Do thoughts make love to each other
Is it only thoughts that fall in and out of love ?.... :? ....?
what is in and out of love ?
(and yes I can hear your funny remarks) ... :)
just trying to get to the bottom of this thing
called love :) :) :)
love Rose ;)
"Do thoughts make love to each other"
no, they just have meaningless sex when we're not looking
when couples break up that where once very sensually and physically attracted to each other
One might say it is the judgment of self thought that pulls the pair of them apart
if there was no thought would they still be together
is it self thought that creates the break down ?
is it self thought that stops the oneness between them ?
.......................................................
"Do thoughts make love to each other"
no, they just have meaningless sex when we're not looking
.........................................................
maybe it is (selfish) thought that has sex
and it is (no) thought that actually binds and creates the love of oneness.. that creates togetherness
does love consider itself ?
love is such a very misused word no wonder thought gets confused :) :) :)
the judgment of love
this is love and that is not love :roll:
I love you..... I love you not :roll:
love today >>>> hate tomorrow
maybe this is thought thinking it has a choice
is it choice or the wanting of choice that creates the break up
what I mean is there was no problem until judgment of love raised it's ugly head :mad:
love rose :)
rose you said:
"when couples break up that where once very sensually and physically attracted to each other
One might say it is the judgment of self thought that pulls the pair of them apart
if there was no thought would they still be together
is it self thought that creates the break down ?
is it self thought that stops the oneness between them ?"
Were they ever REALLY together?
If they are together in any way, that takes two or more to have a "together"; even if they are "together together", then what is it that gets together in the first place?
Were they ever REALLY together?
If they are together in any way, that takes two or more to have a "together"; even if they are "together together", then what is it that gets together in the first place?
................................................................
Grim that's what I am endeavoring to point out
yet how can you point too the >>>>holy ghost<<<<<
love cannot experience itself which is ....
a kind of sensed omnipresence
illumination
when thought is trying to push in front of it
in it's futile attempt at trying to be it
sometimes the thought of love
cannot get out of it's own way
and so fragments the purity of the flow
when two or more are gathered in my name there "I am"
the holy trinity
man... women and the holy ghost
man and women are designed to fit together perfectly
and love making is the beautiful art of making God
well it is in my book ;)
I do not know what love/god is all I know is that I love it
so one may say thought can make as much love as it likes
yet it is still making love to the fantasy of love
not saying there is anything wrong with fantasies
it just that you soon get bored with them
and maybe that is was splits up the relationships
as the fantasy is looked for somewhere else
love rose :)
rose~you said..."and it is no(thought)that actually binds and creates the love of oneness...that creates togetherness." (beautiful!)
that jumped out at me...and right off the bat...i would say that is it in a nutshell...it is the action of no self-thought that creates the oneness of love...
love to ALL...star...
Hello Rose, Star ... All!
Sorta LOVE this topic really!
In the Beatitudes their is ways to look at some of this.
One of the first contemplations on the Beatitudes came from St. Gregory of Nyssa, a
mystic who lived in Cappadocia around 380 AD. He described the Beatitudes this way:
"Beatitude is a possession of all things held to be good,
from which nothing is absent that a good desire may want.
Perhaps the meaning of beatitude may become clearer to us
if it is compared with its opposite.
Now the opposite of beatitude is misery.
Misery means being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings."
If we look closer and add the offerings of the beatitudes we can see into that perspective a little:
When one escapes the essence of duality they begin a journey onto the following as i see it.
Poor in spirit... one who has triumphed over pride and is unconditionally humble
They who morn ... i like this so let's let Gregory say it: Gregory of Nyssa taught that the Beatitudes built one upon another. Thus if we are humble and appreciate that all of our gifts and blessings come from God, we grow in love and gratitude for Jesus Christ our Savior. But this can only produce mourning and regret over our own sins and the sins of this world, for we have hurt the one who has been so good to us.
