his beloved. He was unable to follow this condition and the

> story ended tragically. We could ask: why the heck did he look at her?

> He could have saved her life! But... love is foolish attachment: " is

> she really there? " ... " I just want to have a glance! " ... human love

> cannot follow such divine conditions!

>

> >>>Love is not " foolish attachment. " Attachment is foolish.

>

> You wanted one example where love leads to suffering, and this was one

> example. But there is much more in that story.

>

> >>>Foolish attachment leads to suffering.

>

> Those who are able to transcend the tragic circle of love and

> suffering are reaching the next step: compassion.

>

> >>>Love does not lead to suffering. Love moves one to show compassion

> for the suffering of others.

>

> This is also contained in the story, you are mentioning it in your

> reply. But compassion is not love. True compassion is not attachment.

> It is said, that Buddha is waiting at the gates of heaven until

> everybody is ready to enter. Why does he wait? He just could go in!

> Well... it is only a paradigm, but here is why: it is =not= because

> he loves us. This would mean that he is unable to enter because he is

> still attached. His motivation is pure compassion. He sees us all as

> one.

>

> >>>I'm not attached to Buddha's opinions.

>

> In monotheistic religions we are presented a God and his

> representatives who " love " us - like a father loves his children.

> This is nice, but it also makes us appear small, it creates dependence

> and guilt. And through that door come all those crimes that have been

> committed in the name of " love " . Those millions of men and women that

> have been burned alive because they did not want to be small and

> dependent. Burned in the fire of Gods " purifying love " !

>

> >>>It seems ridiculous to me too.

>

> Well, I am deviating from the main point... but maybe my ranting is of

> interest to some. Everybody feel free to use words like " love " and

> " compassion " as he likes! I just hope I could convey something which

> is behind those words and well worth looking at.

>

> >>>Interesting but I'm not convinced that your 'question' is resolved

> yet.

>

> Silver

>

February 17, 2007

Hi Silver,

didn't you ask me to give an example where love leads to suffering?

Thats what I did! What do you want now?

Stefan

****************

Yes, I asked you to provide an example of where love leads

to suffering. You tried, and I told you I think the story of

Orpheus and Euridyce is a bad example. I want you to try giving

a better example.

Orpheus' love for his wife led him to the Underworld to seek the

deities'compassion on her. She dies while fleeing from the advances

of Aristeus. While she gets away from him she steps on a snake in

the process and it bites her and she dies an untimely death.

That's tragic. She's young, beautiful, in the prime of her life, a

happy newlywed, and instead of getting a fair chance to live a fun

and happy life of love with her partner, who is also in the prime

of his life, she is separated from him and taken away to the

Underworld way too early and most unfairly.

It is this injustice that leads to the suffering of the young couple.

And that's what's so sad and tragic about the story. It wasn't fair

to Euridyce or to Orpheus that she had to die young. Orpheus feels

terrible. He says to the deities in the Underworld, " Love had led me

here, Love, a god all powerful with us who dwell on the earth, and,

if old traditions say true, not less so here. "

Orpheus' sad plea to the deities moves even the Furies to tears such

that he is granted his desire on the one condition that he not look

back on her until they surface upon the Earth. Euridyce follows him

and they almost make it. But, being human, Orpheus' memory has faded

on the long journey back to Earth and he forgets the condition placed

upon him. He turns around and checks to see if Euridyce is still

behind him. She was, and the rest is history. She's history. Lol.

Orpheus is heartbroken and probably very disappointed in himself,

too. I would be! But he doesn't give up. His love for his wife is

too great. He returns to the deities and begs them for a second

chance. They deny him and he ends up roaming around in the

Underworld for a while, and gets himself killed by the Thracian

women, who's temptations Orpheus brushes off, enraging them. They

tear him to pieces.

Orpheus' love of his wife is absolutely heroic. He is rewarded by

the gods in the end when he is happily reunited with her. He has been

punished enough for his lack of attention to the condition he was

earlier given by the deities when they granted him his wish. You'd

think he'd have tried harder than he did to remember the Gods'

stipulations. Sheesh! Instead, he didn't fear them enough. Such an

affront to the powers that be! He deserves to be punished! Stupid

mortal! Forgetful moron!

