Love is who we are and what we desire to do<deleted>

Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture



Average: 3.6 (5 votes)

Sorry this has been deleted



Omkaradatta's picture

My interpretation

The following is only my interpretation, Michael-ji...

"However,
does this mean that there is no divine purpose? No need?"

There is a divine purpose, but each moment individually is the fulfillment of that purpose. Life is already whole, complete... we need not seek out anything. We can just let life happen as it does, because each moment of it is sacred in and of itself. Little things... the coolness of a shirt on your back, the feel of the covers against your feet when you climb into bed, the sound of water through pipes in the house. These things have a sacred meaning, when we aren't looking to get somewhere other than where we are.

> Love desires to love more and experience love.

Love wants to *give*. It wants not to get more (of anything), but to put the other higher than oneself. Ultimately, it sees the other *as* oneself.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 19:52
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

sorry i didnt explain that well,

It hard to explain an experience that has been so foreign to me for so long lol

"Love wants to *give*. It wants not to get more (of anything), but to put the other higher than oneself. Ultimately, it sees the other *as* oneself."

I am not speaking in measure of size but in expression and experience. Love does not seek to be anything other than what it is. Love desires to expression love and experience love. Thanks to the material world and the concept of separation(which exists but is temporal since it did not always it exist, actually does not exist lol) There are an infinite amount of ways to express love and an infinite modes to experience it in return. As shards of love, or in reality as Love we do not seek to become something else(we just need to realize that) How can we be higher or lower then ourselves? The varying amounts of experience does not qualify one person as being greater than another. How could it? It is the nature of love to desire the experience of loving and being loved. This is the importance of self realization, to recognize your self as love(spirit/god/whatever) is to realize your true desire. This is why feelings of hate and prejudice melt away. Such concepts serve a purpose, but some many get lost in them and forget their true purpose and nature.

Love and blessings

Michaelji Ramaprasad

Wú Míng(nameless) in truth

Michael ji Rama... | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 20:03
Omkaradatta's picture

The nature of love...

I'll step out on a limb and give my own definition of the nature of love.

The nature of dualistic love is "give and take" between "me and you". This is OK, but ever incomplete -- because mostly it turns out to be a sort of business arrangement. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". This is generally the way the ego sees things, and most relationships end up breaking up over it.

In nondualistic love (no me), one "becomes love". One need not receive love, because one is not there (as a separate self) to receive it. Rather, one gives of oneself, from an overflowing heart. The other is oneself.

People desire to be loved. It's all right, well and good. But eventually we realize that the other cannot complete us, we have to be complete inside ourselves first. This is maturity, the readiness to be independent and Self-contained.

Douglas Harding (headless.org) said something like: "Seek yourself first, and the other will be added on. Seek the other, and even that will be taken away".

Peace...

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 20:20
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

<3

The love I speak of has nothing to do with desiring to love and experience love of the sake of fulling some void. It is our nature. We love for the purpose of loving and we receive for the purpose of receiving it. True Love does not love so that it can receive love.. True love, loves because it does and can. True love experiences love only because it does and can. The purpose of "separation" was to allow this to occur.

""Seek yourself first, and the other will be added on. Seek the other, and even that will be taken away"."

I agree with this, this why self realization is so important. If we realize our true self, which is love we will automatically love others...why? because we can. The true self(love/spirit/presence) does not desire love because it lacks it, it does because it can, its in its nature.

"Love your neighbor as thyself"...this is impossible without loving thyself first. In loving thyself(which we can now experience due to our body and mind ie material world) we will come to the true self which is love, Unconditional love that will by it's nature lead to loving our neighbor.

Michaelji Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 20:25
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

Wars, racism, wide spread hate

All these extremes exist because we have forgotten who we really are. We are individual shards of Love. In reality we are one, we are all True Love.

Michaelji Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 20:27
Omkaradatta's picture

Well said..

> "Love your neighbor as thyself"...this is
> impossible without loving thyself first.

Well said -- I agree completely.

As far as desiring love, we can agree to disagree on that. To me, desiring love is attachment to the other. There's nothing at all wrong with it, but it is definitely attachment. That's perfectly OK of course, if it's there.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 20:28
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

love as an attachment

"To me, desiring love is attachment to the other. "

I also agree that it is..at least the common love we have experienced thus far. Love has become a form of possession. It has become conditional. This is the love you referred to as Dualistic love. This is not true love. True love is unconditional and requires no attachment to that which is being loved. There are two kinds of love, conditional love and unconditional love. Conditional love stems from the ego. "I love this because it loves me back" however this is the same as saying "if that which I loved does not love me back...I will no longer love it" This leads to someone choosing to love another more not because of loves sake but in fear of loosing that which is being loved. This is attachment. We cannot in reality be attached to True Love because that is our true self. Like you said how can that which belongs or is seen also be that which is seeing it? So conditional love can only lead to suffering because its base is attachment. Upon losing it one begins to suffer. It is no wonder that many choose to live a life of solitude. It is much easier to avoid conditional love so that they will not become attached to it than it is to transcend it.

Imagine how hard it must be to truly say and feel to a wife who has cheated on you and wants a divorce. "I love you always no matter the choice you take." but this is a higher form of love.

To be our true selves and act as such leads to no attachment because ignorance has been slain. I don't love my wife because she is my wife(the way express my love in a select way to her is because of my choosing) or because she loves me but because thats what I do...I love. In acting according to our true nature we will experience the fruits of joy, peace and bliss. Even then one who truly acts according to his true nature does not do so for the fruits..the fruits come automatically.

