Scholar

From a non-dual perspective this is a simple equation. Do you rather want to be bloated and have whatever problems you are as a vegan, or do you want to have your throat cut open every day, be pulled from the oceans and sufficate and then being possibly ripped apart while alive, be killed right after you were born as a baby chick day after day. That equation is pretty simple if you are a sane individual. You either suffer a bit, or tremendously. The truth is you probably just do not realize that you are the one being pulled from the oceans, that you are the one whose throat is being cut open and who is suffering day in day out. How many of your own lifes are worth to get rid of the little discomfort you experience when vegan?

What's the point of addressing it? Anything he could possibly say will not be the truth, it will simply be a concept to satisfy your mind and make it certain of one way over the other.

What if that's how the ego dies in a psychedelic? What if you are given the choice for permanent ego death? I've been having a dream in which I also felt like I could make the decision to die right now, and it truly felt like I would physically die, stop breathing and my heart would stop. I always fought my way out of it. But I wonder what would happen if I did it. Could be some advanced trickery of the ego to survive.

The true mind bender: What is denial?

Love you guys. Imagine having to do all of this alone in a cave 2000 years ago.

Sure, I am trying to work from within what I understand of Leo's philosophy. From my understanding he in the past made the distinction between the relative and the absolute, and would have claimed that "Truth is Love" is an Absolute Truth. If this is not the case anymore, I would be confused as to why he would say that someones teachings or enlightenment is incomplete, as he claims that those who have a complete enlightenment would know that Love is the Ground of Being so to speak. Anyone who would deny that would not have seen reality as deeply as he has. The relative-absolute distinction is paradoxical but that is just the way it is.

The fact that when you put all of this into language it turns out with paradoxes and "contradictions" is the most beautiful illustration of why language is lmiited and simply does not work int capturing any of this at all. Language is like trying to play 4D chess on 2 dimensional chess boards.

You have drawn a dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity that does not exist. They are both the same. All subjectivity is ultimately Truthful.

And more importantly Leo, if you say there are two realities. In one which contains "Truth is Love" and one which contains "Truth isn't Love", then it is quite impossible to disagree about what reality is, as each one of you is referring to a different reality. It could not be the case that you disagree about one singular reality if both of them are two different realities. You aren't truly disagreeing, you are just describing what is Seen. Therefore, the disagreement is an illusion.

In his reality Truth is Love. It has to be if Truth is Love. In his reality there simply is a thought "Truth isn't love". That's all. Truth is Love (if it is). Truth doesn't change by what you belief in. Truth can be Love without Ralston ever realizing it. Infact, no being ever could realize it, and it would still be the case. It doesn't go deeper at all, it's just beliefs and ideas. Ideas and beliefs are powerful, sure. But they are not Truth itself, they are part of it.

This is a prime example of how love can heal a humans body, mind and soul. This is what the future of mankind looks like. Full of love and compassion. Some people think that loving and having compassion for others is a burden, but it is quite the opposite. It will be the foundation upon which our civilization will thrive. It will be what heals us and this planet. There is no difference between giving love and receiving it. This must be understood.

You do not disagree about the nature of Love. You disagree about your ideas about the nature of Love. It seems like someone here does not see the nature of Disagreement,

Yes I agree. It becomes weird when deeper things get deconstructed and it has an effect on the language usage. Then you have real trouble conceptualizing it all. This is why I have found images so useful lately. Visual conceptualization basically, or metaphorical sort of pointers. I get the "Inner Seeing" and the images instead of thoughts and the I have to describe the images. It is a very involved process in the entire body, which is also kind of difficult to put into language, as you can see people using words like "energies", "chakras" and so forth to capture this. It's all just so much simpler if you just do the work and don't bother conceptualizing it. The concepts are getting so paradoxical too at this point that I can hardly call them "sense-making". It's really just the mind taking notes as it goes along the journey. It's like taking sketches that make sense to itself. But all of that is unnecessary.

