The Ego cannot Love.
-
If the ego or Ego can not love then what can?
The ego (Ego) is just a much a part of everything as everything is a part of it.
I would say it experiences love in its own limited fashion, which on other levels may seem false.As for a definition of Love: the dissolution of any difference between one thing and any other thing.
-
@Alrah said
"I don't think the Buddhists seek to subvert or destroy the ego by asserting that ultimately there is no Self. The two truths allow for an ultimate or absolute truth and a relative conventional truth."
Well, there isn't really any self to destroy, is there? The ego is merely a construct by which we relate our existence to other beings, but of itself it is nothing. Rather than destroy, one should seek to incorporate the "Self" into the plane of other selves so that each being might operate according to its true nature. That is the meaning of "Do What Thou Wilt."
(I think Froclown would have some very interesting, arguable things to say on this topic.
Where is that guy?) -
It isn't the function of the ego to b/gin w. The ego recognizes/fears it is alone and will b/alone and is missing something unless it learns to co-exsist and cannot always have it's own way.This is what the alchemical marriage is all about. 'Love is the law. Love "under" will.' True love and total ego can not co-exist.
Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.
-
-Carl Jung.
-
-
The ego cannot Love:
If we define it, state it, and believe it. Yes.
"We" can definitely be products of our beliefs, instead of making our beliefs into beneficial products. If we define our ego-identity and include it's beliefs, I'm sure it can be made to follow whatever concepts we want to assign to it.
-
I agree Alrah. Thankfully the ego can experience.
Again: Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.- -Carl Jung.
-
@Alrah said
"dispite any type of intellectual noodling whatsoever"
Intellectually noodling includes trying to define the subjective experience of anything. This includes Love.
EDIT:
My point is that we can often be pigeonholed into believing concepts - even things about this "MYSTICAL LOVE" - that can affect our ego to the point of it being unyielding to appropriate change. Change is Stability applies to anyone's label of this UNDEFINEABLE, UNYIELDING (but often fruity, misinterpreted stink that people call) Love. But I understand your point, thankfully.
-
@Alrah said
"Love makes the ego unyielding to appropriate change?"
So much fun. More clearly:
Some people's idea of Love (which ends up being a selfish sentimentality), ends up being a device of the ego (could it be?
), masquerading as something higher, sometimes leading to problems.Belief, in anything, can cause us to erect one tower and never destroy it. Clinging to our own mental constructs without ever bothering to ask ourselves why we believe it. This can stunt growth. Concepts are limiting, but the ego-identity loves them. Gives it something to cling to.
Look at the Christians. That was my point.
So many things on this planet are done in the name of "Love", including passivity and imbalance in benevolence. Unfortunately, "Love" has become a buzzword.
-
@Alrah said
""By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." - [KaccΔyanagotta Sutta] "
All poles have shifted. A word exits the Buddha's mouth, and immediately his followers set it in stone. But that Buddha is dead, and the world is changed, and the entirety of our current preconceptions have little to do with what was once "Truth."
There is No-Self (the destruction of the illusion of self, an act in itself No-Thing, has no polarity, beginning, end, whatever. It simply precludes the Union of that which is Many with the One. The snake eats its tail, but the tail is not conscious of itself as such.)
Nothing need be lost or gained. There is no Ego to love. The idea of Self is the basis of Sheol. That which we call the ego is simply a facet of Divnity, which in itself is not limited to conception, time, or space. Thus there "is no ego." But this is the view of one who "knoweth God." The un-initiate, the man on the street--he suffers from the idea that he is different from other people. In reality were are all simply minute factors in a grand coalescence of Id, and that, Null. Hence, joy.
Enough of this auto-erotic intellectual vacillation. Find thy Will and Do That.
-
@JPF said
"Enough of this auto-erotic intellectual vacillation."
But whatever would we do with the discussion board?
@JPF said
"Find thy Will and Do That."
I couldn't agree more. Practice makes perfect.
"And Adonai said: The strong brown reaper swept his swathe and rejoiced. The wise man counted his muscles, and pondered, and understood not, and was sad. Reap thou, and rejoice!"
-
[quote="Alrah"}
Would you expand on this please?
"Have you ever put a needle in your vein and injected heroin?
Caressing the needle as you become excited at the thought...
that sharp stick felt as it first punctures your skin.
