Any description of love is enticement, of course, because it's a description. It's not the actual thing. So it's not necessary at all. The universe has no problem being exactly what it is and it doesn't need you to turn it into a description.

It's like describing the color red, a description is never the color red, and so it is ultimately not necessary for perceiving red, and when you DO perceive red, the color itself is of course TOTALLY different than the description.

Ralston said he doesn't want to give his students answers. Yes. Exactly. You don't exist as an answer. The search for answers and conclusions and meanings is the "problem" to begin with. All these teachings are just serving the purpose of pointing at reality and saying "look, you fool, it's right here, this is you, you are this." Any conclusion or answer is instantly metabolized by the unenlightened mind and turned into a belief system, as is rampant across the forum. Existence is not a conclusion.

Really grock this: Leo had no idea about this "Love" when he discovered it. It came to him out of nowhere. Now, why is it your standard that all teachers must mention this word prior to your own discovery? Because Leo said so? Because you want someone to coddle to your beliefs and experiences about love? Or maybe you're scared that enlightenment has nothing to do with love? How are you projecting this standard onto enlightenment when you yourself aren't enlightened in the first place? It must be belief.