Guest guest Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 In a message dated 4/17/2006 4:18:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige writes: > > There can only be adjustment as *to* some " other " ... > that is clear. *Adjustment* then is by nature not of > oneness, and so conflict is woven into it from the > start. > > And then he says, " love is incapable of adjustment... " > > Why? Because love (actual love) is not something " one > has " toward another. Love simply is. Love is a > dissolving > of separateness into What Is. > > And there can be no separateness in What Is. > > So love and What Is are different terms that really > mean the same. > > But what is What Is but complete/unconditional > acceptance? > > So it is clear then that love is acceptance. > > Love is not, " I wish you/he/she were different in > X way, " or, " I wish life were different in X way. " > > And so then, love is not about " relationships " , is it? > Rather, love is *complete relationship*. > > If there is complete love, complete acceptance of > What Is, then there is no barrier, no resistance, > and hence no conflict. > > So for there to be love the battle must be given up. > The struggle *for* (it doesn't matter what for) > has already died when love is realized as What Is. > > > > Bill > > Love simply is, as you say, > Nothing or no-one can do anything about or against it, > because it doesn`t belong to anyone. > L.E: Why does he need to posit absolutes? Can we see love as a spectrum that goes from the personal to the universal. That includes rather than excludes? People do the best they can to love. For some it is limited and small-minded and for others it is large and embracing. This seems to be a better teaching about love than what K offers. I wonder if he ever loved anybody at all. Did he ever have a girl-friend? Boyfriend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 --- epston a écrit : In a message dated 4/17/2006 4:18:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige writes: > > There can only be adjustment as *to* some " other " ... > that is clear. *Adjustment* then is by nature not of > oneness, and so conflict is woven into it from the > start. > > And then he says, " love is incapable of adjustment... " > > Why? Because love (actual love) is not something " one > has " toward another. Love simply is. Love is a > dissolving > of separateness into What Is. > > And there can be no separateness in What Is. > > So love and What Is are different terms that really > mean the same. > > But what is What Is but complete/unconditional > acceptance? > > So it is clear then that love is acceptance. > > Love is not, " I wish you/he/she were different in > X way, " or, " I wish life were different in X way. " > > And so then, love is not about " relationships " , is it? > Rather, love is *complete relationship*. > > If there is complete love, complete acceptance of > What Is, then there is no barrier, no resistance, > and hence no conflict. > > So for there to be love the battle must be given up. > The struggle *for* (it doesn't matter what for) > has already died when love is realized as What Is. > > > > Bill > > Love simply is, as you say, > Nothing or no-one can do anything about or against it, > because it doesn`t belong to anyone. > L.E: Why does he need to posit absolutes? Can we see love as a spectrum that goes from the personal to the universal. That includes rather than excludes? People do the best they can to love. For some it is limited and small-minded and for others it is large and embracing. This seems to be a better teaching about love than what K offers. I wonder if he ever loved anybody at all. Did he ever have a girl-friend? Boyfriend? ....................................................... Yes he had a loved one. And he said once that it was very important to have a loved one. Patricia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/17/2006 4:18:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > gdtige writes: > > > > > > > L.E: Why does he need to posit absolutes? Can we see love as a spectrum that > goes from the personal to the universal. That includes rather than excludes? > People do the best they can to love. For some it is limited and small-minded > and for others it is large and embracing. This seems to be a better teaching > about love than what K offers. I wonder if he ever loved anybody at all. Did > he ever have a girl-friend? Boyfriend? > > Bullshit you dumb ass .....bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- epston a écrit : > > > > In a message dated 4/17/2006 4:18:54 PM Pacific > Daylight Time, > gdtige writes: > Bill > L.E: > > Patricia > > > > > > Of what import to anyone is the question: " Did K Love Anyone? " To me this sounds like a question from a Soap Opera Fan. .......bob > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ _____ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.