"Everything is Love" is subjective bias

[RedLine]

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.

[Nahm]

@RedLine

What’s really on your mind man, what’s grinding your gears?

[Gesundheit]

@RedLine Correct.

[molosku]

You fundamentally misundestand the satori experience and what is revealed. Your notion of "your enlightenment" experience that is "your subjective insight" misses the mark. Have you had an enlightenment experience? Where is your understanding coming from? 

The holocaust, and suffering indeed are modes of love, but not in the way you currently are aware of. The feeling of suffering does not feel loving, but to say that that is proof for not everything being love, is like saying that just because breathing is not always experienced, you don't breath while sleeping in a deep dreamless sleep.

It's just like being angry at a child for doing something dangerous: from the childs perspective the parent is acting from a place the child does not want: anger, disharmony, dissapointment etc, but that is ONLY the surface level. From the parents love, it is furious love. If the child knew that, he/she would not feel hurt for the fury, he/she would feel cared for.

"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." 

There is a techical term for this attitude: neo-advaita. The disassociation of suffering as being obly illusion, so there "is not path to walk on so just be". It is not true advaita (true non-dual teaching) and not advocated by leo or the forum in general. True non-duality is turning towards that suffering, and going straight into the fire. When the fire burns everything that is untrue, the truth is revelaed. What could that truth be? 

There obviously is suffering in the world, but it is one thing to admit that vs say that all suffering is delusion because everything is love and suffering is somehow excluded from that wholeness. 

But in general, be very aware when your mind is spinning a story that negates love from some aspect of reality. That is a signal that there is something to be inspected more carefully. What is it that does not see love in that thing? 

Edited July 26, 2020 by molosku

[RedLine]

2 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@RedLine

What’s really on your mind man, what’s grinding your gears?

 

You always take everything to subjectivity. It is not everything about you sir. There are others; there are common knowledge (objetivcity or intersubjetivity, it is the same). There is more of that that you can experience subjectively.

 

Materialism/sciencitifc religion - objective bias

Actualized.org  - subjective bias

 

 

[molosku]

@RedLine

Are you sure you are making fine enough distinctions in painting actualized as white and the whole scientific community as black?

It would be more usefull if you would elaborate that graph a little bit, is it from Ken Wilbers books or did he pick it from somewhere else? Can't remember. 

[Gesundheit]

15 minutes ago, molosku said:

It's just like being angry at a child for doing something dangerous: from the childs perspective the parent is acting from a place the child does not want: anger, disharmony, dissapointment etc, but that is ONLY the surface level. From the parents love, it is furious love. If the child knew that, he/she would not feel hurt for the fury, he/she would feel cared for.

You're confusing the absolute and relative here. What you said may be true in the relative sense, but not in the absolute sense.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Gesundheit

[RedLine]

7 minutes ago, molosku said:

You fundamentally misundestand the satori experience and what is revealed. Your notion of "your enlightenment" experience that is "your subjective insight" misses the mark. Have you had an enlightenment experience? Where is your understanding coming from? 

Enlighment is not your subjective experience but it is a subjective experience. Again: not everything is experience. There are truth/reality you can not experience. Other people are experience reality at the same time that you and you can not "see through their eyes".

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, molosku said:

 

The holocaust, and suffering indeed are modes of love, but not in the way you currently are aware of. The feeling of suffering does not feel loving, but to say that that is proof for not everything being love, is like saying that just because breathing is not always experienced, you don't breath while sleeping in a deep dreamless sleep.

 

 

 

With your comment you are admitting that everything is not Love.

If you state everything is love you can not state at the same time that there are degrees/modes of Love. You can play the game of non-duality or you can play the game of language but you can not play both games on the same time. If you use languaje you need to obey logic and deal with the problems of the languaje. From the moment you use the term Love (a concept) you are in the languaje game, so you can not say that evertything is Love (absolute love) and at the same state that there are different degrees of love, because saying that you are agains the concept of absolute love, it goes against logic. 

 

[molosku]

4 minutes ago, RedLine said:

 

If you state everything is love you can not state at the same time that there are degrees/modes of Love.

 

I don't see why not? The sun is hot at every point, but not equally at each point. There are shades to colors, but they still have a upper most concept to describe them (red, blue etc). 

Are you here to say that there exists a logical, philosophical problem in the terminology of non-duality that can be talked about and thus it has a degree of reality to it, but ultimately you think that there is no such problem and rather you are talking about the people who talk about these things? 

[RedLine]

7 minutes ago, molosku said:

@RedLine

Are you sure you are making fine enough distinctions in painting actualized as white and the whole scientific community as black?

It would be more usefull if you would elaborate that graph a little bit, is it from Ken Wilbers books or did he pick it from somewhere else? Can't remember. 

 

Of course not everything is black or white, but to understand reality you need to do simplifications. Languaje is not reality, it is a tool to understand reality; you need languaje to communicate reality with others. 

 

What I mean is that the Truth is not only subjective; basically because you (you as a source of experience) are not the hole reality/truth; so subjective is not the whole map. To understad Truth you need to understad all spheres. And yes, Leo and his disciples are not very interested in objectivity (which is fine, but then you cannot pretend you know everything) and sciencie in general is not interested in experience.

 

 

[RedLine]

4 minutes ago, molosku said:

I don't see why not? The sun is hot at every point, but not equally at each point. There are shades to colors, but they still have a upper most concept to describe them (red, blue etc). 

Are you here to say that there exists a logical, philosophical problem in the terminology of non-duality that can be talked about and thus it has a degree of reality to it, but ultimately you think that there is no such problem and rather you are talking about the people who talk about these things? 

