Unconditional Love?

[Simmiah]

Okay, I'm posting this mostly because I've been reading & have come across several things I find problematic for myself to understand & integrate so I'm posting here. though I am sure I will find the answer in due time.

I am mainly reading Hawkins but this is a general question that has come up when I've read "A Course in Miracles" & also when I've read about mysticism & the various states that come with raising your consciousness.

Now Hawkins states Unconditional Love is an achievable state. I feel Love from time to time towards people yet it is MUCH easier for me to feel that love towards someone who is in grief or someone who is dying for example vs. someone who is antagonizing me at the moment or someone who is trying to emotionally barrage me. I'm sure many of you guys have dealt with this from time to time.

I have managed very recently to become one with the state even when the person is sort of angry & I've felt a peace come over me. Is this more unconditonal in terms of love? Or something else?

Now, what does it mean to feel that state of Unconditional Love? I've read that Mother Teresa was this way as well as Gandhi (both of whom I also study) & well! regarding my prior mentioned situations..what would Mother Teresa/Gandhi do? Or maybe the better question is: What would they feel? What would their internal response be? Would there even be a response or rather just a feel of loving peaceful radiance?

Also..regarding Unconditional Love. Are there 'boundaries' when you are unconditionally loving? Are 'boundaries' only necessary at lower consicousness levels because at that point you don't know how to deal with certain types of situations well on your own?

Or are 'boundaries' not necessary anymore because naturally you dis-gravitate from angry-ness & feel at peace regardless?

I am currently working on making my love more unconditional & less conditional so answering these questions would be great! Thank you in advance!

[Simmiah]

Sorry! Here's an additional question I'm having trouble with:

I am getting into a state of stillness/peace where even sounds from my local bar (you know rap music lots of bass beats at 2am!) are not managing to break it & I feel joy regardless. However! I am finding that I have an attachment to that love feeling that I've had from time to time & it is a different feeling from the peace...

Yet I've read love is from the divine realms... & well, basically I am asking.. is the attachment an impediment to peace? I don't believe it needs to be taken out completely but is love something you feel from time to time but the peace is the backdrop? Thanks!

[Dharma]

Now, what does it mean to feel that state of Unconditional Love?

It is an inner feeling of connectedness.

It is not the mind's idea of love which seems to be a smile upon your face, eternal peace, and love and light.

When you look in a new born's eyes say "this is me".
When you see dying soldiers on the TV, say "this is me".
When you see your spouse or children, say "this is me".
When you take a break and sit in the shade, say "this is me".
When you see someone in pain, say "this is me".
When you are arguing with someone,say "this is me".
When you fill out your taxes, say "this is me".

It's hard to have an argument for very long if you stay conscious and realize the other person is you. So you'll naturally resolve any conflicts you're having. But don't think you won't get mad, upset, or frustrated even as an enlightened person.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Simmiah

Yet I've read love is from the divine realms... & well, basically I am asking.. is the attachment an impediment to peace? I don't believe it needs to be taken out completely but is love something you feel from time to time but the peace is the backdrop? Thanks!

Not sure what you mean by the attachment.
The love comes from you. You create it as you do peace. You don't need to get rid of anything in this life. Just feel what you feel and be ok with it.

Many people like Hawkins model, I do not. In you next meditation you may want to try to make your own model of consciousness and see what you get. Allow anything that comes to mind. It could be some kind of drawing, or colors, or sounds, or animals. See what you unconscious brings you.

[ArthurHung]

A difficult question that perhaps is best answered in an indirect fashion. I haven’t read Hawkins but I think of unconditional love as the state of no fear as was stated in Steve’s latest podcast “Owning Your Darkside”. To identify with life/people is to feed the ego and actually helps others less; with this identifying, unconditional love cannot exist. Perhaps it is much more difficult for females to get into the state of unconditional love. My reasoning is that if they have children or are in a relationship; they will identify with the child or the man. If they do not have these, they will identify with themselves as a person without these things. Jesus and Buddha were never in relationships with women—this helped them maintain/develop constant unconditional love. People with unconditional love have a certain…non-attachment to beings, including themselves, yet holding…a way of perception about the true nature of the beings surrounding them. This holds them back from getting anxious at other's negative states of being--contemplating that those beings will return to the universe.

