TODAY'S CONSIDERATIONS
THE ADDITIONAL, VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES WHICH CAME VIA THE VISION:
The "love" vs.. "LOVE" Conundrum
Earlier it was noted that, in the purest, non-dual sense, "Love" is a noun, not a verb.
The vision (along with the understandings which came with the subsequent considerations which the vision inspired) provided a clarification - a new and different perspective - around some of the most-often misunderstood pointers, pointers dealing with . . .
. . . Love vs. love; loving; loving all; the Oneness; and such beliefs as "You must love thy neighborhood"; and "You must love everything, seeing that 'it's all good'"; and "You must love everyone because we are all the children of the One True Father, God"; and "If you had been around in the 1940's in Europe, you would have needed to love Hitler, too"; etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.
So many are trapped in the quandary of trying to reconcile all of those often self-contradictory (and impossible) dictates.
During a period of quiet, while being totally open to any additional understandings which might come via the vision, a new clarity around the misconceptions and confusions generated by pointers regarding "Love" / "love" / Oneness came.
The following was recalled as certain past pointers began rolling across the internal screen in a stream of consciousness manner:
Maharaj made clear that there are two witnessing states:
1. The first is rooted in duality, in the blocked consciousness, and it is called Subject-Object Witnessing, as in, "I (subject) see you (object)." "A" sees a "B"? That is duality.
2. The second is called Pure Witnessing (or, as some call that Pure Witnessing, "The True Self").
Of course, the realized understand that there is no selfness or Selfness and that there is no "one" or "witness" or Witness."
What there is, post-realization (post-removal of ignorance) is clear seeing, is proper perspective, is witnessing accurately, and what is doing that Witnessing? A composite unity. Want to point to that relative composite unity which can function in a post-realization fashion with a term such as "self?" Fine, as long as it is understood that there really is no self and there really is no witness to do any witnessing.
There is merely the witnessing itself which is happening. Maharaj did say that "Love is knowing I am everything," but what he never said is, "You must love everything and everyone."
The vision offered a perspective which allowed me to be able to work with some who have been brainwashed and to free them of the nonsensical, insane beliefs which are being touted by some Big Name Teachers (to use Maharaj's term) who are the ones whose spoutings reveal the presence of the three key symptoms of the Ultimate Sickness which Maharaj identified as "ignorance, stupidity, and insanity."
I worked with a lady who came here for a retreat, trying to undo the brainwashing she had been exposed to by a particular Big Name Teacher who especially attracts addicts and alcoholics who pay thousands of dollars to spend a week or more with her. It was seen that, as always, the addictive behavior of the woman who came here was rooted in years of trauma, especially including the trauma caused by her having been raped.
So what did she tell me that the famous Big Name Teacher had advised?
She was told: "You must love your rapist. Invite him to dinner. Prepare a meal for him and serve him."
This is the same Big Name Teacher who says, "If you were alive during WWII and the Nazis tossed your child into a furnace, you should love that."
Then the woman gave my visitor the mantra she gives to all who will listen: "Love what is." That comes from a woman whose "recovery literature" advised, "Acceptance is the key" and who was taught to "Accept what is" and who then took those pointers to the greatest (and most perverted and most bizarre extreme imaginable); hence, her advice to "Love what is," be that the murdering of a child or a rape.
What there is, post-realization (post-removal of ignorance) is clear seeing, is proper perspective, is witnessing accurately, and what is doing that Witnessing? A composite unity. Want to point to that relative composite unity which can function in a post-realization fashion with a term such as "self?" Fine, as long as it is understood that there really is no self and there really is no witness to do any witnessing.
There is merely the witnessing itself which is happening. Maharaj did say that "Love is knowing I am everything," but what he never said is, "You must love everything and everyone."
The vision offered a perspective which allowed me to be able to work with some who have been brainwashed and to free them of the nonsensical, insane beliefs which are being touted by some Big Name Teachers (to use Maharaj's term) who are the ones whose spoutings reveal the presence of the three key symptoms of the Ultimate Sickness which Maharaj identified as "ignorance, stupidity, and insanity."
