Grateful Dead

Okay, I actually agree with the definition that enlightenment corresponds to an open heart, and I think that's well put. With Ralston, I also see the defensiveness you mentioned, but not so much with Tolle. Now I'm wondering how worthwhile it really is to learn from them if I can see that they don't live from a place of openness. I should add that I stopped paying much attention to them and their teachings many years ago, perhaps since I noticed their closed hearts and found a better path. Every now and then, though, I come back to them and find useful approaches in their work, but maybe that actually holds me back; I need to think about that some more.

I think Ralston would say that while an initial traumatic event happens, the ongoing trauma and suffering are actively created and maintained by the mind's unconscious assumptions and defensive reactions. As I understand it, Ralston doesn't use the expression "absolute truth" to divide something into true and false, but rather to point to what actually is when all concepts fall away. Where you say "hallelujah," "glorious," Ralston says: "absolute truth." Again, I think Ralston wouldn't really disagree with you. Biological distinctions are functional realities. What you describe as an empty mind, Ralston would describe as a state, probably a state of not-knowing, and you're right, one doesn't think of separation in that state. In my view, when Ralston speaks of the illusion of separation, he means psychological separation, that is, the idea that you are an isolated ego that has to survive in a dangerous world. Yes, in a certain sense, relatively speaking, that's true. But as you know, one can realize that the separate feeling of self is a pure mental construct, or do you disagree? I think you're misunderstanding. To my understanding, Ralston doesn't say that enlightenment is knowing what is Absolute Truth. Ralston says enlightenment is the moment of direct experience of Absolute Truth, precisely what you describe as openness to the unlimited. He almost never actually speaks of enlightenment, but only of enlightenment experiences. Yes, that's what I see in Ralston and also in Tolle. And I don't believe that one can express and embody this presence without having had a profound opening and being in the process of enlightenment. Do I believe that Tolle or Ralston are as deeply realized as Jesus, Al Hallaj, or Ramakrishna? No, not even close, but they are some of the best teachers of our time and therefore relevant to me. I see the limitations in Ralston just as I do in Tolle. I also think that, to put it simply, both of them have closed hearts. And I also don't think that Ralston transmits presence, at least not in contrast to Eckhart Tolle. But I think Ralston doesn't even want that, because then he would make you dependent on his presence. What I do notice with Ralston, however, is that he conveys presence and clarity through his teachings. So if I truly put into practice what he tries to teach, then I see the inner clarity of it and get a sense of the depth of his realization. With Tolle, it's the exact opposite: his teachings aren't profound or particularly deep, but his presence is very strong, and that conveys to me the depth of his realization. So, while I see limitations in both, I also see that they are far ahead of me in many areas that I also aspire to embody, and therefore I learn from them. If it's purely about opening myself to ultimate reality, then I'm only following the teachings of Jesus. But since I'm unfortunately not permanently completely open and also have to be active in the world and live consciously there, I want to find ways to do this as smoothly as possible. Because Ralston and Tolle live in the same era as me and understand the demands of this world, I find it easier to relate to them in that sense.

We can use two words: one to describe the pure existence that is being, and the other to describe the quality of that being that is love. I do not deny that love expresses itself in humans as an ecstatic feeling and a longing for union. Just as Being expresses itself in humans through a clear, unfiltered, pure presence. But these are both effects that it has on our mind. What I wrote was trying to describe the nature of reality prior to interpretation by a mind.

A sudden, immediate breakthrough in direct consciousness, in which the fundamental nature of who and what you are is absolutely clearly recognized. I am increasingly getting the impression that you haven't really engaged with Ralston's work. The very thing you describe here as his understanding of enlightenment is precisely what Ralston warns against in his books. He literally states that a genuine breakthrough is not an intellectual shift in perspective, but rather the actual, fundamental dissolution of the illusion of separation. It is raw, unfiltered reality, prior to thought and not merely a superficial mental narrative. He also does not deny the reality of the profound essence to which you point. However, he refuses to express it in the Romance-based language you are using here. If you label ultimate reality as glorious, magnificent, or whatever else, then from his perspective you are once again turning it into a concept. So, I think he would say that you are replacing non-knowing with belief. He asserts that absolute Being requires no breathtaking description to be what it is. In other words, instead of remaining open and in a state of not-knowing, you cling to the mind that claims to know what reality is. Ralston says: detach yourself from every identification, and then, in a state of non-knowing, contemplate the essence of your Self and perhaps a spontaneous breakthrough will then occur. You say the dying man 'sees the light and is one with it.' In that moment of oneness, his ego-identity has collapsed. That is exactly what Ralston is talking about. The only difference is that Ralston provides a conscious, rigorous method to facilitate this collapse of separation here and now, rather than leaving it to chance or waiting for a crisis.

