How To Master Love?

[Nahm]

@el_duderino Master yourself to master love.

[Nahm]

@Slade ❤️

[Heart of Space]

Love is complex and simple.  It is simple in that it is your primary nature and in its truest expression is effortless.  And it is complex in its infinite different possible ways of being expressed in reality.  

I used to not know how to love, because I was a broken sad, angry, and disconnected person.  I had to make great effort to learn to love others, but now I realize that love takes no effort, in fact, the irony is that to not love takes the most effort of all.  I'm of course still always learning how to be in this effortless existence.  Let's all deepen our love together.  <3

[Faceless]

@SOUL ??

 Can we ever say we know someone? If we know someone then we know them only according to our memory of them in the past. And people are always changing so can we say we ever know someone really? So when we think we “know” someone isn’t this  actually only an image projection or “idea” put in place of a fact of what is. 

  And as you mention fear. I would say that if there is any psychological fear within ones psyche such as, fear of being alone, fear of not experiencing certain sensations and pleasures. Fear of not having mental support, and fear of not being  validated and so on, that one would depend on the other to fulfill there subjective needs. So it seems this application of images is a movement to serve the self. And i simply question if such images are placed upon one another if this qualifies as a “TRUE” or genuine relationship. Is love an action expressed through the association of dependence? 

 If i have an image about myself and I depend on you to fulfill that image by confirmation then in doing so that gives me a sense of security, which raises an important question, AM i USING YOU?

 If I have an image about you that also serves my self image, for example, I create an image about you as being less important in comparison to me. This serves as a self affirmation and further stimulates my sense of self worth, respectability, and so on right?

 If this compulsive pattern of image making is an attempt to self sooth, protect, and cultivate   a sense of security for the psychological entity i call “THE ME” then it seems that the self is more concerned for its own well being than another’s. It also seems that if this type of image forming is being applied within a “relationship” then there is a movement by the self “thought” which obviously is the very acting mechanism responsible for this image projection. And if this image projection being a product of thought which is mechanical is taking place, perhaps we are not aware of it. 

 If I don’t see that I am motivated by perpetual desire to self sustain the center in which I call the me, how can I know when my expression towards another is genuine and not self centered in motive and a movement of willful intent? If there is a need to constantly create security psychologically in my self doesn’t this imply that I might be unconsciously creating an image that serves my own? If this image isn’t validated by the other person doesn’t this generate fear that that image may not be met as the self has so subtly projected it? And if that is so doesn’t this cause me to cling to the other person and depend on them to fulfill my needs of self reassurance? In that case am i not using the other as an escape form that fear? 

 So what I’m asking is if there is thought being projected or an image, and “a movement of volition” or “THE ME” that needs to be validated to preserve my self worth, and to maintain a sense of security, then can there be a relationship at all which is mutual? If my number one priority is directed at self soothing my own psyche first and foremost then how can the relationship be mutual? Especially if both parties are doing this. This seems to be a contradiction if a relationship is suppose to be based on mutual reciprocity. 

 So if I have an image about myself and project one onto you and vice verse is this a relationship at all? Or is that merely a relationship between illusory images that we have created out of self interest? And if so couldn’t this pattern of illusion and deception take the form of love as well? Wouldn’t this be a false love or conditioned love therefore not unconditional???

 Seems rather obvious to me anyway that the action of love could only be when there was a ceasing of images all together. If there were no images being formed by either person in association to relationship then there would be an abundance of FREEDOM, BEAUTY, CREATIVITY, JOY, COMPASSION, and UNCONDITIONAL LOVE expressed between one another. 

 So doesn’t all this imply that thought within the field of relationship/love has no place what so ever? 

 U stated earlier the following “In my own experience love is a multifaceted thing not easily defined” 

 I agree with that totally because love as I see it is not the product of thought and therefore not a thing “think”, of thought. So yes it makes sense that this action of love is not easily described or defined.

 To conclude this drug out explanation and overly used word, “image”, My question remains the same, If there is no freedom from thought “the self” or “the center” can there be this action of love????

 

 Well I Leave that for you to decide. What do u think friend, and friends? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Faceless

[JustinS]

Lose yourself to the Self and you will see nothing but love, love, and infinitely more love. 

[Faceless]

20 hours ago, LaucherJunge said:

@el_duderino
Self-love, just keep loving yourself and giving yourself the attention you would give to anyone you would also love. That is the only way, with this you can then reflect love to the outside and attract it, altough never forget that the true source will always be you and not somebody else.

Self love or just love?

[LaucherJunge]

@Faceless
I don't understand the question?
I mentioned both self-love and love in my answer.

[Faceless]

@LaucherJunge...I understand friend 

I’m simply implying another question. 

Does the action of love have anything to do with the individual? 

Or is there an action of love only when the individual separate self is not? 

Is the action of love particular or universal? 

[phoenix666]

@LaucherJunge how did you truly discover self love? 

