What is love

[maestro]

What actually is love. A word should point to some shared experience. I think it is a vague concept used by everybody from the media to politicians to spiritual hucksters, and is devoid of content. Love has vague good feelings associated with it and everybody uses it without even considering to think what it means.

My definition would be that to love something is to consider it as a part of oneself. For example I love my new car, or I love my children or nation. That is same as attachment. In that case how come spiritual teachings keep harping on love, while denigrating attachment?

[Cory Duchesne]

My definition would be that to love something is to consider it as a part of oneself. For example I love my new car, or I love my children or nation.

The excrement of microorganisms is clearly part of every human being, yet most people would feel a pang of disgust or shrug in indifference if you explained how the humus that constitutes healthy soil (and hence constitutes healthy forests, gardens and oxygen) is ultimately created by billions of organisms excreting their feces. Is the feces of billions of organisms something that people generally love?

I don't think so.

Things such as a new car, a spouse, a pet, children or a nation are 'lovable' things because they stimulate the sensation of pleasure or comfort. The greater the pleasure a thing brings, the greater the love toward that thing.

how come spiritual teachings keep harping on love, while denigrating attachment?

I think that in some cases, it's a way of gaining control. The guru/messiah will typically encourage the conscious abandonment of worldly attachments in order to foster the unconscious establishment of spiritual attachment. Spiritual attachment meaning: attachment/submission to the guru. The guru denigrates attachment to encourage the follower to let go of his old 'worldly' life, and he preaches love to encourage the follower to form a new life, one which is prioritized around giving the guru a sense of importance.

[BMcGilly07]

What actually is love. A word should point to some shared experience. I think it is a vague concept used by everybody from the media to politicians to spiritual hucksters, and is devoid of content. Love has vague good feelings associated with it and everybody uses it without even considering to think what it means.

My definition would be that to love something is to consider it as a part of oneself. For example I love my new car, or I love my children or nation. That is same as attachment. In that case how come spiritual teachings keep harping on love, while denigrating attachment?

Love, it seems to me, is the reaction engendered by the ego when it is mutually supported and confirmed by an attachment. Love and hate are different sides to the same yardstick, by which we may measure our attachment to any given thing.

So your definition is pretty close, insofar as you identify yourself with your ego, and not something greater.

[BMcGilly07]

The excrement of microorganisms is clearly part of every human being, yet most people would feel a pang of disgust or shrug in indifference if you explained how the humus that constitutes healthy soil (and hence constitutes healthy forests, gardens and oxygen) is ultimately created by billions of organisms excreting their feces. Is the feces of billions of organisms something that people generally love?

I don't think so.

See: alcohol, the exhalation of O2 by trees, also, pig farmer.

It depends on what engenders happy-happy-joy feelings in the ego.

[Cory Duchesne]

The excrement of microorganisms is clearly part of every human being, yet most people would feel a pang of disgust or shrug in indifference if you explained how the humus that constitutes healthy soil (and hence constitutes healthy forests, gardens and oxygen) is ultimately created by billions of organisms excreting their feces. Is the feces of billions of organisms something that people generally love?

I don't think so.

See: alcohol, the exhalation of O2 by trees, also, pig farmer.

It depends on what engenders happy-happy-joy feelings in the ego.

Good point. To put in in other words; love is established when the ego has reasons to attribute special significance to a thing or person. The ego does this because it believes that this special thing or person is the cause of enjoyment.

But really, it's not so much the thing or the special person that the ego loves. What the ego actually loves is enjoyment itself.

[maestro]

Does enjoyment require an enjoyer. Thus a sage without a false ego can he also enjoy and thus love.

[samadhi]

maestro,

What actually is love. A word should point to some shared experience. I think it is a vague concept used by everybody from the media to politicians to spiritual hucksters, and is devoid of content. Love has vague good feelings associated with it and everybody uses it without even considering to think what it means.

