Dr. Jacoby

Michael, you're absolutely right, one shouldn't over-conceptualize in practice, and yet that is all we can do communicating with words. Speaking of which: You said "feel things without becoming them", words that went straight to my heart. This is something i understand! On the other hand (and this is really at the root of all my spiritual doubts): isn't life/enlightenment about becoming all the things rather than none? Sure, one could say that it's ultimately just play with words, and that both are the same. However, i sense that true love is much closer to the concept of becoming all rather than none. But maybe there is also a strong tie between (using buddhist terms) compassion and detachment, i just haven't seen it yet. Reading suggestions anyone? This love-pondering has made me realize how affected i (choose to) become in social milieus sometimes. Worst of all, the more i like the person i interact with, the more i try to adapt her point of view. Note that i don't see this as a problem in it self, i think empathizing is a mostly useful activity. The problem i find is in maintaining "integrity" while at the same time connecting with other people. How can you do it? But ultimately i think the love-problem goes beyond these trivial situations. Sometimes i feel integrity is lost although no one else is around to affect me, and often the cause is something that started out as a "good thing". In the past i've had more experience with being thrown of by "bad things", so i've learnt to deal with that to some extent. The "good things" are still a hard nut to crack though. There is simply no big stop-sign when the good vibes gets going. So i sense that maybe i should handle those circumstances differently? On the other hand i don't want to slant or tilt my spiritual practice... Ok, i've had some time to reflect, and sorry for going so personal in this post. It couldn't be helped!

Oh my, you people are swifter and wiser than i had hope of. Ok, first on "feeling": i agree to large extent with freeform, examining the different types of feeling (as an activity) could be helpful. And yes, although there is a feeling involving judgement, pure experience can also be said to be accompanied by sorts of a feeling, although this feeling lacks the dualistic awareness of "me feeling". I like to see this non-dualistic feeling activity as related to the concept of intuition, which exists only in the instant moment and thus is free from causality (causality requires a time-frame). However, talking about experiences outside causality is very hard, since all concepts (i.e. words) are in themselves conditioning, giving cause and result. Therefore i think we might be better of sticking to examining that which is "added" rather than talking about the "pure". So how can one sense with certainty when there is adding, tainting the pure? Just practicing detachment (of nihilistic flavor) i have found it easy to make such distinctions in many situations. But with love, in it's all-inclusiveness and completeness, this tool doesn't suffice anymore. rex, you bring up the parallel of expanding awareness beyond times of practice. This i consider being the other side of the coin of the love dilemma. Because love (the pure one) can indeed be rewarding, and all these rewards are making me loose my centeredness/balance/what-you-will. Maybe we can fuse these issues to one solution, one that makes possible to know "tainted love" and still be open to pure love? This way we can learn from being in continous states of pure love, seeing the impurities as they arise and not be suprised or overwhelmed when it's already to late.

Sean: i feel honoured to take part in this madness, thanks for accepting me. Peregrino: my comments about your pic was ment as a compliment - still this doesn't mean that i'm condoning racial bigotry . Captain Beefheart i don't know very well, sadly.

Yes, now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the game. Still, i sense unresolved matters. There is surely a subtle difference between the two types of love mentioned - one encompasses the other, but not the other way around. But this subtlety is sort of intuitive and hard to grasp, at least for me (and hopefully not for you, i want answers) and causes a lot of confussion. The problem with "feeling" what's right is that you at that point align with (or utilize) karmic self, who quickly starts making judgements and wishes. Maybe that part of me can be used in the process without "tainting" it, i'm open for any suggestions as long as i find them sound and reasonable. I have thought of a probably successful method myself along the lines of your thoughts freeform: getting familiar with this unconditional love so it is immediately recognized on appearance. But i'm not pleased with this solution. I usually go for something more fool-proof, especially when the concepts are as esoteric as todays.