You don´t say that the sun is hot as a metaphysical statement. You can say Universe is Love as a methaphyisical statement, or you can say the Universe is Love as a relative statmement which means nothing because it implies there are differente degrees of love including suffering, so you are admiting that there are suffering.

 

19 minutes ago, molosku said:

Are you here to say that there exists a logical, philosophical problem in the terminology of non-duality that can be talked about and thus it has a degree of reality to it, but ultimately you think that there is no such problem and rather you are talking about the people who talk about these things? 

 

Absolutely not what I mean. 

 

 

 

 

[molosku]

@RedLine

Can you reframe your thread as what other users can learn from your message? I don't think I understand your rhetoric and even less the point of your thread

10 minutes ago, RedLine said:

 

[Nak Khid]

49 minutes ago, RedLine said:

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 to say everything is love is to deny that there is suffering in the world and before the Buddha was enlightened he lived as a prince and had seen o suffering. After he left the confines of his court and went out into the world he saw that there was suffering there. 

Yes to say everything is love is like someone saying everything is shit

To say  everything is love is to deny that there is suffering that people experience and in the case of the person himself who says that everything is love

___________________________

But what about the fact that we will all die so it is wise to accept that and not try to fight what cannot be changed. 

Or a hurricane is coming your way and you cannot change it

So isn't it the same thing to says everything is love and then love everything good or evil or whatever it is ? 
Is love accepting everything ? 

No. Waving a white flag is not love 

--and we can change things 

- we can reduce some suffering 

Love, suffering, boredom, joy, jealousy, kindness, hate, empathy, indifference, humor, confusion, peacefulness, passion 

all of these things exist

In a sense they are "infinite" in that after you die some other people will continue to experience these things 

However actual experience of love, joy, boredom, hate, tranquility   etc etc 
all of these things are impermanent, not infinite 

So how do we express love?  
Whole heatedly, as if it were infinite 
 

[RedLine]

8 minutes ago, molosku said:

@RedLine

Can you reframe your thread as what other users can learn from your message? I don't think I understand your rhetoric and even less the point of your thread

 

Yes. My goal is understand Being, my goal is Truth.

 

So there is this idea, in the spiritual/philosophica community: Ultimate reality = Love. So I am trying to deal with this idea (my goal is not to be offensive, I am only concerned with discovering the truth, I apologize if I have seemed arrogant in my thread)

 

 Why I disagree with this idea I think has been clearly explained in the OP. 

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by RedLine

[James123]

1 hour ago, RedLine said:

 

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.

 

This is probably happened to you with psychedelics. If you have experience non dual awakening through meditation, you forgot everything, because you are nothing. Love is the consequences (after start to remember), in non dual state there is nothing except you and you are nothing. Infinite nothingness, thats why it is just nothing. Don’t misinformation people.

Edited July 26, 2020 by James123

[Nahm]

@RedLine

Weird reply. 

What is one example of something you know, which is not known subjectively? 

If you inspect & inquire, you find there is no separation between knowing and known.

See the ‘problem’ with your misunderstanding?  There is ultimately is no subjectivity or objectivity. They’re just apparent perspectives. 

[RedLine]

26 minutes ago, James123 said:

This is probably happened to you with psychedelics. If you have experience non dual awakening through meditation, you forgot everything, because you are nothing. Love is the consequences (after start to remember), in non dual state there is nothing except you and you are nothing. Infinite nothingness, thats why it is just nothing. Don’t misinformation people.

Go to the point: people suffers or not? people are narcissistic, are attach to their egos and suffer for it or no?

Yes, so there is suffer, so you can not state at the same time Reality is love and there are people that are not in love. That is not Love anymore. The only thing you can say is: reality is Nothing, reality is non-linguistinc; you can define reality in negative terms but you can never say reality is Love because it is a concept and you need to deal with the consecuences. If you say reality is Love then it is already something so you need to deal with the consecuences of that something linguistically.

Edited July 26, 2020 by RedLine

[RedLine]

12 minutes ago, Nahm said:

 

If you inspect & inquire, you find there is no separation between knowing and known.

See the ‘problem’ with your misunderstanding?  There is ultimately is no subjectivity or objectivity. They’re just apparent perspectives. 

 

So, why are you using words to make me understand something? Why are you writing in this forum? "See the ‘problem’ with your misunderstanding?"

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by RedLine

[RedLine]

24 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Yes to say everything is love is to deny that there is suffering in the world and before the Buddha was enlightened he lived as a prince and had seen o suffering. After he left the confines of his court and went out into the world he saw that there was suffering there. 

Yes to say everything is love is like someone saying everything is shit

To say  everything is love is to deny that there is suffering that people experience and in the case of the person himself who says that everything is love

___________________________

But what about the fact that we will all die so it is wise to accept that and not try to fight what cannot be changed. 

Or a hurricane is coming your way and you cannot change it

So isn't it the same thing to says everything is love and then love everything good or evil or whatever it is ? 
Is love accepting everything ? 

No. Waving a white flag is not love 

--and we can change things 

- we can reduce some suffering 

Love, suffering, boredom, joy, jealousy, kindness, hate, empathy, indifference, humor, confusion, peacefulness, passion 

all of these things exist

In a sense they are "infinite" in that after you die some other people will continue to experience these things 

However actual experience of love, joy, boredom, hate, tranquility   etc etc 
all of these things are impermanent, not infinite 

So how do we express love?  
Whole heatedly, as if it were infinite 
 

 

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.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by RedLine

[Gesundheit]

@RedLine Dude it's as if you're speaking for me. You'll probably be faced with so much gaslighting and not many will even bother try to understand what you're saying but you're on the right track.