Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tl00431)

In a message dated 97-10-27 09:05:56 EST, you write:

To Nicole:

Greetings:

I  am responding in what I understand to date.  I have a lot to learn but this
is what I understand so far subject to change.

<< 
 Thank you for answering - it is very interesting what you write here. I
 agree with that what you write about "abuse or neglect" and I am also
 aware of such cases, but I do have some problems with the studies about
 "no mothering instinct". How did they try to find it out?>>

Nicole, as I understand it at this time, the traditional way research on
instincts is done is qualified by observation of test groups.  Instinct is
considered to be something you "have"  or born with regardless of environment
and without being taught.  Example:  a bird that flies North at the right
season that was never raised (therefore taught) with like birds or birds that
exhibited that behavior.  It knew to do something with no teaching or
coaching.  This is considered instinct.  When humans have children they do not
show a uniform behavior pattern regardless of training or situation.  Like all
studies, there are test groups with different backgrounds.  Plus the new
parent is observed and asked responses to the experience.  The ultimate
conclusion was humans do not *instinctively* have mother love.  It is either
personal or learned or both.

 <<"People who seem to be able to love unconditionally do seem a little
 "obsessed".

 I guess we misunderstood here. I was more referring to what you write
 above concerning "abuse or neglect" because desires seem to be part of the
ego
 and only ego leads then to obsession.>>

Nicole, there are, in  a sense two types of unconditional love.  From reading
Digest 1299 #2 - and your remarks about loving to much - there is the love of
the personality or lower self which DOES become obsessive or the love of the
Higher Self or Spirit which is inclusive and to a great degree selfless.  (See
MKR's remarks on unconditional love) same digest.  Higher Self or Spirit HAS
no limitations and is shared, therefore no shields or borders.  We are in
physical bodies, have physical lives and must to a degree have some
limitations or borders or at least most of us think we must, for psychological
well being.

<< I never read Freud - but why should one love unconditionally without self-
 interest?>>

 One should do what one feels from ones inner self.  If your inner self says
don't love unconditionally - Don't.  If we are part of a shared spirit the
point of self interest is there because to "take ones self out implies
separateness" (I'm quoting) OTH, most of us our focused on ourselves and could
stand a good dose of a loss of self interest.

 <<"They, also, talk of the need of "letting go of personality'" or "lower
self"
 which I interpret as shields."

 Shields to me are borders, limits - every human being needs shields
 and needs personality and there is nothing   l o w e r   in a self but it is
 important just to be yourselves.>>

Titus made some interesting remarks in Digest 1300 #2 regarding borders and
limits.
The bottom line as I understand it is borders and limits make us comfortable,
we need them to have a grounds for behavior that we can psychologically accept
from ourselves and others.  However, as Titus so aptly implies they become an
limitation after a point.  This is totally consistent with Theosophical
thought that I have read.  Most Spiritual, New Age, Theosophical material
seems bent on getting us to drop these limitations and be more inclusive.  

The subject of unconditional love lends itself to the subject of unity of
spirit.  It seems to me this is the motivation for *unconditional love*.  Does
anyone have any ideas to share along these lines?

Namaste,

crp