(Brynn's Beauty at Four)
Being in love means not only loving others but also loving and understanding one's self.
I see here and there, a belief that if one is a loving person one must love everything. One may accept reality as is, focus on being a loving person but how could a being live in love if they exclude themselves from that love. If that exclusion is there, I wonder, "How can that be love?"
In my thirties, I met a Buddhist monk that would not kill a mosquito even though he was allergic if bitten. Although his followers glowed about his commitment to love, I had my doubts concerning his interpretation of Buddha's legacy. I now wonder how he would handle the Ebola virus? Would he love this virus as it ravages his being, strangling his life?
If something hurts us, love for our selves requires distance from whatever is intent on our demise.
It's interesting to me that anyone's perception of this world is granted omnipotent reverence. The belief that the Bible was written by God leaves me baffled. In my investigations, all Bible writings were channelled through a human. These writings were proclaimed as truths by yet other humans. If I merely say, God spoke with me, what commands others' belief in a God just because I say God spoke with me? My unfailing belief? This may be interesting but to blindly believe an untested-beyond-belief-anything without subjective experience is rejecting the very thing that is presented in this holy book as free will.
Except for results which adhere to a careful protocol carried out by the scientific community, every 'truth' is a mere opinion. A scientist does not present any given result as a truth but rather publishes the result and waits. Their exuding confidence is tempered by the experience that what is known is always far less that what is not known; a scientist needs this open discernment to prevent arrogant inadequacy. If the scientific community concurs the experiment has produced a viable fact, they do not reference it as fact but rather as an agreement. Many facts once believed to be undeniable facts eventually became false conclusions. Scientists simply agree on 'truths' alert for when some new data rises transforming that truth into a false perception. They keep their belief systems precarious ever ready to learn something uncovered.
Other's views even if they are firmly convinced of their 'facts' make little impression on me. What they present may be interesting but no more than this. Although I have more credence for investigative explorations presented by the scientific community, nonetheless, even in this discipline, I exercise reservation.
Of course, my reservation include my own observations and conclusions.
This may not be obvious whenever I express myself. When I write my thoughts, I do not pepper my expression with, I think, maybe, perhaps, I am not sure or I don't know for certain. My thoughts stream without doubt facilitating the flow that causes a write to stream. In reading others, I perceive this in their writings as well.
This lack of doubt in my temporary expression does not signify much except my lack-of-doubt-temporary-expression of my flowing-changing-thoughts which are subject to change any second...
Certainty, surety, facts, truths are for the weak minded. Ambiguity requires a strong courageous mind trusting the flow of change. Change teaches over and over again there is no permanence. We exist in a violently changing universe that roars with laughter at our subjective attempts in omnipotence.