Unconditional Love - Question.

[Jacobsrw]

3 hours ago, The observer said:

And that exactly is the illusion that I'm trying to explain.

It's the same as the egg-chicken problem. What comes prior?

Not to incite debate, however, I would suggest that the conception of love/absence of love could be simultaneously equated to the conception of truth/untrue. Of course no one on here will entertain this idea but really it’s all synonymous formulations. Truth is what IS but what is untrue is also what IS, just superceded by the truth it rests within. For something to be untrue, it must be true in order to be stated untrue - Kurt Godel.

In others words, love is a conceptual duality just as is truth, two polar opposites to a duality must invariably equal each other. Since a whole comes from the composition of that which rests within it. The only difference is that truth appears to be more of a useful pointer than love. Not sure where I sit here. Nevertheless, all I’ll say is that existence is beyond duality and that what one uses to explain it is fundamentally arbitrary.

3 hours ago, The observer said:

Sure. Even my words have no importance whatsoever, because truth is always truth regardless of what I say. It's not affected by my words or understanding. So, it doesn't actually matter what I think reality is. Whether I have the right or wrong understanding does not mean anything, and that's still part of truth. But anyway, since I have the freedom and knowledge and experience to talk about it, why not? Everyone is doing it after all, so why can't I?

Of course. I was not at all trying to discredit what you shared. I in part agree, I just cannot validate either side of this argument since I have no experience to validate them. That’s what I feel semantics points out. That all our linguistic meanings and descriptions are redundant so we must be careful in the hierarchies we erect.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[The observer]

1 hour ago, Jacobsrw said:

Nevertheless, all I’ll say is that existence is beyond duality and that what one uses to explain it is fundamentally arbitrary.

Yes. The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

Edited June 4, 2020 by The observer

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

I feel it may just be a semantic differentiation. Ultimate Love to some, appears synonymous with the felt equanimity of nothing, that’s how Leo refers to it anyhow. The predisposed dualistic human love is far different than spiritual love. 

Love is the end of all differences. You are imaging all differences, hence trapped in them.

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Do not stop until you drown in Infinite Love Forever.

That is just.. it brings a tear to my eye.

[The observer]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Love is the end of all differences. You are imaging all differences, hence trapped in them.

So does this mean that imagining differences/being trapped is not love? Whether yes or no, it does not matter. That would still be a difference, hence disproving love theory.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, The observer said:

So does this mean that imagining differences/being trapped is not love?

Nope

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, The observer said:

So does this mean that imagining differences/being trapped is not love? Whether yes or no, it does not matter. That would still be a difference, hence disproving love theory.

Everything you think about Love is wrong and will always be wrong.

[Jacobsrw]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Love is the end of all differences. You are imaging all differences, hence trapped in them.

Likely very true. However, without the experience I cannot agree or disagree with you. I will forsee  entertaining my ignorance.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Artaemis]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything you think about Love is wrong and will always be wrong.

Okay I might have a slight over attachment to my awakening. 

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Likely very true. However, without the experience I cannot agree or disagree with you.

That is wise.

But also, search your heart. It knows what I say is true.

[Jacobsrw]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That is wise.

But also, search your heart. It knows what I say is true.

Thank you for the very friendly pointer, much appreciated. I will continue to explore more deeply ? 

[VeganAwake]

“Every communication is either an extension of love or a call for love.” 

"The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite"

--  A Course in Miracles (ACIM)

 

[The observer]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything you think about Love is wrong and will always be wrong.

Is that right? Or wrong?

I could also say that everything you think about fear is wrong and will always be wrong. In fact, that could apply to anything. Simply put; The map is not the territory. I thought we're done with that long ago. The word 'love' is a map. The territory is not at all identical to it. And in fact, it's quite commonly opposed to love, as it must be. At this point, I am pretty sure that this is just semantics. What you must realise though is that you're confusing a lot of people, unnecessarily so.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, The observer said:

What you must realise though is that you're confusing a lot of people, unnecessarily so.

Projection.

[The observer]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Projection.

It's not, and even if it was, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Edited June 4, 2020 by The observer

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, The observer said:

it doesn't mean it's wrong.

The mind is creating constructs of “right” and “wrong”. Within a construct the mind creates and calls “right”, it is right. Within the construct you have created and shared on the forum, it is right (within that construct). 

It’s not the ideas themselves, no more than it is about bird chirps that pass by. Mind expansion involves holding ideas loosely and letting go of attachment and identification to ideas as being right. Yet this doesn’t mean a mind needs to reject the ideas it holds tightly to as wrong and then switch over and accept the counter idea as right. This is merely trading attachment/identification of one belief system toward attachment/identification to another belief system. This will keep a mind contracted. Expansion simply involves letting go of attachment, ownership and identification of ideas. 

Notice how the mind tries to maintain continuity of right-ness to ideas it is attached and identified with. Everyday, it re-enforces and solidifies the ideas it is attached and identified to. Expansion is not a rejection of those ideas, rather letting go of attachment and identification to those ideas. 

The problem is that you are trying to extrapolate a truth within the construct you create as a broader truth beyond your construct. 