Unconditional love is an achievable state but only for a very, very few. Life has taught me that life itself isn't important. Therefore, fundamentally, there is nothing to fear. One way to maintain “no fear” or “unconditional love”: To use the unconscious as often as possible, raising the level of consciousness (the consequent being happiness and a great way to find the solution/ truth to problems).

[ethereal]

I'm not close to that state yet, but I remember Hawkins saying that up towards the high 500s (575ish) Ecstasy and Bliss come, and even this exquisite state must be surrendered to God in order for Peace at LOC 600 to prevail.

I also remember him saying that you don't negate or surrender Love (you get to the Void then! ), but you do surrender the attachment to love. So be non-attached to it, but not detached. I'm not 100% sure of this quote, but does it make some sense to you?

I like Dharma's explanation about connectedness, too. I remember hearing stories of even the Buddha being angry.

Happy that you're coming so far along, would love to hear more of your experiences!

[Groundless]

I'm not close to that state yet, but I remember Hawkins saying that up towards the high 500s (575ish) Ecstasy and Bliss come, and even this exquisite state must be surrendered to God in order for Peace at LOC 600 to prevail.

I forget where I read it but it is using an intemediate goal-state to move you on the path. The sate of pure unconditional love for all creatures/beings is a good place to be, once you get there that goal-state is now where you stand so looking toward next steps-goals is the way to go.

I read some of this from Nisargadatta Maharaj. Somewhere it was stated reaching the point of understanding for "I am" and desiring this state is better than not getting to that point. It can be used as an intermediate step along the process.

I am now finding written word to be woefully inadequate. I hope this was semi-coherent.

[DaveTyler]

Is it a feeling though? I've had some "peak experiences" of what I believe is enlightenment, but now I feel nothing, no change, it's like a quiet in me, which would be pretty nice if I had some emotions.
I always thought Unconditional love/joy/peace/bliss went BEYOND the emotions we feel in our ego's.
I thought it would be like your whole existance felt like when your inlove as a young teenager:P

[Simmiah]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

Is it a feeling though? I've had some "peak experiences" of what I believe is enlightenment, but now I feel nothing, no change, it's like a quiet in me, which would be pretty nice if I had some emotions.
I always thought Unconditional love/joy/peace/bliss went BEYOND the emotions we feel in our ego's.
I thought it would be like your whole existance felt like when your inlove as a young teenager:P

I'm pretty darned sure I'm not enlightened but umm.. in regards to your question actually I am pretty aware of what my feelings are. Actually it feels very different internally than what I feel projected.

Hmm. How do I put it? Well when I had my first experience it was a rush of energy through my head & for the 2 hours I was "high" I understood the Heart Sutra. At that point I had no clue what that was until I accidentally found Tolle's book & read he had a similar experience except he stayed there.

I didn't needless to say. But umm I'm working

I've found it is a natural energy that rises on its own & radiates out through my chest. It radiates at people sometimes or rises in my head on its own. I'm not sure what to call it but it is a feeling of love that is way different from my attachment type stuff I used to experience as a teenager. Though I would say the feelings I had sometimes were similar though this is very different I think.

Another question & btw, your responses are very helpful. I agree ethereal that I don't have to dis-clude love but rather remain unattached which is very difficult as I've noticed lately that I have become very attached to feeling in love all the time which obviously is a problem if I fall out of this state. heh. Because then comes a pain that is from an attachment hehe.

Ummm. Question: I've read that Jesus did become "angry" & you've read Buddha did too. How is this different from being at a level of consciousness where one is angry all the time? You know like people who are constantly ruffled...... Because I've been feeling not like being angry ..which I thought was a good thing.

& the connectedness thing makes sense. I think my meditation on becoming one with various things in my environment is helping with this. Thanks everyone!

