To: K-list
Recieved: 2004/05/08 21:49
Subject: Re: [K-list] I don't know about Kundalini anymore/Love
From: Druout
On 2004/05/08 21:49, Druout posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Djamel, Ranbir, List,
Well, I'm inclined to agree with Ranbir here. Love does not have to have an
object in its purest form. It can be a pure sensation/bliss. In fact
sometimes we tend to force an object onto that sensation and "fall in love" with that
object, without realizing that Love can simply be.
Of course, we could quibble about the word Love..... :))
Love, Hillary
In a message dated 5/8/2004 3:25:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
djamelbensmaiaATfree.fr writes:
>You're omitting a
>small detail: to
>love something in the first place, you have to have some _knowledge_ of it,
and have >_seen_ it,
>with physical eyes, or spiritual eyes, which lie not in the heart
particularly..
In a message dated 5/8/2004 12:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ranbirATnahal.freeserve.co.uk writes:
>Love is eternal,
>I don't need to see you to love you,
In a message dated 5/8/2004 12:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ranbirATnahal.freeserve.co.uk writes:
Love is eternal,
I don't need to see you to love you,
I don't even need to know you exist,
If you look down deep enough into the heart,
You see the eternal,
That is where we should be,
Its what you called infinite bliss earlier,
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.