To love is to be human. To be human is to love. All life suffers

injustices. But love transcends it all, and in the end, we all die

anyway. Love makes life worth living. Our attachments to Earthly

bodies also leads us to suffering, but - alas! - such is life. Such

is Enlightenment when we accept it and surrender to it and understand

it.

Silver

February 17, 2007

This is also a nice interpretation, Silver. There is so much in those

stories.

You say, love can transcend it all. Yes, when the transformation is

allowed. Then love ceases to be an attachment. But then it is another

love. Language has distorted this since 2000 years. Here in Greece we

still have three different words for love.

They have told us the earthly love is bad and the godly love is good.

They have burned people alive and have called those flames " Gods love " .

Greetings

Stefan

Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069 wrote:

>

> Hi Silver,

>

> didn't you ask me to give an example where love leads to suffering?

> Thats what I did! What do you want now?

>

> Stefan

> ****************

> Yes, I asked you to provide an example of where love leads

> to suffering. You tried, and I told you I think the story of

> Orpheus and Euridyce is a bad example. I want you to try giving

> a better example.

>

> Orpheus' love for his wife led him to the Underworld to seek the

> deities'compassion on her. She dies while fleeing from the advances

> of Aristeus. While she gets away from him she steps on a snake in

> the process and it bites her and she dies an untimely death.

>

> That's tragic. She's young, beautiful, in the prime of her life, a

> happy newlywed, and instead of getting a fair chance to live a fun

> and happy life of love with her partner, who is also in the prime

> of his life, she is separated from him and taken away to the

> Underworld way too early and most unfairly.

>

> It is this injustice that leads to the suffering of the young couple.

> And that's what's so sad and tragic about the story. It wasn't fair

> to Euridyce or to Orpheus that she had to die young. Orpheus feels

> terrible. He says to the deities in the Underworld, " Love had led me

> here, Love, a god all powerful with us who dwell on the earth, and,

> if old traditions say true, not less so here. "

>

> Orpheus' sad plea to the deities moves even the Furies to tears such

> that he is granted his desire on the one condition that he not look

> back on her until they surface upon the Earth. Euridyce follows him

> and they almost make it. But, being human, Orpheus' memory has faded

> on the long journey back to Earth and he forgets the condition placed

> upon him. He turns around and checks to see if Euridyce is still

> behind him. She was, and the rest is history. She's history. Lol.

>

> Orpheus is heartbroken and probably very disappointed in himself,

> too. I would be! But he doesn't give up. His love for his wife is

> too great. He returns to the deities and begs them for a second

> chance. They deny him and he ends up roaming around in the

> Underworld for a while, and gets himself killed by the Thracian

> women, who's temptations Orpheus brushes off, enraging them. They

> tear him to pieces.

>

> Orpheus' love of his wife is absolutely heroic. He is rewarded by

> the gods in the end when he is happily reunited with her. He has been

> punished enough for his lack of attention to the condition he was

> earlier given by the deities when they granted him his wish. You'd

> think he'd have tried harder than he did to remember the Gods'

> stipulations. Sheesh! Instead, he didn't fear them enough. Such an

> affront to the powers that be! He deserves to be punished! Stupid

> mortal! Forgetful moron!

>

> To love is to be human. To be human is to love. All life suffers

> injustices. But love transcends it all, and in the end, we all die

> anyway. Love makes life worth living. Our attachments to Earthly

> bodies also leads us to suffering, but - alas! - such is life. Such

> is Enlightenment when we accept it and surrender to it and understand

> it.

