RedLine

The observer is a metaphor.

If you are in a non-dual state and you experience God, you experience that everything is love, but it does not mean that the rest of the people are experience that. The same happens when you are depress and you deeply think the world is shit; an on the contrary, when you are very glad you think the world is wonderful. Maybe the world is Love from your enlighment perspective, you can deeply feeling it, but it does not mean that the world is Love, in general terms. What about the holocaust? What about the daily suffering of people? Oh yeah they are not actually suffering, it is just an illusion! You founding it through enlighment! It is bullshit. You are prioritizing your subjectivity over that of others. Why should your subjectivity be more important than that of others? In short: even though you may have the deepest experience / intuition that the world is love, this does not imply that the Being is love; it only implies that the Being is love FOR YOU. The proof that everything is not love is that you chose the path of enlightenment over not taking it, because you knew there is suffering, and that it is better to get out of that suffering than to be in that suffering.

Yes! You formulate the problem very well. I could formulate the question of Love/suffer in a different way: Is life worth living if you're not elighten? Is God in the daily life of people who live in their ego? Is there brightness in their lives? Does your view of ordinary people's lives change when you reach enlightenment? If yes, is this change in your point of view genuine? RIght now I think their lives are suffer. Now I guess more non-dualistic rethoric. Why don´t you people can be humble and say "I don´t know"?. No, it is not all about subjectivity, it si not all about non-duality. The words exists, the relative world exists, others exist.

It is useful to learn AQAL, otherwise subjectivism can be a problem to face reality, as we can see with extreme modalities of posmodernity these days. For example, in a cartoonish way: - Student: Professor, which is the speed of light - Professor: There are no speed or light, can you experience that concepts? they are just concepts created by society Of course the professor is right, but he is inoperative. But yeah, I get your point, it could be bad for the spiritual path if you take that map in a metaphysical way . You just need to know that it is a useful tool but is not very deep stuff and ultimatley there is no disctincions of any kind. Both approaches are useful.

so Wilber is not awake

I disagree with that subjectivitic view. I don't think mysticism explain everything. Anyway, I am open to all that possibilities. This thread was a little bit playing devil’s advocate to see how the people answer to the question so I could get any insight. I will try to go deep with all the stuff you teach and I will see what happens.

You cannot use language to grasp the Absolute. So why are you writing in this forum?

You are right. It is all about experience, categories are not useful. But then, what is the goal of your videos? you are transmitting ideas, thoughts, words, categories, there. If ideas are not useful all then why do you do that? Maybe they are actually useful in some sense and worth the effort to work with them instead of answer typical non-dual answers. Language is a tool and the goal is get the closest you can to reality without "broken it".

It makes all the difference. It is the most important question of the history of philosophy since Aristotle. It is classically expressed as the relationship between the Absolute and the relative. It is the final piece to make sense of the Being, is there a "good" or "neutral" essence? Let's see in the future how can I see through the eye of others. I would really like to believe that suffer is just a manfistation of Love too. In some sense it is like homeopathy, you need to believe to be healthed. Good night.

so love and suffer are the same? suffer is also a expression of Love?

Everything is Love and horrible suffer happens at the same time. It looks contradictory. How do you explain that?

If you don't experience breathe then breathe doesn't exist for you at least you be aware of it again. If you are an ignorant -of God- and you are experiencing suffer because of it then suffer is what is real for you.

You decide to focus on this point instead of people dying because of hungry. I find the second one more interesting. Can you talk about that?

ignorance is the same as ausence, so negation of anyways, what is ignorance then? you just change the label suffer for ignorance. It doest explain anything about the question

This is a logical contradiction. You are saying Love has no opposite and suffering is its opposite at the same time.

just answer this simple question in a clear way please: is suffer (ego) love or is the opposite to love? and don't play language tricks. I think we are going close to the point now.

The key question is: is suffer also love? My answer is no. Your answer is yes. Maybe I change my mind in the future if a go deep in spirituality and see reality whith new eyes so I start to believe that experience in concentration camps or the death of your sons is still a form of love but I don't t think it will happened.

Finally you get the point. Everything is subjective is a bias. Why I am doing by stating " Everything is Love is subjective bias" is denying the beleief Being=Love. I am not defining Being nor giving it properties. Just go to the question men: do you think people in concentration camps, people dying of hunger or wars, regular people suffering day to day are enjoying life? is it a Love manifestation? is it God manifesting through them? So what if I become enlighten, does it change the suffer of that poor people?

Then we agree.

Yes, I know you are very practical-oriented; but the point is it this is not about me, this is not about subjectivity. How "my" subjectivity is does not change how the subjectiviy of the rest of the people is. I'm just a speck of dust in a world of 6.000 M people.

I appreciate your extensive comment, I see a good a heart in your words, but I think communication between you and me is not working at all. You say that I evade the question but I think that you are the one evading the point with subjectivist and non-dual rhetoric. So I think it is better to stop it here. Perhaps it is my mistake to introduce a philosophical debate in a practical-oriented subforum.

here we go again... People suffer af, I suffer af. Is it "infinitely good"? doesn´t look very "good"

Thank you for you kind words. If you don´t like the term Love, I can formulate the question differently: is Ultimate Reality good or just neutral?

That is great. Trauma release. It means they are working.

I am absolutely not rejecting spirituality practice if that is what you mean. The questing of Truth also implies to question "spiritual truths"; thats what I am doing. That´s what Leo recommend right? Or is it only right to question things when you don´t confront spiritual consensus? I am open to new perspectives.