The meek ... have gained a docile spirit in obedience and in submission to the will of The Father.
IN fact he says it in the following:
"Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied."
A continuous desire for justice and moral perfection will lead one to a fulfillment of that desire - a transition and conversion to holiness.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
Love, compassion, and forgiveness towards one's neighbor will bring peace in your relationships. And your Heavenly Father will be merciful with you! Jesus reminds us that whatever "you did to the least of my brethren, you did it to me [Matthew 25:31-46]."
"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God."
To be pure of heart means to be free of all selfish intentions and self-seeking desires. What a beautiful goal! How many times have any of us performed an act perfectly free of any personal gain? But an act of pure and selfless giving brings happiness to all.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."
Peacemakers not only live peaceful lives but also try to bring peace and friendship to others, and to preserve peace between God and man. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out that by imitating God's love of man, the peacemakers become children of God.
"Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
Jesus said many times that those who follow Him will be persecuted. "If they persecute me, they will persecute you [John 15:20-21]." But the Lord promises his disciples that their reward will be the Kingdom of Heaven!
This process we could call awareness and/or an enlightened state. Love in the context of being unconditional has built up measures that have overcome the selfish nature.
grim, has added this much and it is surprising to see it in such a young person (man).
cool... Perhaps will make a good partner, should one remain in this insight.
Rose you and i have chatted. You too have a measure or two in this. In fact i want to apologize for those of man(kind) that have failed you by lacking this. Ditto Starlight and am afraid most all, Male or female... at one time or another.
Soon!!!
ray
this is my take
gates, what you said here:
"Gregory of Nyssa taught that the Beatitudes built one upon another."
This is the exact same idea as the thread: "Stacking Thoughts/Thinking"
when he says: "Beatitude is a possession of all things held to be good,
from which nothing is absent that a good desire may want.
Perhaps the meaning of beatitude may become clearer to us
if it is compared with its opposite.
Now the opposite of beatitude is misery.
Misery means being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings."
What he's saying is:
It's all Beautitude if you are Truly (and this is where Enlightenment comes in--Complete Surrender/Total Knowledge can only get you so far) accepting the "painful sufferings". Which, is everything, because if there is Pleasure, there MUST be Pain, otherwise, Pleasure couldn't even be there at all. If there is gain, there MUST be loss; if there will be something, there will be nothing. etc, etc, etc.
Beautitude is the Mountain (with the view always seen from the "Top"), so it's automatically always attempting/giving the look from the "best" perspective.
So looked at from this view, this is a pretty accurate teaching.
So he's simply just stating, (to get as much acceptance/surrender/knowledge as you can) and then "stack" everything on top of eachother. This is what the Mountain is. When you are "being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings" you package that shit seperate and set it aside. Normally, most to all of your thoughts/thinking are regarded as "beside" eachother, because there is complete co-mingling of "good/bad"; aka Relativity
When there is "Misery" or a "Negative" (as in the context of the teaching, so it's there somewhere), then the package is set aside, and this lowers the height of the Mountain.
This is why "Misery"/or "Negative" is said to be used as a 'lesson' instead of letting it bother you. You really don't even have to actually learn anything from it's context, just make sure that it is "held to be good".
The "Spiritual Path" is that of "transmuting" the 'bad' to 'good' and the Mountain/Person then progress/grows by itself. "Spiritual paths"/Religion, etc are what are used to see the "bad" as "good".
What's the best one though, right?
Well, stack all that shit on top of eachother, it will be much easier to get to the top when you're pooping out the Mountain.
a note of caution, when i say "just make sure it is 'held to be good'" you can't just say, "oh ya, i think it's good now." No, that doesn't work. You need to learn how to talk directly to your process of reacting. Do not try and change: the thought about the reacting, the thought about you reacting to it, or the reaction itself. Any of these three do not deal directly with the problem.
cortex wrote:
["Do thoughts make love to each other"
no, they just have meaningless sex when we're not looking ]
and this results in 'children', more thoughts, which grow up, become larger and larger.
