RedLine

I disagree with that subjectivitic view. I don't think mysticism explain everything. Anyway, I am open to all that possibilities. This thread was a little bit playing devil’s advocate to see how the people answer to the question so I could get any insight. I will try to go deep with all the stuff you teach and I will see what happens.

You cannot use language to grasp the Absolute. So why are you writing in this forum?

You are right. It is all about experience, categories are not useful. But then, what is the goal of your videos? you are transmitting ideas, thoughts, words, categories, there. If ideas are not useful all then why do you do that? Maybe they are actually useful in some sense and worth the effort to work with them instead of answer typical non-dual answers. Language is a tool and the goal is get the closest you can to reality without "broken it".

It makes all the difference. It is the most important question of the history of philosophy since Aristotle. It is classically expressed as the relationship between the Absolute and the relative. It is the final piece to make sense of the Being, is there a "good" or "neutral" essence? Let's see in the future how can I see through the eye of others. I would really like to believe that suffer is just a manfistation of Love too. In some sense it is like homeopathy, you need to believe to be healthed. Good night.

so love and suffer are the same? suffer is also a expression of Love?

Everything is Love and horrible suffer happens at the same time. It looks contradictory. How do you explain that?

If you don't experience breathe then breathe doesn't exist for you at least you be aware of it again. If you are an ignorant -of God- and you are experiencing suffer because of it then suffer is what is real for you.

You decide to focus on this point instead of people dying because of hungry. I find the second one more interesting. Can you talk about that?

ignorance is the same as ausence, so negation of anyways, what is ignorance then? you just change the label suffer for ignorance. It doest explain anything about the question

This is a logical contradiction. You are saying Love has no opposite and suffering is its opposite at the same time.

just answer this simple question in a clear way please: is suffer (ego) love or is the opposite to love? and don't play language tricks. I think we are going close to the point now.

The key question is: is suffer also love? My answer is no. Your answer is yes. Maybe I change my mind in the future if a go deep in spirituality and see reality whith new eyes so I start to believe that experience in concentration camps or the death of your sons is still a form of love but I don't t think it will happened.

Finally you get the point. Everything is subjective is a bias. Why I am doing by stating " Everything is Love is subjective bias" is denying the beleief Being=Love. I am not defining Being nor giving it properties. Just go to the question men: do you think people in concentration camps, people dying of hunger or wars, regular people suffering day to day are enjoying life? is it a Love manifestation? is it God manifesting through them? So what if I become enlighten, does it change the suffer of that poor people?

Then we agree.

Yes, I know you are very practical-oriented; but the point is it this is not about me, this is not about subjectivity. How "my" subjectivity is does not change how the subjectiviy of the rest of the people is. I'm just a speck of dust in a world of 6.000 M people.

I appreciate your extensive comment, I see a good a heart in your words, but I think communication between you and me is not working at all. You say that I evade the question but I think that you are the one evading the point with subjectivist and non-dual rhetoric. So I think it is better to stop it here. Perhaps it is my mistake to introduce a philosophical debate in a practical-oriented subforum.

here we go again... People suffer af, I suffer af. Is it "infinitely good"? doesn´t look very "good"

Thank you for you kind words. If you don´t like the term Love, I can formulate the question differently: is Ultimate Reality good or just neutral?

That is great. Trauma release. It means they are working.

I am absolutely not rejecting spirituality practice if that is what you mean. The questing of Truth also implies to question "spiritual truths"; thats what I am doing. That´s what Leo recommend right? Or is it only right to question things when you don´t confront spiritual consensus? I am open to new perspectives.

So, why are you using words to make me understand something? Why are you writing in this forum? "See the ‘problem’ with your misunderstanding?"

Go to the point: people suffers or not? people are narcissistic, are attach to their egos and suffer for it or no? Yes, so there is suffer, so you can not state at the same time Reality is love and there are people that are not in love. That is not Love anymore. The only thing you can say is: reality is Nothing, reality is non-linguistinc; you can define reality in negative terms but you can never say reality is Love because it is a concept and you need to deal with the consecuences. If you say reality is Love then it is already something so you need to deal with the consecuences of that something linguistically.

Yes. My goal is understand Being, my goal is Truth. So there is this idea, in the spiritual/philosophica community: Ultimate reality = Love. So I am trying to deal with this idea (my goal is not to be offensive, I am only concerned with discovering the truth, I apologize if I have seemed arrogant in my thread) Why I disagree with this idea I think has been clearly explained in the OP.

You don´t say that the sun is hot as a metaphysical statement. You can say Universe is Love as a methaphyisical statement, or you can say the Universe is Love as a relative statmement which means nothing because it implies there are differente degrees of love including suffering, so you are admiting that there are suffering. Absolutely not what I mean.

Of course not everything is black or white, but to understand reality you need to do simplifications. Languaje is not reality, it is a tool to understand reality; you need languaje to communicate reality with others. What I mean is that the Truth is not only subjective; basically because you (you as a source of experience) are not the hole reality/truth; so subjective is not the whole map. To understad Truth you need to understad all spheres. And yes, Leo and his disciples are not very interested in objectivity (which is fine, but then you cannot pretend you know everything) and sciencie in general is not interested in experience.