The true Self of our original nature is that which is revealed when all striving ends.
Behind the conditioned habits of the ego - liking and disliking, grasping and fearing, striving and seeking; infinite love is waiting to shine.
This infinite love can be described as follows:
• A love that pays no attention to what kind of object is set before it
• A love that sees all things in the same light of perfection
• A love without end
• A love affair in which no otherness can be found, a love affair of the Self with Itself
• A love that is the vast spaciousness in which both suffering and joy, gain and loss, ill health and good health, conflict and harmony, birth and death, all occur
• A love which is the ground of being for all external experiences
• A love that is infinite, unconditioned, timeless, empty of content yet full, uncreated, unborn, undying
2 comments:
ONE: What are you and how do you know it?
TWO: I am pure consciousness, and I know it because I love.
ONE: The first is so, the second is not.
TWO: Why is that?
ONE: Because you say it.
TWO: I don't understand.
ONE: Pure consciousness cannot say 'I love'.
TWO: Why not?
ONE: It cannot be said by pure consciousness, but only by an identified object.
TWO: What then can I say as pure consciousness?
ONE: Pure consciousness cannot say 'I love' even via an identified object, but it can say 'I am love'. If the answer to my question had come direct from whole-mind that is the way you would have transmitted it.
TWO: Then those teachers who use the form 'I ...', in order to reveal the truth, are wrong to do so?
ONE: It might be better to say that the form of words in question is open to objection.
TWO: Because?
ONE: They are speaking to the identified, and the identified cannot speak direct from pure consciousness. Therefore when they repeat the words, applying them to themselves, inevitably the I-concept intervenes and seeks to apply the statement to itself. It cannot be excluded as long as it is there.
TWO: By saying what I am, rather than what I do, that is avoided?
ONE: It is nearer the truth.
TWO: An example to make it clearer?
ONE: As many as you wish: the Maharshi did not love - never, never: he was love, or, more exactly, karuna-caritas/prajna-gnosis. Pure consciousness is and does not.
TWO: And that applies to Jesus also?
ONE: Did he say 'God loves' or 'God is love'?
TWO: If I have understood, then love itself does not exist, nor hate?
ONE: Of course not.
'TWO: Nor impersonal, unpossessive love, asking no return and unaccompanied by jealousy?
ONE: That, too, would be a 'thing'.
TWO: Nor affectivity, knowledge, ignorance, cognition, prajna, karma?
ONE: Things, all things! The unending dualistic process of imagining entities and things!' - WWW
'There is no 'self and no 'other'. There is no 'wrong desire', no 'anger', no 'hatred', no 'love', no 'victory', no 'failure'. Only renounce the error of conceptual thought-processes and your nature will exhibit its pristine purity—-for this alone is the way to attain enlightenment.'
- Huang Po
Post a Comment