Natural Theory of Love: Beyond the normal thinking.....
(taken from osho file)



Real love always brings sadness. It is inevitable -- because love creates a space which opens new doors to your being. Love brings a twilight situation.
In the moment of love you can see what is unreal and what is real. In the moment of love you can see what is meaningless, what is meaningful, and at the same time you see you are rooted in the meaningless -- hence sadness. In the moment of love you become aware of your ultimate potential, you become aware of the farthest peak, but you are not there -- hence sadness.
You see a vision but it is a vision, and within a moment it will be gone. It is as if God has spoken to you in a dream and when you are awake you miss it. You know something has happened but it has not become a reality. It was just a passing breeze.
If love does not create sadness then know well it is not love. Love is bound to create sadness -- the greater the love, the greater will be the sadness in the wake of it.
Love opens the door to God. Two hearts come close, very, very close, but in that very closeness they can see the separation -- that is the sadness. When you are far away you cannot see it so clearly. You know you are separate but when you desire to be one with somebody and you long for it and there is great passion for it and you come close and you come close and then comes a moment when you are very, very close but beyond which you cannot go, you are stuck -- suddenly you become sad. The goal is so close by and yet it is beyond reach.

If you want it to become an eternal reality for you then love itself is not enough -- then prayer will be needed. Love makes you aware of this need -- and unless you start moving in prayer, love will create more and more sadness.

Sometimes after love you will fall into a deep frustrating night. Those who have not known love have not known the real misery, they have not known the real anguish. They live a flat kind of life. They have not known the peaks so they are not aware of the valleys. They have not reached to the maximum so they think that whatsoever they are doing is what life is supposed to be like. In love for a moment you become that which you should be. But it is only momentary.
You cannot become one in love. You can only have an illusion of becoming one. And that is the great desire -- how to be one, how to be one with the whole, how to fall in rapport with reality, how to disappear utterly. Because if you are, there is misery; if you are, there is anguish; if you are, there is anxiety. The very ego creates the problem. When you melt and disappear, when you become one, there is nobody left behind. You are just a wave in this eternal ocean of existence. You don't have a centre of your own; the centre of the whole has become your centre. Then anxiety disappears, then anguish disappears, then the potential has become actual. This is what is called enlightenment, this is what is called nirvana or God-realisation.
Love is moving in the same direction, but it can only promise, it cannot fulfil. It cannot deliver the goods -- hence the sadness. You feel you are coming very close to the point where you can disappear and yet you don't disappear. Again you start falling away from your beloved. Again and again you will come close and again and again you will fall back into your aloneness. But you will never become one. And unless you become one, ecstasy is not possible.

"WE COME INTO THIS WORLD ALONE,WE DEPART ALONE" --THIS ALSO IS ILLUSION.I WILL TEACH YOU THE WAY
NOT TO COME, NOT TO GO!
Love is illusion, so is meditation. The only thing that is good about meditation is that it can take you out of love. But don't cling to it -- it is just a device to bring you out of your love. It brings you out of the illusion of love. But then immediately drop it too, otherwise you will start creating new illusions of meditation, kundalini arising, light happening in the chakras... and a thousand and one things -- 'spiritual experiences' they are called. They are not spiritual or anything, they are just imagination.
When all those momentary things have been dropped, seeing that communication is not possible, relating is not possible, you start moving into aloneness. Then one day you see another phenomenon, that aloneness is not possible. Then rather than going back to love, which is the ordinary course, you jump out of aloneness too. You jump deeper.
From two you get into one, from one you get into none -- no-one. That is ADVAITA, that is the non-dual; you cannot even call it 'one'. And that is the source. That is the ocean, we are the waves of it. And seeing that ocean, you know you have never been born and you are not going to die either. Your whole existence was a dream existence. All has disappeared.

Natural Laws of philosophy

NATURAL LAWS:

At the outset, it is important to distinguish two kinds of theory that go by the name of natural law. The first is a theory of morality that is roughly characterized by the following theses. First, moral propositions have what is sometimes called objective standing in the sense that such propositions are the bearers of objective truth-value; that is, moral propositions can be objectively true or false. Though moral objectivism is sometimes equated with moral realism (see, e.g., Moore 1992, 190: "the truth of any moral proposition lies in its correspondence with a mind- and convention-independent moral reality"), the relationship between the two theories is controversial. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (1988), for example, views moral objectivism as one species of moral realism, but not the only form; on Sayre-McCord's view, moral subjectivism and moral intersubjectivism are also forms of moral realism. Strictly speaking, then, natural law moral theory is committed only to the objectivity of moral norms.

The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").

But there is another kind of natural law theory having to do with the relationship of morality to law. According to natural law theory of law, there is no clean division between the notion of law and the notion of morality. Though there are different versions of natural law theory, all subscribe to the thesis that there are at least some laws that depend for their "authority" not on some pre-existing human convention, but on the logical relationship in which they stand to moral standards. Otherwise put, some norms are authoritative in virtue of their moral content, even when there is no convention that makes moral merit a criterion of legal validity. The idea that the concepts of law and morality intersect in some way is called the Overlap Thesis.

As an empirical matter, many natural law moral theorists are also natural law legal theorists, but the two theories, strictly speaking, are logically independent. One can deny natural law theory of law but hold a natural law theory of morality. John Austin, the most influential of the early legal positivists, for example, denied the Overlap Thesis but held something that resembles a natural law ethical theory.

Indeed, Austin explicitly endorsed the view that it is not necessarily true that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. But while Austin thus denied the Overlap Thesis, he accepted an objectivist moral theory; indeed, Austin inherited his utilitarianism almost wholesale from J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Here it is worth noting that utilitarians sometimes seem to suggest that they derive their utilitarianism from certain facts about human nature; as Bentham once wrote, "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne" (Bentham 1948, 1). Thus, a commitment to natural law theory of morality is consistent with the denial of natural law theory of law.

Conversely, one could, though this would be unusual, accept a natural law theory of law without holding a natural law theory of morality. One could, for example, hold that the conceptual point of law is, in part, to reproduce the demands of morality, but also hold a form of ethical subjectivism (or relativism). On this peculiar view, the conceptual point of law would be to enforce those standards that are morally valid in virtue of cultural consensus. For this reason, natural law theory of law is logically independent of natural law theory of morality. The remainder of this essay will be exclusively concerned with natural law theories of law.

Welcome to Natural Theories

This blog is for the things which are natural, it can be a environmental thing, human nature or anything which is by default...........

Or the thing which can not be change......


______________
Admin