Love is not what you think it is.

[UnbornTao]

On 15/10/2023 at 0:27 AM, Razard86 said:

The hatred for the word love is a masculine bias. The masculine hates to use the word love, but the feminine loves to use the word love. It's just petty bias on how to describe something and it comes from socialization. As a man if you cannot break out of this masculine paradigm you will never be able to have a deep emotional connection with ANYBODY. 

I love words.  

If you think about it, why call it love if it's absolute? Why give it the name of a human emotion?

Quote

Can't be your fullest expression without sufficient love.

Money can't buy love. You can pay someone millions of dollars and still not get love.

Ask a professional player who gave his life to a sport and squeezed everything out of it. A professional player who did that knows what love is through their sport. 

Notice you're holding love as a relative. The word is popular, do we know what it is, though?

Quote

This is why I stress part of the spiritual path is to give your all to something. That is the path of devotion. 

Good advice.

Edited October 18, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

I love words.  

If you think about it, why call it love if it's absolute? Why give it the name of a human emotion?

Notice you're holding love as a relative. Funnily enough, even though the word is overused, do we know what it is?

That's good advice.

Absolute is a word, truth is a word. Notice you claim love as a word but deny that absolute is a word. Also why is love a human emotion but not truth? Why is it that we can detect the difference between a lie and a truth through emotions? Notice the little games you play. You are playing a game of denial.

What is truth? What is present. What is unconditional love? What is present? How do we know? Because you only do what you WANT TO DO. What you WANT is what you DESIRE!! If I give you what you WANT you feel LOVED, and what you desire is WHAT YOU LOVE!!! So your whole life OPERATES on LOVE and yet you DENY this. When you want to discover what is TRUE you have to investigate your DESIRES!!! That is why in therapy the number one rule is HONESTY!!!

So your entire life runs on desire which is what you love, and what you love is what is TRUE FOR YOU!!! So do you see why it is called love? Its elementary my Dear Watson!!

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

You is a good one -- if coming from direct experience, as you say. If it's absolute, how come it is a facet of something else? Is love a part of god? This is for fun.

 

Look at your hand.  Isn't a finger both a finger and also simultaneously the hand?

[Osaid]

There aren't actually any facets, it's just a way of describing it. A description can't be the thing, it can only compartmentalize it and convey it in the form of a neatly packaged thought form for your ego to metabolize.

What is the color red? You could say it is red. You could say it is color. You could say it is similar to the color blue. You could say it is not the color blue. You could say there are different types of the color red. You could say it is a perception. You could say it is you. You could say it is God. All correct, as far as descriptions go. All of these descriptions are correct, but they never convey what it is, because it's just a description. A description doesn't capture anything ever. The only way for a description to fully capture red is to say: The color red is the color red. Which is just a tautology, which is absolutely correct, because you are a tautology and you cannot be explicated beyond yourself.

The "ego" is exactly the phenomenon I have described above. It is you trying to describe what you are in the exact same way that you try to describe red. Descriptions are equal to identities. You are doing the same thing to yourself when you say "I am a human" or "I am this" or "I am that." You are the thing which is generating the questions about yourself and the answers about yourself, so no identity, answer, description or conclusion you ever come up with is ever going to actually be correct.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Osaid

[Inliytened1]

32 minutes ago, Osaid said:

There aren't actually any facets, 

Why can't there be a facet that simultaneously is the whole thing? Yet when viewed as a facet is a facet?  If you look at your hand- you can view one of your fingers as a finger, but then you can shift your consciousness and see it as the whole thing.  Facets of Truth work the same way.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Osaid]

29 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Why can't there be a facet that simultaneously is the whole thing?

That is just another way of saying a tautology, which is "the whole thing is the whole thing." That defeats the definition of a facet. A facet by definition is not the whole thing, it is relative to a whole which it exists inside of. In order to even conceive of a facet, you have to simultaneously imagine something for that facet to be a part of. So, the whole thing is always experienced, you need the whole thing to even conceptually come up the idea of a "facet."

29 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

If you look at your hand- you can view one of your fingers as a finger, but then you can shift your consciousness and see it as the whole thing.