[ethereal]

I think angriness as an emotion just comes up as part of the ego, but it doesn't affect you at all, doesn't take you out of the silence. It's like speakingness that happens on its own, but in this case its angriness

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to get angry all the time, and smoked endless cigarettes. But he's enlightened at LOC 720 -- go figure.

My theory is that they've transcended their ego instead of perfecting it. So they don't have "saintly" attributes that comes from perfecting the ego, but they have already gone beyond the ego and the personality. The angriness isn't coming from them, but from their residual persona that occurs on its own. You can say, they're angry emotionally but loving inside.

Hehe, I can't wait till I get to that state, I'd wish I'd have the problem of being attached to that feeling But yeah, the attachment creates its opposite, and it has to be dropped in order to transcend the duality.

Namaste

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

Jesus and Buddha were never in relationships with women—this helped them maintain/develop constant unconditional love.

I do not know what Buddha you have studied. Siddhartha Gautama was married and had a son....He left both of them on his sons first birthday and returned 12 years later. To say that Buddha had no relationship with a women is utterly false. There are also theories that Jesus also had a relationship with a women...and possibly had children. To say an enlightened person cannot marry or be in a relationship is way off base.

[Frans]

Every person in your life helps you to be who or what you are.
Even a person who's antagonizing you is put on your path for some reason: sometimes you can learn more from these people than from your friends.
So, if you look through this masquerade of "good" and "bad" guys, and if you always keep in mind that every person in your life has a specific "task" to teach you something, you will be grateful for every person you meet in your life and this is the first step towards unconditional love.

[ArthurHung]

I've never researched Buddha or Jesus in-depth, only having read about them from indirect sources, so I was just using that example from my base of general knowledge--which, apparently was lacking. I haven't really read too much specifically about enlightenment so I have a very subjective view of what that is; I consider no fear or unconditional love something different, something that can be achieved at the level of acceptance based on the levels of consciousness list on Steve's site--I would be more than happy to hear a differing opinion on this. No fear/Unconditional love is but a fundamental belief from Steve's latest podcast--I was using that definition. I'm definitely not claiming that I've achieved from Hawkin's list "The highest level of human consciousness, where humanity blends with divinity".

The person who wrote the Tao Te Ching would fit my description of enlightenment, though I feel that is something different from no fear/ unconditional love--which again, I think can be achieved by someone with a lower level of consciousness. To my knowledge he didn't have a relationship.

Isn't attachment to any form of feeling a step back from enlightenment? Therefore I would argue that if Buddha had a relationship, at that time, he wasn't enlightened.

[ArthurHung]

Also, I think the "no fear perspective"/"unconditional love" Steve was talking about in his latest podcast was a different one from what he wrote about in his levels of consciousness list:

"Love - I don’t like Hawkins’ label “love” here because this isn’t the emotion of love. It’s unconditional love, a permanent understanding of your connectedness with all that exists."

He didn't write about fundamental belief or no fear there. If the one he was talking about in his podcast was the same, then I would have to say I'm very confused as to where I am on the levels of consciousness list.

A bit off topic but I don't understand what Steve is saying here, could someone explain to me what this means?

"Hawkins claims this level is reached only by 1 in 250 people during their entire lifetimes."--on Love in the levels of consciousness list:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...consciousness/

[Simmiah]

Originally Posted by ethereal

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to get angry all the time, and smoked endless cigarettes. But he's enlightened at LOC 720 -- go figure.

My theory is that they've transcended their ego instead of perfecting it. So they don't have "saintly" attributes that comes from perfecting the ego, but they have already gone beyond the ego and the personality. The angriness isn't coming from them, but from their residual persona that occurs on its own. You can say, they're angry emotionally but loving inside.

Heh. This sounds really funny & I didn't know that. Hmm.

Honestly Being spiritual isnt' what I thought it was when I was 7. I really thought of the stereotype.. you know.. like a person with a perpetual halo around their head & honestly, I don't think that's how it is. I mean anyone who knows me knows I'm not perfect heh. That's why I'm asking these questions because I've been realizing being spiritual isn't really what people think its about.. & there's a lot of confusing information out there. Hmm. That is interesting though.