I've already gone a long way, I stopped hating myself and almost stopped judging myself. I started accepting myself more. but there are still parts of myself I can't seem to love. 

[LaucherJunge]

@Faceless
I think particular and universal are the same, you might be making distinctions where there are none.

@phoenix666
I discovered it mostly trough shadow work, I have been with myself in times of desperate need for love and discovered that I am looking for something which I can only give to myself.

[SOUL]

@Faceless  That's..... alot...... hm.

It seems you weaved your way through nearly every conceivable facet of "love" in an attempt to find a unified theory of love but I'm not sure whether it really needs to be that way. Every facet of love is it's own expression of that ...hm..... prime element of "love" and has it's own characteristics of expression that are often unique to just the facet even if there is ultimately a commonality to the whole, that prime element of love.

Through your winding path you wound up at the ideological and/or abstract facet, can there be love without the identity, which is essentially the awareness of being aware. Which the whole course you took was an elucidation on the many facets from that final facet's dynamic you wound up at. In that abstract facet context it appears to me that acceptance, embracing, faithful and surrender are characteristics of that facet of 'awareness of being aware' love, more than just the concept of it, the being of it.

Yet, I think I would need to explain those terms I used a little or they may be misinterpreted. Acceptance meaning an allowing for, a not trying to control or being disturbed by the presence of. Which could be interpreted as agreeing with, but is more accurately seen as coexisting, if that males any sense. Agreeing with is an endorsing of and that is a mechanism of identity creating in our consciousness.

What I mean by embracing is like an active acceptance, welcoming in, opening up to, including in and in that abstract sense becoming one with, merging into. Which again the identity creating in our consciousness uses a mechanism that some would characterize as the complete opposite of this and it sure does appear that way since self often is viewed as a separation.

Then, there is faithful which may be the most misinterpreted of these characteristics, it isn't belief-full, as in lots of ideas and concepts believed. By faithful I mean, fidelity, true to, loyal, abiding and this may be the only characteristic of that has any resemblance to the mechanism of identity creating in our consciousness.

Surrender may be the characteristic that least resembles identity creating because it is letting go of, possession less and giving away control. Although we aren't letting go to be giving up to be empty of self and self-less but to be self-full, infinite self to be merged as one with all self in unity so it appears as our separate self ceases to be in that act of surrender to all.

Some may tell us we need to reject that identity creating mechanism's effect in our consciousness to really be this abstract 'love'. They tell us we need get 'no selfed' to death....so to speak. Except that if we are being observant we can see how closely the mechanism of identity creating is to this abstract love and see the characteristics of that love in every expression facet of love as well as self creating.

Consciousness agrees with self to identify with it, it clings to self which is an embrace of it and it believes in self which is being faithful because it tries to remain true to the identity. They are practically indistinguishable other than in an extremely nuanced understanding of it and some may try to use that nuance to drive a wedge between them by saying there's a trap, a gotcha, don't use the wrong one!

Yet, that act of viewing it with a wedge of nuanced separation has the very characteristics of what they say shouldn't be done to be "love"... see?

So, yes, love created our self! Then, ask your self.... if love created our self, is there "love" possible with the self? *laughter*

Edited January 25, 2018 by SOUL

[Faceless]

@LaucherJunge

Self love implies love is particular, individual, personal, or an action that can be grasped and expressed through thought or by the self.

Do you see this as correct my friend? 

 

[Faceless]

@SOUL  

So does love create the self or does fear create the self? 

Have you concluded that the self can love? Or is it somthing to investigate into still? 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

@SOUL

Also there is nothing idealistic or abstract about what I have told you. It’s simply observing thought and the self. 

I don’t look to concepts, theory’s, and any forms of knowledge to come to these truths. 

Seems that any resistance of this obvious fact is a reaction of fear and escape from that fact. 

Do you see that buddy? 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Faceless

[SOUL]

16 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@SOUL  

So does love create the self or does fear create the self? 

Have you concluded that the self can love? Or is it somthing to investigate into still? 

Hm, well, love creates the self but fear appears to 'keep' the self, which could be interpreted as expressions with characteristics of preservation.

[Faceless]

@SOUL hmm 

just to be clear so we can commune..how does love create the self? 

[SOUL]

15 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@SOUL

Also there is nothing idealistic or abstract about what I have told you. It’s simply observing thought and the self. 

I don’t look to concepts, theory’s, and any forms of knowledge to come to these truths. 

Seems that any resistance of this obvious fact is a reaction of fear and escape from that fact. 

Do you see that buddy? 

Uh, my apologies to have wasted your time.

[Faceless]

@SOUL

not wasting my time friend, this is very interesting to me. I appreciate your sharing?

[SOUL]

Just now, Faceless said:

@SOUL hmm 

just to be clear so we can commune..how does love create the self? 

Apparently you said you have the "obvious facts" to come to those "truths", then why ask me? Just enjoy your... um... truths.

[Shin]

If you want to master love.

Remove the you part.