Michaelji Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 20:47
Phroggy's picture

~

Hi Michael
I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to go beyond, in one area. To say that there is no divine purpose means to say that there was no past intention and no future goal, which is invariably implied in the term 'purpose'.

When folks think of purpose, they imagine that prior to creation, God, whatever, decided to create in order to experience or accomplish something, and yet there is no thinking thing which can decide that lies outside of creation itself. This begs the question, 'Then how did creation begin?' The simplest answer I can give is that it did not begin.

Folks also think of purpose as having a future goal, and yet even as creation is happening now, it is not trying to get anywhere. It is simply moving and it is moving in circles as can be seen in the cycles of nature. Nature (creation, if you will) is not trying get anywhere and has no future goal or purpose. It is unfolding Now, in this immediacy that denies both beginnings and endings, and therefore purpose.

However, it is moving as You would have it move, from within the expression of your own dream, seeking the depths of Your own mystery, and this is the miracle.

Phroggy | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:29
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

i understand

Love's purpose(its hard to describe the formless and experience as such) was never in reality a decision or a start. Time is an illusion that we can use here but really does not exist. The true self(god or Love) exists in an eternal now. as such there was never a creation. this may seem like a contradiction but it is not. There is a creating. There is not begin..but a beginning. Love's nature is purpose, it does not have a purpose it is the "purpose".

How can oneness create something else..unless that something else is an illusion(which cannot be created because it does not exist). This is the dream.

Intention is will driven idea. Love has no intention. It just exists. we could say to better understand it this way.
Many are familiar with the trinity. We could say that Love and its nature are not separate. Love consists of the nature of desiring love experienced and love expressed. These should not be seen as separate things, or as things that that lead out from each other or things that were created. They are one in the same. Love's nature is Love.
Michaelji Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:53
Lee's picture

love is

when you recognize yourself in another. same self. one self. there's only one of us.

Lee | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:53
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

yes

In order to even state "when you recognize yourself in another. same self. one self. there's only one of us."
you view the necessity of seperation(the illusion). It serves a purpose.

Attaching to the illusion of separation leads one to forget it's true nature. The realization of the true self leads to understanding our divine nature/purpose/ and leads to utilize this illusion. Living in the world but not being of the world.

Michaelji Ramaprasad

Wú Míng(nameless) in truth

Michael ji Rama... | Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:57
Phroggy's picture

~

Yup. If we're careful about what we mean by purpose, we could say that the purpose is simply for Self to experience, and ultimately realize, Self, which cannot...not happen.

Phroggy | Thu, 01/29/2009 - 01:34
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

Yep

sadly words are very limited in explaining such a simple yet complex subject. Or maybe just my vocabulary is limited lol

Michaelji Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Thu, 01/29/2009 - 05:44
Phroggy's picture

Thanks

I'd like to devote one of my allotted post this hour (hehe) to thanking you for an insighful, personally sensitive and mutually respectful discussion. I personally find such discusions profitable though I acknowledge and accept that others do not.

Phroggy | Thu, 01/29/2009 - 08:24
Omkaradatta's picture

A strange question

> Living in the world but not being of the world.

This may appear as a strange question, but Nisargadatta used to ask it all the time (from here, justifiably): Which world are you fellows talking about?

The world of light & pixels in front of ya? A vague mental picture that comes to mind of a globe, maybe? The world of memory, in general?

"What is the world?" is one of those "oh, everybody just KNOWS what that is!" type questions, which (from here) signifies immediately that falsehood is involved.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 01/30/2009 - 05:05
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

lol

the world i am referring to is the world of conditional love, lust, envy, suffering, material attachment. The illusionary world that our bodies and cars, and families exist in. But yeah. I am not trying prove what I am saying. I would even say "please do not attach your self to it..because one day it may be here...and next notlol" like this blog. The temporal existance. The changeble things. As I learn or"unlearn" one will notice that "knoweldge" is even is even temporal, since it is ever changing..at least in my case.

Love and blessings

Michaelji Mahatma Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Fri, 01/30/2009 - 05:32
avi's picture

Why did you delete it?

I see a discussion based on some post and I see a post that was deleted. I don't understand.

avi | Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:52
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

I understand

I may repost in the future. Sorry

Michaelji Mahatma Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Fri, 01/30/2009 - 18:48
Omkaradatta's picture

You can really delete it...

Go to the "Edit" tab on this posting, then click "Delete". This will delete the whole blogging, comments and all. At least I think this works with comments in the blog.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 01/30/2009 - 20:51
Phroggy's picture

~

I don't think so. I think you can only delete until somebody responds to it, then your only option is to edit. I could be mistaken, but I'm purdy sure.

I'm also pretty sure the edit function is there to correct and add to blogs, not to delete em. Hehe.

Phroggy | Sat, 01/31/2009 - 05:32
Michael ji Ramaprasad's picture

lol

What purpose does it have but that which I give it? lol

Michaelji Mahatma Ramaprasad

Michael ji Rama... | Sat, 01/31/2009 - 08:03
Omkaradatta's picture

Nope...

If you go to 'edit', there's a delete option available, where you can delete the entire blog (as long as you're the author). I've done it more than once.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Sat, 01/31/2009 - 16:27
Phroggy's picture

~

There is no delete option for my blogs, even one that has not been responded to. Maybe there's a time limit?

Phroggy | Sat, 01/31/2009 - 23:05