Saturday, January 3, 2015

Love and Attachment #4

What is love without compassion for all things?  Love in our traditional sense becomes fragmented, partial, selfish, securing, isolating and conflicting inwardly.  Is this what we want love to be--being separate from something?  Meaning, "I'm in love with this person and only I can have them."  Isn't "love" supposed to socially bring us together?  The "idea" of something surely is like that, isn't it?  Desiring something from the idea?  And when we're in love, do we stay together in harmony, balance, without fear, conflict?  Don't say, "that's relationship", "it's normal", "it happens to all couples sometimes".  True enough in this conditioned state, but we're discussing "love" and what it is and does.  Why do we embrace this form of love and its content?  The content of conflict, jealousy, death and fear.  Why is that love?  To be fearful of someone leaving or getting too close, causing some form of discomfort inwardly and socially.  The question should lead to an awareness.  So, what then happens when we "fall in love"?  Lets see.  Initially, we're told through social contact that there is this thing called "love" out there in the world and you have to find it within someone, someone "special", of course.  I'm not trying to be cynical.  We're told "you'll know you're in love when you've found the right person, trust them etc."  Really?  Is that what's really taking place?  Is "love" happening or is that attachment?  Now we're getting somewhere.  Is love embodied with hate which is confusion, misunderstanding and, thus, conflict--ever fighting for love?  One of the early actions in our lives is finding a friend, and what takes place in that action--that is, when we're old enough to consider love in our lives.  Basically, when we form friendships, there is initially common ground, isn't there?  We like what we see, hear, touch, anything sounding ideally similar, religiously, politically, or culturally stimulating and ultimately accepting.  When we accept these things, we accept the person and we build the relationship on this "common ground", don't we?  It builds and builds and we become more and more dependent on the sex, company, plans, desires, fear, conflict, dreams and all that which we at some point equate to being "in love", but don't see as attachment.  Why?  Because that person is comforting you psychologically and physically, keeping you from feeling alone, keeping the anxiety at bay, keeping your dreams and aspirations for the future alive and, thus, keeping you both from seeing the attachment.  Now, as time passes we slowly become attached to all these actions, and mostly dependent on the security the relationship is providing, right?  When we're alone, the other person is "a call away" or in the next room or coming home soon--we don't see it as a dependency, however, we say "it's a relationship" and "this is just how it is, normal."  Do you see how we just accept it as "normal"?  Remember, we're just looking at what is taking place, not implying it's good, bad, right or wrong.  See this--what happens when the relationship is severed?  What happens?  All the very things the relationship was built upon; the "good times", plans, aspirations, beliefs, sex etc., all come to the surface, showing you what the relationship was dependent on--you feel it pull at you as the distance between you both widens.  We think, "what am I going to do without him or her? "  This question will come to mind, it must because humanity always questions its survival in the face of vulnerability and insecurity.  Right?  We were once secure in a relationship and now we're not.  Most of us have heard or either said this.  How is it that the "coming together" or development of a relationship, all the dreams, fun, feelings, sharing and the rest of it, reverse themselves as the relationship ends?  Is this what love is?  Going from "loving" to despising someone?  Why isn't it everlasting when the relationship ends?  Then one must question if "love" really existed in the first place.  Did love or did the attachment end?  Because pain only comes from being attached to something.  This is not to say "love" is not without forms of pleasure and happiness, but the content of conflict and sorrow are ever present.  What then is true compassion?  So often we hear that he, she or they are compassionate about this or that, and have been doing it all their lives, or a long time etc.  Is that compassion or just drawing pleasure while engaged in an activity, something stimulating the mind or body?  "Liking" something and compassion are not the same thing.  Because compassion is not of the past or future, it isn't something handed down by history, culture, religion and tradition, for then, it would contain conflict, progression, control and so on.  Is compassion control or progressive?  It doesn't start here and end there.  No, compassion is an action with no past nor future action, therefore, it doesn't contain the effects of conflict, pain and sorrow.  How do you recognize it, though?  Do you think you're a compassionate person?  We like to think we are...when the time comes.  Note, true compassion isn't waiting for circumstance to reveal itself, this is merely being advantageous, right?  If we're waiting for a moment, waiting for a time, event or whatever, and suddenly think it's "time to be compassionate and show how much I am about something" then that is the sound of the ego, justifying itself as a securing social action.  The ego is creating that action behind our image--the one we face society with, meaning, friends, family, colleagues, strangers etc.  The image of ourselves is egoistical to say the least, always wanting, desiring, fearful, seeking attention and being advantageous.  Do we see this?  Compassion seeks no advantage as "love" does, it isn't attaching itself to anything because there is no past to confuse, conflict or contradict with the present and future.  Do you have compassion for other human beings like you do for your hobbies, food, events, foundations, own family and friends?  Look and see.  It is very likely we've been given a false sense of compassion, associating it with the superficial pleasures in a given society, and, therefore, never questioning what it factually is.  A society which never questions its action never sees the truth of itself, and merely accepts and "hopes" for the best.  Again, what then is compassion?  Is it just "liking" something or someone so much that you devote many hours of yourself to it or them?  No.  See it this way--when you look into a babies eyes and they smile at you, even without the smile, there is unlimited compassion coming at you.  Behind those eye is an energy that is alive, vital, fresh and active, at attention.  Do you see that a "still" mind is most active?  Not a mind that is full of the clutter of "knowledge" (more on that in article#13).  Compassion asks nothing of you, there is no ego, no past conflict, contradictions or future aspirations.  Do you see this?  That is the ultimate compassion, when it asks nothing of you as love does, and will do anything for the world and requires nothing in return as love does.  In understanding the construction and action of "love" in our minds and society, we also observe the conflict and trappings of it as well.  In seeing this clearly and factually as a human being in a structured society, one uncovers the conflicts of love and and observes the difference between that and attachment.  Only then will we abandon the isolation of "love" and express the compassion we have for all things.  Seek and spread this form of love.