Love as a shared experience is about attraction and fulfilling needs. The attraction may be physical, mental, emotional or any combination of the three, the more they are combined, the stronger the love can feel. The more one's needs are met, in terms of being valued, appreciated and supported, the greater the sense of fulfillment and a strengthening of committment.

As a shared experience however, those things occur on the level of ego and ego can have a lot of nasty side effects. For instance, attraction usually morphs into attachment, that is the feeling of wanting to possess that which attracts you. Possessiveness invariably leads to controlling behavior such as jealousy, criticism, judgment, blame, manipulation, anger, and eventually violence. Then we don't call it love anymore, when it reaches those stages it's just a power struggle.

The love discussed in spirituality is not about attraction on the egoic level or fulfilling personal needs. It really is about knowing what you are. As egos, we always feel incomplete, a sense of lack, of never enoughness. That's why when we meet someone who initially appears to fulfill that incompleteness, we feel such a sense of exuberance. It feels liberating. People seek that feeling instinctively and the pursuit of love becomes an obsession. Of course, a person is not meant to fulfill that existential incompleteness but we nevertheless keep hoping that they will. So when we meet someone, it feels wonderful for a time but eventually fades and leaves us wanting more. If there is a lack of maturity, the person is blamed in some way for not doing what they are supposed to do, fulfilling you, and either a power struggle or a new search ensues. A mature person realizes that while the other can never be fufilling in any complete sense, what is shared can provide stability, meet certain needs and offer a sense of connectedness which is what we understand as mature love.

In spirituality, love is actually your true nature. It's not something you get but something you are. It gets lost however when we choose to identify ourselves with the body/mind persona. When one is able to finally realize that inner being, love no longer becomes a pursuit but a gift that one gives in abundance. On the human level when people touch that place in themselves, there is never any question of bargaining or reciprocity because one's nature does not require anything in return since you are already that which everyone is seeking. It also transcends personality since an appreciation of personal qualities is not what is being solicited or sought for. This is not a renunciation of personal relationships but simply means that the basis of love is no longer personal. There can still be personal qualities which are more in alignment and thus compatible with a more intense connection but the underlying love is the same for everyone.

My definition would be that to love something is to consider it as a part of oneself. For example I love my new car, or I love my children or nation. That is same as attachment. In that case how come spiritual teachings keep harping on love, while denigrating attachment?

Equating love with attachment is what people do because that's what they understand. Spirituality doesn't necessarily denigrate attachment but simply points to its consequences. If you like the consequences, then attachment is just fine and you can attach all you want to what you think makes you happy. But if you notice the suffering that comes along with attachment, at some point you may want to start looking for another way to relate to people and things.

Spiritual teachings talk about the love that you are because that's what there is to discover. What are you? People identify with the body/mind but is that all there is? For many people the answer is yes. That's fine. Spirituality is not about dictating anything to anyone. It is about discovery. If you have what you want there is no reason to go looking for something else. It is when you don't have what you want that the search for what you are becomes important.



Cory,

Things such as a new car, a spouse, a pet, children or a nation are 'lovable' things because they stimulate the sensation of pleasure or comfort. The greater the pleasure a thing brings, the greater the love toward that thing.

I'm sure people do equate greater pleasure with more love but really, all that's being enhanced is the sense of attachment. You know this because when the pleasure stops or is cut off, love will turn into something else, boredom, indifference, hatred, anger. Trying to possess what you "love" is always about attachment.

I think that in some cases, it's a way of gaining control. The guru/messiah will typically encourage the conscious abandonment of worldly attachments in order to foster the unconscious establishment of spiritual attachment. Spiritual attachment meaning: attachment/submission to the guru.

The easiest way to tell whether someone has your best interest at heart or whether they simply want to manipulate you to their own ends is to look and see if they are asking you to substitute their judgment for yours. No true teacher will ask you to give up your independence. They can assist, they can offer help, they can share their experience but in the end it is not their experience that matters, it is your experience. Anyone asking for your submission is more interested in their own experience, not yours.

