Only where there is no self

If there is beauty only where/when there is no self, then only where/when there is beauty is there peace. Only where there is peace can there be love.

 

Actually, there's also peace when there's only the self. There's also beauty in war. There's only true peace amidst conflict. And true friendship, in true selfishness.

 

No.

Only where there is LOVE can there be peace.

100% serious.

 

Love accounts for everything, however there is no accounting for taste.

 

Beauty is a type of perception. Beauty is a conception of the perceiver.

Love is without condition and therefore cannot be taught. The most substantial immediate barrier that peace must overcome is the desire to get rid of it for the sake of some "love". Love is never outside of the heart where it resides.

 

But where there is no peace there is conflict and therefore there can't be love, as long as there is conflict. Love is always being, but it cannot be allowed to be or enter as long as there is conflict and no peace.

 

I have come back again and again this morning to this post. I find the statement rather a difficult one to get my head around, not because I do not think that all is intertwined but because without self there is nothing.

You can not give without self. You can not be peaceful without self. You can not love without self. You can not see beauty without self.

Everything we do, be it a positive or a negative in life comes from self.

 

Say for example if one were to meditate outdoors (in nature say) with open eyes. No thoughts, no ego, no "I am" or "I want". Everything becomes pure observation, with utmost clarity. Say one sees a bird feeding it's young. No thoughts, just observe. It's beautiful, it is life, it is progress, it is nature, it is everything and only, it is life. This is beautiful, you simply observe how beautiful it is, but no thoughts, no "I think" "I want to take a picture". The simplicity of life, the simple beauty speaks to you, the real you, behind the ego. The you that registers love, life, all the knowledge that is already instilled in you after thousands of years of evolution. You know this is beautiful because it is real, it is living, it is all that matters, and all any living thing needs to do. This simplicity gives you peace, makes you peaceful, not you (your name) but your current biological and metaphysical state. Because it is natural to feel nothing but love when we are peaceful (the only feeling that is not only of the body) you feel only love for what you are seeing. When there is no self (the ego) there is only peace. The ego brings conflict. When there is only peace, and because there is no self, there can only be love, as love is the only feeling/tether that exists both in the metaphysical and the physical. Your other emotions have dissolved with your ego. Love never comes from the ego, the ego is much to self interested. Love comes through that fine tether that connects you to the metaphysical. The ego's versions of love are; jealousy, desire, lust, neediness, and fear. Those are not love.

 

You are correct that love waits on invitation. Love cannot overcome but it does make all things right. Love is never absent. Every action may be regarded as love or the call for it. Conflict is the call for love.

 

I see. So, do you think that conflict is the true self trying to be heard over top of the ego? Thus calling out for love?

 

Self does not have to be ego. That is why I had such a hard time with the concept that you put forth.


Self is what has to clear all in order to see or feel or know that I am at peace.

The very act of meditation is self.

Without self then there is no inner consciousness of what or where to go and without that there is no giving of anything. My "self" or core has to be clear to give. If I do not have a self then how can I give anything to another, I have not met my own giving to me. It is not selfish or a matter of a me, it is unless I know self and can give from there it is meaningless.

 

It's no matter or giving, taking, receiving. Who, what, where, when, why, and how are not supposed to come into question. This is in the context of pure, unobstructed observation. Practicing the art of just being. No thoughts. No direction. Because going in a direction is acting in self interest.

 

Going in a direction once again like self does not have to be that.

The act of meditation is questioning inner and resonance of inner and listening to inner. It is the clearing of external but it is still of self.

You can not recognize anything without self. To observe only is still from self. Without self there can not be observation.

 

I see what you are saying. I believe we're at a stalemate then. I think that we may define "self" differently from one another.

 

I think we do. I do understand your concept and I did really enjoy you sharing your thoughts with me. Thank you for the discussion.

 

Thank you as well. It was interesting

 

The pain of disappointment is the motivator, conflict is the way that the ego you describe addresses problems. The ego as a tool for addressing need is disappointing to the true self, because it seeks for things where they cannot be found, in separation, domination, and "special" interest.
The voice of the ego you describe always speaks first and loudly. Your true self offers it's counterpoint quietly without fanfare.

 

But in this idea the true self is behind motivation. If the true self motivates due to disappointment.

"The pain of disappointment is the motivator"

I think the ego is the motivator for the most part.

 

Conflict is the ego's way of addressing the problem. The ego is an actor, an act, an impersonator. It simply does not conceive of real solutions not does it understand reality. That impostor does not diminish the real statement of your personal tone.

 

But the ego plays a huge part in creating reality. It also motivates one to act in self interest, which most people do.