"Everything is Love" is subjective bias

[Gesundheit]

@Mu_ so stop using it. Come up with better words that are more accurate 

[commie]

<typo on Mu_'s behalf>

Edited July 27, 2020 by Mu_
I replied to the wrong person

[Mu_]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Mu_ so stop using it. Come up with better words that are more accurate 

Well in truth there are no accurate words.  But there is a generally a direction we can most the time follow when someone says something, and yes sometimes not.  We can then go deeper into clarification and hopefully get closer, but theres an element of never really knowing for sure though and thats its own lesson.

You ever try and accurately describe what your seeing, or feeling or smelling, or tasting?  Do the words ever really get close to the experience?

But ya love, hmmm.....  What is love to you?

 

[Mu_]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

Makes no difference.  Suffering comes in different tastes.. Physical. Emotional etc.  Some people may have more tolerance to this kind of suffering more than the other or vice versa.. In any case it is still suffering and everyone experiences it and will continue to experience it in one way or another as long as they are in this world that we share no matter how enlightened you think you are and no matter how convinced you are that "it's all love". 

Honesty I don't understand what you are trying to say here. 

Ok lets say you some how prove there's suffering.  Does it exist in all perspectives?  Or only in some, and does this matter.  Ok lets say it does.    Now what?  How much is there?  80% pleasant 20% suffering or discomfort? 50/50, 60% suffering/ 40% pleasant?  Lets say its 60% suffering and 40% pleasant.  What does that mean?  Lifes almost a net positive?   And to who?  To everyone?  What does it matter?  Who is it mattering to?  What if I'm really happy with those percentages and happy overall because of it.  Am I out of alignment with the mathematical percentages of Truth?  Or should I feel 10% sufferingish on a daily basis overall because thats the mathematical Truth difference of what life is on average.

See what I'm vaguely pointing to? 

I don't know you that much, but the impression I'm getting is that you may take suffering very personally and that you may also suffer more then you need to because suffering is something that happens sometimes out there to supposedly other things and this bothers you.

 

This is something that has been a very hard one for me as well, and it took years for me to finally get to a place where it was ok to understand life involves suffering sometimes and it doesnt make life or god or living a horrible event.

[commie]

9 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Well in truth there are no accurate words.

There are misleading words however. It's usually easy enough to add a clarifying notice if you do use them... if what you mean to say is clear in the first place.

[Someone here]

41 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Ok lets say you some how prove there's suffering

Yeah let's just say.. It's not really there but let's just pretend that that's the case.. It's just a hypothetical experiment nothing too serious because suffering can't be real because it just can't be.. 

There is suffering and you have experienced it.. Are experiencing it.. And will experience it in your life.  Case closed. 

[Mu_]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yeah let's just say.. It's not really there but let's just pretend that that's the case.. It's just a hypothetical experiment nothing too serious because suffering can't be real because it just can't be.. 

There is suffering and you have experienced it.. Are experiencing it.. And will experience it in your life.  Case closed. 

Ya I agree, theres suffering, now what?  And what does it mean that theres suffering?

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

Ya I agree, theres suffering, now what?  And what does it mean that theres suffering?

Well that means that reality is definitely not perfect - loving /goodness from the perspective of an individual ego who are convinced that they are separate from the whole.   That's why lots of people deny this "love “notion. And that's one of the most common arguments that people have against God.. They say if" God is love" all good.. All powerful.. All wise.. Infinitely intelligent.. Why didn't he design a perfect reality (for me not for the maximization of love for the whole)??    The world does have some shitty aspect.. It's not all roses and butterflies.. Therfore they conclude. Either there is no God altogether.. Or that God is just an asshole and is far away from those characteristics above. 

[Mu_]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Well that means that reality is definitely not perfect - loving /goodness from the perspective of an individual ego who are convinced that they are separate from the whole.   That's why lots of people deny this "love “notion. And that's one of the most common arguments that people have against God.. They say if" God is love" all good.. All powerful.. All wise.. Infinitely intelligent.. Why didn't he design a perfect reality (for me not for the maximization of love for the whole)??    The world does have some shitty aspect.. It's not all roses and butterflies.. Therfore they conclude. Either there is no God altogether.. Or that God is just an asshole and is far away from those characteristics above. 

Ok, and its not perfect objectively?  Or to you?

[VeganAwake]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

Why do you think this identification is there?  And is it possible to "completely" stop identifying with it and remain functional in the relative world?  Who is controlling that?  Isn't the identification itself an another appearance arising with no one in charge of it? 

I'm not sure, it seems to start around the Age of 2, this subject-object reality gets created(duality) and then it goes through life perpetuating its own illusory existence. Sometimes this unreal sense of 'self' collapses or dies and yet the body continues to go on functioning normally because nothing actually died.. it was an illusion or misidentification.

[Someone here]

Just now, Mu_ said:

Ok, and its not perfect objectively?  Or to you?

Same thing. That's what I said in the previous post.