But this cannot happen on this forum. At that point, language is transcended. It can no longer be said. And that's where all the fun begins. In silence and love. And that's all that we need to do. This talking is just distraction, quite literally. It is monkey mind. It takes our attention away. This is why I don't like talking about any of this. Talking and thinking is the worst possible tool to use for any of this. It's like the opposite of what you want to use. But then we go around and use it to create a map. Instead of the map, why not take other types of actions more appropriate. After all, what about a being that cannot talk or conceptualized? How will you show to them your love? This is what I mean with poetry being treated like science. All of these assumptions are just blabbering. That's all it is. They shouldn't be treated so seriously, as if our lifes were on the line depending upon what kind of concepts we use. Well, that's kind of what it is isnt it. The egos ass is on the line.

They are little love creation machines. And they don't even have to do anything to create the love, they just have to be themselves. The love they create within you, that is what you should thank them for. Imagine if there was a God and he created all of this, and he loved all of his Creation. Imagine how much Love it would give him, yet at the same time he would be the one giving the Love.

Precisely. This is why answers are not the means by which this work is encouraged, but rather questions. The question will make you start to look, and that is all you need. If you have an answer, you have a nice fancy answer you can look at. You will take your answer and you will put it on a shelve. And from there you will observe your answer, you will masturbate to it. The answer will consume your attention. The question is not important, what is important is the fact that it will make you look for an answer. The trick is to never find an answer, but to rather look until you See.

Sometimes it seems like people forget that this work is about Seeing. It is not about realizing, concluding, understanding, knowing. The Truth is Seen, it is not understood. The understanding of that which is seen is just a thought to make sense. To make sense is to survive. That's all. You cannot disagree about Seeing, you can only disagree about realizations, conclusions, understanding and knowledge. Seeing itself is just Seeing, there is nothing to be disagreed about there. That which I see is that which I see, and that which you see is that which you see. Seeing can be replaced with being. Knowledge is seen, but knowledge is not Seeing. Disagreement really is just an illusion.

@Leo Gura I cannot imagine that you are unaware of this. I will try to use more precise language. You cannot disagree nor agree about Isness. You can only disagree or agree about interpretations, thoughts and concepts you have that you call Isness. Anything you agree or disagree about is necessarily a thought, as disagreement and agreement is itself a thought.

You are correct, you cannot agree nor disagree about Isness! Never made such a claim that I am survival free, I wouldn't be here talking to if I were, lol.

I never said life can be lived without interpretation, infact I said the exact opposite. I said that interpretation is solely a function of survival. You seem to not see what I am pointing to when I refer to Isness. You cannot disagree about Isness, you can only disagree about belief. Not a single person in all of existence has ever disagreed about Isness. Infact, disagreement itself is Isness. I also never said that interpretations or assumptions stop. They belong in the realm of survival, and it seems like humans like to turn everything into a game of survival, even spirituality.

Time-stamped an interesting point. This is what I mean by Explorer vs Master. The Explorer will come back and have an urgency to talk about his experience, because it is not actual for him. It was temporary and is now gone, so he has to use his memory and concepts to attempt to communicate it. The master has no true need to do this, because it is his lived experience. He will be able to show the experience through the way he is, not just by the concepts he is communicating. Infact, the explorer is so excited about sharing his memories that he will not take into consideration whether or not what he will say will be detrimental to the flourishing of those with whom he is communicating. The explorers priority is sharing, rather than recreating the experience, expanding it into others.

This moment right now is god's end game.

No, I am working within your philosophical framework at the moment. To me it is irrelevant whether I myself come to conclude anything about reality. That to me is a function of survival. I cannot take it seriously anymore. The entire "This is the way it is!" idea to me is a function of ego. It has no other purpose. This is why only the human mind does this, because it has evolved to do so. No other mind has a need to do this, because what is, simply is. Isness does not need to be discovered, revealed, nor spoken of. I do not like the intellectual approach to this because it is so ridicilous. It is liking reading a poem and calling it science. That's not what this is. This is just music. But it is sold as if it was something else. It is like a chimp in a business suit. It turns Life into categories and sentences. This is the trap Connor is in. He listens to his thoughts, he interprets. But there is no need to interpret anything. There is no need to teach anyone. There is no one to save, to made more conscious. To me the stories Connor tells himself are not different than the entire story about non-duality, realitivity, absolutes and everything else. It's poetry that the mind has a tendency to call science. You cannot disagree about Isness. You can only ever disagree about a belief.

The question I am asking is, is Love imaginary or not?