Can the kind of unconditional Love that is God exist for the man and woman relationship?

[Lacewing]

Self-love has everything to do with ''awakening''

The people I have met who have the most self-love are the narcissists. They're not good people, and I haven't noted them as being particularly "awake."

I think the disconnect of understanding here is due to a couple of things...

Phrases like "unconditional love that is God"... and "self-love"... point to something different for Mr. Can than what you (DAM) and I are talking about. It is difficult to put such a thing into words -- the extraordinary fullness and experience of it -- still I think we do a good job of it. However, Mr. Can does not seem willing or able to fathom such a love as that -- as he shows he is focused on the kind of love of his god, and anything else is simply non-existent or inferior. That's his trip, which is evidently limited to that which he thinks he already knows.

[Immanuel Can]

Phrases like "unconditional love that is God"... and "self-love"... point to something different for Mr. Can than what you (DAM) and I are talking about.

I actually not only agree with that; I know it's true.

But probably not in quite the way you suppose...

[Lacewing]

Phrases like "unconditional love that is God"... and "self-love"... point to something different for Mr. Can than what you (DAM) and I are talking about.

I actually not only agree with that; I know it's true.

But probably not in quite the way you suppose...

It would be extraordinarily arrogant and foolish for you to suppose that you know the full potential of love. But your investment in your own experience and interpretations, which you repeatedly cast as superior or more real, prevent you from seeing anything else. Therefore, the reality of any love greater/broader than what you see, is a threat to the beliefs you hold. So you simply claim it doesn't exist in truth -- and if it was of god, you'd already know about it, right?

[Dontaskme]

I've got this kind of relationship with a partner as well, I've mentioned this partner to you before on another thread. We both choose to live in our own houses. We both prefer the bliss of solitude.

Perhaps I commented previously: That sounds like a real gift! I sometimes fantasized about having such an arrangement while I was single. It seemed like it would be the best of both worlds.

Thanks!
It happened to me through the magic of serendipty. I didn't go looking for anything after my first husband left. It just fell into my lap by sheer chance. I wanted the God love from my first husband and father of my 4 children, but it wasn't to be, he left me for another woman. He couldn't find it in himself to reciprocate a forever love that was important to me. Funny thing is, I've got a better life now that I ever dreamed possible, it's so weird how things that seemed so heartbreaking at the time he left me, turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me. Love certainly has many surprises up it's sleeve.

At this time, I think I'm learning how to be in a close relationship without feeling trapped or slowed down by it. Also, how to dance with someone who is different in ways that I never anticipated. Most of all, it's a surprise to discover that what I actually needed is different than what I thought I needed. We don't always arrive where we thought we were going. It's a fascinating journey, and I have a lot of gratitude for it.

That's amazing.

Sounds like that was wonderful.

Yeah, we literally did nothing all day, we just sat on a beach from sunrise to sunset, choosing India because of the sultry heat. We're from England in the UK, it's freezing most of the time here, so the heat in India was a no brainer.

The Covid pandemic has derailed and brought a screeching halt to a lot of things. I'm wondering what kind of a world we'll have to navigate going forward. More than ever, it seems important to be self-sufficient, well-balanced, and dance through it with as much love and joy as possible.

I agree, and to be honest, I benefit most from lockdowns and restrictions. I've always liked slow living. I would have loved to have lived during a time before all the technology we have today existed. Like during the 18th/19th century period kind of time.

.

[Dontaskme]

Can the kind of unconditional Love that is God exist for the man and woman relationship?

What is "unconditional love" from an entity that gave us at least 10 commandments?

Are they not CONDITIONS?

You are right. Good point. There can be no such thing as Unconditional love. From a conditioned mind point of view, it's a meaningless idea.

But what does the Bible say about Unconditional love?

When we love unconditionally, it means that we even have to love people in tough times. This means loving someone when they're being rude or inconsiderate. It also means loving our enemies. This means unconditional love takes work. Matthew 5:43-48.

Can we love our enemy? or the one we hate? what do you think?

[Immanuel Can]

...your investment in your own experience and interpretations, which you repeatedly cast as superior or more real, prevent you from seeing anything else...

Heh. That's assumptive. You actually have no idea what I may or may not know.

But do carry on...

[Lacewing]

That's assumptive. You actually have no idea what I may or may not know.

That's what I'm saying to you.

[Immanuel Can]

That's assumptive. You actually have no idea what I may or may not know.

That's what I'm saying to you.

Well, one of us is right. Somebody knows more than the other about the topic in hand. And you wish to assume it's you.

Okay. Well, are you a very loving person?

[Dontaskme]

In a subtle, passive aggressive sort of way, what you've said here, was aimed at me.

No, you're assuming that, perhaps; but it wasn't true. I was only speaking of the view you had expressed, not of your person.

