[Buddha-l] Being in Love

[Franz Metcalf]

Weng-Fai et al.,

Actually I agree with you, I think. I didn't mean to demean our  
capacities, but rather to exalt them. I'll rephrase: I see the goal of  
polyamory as pure and equal love for everything. That's noble and  
indeed "spiritual." But I do *not* see the road to this as passing  
through sexual promiscuity. So it might be better to use a different  
word than "polyamory." For instance, on a Christian path one might use  
"agape."

If we want to work toward loving everyone and everything, I think it's  
best to begin either with loving everyone *non*sexually and equally  
and trying to deepen this love, or loving *one* person sexually and  
unequally and trying to expand this love. Either way can work, I  
believe, and it is up to us to choose one way and commit to it.

With metta--but not polyamory,

Franz