I am guessing if Maharaj's smoking is like me eating chocolate cake (well I am trying this).. then he remains unattached regardless of how good or not good the cake is. I've been working on detaching judgment completely & seeing everything as it is & the beauty of that. That seems to be working a little bit right now.

[Simmiah]

Originally Posted by Frans

Every person in your life helps you to be who or what you are.
Even a person who's antagonizing you is put on your path for some reason: sometimes you can learn more from these people than from your friends.
So, if you look through this masquerade of "good" and "bad" guys, and if you always keep in mind that every person in your life has a specific "task" to teach you something, you will be grateful for every person you meet in your life and this is the first step towards unconditional love.

Yep yep! I totally agree. This is what I realized when I realized the negativity wasn't from them but was within me. & I've been working on suspending judgment. It is really difficult though to apply! My golly.

[Simmiah]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

The person who wrote the Tao Te Ching would fit my description of enlightenment, though I feel that is something different from no fear/ unconditional love--which again, I think can be achieved by someone with a lower level of consciousness. To my knowledge he didn't have a relationship.

Isn't attachment to any form of feeling a step back from enlightenment? Therefore I would argue that if Buddha had a relationship, at that time, he wasn't enlightened.

Well, according to Hawkins & well.. Gandhi. Hmm. How do I put this?

Yes Unconditional Love according to Hawkins is a progression from 500-599 where there is still association with Form (correct me if I'm wrong people!) whereas at 600 the beginning of Enlightenment form is transcended. If you read the workbook from Course in Miracles you will see very quickly the way of thinking at 600 is very different. I can barely digest half of it. The Tao te Ching which I've read is very similar & in the 600's if I'm correct. So you're right.. Love is achievable. Hawkins himself has said Unconditional Love is an achievable state by many people. Enlightenment is a little more up there.

It is possible to be unattached & not have to completely detach. In my opinion it is much easier to leave the world to transcend it than to remain in the world working your job, taking care of your kids... & still manage to transcend it by remain unattached to pleasure/pains of various things. Gandhi was married & had several children. Ascetism in its various forms (such as abstaining from sex) is helpful to break attachments at various points (I have not done this really. Look at my shoe collection.) but it is possible I think to be unattached. I was confused about this too as I studied buddhism years ago but none of it made much sense.

& btw, I'm married. No kids. But anyways, I have found that my love for my husband is different from my love for Source/God/Allah/whatever you call it. That is the love I am currently trying to apply to all people regardless. I don't find the love I have for my husband as conflicting but actually an expression of the bigger love. I hope this makes sense.

However, I've met a lot of people who think they are in love who are actually infatuated with their spouses. They feel unable to cope with life without them & there's actual panic attacks I've seen due to separations (I'm a military wife). Anyways! That is very different because its a high level of attachment to their spouse. To be honest, I think it is harder to remain loving in a relationship where one normally has a TON of expectations. Heh. Having an enlightened relationship is like running a marathon So difficult but worth it because everyday is an opportunity for spiritual growth.

[Simmiah]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

Also, I think the "no fear perspective"/"unconditional love" Steve was talking about in his latest podcast was a different one from what he wrote about in his levels of consciousness list:

"Love - I don’t like Hawkins’ label “love” here because this isn’t the emotion of love. It’s unconditional love, a permanent understanding of your connectedness with all that exists."

He didn't write about fundamental belief or no fear there. If the one he was talking about in his podcast was the same, then I would have to say I'm very confused as to where I am on the levels of consciousness list.

A bit off topic but I don't understand what Steve is saying here, could someone explain to me what this means?

"Hawkins claims this level is reached only by 1 in 250 people during their entire lifetimes."--on Love in the levels of consciousness list:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...consciousness/

I agree with a lot of what Steve wrote. I don't like the label "love" either because like the label "God" once you use it sometimes people go on auto-pilot & start thinking of what they were taught by other people about the label. I mean if you look at half the love songs out there hehe you very quickly see it isn't about true unconditional love but something else. & sometimes its only about lust. hehe.

