Is love the same as consciousness?

[Greatnestwithin]

@How to be wise Love is the very fabric of existence itself, a love that transcends feelings and emotions.

[sword]

if all is one, isn't everything just another name for everything else?

Edited December 20, 2018 by sword

[Leo Gura]

@sword See my blog video: All Understanding Is Metaphoric

[peanutspathtotruth]

Just to put another perspective in here. For some months now I'm reading the many works of A.H. Almaas who is for me personally THE master of nuance.

I recently read "Facets of Unity - The Enneagram of Holy Ideas" which presents those holy ideas in the most nuanced metaphysical way possible (even the inventors of the enneagram say Almaas takes it the deepest).

All those ideas are just a tool to understand objective reality and its many faces. There is for example Holy Truth, Holy Perfection, Holy Omniscience, Holy Work, Holy Love etc. It sounds kinda woo-woo when you just read those words but behind every one of those ideas is a very deep observation of objective truth - namely ONE possible facet of truth for each idea.

That all being said, at the very end of the book he again concludes that absolute reality is of course comprised of every facet and that all those cease to be even distinguishable cause... Well cause non-duality. Speaking of the human spiritual evolution though, those facets are real entry points and stages of realizing your true nature.

But, and this is what I was aiming at - he says that one of the facets stands above all the other facets in the sense that without it, you can't have any other perception of objective truth. And that facet is Holy Love, Love with a capital L. Without love, the other facets are almost impossible to realize because Love is within all of it. Love is being is consciousness is everything is nothing. If you want the nuanced version, read the book.

I'm not saying I agree but I find this super interesting. What's amazing is he also has psychological explanations of why we lose the different connections to truth. It's all rooted in the loss of basic trust in the universe in early childhood which leads to a loss of Love/recognition of yourself as Love.

Edited December 20, 2018 by peanutspathtotruth

[Inliytened1]

@Leo Gura

Indeed.

Love is absolute therefore the only thing that can define love is the emotional state.  So you are either talking about the absolute or you are talking about love.  The only way love can be love is as an emotional state.  Otherwise it has no meaning.   The absolute incorporates all things.

[Leo Gura]

@Inliytened1 No, Love is a distinct facet of the Absolute. And when you become directly conscious of that, you will have a much deeper understanding of where the human emotion of love stems from.

This is very advanced stuff. So stay openminded and be ready to investigate the issue.

There is something about love that you do not yet understand. Find what that is. If you dare.

[SoonHei]

https://www.unilad.co.uk/science/man-set-for-worlds-first-head-transplant-cancels-surgery-after-falling-in-love/

[Inliytened1]

@Leo Gura @Leo Gura

No i get that.  I became conscious of that but what i mean is that is something else.  That is the divine love (or give it its own name)

This involves what your next video is about in which the use of the same word in different contexts causes confusion and misunderstanding.  

[Leo Gura]

@Inliytened1 But Love is the proper word. When you encounter it you recognize it as Love! Not something else.

[now is forever]

7 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

Love is absolute therefore the only thing that can define love is the emotional state.

can you tell me where that state is? i would move there if i knew where that is or are you talking about some other planet? though an absolute state sounds like a dictatorship.

ask yourself where is the boarder between thought and emotion! maybe you need to move into confusion to get there once.

Edited December 21, 2018 by now is forever

[lmfao]

If I have the feeling that everything in consciousness is perfect and that the existence of everything in reality is good and amazing, is that what is pointed to by "love" with a capital L?

If that's the case, is "Love" just a mode of being you can reach at high levels of consciousness? 

 

[WelcometoReality]

@Alfox Consciousness is simply the space in which every experience happens. A more conscious being (lol) might be more loving and accepting but that still happens within that space.

[lmfao]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, I disagree with Ralston on that point. As do most sages.

My guess about this discrepancy is three-fold:

1) Ralston's style is very austere and cold. That reflects his personality type and brain type. He's described himself in the past as being somewhat autistic. So he might be less connected to love than others. His brain may not give him access to this dimension of reality.

2) If we're talking about the pure Godhead, it is technically unqualifiable. Nothing can be said of it. So calling it "love" would be a qualification which Ralston would not want to assign it. I can appreciate that. But at the same time I have directly experienced that Consciousness = Being = Love.

3) The word "love" can be interpreted in several ways. Sometimes it designates an emotional state. Other times is designates an existential truth. Obviously in this case we're not talking about an emotional state, but an existential truth. So Ralston is right if by love you mean an emotional state. But I think he's wrong in ignoring the existential facet of love. Love with a capital L.

I know many other sages and masters who agree with me that Love is an existential facet of the Absolute. And my own direct experience validates that. It's a bit puzzling that Ralston relegates love to merely an emotional state. Love is existential. It's a fundamental quality of Being.

For me Love is Absolute, not relative. Love is more than just a feeling. It is Unity itself. And Unity is not a feeling.

