13560RE: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Weekly Words ofWisdom-Love
- Jan 18, 2005you're not wise about love at all. you get 1 day of the year to celebrate the love you have for family and friends and all you can advise someone is not to celebrate it. so my question would be, are you capable of loving at all? i mean besides yourself. i only read the fist of your response. i did like the way it started out. so i might be jumping the gun, but still i didnt like the way you started your advise which should probably be a response. HAPPY VALENTINES DAY? END POVERTY!
medit8ionsociety <email@example.com> wrote:
>--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, tarah513
>> --- In email@example.com, medit8ionsociety
>> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>> > "Selfish love is not love. It's attachment, because you are doing
>> > things for your sake. Real love has no selfishness in it. If you
>> > really love somebody, it is completely selfless.
>> > <snip>
>> > H.H. Sri Gurudev Swami Satchidananda
>> Dear List:
>> The view of love being selfless and unconditional
>> is, in my mind, a false view and actually destroys
>> its sublime value. Every Valentine's Day we see
>> this accepted falsehood (the idea that love
>> is selfless) being propagated in a very pronounced
>> manner. Actually, it is committed year-round, but
>> its destructiveness is magnified on this holiday.
>> Love, we are repeatedly taught, consists of
>> self-sacrifice. Love based on self-interest,
>> we are admonished, is cheap and sordid. True
>> love, we are told, is altruistic. But is it?
>> Imagine a Valentine's Day card which takes
>> this premise seriously. Imagine receiving
>> a card with the following message:
>> "I get no pleasure from your existence. I
>> obtain no personal enjoyment from the way
>> you look, dress, move, act or think. Our
>> relationship profits me not. You satisfy no
>> sexual, emotional or intellectual needs of
>> mine. You're a charity case, and I'm with
>> you only out of pity. Love, XXX."
>> Needless to say, you would be indignant
>> to learn that you are being "loved," not for
>> anything positive you offer your lover,
>> but--like any recipient of alms--for what
>> you lack. Yet that is the perverse view
>> of love entailed in the belief that it is
>> Genuine love is the exact opposite. It is
>> the most selfish experience possible, in
>> the true sense of the term: it benefits your
>> life in a way that involves no sacrifice of
>> others to yourself or of yourself to others.
>> For instance, I never felt one moment of
>> sacrifice for anything that I did for my son.
>> I take care of my elderly father and
>> definitely consider it a sacrifice on my part.
>> A sacrifice I face because of decisions I made.
>> This is NOT love. This is DUTY and honoring a
>> To love a person is selfish because it means
>> that you value that particular person, that
>> he or she makes your life better, that he or
>> she is an intense source of joy--to you. A
>> "disinterested" love is a contradiction in
>> terms. One cannot be neutral to that which one
>> values. The time, effort and money you spend
>> on behalf of someone you love are not sacrifices,
>> but actions taken because his or her happiness
>> is crucially important to your own. Such
>> actions would constitute sacrifices only
>> if they were done for a stranger--or for
>> an enemy. Those who argue that love demands
>> self-denial must hold the bizarre belief that
>> it makes no personal difference whether your
>> loved one is healthy or sick, feels pleasure
>> or pain, is alive or dead.
>> It is regularly asserted that love should
>> be unconditional, and that we should
>> "love everyone as a brother." We see this
>> view advocated by the "non-judgmental"
>> grade-school teacher who tells his class
>> that whoever brings a Valentine's Day card
>> for one student must bring cards for everyone.
>> We see it in the appalling dictum of "Hate
>> the sin, but love the sinner"--which would
>> have us condemn death camps but send Hitler
>> a box of Godiva chocolates. Most people
>> would agree that having sex with a person
>> one despises is debased. Yet somehow, when
>> the same underlying idea is applied to love,
>> people consider it noble.
>> Love is far too precious to be offered
>> indiscriminately. It is, above all, in
>> the area of love that egalitarianism
>> ought to be repudiated. Love represents an
>> exalted exchange--a spiritual exchange--between
>> two people, for the purpose of mutual benefit.
>> You love someone because he or she is a
>> value--a selfish value to you, as determined
>> by your standards--just as you are a value to
>> him or her.
>> It is the view that you ought to be given
>> love unconditionally--the view that you
>> do not deserve it any more than some
>> random bum, the view that it is not a
>> response to anything particular in you, the
>> view that it is causeless--which
>> exemplifies the most ignoble conception
>> of this sublime experience.
>> The nature of love places certain demands
>> on those who wish to enjoy it. You must
>> regard yourself as worthy of being loved.
>> Those who expect to be loved, not because
>> they offer some positive value, but because
>> they don't--i.e., those who demand love as
>> altruistic duty--are parasites. Someone
>> who says "Love me just because I need it"
>> seeks an unearned spiritual value--in the
>> same way that a thief seeks unearned wealth.
>> And now, I see Valentine's Day (which is
>> fast approaching)--with its colorful cards,
>> mouth-watering chocolates and silky lingerie--as
>> a means of giving material form to this
>> spiritual value. It is a moment for you to
>> pause, to ignore the trivialities of life--and
>> to celebrate the selfish pleasure of being
>> worthy of someone's love and of having found
>> someone worthy of yours.
>I'd say that you present an intellectual
>argument pretty well, but it is a spiritual
>and emotional situation. As Gurdjieff would
>put it, you're using the "wrong center"
>to deal with Love. In Raja Yoga, the yoga
>of meditation, we find the first 2 steps
>are to discriminate between the real/eternal
>and the unreal/transient, and to have dispassion.
>The selfish love you write of is clearly
>situational and changing. It goes from worthy to
>unworthy. This has nothing whatsoever to do with
>what Swamiji is pointing to. To use an example
>from another yoga that deals with Love, Kundalini
>Yoga, the Heart Chakra, when opened, is not
>selfish at all, and is infinite and non-exclusive
>in nature. And when the veil of illusion is ripped
>away, the undescribable Reality presents itself as
>can perhaps best be most closly described as
>Words can only give a drop in the oceans worth of
>understanding of what this "Love" is.
>IT is only known experientially. And until that is
>our reality, all of our "selfish" actions are only
>attempts to experience this unselfish Love.
>Peace and blessing,
>PS: I remember Swami Satchidananda once saying
>(and I'm paraphrasing here) that the most selfish
>person was the one who wants to be unselfish,
>as s/he knows that only then will the entire
>creation be known as themselves, and thus
>satisfy all desires.
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
- Next post in topic >>