The guru denigrates attachment to encourage the follower to let go of his old 'worldly' life, and he preaches love to encourage the follower to form a new life, one which is prioritized around giving the guru a sense of importance.

Yes, people do this. You have to have some sense of self to take the spiritual journey. Otherwise you wait for someone to tell you what to do, to tell you who you are, to do it for you so you won't have to do it for yourself. The first step in many ways is the hardest, realizing no one is going to do it for you. When you do finally take that step, you're already halfway home.

[Cory Duchesne]

Maestro's question about why spiritual teachings keep harping on love, while denigrating attachment is a good one, and worth exploring further I think.

Attachment is denigrated by spiritual teachings because spiritual teachings denigrate hatred. To be against one is to be against the other. As Brian pointed out, attachment is a condition where you hate the conditions that oppose the conditions you love.

An interesting question to explore might be; why do spiritual teachers have a problem with hatred?

Such a qualm appears to be the consequence of valuing rationality and truth. After all, to be consumed by hatred is an irrational, frightened reaction.

That being said, if hatred is the problem, why posit love as the solution? This is a fruitless question unless one is open to the possibility of two types of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

Unconditional love, a state where one is not comforted and pleased by a particular manifestation (and thus is freed from the grip of hatred) is, hypothetically speaking, a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of hatred/conditional love.

[maestro]

What are you? People identify with the body/mind but is that all there is?

Currently it is very clear to me the I is just a concept by the mind, because the body/mind is just an entity in flux in the stream of reality. I hope you are not proposing that there is an I separate from the mind/body.

BTW nice answers, but it seemed to have been inspired by Tolle's book and the chapter on relationships.

[Cory Duchesne]

Does enjoyment require an enjoyer?

If by enjoyment we mean 'a pleasant feeling' (what else could we possibly mean) I think there logically needs to be an enjoyer, but it's perhaps possible for the enjoyer to not be attached to such sensations.

Thus a sage without a false ego, can he also enjoy and thus love?

To my mind, one needs to enjoy in order to establish conditional love, but one doesn't need to establish conditional love in order to enjoy. I would say that conditional love involves attachment and thus hatred.

In other words, pleasant feelings can possibly arise and fall away without any conflict. There can perhaps be enjoyment without hatred, but it would seem one must be extremely attentive to not allow attachment (conditional love) to establish itself.


Edited: grammar

[samadhi]

Cory,

Attachment is denigrated by spiritual teachings because spiritual teachings denigrate hatred. To be against one is to be against the other. As Brian pointed out, attachment is a condition where you hate the conditions that oppose the conditions you love.

Spirituality is not about denigrating anything. Institutionalized spirituality, which is just religiosity, denigrates plenty. Religiosity loves rules and making a rule about attachment seems ideal for its purposes, which are pretending to know and thus appearing as an authority and telling you what to do and thus controlling. Attachment lends itself to rules because its drawbacks can be seen and thus people can be convinced of its (the rule's) purpose. After a couple millennia of following rules however, it's obvious that their stated purpose simply fails while the hidden purpose of supporting authority and enhancing control is strengthened.

An interesting question to explore might be; why do spiritual teachers have a problem with hatred?

Spiritual teachers don't. Religious teachers do because again, they want to be an authority and control your behavior. Hatred also has consequences which most people want to avoid so as a social ideal, trying to limit its effect can be of use.

Such a qualm appears to be the consequence of valuing rationality and truth. After all, to be consumed by hatred is an irrational, frightened reaction.

Hatred's effects are obvious. Hating hatred however remains problematic.

That being said, if hatred is the problem, why posit love as the solution? This is a fruitless question unless one is open to the possibility of two types of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

It's kind of foolish to suppose love is a "solution" to hatred. They exist on a spectrum so you can't really have one without the other. Love is often turning into hatred, have you noticed?

Unconditional love, a state where one is not comforted and pleased by a particular manifestation (and thus is freed from the grip of hatred) is, hypothetically speaking, a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of hatred/conditional love.