I really don't know how you arrived at these assumptions about Ralston. After all, he repeatedly emphasizes that this is not about attaining a pleasant state. As described earlier, for him, mindfulness or being an aligned human without frictionare are merely temporary experiences of the mind. He explains all the time that enlightenment has nothing to do with feeling good or anything of that nature. So, your criticism here is truly completely unfounded. According to Ralston, the direct awareness of Being is not about becoming an aligned person; rather, it is the complete collapse of the conceptual self. He states that enlightenment makes it possible to transform the self and achieve a state of inner freedom but for him, that belongs to an entirely different domain, that of transformation. As far as I understand it, Ralston does not deny mystical experiences either. He merely warns that the mind immediately attempts to label, categorize, and claim ownership of these experiences. For him, pure Being is the ultimate source and absolute power, and he argues that one does not need a mystical narrative to simply be that. I do not believe he is ridiculing Lao Tzu or Christ; rather, he is critiquing those who worship the descriptions of such experiences instead of seeking to have the direct experience themselves. I don't think so. I believe that by Being, Ralston means what it truly is.

No, that's incorrect. Ralston clearly states that not-knowing is a method, an attitude or a tool. It's a prerequisite for direct experience, but not enlightenment itself. For Ralston, the observer is not absolute truth. He describes the observer merely as another construct of the self, which should be deconstructed. What is true is that Ralston calls that which never changes truth, but he sees this as Being where the distinction between observer and observed has also broken down. Being is timeless and eternal; therefore, it does not change. Do you believe the truth changes?

Lol, yeah, I knew you'd write that. You're right, it needs to be corrected or transcended. Simply calling it an illusion is more like spiritual bypassing. But that's not what Ralston says. He only says that the state of not-knowing is the best prerequisite for enlightenment. Yes, I see it the same way. For me, Ralston is more like a scientist who deals with consciousness. He has radically deconstructed and investigated the mind. I find his books to be well-written and clear, but sometimes a little redundant.

I never got the feeling that Ralston denied the biological reality of the body. He practiced martial arts for a long time, which is a good example of this. The evolutionary survival instinct is, of course, a fact, and he often talks about it, but the judgment and the mental construct that the mind builds: "I am inferior because of my small penis" is not a fact; it's a mental construct, an illusion that can be deconstructed. So, the assumption that the "self" is a fixed, independent entity is the conceptual illusion. No one is saying that this state is truer than an active interpretation of reality. But you're more likely to have a breakthrough when your mind is clear and focused, or do you see it differently? Yes, I agree on that point; I also think Ralston's heart is closed. Ralston says the diversity of the universe exists because consciousness draws boundaries and makes distinctions. The creative force is, so to speak, the universe's ability to bring form out of formlessness. Physical reality is not a construct separate from absolute Being. It is absolute Being itself, which makes itself perceptible as form through the activity of the mind. He wrote an entire book about it, 'The Genius of Being'. Again I kind of agree here. However, I don't think I would describe him as a narcissist. Perhaps somewhat arrogant or closed.

There is no distinction between love and being. The point is that being IS love. So the realization is that the substance of being is love. Consciousness IS love. You can't differentiate them further, as they are inseparable. I believe you can actually overlook this realization if you have a very clinical Zen background like Ralston. He simply didn't connect the two points; it's not that absolute truth is something different to him. We use the word love because it perfectly captures what it's all about: the profound openness and infinite fullness of being and the absence of fear, separation, and defensiveness.

Unity is not a sterile fact. When all separation is abolished, what remains is not just an empty unity. The fundamental quality of perfect unity is love. One could say love is the heart of unity.