@Leo Gura

Supposing we grant the existence of brain types and personality, is it possible that an autistic brain and personality type would give someone access to new/different dimensions of high consciousness to a neurotyoucal, or is every deviation from a neurotypical result in exclusion of something rather than inclusion. 

[Leo Gura]

@lmfao There is no such thing as "typical". Everything is 100% relative to the structure of one's nervous system, including the nervous system itself!

Your nervous system restricts your access to what would otherwise be an infinite number of possible "realities" and insights.

[TheAvatarState]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@lmfao There is no such thing as "typical". Everything is 100% relative to the structure of one's nervous system, including the nervous system itself!

Your nervous system restricts your access to what would otherwise be an infinite number of possible "realities" and insights.

Yes. Most people don't appreciate the narrow limits of the human perspective. 

Also, one cannot judge the validity of a system based on its consensus reality or cohesion. That's a self-deception. 

[lmfao]

@Leo Gura Yeah there is no such thing as typical, I understand what you're trying to say. There is no such thing as typical especially in the context of absolute infinity and in the context of what a persons exact conscious experience is like, although typical does exist for individual particular aspects of the psyche when we take averages of certain traits in a human population. 

For arguments sake we could conceptualise the nervous system as having Y (with Y just being any real number) elements where each element has a numerical quantity for a person. The numerical value would represent "sensitivity" for that particular aspect of first hand experience in consciousness. We could have a Y-th dimensional co-ordinate system where the exact, precise numerical quantity across each dimension of measurement is needed to define the exact state of the nervous system. 

I suppose I was also curious about the particular cause of autism ( and also other cases like maybe psychopathy or whatever other deviations you can get from the average). In the reductionist model I proposed in the second paragraph, autistic people would have relatively low numbers in some dimensions of measurements. But I also wonder whether someone autistic would compensate for it with an increased number for other dimensions of measurement. Supposing Peter Ralston has a decreased sensitivity to "Love" ,idk if he will compensate for it in other ways. 

Ignoring neurological conditions, we could just look at personality types such as the ones in MBTI. My question is kinda unanswerable, but I was just wondering if certain types of people are capable of a more "rich" experience than other people by nature. Need it be said that the "value" of this consciousness couldn't be reduced into the sum of numerical quantities across each dimension in the reductionist model I stated earlier. My current speculation is that 99.9999...% of people have a equal capacity for a rich conscious experience since all beings in reality come from the same absolute.   Some people might be "talented" in fulfilling their capacity, but everyone should be able to I think.

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by lmfao

[now is forever]

@lmfao an autistic “brain” type is lacking on mirror neurons, as one theory - actually i read something about experiments with oxitocyn to increase the mirror neuron capacity recently, or was it growth? but you are talking about conciousness not the L word are you? so the sensitivity to what do you want to test? 

i don’t think autistic people are not able to love they just love differently and they just don’t really recognize the difference between a person and numbers (cliche) for example.

so how do you want to induce love experience? showing pictures of people and numbers? 

did no one ever do that before?

and i wonder if it then would only be the brain function you would measure or what else on the body? for example how would you measure what body functions are involved - and you would need to define love very limited, so you could compare it and you would need to define conciousness, too. as a function... 

the question is always a systemic one, also one of encoding - although there are energy knots, if you want to find something like emotion or love or conciousness or the soul in a person, good luck!

Edited December 22, 2018 by now is forever

[Hellspeed]

Love is everything/everyone in sync, the connection. Consciousness is the software and hardware at the same time, in everything/everyone  

[Anton Rogachevski]

Acceptance is an aspect of love, it's a subtle form of it. It's hinted in the fact that applying acceptance brings peace and removes suffering.

From simple observation one could easily conclude that love and consciousness are somehow related, since conscious beings act in general more lovingly and compassionately. In many traditions god was referred to as loving, and love appears to have a healing power on us.

Our intuition senses that love is important, and therefore we talk about it a lot, write books, songs and films about it. Obviously this is not romantic love (although it is a partial manifestation of it), or the idea of perfect love, but a natural force that has an important role in reality.

It is the light that shines from god upon himself, the tool he uses to battle his dark side, the devil in him. It is the energy of life that gives balance to things and keeps equilibrium. Without it god wouldn't be able to do much. If we lack love, we get sick, depressed and die soon. We are blessed with love all around us, and thus saved by god. He's giving it to us constantly in hope that we might learn to recieve it one day.

So if love is godly it means, it has the same elusive nature, so everything I say is love, is not love. Love is the lover. It's you.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Anton Rogachevski

[captainamerica]

On 12/22/2018 at 2:39 AM, Leo Gura said:

Your nervous system restricts your access to what would otherwise be an infinite number of possible "realities" and insights.

 

@Leo Gura Can you please explain that statement just a bit more for me? (especially the insights part...)

Any guidance would be much appreciated :-)