Inliytened1

Yes there are two different things going on so let me be clear. One is before we decide whether Love is part of reality or not we should make sure our metaphysical definition of reality is correct in the first place otherwise we don't need Ralston to corrupt it. We are doing that all on our own.

By the way..yes you experience Infinity. Yes you experience Love, yes you experience Consciousness.. yes you experience God..you experience them because you ARE them! You are being them right now in fact. If a human feels emotion than God feels emotions. When a human cries God cries. We tend to want to limit our existential definitions to shy away from the human experience. Yet God is the human experience.

I understand that i asked him what side of the coin is Love. What is Love to you?

Then that's fine and I'm not necessarily disagreeing. That's what you could say was my experience but not based on concept or any intellectual realization necessarily. It was just innate in all of my awakenings and present. Love was present. Is it a feeling - feeling and emotion is definitely part of it..But it isn't something I can necessarily pinpoint or pin down to any one particular thing. Saying it is the realization that there is no difference between anything does not fully encompass all the dimensions of Absolute Love imo. Love is self describing or autological.

I'm not going to get into an endless debate with you but notice how you just snuck feeling into the metaphysical definition if you are saying that unlimited power is the same. So if you say reality is literally made of Love, that Love is the fabric of reality, but then you omit the qualities of love, then you are no longer saying it is love, you are saying something else.

But see this radically redefines the word love. Why still use the word if the metaphysical definition is now so different from the definition of "relative" love. Don't you see the issue here? Ralston wants us to take a look at this more closely and wonder if your statement that God is love isn't just something you took as a belief from some other guru a thousand years ago. Because notice the definition of existential love is radically different- almost removing the very attributes that made the word love love in the first place. We must be very careful here.

There's a lot of different flavors of OCD ranging from mild to severe but it basically is rooted in the inability to feel certainty and it will cause you to have obsessive thoughts. Those obsessions could be anything. There's even something such as existential OCD. Compulsions are then done to ease the obsessions but give a temporary and kind of false sense of certainty which may quickly fade repeating the cycle even stronger. For me I could hide it because the compulsions were only mental and done in my mind which is called pure OCD. No physical compulsions.

I know i can't smoke weed at all. It gives me immediate panic attacks almost all the time I try it so I don't mess with it at all now.

True you didn't say that but sometimes I need meds for it if it flares up real bad.

Pure OCD.. which is an anxiety based disorder its called the doubt disorder. The ego craves complete certainty. Only awakening was the cure. It has been mostly dormant of late.

Or gift.

Maybe but according to you I wouldn't qualify for a psychedelic retreat because of certain mental disorders. 😀

You cannot but there are certain realizations during awakening. I have had No Self,Infinity, Consciousness, emptinees/Nothingness, .Aloness/Oneness. That last one was the Absolute Solipsism one..there wasnt a realization I was God i just was God. All were best described as full body kundalini awakenings. All meditation. Never touched psychedelics..Very much like Ralston. But Leo's enlightenment videos triggered the awakenings for me. They were all filled wifh Divinity and what i can describe as Infinite bliss - too much for any finite form. All these descriptions fall short..But nothing that said it was love. But it was ineffable for sure. And it did have me in tears. If that ain't love I don't know what is.

Yet no one can describe it. Saying its merely the realization that there is no difference between anything is incomplete in my opinion and lacks nuance. There is no reason to use the word if that's your ontological definition.

You don't wanna take the feeling out either.

That doesn't sound very loving 😕

What i am asking you is Love better described as feeling, a warm feeling of connection and well.love! If that's not the case than what makes it different from raw oneness?

But that's what im asking you. What is the facet of Love to you vis the facet of Oneness. You have said in your videos that Absolute Love is the lack of all distinctions or the realization that there is no difference between anything. That to me is Infinity or oneness, that to me misses the specific facet of Love of which you speak. I want you to tell me the specific facet of Lpve that makes the word different.

Yes exactly.

Well yeah you unify relative things into One (or the Absolute). Take the word Consciousness. Awareness is relative to non,-awareness. Like Mind vs Material. But you can unify Consciousness and infinity as Infinity is everything and nothing. So what are we bringing together with love and Infinity? You can realize "omg its Infinity" or "omg its Love" but really what do these words mean to you? How do you interpret these words? In the end we find that no words can actually capture "IT" ..not even "IT".

In his mind if you needed to use the word Love it would indicate the word Infinity is not all encompassing enough. Which in that case it wouldn't be Infinity.

You're not making any sense if You are Everything than that includes pain too.

@Leo Gura if Infinity and Love are identical there wouldn't need to be two words. They would be the same word He's not wrong. He doesn't use it because love tends to point to an emotion or feeling

Awaken and find out!