Reality, Love, and God

[Eric11235]

Vannakam,

It has certainly been a while since I last posted, but after today I wonder if anyone shares this belief: God is Love, and by extension the whole of reality is love.

This would seem to contradict my conception of the supreme as I have posted it here and in truth and labels affixed to the absolute is a futile effort, only when we attain brahman do we truly understand god.

But I feel that if one loves, and loves indiscriminately, purely and evenly, that could be considered god after a manner. Love is powerful and feelings of love for absolutely everything whether they be evil, good, neutral, animate or inanimate is in a way removing a fundamental dichotomy: Love and hate

Since the almighty (as my human mind can conceive) lies outside the bounds of dichotomies this would indicate to me that to love wholly is after a manner god.

Also, since I hold a Panentheistic conception of the immutable, if love is god, then by extension all that is, is love. Since god is absolute, present everywhere and nowhere, in the tiniest quark to the biggest super cluster, the fundamental reality is based in love.

I'm sure there is a flaw in my argument or syllogism somewhere, and if there is, I ask that people please be gentle when showing that flaw.

Namaste

[philosoraptor]

Pranams

Love is an emotion. Love is not God.

God is described in our scriptures as the highest person, one without a second, He from whom everything else originates and He by whom everything else is sustained. He is transcendental to matter and yet at the same time pervades everything without losing His transcendental status. He is smaller than the smallest, larger than the largest, can move faster than thought, etc. What need is there to invent a new explanation?

The word "love" is also vague. What do you mean by love? Do you mean attachment? infatuation? That's what most Westerners really mean when they use the word "love." Or, perhaps you mean selfless, uninterrupted, unqualified devotion, as is the case when the Puraanas describe bhakti. Even then, it's not satisfactory to say "God is bhakti." Bhakti describes a mood or relationship between the bhakta and the ishvara. Your metaphor suffers from the same flaw as saying "The sun is heat" or "Mother is umbilical cord."

Apologies in advance if I have offended you in any way.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[Shivam]

praNam,

God can be love but highest form of it, may be thats the reason we say God to be SADCHIDANANDA: SAT+CHITTA+ANANDA ( eternal(sat) bliss(ananda) of consciousness(chitta)
.I would like to know what other members say.

Shivam

[johans]

Vannakam,

It has certainly been a while since I last posted, but after today I wonder if anyone shares this belief: God is Love, and by extension the whole of reality is love.

This would seem to contradict my conception of the supreme as I have posted it here and in truth and labels affixed to the absolute is a futile effort, only when we attain brahman do we truly understand god.

But I feel that if one loves, and loves indiscriminately, purely and evenly, that could be considered god after a manner. Love is powerful and feelings of love for absolutely everything whether they be evil, good, neutral, animate or inanimate is in a way removing a fundamental dichotomy: Love and hate

Since the almighty (as my human mind can conceive) lies outside the bounds of dichotomies this would indicate to me that to love wholly is after a manner god.

Also, since I hold a Panentheistic conception of the immutable, if love is god, then by extension all that is, is love. Since god is absolute, present everywhere and nowhere, in the tiniest quark to the biggest super cluster, the fundamental reality is based in love.

I'm sure there is a flaw in my argument or syllogism somewhere, and if there is, I ask that people please be gentle when showing that flaw.

Namaste

Tell me what Love is.

If you know what it is, I expect no reply.

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste


This depends greatly on definitions. For example, Shankaracharya described Brahman in terms of Sat Chit Ananda (Truth-Consciousness-Bliss).

While bliss might ordinarily be considered an attribute, a more nuanced view avoids this.


Jnanadev puts it beautifully as follows in chapter 5 of his Amrtanubhav:

1. These three attributes, Sat, Chit, and Ananda (Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss),
   Do not actually define Brahman.
   A poison is poison to others,
   But not to itself.
2. Shininess, hardness, and yellowness, Together signify gold.
   Stickiness, sweetness, and viscosity, Together signify honey.
3. Whiteness, fragrance, and softness, Are not three separate things;
   But only camphor.
4. Camphor is white;
   Not only that, it is soft.
   And not only that, it is fragrant as well.
5. Just as these three qualities signify
   One object  camphor, and not three objects;
   So the three qualities,
   Sat, Chit, and Ananda,
   Are contained in one reality.
6. It is true that the words,
   “Sat,” “Chit,” and “Ananda,”
   Are different;
   But the three are united in one Bliss.
7. Sat is Ananda and Chit 
   Or is it that Chit is Sat and Ananda?
   They cannot be separated;
   Just as sweetness cannot be separated from honey.

[Swami Abhayanand's translation from his book on Jnaneshvar available on request from his website].

Essentially he is saying that Satchitananda are provisional attributes that, like everything else, are non-different from the Attributeless, but come closer to the mark than most attributes.

