God loves our biases?

[tuckerwphotography]

Three questions about Leo's latest video:

1. He speaks about how unconditional Love would just as much enjoy eating dog shit as sushi. But wouldn't unconditional Love also love my bias for sushi? 

2. Second question, if God doesn't prefer life over death (or Somethingness over Nothingness), why is there anything at all? Is there not some preference on some level for something to be rather than just pure nothingness?

3. Lastly, why did the Buddha want to end suffering if not suffering is not better than suffering? 

Thanks! 

[JosephKnecht]

29 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

1. He speaks about how unconditional Love would just as much enjoy eating dog shit as sushi. But wouldn't unconditional Love also love my bias for sushi? 

You are speaking as if unconditional love is something that exists outside of you. It is inside of you. Your bias for sushi creates a split in the unconditional love that makes it conditional. You make unconditional love, conditional. Find out how you do it... 

33 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

2. Second question, if God doesn't prefer life over death (or Somethingness over Nothingness), why is there anything at all? Is there not some preference on some level for something to be rather than just pure nothingness?

Imagine God as a Complete Nothingness. It is so Complete Nothingness that has nothing to compare itself against. It has no language, no concepts, no material, not anything. The question is, how does Complete Nothingness become aware of what it is? Through your Being. God has to exist as something, in order to avoid Complete Nothingness. In other words, God knows himself through you. You tell God what he IS. 

What you need to experience is this Complete Nothingness. If you don't experience it and don't know it at the level of Being, it is just a philosophy.

41 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

3. Lastly, why did the Buddha want to end suffering if not suffering is not better than suffering? 

Because he was born as a mortal, and mortals have preferences. In fact, if mortals had no preferences they would have nothing to do. 

Imagine you being born in a perfect world and get everything just by wishing it into existence. In a billion years, wouldn't you wish to experience some suffering again? 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, tuckerwphotography said:

1. He speaks about how unconditional Love would just as much enjoy eating dog shit as sushi. But wouldn't unconditional Love also love my bias for sushi? 

Yes. It's infinitely inclusive.

 

1 hour ago, tuckerwphotography said:

2. Second question, if God doesn't prefer life over death (or Somethingness over Nothingness), why is there anything at all? Is there not some preference on some level for something to be rather than just pure nothingness?

Why not both? It's infinitely inclusive.

 

1 hour ago, tuckerwphotography said:

3. Lastly, why did the Buddha want to end suffering if not suffering is not better than suffering? 

The end of suffering is when you realize that not suffering is not better than suffering.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, tuckerwphotography said:

Three questions about Leo's latest video:

1. He speaks about how unconditional Love would just as much enjoy eating dog shit as sushi. But wouldn't unconditional Love also love my bias for sushi? 

Of course.

God loves your bias for sushi, which is why you love sushi but hate dog turd, and God will not force you to love dog turd. That's God's love for you. God's love is so great it allows you to hate. God will even allow you to murder someone you hate.

9 hours ago, tuckerwphotography said:

2. Second question, if God doesn't prefer life over death (or Somethingness over Nothingness), why is there anything at all? Is there not some preference on some level for something to be rather than just pure nothingness?

Everything IS pure Nothingness.

Your question assumes a difference between form and formlessness.

9 hours ago, tuckerwphotography said:

3. Lastly, why did the Buddha want to end suffering if not suffering is not better than suffering? 

Thanks! 

That was his bais.

There is of course no reason to end suffering other than that you don't like it.

[Hello from Russia]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That was his bais.

There is of course no reason to end suffering other than that you don't like it.

Would you say then that this fundamental premise (About suffering) of Buddhism is BS for our practical spiritual purposes and basically it probably just exists as a sort of bait to lure normies into the Buddhism?

I mean, I guess it's nice to suffer less, but less suffering won't directly help you with Truth, right?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Hello from Russia

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Would you say then that this fundamental premise (About suffering) of Buddhism is BS for our practical spiritual purpose and basically just works as a bait to lure normies into the Buddhism?

I mean, I guess it's nice to suffer less, but less suffering won't directly help you with Truth, right?

I'd say it's even worse than that.

Obviously the desire to escape suffering is a bias and it comes from ego.

But even worse, the desire for Truth is also a bias and egoic!

But the kicker is, there's nothing wrong with pursuing Truth or awakening for egoic purposes. Of course you must have a bias towards Truth in order to awaken. That's not a mistake. That's the only way the ego will get hooked into it.

If you don't have a bias towards Truth you will basically never awaken. And there's nothing wrong with that! If you think awakening is better than non-awakening -- that too is a bias. God doesn't mind either way. God does not mind being asleep. Which explains how you got here as a human in the first place. If being asleep was bad or wrong then you would not have been born.

[Hello from Russia]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'd say it's even worse than that.

Obviously the desire to escape suffering is a bias and it comes from ego.

But even worse, the desire for Truth is also a bias and egoic!

But the kicker is, there's nothing wrong with pursuing Truth or awakening for egoic purposes. Of course you must have a bias towards Truth in order to awaken. That's not a mistake. That's the only way the ego will get hooked into it.

If you don't have a bias towards Truth you will basically never awaken. And there's nothing wrong with that! If you think awakening is better than non-awakening -- that too is a bias. God doesn't mind either way. God does not mind being asleep. Which explains how you got here as a human in the first place. If being asleep was bad or wrong then you would not have been born.

Thank you for answering!

Makes me think that intention and desire is really a key for creating anything in life, be it awakening in yourself or some artsy billion-dollar business. If you are not biased towards these things consciously/unconscioussly, you're very unlikely to achieve it. Well, maybe by some fluke luck

Edited September 8, 2021 by Hello from Russia

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Thank you for answering!