I worked with a lady who came here for a retreat, trying to undo the brainwashing she had been exposed to by a particular Big Name Teacher who especially attracts addicts and alcoholics who pay thousands of dollars to spend a week or more with her. It was seen that, as always, the addictive behavior of the woman who came here was rooted in years of trauma, especially including the trauma caused by her having been raped.
So what did she tell me that the famous Big Name Teacher had advised?
She was told: "You must love your rapist. Invite him to dinner. Prepare a meal for him and serve him."
This is the same Big Name Teacher who says, "If you were alive during WWII and the Nazis tossed your child into a furnace, you should love that."
Then the woman gave my visitor the mantra she gives to all who will listen: "Love what is." That comes from a woman whose "recovery literature" advised, "Acceptance is the key" and who was taught to "Accept what is" and who then took those pointers to the greatest (and most perverted and most bizarre extreme imaginable); hence, her advice to "Love what is," be that the murdering of a child or a rape.
Let's see how Maharaj would have likely reacted had he heard her passing on that teaching which is at the heart of the BS message she is spreading:
Because his translators and editors played the role of "Self-Appointed Guardians Of Maharaj's Reputation," they edited out of his oral talks in the loft and out of the written transcripts of his talks all of the profanities which he often used for to provide emphasis and to provide clarity and to offer a direct-and-in-your-face-and-let-me-make-this-as-clear-as-possible-fashion certain key pointers.
Knowing some of the statements Maharaj made in the past, it is possible to guess what his response might have been to that Big Name Teacher if she had had come to his loft and suggested that "You must love everyone and you must love everything that happens to you and to everyone else throughout the relative existence and if you're raped you should prepare a meal for your rapist and invite him to come back into your home and let you serve him and if the Nazis pulled your child from your arms and tossed your baby into the flames of an oven and made you listen to it screaming and made you watch as its body is consumed by the fire, you should love that, too."
Knowing that there were certain supposedly "obscene" words and phrases which Maharaj used more often than others, his reply to her would likely have contained the terms "totally insane bullshit" and "get" and "the hell out of" and "this flat."
Seeing that allowed for a clarification to come in regards to those Maharaj tossed out of the loft, the ones who were only there to show off their accumulated knowledge ("learned ignorance," Maharaj called it) and to show off their assumed spiritual giantism.
I have heard criticisms of Maharaj for those "tossings":
"Did he not truly feel love all people?"
"Where was the Love he spoke of?"
"That showed the absence of a real understanding of the Oneness."
First, what would show an absence of a real understanding of the Oneness - and an absence of the non-dual understanding - would be such comments by those persons who make Subject-Object" claims such as, "I love everyone."
To explain further:
In the non-duality-based adventure / mystery novel entitled The Twice-Stolen Necklace Murders, one of the editors who worked for the publisher of that book
interviewed me and then included that exchange at the end of the book.
One question she asked relates to the subject matter of today's post. She asked:
Editor: "I know that modern science is confirming this teaching, as in the new revelations regarding the ‘Field of Consciousness.’ But is this understanding you wrote about in this novel compatible with, say, the newest teachings in physics, such as the ‘strings theory’?"
Floyd: "Absolutely. My Teacher said decades ago that science would one day catch up with the ancients’ understanding and prove that the teachings are fact. Such is happening. Since strings are the lowest common denominator of EVERYTHING, smaller than atoms, smaller than electrons, smaller than the mass of protons and neutrons at the core of electrons, then the understanding of the science of strings shows us that the only thing which makes you appear to be different from me—or from a piano, or from a tree—is the vibrational pattern of the strings. And since the strings are simply energy in movement, and since the strings know automatically what to do when they are manifested in a human as opposed to in a piano as opposed to in a tree, then the teaching of strings proves this Understanding, scientifically. We are consciousness-energy. We are all THAT, all the same, all one, with only appearances leading us to believe we are separate or different. We are not. Physics now proves that we are THAT, that we are all one. We ARE the strings, so to speak. Use whatever name you choose to refer to that one ‘thing’ from which all is composed when manifest. More recently, the strings theory had been modified by some who now claim that the ‘sparticle’ might be even more basic than the string. No matter. What is real is whatever that most basic, singular, non-dual ‘thing’ is, period. Now call That what you want, the truth is that Easterners have known for about 40,000 years that everything in the universe that is manifested or not is nothing more nor less than a manifestation or not-manifestation of That, of the one True That-ness. Call it ‘strings’ or ‘That’ or ‘sparticle’ or ‘energy with consciousness.’ That is All, and that is all there is."