>

> Silver

>

February 18, 2007

Showing love or compassion to someone who is suffering, if it is for

that person's highest good, and with that person's permission, does

not do harm. Wether this act is done out of love for that person or

out of attachment to him or her makes no difference to the person who

suffers, so long as his or her suffering is being lifted to some

degree. Do you think the person who suffers really gives a damn about

our endless philosophical debates which do nothing to alleviate his

or her suffering? Moreover, could we not do something dispassionately

to help another human being without love or attachment for him or her

because it is the right thing to do? Even Niz himself said somewhere

that right is alleviating suffering and wrong is what leads to it. If

what you say, i.e., love leads to suffering, is true, then loving

would be wrong if what Niz said were true. However, Niz never ever

hinted anywhere that there was something wrong with love. Certainly,

he never said it would lead to more suffering. Or did he?

Silver

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> This is also a nice interpretation, Silver. There is so much in

those

> stories.

>

> You say, love can transcend it all. Yes, when the transformation is

> allowed. Then love ceases to be an attachment. But then it is

another

> love. Language has distorted this since 2000 years. Here in Greece

we

> still have three different words for love.

>

> They have told us the earthly love is bad and the godly love is

good.

> They have burned people alive and have called those flames " Gods

love " .

>

> Greetings

> Stefan

>

> Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Silver,

> >

> > didn't you ask me to give an example where love leads to

suffering?

> > Thats what I did! What do you want now?

> >

> > Stefan

> > ****************

> > Yes, I asked you to provide an example of where love leads

> > to suffering. You tried, and I told you I think the story of

> > Orpheus and Euridyce is a bad example. I want you to try giving

> > a better example.

> >

> > Orpheus' love for his wife led him to the Underworld to seek the

> > deities'compassion on her. She dies while fleeing from the

advances

> > of Aristeus. While she gets away from him she steps on a snake in

> > the process and it bites her and she dies an untimely death.

> >

> > That's tragic. She's young, beautiful, in the prime of her life,

a

> > happy newlywed, and instead of getting a fair chance to live a

fun

> > and happy life of love with her partner, who is also in the prime

> > of his life, she is separated from him and taken away to the

> > Underworld way too early and most unfairly.

> >

> > It is this injustice that leads to the suffering of the young

couple.

> > And that's what's so sad and tragic about the story. It wasn't

fair

> > to Euridyce or to Orpheus that she had to die young. Orpheus

feels

> > terrible. He says to the deities in the Underworld, " Love had led

me

> > here, Love, a god all powerful with us who dwell on the earth,

and,

> > if old traditions say true, not less so here. "

> >

> > Orpheus' sad plea to the deities moves even the Furies to tears

such

> > that he is granted his desire on the one condition that he not

look

> > back on her until they surface upon the Earth. Euridyce follows

him

> > and they almost make it. But, being human, Orpheus' memory has

faded

> > on the long journey back to Earth and he forgets the condition

placed

> > upon him. He turns around and checks to see if Euridyce is still

> > behind him. She was, and the rest is history. She's history. Lol.

> >

> > Orpheus is heartbroken and probably very disappointed in himself,

> > too. I would be! But he doesn't give up. His love for his wife is

> > too great. He returns to the deities and begs them for a second

> > chance. They deny him and he ends up roaming around in the

> > Underworld for a while, and gets himself killed by the Thracian

> > women, who's temptations Orpheus brushes off, enraging them. They

> > tear him to pieces.

> >

> > Orpheus' love of his wife is absolutely heroic. He is rewarded by

> > the gods in the end when he is happily reunited with her. He has

been

> > punished enough for his lack of attention to the condition he was

> > earlier given by the deities when they granted him his wish.

You'd

> > think he'd have tried harder than he did to remember the Gods'

> > stipulations. Sheesh! Instead, he didn't fear them enough. Such

an

> > affront to the powers that be! He deserves to be punished! Stupid

> > mortal! Forgetful moron!

> >

> > To love is to be human. To be human is to love. All life suffers

> > injustices. But love transcends it all, and in the end, we all

die

> > anyway. Love makes life worth living. Our attachments to Earthly

> > bodies also leads us to suffering, but - alas! - such is life.

Such

> > is Enlightenment when we accept it and surrender to it and

understand

> > it.