This never actually happens. You can't view something as one thing, but then have it exist within another thing which is the whole thing, that is your mind dissecting reality through thought forms. Your perception of the finger is equal to the perception of the whole thing. It is relative to the whole thing.

You're not actually experiencing a part of anything, you're experiencing a thought that describes things as parts, and the only way for you to do that is to contrast it with the idea of a "whole." You need the entire hand, which is the whole, to perceive parts of a hand. A finger by itself is not a part of anything, you need to perceive the whole hand connected to the finger to make that conceptual connection.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Osaid

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

That is just another way of saying a tautology, which is "the whole thing is the whole thing." That defeats the definition of a facet. A facet by definition is not the whole thing, it is relative to a whole which it exists inside of. In order to even conceive of a facet, you have to simultaneously imagine something for that facet to be a part of. So, the whole thing is always experienced, you need the whole thing to even conceptually come up the idea of a "facet."

This never actually happens. You can't view something as one thing, but then have it exist within another thing which is the whole thing, that is your mind dissecting reality through thought forms. Your perception of the finger is equal to the perception of the whole thing. It is relative to the whole thing.

You're not actually experiencing a part of anything, you're experiencing a thought that describes things as parts, and the only way for you to do that is to contrast it with the idea of a "whole." You need the entire hand, which is the whole, to perceive parts of a hand. A finger by itself is not a part of anything, you need to perceive the whole hand connected to the finger to make that conceptual connection.

You are over analyzing it.  Just take out your hand and look at one one of the fingers. See it as a finger. Now see it as the hand.   You will see that an expansion of consciousness takes place when it becomes the hand.  Believe it or not - this is exactly identical to the shift in consciousness or expansion of consciousness that occurs when you shift from finite consciousness to infinite consciousness.   Finite consciousness is still the whole thing- its simply that it sees itself as just a part.

[Osaid]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Just take out your hand and look at one one of the fingers. See it as a finger. Now see it as the hand.

That is just visual perception. You're not seeing it as a hand or finger. Your visual perception has no feature where it makes one thing finite or a part of something. Those are mental labels. Visual perception is always infinite.

[Water by the River]

19 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

We are saying that Love is an Absolute- it is a facet of God.  You have to remember that language is limited.  The word Absolute does not fully depict what God is.   Infinity does not.  Nothingness does not.  Everything does not.   The word God doesn't.  The word Love doesn't.   So we look at facets and angles of God in an attempt to grasp it.  When in truth, only being it fully grasps it.  And then good luck coming back and describing it with one word.

Very True.  Allow me some musings (in general, not specifically to your answer), since this is an important point.

The Absolute Reality can only be described/approached with

a) what it is not (in-finite, silent, Abyss, Nothing-"ness"), via negative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology), Nagarjuna Madyamaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā). Although Yogachara/Consciousness only school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara) extended that to Infinite Consciousness (which is true), we are already on a slippery slope here giving the Absolute limitations and (relative) properties.

b) pointers showing a path to practices (actual practices, not just concepts) that can generate certain nondual awakened states in which the realization of it (Reality itself and ones True Self) can happen by itself ("Enlightenment"). By removing the filters/clouds of the ego and BEING infinite reality itself. 

Why? Because all these pointers appear WITHIN Absolute Reality. Can an infinite ocean define and realize itself fully using only water as pointer in an infinite "mass" of water?

So we can describe the waves of the ocean and what the ocean does, and how it confuses all the waves to think they are waves. But we can never describe the infinite ocean fully with concepts. For that, one has to be it and realize it.

And for that, the ego/self-contraction has to truly die and get truly transcended. Not just wear new cloths (I am God/facet a/facet b/.../n+1). Which is the same as the wave declaring it is the ocean.

Deep Identity Level change. How does one spot it? Wave=psychological suffering. Ocean = potential for no more psychological suffering when the wave is truly dead/transcended, having been seen through and fully being/living as the ocean. Quite a task, but nothing else to do for eternity...

Selling Water by the River

Edited October 15, 2023 by Water by the River

[Inliytened1]

@Water by the River

     with as much time as you take with your descriptions of reality here, I surely hope you are working on your own book.  There will be plenty interested in reading it.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Inliytened1

[vibv]

4 hours ago, Osaid said:

That is just visual perception. You're not seeing it as a hand or finger. Your visual perception has no feature where it makes one thing finite or a part of something. Those are mental labels. Visual perception is always infinite.

