RendHeaven

You're clutching to your thought-stories about Jesus, as though those stories are more real than what Is. There is only One Soul and YOU are it. When "you" - Mark, the character - "die," the whole world as it once was "dies" with you. The entire web of structure that previously bound and defined humanity (and all the suffering you observed) melts away. All that remains is Truth and Goodness. In that sense, it is wholly YOUR responsibility to die for the sake of all mankind (just as the story-character Jesus archetypically died). In that sense there is great wisdom and Truth in "wanting to be like Jesus." Just don't make the mistake of thinking that "Jesus" is some otherworldly being separate from & unreachable by you. (So long as you believe that, you are still roll-playing. You haven't really died until all of your stories die with you.)

Nope!

Don't wait for "Leo's imagination" to demonstrate "Leo," along with "Leo's imagination" is YOUR imagination, after all. It's up to you to unimagine Leo - or to reimagine the slew of other things you demand of him.

Each moment of being-understanding was Total and Whole in-and-of Itself. That does not preclude deeper being-understanding. Embrace paradox. You will NOT grasp this with thoughts.

I love your attitude. You've got what it takes to really surrender to God Ironically it's the people who think they've got God/infinity all figured out who have too much pride to surrender to what Is.

You take this for granted now from your vantage point, but even this is not so obvious to certain folks. "Direct experience" is hard to pin down. And by what right do we say that it is only this that "matters?" I think this is a helpful discussion

I "understand" Leo by being (rather than intellectualizing). I am talking about an entire different kind of knowing. Stay open to the possibility that knowing can arise in your life through different mediums This is a titanic task. We vastly, vastly, vastly underappreciate the challenge that Leo faces.

Insofar as you believe yourself to "be at the end of the rabbit hole" intellectually, yes. You imagined that, and hence it can be shown otherwise. When you "find" yourself magically being "the end of the rabbit hole" (as well as being at the beginning, simultaneously) - there are no longer "buts" "ifs" or "whats," and hence no alternatives.

*from the perspective of your finite human story

Leo is far more humble than anyone else here. You're defining "humble" in a way that suits your personal agenda, and then blaming Leo for not conforming to it. Leo is actually humble. Not humble in the way that you demand of him.

No, that's your assumption. There is no "threshold." You imagined that. I've been where you are. You're wrong. No. Infinity requires nothing. You're imagining this.

@Preety_India I'm curious, why do you think you get a bunch of negative PMs? I've never experienced that myself.

It's clear that you're deeply lost If you're really such a champion of open-mindedness and not-knowing, try maintaining an openness to the possibility that some people do have omniscience; be humble enough to not-know the state of others. Right now you're using the ruse of "not-knowing" to try to "know."

Conflation: Leo bans trolls for the sake of the entire community. He has a collective mission statement to uphold. He doesn't personally care about the troll. You're wishing to ban trolls for the sake of your personal needs. You have no care for how these trolls affect the mission statement

Lol.

I've finally understood, Leo. Thank you.

Same

You are Jesus.

"Groundless ground."

@Forestluv Hehe, of course~ I asked because in your original question, for some reason (and maybe I'm entirely projecting) I got the feeling that by listing partial forms of love, you were setting up a punchline - mainly, you were waiting to spring upon us the distinction between relative love and Absolute Love - and in doing so, you'd show the greater nature of Absolute love and the lesser nature of partial love. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is exactly how you replied! I'd like to point out a possible "trap," if I may. The trap is this: You approach (conversations of) Love by defining, categorizing, and distinguishing - but Love fundamentally undefines, uncategorizes, and undistinguishes. Furthermore, by approaching Love with the razor of differentiation, you implicitly disparage one side of your own differentiation in favor of the other (i.e. "Emotional love" is disparaged in favor of "Absolute Love.") - this last point is very subtle. The disparaging that I believe you are doing is not such an obvious thing, but I encourage you to check for yourself. In your mind, it may seem like not such a big deal. To you, it's like: "Hey, all I'm doing is I'm noticing the difference between the partial and the Absolute." Maybe you are doing more than that, however. Notice your language regarding emotions: The implication is clear: "Emotional love" is lesser. But what exactly do we mean by lesser? Let's speak a bit of SD Yellow for fun It seems that Love for you (in this moment, at least) is split into differences in kind (or, even if you insist that the difference is only in degree, this insistence nonetheless creates a rift, in the sense that we conceive one extremity of degree as not-the other extremity). That is, Love for you is manifold. From a certain perspective, it's useful to frame Love as manifold - it helps us clarify that the Absolute is not the partial/relative. This framing helps us avoid conflation. But by what means do we say that these things are not-same? I like the word you used - "subset." It seems like you are conceiving Love more like a Russian nesting doll. In the same way that it would be absurd to take apart the doll and proclaim that the smallest piece is the same as the entire stack of dolls, we then find that it is absurd to fixate on a minute portion of love and to declare that it is the same as Love with a capital L. I believe this is also where we get our notions of greater or lesser - for we understand that the Whole is greater than the part, and so if we imagine that the relative is contained within the Absolute (but does not occupy it fully), it only seems natural to conclude that the relative is not the Absolute, and hence is lesser - for it omits totality. But of course, we can always expand our frame of reference to that of the Whole, and realize that all 'lesser' parts must partake in the same substrate as the Whole - so much so that, from the vantage point of the Whole, it could NOT be said that the 'lesser part' is not the Absolute. In fact - the 'lesser part' ceases to be a thing in itself - no longer capable of having definition - and All is Absolute - and the Absolute is Great(er), for it is not contained by anything (other than itself). Now, to elaborate on the "trap" from earlier: For the most part, we tend to lock into the former perspective of Love (which concludes that the relative is not the Absolute, for it omits totality). From within this frame, the Whole is greater than the part, and it therefore makes perfect intellectual sense to disparage the relative in favor of the Absolute. After all, the Absolute is by definition greater. However - recall that from the frame of reference of the Whole, all 'lesser parts' must partake in the same substrate as the Whole. So, even if we find ourselves rightfully disparaging the relative because it omits totality, it would be a grave error and shame were we to forget that all relative love is literally the same as Absolute Love on the level of 'substance.' We may rightfully disparage the branch on the conceptual grounds that it omits the totality of the Tree, but it would be a grave error and shame were we to further disparage the branch on the misconception that it is not literally made of the same substance of Tree-ness! Or, to bring this down to earth: "Emotional love, such as: I love my gf, cat, playing tennis, etc." is rightfully disparaged for its partial nature, but the wise nonetheless honor it on the basis that love is Love. Just because "emotions" are (seemingly) not the Whole, it makes them no less Love. As a thought experiment (or maybe even a heart experiment ) can you envision Love as being wholly contained within Emotion, as opposed to Emotion being within Love? Obviously, at the ultimate level - there are no withins or withouts. Nonetheless, just as from a certain perspective, Emotion is contained within Love, I say that from a certain other perspective, Love is contained within Emotion. Can you bring yourself to see that? Or rather, can you bring yourself to feel that?

INFJ?

I finally understand. Your presence is such a gift. Thank you (for everything)

Drop spiritual ideas. Get survival handled

These distinctions are ultimately arbitrary. Depends on your frame of reference.

It's gonna be ok bro, have faith in the process.