Unconditonal love isn't really what humans want. No one wants to love someone who is manipulating, injuring or controlling them and for humans, that's probably a good idea. Unconditional love isn't on an egoic level, it is on the level of being. In that place, everyone may be loved but it doesn't mean anything goes. You can still value someone for who they are while standing firmly against behavior that harms others.

An answer to hatred that humans might understand is acceptance. Acceptance is allowing of the other's experience while not necessarily condoning or supporting the other's behavior. When you don't invalidate another's experience, they are more willing to interact on some acceptable level where behavior may be modified. But rejecting the experience comes across as a personal condemnation which can inevitably leads to conflict.

[samadhi]

maestro,

Does enjoyment require an enjoyer.

It doesn't seem to, does it?

Thus a sage without a false ego can he also enjoy and thus love.

Why not?

sam: What are you? People identify with the body/mind but is that all there is?

maestro: Currently it is very clear to me the I is just a concept by the mind, because the body/mind is just an entity in flux in the stream of reality. I hope you are not proposing that there is an I separate from the mind/body.

The question, "who are you?" is not meant to solicit an answer. It is meant to draw the mind away from the identifications with the body/mind it habitually makes. Before proposing what the "I" is, find out what it isn't.

BTW nice answers, but it seemed to have been inspired by Tolle's book and the chapter on relationships.

Yeah, that chapter in Tolle's book, Power of Now, is first rate. It definitely opened my eyes.

[brokenhead]

It's kind of foolish to suppose love is a "solution" to hatred. They exist on a spectrum so you can't really have one without the other. Love is often turning into hatred, have you noticed?

I have found it useful to be unambiguous about this point. Love and hate do not in fact exist on any kind of spectrum on continuum. I believe hatred and attachment do. Attachment is often confused with love, but they can grow quite separately and distinctly. In fact, that is a good indication: if your "love" has turned into hatred to any extent, you can be sure that to that same extent, it was not love but attachment to begin with. Once this is understood, the vagaries of human behavior become less baffling and trying. I'm not convinced love has an opposite, but if it does, then it may be fear. This distinction I'm making wasn't all that clear to me many years ago, and to be honest, it is still one that at times is difficult to maintain. But as soon as I do recover the balance that it affords me, I relearn its truth. What confuses things is that it is quite possible to love something to which you have become attached. This is normal. But higher love can survive separation, even permanent separation. Attachment simply can't. It turns into resentment if the separation is caused by outside factors, and into hatred if the separation is caused by another person, specifically the one to whom you have become attached. This is when you discover that true love comes through you, not from you, as I have said here many times.

[samadhi]

broken,

sam: It's kind of foolish to suppose love is a "solution" to hatred. They exist on a spectrum so you can't really have one without the other. Love is often turning into hatred, have you noticed?

broken: I have found it useful to be unambiguous about this point. Love and hate do not in fact exist on any kind of spectrum on continuum. I believe hatred and attachment do. Attachment is often confused with love, but they can grow quite separately and distinctly. In fact, that is a good indication: if your "love" has turned into hatred to any extent, you can be sure that to that same extent, it was not love but attachment to begin with.

I was referring to what people in general experience as love. I did mention what spirituality talks about and if that's what you're referring to, then I agree, it is not on a spectrum and has no opposite. But it's also practically non-existent in society.

[brokenhead]

I was referring to what people in general experience as love. I did mention what spirituality talks about and if that's what you're referring to, then I agree, it is not on a spectrum and has no opposite. But it's also practically non-existent in society.

I know exactly what you mean by this. This might be the thing I wrestle with most often, sam. It really does seem non-existent in society, once you step back and view society objectively. It doesn't appear as if the love with no opposite is at work. But it can be like those stereogram pictures. You look at what seems to be an abstract pattern, but if you stare at it long enough and relax your eyes, suddenly a 3-D image clicks into focus... And as long as you keep the image in front of your eyes, the 3-D picture remains. Look away for any length of time, then it's gone, and the entire re-acquisition process has to start all over.

