Is Love Ever a Kind of Enlightenment?

[Mock Turtle]

I've had ego-death spiritual experiences before and there is only a comparison in terms of the "love" component. But, it's not like and like, it's so much more than that. It took me nearly ten years of my life to accept what had occurred (mostly due to my religious upbringing and interests), and about another ten to find the words to describe it. You're literally talking about the type of experience that causes people to become saints and the like it isn't in the purview of the self-absorbed existence that many live in day to day. I could tell you basically how to have one of these experiences, but it is difficult:

1) Become selfless, in every sense of that word. I was naturally predisposed to this, I can imagine this being harder for others.

2) Reject your own mental meanderings and realize they are convenient lies. You must detach from this to pay attention to the now. The less you live in the now the harder these experiences are.

3) Meditate a lot, but with awareness. You aren't looking to meditate on a thing, but rather the absence of things. Blank piece of paper... You will see visions, hear sounds, feel like something touched you, etc.. IGNORE. You must be detached from them or that is where you will stay.

After years of that (or less, if you are diligent), you will have a bonafide ego-death experience. You will never look at the world the same way again. Of course, you're free to keep doing as you want to. I just illustrated it here to explain how difficult the first few stages are. You will know things like God really are, etc. Explaining it is useless really, no one here would believe you anyway unless they had the same experiences.

From a much troubled life, I think I am more with 1. now, even though for much of the past I was never particularly any more egocentric than others, but my insecurities held me back. I can see how this would lead to better places though. One just notices it in others when one meets them. My mind activity never really allowed me into meditation - perhaps it will in the future.

 

[Thief]

I have heard that "While some kinds of love are blind, there is more than one kind of love, and that one of the several kinds of love is more a matter of how you see someone, or of how you perceive them, than it is a matter of what you feel for them." Furthermore, loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

Does that mean anything to you? Does it make any sense? Do you think it might be true? Why or why not?

and the Wizard said.....
a heart is not judged by how much we love
but how much we are loved by others

 

[Mindmaster]

From a much troubled life, I think I am more with 1. now, even though for much of the past I was never particularly any more egocentric than others, but my insecurities held me back. I can see how this would lead to better places though. One just notices it in others when one meets them. My mind activity never really allowed me into meditation - perhaps it will in the future.

Gotta stop feeding the beast, basically.

The wants of it cause the suffering and the suffering causes you to fail to have awareness of what you really are unshaped by conditions and events. It also causes you to want more things and feel more loss... Ultimately, it just makes you mentally unstable where you could be having your calm 100% and experience your happiness 100% in the moment as well unfiltered by your worries.

The meditation is not completely necessary, it's possible to reach the same destination by the route of questioning, "Who am I?" or keep repeating "I am", and what that feels like. It's important not to let the mind answer that, but rather meditate on the feeling of it. Just do that five minutes at a time, eventually you will sort of be magnetically drawn in the right direction. (for lack of a better way to describe it) The dancing monkey brain will slow down a great deal when it realizes it is just a tool to serve something else. The mind-body identification is the real problem in all cases, but if you aren't aware of anything else it's completely logical. You don't have to believe me, just play with this experiment.

 

[sun rise]

Furthermore, loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

I'll take that thought even further with a couple of legends/teaching stories:

There are some who refer to the love Majnun had for Layla as an illustration of how human love, raised to its highest level, makes one so prepared that the slightest 'touch' can result in realization (aka enlightenment).

The story of how Hafiz, who was reported to be both poor and ugly, fell in love with a beautiful, unapproachable young woman. He determined to win her and underwent a 40-day Chilla-nashini austerity and succeeded. According to this legend, the Archangel Gabriel came to him and asked him what he desired. The beauty of the archangel was such that Hafiz forgot the woman and asked for God.

 

[Fool]

I have heard that "While some kinds of love are blind, there is more than one kind of love, and that one of the several kinds of love is more a matter of how you see someone, or of how you perceive them, than it is a matter of what you feel for them." Furthermore, loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

Does that mean anything to you? Does it make any sense? Do you think it might be true? Why or why not?

yes


love is conditional and blinds us; when we see through a lens what we want someone to do and be for us. that is selfish. love only sees in one direction. the void between position a vs position b

love becomes unconditional when we see ourselves in another's suffering and if able, alleviating their suffering. our suffering ends with their needs fulfilled.

love sees what it can do because it sees it other as self, i am that i am


love is two bodies being of one mind. there is no condition, difference between two bodies.

the two become entangled as one and suffer together.

Luke 13:34
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.


with love comes understanding.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Gotta stop feeding the beast, basically.

The wants of it cause the suffering and the suffering causes you to fail to have awareness of what you really are unshaped by conditions and events. It also causes you to want more things and feel more loss... Ultimately, it just makes you mentally unstable where you could be having your calm 100% and experience your happiness 100% in the moment as well unfiltered by your worries.

The meditation is not completely necessary, it's possible to reach the same destination by the route of questioning, "Who am I?" or keep repeating "I am", and what that feels like. It's important not to let the mind answer that, but rather meditate on the feeling of it. Just do that five minutes at a time, eventually you will sort of be magnetically drawn in the right direction. (for lack of a better way to describe it) The dancing monkey brain will slow down a great deal when it realizes it is just a tool to serve something else. The mind-body identification is the real problem in all cases, but if you aren't aware of anything else it's completely logical. You don't have to believe me, just play with this experiment.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Buddhism is the nearest that I have come to any spiritual belief. Since I am much more at peace with myself these days I might look into meditation again or in other directions. It's not as if I'm desperate to get anywhere.

 

[Mindmaster]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Buddhism is the nearest that I have come to any spiritual belief. Since I am much more at peace with myself these days I might look into meditation again or in other directions. It's not as if I'm desperate to get anywhere.

