To: K-list
Recieved: 2004/05/09 10:54
Subject: Re: [K-list] I don't know about Kundalini anymore/Love
From: Djamelbensmaia
On 2004/05/09 10:54, Djamelbensmaia posted thus to the K-list:
Selon DruoutATaol.com:
>
> **please remember to delete most of email you are responding to, before
> posting your comments to the 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
Hello Hillary, Ranbir, List,
First of all, let me apologize to those who were bombmailed yesterday with my private
conversation with Ranbir and Lori-ann: I'm new to computers, to the web, and to this list, and
I'm french, so no wonder I'd screw up...
Ok, to get back to the point now, I believe there's been some misunderstanding about what
exactly we were talking about, how we were talking about it, and why. Lori-ann asked me "who
cares who is right?", I agree: nobody, since we all legitimately want to be right; the real question
is "_what_ is right?": that I think, is worthy of all our care, and dedication, no? If you don't agree
with that, might as well delete this post right now, and maybe do the scent survey or something..
So this is why I posted a message to Ranbir, not necessarily to aggress someone I didn't know,
because of a block in my heart chakra (I do have blocks there and elsewhere though..), but to
challenge his truth, offer myself as a philosopher's stone, giving him the opportunity to sharpen
his intellect on me, and thus make his truth shine even brighter. That was my intent; what did I
get in return, the assertion that I was a sorry fool, looking to lash out aimlessly at people on this
list.. C'mon!! I was never the aggressive type and never will be..
What I was "flaming", was what I perceived to be philosophical mistakes and faulty logic, and
what I expected, was a logically consistent answer to my arguments, you know, that thing we
call "debate", where we define terms and articulate them according to rigorous logic in order to
prove something, and in which rhetoric is accepted only as long as you're consistent with
yourself.
What was in question: love, knowledge, and the path to enlightenment; nobdy can say we were
arguing over trivialities; in resume, I opposed Kimberly's post (I hope you don't mind me
quoting you), where enlightenment was presented as a simple thing, that the ego, in an attempt
to "feel special", perceived as very complicated; she then went on and said "the cruel joke" was
that the ego wouldn't "survive" to witness enlightenment; Ranbir had a different approach: he
suggested we'd drop everything and rely only on love, on our inner feeling of unity with love, be
in love, drop the details, drop the thinking, and remain there away from all this confusion; this
was said in a quite poetic form.. This is where I come in: I say quite simply: wait a minute
Ranbir, this is all very beautiful but are you not deceiving yourself? I don't think the heart is
blind, but why not use also the pair of physical eyes you have, not to mention the spiritual ones (
this was an allusion to the brow chakra ). So that's where the discussion on love and knowledge
came from.
Now, it's common knowledge in buddhist litterature for example (I have loads of others), that
love, and knowledge, are inseparable; in the sutras, they say that shunyata and karuna, void and
compassion, are inseparable. What does this mean? It means that to be compassionate towards
someone, you have to know him; the better you get to know this person, the more you'll be able to
help him; but this knowledge must be unbiased by your beliefs, preconceptions, fears, or any
other distortion that could take place in what some would call the mirroring process. This
undistorted knowledge, this intensified knowledge, is called prajna in sanskrt, and its objective
pole, the world seen with those particular eyes, is shunyata: and what the buddhist say is that
without the realization of this principle, you don't have true love, you don't have true
compassion. So... doesn't this just make sense?
Now to briefly respond to hillary, I agree that love doesn't need an _object_, since love is our
very nature; we can be in love with no particular object to love, but we can also _know_ with no
particular object in mind, (think about it..) and in fact, love, and knowledge are, absolutely
speaking, one and the same; isn't our innermost
nature being- _consciousness_ - _ bliss_? Three in one? Isn't consciousness, therefore,
_knowledge_? So actually no one can say we can love without knowing because love _is_
knowledge. But since we're in the relative, and have to live in this maya, I think it'd still be wise
to follow buddhist's advice, and find out _who_ people are, so we can love them fully..
Djamel
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.