Proof? Look that the posts in this thread, how they have grown from a few lines to huge, long posts.
Morbid obesity even in cyber space. :-)
shin,
In defense to long threads. The Apostle John noted that if all the works of the Lord were written, the world would not have enough paper (parchment) to contain it.
I take issue with any who feel that the utterance of Divine insight must be limited for those that need only to resonate the hum of the Ohm. Should the divine be as selfish where would that leave those incarnate of this world.
...well, as i see it!
ray
lol,
shin you said:
"cortex wrote:
'[(quoting rose:) "Do thoughts make love to each other"
(cortex responding:)no, they just have meaningless sex when we're not looking ]
and this results in 'children', more thoughts, which grow up, become larger and larger.'
(shin's input:)Proof? Look that the posts in this thread, how they have grown from a few lines to huge, long posts.
Morbid obesity even in cyber space"
lol, because length of post is directly related to relevance of meaning. The longer the post, the less relevant of meaning.
ok, got it.
Most of the things can be said in a quite succinct manner. I still believe that there are a significant number of people who consider themselves spiritual, maybe even of teacher/guru grade, are in fact *deliberately* out to mystify others using a variey of means.
you implicated the implication yourself, while your implication cannot see its own implications of having implied the implication implied by the original implication. (used it 8 times, you dont have to count)
cortex you said:
"you implicated the implication yourself, while your implication cannot see its own implications of having implied the implication implied by the original implication."
Says who?
---
shin you said:
"Grim, why are you asking me?"
did you not say the following?: "I still believe that there are a significant number of people who consider themselves spiritual, maybe even of teacher/guru grade, are in fact *deliberately* out to mystify others using a variey of means."
Are you saying that i created your belief that: "there are a significant number of people who consider themselves spiritual, maybe even of teacher/guru grade, (that) are in fact *deliberately* out to mystify others using a variety of means"?
shin....
"Morbid obesity even in cyber space." (refering to long posts.)
Laughed. Appreciation for an original application of an old phrase.
Don't know if thoughts make love since there seems to be no common consensus on the definition of love. But they ( thoughts) are certainly prolific. Like bunnies.
[shin you said:
"Grim, why are you asking me?"
did you not say the following?: ..... ]
~Grim, why are you asking me? You know the answer/s!
You knew the answer even before I was asking.
Recap:
1. Me, Infinite Rose & Gates all were discussing, and had too long of posts(by your opinion): "(shin's input:)Proof? Look that the posts in this thread, how they have grown from a few lines to huge, long posts.
Morbid obesity even in cyber space."
2. first, i went with traditional terms and usage, definitions taken from www.dictionary.com
"Morbid: suggesting an unhealthy mental state or attitude"
"Obesity: The condition of being obese; increased body weight caused by excessive accumulation of fat."
So, I was under the impression from YOUR POST, that you were drawing a parallel between all of our posts and how they have crossed the point into being "an unhealthy condition caused by excessive accumulation of words" aka "Morbid obesity even in cyber space.
3. and so i responded:
"lol, because length of post is directly related to relevance of meaning. The longer the post, the less relevant of meaning.
ok, got it."
4. then you responded to me:
"Most of the things can be said in a quite succinct manner. I still believe that there are a significant number of people who consider themselves spiritual, maybe even of teacher/guru grade, are in fact *deliberately* out to mystify others using a variey of means."
Infinite, or gates has no longer been posting, and we are now in direct dialogue. You directly responded to my response about length of posts(#3 in here) with: "Most of the things can be said in a quite succinct manner."
4a.Then you continue speaking, NOT ADDRESSING OR IMPLYING ANYONE ELSE: "I still believe that there are a significant number of people who consider themselves spiritual, maybe even of teacher/guru grade, are in fact *deliberately* out to mystify others using a variey of means."
