More Lovexpressions

*******

It is undeniable that pure and complete Love defines the total nature of God, but much about Her is also summed up as cosmic and unlimited Mind, whose definition is the embedded context of Love, or Its "carrier-wave."

A can express her Love even when B does not know it, and in ways that B might not have even conceived. A Lovexpression need not confer with its recipient to be still genuine. If I send you a clock that is hideously ugly-- for example, a naked lady with the clock in her stomach-- and do it from a motive of pure Love, the gift-giving is unaffected by the fact that it is not exactly what you want. The Love, spectacularly imperfect, even misdirected, still represents a pure motive, and still creates the purest karma of Love!:)

If Love is their only motive, imho, it seems that almost anything that they do will be an expression of Love-- by very definition.

You seem to be assuming that if a person has Love alone as her motive, she is not capable of other interests or activities. But a motive of Love actually enriches other motives and other interests; it by no means drains life of its glorious, multiple, or fascinating diversities. Love extends, magnifies, and amplifies every element discovered, and all shared, in a full and glorified life, made ever richer by every expression of Love. For Love greatly enriches and embellishes life.

Love must exist in balance, for if It does not, Love can become disturbing, Its energy twisted, and Its energy moved into unhealthy areas. The human tendency to distort and warp can touch even this most splendid and glorious of cosmic resources. A twisted, misunderstood, and ugly "Love for God"-- or, at least, a defective interpretation of "Love"-- motivated Crusaders and Inquisitionists, and has stood behind wars, pogroms, pillaging, and evils of many varieties. So, it is very crucial-- indispensable-- to have a good definition of Love, and then, to balance selflove with other-love, autoagape with alloagape.

I wrote, "For she who does not love herself cannot effectively or deeply love others.

Love is one unified process, seamless, from one Mind. If you do not love the self, your Love-capacity is restricted, limited, and disabled. If you are so Love-challenged, unable to love the most intimate and wellknown mind ("your own"), you do not have the capacity or ability to love another effectively (practically, with real Lovexpressions). You might be limited to the pseudoagapic a-Love mentioned in the last email.

Loving others is a special and very complex ability, not comparable to other activities. For Love, to be complete, is not like writing checks. Love is a gift that entails a certain completeness in its Source and expression. To express the real thing, in any substantive way, Love must begin with selfacceptance, selfcomfort, selfreflection, selfunderstanding, and other rather complex but healing forms of selflove. Selflove entails humility and goodness, and is never arrogant. But if Love does not begin with a healthy and balanced selflove, the entire Love-"mechanism" is broke, and Love for others becomes ineffective, limited, partial, increasingly imperfect, and even crippled. For Love is a sinngle Whole; and this is what Jesus implied by the famous equation of behavior, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If you love a doctor as a doctor, or a teacher as a teacher, or a wife as a wife, it is in these senses that you must try to love your fellow human beings as your Self. For they are all manifestations of your higher Self-- the highest Self, Brahman, the Creator.

You cannot serve others without having served the Self; you cannot like others without liking also the Self that indwells them. You cannot aid others without aiding the Self. You cannot understand others without understanding the Self. I will not create a boring litany, but you get the idea. Since the Self is within all, it is impossible to love the small self, or to love others, without loving the Self. In fact, it is impossible to love anything without simultaneously loving the Self Who is all things.

But even looking at the microself, the ego, you block the Loveflow and Loveglow when you do not love the self. Blocking the Flow resists it; resisting It cuts back the Flow; this restricts Love, and cuts it down to a trickle. we cannot force Love by an act of will; we must permit It in the Flow.

If a thief broke into your house, and held a gun up to your head, and shouted, "If you don't love me right now, I'm going to blow your head off!" you could not manage to love him through an act of will, even though you willed it with every micropsychon of your being! Love must be allowed. It is part of the Way that the human being P.L.A.Y.S. her life; this is the acronym for how the mystic becomes the vessel/conduit for God (Love): she Permits, Lets, Allows, Yields, and Surrenders. She either does this with fullness and completeness, or she does not. When she is successful in becoming the conduit for the Flow, she goes all the Way; perfect Love finds a perfect expression. A perfect expression-- which God the Self accomplishes, not the ego or social self-- finds perfect or full manifestation. A love that is healed and whole must include the self as well as the Self.

I wrote, "For selflove is as vviable and necessary an expression of true Love as is other-Love."

I fail to see any harm in giving pleasure to the self as an expression of selflove.

From the view of higher Love, there is nothing at all "wrong" with giving pleasure, including sexual pleasure, to the self, especially if this reflects what the other wants; thus does personal sexual pleasure express Love for the lover and the lovee simultaneously, making its expression even more complete....Good sex involves pleasuring both; and sensitive people are pleasured best when the self of the other enjoys the sharing. But neither does the mystic embrace even this fine principle absolutely or fanatically. For example, she does not condemn masturbation in moderation: Where is the harm that could and would make it a "sin"? As noted, there is no contradiction or inconsistency in seeking pleasure in good sex (that which does not harm), for both the self and the other.

For, in sensitive sex, each shares the pleasure of the other, and this keeps good sex from becoming mere shared masturbation; it makes it a real and deep sharing. Selfpleasuring becomes other-pleasuring....If both received genuine pleasure, this would make sharing sexually an expression of true Love for both by both.

Her skin's being stroked also pleases b. For her to receive of his Love is itself a supremely important way for her to give him Love. Love is a complex interactive process of continuous mutuality; so, whenever a allows b to love her, that is a real way to love him.

In the best Love-sharing, the way that you pleasure the other is also your greatest pleasure. The division and dichotomy disappear in the mutuality of the Love, and the "your" and "my" dissolve, absorbed into the sharing or oneness of the pleasure.

In Love, as is not true within other contexts, there comes a point where Love for the other merges, converges, with Love for the self. This is especially, but not exclusively, true when the sexual pleasuring of a is also the highest way of loving b. Perhaps it is also true that sheltering a is another way of truly loving b. Love is so widely comprehensive that loving a is sometimes the best and most complete way of expressing Love for b. Duality often disappears in Love, in a Way that is not directly comparable to any other psychological or spiritual function.

But, especially in sexuality, no choice is necessary: Both can be equally and simultaneously pleased by Love-sharing, as sex.
*******