rex, thank you for your informative answer, greatly appreciated. You bring up some good points that i'll use for expanding this discussion a bit. First about the application of passion and its efficacy: if it doesn't lead to good result, it shouldn't be done, that much is clear. This is a golden rule of mine, that i constantly break and apply to large parts of life. However this notion i associate with what from a buddhist perspective might be called karmic self, the one who wants. I hypothesize that there is a "purer" form of experience than karmic self, some would call it (the purer) the one who knows. Actually i claim to experience that reality every time i meditate and focus is not on the will (or detached from it rather). I also like to think alot of meditators can relate to this experience, although perhaps not in the exact same wording. And i'm not talking about total enlightenment or anything, just a pretty mundane experience. This leads me to my second point: it is beyond this karmic self that i regard love in its purest form to exist. However, love seems to be, as you say complex and this gives rise to a problem: true love (or something like that) should encompass everything that can be experienced, and as such is not dismissive of passion. So even the purest love contains experiencing passion, if that is present in the karmic self at that point. And that's my problem with separating the experience of love beyond karmic self (unconditional love), and love born of karmic self (the sort of love that buys christmas gifts etc). They are so similar in experience that i get confused, to be blunt. Ok, that went pretty cut and dry...i guess i'm not used to talk about love. There is a parallel to all this in my "normal life", that i'm sure lots of bums have experienced: Whenever i'm in the flow, not wanting so much, not grasping, life tends to run smooth. The ladies get fond of me, men become brethren and all is well. Having that experience, little wants more, and in that moment i've already lost the flow. Although i usually laugh when this happens i don't exactly idealize it, as you surely understand. So how can this breaking of flow (and on a deeper level love) be handled? Can it be circumvented?

Thanks for the warm welcoming Peregrino... Oh boy, hadn't expected that anyone would call my bluff on german philosophy. Let's see if i dodge the bullets or take them to heart. PS. your avatar freaks me out, very surreal! DS

Hello everyone. This is my first real post here at tao bums, and as such i want to make it a useful one. I intend to address the problems and possible dangers of love (yes you heard me right) in spiritual practice. Let me explain: As i see things, there are two conflicting views on love in most philosophies, and this is especially explicit in the eastern traditions. At one level there is talk of merging with the greater beeing, compassion and all those other things we normally associate with "the greatness of god", god as an inextingushable source of love etc. This love, is supposed to go beyond discretion (the physical and mental realms) and is therefore ineffable and utterly pointless to discuss. Or is it not? The other level (which i personally feel is much "needed" in the western world) is the dispassionate messages of mostly east asian munks, saying that we should observe feelings and cravings as the illusions they are and not act on them as if they were real. This then becomes a question of being passionate about the dispassionate, or at least creates the possibility. The problem i see in both of these perspectives are the normative nature of how they tell us to relate to experiences of pleasure. The former, here representing a somewhat hedonistic approach, tells us that "god's love is the greatest good" "always seek the love of god" and so on, while the latter (asceticism) intuitively tells me to frown upon such notions. Me, wanting to steer clear of passions altogether (including the passion for dispassion, and the want for *anything*) have great trouble sorting out which kind of love that is acceptable and which is not (weird troubles, i know). In short, i'm looking for a method of analysis that will allow me to intellectually separate "good" love from not-so-good love as it happens. So people relate, empathize, do whatever you have to do, because i need an answer on this one. To me it makes total sense that to practise with passion (not denying it) you have to know what is passion and what is not. All that's needed is some practical way to go about this. Ok, enough of the psycho-babble. I hope i've been able to convey even the slightest piece of meaning through all this chattering. Kind regards, Dr. Jacoby

Hello everyone! I recently discovered the tao bums through a friend, and let me tell you: as far as internet forums on spirituality goes, this seems to be my kind of place! I personally love the non-sectarian touch held by many contributing members here, it feels very enabling and vibrant. I hope to contribute something to this community, although i have to be honest: ultimately i'm here for my own selfish reasons, beware! Lately, i have been dabbling mostly with the mind in practice, but i am now interested in expanding to the body oriented practices of tantrism. Taking this step i think requires some transformational knowledge on my part, so that whatever has been gained (or rather, un-done) will not be lost stepping into the fire of bodily sensations. The traditions that have sofar been my pillars of influence are (as i understand them, of course) buddhism, taoism and perhaps the german school of thought (meister eckhart, heidegger, nietzche etc) in philosophy. I look forward to sharing and discussing these and other perspectives with whoever is interested and interesting. BTW (the real reason i wrote this post): i haven't had any success in posting in other sections of this forum, is there some special initiation that has to be undergone to be able to post in and view the entire forum? Or perhaps THIS IS IT? Kind regards, Dr. Jacoby PS. I'm not a doctor. DS