Is love the same as consciousness?

[purerogue]

I do not want to get all the people on me, but I think problem is in fact that humans label acceptance as love, if they do not love they can not accept something, someone, love seems like most reasonable,easiest way how to accept.

 

[ground]

38 minutes ago, purerogue said:

I do not want to get all the people on me, but I think problem is in fact that humans label acceptance as love, ...

If so then I am not human because I find it very strange to label acceptance as 'love',

38 minutes ago, purerogue said:

... if they do not love they can not accept something, someone, love seems like most reasonable,easiest way how to accept.

If love 'seems like most reasonable,easiest way how to accept.' then that contradicts your first statement 'if they do not love they can not accept something, someone'. why? Because love is only a 'way how to accept.' If love is a way then there should be other ways, too, and one should be able to accept without love, too.

Edited December 20, 2018 by ground

[purerogue]

It does not contradict anything, you are contradicting yourself now, you are saying what I just said, just giving example of someone not being able to have capacity for love. 

[ground]

3 minutes ago, purerogue said:

It does not contradict anything, you are contradicting yourself now, you are saying what I just said, just giving example of someone not being able to have capacity for love. 

See first you said 'if they do not love they can not accept something, someone,' that is a categorical statement.

Then you said 'love seems like most reasonable,easiest way how to accept' and with that you affirmed that there are other ways to accept and that contradicts your categorical statement above.

Now if after I have pointed out the contradiction of these two statement of yours you now say that I do not have the capacity to love then this is an unfounded statement. Why? Because this cannot be concluded from my words and because I can even accept if you do not want to admit the contradiction. So this then is an instance of acceptance on my side where love is not involved. But do no misunderstand this to mean that aversion would be involved. How this? Actually the middle of love and aversion is involved.

[purerogue]

No , problem is that you did not understand what I wrote.

[Leo Gura]

@Alfox The answer to your question requires an enlightenment experience on the question: What is love?

Have it and you shall know. Verbal descriptions will never do it justice.

[Alfox]

@SoonHei Sounds awesome 

[Alfox]

@Leo Gura Alright, I'm working on it 

[Alfox]

@ground Sounds like a thing i have to experience for myself.

"Verbal descriptions will never do it justice" as Leo said.

 

[Shadowraix]

11 hours ago, Arhattobe said:

@Nahm The simple fact that outside samadhi this isn’t the case proves that, that is not all there is. How can you be so daft? It’s shameful, and offensive to those that suffer miserably ?‍♂️ 

 

14 hours ago, Arhattobe said:

@SoonHei Serial killers don’t love themslelves I have a close friend that I guided on the path. He almost was one. 

What leo and you are saying stems from insane mental gymnastics and complete inability to look at reality with common sense.

A serial killers life is horrid. With no love in any way shape or form. If only you knew how a person like that suffers you would feel ashamed to make such a suggestion.

I have not personally had such tendencies but was introduced experientially to such a persons state of mind briefly due to energetic reasons, and it deeply traumatised me.

Sounds like this is all coming from an experience you had that you haven't fully accepted yet. 'mental gymnastics' 'common sense' this is all you just projecting your resistance to accepting the things you don't like.

What the word 'love' points to when people talk about spirituality and love as spoken by your average person are very different ideas.

In spirituality love and consciousness are one in the same. Love as seen by the ego (what you are describing) is something else. To embody what you are in the illusion entails unconditional love - loving what prevents and causes suffering. But see the ego rejects suffering when it is a critical part of this reality.

Love is not something easy. People love to cherry pick one side to indulge the ego. If you want Truth then you simply can't do this.

 

 

[now is forever]

15 hours ago, SoonHei said:

@Arhattobe

i think leo answered this and it's very elegant 

serial killer is absolutely infinite love

it is infinte love, however, of himself. so much so nothing is forsaken to have that desire met to kill.

yes, quite twisted but the TRUTH is the same for all

 

an author of a novel loves each of his characters all the same

the good guy and the bad guy are both heros in the author's eyes

 

it's all just a story from the author/absolute's point of view

the good guy is only a good guy in contrast to the bad guy  

that’s a really beautiful view, but be careful with this view as it is limitless in the direction of seeing love as pathology - in love as the serial killer.

there is no limit to love but the limit of not seeing it is not even that as love is conflating into absolute.

[Sev]

@Leo Gura Just curious, Ralston said somewhere in his books that "what is love?" is not an enlightenment question and is relative matter. So this is something you (and many others) seem to disagree with him? Or definitions with words just affecting confusion?

[kieranperez]

3 hours ago, Sev said:

@Leo Gura Just curious, Ralston said somewhere in his books that "what is love?" is not an enlightenment question and is relative matter. So this is something you (and many others) seem to disagree with him? Or definitions with words just affecting confusion?

He just gave you the answer. Have the enlightenment experience. Nobody is disagreeing with Ralston. Ralston said clearly in that interview “love is a relative experience.” However, That also depends what you’re thinking and how you’re framing “love” when you talk about it. If you ask “what is God,” to someone like Leo who finds that to be appropriate term then he will tell you God is everything and you. If you ask the Buddha “what is God,” he will tell you there is no God there is only consciousness and mind. Both are right. Both are interpreting the same realization under different lens and some make finer nuances in their answers. This why you have to sit down and do the work yourself and have the experience yourself and not keep trying to validate answers with others. 

[peanutspathtotruth]

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Sev said:

@Leo Gura Just curious, Ralston said somewhere in his books that "what is love?" is not an enlightenment question and is relative matter. So this is something you (and many others) seem to disagree with him? Or definitions with words just affecting confusion?

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.

[How to be wise]

@Leo Gura Sadhguru also says that love is just “a sweetness of emotion.”

 

And plus, talking about a brain is also quite delusional. Didn’t you say in the past that there is no such thing as a brain in reality. Aren’t you just mixing TURQUOISE with delusional YELLOW.

[Leo Gura]

@How to be wise Again, you must be careful how you define these words. We are not talking about a human emotion here. We are talking about existential love.

There is no such thing as the brain in the Absolute sense. But a donkey does not have the hardware to have an insight about the true nature of existence. Likewise an autistic person may not have the hardware to have an insight about the true nature of love. Or he has the hardware but simply hasn't accessed that insight.

Sadhguru clearly has a grasp of existential Love. He actually proves my point.

[molosku]

@How to be wise

Rewatch the brain video. The pink substance is there, and the correlation of brain activity with the quality of experience is undeniably there. But the brain is just a perception wich is linked to all other perception in a way that your foot isn't. It is not the source, it's in the source. 

[How to be wise]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@How to be wise Again, you must be careful how you define these words. We are not talking about a human emotion here. We are talking about existential love.

There is no such thing as the brain in the Absolute sense. But a donkey cannot have an insight about the tru nature of existence. Likewise an autistic person may not have the hardware to have an insight about the true nature of love.

“A donkey cannot have an insight about the true nature of existence” is not true. Again, you are talking from YELLOW, not TURQUOISE. No wonder TURQUOISE science will be amazing. Any conclusions drawn from modern science, no matter how obviously seeming it is, will be dismissed. The possibilities will seem endless. 

Are you saying that one can have the experience of love without any such concept at all. In a no-mind state?

[How to be wise]

@molosku Wrong! I myself am quite aware spirituality, and from my direct experience, I can tell you that there is no brain whatsoever. Nothing about it is true. Nothing!