Makes me think that intention and desire is really a key for creating anything in life, be it awakening in yourself or some artsy billion-dollar business. If you are not biased towards these things consciously/unconscioussly, you're very unlikely to achieve it. Well, maybe by some fluke luck

Of course.

Awakening requires intense desire. People get this point very wrong. All the most advanced spiritual masters had intense desire for spiritual work. Their mastery didn't just happen through laziness. Nothing happens through laziness.

You must be passionate about this work. You gotta love it more than your children. If you don't love it, you don't do it. You can't be great at something you don't care about.

I fucking love exploring metaphysics. That's fundamentally what drives all my work. I love it more than anything else in the world. And, YES! -- that's a bias! All passion is bias. Don't worry about that.

[Hello from Russia]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

Awakening requires intense desire. People get this point very wrong. All the most advanced spiritual masters had intense desire for spiritual work. Their mastery didn't just happen through laziness. Nothing happens through laziness.

You must be passionate about this work. You gotta love it more than your children. If you don't love it, you don't do it.

Yeah, fuck this! I overlooked this point a lot, despite me reading all these self-help and businesy books. I guess conventional Buddhists brainwashed my ass

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Buddhists

Serious Buddhists are very passionate people.

It's just that the ideology of Buddhism paints this false idea of dispassion as the ideal.

[The0Self]

God loves everything precisely by being everything. It’s overwhelmingly chaotic simplicity.

[tuckerwphotography]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything IS pure Nothingness.

Your question assumes a difference between form and formlessness.

@Leo Gura Thanks for your response! Often a rebuttal I hear from my "spiritual" friends is that we must align our actions to morality (morality being that which Love wants to manifest through our unvarnished Souls), and that if we can follow the light of Love than goodness will prevail. A lot of Stage Yellow spirituality is about this: morality and ethics reign supreme, and there are omni "win-win-win" scenarios that are the most Love-oriented and therefore should be held in the highest regard. 

Even David Hawkins and his scale of consciousness says some actions are higher on the scale than others.

Your "worldview" seems to point to something much simpler and more radical, that everything that Is...is Love, and any differences between Hitler and Mother Theresa are just a bias from our ego's subjective POV.

How do you reconcile the two philosophies, or are they fundamentally different at their core?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

@Leo Gura Thanks for your response! Often a rebuttal I hear from my "spiritual" friends is that we must align our actions to morality (morality being that which Love wants to manifest through our unvarnished Souls), and that if we can follow the light of Love than goodness will prevail. A lot of Stage Yellow spirituality is about this: morality and ethics reign supreme, and there are omni "win-win-win" scenarios that are the most Love-oriented and therefore should be held in the highest regard. 

Even David Hawkins and his scale of consciousness says some actions are higher on the scale than others.

Your "worldview" seems to point to something much simpler and more radical, that everything that Is...is Love, and any differences between Hitler and Mother Theresa are just a bias from our ego's subjective POV.

How do you reconcile the two philosophies, or are they fundamentally different at their core?

You are talking about survival. Within the domain of survival there are win-win-win scenarios and loving actions that we should aspire to.

If Hitler was alive, I would be okay with assassinating him.

In the Absolute domain, all is Love no matter what happens. But humans don't live in that domain.

[gettoefl]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

God does not mind being asleep. Which explains how you got here as a human in the first place. If being asleep was bad or wrong then you would not have been born.

Sleep this moment. Wake the next.

God surely don't want to sleep eternally. Consciousness is about God enjoying uncovering more of itself.

This is inevitable. Unstoppable.

Humanity is many times more conscious now than it was a thousand years ago when killing raping pillaging torturing marauding were the norm.

The journey is to god.

[tuckerwphotography]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are talking about survival. Within the domain of survival there are win-win-win scenarios and loving actions that we should aspire to.

If Hitler was alive, I would be okay with assassinating him.

In the Absolute domain, all is Love no matter what happens. But humans don't live in that domain.

@Leo Gura Yes, but there's another perspective often articulated by saints and gurus that there is some sort of objective Goodness out there called Love that's can guide our actions, bypassing the human ego. Almost like any action can be guided by Love or Fear, and if we choose Love it's because we're acting on behalf of God's will. I see this as different than the Stage Yellow win-win-win stuff, though some overlap perhaps. And I'm not sure if it's distinctly about survival, as often the examples used are doing something that risks survival for the sake of Love. Is this just because it's pointing to the survival of the human species (and/or nature), or is there actually some objective Goodness out there that our hearts can feel and be guided by?

[gettoefl]

26 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

@Leo Gura Yes, but there's another perspective often articulated by saints and gurus that there is some sort of objective Goodness out there called Love that's can guide our actions, bypassing the human ego. Almost like any action can be guided by Love or Fear, and if we choose Love it's because we're acting on behalf of God's will. I see this as different than the Stage Yellow win-win-win stuff, though some overlap perhaps. And I'm not sure if it's distinctly about survival, as often the examples used are doing something that risks survival for the sake of Love. Is this just because it's pointing to the survival of the human species (and/or nature), or is there actually some objective Goodness out there that our hearts can feel and be guided by?

awareness is the only good - (if you have awareness you can kill someone and it be perfectly good and right ...)

so don't try to be good or to do good

fix you first

then love them

[Gabith]

I love your biases

[tuckerwphotography]

2 hours ago, gettoefl said:

fix you first

then love them

@gettoefl Am I broken?

[tuckerwphotography]

2 hours ago, Gabith said:

I love your biases

@Gabith Awww, thanks bro 

[Nahm]

@tuckerwphotography

Even the knowing of your biases is one condition too many for God.