[The observer]

@Serotoninluv Please don't take things out of context. I was referring to a specific issue here. It's the confusion that the pointer 'love' causes to 'a lot of people'. And it is absolutely right regardless of opinions. Want proof? Just read throughout the forum for confused questions about love. The pointers we already have already cause a lot of confusion. We don't need more confusing pointers. We need more effective ones. Apparently, you don't see 'love' as a pointer, you see it as truth, but let's leave that for now because I'm bored with this discussion.

Now, you may object to the relativity of the amount of people getting confused; Is a thousand people 'a lot' or is it not? But that would be something we can agree to disagree upon, since no one has or can have accurate numbers/statistics.

Edited June 4, 2020 by The observer

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, The observer said:

@Serotoninluv Please don't take things out of context. I was referring to a specific issue here. It's the confusion that the pointer 'love' causes to 'a lot of people'. And it is absolutely right regardless of opinions. Want proof? Just read throughout the forum for confused questions about love. The pointers we already have already cause a lot of confusion. We don't need more confusing pointers. We need more effective ones.

The problem is not confusion. The problem is that you are pointing within a construct you have created. You will not be able to see clearly and be qualified to point beyond your construct until you expand beyond your construct. Further, you will not be able to understand the pointers you interpret as confusing within your construct until you expand beyond that construct. For example, your mind seems to be hyper immersed into a logical framework and will not be able to see, understand or embody that which is meta-logical to your framework. There are awakenings you haven’t had yet. Yet this is no way diminishes, tarnishes or de-legitimizes awakenings you have had.

If you have an incomplete understanding and embodiment of Love, how can you judge the merit of pointers that exist in your gaps of understanding and embodiment?

[The observer]

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

The problem is that you are pointing within a construct you have created. You will not be able to see clearly and be qualified to point beyond your construct until you expand beyond your construct. Further, you will not be able to understand the pointers you interpret as confusing within your construct until you expand beyond that construct.

I am well aware of that. You assume I'm not. That's your problem, not mine. In fact, I think that you and Leo are trapped inside your construct and aren't able to expand/see beyond it to join me in mine. So, who's to say which construct is more inclusive? For me, the love theory is silly, not because it's illogical. I don't subscribe to logic. But because it contradicts my direct experience so far, big time, and because I believe I've gone further than Leo in this work, partially because I'd thought that the love theory was true earlier and had moved past it.

Maybe in the future I will discover that your love theory is true. I don't know. Or maybe I will have more evidence that mine is the true one. I don't know either. All I know is that you aren't open to being wrong. You believe that you have the ultimate explanation without the shadow of a doubt. That's extremely silly. We've all been in this trap. It's known as closed-mindedness. And what's more silly is that you seem to believe that your explanation is in any way true. You seem to believe that the map is the territory, which I don't. But you perceive me as such, so it's pointless, we can't settle it once and for all.

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There are awakenings you haven’t had yet.

Absolutely, but not exclusive to me. There are awakenings that neither you nor Leo have had yet, mine are some of which I believe you haven't.

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, The observer said:

I am well aware of that. You assume I'm not. That's your problem, not mine. In fact, I think that you and Leo are trapped inside your construct and aren't able to expand/see beyond it to join me in mine. So, who's to say which construct is more inclusive? For me, the love theory is silly, not because it's illogical. I don't subscribe to logic. But because it contradicts my direct experience so far, big time, and because I believe I've gone further than Leo in this work, partially because I'd thought that the love theory was true earlier and had moved past it.

You are aware of it within the construct you reside. You are creating that “it”. 

You are not aware of something outside your construct. Again, this is not to say that any awakenings you have had are Illegitimate. Yet you are clearly not fluent in another area. When someone can speak Chinese fluently, it’s totally obvious when someone cannot speak Chinese fluently. Yet this does not suggest that English is “wrong” or has no value. 

Creating a being called “Serotoninluv” that is making assumptions and trapped within his construct maintains contraction within that construct. It creates a dynamic of “my idea” vs “his idea”. This is the contraction that is being pointing to. To say an expansive view is less inclusive than a contracted view is the silliness. You are creating and attributing an idea of “love” as “Serotoninluv’s” idea that is contrary to your idea. This is your creation. What is pointed at says your idea of love is correct AND there is a more expansive understanding that INCLUDES your idea (as true) within a larger truth. However, if one extrapolates a contracted truth into a broader truth, it becomes a falsehood within the larger truth. 

41 minutes ago, The observer said:

Maybe in the future I will discover that your love theory is true. I don't know. Or maybe I will have more evidence that mine is the true one. I don't know either. All I know is that you aren't open to being wrong. You believe that you have the ultimate explanation without the shadow of a doubt.

This is part of contraction maintenance. The mind creates competing theories of love in which one is true. The mind double downs on this by deferring to “evidence” as the arbiter of truth. 

Two points you are missing is that I am saying you are right and that I’m wrong. Yet to see this, you would need to let go of your creation of opposing love theories and your attachment to one of those theories. Importantly, letting go does not mean rejecting.