Sinking it deeper, steel disappearing,
you apply a slow,
gentle,
pressure: injecting your Lord directly into your veins.
Holy! Holy! The Lord has Risen!I am guess I am really a junkie that can not be saved.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Alrah said
"
Would you expand on this please?
"Have you ever put a needle in your vein and injected heroin?
Caressing the needle as you become excited at the thought...
that sharp stick felt as it first punctures your skin.
Sinking it deeper, steel disappearing,
you apply a slow,
gentle,
pressure: injecting your Lord directly into your veins.
Holy! Holy! The Lord has Risen!I am guess I am really a junkie that can not be saved."
I recently saw--watched!--a deep dear friend smoke himself into oblivion and destroy his life before my eyes, and I'm...well. I don't want too say to much, but I know this: if you've never felt the touch of H before, and loved her, you will never know what it is to fight that inner battle.
I hope you win my friend. Myself? The battle is really half the fun, isn't it? I recently finshed reading "Junky" (while I took on a junky at my pad and watching him smoke his life away.) A good book. But nothing close to the truth of addiction and withdrawal.
I think the Thelemic Orders should proscribe a Heroin ordeal, wherein one needeth become addicted--and conquer the urge. Separates the boys from the men--that's for sure! Might I remind us that our Prophet was a longtime adherent...
My Brother, may we conquer that which seeks to destroy us. I have no qualms. As I said: it's in the battle we find joy.
Edit@ Universe: Relapse? You either conquer or you don't. There is no relapse. This is spoken by someone who just kicked a 3 month morphine habit (1-200mgs a day), and let his "junky" friend live with him while he kicked--cold turkey, three weeks, and two bupes. Nothing--and got high in front of me every day. You have to conquer. The point at which you can take Heroin--and laugh at it, enjoy the withdrawals. Smoke it again and get withdrawals just to conquer them again--and then transcend every such bodily sensation, and overcome. Like LSD: the weak fall by the wayside.
(Btw, a lot of that last paragraph won't make sense to someone who hasn't been into dope. Read Burroughs.)
Read Liber AL.
-
What can I say? Here, deep in a tequila binge (which I've been co-ordinating with a study of Ritual Consecration, a noble mixture only you could appreciate, tippler thou.
)--here, I happen to be waxing poetic, at three in the morning. Is that my fault?The Heroin eperience is something very, very painful. I spoke those words to whoever it is (I'm bad with names) out of the deepest sympathy. If it's my fault I sound so damn poetic, it's probably your fault, muse.
-
@Alrah said
"93,
Throwing this one in for debate: the ego cannot love, feels no love, is not capable of love and does not have the equipement to love.
Love is something engendered elsewhere, but when ego proclaimes 'I love you', it is a lie of manipulation, or a declaration to satisfy a social convention. It is something to be expected to say. But the ego does not love.
Any arguments to the contrary?
Love is the Law. Love under Will."
Agreed in that Love cannot derive from Ego.
Though I believe Egoists are capable of love. -
LOVE is simply evocation or perhaps inhabitation. The Ego would view it more as a tool of manipulation to accomplish social objectives?
-
93,
Ducky wrote:"LOVE is simply evocation or perhaps inhabitation. The Ego would view it more as a tool of manipulation to accomplish social objectives?"
You are actually saying love is a tool of manipulation?
Manipulation would, surely, be devoid love, which only exists with a broad awareness of the beloved.
93 93/93,
Edward -
The ego cannot love, but can it serve?
If not, we should all become Buddhists and smother it in its sleep.
Love and Will
-
93,
Alrah said of love as manipulation,"Mahayana? Story about the sweets offered to lead the children out of the burning building?"
Sure, but I could make a case that not dying by burning to death was a valid way of helping realization of the children's Will. They can still expiate any karma during the rest of their lives, and not have to die young, in terror and agony. I had the impression 'manipulation' was used by Ducky in the sense of (say) "If I tell you I love you, will you have sex with me?" That is, exploitation with very immediate physical or ego gratification in mind.
93 93/93,
Edward -
What was meant was that anything that is reasoned to produce an effect, love included, would be seen by the ego as an acquisitional tool - a power source - by which the material world could be manipulated.
The EGO is nothing more than a script of which the kernal imperative is to live.