To the latter, the conclusion was that he must be reading another blog as well and mistaking that content for pointers offered here. Never has there been any suggestion here that anyone should "love everyone else."
That is impossible for several reasons, but the key among those is the implication in that claim that duality is real and true and that there are "A's" who can love "B's" and "B's who can love A's."
Was Maharaj being "cruel and cold-hearted" when he explained the following: "You have a concept about friendship. How long do you keep your friends? You keep them so long as they are useful to you. So long as a friend is of some benefit to you, that's how long you would like to keep that friendship.
"Now, how can I actually derive benefit out of a friend? I, as an individual, am not there, so how can there be a question of benefit? Benefit to whom? How can there be a question of friendship at all. Anybody who comes here can sit. I will allow him to sit for some time, but later on I will say, 'You may leave.' Why? Because I have no intention or purpose of having any friendship with that person.
"Ordinarily, there is some purpose for deriving certain benefits out of an association with another. When you meet someone in friendship, there may be some intention to serve one another. But I have no friends. Even this 'I Amness' will not remain as my friend."
Was Floyd being "cruel and cold-hearted" when it was suggested to the man who believes that he loves his wife unconditionally, "So if she had told you on your fourth anniversary that (a) she wanted to live with you for the next fifty years and that (b) she is very grateful for your promise to pay all of her bills for as long as she lives but that (c) she has decided that she never wants to have sex with you again, then you're claiming that it would have been fine with you that you would never have sex again simply because she does not want to have sex, but in the meantime you would live together for fifty years, and you alone would work and you would pay her bills, and you would honor her decision and you would never, ever, try to have sex with her again? Under those circumstances, tell me again how your 'love' would remain and be unconditional and how easy it is to love a wife (or how easy it is for a wife to love a husband) but not everyone else?"
See, all of this talk of "love" as perceived by the masses has nothing to do with Real Love and it has nothing to do with what Maharaj was pointing to when he taught: "Love says: 'I am everything." Consider:
Maharaj: "Look, my thumb touches my forefinger. Both touch and are touched. When my attention is on the thumb, the thumb is the feeler and the forefinger, the self. Shift the focus of attention and the relationship is reversed. I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing.
"I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness ... Love; you may give it any name you like. Love says: 'I am everything'. Wisdom says: 'I am nothing' Between the two my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both."
Such subject-object talk is only a way-station along the "path," however, discussed at the fourth and fifth steps of the seven steps to Realization. Such talk is for those trying to understand the relative subject-object mode of witnessing and the relative "experience" and "experiencer," but Maharaj made clear to those farther along the "path" that there is neither experiencer nor experience, neither subject nor object. He said:
"To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'. You identify yourself with everything so easily, I find it impossible. The feeling: 'I am not this or that, nor is anything mine' is so strong in me that as soon as a thing or a thought appears, there comes at once the sense 'this I am not'."
Questioner: "Do you mean to say that you spend your time repeating 'this I am not, that I am not'?"
Maharaj: "Of course not. I am merely verbalizing for your sake. By the grace of my Guru I have realised once and for good that I am neither object nor subject and I do not need to remind myself all the time"
and
" ... you can be described in negative terms only ...."
To know in the end that there is neither subject nor object and that there is neither experiencer nor experience and that there is no "one" to either "love" or to "hate" is to know the unicity and to know what Real Love Is.
And, yes, when Full Realization allows Reality to be overlaid on the relative, then an understanding of the differentiation between "Love" and "love" manifests. Reach that point and then engage in sexual relations and find an entirely new level of joy as the oneness and the Oneness coincide and the belief in "two" gives way to the reality of "not two" ... to the reality of the unicity.
Meanwhile, if you believe that you have neither deceived nor been deceived about "love," it is because you have not seen the facts about the duality and falsity of "love," because you have not yet seen how you have deceived yourself and / or others, because you have not seen how you have been deceived, or because you have not "lived long enough" to have yet had the opportunity to witness objectively all of the above.
Real Love cannot deceive or be deceived, based in the Oneness as it is and coming in only one "variety"; "love," as defined in a multitude of ways by the multitudes, has no one definition and no basis in Oneness so it can only involve deception and self-deception: "Oh, I love her unconditionally, Floyd. There is nothing that she could ever do to to make me stop loving her." Okay. Whatever. But here is an invitation:
Until the understanding of the differentiation between "Love" and "love" manifests, speak not of either one. Until then, you can only be as a parrot, repeating what your culture has to say about the topic of "love" via movies and television shows and conversations and parental modeling in homes and talks among family or with a spouse (that is, someone whom you have "some purpose for deriving certain benefits out of an association with") and friends (that is, those whom you have "some purpose for deriving certain benefits out of an association with.")
You are invited to understand that the moment there is the dualistic element of an "A" deriving certain benefits from a "B" - rather than the "not two" sharing in the ecstasy of Love overlaid on the relative and all relative actions - then Real Love cannot be understood and only false "love" will be spoken of and believed to be real.
Please enter the silence of contemplation. (To be continued)