Love is out there. You just have to pay enough attention, I think.

[samadhi]

I was referring to what people in general experience as love. I did mention what spirituality talks about and if that's what you're referring to, then I agree, it is not on a spectrum and has no opposite. But it's also practically non-existent in society.

I know exactly what you mean by this. This might be the thing I wrestle with most often, sam. It really does seem non-existent in society, once you step back and view society objectively. It doesn't appear as if the love with no opposite is at work. But it can be like those stereogram pictures. You look at what seems to be an abstract pattern, but if you stare at it long enough and relax your eyes, suddenly a 3-D image clicks into focus... And as long as you keep the image in front of your eyes, the 3-D picture remains. Look away for any length of time, then it's gone, and the entire re-acquisition process has to start all over.

Well, I think the love people do experience is whatever is able to surface from one's being. Most of it is covered up or clouded over by the image we drag around and always need to support. Love often is offered only so long as the other is able to support that image. But the less one is invested in the image, the more love one is able to give because there are less constraints. And the more you love someone, the less importance you will place in the ego. Far from being a divisive element QRS likes to portray it as, it really can be one of the greatest tools for dismantling the ego.

Love is out there. You just have to pay enough attention, I think.

I'm sure it is but with egos it is always problematic.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Attachment is denigrated by spiritual teachings because spiritual teachings denigrate hatred. To be against one is to be against the other. As Brian pointed out, attachment is a condition where you hate the conditions that oppose the conditions you love.

Spirituality is not about denigrating anything.

Really? That seems to contradict what you say later:

Unconditional love isn't on an egoic level, it is on the level of being. In that place, everyone may be loved but it doesn't mean anything goes. You can still value someone for who they are while standing firmly against behavior that harms others.

What's the difference between denigrating something or someone and 'standing firmly against' something or someone?

An interesting question to explore might be; why do spiritual teachers have a problem with hatred?

Spiritual teachers don't.

Keep in mind, you are all in favor of 'standing firmly against' certain behaviors - which would imply you have a problem with certain behaviors.

Hatred also has consequences which most people want to avoid so as a social ideal, trying to limit its effect can be of use.

So why is unconditional love important, Sam?

Such a qualm appears to be the consequence of valuing rationality and truth. After all, to be consumed by hatred is an irrational, frightened reaction.

Hatred's effects are obvious. Hating hatred however remains problematic.

I agree with this.

That being said, if hatred is the problem, why posit love as the solution? This is a fruitless question unless one is open to the possibility of two types of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

It's kind of foolish to suppose love is a "solution" to hatred. They exist on a spectrum so you can't really have one without the other. Love is often turning into hatred, have you noticed?

I thought I made that clear in my previous post when I distinguished conditional love from unconditional love.

Unconditonal love isn't really what humans want. No one wants to love someone who is manipulating, injuring or controlling them

In my view, humans need to work past their tendency to want revenge. As Jesus said: "Blessed is he who is not offended"

Unconditional love isn't on an egoic level, it is on the level of being.

The level of being? Sounds kind of mystical. Can you elaborate a bit?

An answer to hatred that humans might understand is acceptance.

There's a fine line between acceptance and docile passivity. Suppressing segments of reality because they are depressing or frightening would be non-acceptance, and in that regard, I'm all in favor of acceptance. However, mindlessly and passively flowing from one experience to the next without applying any discrimination is not wise.

Acceptance is allowing of the other's experience while not necessarily condoning or supporting the other's behavior.

I think it's necessary to make a distinction between acceptance and allowance. I'm not at all in favor of allowing a serial killers preferred experience to repeat continually. Force is necessary to detain him, put him behind bars, and study him scientifically (imo, debilitating psychological conditions are a goldmine for scientists).

When you don't invalidate another's experience, they are more willing to interact on some acceptable level where behavior may be modified. But rejecting the experience comes across as a personal condemnation which can inevitably leads to conflict.