With that reasoning you can shut down any exploration into the nature of consciousness.

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

8 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Look at your hand.  Isn't a finger both a finger and also simultaneously the hand?

Sorry for being a smart ass as usual (I guess it's part of my Karma, lol)... but by definition, the finger is NOT the hand. 'Finger' is a relative concept; the whole point of calling it a finger is to make an (arbitrary) distinction between finger and hand. That's what the conceptual mind does.

Which is why the slogan 'You are God' is a misleading pointer at best and an expression of solipsistic delusion at worst. It is a gross conflation of the relative domain of reality with the Absolute, and it does more harm than good imo.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Bazooka Jesus

[An young being]

44 minutes ago, Bazooka Jesus said:

Which is why the slogan 'You are God' is a misleading pointer at best and an expression of solipsistic delusion at worst. It is a gross conflation of the relative domain of reality with the Absolute, and it does more harm than good imo.

 

That's why most of the religions ask people to worship something other than themselves rather than asking to worship themselves.

[UnbornTao]

On 15/10/2023 at 3:47 AM, Inliytened1 said:

Look at your hand.  Isn't a finger both a finger and also simultaneously the hand?

Fair. That's an analogy, though.

Edited October 18, 2023 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

12 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Absolute is a word, truth is a word. Notice you claim love as a word but deny that absolute is a word. Also why is love a human emotion but not truth? Why is it that we can detect the difference between a lie and a truth through emotions? Notice the little games you play. You are playing a game of denial.

What is truth? What is present. What is unconditional love? What is present? How do we know? Because you only do what you WANT TO DO. What you WANT is what you DESIRE!! If I give you what you WANT you feel LOVED, and what you desire is WHAT YOU LOVE!!! So your whole life OPERATES on LOVE and yet you DENY this. When you want to discover what is TRUE you have to investigate your DESIRES!!! That is why in therapy the number one rule is HONESTY!!!

So your entire life runs on desire which is what you love, and what you love is what is TRUE FOR YOU!!! So do you see why it is called love? Its elementary my Dear Watson!!

Ok.

[ZzzleepingBear]

We cannot think ourselves to love, but we love to think about it.

[gettoefl]

what's great about love is the all is the sum of the parts

what's great about Love is the all is the same as the parts

namely to discuss the all is not only wasteful it is also harmful

this thread a case in point

do not some of us have lives to lead

give up the mind games already

in fact give up the game of mind

give your time to just that

[Leo Gura]

Love is what *I* think it is.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[effortlesslumen]

17 hours ago, An young being said:

That's why most of the religions ask people to worship something other than themselves rather than asking to worship themselves.

Im not worshipped nor do i worship myself. I am god.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by effortlesslumen

[Razard86]

13 hours ago, Osaid said:

That is just visual perception. You're not seeing it as a hand or finger. Your visual perception has no feature where it makes one thing finite or a part of something. Those are mental labels. Visual perception is always infinite.

Visual perception isn't actually infinite, infinite is unlimited expression. Are you seeing and experiencing right now...every possibility that exists right now? NO!!! We only say its infinite because you can unlock the finite perceptual limits to experience infinity. But the normal visual perception...is experienced as finite. Also mental labels...ARE VISUAL PERCEPTION. A blind person can SEE there mental labels since they lack visual perception that becomes their visual their finite human imagination. But if you study how language is learned it is learned primarily through visualization. You only know what a chair is as a visual person based on how it looks.

For a blind person it would be based on how it feels. If I told you what is the word "silla" if you don't know Spanish you wouldn't know. But if I showed you a picture of a chair and said its this in spanish your mind would make a connection VISUALLY that the word "silla"= chair. 

Why am I doing this? To show you that all disagreements...is just how you are choosing to construct your world view. You have to deny that mental labels are =to images you form in your mind. To a blind person...the letter A will never be seen. But don't doubt for a minute their mind isn't constructing some image of what the sound "A" means. For them "A" would be a specific feeling of BRAILE. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Razard86