Well Hawkins likes to use statistics but honestly I think the #s for people in 500 & up are going to raise. Maybe I'm an optimist but I truly believe this. & I agree with a lot of what Steve wrote.. I forgot it & it was interesting to read his take because I had read it such a long time ago. Hmm.

I don't think it matters as much where you're at on the scale but to know what your higher destination/goal is. Mine immediately is unconditional love because I realize I need to learn that to grow more. I don't honestly understand Joy & above because I've never really felt that except one lone experience that didn't stay there. So.. & above that I have no clue but to have faith in what has been written before by other mystics & spiritual teachers before. I haven't listened to Steve's recent podcast but I am curious how his recent take is different. Maybe Steve was talking about something else?

[ArthurHung]

I've read 3-5 posts by you and it seems every post you make I learn something new and find myself easily agreeing Simmiah Thanks for the explanation.

I particularly enjoyed reading this:

I have found that my love for my husband is different from my love for Source/God/Allah/whatever you call it. That is the love I am currently trying to apply to all people regardless. I don't find the love I have for my husband as conflicting but actually an expression of the bigger love. I hope this makes sense.

I think I understand what you are saying. This makes me feel that later when I’m in a relationship myself I don't necessarily have to compromise raising my level of consciousness

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

Isn't attachment to any form of feeling a step back from enlightenment? Therefore I would argue that if Buddha had a relationship, at that time, he wasn't enlightened.

Yes it is. You do not have to be attached to have a loving relationship.

[Groundless]

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to get angry all the time, and smoked endless cigarettes. But he's enlightened at LOC 720 -- go figure.

The tobacco content of cigarettes are not considered terribly bad according to Hawkins. It is the other fillers that the corporate people added that are bad for you. So, buy pure tobacco and roll it up, Hawkins says it's ok.

:-)

[L5P Michelle]

I enjoy Hawkins' books, but I just don't buy into the "calibrating" theory. It's impossible for me to truly know if someone else is enlightened or at what level they are enlightened. I can only know the story I tell myself about someone's enlightenment. Besides: There is really no one else out there, but the One. Which is why I think this is all immaterial, anyway. Only my ego is fascinated by this comparison stuff, because my ego loves to separating "them" from me, loves to figure out who is "better" or "worse," "levels," etc. So, while I enjoyed Hawkins' book, his theory isn't useful for me.

Unconditional love isn't something I believe "I" do. Instead, Love does me, when the noise of my mind/ego has dropped. Unconditional love is far beyond the personal "me." My experience of true unconditional Love is that it is Something beyond thought, emotion and desire --- all those components which comprise this identity called 'Michelle.'

Because Love is part of me yet that which also transcends me, it is beyond my ego to "acquire" it or "achieve" it. I'm not expert, but my few experiences with Love suggest it's known through Grace. Grace is mystery -- beyond my understanding.

I don't believe that any egos are capable of true Love. Egos actually block Love. There are always some attachments there to work through, always some hidden agenda, belief systems. The more honest I've become with myself, the more clearly I see this in myself --- and not try to judge it!
True love does occur, but it's not our doing. It's something which appears in this world, despite our blocks. Christians call this Grace, so that's the symbol I'll use to describe it, I guess.

My understanding of A Course of Miracles is that it is a mind training which aims to gently un-do the false ego structure which continually blocks our awareness of Love/God (our true nature). I really think the Course encourages us to embrace a state of ceaseless prayer/surrender, which creates the spaciousness/opening through which Grace/Love appears. So I view the Course as a path leading to personal surrender, not really a path of personal "doing." Anything I think I "do" or "know" would imply that I think I'm in control ... It would also imply a future, since if I must acquire something to get there, it's not Here Now .... and that has simply never been my experience with the divine, as much as the control freak in me would have loved to to have been! .... Gratitude, openness (not assuming we KNOW), humility (i.e., questioning our thoughts/assumptions) & joining are so important --- much more than acquiring more knowledge, more workshops, more books.

That's where I'm at today, anyway.

