For Those Who Claim To "love Unconditionally"...

[Mondsee]

There are a couple wrong assumptions and irrelevant ideas in this thread. My intention was to say that the next time you hear some mother claiming to love her children unconditionally, you recognize the mistake there, for loving unconditionally is loving everyone and everything without a single restriction, and limiting your "unconditional love" only to your children automatically turns it into conditional love.

[Nahm]

@Mondsee Well, I love you, and the odds are you're not my kid. There's a small chance but highly unlikely.    

[Loreena]

4 minutes ago, Mondsee said:

There are a couple wrong assumptions and irrelevant ideas in this thread. My intention was to say that the next time you hear some mother claiming to love her children unconditionally, you recognize the mistake there, for loving unconditionally is loving everyone and everything without a single restriction, and limiting your "unconditional love" only to your children automatically turns it into conditional love.

Why would such an expectation be that one should love everyone and everything without a single restriction. Wouldn't that expectation itself then become conditional. And where does such an all encompassing love fit into the paradigm of personal freedom. Why would a person be expected to love without freedom ? He/she should be free to love anyone in anyway they want. Now that itself is unconditional enough. 

Love is to be never tested. A love that has to conform in order for to be accounted as unconditional is analogous to an exam that needs to be passed to show merit. Where will you set the boundaries. How will you decide. 

Love that comes naturally is already unconditional. To test it in the fire pit of unconditionality is to put conditions on it.

[Mondsee]

1 minute ago, Loreena said:

Why would such an expectation be that one should love everyone and everything without a single restriction.

2 minutes ago, Loreena said:

Why would a person be expected to love without freedom ?

There is no expectation at all, you're making that up. My only claim was that unconditional love has no conditions whatsoever. If it has conditions and you call it unconditional, you're tricking yourself.

4 minutes ago, Loreena said:

Love is to be never tested. A love that has to conform in order for to be accounted as unconditional is analogous to an exam that needs to be passed to show merit. Where will you set the boundaries. How will you decide. 

Hummm, I never said you should test love in any way...

[Loreena]

1 minute ago, Mondsee said:

There is no expectation at all, you're making that up. My only claim was that unconditional love has no conditions whatsoever. If it has conditions and you call it unconditional, you're tricking yourself.

Hummm, I never said you should test love in any way...

If you want love to conform to your  expectations of what unconditional love is/should be, it is nothing but setting conditions to it again, testing to see if it matches your criteria.

[Dodo]

22 minutes ago, Mondsee said:

There are a couple wrong assumptions and irrelevant ideas in this thread. My intention was to say that the next time you hear some mother claiming to love her children unconditionally, you recognize the mistake there, for loving unconditionally is loving everyone and everything without a single restriction, and limiting your "unconditional love" only to your children automatically turns it into conditional love.

Nobody loves unconditionally.

Everyone here who claims they are love are also claiming they are no-one. But at the same time they are writing as someone. It's the Ego taking the Truth and warping it.

No guys, you dont love everyone,  especially if you never met them and don't know who they are. Unless you are telling me you know me when even I don't know me. (is that what you're saying? I mean could be..)

 

 

[Mondsee]

@Loreena  you are taking away the meaning of words. Of course saying that "unconditional = having no conditions" is restricting that word to mean only that, but I am discussing all this on a semantic level, and on this level, people claiming to love unconditionally are bullshitting themselves.

Edit: if you want to make your own definition of unconditional love, maybe as "loving only my left pinky finger" for example, you're free to do that, but you're not discussing that on the semantic level everyone understands, then.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Mondsee

[Loreena]

 

41 minutes ago, Mondsee said:

 

Edit: if you want to make your own definition of unconditional love, maybe as "loving only my left pinky finger" for example, you're free to do that, but you're not discussing that on the semantic level everyone understands, then.

Everyone is free to have their own meaning of love.Btw, speaking of definitions, you have already created your own definition of unconditional love. Look below in your own words.

9 hours ago, Mondsee said:

Show them this article, and ask them if they can relate.

Haha to love unconditionally you need to be able to hug wholeheartedly Stalin and Hitler, a rapist or a terrorist, and love them as your best friends, or as much as a kid loves his mum.

