I just received the following article from Colin Drake. It was something of a cosmic coincidence because I’ve been writing about love the past day. So it was a welcome surprise to find this in my email tonight. Writing about love as a main theme in my book I’ve tried to tie the concept of unconditional love to the truth that it is synonymous with an absence of duality. Love as an absence of duality is what Colin calls “no separation”. Love is simply the returning of multiplicity to its unitive state. “One becomes many that many might become One” which is an apt play on Athanasius’ words, “God became man that man might become God.” Anyway I couldn’t wish to share this truth better than Colin has so enjoy his beautiful article!
~*~
Love is No Separation
This appeared as ‘Haiku of the Day’ on an internet site[1]:
The following two quotes are offered as further exposition — the first as a great new definition of love and the second as a 30 year favourite — to highlight the understated genius of Bill Samuel’s “Love is here, right now, as Identity” pointer:
“Love is ‘no separation’ and in consciousness, at rest as pure awareness, and in motion as the manifest universe, there is no separation. This consciousness in all modes is God, Allah, Brahman, The Void, The Tao … call it what you will,”
Colin Drake (from “A Light Unto Yourself,” pg.39)
“…the undivided mind is aware of experience as a unity, of the whole as itself, and that the whole nature of the mind and awareness is to be one with what it knows, suggests a state usually called love.”
Alan Watts (from “The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety,” pg. 130).]
As you can see the writer describes ‘Love is no separation’ as a great new definition which made me ponder whether it is indeed a new way of describing love … especially considering the 30 year old quote he follows it with! It also made me want to flesh out the idea to give it more substance. To achieve this we need to start by defining ‘Love’, which:
… is incredibly difficult as all of the definitions given tend to be of one of its various forms. Take for example the definition in the Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary: ‘Deep affection or fondness, sexual passion, sexual relations, delight in, admire, greatly cherish, like very much , greatly enjoy’[2] which gives a wide range of types of love. Generally there are considered to be six main forms of love. These are ‘storge’ which is a quiet and friendly attachment, ‘eros’ which is passionate and committed, ‘ludus’ which is playful and not committed, ‘mania’ which is obsessive and over-committed, ‘agape’ which is universal and altruistic, and finally ‘pragma’ which is practical in the sense of looking for a partner with the right qualities for a compatible relationship.[3]
The challenge is to find an overall definition of (the noun) love to which we can apply all of the above, to show its different forms. Taking all of this into account, and bearing in mind that what we are discussing here is love between people (rather than the love of a good book, for example) I am going to define love as ‘empathetic attraction’ (for or to). Then the various names, associated with different types, will indicate its nature in terms of strength, commitment, attachment, etc. [4]
This definition ‘empathetic attraction’ implies being attracted to, and thus wishing to be in the presence of, one with whom one empathizes. So that this means being attracted to someone with whom we can identify and so ‘fully comprehend’.[5] This gives the clue that to attain universal love (agape) we must be able to identify with everyone we encounter. To do this we must be able to view every person as of the same essence and thus realize that there is essentially no difference between oneself and anyone else. In this case we can fully comprehend the essence of what it is to be human without needing to fully comprehend everyone’s individual character traits.
To be able to view every person as being of the same essence, pure awareness, implies that there is no separation between oneself and another. From this follows that one would naturally treat others as oneself (or as one would wish to be treated by others) … which is itself a pretty good definition of brotherly (universal) love.
It could be argued that this (agape) is the ‘coolest’ form of love, but can this definition of love as ‘no separation’ be applied to all forms of love, especially the ‘hottest’ eros which is ‘passionate and committed’? To consider this I can only rely on my two personal experiences of being deeply in love. In both cases I longed to be with my beloved at all times … in a state of ‘no separation’, and was only happy when in her presence. This is born out by literature, drama, films and pop-culture all of which emphasize this aspect of ‘love’. So if ‘no separation’ can be applied to the coolest and hottest forms of love I would argue that it must also be applicable to all forms in between.
Moreover, it can be argued that this can be expanded to love in all of its manifestations beyond merely human to human love. For as every thing is a manifestation of cosmic energy, consciousness in motion, appearing in (existing in and subsiding back into) pure awareness, consciousness at rest, then every thing is of the same essence. And as all things exert a gravitational pull on all other things, i.e. are attracted to all other things. Then there is indeed an empathetic attraction between all things, which are in a state of ‘no separation’ being manifestations of the same universal consciousness.
At the experiential level once awakening has taken place then there is a deep feeling of not being separate from one’s environment or any other being. In my case this has been accompanied by being ‘in love with existence’:
If the previous evening was intoxication, this was bliss, with an ecstatic throbbing of the heart and whole body, which was basked in delight. This lasted for a couple of hours … I then returned to that divine walk and I was continually aware of the divine (in the form of ‘Mother’) all around. Singing in the sublime dawn chorus, blowing gently on my face, displaying her beauty as tree and bush, scudding across the sky tinged silver and gold by the sun, lowing in the fields … everywhere was only ‘She’! I felt I knew how St Francis of Assisi felt.
The best way to describe the feeling that accompanies all of this is as being deeply in love with a beloved who is always present, both within and without. It was even accompanied by some of the physical symptoms I experienced the first time I fell deeply in love, a deep throbbing of the heart, queasiness of the stomach and an overall glow and sense of well-being.[6]
So based on all of the above I posit that ‘Love is no separation’ in all of its many varied and variegated forms.
This is wonderful, for in reality there is ‘no separation’; as there is only consciousness, at rest as pure awareness and in motion as cosmic energy – the manifest universe(s?). So there is only love, or God is love, all is love, say it how you will!
~*~
In this there can be no separate ‘saying’,
Manifestation is the Lover and Beloved playing.
What appears to us as ‘you’ and ‘me’,
Are wondrous instruments, of the Beloved, Thee.
Between The Unmanifest and Creation,
There can be no separation.
For the Lover and Beloved are already one,
Appearing as the ‘many’ just for fun![7]
[1] http://www.eons.com/blogs/entry/2672363-Hay-Ku-of-the-Day-Absolute-Love-
[2] Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 2002, S. Melbourne p.647
[3] V.C. Demunck., Romantic Love and Sexual Behaviour 1998, Westport CT, p.37-38
[4] C. Drake, A Light Unto Yourself, 2011, Halifax, p.176-177
[5] Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 2002, S. Melbourne p.359
[6] C. Drake, Beyond the Separate Self, 2009, Halifax, p.183-184
[7] C. Drake, Poetry From Beyond the Separate Self, 2011, Tomewin, , p.5