But the point is, who are these assumptions referring to? who are the asuumptions and projections coming from and to whom is reading, listening, or hearing, and processing them? Who?

Do you assume there is some kind of ''substance duality'' phenomena going on here? How does that work?

[Immanuel Can]

In a subtle, passive aggressive sort of way, what you've said here, was aimed at me.

No, you're assuming that, perhaps; but it wasn't true. I was only speaking of the view you had expressed, not of your person.

But the point is, who are these assumptions referring to?

Just to the ideology called "Non-Dualism." I think it's false. And I think it's impossible to think otherwise, so long as one is really looking at reality.

But there's no element of personal attack in that. I'm just disagreeing with a viewpoint, not insulting a person.

Do you assume there is some kind of ''substance duality'' phenomena going on here?

I wouldn't call it "substance duality," because that presupposes we're looking for some kind of "substance." But "substances" are physical. Physical reality is only one of the dimensions of things: the other is the spiritual. And you are, yourself, a model of this fact: for you have a physical brain, but also a mind.

[Dontaskme]

SELF-LESS is not mans nature.

Oh, believe me, I know that. That's one of the things we need to be saved from...our selfishness. Left to human nature, the "self" becomes a tyrant demanding satisfaction of every desire, which is a thing not possible in this world, and ruins happiness. Somebody (I forget who) compared the bloated self to a "giant, squalling baby" demanding its own all the time. That's sort of how it goes: when we let the self rule, we find we become its slave; and it cannot be satisfied.

Who is being a squalling baby?

If like you say, the person is not the expression ( viewpoint)...then who or what is this tyrant you talk about? if it's not the person then why are you forming concern or attachment to the issue? why would these expressions matter to you? who is having a beef with some views of expression and why? can a ''tyranical expression'' know it's being tyranical?

Who knows it's being tyranical?

Huh?

First of all you claim that the self says it's innocent of any shame or blame for the views and expressions that are being heard ...then in the next breath you claim there is a self that can be a ruler. Hmm.

Who is this ''we'' and who is this ''self'' that can be selfish?

[Lacewing]

That's assumptive. You actually have no idea what I may or may not know.

That's what I'm saying to you.

Well, one of us is right. Somebody knows more than the other about the topic in hand. And you wish to assume it's you.

Okay. Well, are you a very loving person?

Why can't we both be right about not knowing what the other knows?

What do you mean by 'are you a very loving person'? Are you a very loving person?

More importantly, do you think you know the extent and potential of love ...or of that which you consider God's love?

[Immanuel Can]

SELF-LESS is not mans nature.

Oh, believe me, I know that. That's one of the things we need to be saved from...our selfishness. Left to human nature, the "self" becomes a tyrant demanding satisfaction of every desire, which is a thing not possible in this world, and ruins happiness. Somebody (I forget who) compared the bloated self to a "giant, squalling baby" demanding its own all the time. That's sort of how it goes: when we let the self rule, we find we become its slave; and it cannot be satisfied.

Who is being a squalling baby?

I thought that was clear -- the human self. We ALL have such a voice inside us. It's human nature. The self, when it is indulged and "loved," becomes tyrannical and demanding beyond belief. One spends all one's time trying to please the unpleasable self.

First of all you claim that the self says it's innocent...

Nowhere did I claim that. The self is very far from innocent, in fact.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by 'are you a very loving person'?

Well, you said you knew stuff about love that I was being "kept from" knowing.

So I was just wondering how that's working out for you. I wonder if other people experience you as particularly loving.

Hey, I'm just asking...you can answer as you think is true.

[Dontaskme]

No, you're assuming that, perhaps; but it wasn't true. I was only speaking of the view you had expressed, not of your person.

But the point is, who are these assumptions referring to?

Just to the ideology called "Non-Dualism."

Non-duality is not an ideology, nor is it a theory, nor is it an ism...it's a pointer that can be used as pointer to the true nature of existence prior to any knowledge of it. Knowledge is a mentally constructed world via concepts.

In reality, there's no such thing as Non-duality. ..because it's not a thing. Non-duality simply means duality...a concept known by no thing... The knowledge of opposites requires a knower. So how can duality not be duality as in Nonduality.. it can't...there is ONLY duality.

Non- Duality is this immediate not-knowing known, because that which is known cannot know anything. Duality is an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts or two aspects of something, as a dualism. Dualism is born of the mind, as knowledge, a knowledge that can only point to the illusory nature of such knowledge. Since there is no such thing as mind. Mind is an illusion. No one has ever seen a mind. Concepts are known, not seen.

So again, To whom are these insulting viewpoints referring? Who is disagreeing with insulting viewpoints, who is doing that?

If like you say the person is not the one being insulted. Then what is insulted? are there according to you just these invisible insults flying around in empty space all insulting each other...That's basically what you are saying. ..

You did say you are talking at the insulting viewpoints not the person...so how does that work? please explain?