 

Your definition of unconditional love is that it should even mean loving and hugging Hitler and rapists. Now that's already a definition. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Loreena

[Mondsee]

@Loreena No, that is not a definition, that would be the consequence of accepting the widely accepted definition of the word "unconditional".

You can go and check any dictionary for that matter. Here is an example.

[Dodo]

If you claim to know me, you mean that I am no-one too and hence you, right? Well if you really knew that, you would also know that "I love you" is irrelevant. 

You're basically lying, because you know other's definition of "I love you" is not "I love myself" nor "nobody loves nobody". Even though in your reality you might be saying the truth based on your definitions and interpretations.

Enough said from me here.

Some random guys saying I love you to me on forum without ever showing kindness in any way in time of crisis is not doing it for me, not my love jam.

 

[Guest Annetta]

Hug Hitler?  Naw, rather kick him in the nuts, what an evil man...

[Dodo]

11 minutes ago, Mondsee said:

@Loreena No, that is not a definition, that would be the consequence of accepting the widely accepted definition of the word "unconditional".

You can go and check any dictionary for that matter. Here is an example.

Hugging Hitler is not showing Hitler love, there's no difference between hugging and stabbing in nonduality

[Nahm]

@Dodo I know you are me and I love you!   

[SOUL]

@Mondsee There is no such thing as unconditional love because unconditional is a condition.... 

[Dodo]

13 minutes ago, SOUL said:

@Mondsee There is no such thing as unconditional love because unconditional is a condition.... 

Just like every paradox of the self, can only be resolved at point 0, where there is no self. 

Some of the qualities of the Self: 

• No fixed Positions
• No doing 
• Unconditional love

If you aim for not having fixed positions (in itself a fixed position), you can only trully achieve it at Ego death (no you)

If you aim to do nothing,  you're doing something, which is you're "doing nothing" - again can be resolved when self is dissolved.

Unconditional love as well as you stated - paradox if there is a one doing it. Maybe not so at the no self position (which we know doesn't have a particular position :-D) 

 

We should aim at getting mind fucked, not calming the mind with "understanding" which stems out of deeeeeeeeply rooted beliefs taken for true without question. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Dodo

[Toby]

The mistake that you make is that certain states can to a degree accessed even before a complete ego-"death" or a complete "self"-"death". You can easily transcend your ego and have a taste of unconditional love or other qualities as well. And I guess most of the people here have had such "tastes" and they can report them, even if they are back in their ego and seem to have "lost" it.

[SOUL]

@Dodo All too often calling something a paradox is the spiritual bypass response that is abused by people who they themselves haven't experienced the state of wholeness that is perceived in transcending the self so employ it in avoiding actual contradictions. Once someone experiences that transcending of self this becomes clear, there is no unconditional qualifier on love to describe it, there is just love and people who embrace love unconditionally. The qualifier is expressed through us, not on love, so there's no paradox or contradiction.

Edited July 17, 2017 by SOUL

[Nahm]

3 hours ago, Dodo said:

Prove it, do something for him and everyone else you say you love. Love on words is the easiest thing. 

A true gesture of love is to help those who are down. Like trully if you loved them unconditionally you would spare no expense to make their life amazing for the price of your even.

@Dodo it's the same life, but life is not real. The air you're breathing is not real. The individuality is illusionary, it's part of the matrix of matter. I am love. It is my default state because it's what I actually am. Sometimes giving is needed & therefore helpful, sometimes it only reinforces the illusion to someone because they don't need help, they need to let go of whatever part of the illusion they are allowing to hold them back. Either way it does not matter, because that someone is me, and identity, life and death are part of the illusion, which is happening perpetually in the now. It's all the illusion, including my thoughts, my words, my fingers, my typing, my emotions, my thinking, my focus & the notion of me and you. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Nahm

[Nahm]

@Toby awesomeness. 

 

[Nahm]

@Mondsee simply exit the semantic level.

 Meditation until non thinking = without thinking perpetuating the illusion you are what you actually are and you'll be laughing for a few days because it will also seem so unfathomably hilarious.