By Osaid,
Of course it is relatively experienced. You know, love with a lowercase l, which is different from enlightenment. When something is tangled up in ego it's hard to call it universal love, it is quite relative.
Relative love is like a constricted method of siphoning a small part of universal love, so to speak. For the most part it's based on reason and feeling, and it comes from loving ideas about reality rather than reality itself. He says for most people it is, and this is entirely true.
When you tell someone who is not conscious of "Love" what love is, they will NOT understand what it is, they will entice themselves and mislead themselves through their own imagination because they are NOT conscious of "absolute love" and they are not enlightened. His position is that he doesn't want to entice people. If you tell someone who is not enlightened or conscious about "universal love" what love is, their minds will 100% warp it, because whatever their mind comes up with is not it.
Ralston teaches enlightenment. Not ideas about love as you do.
You do not need to know about love or be taught about love to achieve enlightenment. It's just a singular secular thing that happens in your experience, and then as a side effect all your emotions including love and what else become recontextualized. This love with a capital L is not a teaching, and you don't need to be taught it to experience it, I know you know this because you have experienced it. So it makes no sense for you to fault Ralston for not teaching it, because if you're not directly conscious of "Love" then any description of this love will just exist as an enticement, nothing else.
Relative love is like a constricted method of siphoning a small part of universal love, so to speak. For the most part it's based on reason and feeling, and it comes from loving ideas about reality rather than reality itself. He says for most people it is, and this is entirely true.
When you tell someone who is not conscious of "Love" what love is, they will NOT understand what it is, they will entice themselves and mislead themselves through their own imagination because they are NOT conscious of "absolute love" and they are not enlightened. His position is that he doesn't want to entice people. If you tell someone who is not enlightened or conscious about "universal love" what love is, their minds will 100% warp it, because whatever their mind comes up with is not it.
Ralston teaches enlightenment. Not ideas about love as you do.
You do not need to know about love or be taught about love to achieve enlightenment. It's just a singular secular thing that happens in your experience, and then as a side effect all your emotions including love and what else become recontextualized. This love with a capital L is not a teaching, and you don't need to be taught it to experience it, I know you know this because you have experienced it. So it makes no sense for you to fault Ralston for not teaching it, because if you're not directly conscious of "Love" then any description of this love will just exist as an enticement, nothing else.