I can sympathize with this. For instance, I don't believe serial killers should be killed, although I don't believe in allowing them much freedom either. This of course implies that I'm not granting allowance to the families of the victims who wish to experience revenge. I accept and understand very well why they want revenge, but in the same way I wouldn't allow a serial killer to run free, I also wouldn't allow those who have been hurt to fulfill their lust for vengeance.

[maestro]

That being said, if hatred is the problem, why posit love as the solution? This is a fruitless question unless one is open to the possibility of two types of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

Unconditional love, a state where one is not comforted and pleased by a particular manifestation (and thus is freed from the grip of hatred) is, hypothetically speaking, a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of hatred/conditional love.

By unconditional love you mean love for all things. Or you mean love for some things or persons regardless of how they behave (for example a mother's love for her child is sometimes called unconditional).

If you mean love for all things then is it really love, it is just acceptance of whatever.

[Cory Duchesne]

That being said, if hatred is the problem, why posit love as the solution? This is a fruitless question unless one is open to the possibility of two types of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

Unconditional love, a state where one is not comforted and pleased by a particular manifestation (and thus is freed from the grip of hatred) is, hypothetically speaking, a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of hatred/conditional love.

By unconditional love you mean love for all things. Or you mean love for some things or persons regardless of how they behave

I'm not sure why you would think the two should be exclusive of each other.

Of course, I think the crux of the problem is whether or not 'unconditional love' is a feeling toward all things.

If you mean love for all things then is it really love, or is it just acceptance of whatever.

By acceptance, I mean 'not feeling hatred, irritation, anger, etc' in reaction to a particular turn of events. This doesn't mean that one should aspire to be indifferent in regards to what happens. Discrimination is still important.

[maestro]

Then if you prefer one thing over other you do not love all things equally, so unconditional love implies loving some more than others.

[Cory Duchesne]

I missed something:

Hatred's effects are obvious. Hating hatred however remains problematic.

Ok Sam, so in that sentence you admit there is a problem.

But earlier you write:

why do spiritual teachers have a problem with hatred?

Spiritual teachers don't.

Isn't hating hatred just as 'problematic' as hatred?

[Cory Duchesne]

Then if you prefer one thing over other you do not love all things equally, so unconditional love implies loving some more than others.

It's like how a parent relates to it's child. Sure there are behaviors that the parent aspires to eliminate, but those behaviors are not separate from the child itself, the child being the object loved.

Likewise, the spiritual man relates to the totality in way where there are behaviors that the spiritual man aspires to overcome, but those behaviors are not separate from the totality itself, the totality being the object loved.

[samadhi]

Cory,

Cory: Attachment is denigrated by spiritual teachings because spiritual teachings denigrate hatred. To be against one is to be against the other. As Brian pointed out, attachment is a condition where you hate the conditions that oppose the conditions you love.

sam: Spirituality is not about denigrating anything.

Cory: Really? That seems to contradict what you say later: Unconditional love isn't on an egoic level, it is on the level of being. In that place, everyone may be loved but it doesn't mean anything goes. You can still value someone for who they are while standing firmly against behavior that harms others.

What's the difference between denigrating something or someone and 'standing firmly against' something or someone?

Denigration implies condemnation. Standing against harmful behavior is not about condemning anyone. It is about opposing harm to others. People who harm others do not deserve our condemnation but our support for changing their behavior. If they don't want to change their behavior, there is always prison, where they can be supported as well.

Cory: An interesting question to explore might be; why do spiritual teachers have a problem with hatred?

sam: Spiritual teachers don't.

Cory: Keep in mind, you are all in favor of 'standing firmly against' certain behaviors - which would imply you have a problem with certain behaviors.

Sure. No one supports harmful behavior. It doesn't mean if someone wants to hate, they can't hate. They will hate no matter what you say to them if that's what they want to do. That's their choice. Overcoming hatred isn't about saying, "don't hate anyone." First become conscious of your hatred. Without being conscious, your actions are outside of your control. When you become conscious, then you get a choice. Is hating someone what you really want do? Is it the best way to get what you want?

sam: Hatred also has consequences which most people want to avoid so as a social ideal, trying to limit its effect can be of use.