You may regard love as the same.

Others would say that attribution is a problem of the mind: Brahman possesses all attributes, while simultaneously being attributeless. Human limitations born of the antahkarana cause attributes to be taken at face value.

Alternately, other advaitins (ie, Ramana Maharshi) reject even satchitananda as ultimately pertaining to Brahman.

Other advaitins, ie ajativadins, may regard attributes as resting in nirguna brahman in a subtle state. This particular view lends itself to esoteric approaches such as the Tribindu and related concepts.

From my habitual perspective (paradvaita), Love is the essence and means of oneness - by recognizing the divine love-affair in all phenomenon, internally and externally, one apprehends each seemingly finite object as a portal to the infinite.

Put simply: the union of the god and the goddess is all beings. I am the union of the god and the goddess. I am all beings, and the union of all beings.

Such lines of thought, in my opinion, when built on a foundation of spiritual emotion, are conducive to experiences of oneness.


Namaste

[Aum namah Śivāya]

Vannakam,

It has certainly been a while since I last posted, but after today I wonder if anyone shares this belief: God is Love, and by extension the whole of reality is love.

This would seem to contradict my conception of the supreme as I have posted it here and in truth and labels affixed to the absolute is a futile effort, only when we attain brahman do we truly understand god.

But I feel that if one loves, and loves indiscriminately, purely and evenly, that could be considered god after a manner. Love is powerful and feelings of love for absolutely everything whether they be evil, good, neutral, animate or inanimate is in a way removing a fundamental dichotomy: Love and hate

Since the almighty (as my human mind can conceive) lies outside the bounds of dichotomies this would indicate to me that to love wholly is after a manner god.

Also, since I hold a Panentheistic conception of the immutable, if love is god, then by extension all that is, is love. Since god is absolute, present everywhere and nowhere, in the tiniest quark to the biggest super cluster, the fundamental reality is based in love.

I'm sure there is a flaw in my argument or syllogism somewhere, and if there is, I ask that people please be gentle when showing that flaw.

Namaste

Namaste,

Yes, God is LOVE. Love is not an emotion, at least in the way that God is Love. This is an unconditional Love that embraces all things without discrimination. Love is the base of all existence, and Love is the unity of all things.

It is the path of Love that, in my view, is the fastest and surest way to God, because one who loves with pure Love must be quickly brought back to the Source of all Love. So in that way, you are right. Love must be emphasized much more than it currently is, as it is one of the most important attributes of the spiritual path.

ॐ

[c.smith]

Hari Om!

I must ask the questions - Does love change? Does it grow? In my opinion is does both so it is not truth.

Is the word "Love" anywhere in the Bhagavad Gita? Would be interested in what it would have to say on the subject.

Jai Jai Hanuman!

[Aum namah Śivāya]

Hari Om!

I must ask the questions - Does love change? Does it grow? In my opinion is does both so it is not truth.

Is the word "Love" anywhere in the Bhagavad Gita? Would be interested in what it would have to say on the subject.

Jai Jai Hanuman!

Namaste,

That is human love that changes and can grow. God's Love is infinite, complete in itself, needing of nothing, embracing all things equally, all beings equally whether or not they reciprocate.

ॐ

[philosoraptor]

Hari Om!

I must ask the questions - Does love change? Does it grow? In my opinion is does both so it is not truth.

Is the word "Love" anywhere in the Bhagavad Gita? Would be interested in what it would have to say on the subject.

Jai Jai Hanuman!

Well, there is gItA 18.54 which speaks of the attainment of "My bhakti" on the brahma-bhuta platform:

brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāńkṣati |
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiḿ labhate parām ||

[c.smith]

Hari Om!

And this is where it gets messy. Sanskrit being translated to English that is. As we know, there are often not good or meaningful translation for many of the words and perhaps "bhakti" will be an example. Let's take a look -

Bhakti: Devotional worship, directed to one Supreme Deity...

Devotion(al): Ardent, often selfless affection and dedication as to a person or ideal.

So, where is the love? Further, BG 18:54 from The Living Gita by Sw. Satchidananda reads "When you realize oneness with the Absolute, you are always serene and no longer subject to sorrow or the anxiety of personal desires. You feel the same regard for all creatures and rise to a state of supreme devotion to the Lord."

The Gita quoted above gives a very simplified explanation, but as bhakti (devotion) does seem to be the theme. As for myself, I'm not convinced that bhakti is love. It's just my point of view. Perhaps as I tread the spiritual path, my definitions and understandings may change.

So, to the original question, "Is God love"?

I tend to lean towards the "love is an emotion" school of thought but would also suggest that it also has some play with the ego - either good or bad. Thus for me, God is not love - God is.

Jai Jai Hanuman!