> >

> > Silver

> >

>

February 18, 2007

Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069 wrote:

>Niz never ever hinted anywhere that there was something wrong with

>love. Certainly, he never said it would lead to more suffering. Or

did he?

When one talks about love one has to make clear what is meant. He

always made that very clear. Look at this, from " I am that " :

Q: You see love everywhere, while I see hatred and suffering. The

history of humanity is the history of murder, individual and

collective. No other living being so delights in killing.

M: If you go into the motives, you will find love, love of oneself and

of one's own. People fight for what they imagine they love.

Q: Surely their love must be real enough when they are ready to die

for it.

M: Love is boundless. What is limited to a few cannot be called love.

Do you see the difference? We are talking about ordinary love (to love

this or that). Next you claim that " love " is such a wonderful, high

and untouchable good, that it cannot lead to suffering, but now you

talk about another, higher state of love. This is confusion and it is

what most religions are doing all the time. But Nisargadatta is very,

very radical in his definition of " love " : " what is limited to a few

cannot be called love. " He also says: " Love is not selective, desire

is selective " . But the ordinary, worldly love =is= selective, it =is=

limited, including the examples that we have discussed. The ordinary

love is desire, and desire leads to suffering. To say it is not so,

because love is =not= ordinary is confusion!

He has said:

Q: What can make me love?

M: You are love itself -- when you are not afraid.

Wow! When we are not afraid!!!!!!

Have a nice carnival day!

And a few more quotes, more gems...

Q: Is love a state of mind?

M: Again, it depends what you mean by love. Desire is, of course, a

state of mind. But the realisation of unity is beyond mind. To me,

nothing exists by itself. All is the Self, all is myself. To see

myself in everybody and everybody in myself most certainly is love.

M: Do not pretend that you love others as yourself. Unless you have

realised them as one with yourself, you cannot love them. Don't

pretend to be what you are not, don't refuse to be what you are. Your

love of others is the result of self-knowledge, not its cause. Without

self-realisation, no virtue is genuine. When you know beyond all

doubting that the same life flows through all that is and you are that

life, you will love all naturally and spontaneously. When you realise

the depth and fullness of your love of yourself, you know that every

living being and the entire universe are included in your affection.

But when you look at anything as separate from you, you cannot love it

for you are afraid of it. Alienation causes fear and fear deepens

alienation. It is a vicious circle. Only self-realisation can break

it. Go for it resolutely.

M: In your search for love what exactly are you searching for?

Q: Simply this: to love and to be loved.

M: You mean a woman?

Q: Not necessarily. A friend, a teacher, a guide -- as long as the

feeling is bright and clear. Of course, a woman is the usual answer.

But it need not be the only one.

M: Of the two what would you prefer, to love or to be loved?

Q: I would rather have both! But I can see that to love is greater,

nobler, deeper. To be loved is sweet, but it does not make one grow.

M: Can you love on your own, or must you be made to love?

Q: One must meet somebody lovable, of course. My mother was not only

not loving, she was also not lovable.

M: What makes a person lovable? Is it not the being loved? First you

love and then you look for reasons.

Q: It can be the other way round. You love what makes you happy.

M: But what makes you happy?

Q: There is no rule about it. The entire subject is highly individual

and unpredictable.

M: Right. Whichever way you put it, unless you love there is no

happiness. But, does love make you always happy? Is not the

association of love with happiness a rather early, infantile stage?

When the beloved suffers, don't you suffer too? And do you cease to

love, because you suffer? Must love and happiness come and go

together? Is love merely the expectation of pleasure?

Q: Of course not. There can be much suffering in love.

M: Then what is love? Is it not a state of being rather than a state

of mind? Must you know that you love in order to love? Did you. not

love your mother unknowingly? Your craving for her love, for an

opportunity to love her, is it not the movement of love? Is not love

as much a part of you, as consciousness of being? You sought the love

of your mother, because you loved her.

Q: But she would not let me!

M: She could not stop you.

Q: Then, why was I unhappy all my life?