Cory: So why is unconditional love important, Sam?

Unconditional love is not about ego. It is not important to the ego.

Cory: Such a qualm appears to be the consequence of valuing rationality and truth. After all, to be consumed by hatred is an irrational, frightened reaction.

sam: Hatred's effects are obvious. Hating hatred however remains problematic.

Cory: Ok Sam, so in that sentence you admit there is a problem.

But earlier you write: Cory: why do spiritual teachers have a problem with hatred?

sam: Spiritual teachers don't.

Isn't hating hatred just as 'problematic' as hatred?

That was exactly my point. That's why spiritual teachers don't have a problem with hatred. Spiritual teaching is about helping people become more conscious, not about fixing any particular egoic behavior or getting rid of any emotion. When you become more conscious of your being, those things take care of themselves.

Cory: That being said, if hatred is the problem, why posit love as the solution? This is a fruitless question unless one is open to the possibility of two types of love: conditional love and unconditional love.

sam: It's kind of foolish to suppose love is a "solution" to hatred. They exist on a spectrum so you can't really have one without the other. Love is often turning into hatred, have you noticed?

Cory: I thought I made that clear in my previous post when I distinguished conditional love from unconditional love.

Okay. And I was just saying why it is fruitless.

sam: Unconditonal love isn't really what humans want. No one wants to love someone who is manipulating, injuring or controlling them

Cory: In my view, humans need to work past their tendency to want revenge. As Jesus said: "Blessed is he who is not offended"

It is not about revenge. Unconditional love is not about the ego. Don't ask an ego to love unconditionally. It can't and it won't.

sam: Unconditional love isn't on an egoic level, it is on the level of being.

Cory: The level of being? Sounds kind of mystical. Can you elaborate a bit?

Do you recognize any being besides the ego?

sam: An answer to hatred that humans might understand is acceptance.

Cory: There's a fine line between acceptance and docile passivity. Suppressing segments of reality because they are depressing or frightening would be non-acceptance, and in that regard, I'm all in favor of acceptance. However, mindlessly and passively flowing from one experience to the next without applying any discrimination is not wise.

Sure.

sam: Acceptance is allowing of the other's experience while not necessarily condoning or supporting the other's behavior.

Cory: I think it's necessary to make a distinction between acceptance and allowance. I'm not at all in favor of allowing a serial killers preferred experience to repeat continually. Force is necessary to detain him, put him behind bars, and study him scientifically (imo, debilitating psychological conditions are a goldmine for scientists).

Accepting someone's experience does not mean giving them carte blanche to act. You can accept a serial killer's experience when you know that that person was a victim of child abuse. Accepting that doesn't mean you let them kill. It means you treat them. People aren't born killers. And if you want to argue about those who seem to be, there is always mental illness.

sam: When you don't invalidate another's experience, they are more willing to interact on some acceptable level where behavior may be modified. But rejecting the experience comes across as a personal condemnation which can inevitably leads to conflict.

Cory: I can sympathize with this. For instance, I don't believe serial killers should be killed, although I don't believe in allowing them much freedom either. This of course implies that I'm not granting allowance to the families of the victims who wish to experience revenge. I accept and understand very well why they want revenge, but in the same way I wouldn't allow a serial killer to run free, I also wouldn't allow those who have been hurt to fulfill their lust for vengeance.

Just so.

[snow bunny]

What actually is love. A word should point to some shared experience. I think it is a vague concept used by everybody from the media to politicians to spiritual hucksters, and is devoid of content. Love has vague good feelings associated with it and everybody uses it without even considering to think what it means.

My definition would be that to love something is to consider it as a part of oneself. For example I love my new car, or I love my children or nation. That is same as attachment. In that case how come spiritual teachings keep harping on love, while denigrating attachment?

What's love got to do with it? What's love but a secondhand emotion?

[maestro]

What is a secondhand emotion?