4b.In traditional terms and usage, seeing as how you responded to me that most things can be stated in a succinct manner, then move on without any redirect of subject that you are talking about anyone else, then it is obviously assumed you are still speaking to me.
5. I understand the dangers of assumption which is why i asked you next:
"shin,
are you *deliberately* implicating me? or am i not included in that?"
6. you responded:
"(grim asked:)did you not say the following?: ..... ]
~Grim, why are you asking me? You know the answer/s!"
The incoherency of your posts is what has me asking.
or
Are you saying that: Because i see that you said it, i can assume how you meant it however i want, and then that assumption, then APPLIES to you? Is that what you're saying?
7. Because of this, along with you asking me why i am asking, i gave a partial recap:
"(grim asked:)did you not say the following?: '(shin:)I still believe that there are a significant number..."
I was only trying to recap so that i would be able to answer: Shin asked: "Grim, why are you asking me?" Again, the incoherency of your posts is what has me asking.
8. you responded again with:
"~Grim, why are you asking me? You know the answer/s!
You knew the answer even before I was asking."
See above. Btw, you havn't been asking anything, only asking me why i'm asking you. I've been asking YOU about YOUR POSTS, then you tried to flip it saying, "Why are you asking me?". However, for a third time, i'm asking because of the incoherency of your posts.
9. shin, you also did not answer this:
"Are you saying that i created your belief that: 'there are a significant number of people who consider themselves spiritual, maybe even of teacher/guru grade, (that) are in fact *deliberately* out to mystify others using a variety of means.'?"
10. shin, in direct response to where you wrote: "You knew the answer even before I was asking."
i said:
"shin,
so you're confident in my knowing then?
does it help you?"
10a.If you want to say that you were the one asking(which you were originally not), and you specifically said that i already knew the answer BEFORE you started to ask, then my response is perfectly valid.
10b.From your posts, it comes accross that you are confident in my knowing;
shin said: "~Grim, why are you asking me? You know the answer/s!"
so,
10c.If you are so confident that i know the answer(s), then it wouldn't matter why i asked, and hence, there would be no need for you to ask me why i am asking. However, you did anyway. So then, i pose the question again,
Does your confidence in my knowing help alleviate your asking?
11. you said lastly:
"I see you don't get it."
Uh, see above. That's what i've been trying to say but when i ask for clarification of your material, you don't illustrate and proceed say that i already know. Even accepting that, i asked you(in similar terms): Does your confidence in my knowing help alleviate your asking(of why you ask me)?; and then you posted, "I see you don't get it."
ps. If you're trying to say that this misunderstanding speaks for itself, that's saying too much.
~Grim,
you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble. You write:
[5. I understand the dangers of assumption]
which you clearly do not. I say things to all the people who read this forum.
Unless it is prefaced by the word 'Grim', it is not specifically directed at you.
What are you trying to achieve by your tactics of requoting post going way back and arguing about what you said and what the response was? In teh past it was other posters who were subject to this, now it is me. You should have recognised a long time ago that it is akin to pressing blood out of a stone.
The incoherence you see is in your mind, my replies were absolutely coherent from my perspective. There is no misunderstanding here.
shin you said:
"~Grim,
you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble. You write:
[(grim said:)'5. I understand the dangers of assumption]'
(shin responded:)'which you clearly do not. I say things to all the people who read this forum.
Unless it is prefaced by the word 'Grim', it is not specifically directed at you.'"
---
So when i wrote in response to your obesity comment:
"lol, because length of post is directly related to relevance of meaning. The longer the post, the less relevant of meaning.
ok, got it."
and you responded: "Most of the things can be said in a quite succinct manner."
1. Are you saying that you were not SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING me in your response: "Most of the things can be said in a quite succinct manner",
Yes or No?
You must log in to post.
Collection of Thoughts is proudly sponsored by GiftShoppingZone.com and powered by bbPress.