Does anything in the teachings suggest that I should "love" THAT? No.
THAT is nothing more than a field of energy, of conscious-energy. The sun is a source of energy as well. Must I love the sunshine? No. Might it be wise to recognize the role it plays, the requirement that it is, for the perpetuation of life as we know it on this planet? Yes.
Furthermore, does anything in the teachings suggest that I should "love" every person? No. One might as well suggest that I should love every mirage I see in the desert or while driving along a highway.
The reason that all are invited to see the Oneness, to see that "we" - that all composite unities - are the same as everything less at its core is to interrupt the spread of ego-state and egotism-driven concepts which foster a sense of "different-from-ment" and which then foster a belief in a sense of "better-than-ment."
And why interrupt the spread of those no-understanding-of-the-Oneness beliefs? Only to interrupt that which flows from those beliefs, namely, a false sense of separation and the accompanying conflict and chaos and disharmony and discord and lack of peace and war which evolve from those beliefs.
As for trying to "love everyone and everything," the one with an understanding of the Nisargan yoga looks to nature for an example of what natural abidance looks like:
Here in this neighborhood where many deer roam about, there are certain adolescents who harass them. They chase them; they yell at them; they throw rocks and sticks at them.
If it's that time of year when a buck is courting a doe for the sake of breeding, then those adolescents who try to mess with him when he's trying to attract a doe in heat may well find themselves racing for the shelter of their homes as the buck tries to impale them on the horns of its rack.
With that particular exception, however, the deer being harassed by the adolescents will typically just move away from them. The deer retreat to one of the many copses of trees where they can rest in the quiet and take it easy.
So what do the deer usually model? This:
They move away from irritating humans who disturb the peace so that they can, as Maharaj said, "Relax in the cool blue shade."
Do the deer feel a need to love the delinquents? No.
Do they hate the delinquents? No.
The deer know neither of those concepts.
But do they get the heck away from those types? Yes.
Do the realized do the same when around those types? Often, yes.
Do I feel a need to love those delinquents? No.
Do I feel a need to hate those delinquents? No.
Do I prefer to stay the heck away from those delinquents. Yes.
Do I understand that "that which they really are is what I really am," too? Yes.
Does that make me love to be around people like that? No.
Did the realization process make clear that I, too, had been suffering from a major case of assholism for years? Yes.
Does that allow me to spot cases of full-blown assholism now when they are at play? Yes?
Do I now understand how assholism is passed down from one generation to the next? Yes.
Do I now want to hang out with those who are presently suffering from a severe case of assholism? No.
Do I love them? No.
Do I hate them? No.
Does realization mean that, had I lived in Nazi Germany, the understanding would have led me to love Hitler and his fellow Catholic and Lutheran white supremacists? Hell no.
Abiding as I do in the U.S., I witness on a daily basis the results of the fact that fanatical Christians and white supremacists and believers in eugenics joined forces to turn control of the country over to a bunch of other white supremacists who are now demonstrating on a daily basis what it is like to be trapped in the depths of the Ultimate Sickness.
Does being realized ("freed of ignorance") mean that I must love those white supremacists and eugenicists? Hell no.
(1) To realize, and
(2) to understand the Oneness, and
(3) to know that "Love" involves knowing that I am everything and that I share a common denominator with all
does prevent my being driven by a different-from and better-than ego-and-egotism-and-BS-based set of beliefs;
yet
the realization and the understanding do not mean that I must practice a duality-based Subject-Object perspective which demands that I say, "I (subject) love those white supremacists (object)."
All of the above clarifications came via the different perspective which came while considering the implications of the content of the vision and finally putting to an end once and for all the confusion surrounding the "love" vs. "LOVE" conundrum.
To be continued.
Please enter into the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE: The four most recent posts are below. You may access all of the posts in this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]
In addition to the five non-duality books made available without charge by Andy Gugar, Jr. (see “FREEBIES” above), you can now access nearly 2,900 posts for any topics of interest to you.