M: Because you did not go down to the very roots of your being. It is

your complete ignorance of yourself, that covered up your love and

happiness and made you seek for what you had never lost. Love is will,

the will to share your happiness with all. Being happy -- making happy

-- this is the rhythm of love.

>

> Silver

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> >

> > This is also a nice interpretation, Silver. There is so much in

> those

> > stories.

> >

> > You say, love can transcend it all. Yes, when the transformation is

> > allowed. Then love ceases to be an attachment. But then it is

> another

> > love. Language has distorted this since 2000 years. Here in Greece

> we

> > still have three different words for love.

> >

> > They have told us the earthly love is bad and the godly love is

> good.

> > They have burned people alive and have called those flames " Gods

> love " .

> >

> > Greetings

> > Stefan

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Silver " <silver-1069@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Silver,

> > >

> > > didn't you ask me to give an example where love leads to

> suffering?

> > > Thats what I did! What do you want now?

> > >

> > > Stefan

> > > ****************

> > > Yes, I asked you to provide an example of where love leads

> > > to suffering. You tried, and I told you I think the story of

> > > Orpheus and Euridyce is a bad example. I want you to try giving

> > > a better example.

> > >

> > > Orpheus' love for his wife led him to the Underworld to seek the

> > > deities'compassion on her. She dies while fleeing from the

> advances

> > > of Aristeus. While she gets away from him she steps on a snake in

> > > the process and it bites her and she dies an untimely death.

> > >

> > > That's tragic. She's young, beautiful, in the prime of her life,

> a

> > > happy newlywed, and instead of getting a fair chance to live a

> fun

> > > and happy life of love with her partner, who is also in the prime

> > > of his life, she is separated from him and taken away to the

> > > Underworld way too early and most unfairly.

> > >

> > > It is this injustice that leads to the suffering of the young

> couple.

> > > And that's what's so sad and tragic about the story. It wasn't

> fair

> > > to Euridyce or to Orpheus that she had to die young. Orpheus

> feels

> > > terrible. He says to the deities in the Underworld, " Love had led

> me

> > > here, Love, a god all powerful with us who dwell on the earth,

> and,

> > > if old traditions say true, not less so here. "

> > >

> > > Orpheus' sad plea to the deities moves even the Furies to tears

> such

> > > that he is granted his desire on the one condition that he not

> look

> > > back on her until they surface upon the Earth. Euridyce follows

> him

> > > and they almost make it. But, being human, Orpheus' memory has

> faded

> > > on the long journey back to Earth and he forgets the condition

> placed

> > > upon him. He turns around and checks to see if Euridyce is still

> > > behind him. She was, and the rest is history. She's history. Lol.

> > >

> > > Orpheus is heartbroken and probably very disappointed in himself,

> > > too. I would be! But he doesn't give up. His love for his wife is

> > > too great. He returns to the deities and begs them for a second

> > > chance. They deny him and he ends up roaming around in the

> > > Underworld for a while, and gets himself killed by the Thracian

> > > women, who's temptations Orpheus brushes off, enraging them. They

> > > tear him to pieces.

> > >

> > > Orpheus' love of his wife is absolutely heroic. He is rewarded by

> > > the gods in the end when he is happily reunited with her. He has

> been

> > > punished enough for his lack of attention to the condition he was

> > > earlier given by the deities when they granted him his wish.

> You'd

> > > think he'd have tried harder than he did to remember the Gods'

> > > stipulations. Sheesh! Instead, he didn't fear them enough. Such

> an

> > > affront to the powers that be! He deserves to be punished! Stupid

> > > mortal! Forgetful moron!

> > >

> > > To love is to be human. To be human is to love. All life suffers

> > > injustices. But love transcends it all, and in the end, we all

> die

> > > anyway. Love makes life worth living. Our attachments to Earthly

> > > bodies also leads us to suffering, but - alas! - such is life.

> Such

> > > is Enlightenment when we accept it and surrender to it and

> understand

> > > it.

> > >

> > > Silver

> > >

> >

>

February 18, 2007