Love is the molecular merging of humans with each other and the environment. It’s our natural state of wholeness. Love triggers the reward system of neurochemicals in the human body and is responsible for our evolution. When love is, the “self” dissolves, merges with what is, ( Merging molecular mechanism ), intrinsic non-duality.
Howdy - Just sharing what I find confusing :
“molecular merging” sounds like a description of gene splicing or sexual reproduction - for how we merge with each other and create new little humans. Or the composting process that happens to the dead cells of our body that are absorbed by the environment.
“the reward system of neurochemicals” sounds like pleasure - so yes, very much part of survival, self and evolution.
However, how is the “dissolving of self” (before the death of the body) or freedom from self, related to the concepts of molecular merging and the neurochemicals of pleasure?
I suppose that self is constantly dissolving and recomposing - so maybe we can accept that as a given - but how can we relate this to a discussion about the human condition of psychological suffering?
The ‘self’ acts as a barrier to the “triggering of the neurochemicals” by Love? This triggering if it happens is the dissolution of the barrier, the wall of the self? It is the “mutation” of the brain cells? It is our integration with the whole?
The self does not act as a barrier to the triggering of neurochemicals, the self is very much part and parcel of the process of pleasure and pain.
Now the statement could still be true in the case of Love, but people need to explain what they mean. For example, how is Love (whatever that means in someones sentence) corellated to pleasure and pain?
Sometimes a lot of confusion is kicked up when we throw random concepts into a dialogue about stuff we don’t really understand in the hope that mixing stuff up might somehow help (or make stuff more interesting).
You fear your integration with the ‘whole’. You think it would be the end of you and that is frightening? In ‘Love’, there is no me and mine, no self? There is no ‘effort’ in Love, only resistance to it because of our fear to be ‘nothing’…we ‘wall’ ourselves from what can set us free?
Yes I get that bit - sounds legit.
I’m actually reacting to the use of word salad in general - here and also in particular some stuff from zoom dialogue that I’m still riled up about
Not pointing at anyone in particular, but I am quite attached to the idea that the person speaking should know what they mean when they say stuff.
I’m using ‘Love’ in the sense of God, the All, the ‘Whole’, etc…the Unnameable. My question though is why even attach a name like ‘love’ to this when the Nature around us is filled with ‘things’ tearing each other apart and devouring each other with all the obvious physical pain involved…what’s ‘love’ got to do with it?
From love arises (in varying degrees) empathy, compassion and action in response to suffering, not just psychological suffering, but suffering within the whole ecosystem.
Is this a direct quote from the article or your interpretation?
As much as I like it, it sounds more self-soothing than scientific.
My interpretation based on experience>insight. The article portrays this gif for me.
If love is more than a human emotion, is love space? There is space within the atom, between two thoughts, between the observer and the beautiful mountain, between the stars. Space is within and contains all. Is this love? Deva Premal ~ ॐ ~ LOVE is SPACE ~ - YouTube
Why speculate? Find out!
Good suggestion. I wanted to know what connects us all. Even wondered if empathy and compassion were mutations to facilitate survival. Maybe it’s a fantasy, nothing connects us. Maybe we are separate individuals and will be nothing more than that, ever. I fluctuate with the concepts from Universal Mind, the Ground from which all arise as discussed by K and Bohm (The Intelligence of Love-Conversation 12) to individuality being the ultimate freedom.
Empathy facilitates survival, but according to K, compassion and intelligence are the same and beyond the conditioned brain, but that the silent, empty brain can commune with intelligence/compassion.
Maybe we are separate individuals and will be nothing more than that, ever.
Awareness indicates that what separates us is psychological thought - not actual separation.
Sounds so nice. I’d love to believe this. It just has to make sense to me. Intelligence and compassion seem to be part of the body/brain. I know K was often talking about that which is beyond the brain. Oh well, maybe I will get it someday.
I don’t “get” it either - I just think I know what K said. Probably someone who has a better grasp of his teaching can correct me.
What is suffering if not psychological?
If I have a twisted ankle, my child is failing at math class and the heating (or cooling) system has broken down during a cold snap (or heat wave) - but I have mistakenly swallowed a valium (thinking it was an aspirin) and find everything to be most wonderful and pleasant - where is the suffering?
The space between (or within) things is also a thing - ie. an image, a concept.
It has attributes : length, width, height, time etc. This is not Love. Neither in its popular sense, nor the sense of emptiness/silence/space in which everything arises.
The space of Love is called “choiceless awareness” - a space free from differentiation, identification or separation.
Ah the miracles of modern medicine! They can alleviate suffering and free one of compassion and empathy as well. Love/Space being called choiceless awareness. I will have to take a good look at that. Perhaps choiceless awareness is the common ground, rather than love.
I have understood choiceless awareness as “mindfulness”, present moment attention without judgement. There seems to be no room for emotion in that (love being an emotion). Here’s a K quote on it, “Through awareness, a choiceless observation in which there is space, every form of conditioning is dissolved.” Choiceless Awareness I think ‘every form of conditioning’ is the self?
Is the difference Christianity’s “God is Love” and Buddhist’s “There is nothing outside of awareness.” Was K doing what Theosophists did, merging these, or did he just toss them all and come up with something completely new?
This is one of those K-quotes I don’t know what to make of. If he was saying that awareness is choiceless observation, then my awareness is being instantly distorted to fit my beliefs, fears, hopes, suspicions, etc., because I am choosing.
I choose to lie to myself about what awareness reveals for fear of having to adapt every moment to what’s new. Naked awareness is the end of my image of myself and the world I live in every moment, but awareness clothed with what-should/should-not-be sustains my identity and the world I inhabit.
If I can’t choose to tweak awareness to conform to my conclusions, awareness is always new, and I am just a memory of reactive resistance to it.