[refset]

It feels important to emphasise that Ram Dass is not a guru by his own definition:

Unity of God, guru, and Self is the higher truth, and if your veil of attachment is very thin, you may be able, like Ramana, to penetrate directly to that essence in the heart.

But most of us, to get through our busy human incarnation and the profusion of forms we find in our lives, need guidance and help. Seeing the guru as separate from oneself is a way to approach it in steps of lesser truths. It’s a first step toward becoming the One. The reality of the guru or guide as separate from oneself is a method or vehicle for coming to God. It’s using a relationship with a separate entity, dualism, to get to the One, to the reality that the guru is identical with your inmost being.

i.e. God=Guru=Self, see: https://www.ramdass.org/god-guru-self/

However, of all the things Ram Dass has said and done, the mantra (from the article) is all we really need to remember:

“So I accomplish the move from head to heart, in part with mantra: I am loving awareness. I am loving awareness. I am loving awareness.” With each repetition of the mantra, Ram Dass slowly begins charting the daily process of moving his consciousness out of his thinking mind and toward his open, present, compassionate heart—from ego land to soul land.

“All the universe is love,” he continues. “And I'm loving all of the universe.… Everything—everything—has love in it.”

<3

[0db532a0]

What does it actually mean to say that all the universe is love, and that everything has love in it? Is this more a way in which he is choosing to view things, or an actual statement of fact?

[refset]

I think that the statement "all the universe is love" is the ultimate example of a "Darwinian Truth" (I hesitate to reference Jordan Peterson here, but it's another useful definition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Q2qgdYB3I). I believe that in order for us humans to survive and thrive in life, individually and collectively, it is a truth must ultimately be consciously acknowledged. After all, we each represent projections of maternal lineage founded on an unbroken chain of our mothers' unconditional love for us. This way of viewing things is therefore primary since it has been there since very the beginnings of individual awareness. The original fact.

As to exactly how you personally should interpret "all the universe is love", well, it's a very personal thing. Perhaps the most general way to convey how that feels to me is: extend your deep inner-child maternal love outwards to encompass the rest of humanity, the Earth's ecosystem, and the natural conditions that gave rise to life itself. Like the feeling of warm sunshine on a cold day.

[0db532a0]

From what I’ve read of Jordan Peterson, he seems like a reasonable guy on many topics, but I don’t agree with Darwinian Truth. The only truth is what I experience. Everything outside of that is a game of language, including Jordan Peterson’s and Harris’s arguments.

I don’t see how invoking Jordan Peterson’s ‘Darwinian Truth’ gives any weight to the claim that all the universe is love. I would agree that you could indeed hold it to be an axiom.

You might believe that it is beneficial for humans to hold this axiom to be true and act accordingly, but this is still your subjective opinion. It supposes that humans are a worthy universal end, and the axiom remains an axiom.

I don’t know what you mean by unbroken maternal lineage. My maternal experience was very much broken. From what my mother has told me, so was hers.

What is the extension of deep inner child maternal love to encompass the test of humanity? Is it not just another way of saying that you just wish that everything were hunky dory? Things don’t seem to work that way in Darwin’s world.

I don’t want to disregard the idea of unconditional love for family and beyond. Many people can afford it. However, many people can’t, and it isn’t a truth that we must strive towards either.

There is a multitude of subjective value systems which man has chosen to live by, ostensibly, collectively and in private. Some have chosen to build empires, never having children. Some have chosen to build loving families. In neither case is it guaranteed that a majority will wake up smiling and feeling happy every day. That’s fine too.

[refset]

> I would agree that you could indeed hold it to be an axiom.

Challenge accepted, I will play your language game :)

> You might believe that it is beneficial for humans to hold this axiom to be true and act accordingly, but this is still your subjective opinion.

I live in quiet certainty that one day, eventually, everyone will be holding this same opinion and hold this axiom to be true. I do not necessarily expect to still be around to witness it personally.

By unbroken maternal lineage I am referring to the 9 months of sufficient love and nurturing required for a mother to produce a baby human, as has happened 100% consistently and successfully for millennia to arrive at each one of us. Any love received post-birth is a bonus. I accept that this view is harder to appreciate in some circumstances and is often obscured by many layers of trauma.

> Is it not just another way of saying that you just wish that everything were hunky dory?

I think to hold the perspective I'm describing you have to let go of seeing the problems in the world as problems. Things are simply happening. Suffering is happening. Life is unfolding. At some level I'm certainly still entertaining a wish that everything might yet work out to be hunky dory, but these days I can readily accept that such a wish will only ever be an illusion. I guess that is my second axiom.

You might enjoy briefly hearing Alan Watts tell The Story of the Chinese Farmer which beautifully expresses this general acceptance of life as it is currently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX0OARBqBp0

> Many people can afford it. However, many people can’t, and it isn’t a truth that we must strive towards

Many people might think they can't afford to love because life can grow intense and feel very serious sometimes, even dangerous, but love is free and it is always the best course of action. What else could each of us be striving towards if not a world with more love (even if only for ourselves)?

> In neither case is it guaranteed that a majority will wake up smiling and feeling happy every day. That’s fine too.

I agree, that's fine. Sadness is just as meaningful a feeling as happiness. These are just feelings.

[0db532a0]

Thanks for linking the video. I completely agree with that mindset.

I’m really not sure what to say regarding the love, though. I’ll leave it here.