Advaita and Buddhism share a lot of ideas, so there is a lot of crossover.

Anyway, there is no need to pursue such things if you aren't interested. If you feel the need you'll know and be ready to receive the information and find it soon enough. I'd tell anyone the same thing in that regard... But, it has nothing to do with the system in this case. I'm explaining two methods, both work, one is a Buddhist way (also used in Advaita) and one is an Advaita-only way. I just thought in the context of the post it was relevant, because it's obvious something different is going on between love and enlightenment. I was merely trying to show that enlightenment was more of a process. True love is spontaneous, enlightenment can be as well... provided you make room for it in your life. I feel everyone deserves these things either way, ultimately. It's selfish to horde these things, so I share as much as I can.

 

[Sunstone]

...'agape love'...

How are you defining "agape"? I am familiar with some definitions but don't know which you are using here, or if you are using any of the ones I'm familiar with.

...in a state of attainment.

Is a "state of attainment" the same as what many people call "enlightenment"? Just trying to figure out what you might mean by the term.

It's hard to pin down when you really think about it, for there are many, many types of love. Even love as an over-arching concept is too hard to pin down. But then maybe it is that unknowable (or hard-to-know/obtain) aspect that is the enlightened state we seek for? (aka agape)

I largely agree with you there.

 

[Sunstone]

I do believe that agape, or divine love - is one of the most powerful states a human can experience. But knowing the way a human functions, it certainly doesn't stay forever.

Completely agreed -- assuming we mean the same thing by "agape".

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, love is always an enlightenment!

What would you say to someone who told you, "love is always an emotion"? Would that still jive with love also being an enlightenment?

 

[Sunstone]

The world is sex.

Finally! Someone follows the same religion as I do!

The more we allow our selfs to mix, the more we realise we are the whole world. We have a relationship with everything around us.

Interesting! But how can we be someone or something that we are only in a relationship with? You say, we are the whole world. But you also say, we are in relationships. Must there not be multiple things for there to be relationships? I'm confused what you mean there.

 

[Sunstone]

Love doesnt have any others kinds of love.

Do you mean there is only one kind of love?

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

How are you defining "agape"? I am familiar with some definitions but don't know which you are using here, or if you are using any of the ones I'm familiar with

Divine Love, "Godly Love", "love above self" etc.

Is a "state of attainment" the same as what many people call "enlightenment"? Just trying to figure out what you might mean by the term.

Yes, attainment and enlightenment are often used to refer to the same thing (not that they mean the exact same thing). But I suppose I mean it in the sense of being outside of and selfish desires where the ego is momentarily non-influencing. Where a true sense of divine love is experienced profoundly.
I think It may be one of those things that is beyond word.
But that is the kind of love that I think equates with enlightenment.


Enlightenment isn't a lasting state though, but I'll leave that for another thread.

 

[Sunstone]

No, enlightenment is not describable in words other than in a metaphorical or poetic sense. It has more to do with a state of mind but transcends that even.

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to. Could you clarify please?

At first blush, I thought you were saying "no" to the notion that enlightenment could be described in words. But I am not aware of anyone saying that it could be described in worlds. So you cannot be saying "no" to that, can you?

 

[rocala]

loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

I suspect that such love is but a taste of enlightenment.I am intrigued by the paradox of true love. The more you love, the better life is, sweeter, more precious. Yet the more you love, the more willing you may be to sacrifice that life, for the object of your love.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have heard that "While some kinds of love are blind, there is more than one kind of love, and that one of the several kinds of love is more a matter of how you see someone, or of how you perceive them, than it is a matter of what you feel for them." Furthermore, loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

Does that mean anything to you? Does it make any sense? Do you think it might be true? Why or why not?

You are in part describing love as in 1 Cor 13, that love believes the best of others and cares for others, sincerely, deeply.

 

[Electra]

Finally! Someone follows the same religion as I do! Interesting! But how can we be someone or something that we are only in a relationship with? You say, we are the whole world. But you also say, we are in relationships. Must there not be multiple things for there to be relationships? I'm confused what you mean there.

bahah

Well, say I have a 'relationship' with 'my hair'. Maybe I hate my hair, think it looks ugly blah blah. Yes, this is a part of 'me' but I still have a relationship with it, no? We departmentalize in order to look further into the exchanges.

by 'relationship' I mean 'exchange of energy' the world is 'exchanges of energy'(sex)

(I try to be simple or else I just end up going on tangents)

One Love

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have heard that "While some kinds of love are blind, there is more than one kind of love, and that one of the several kinds of love is more a matter of how you see someone, or of how you perceive them, than it is a matter of what you feel for them." Furthermore, loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

Does that mean anything to you? Does it make any sense? Do you think it might be true? Why or why not?

No emotion should ever be unconditional if that means it's not subject to a reasoned examination. The divorce courts are full of star-crossed lovers who didn't look closely enough at their spouse before marriage.

 

[idav]

I have heard that "While some kinds of love are blind, there is more than one kind of love, and that one of the several kinds of love is more a matter of how you see someone, or of how you perceive them, than it is a matter of what you feel for them." Furthermore, loving someone in that way is both "unconditional" and "similar to being enlightened".

Does that mean anything to you? Does it make any sense? Do you think it might be true? Why or why not?

Enlightenment is understanding how to love your enemy. Here are some quotes to show what I mean.

Matthew 5:43-44
43 You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ Love your enemies and jpray for those who persecute you,

“It is easy enough to be friendly to one’s friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.” – Gandhi

“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.-Buddha

Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.-Buddha

Love the whole world as a mother loves her only child.-Buddha

 

[Sunstone]

...true love.

On what grounds do you call something "true" love?