What Does Love Really Mean in 4D and Higher

[Diana]

I like this quote Minyatur posted from Hatonn:

My friends, it is not easy to come to an understanding of what love is, for among your peoples love is already named by so many lesser emotions and states of mind—and none of these is love. Do not become lost in emotion, for love is not emotion, and emotional service is often a “human” service, and not the service of love.

I think there are problems with the concept of love for many reasons here in 3D. One problem in grasping the concept is emotions, as Hatonn stated above. Humans have defined love according to emotional content, which as Minyatur pointed out, involves attachment. Once attachment is involved, free will is compromised.

That said, I don't think there is any way to hear a definition of what love is out of the limited context of 3D, as a cosmological force, and comprehend the words used to describe it. It is rather like the concept of time outside of 3D—it is difficult to comprehend that time doesn't exist as a linear function beyond this particular 3D existence.

What is love in the bigger sense? I imagine it to be a kind of force, like gravity or electromagnetism. We have no idea what gravity is, only theories, and to define love as a force would be equally difficult, especially given that we have human definitions already ingrained that are not only limiting but possibly diametrically opposed to the reality.

In a practical sense, becoming aware of love as a force, in my opinion and experience, requires acceptance. Acceptance is what opens the door to this force, and until then the force of self is maintained in order to withstand this existence. We as humans set boundaries automatically as a matter of survival. We can only handle so much at any given time. So awareness grows steadily and we adapt and learn and evolve and accept more as we go along—like a child who takes in more of the world around it and assimilates awareness in steps. A great fictional example of having immediate awareness was written by Frank Herbert in "Dune," when the full awareness of a mother was transferred to her unborn child during an initiation, and it aberrated the child because it was too much at once.

Carla's situation was one of being unbalanced to a degree that manifested martyrhood. I am not judging her choices, and when seen in the context of the 3 who made it possible for Ra to come through to us here, her part was vital. I am pointing out that a state of martyrhood puts the value of others over self, and this is SEPARATION, so it defeats the unity of all things and in doing so does not really align with the force of love. From the point of view of Ra, whose main message was the Law of One, and whose main concern was of free will and not to infringe upon it, their words may not make sense to someone who is not yet capable of apprehending enough beyond the 3D human perspective.

However, I can relate to what Black Dragon says:

...Sometimes it seems like the higher density beings can overlook the individual trees for the forest, so to speak, almost an "end justifies the means" attitude than can seem sort of ruthless and mechanistic. They can forget what it's like to have to live in 3d...

I feel that way a lot when reading most channelled material. We are down here in the trenches and it is not easy (to understate the matter). So some of the rhetoric just seems empty to me when I read things such as, All Is Well, and the like.

I take issue with a lot of what goes on here, and that includes the idea that this is transitory so it doesn't matter. I am not sure how anyone can say that only certain things matter—to me, either it all matters or none of it does, because if it is all one, it has to be cohesive and not have one part separated out.

But the reality is that we just know know much while here. It can be disheartening. Which in writing that word—disheartening—conjures up a whole new line of thinking, but since I already almost wrote a book in this post, I will stop here.