Everyone is judging it from their limited narrow POV.. But to them there is nothing but their POV because they are too selfish.. So even tho it might be true that reality is perfect and inevitable objectively it certainly doesn't feel like it to an individual.. And the proplem is the individual's problem not the objective's problem. The objective (which is God /reality itself) has no problem. Only the ego which thinks its separate from that does. 

[RedLine]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Well that means that reality is definitely not perfect - loving /goodness from the perspective of an individual ego who are convinced that they are separate from the whole.   That's why lots of people deny this "love “notion. And that's one of the most common arguments that people have against God.. They say if" God is love" all good.. All powerful.. All wise.. Infinitely intelligent.. Why didn't he design a perfect reality (for me not for the maximization of love for the whole)??    The world does have some shitty aspect.. It's not all roses and butterflies.. Therfore they conclude. Either there is no God altogether.. Or that God is just an asshole and is far away from those characteristics above. 

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. 

 

 

[VeganAwake]

8 hours ago, commie said:

Emotions are pretty physical! You got a strange dualism going on there.

I assume what you're referring to is they seem to cause a physical emotion in the body... which is correct but the feeler of emotions is Maya illusion of the self.

 this is pointing to the realization that there was never a separate self inside any body ever.... making dualism an impossibility or a misunderstanding at best. ❤

Edited July 27, 2020 by VeganAwake

[commie]

You said there were two types of suffering. One of your type is pain and emotions are part of your second type, even though both could be said to be felt by this self and both seem to cause "a physical emotion". But you are nevertheless theorizing that emotions unlike pain have a cause separate from the body.

If I proclaimed racism "an impossibility" while arguing that the bodies of black people feel pain but no emotions, would I not be a racist as well as a dualist?

[Carl-Richard]

"The relative/absolute fallacy": conflating the relative with the absolute. Most contradictions and confusion of terms in spirituality stem from this.

[VeganAwake]

57 minutes ago, commie said:

You said there were two types of suffering. One of your type is pain and emotions are part of your second type, even though both could be said to be felt by this self and both seem to cause "a physical emotion". But you are nevertheless theorizing that emotions unlike pain have a cause separate from the body.

If I proclaimed racism "an impossibility" while arguing that the bodies of black people feel pain but no emotions, would I not be a racist as well as a dualist?

Yes physical and psychological suffering.

If you stub your toe on a rock, you feel physical pain and slowly as the pain decreases you typically would forget all about it. But now let's say you break your leg and can't work for 4 months... this starts turning into psychological suffering because you now become worried about being able to support the family, and how is this new limp in my right leg going to effect my life...etc.

Your boss tells you that you're not working hard enough. You tell her okay I will try to work harder. You think about this all day and dwell on it at home and the next day and the next day( psychological suffering)

Now this psychological suffering can lead to physical consequences such as accumulation of stress build-up or constant worry, weight gain/loss, gray/loss of hair, fatigue etc.

So it's recognized that both physical and psychological pain can lead to prolonged suffering. 

But who is actually suffering where is that one.

See if you can find him or her ❤

 

 

 

[VeganAwake]

27 minutes ago, Pookie said:

Just because someone doesn't experience it doesn't mean it isn't the case universally. It is just that that person doesn't know it. It's like two fish in water; one of them might know it is underwater but the other one doesn't. It is still the case they are both in water

correct the illusory person/fish doesn't recognize it because it would cease to exist as a separate fish in the water... it can't conceive of its own unreality.( why would it want to die)

Same with an enlightened and an unenlightened perspective. The one who knows only differs from the one who doesn't in that the former knows he is in Love. Nevertheless, it is still the case they are both in Love. 

 The fish that knows doesn't differ...it dies!!

The enlightened fish recognizes he or she was never a real separate fish... making Duality an impossibility.

So Enlightenment is the loss of the separate sense of fish.

So it's not a gaining of perspective it's a loss of the knower fish.... it's to die before you die

 

[Gesundheit]

@Mu_ I'm sorry and no offence but it seems like I'm talking to a brainwashed person.

You say that God is all loving and all powerful, but suffering exists and it's part of the love and there's no contradiction. Well it is the epitome of contradiction. What I imagine love to be is exactly what the word love means on face value. It's your definition that seems very twisted. That love includes suffering. Why on earth would it include that? Couldn't an all loving all powerful God create a world without suffering? What kind of God is it if that's the case? Simple: not all loving and not all powerful.

[VeganAwake]

1 minute ago, Gesundheit said:

@Mu_ I'm sorry and no offence but it seems like I'm talking to a brainwashed person.

You say that God is all loving and all powerful, but suffering exists and it's part of the love and there's no contradiction. Well it is the epitome of contradiction. What I imagine love to be is exactly what the word love means on face value. It's your definition that seems very twisted. That love includes suffering. Why on earth would it include that? Couldn't an all loving all powerful God create a world without suffering? What kind of God is it if that's the case? Simple: not all loving and not all powerful.

Me Leo and Mu attempting to describe that love is more than just a feeling. 

 

[VeganAwake]