[Simmiah]

Originally Posted by L5P Michelle

I enjoy Hawkins' books, but I just don't buy into the "calibrating" theory. It's impossible for me to truly know if someone else is enlightened or at what level they are enlightened. I can only know the story I tell myself about someone's enlightenment. Besides: There is really no one else out there, but the One. Which is why I think this is all immaterial, anyway. Only my ego is fascinated by this comparison stuff, because my ego loves to separating "them" from me, loves to figure out who is "better" or "worse," "levels," etc. So, while I enjoyed Hawkins' book, his theory isn't useful for me.

<snip>

Because Love is part of me yet that which also transcends me, it is beyond my ego to "acquire" it or "achieve" it. I'm not expert, but my few experiences with Love suggest it's known through Grace. Grace is mystery -- beyond my understanding.

I don't believe that any egos are capable of true Love. Egos actually block Love. There are always some attachments there to work through, always some hidden agenda, belief systems. The more honest I've become with myself, the more clearly I see this in myself --- and not try to judge it!
True love does occur, but it's not our doing. It's something which appears in this world, despite our blocks. Christians call this Grace, so that's the symbol I'll use to describe it, I guess.

My understanding of A Course of Miracles is that it is a mind training which aims to gently un-do the false ego structure which continually blocks our awareness of Love/God (our true nature). I really think the Course encourages us to embrace a state of ceaseless prayer/surrender, which creates the spaciousness/opening through which Grace/Love appears.

I ran into the exact same problem with Hawkins & I figure once I drop my impositions on to the material then I'll have understood what it means to be completely free from my ego. Until then I'm avoiding certain parts of his writings such as all his calibrations. I do like his other writings though.. like about meditation & about nonduality. That's been helpful in some ways.

I don't understand the concept of Grace either. But then again I didn't understand faith until really recently & I'm still not good at applying faith at all times. I wonder what Grace is.. but then again what comes to mind is "by the Grace of God am I"... by God's love then am I to be? I think that might be what Grace is but then to feel it is another story.

Yes I agree a Course in Miracles is training. Still it is very difficult. I have a lot of trouble 100% applying it. To be consistently forgiving is very difficult yet is emphasized in almost every religion I've read about. Thanks for your thoughts.. actually really helpful for me.

[DaveTyler]

I thought his Calibration theory was proven?

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

I thought his Calibration theory was proven?

Nothing can ever be proved or disproved. His calibration theory has been widely criticized, "Mainstream scientists and scientific skeptics, notably professor of philosophy and author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll, state that AK's results are triggered by ideomotor effect and recognize Hawkins' use of applied kinesiology to be a pseudoscience when scrutinized with the scientific method. This is evidenced by double-blind studies, including some that found AK to be "no more useful than random guessing," as well as additional research and reviews contained in the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health" The thing is though, that all scientific experiments are directly effected by the experimenters...this has been proven in the quantum sciences. An observer changes everything, even a camera as observer. Even the Buddha knew this(nothing can be proven) which is why he was against ALL belief. Check out this short video YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Also, all our scientific measuring devices that we have invented...what do they do? They expand on and extend our human senses...which are not to be fully trusted anyways...you see the circular logic? "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it." - Einstein

[DaveTyler]

Damn, that's sad, it was kind of helping me, knowing if I'm going towards enlightenment or if it's insanity :P
I got kind of high calibration, at first it just scared me, but then after reading more about it, it started making sense and I felt a big urge to help people...
There's where I'm on my path, deciding wheter I'm going to go for spirituality or just give it up and go back to my ego =/

Yeah, I know, I hate to believe life is just science, no soul, no love, no meaning :/

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

You got a calibration? Who did it for you?

[DaveTyler]

A friend, I don't think he like's calibrating people so much, but he trust the process completely

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

A friend, I don't think he like's calibrating people so much, but he trust the process completely

I understand, anyway he would calibrate me though? I can understand not liking to calibrate people as I believe his reasoning is it causes division which is going in the opposite direction of his goals, but I would appreciate it, maybe you might ask for me?