I often find myself in disagreement with my non-duality buddies, who continue to recommend that we “love it all.”
Oh sure, egos have relative ideas of “love” (over 6 billion, in fact), but after centuries of such relativity, we have come little closer to what love IS, thereby asserting “dualism” in the world of conscious experience or....what love IS NOT.
This makes me wonder why “loving it all” is so frequently advocated by non-dual teachers. Of course, hypothetically speaking, a non-ego might “love it all,” since relative concepts of "love" would not be superimposed upon experience.
....as if an ego has any comprehension of love.
Oh sure, egos have relative ideas of “love” (over 6 billion, in fact), but after centuries of such relativity, we have come little closer to what love IS, thereby asserting “dualism” in the world of conscious experience or....what love IS NOT.
This makes me wonder why “loving it all” is so frequently advocated by non-dual teachers. Of course, hypothetically speaking, a non-ego might “love it all,” since relative concepts of "love" would not be superimposed upon experience.
But then… show me a teacher who has NO ego and I'll show you an elephant that flies.
However, its easy to understand the ‘feeling’ dimension of an egocentric 'self' and “loving it all” would certainly seem to 'feel' better than NOT “loving it all.” But this is the trap of presupposing that love has something to do with 'feelings' and egos should probably NOT make assumptions that they have NO way of testing for truth (like knowing what “love” should 'feel' like... feeling THAT... and then pronouncing that you’re “loving it all”).
However, stop feeling love for "it all," even for a nanosecond, and guilt may very well be the very next feeling...
This Christmas, I would suggest you cease your attempts to “love it all” simply because relative love merely asserts its relative opposite, resulting in the usual combative contrasts that egos never fail to identify and, unfortunately, act upon (in fact, couldn't we say that it's all this relative "love" in the world that's the world's number one problem?)
For instance, let’s say this Christmas, somebody snubs your precious gift giving. Well, of course, instantly the ego will assert relative suffering, or 'hurt,' which will then threaten the ego's "loving it all" perspective, causing it to quickly rush to reframe it’s relative suffering into relative “love,” which it can only suffer from equally, due to it’s relativity...
...because deep down you know your only scamming your ‘self.’ Notice the circularity?
...because deep down you know your only scamming your ‘self.’ Notice the circularity?
This Christmas, seek neutrality... it's so much easier than "loving it all." (of course, your ego is telling you that you MUST "love it all' or else you're not being non-dual, but just ignore all that)
Egos fear that if they don't "love it all" than they will subsequently adopt the opposite perspective. Yet loving "it all," as a means of replacing fearing/hating “it all,” is probably not a ‘best practice’ for egocentric individuals stuck in relative perspectives of “love” (but still wanting some kind of "practice"). This is because relative love can only assert a dualistic opposite and, as we all know, the opposite of relative love would be relative fear (and corresponding relative hate).
Now, some would say that since we “are it all” we must then “love it all" (kind of in-sequence) Yet this is a story of mixing metaphors. Stating that we “are it all” is an excellent non-dual “pointer.' However, “loving it all” is an egocentric relative concept, since egos do not know love, only relative love.
It seems logical that once we can finally give up our relative concepts of “love” we might then be open to apprehending what love is, which might then result in discarding all relativity (hypothetically speaking).
Until then, it seems logical that a neutral perspective might be more advantageous than a relative “love it all” perspective. Yet, it does seem that some “non-dualists” are really stuck in the egocentric, relativity of Pollyanna love. But who can blame them, social conditioning is deeply pervasive (relatively speaking).
So this Christmas, instead of “loving it all” give neutrality a whirl.
This way you can't go 'wrong,' simply because you have not adopted one way or the other and your “loving it all” will no longer interfere with what LOVE can be...if you weren't out tryin' to "love it all."
Perfect Peace holds no perspective... one way or the other..so neither should a Peaceful Self.
So have a very neutrally merry Christmas!
(and avoid kissing hamsters.... kiss a Lemur instead)
(and avoid kissing hamsters.... kiss a Lemur instead)
Surreal image by Olivia - "Lemur Christmas"
Now wait a minute. You said not to call it love...but I guess if you put it in caps, it's OK!
ReplyDeleteLOVE to you then, Mike.
Off to wrap presents, because I love my children...and they NEED those new phones and ipods! The husband is getting a surprise pressure cooker, which he hinted for. NO, it's not analogous to his temperament! (Well, maybe a little.)
Merry Christmas, again.
Well, how about just liking some of it and blowing off the rest? People take it so seriously, like one would have mental illness if it weren't some garish display of guilt and crap. But I do like the lights. They are pretty against the snow. And a good Tridentine Mass, if you can find one, because a dead language can be a mystical language in a strange, unutterable sort of way.
ReplyDeleteI struggle sometimes with the concepts of duality v. non-duality, only in that I think some non-duality in thinking is achievable, but there is night and there is day, at least I really think so.
Cheers to Lemurs and such like.
Many Blessings to you and yours~
No One,
ReplyDeleteYou're right! That was a stupid typo. Fixed it, though
Nahnni,
"Well, how about just liking some of it and blowing off the rest?"
Maybe. But read my addendum post and see if you can roll with that.
And yes, I like the lights too, as long as I don't have to string 'em up around my house (which I have to do every year!).
I struggle with the concept too, which seems to be inherent to all concepts or maybe just inherent to ME.
HoHOHo!
mikeS