I find it crazy that you believe Ralston is fundamentally wrong. Ralston describes pure being as the absolute truth, which can be directly experienced. He says, just like you, that the state of not-knowing, which you call an empty mind, is merely a prerequisite for opening oneself to absolute truth. By not-knowing he means a radical removal of all conceptual frameworks so that it becomes possible to open oneself to the absolute truth. Furthermore, he says that the self (ego) is a construct created by the mind. If you confuse your true being with this mental construct, you live in an illusion. What is true is that he sees only formless, pure, inseparable, unlimited being as absolute truth. Which I can well understand, as it is also the highest truth I have realized. What Ralston may not have understood is that the perfect unity is love, and that this is literally the substance of reality. His approach seems to focus entirely on a mental breakthrough, leaving the opening of the heart out of the equation, which I see as limited.

No it wasn't, perhaps the wording, "I gave up and surrendered to the will of God," was misleading. But that's what it meant for me at that moment, not clinging to my own will, but accepting that God knows best when the time has come. But it could have been a total dissolution if I were as transparent as Ramakrishna for example. It was right in front of me, exactly what I am longing for. The gate wide open, beaming, calling me but I couldn't melt in. And that drove me crazy. Then I realized that it wasn't my choice to do that. Reality itself will take that me there when I'm ready. That dissolved the resistance within me, and I was able to relax again. That was my last trip because it made me realize that I can't force it; that only makes it harder. I know exactly what inner work I have to do and what I still need to learn. It's nothing spectacular, but very subtle things in my everyday life. Basically, you could say it's about letting go of all judgment. The trip was very humbling and brought me back down to earth. Once I believe the work is done, I will test it. Hmm, yes, that's a valid point. Psychedelics offer a kind of magnifying glass for a while, providing deep insights into one's individual structure that one wouldn't normally have. Perhaps it's time for me to take another look. It's possible imo, but then you would be letting go of the body once and for all. The body is the main boundary, and if you want to be completely open, you have to let go of this limitation. And in my view, that's not possible as long as you possess the body, even if the identification with it is very weak, as was the case with Ramana, for example. Yes, I agree, it seems very obvious, but it's the hardest thing in the world. And I think what we're both saying is the same. You call it cleansing the psychological structures, and that's inner clarity, which leads to true knowledge.

The first time it happened to me, it was so traumatizing that for at least a year afterward, whenever I truly allowed myself to relax, I was invariably overwhelmed by an existential terror. I couldn't sleep properly anymore, either. But I always knew that this was simply something I had to get through; and so, I didn't stop tripping, even though absolute horror descended upon me during every single trip. Eventually, it became so psychologically exhausting when it happened again, right at a moment when I was feeling completely fine and was enjoying myself, the strain became too much to bear; I collapsed under the pressure and let the terror completely overwhelm me, so that I briefly lost consciousness. And it has never happened again in that form since. Since that time, on almost every trip, my mind simply dissolves, and reality reveals itself in some way. The last time I experienced fear during a trip, it wasn't a fear of the Void anymore, but rather a fear of the sheer intensity of the Fullness. Everything, the entire Infinity seemed intent on devouring me with all its intensity; I knew that if I melted into it, it would be the end of me. I fought against it for a long time until, finally, I gave up and surrendered to the will of God. But isn't it already obvious where the barriers are? What exactly do psychedelics help you with? I get the feeling that every trip only makes it harder to accept "normality" as it is and surely, that in itself constitutes a barrier. I honestly don't know if one can shatter these barriers by force; in my case, that only leads to greater resistance. The boundaries melt away only when I recognize that there are no boundaries at all. Or, to put it another way: when I remain grounded in the knowledge that the body is the limitation but that I am not within the body. I like that point. That is what we were writing about earlier, being ready to die at any moment. True, but the way I see it, you cannot pass completely through the gate as long as you still possess a body. Therefore, you simply have to come to terms with the fact that you will only catch a glimpse every now and then, until the time comes to shed your body. Naturally, one should strive to purify one's mind constantly, so that one is as free as possible when that moment finally arrives. But you already know that the Dead Void is not the end. Yes, I understand that well. But I do believe that openness is a matter of knowledge, not intellectual knowledge, of course, but the knowledge of absolute reality, or perhaps, put another way, trust in absolute reality. I do not mean this as a form of memory, but rather as an acceptance of not knowing in the present moment, and a trust in what is.

Yes! He's a great inspiration to me. Once, when I was on psychedelics, I imitated him, just for fun. But that gave me a brief, spontaneous glimpse into his state of mind and his attitude. He had the innocence of a child combined with the wisdom of a mystic. That's right. The world wore me down at a fairly young age. For a long time, it felt like I was being tortured. Suffering and longing drove me. Now it's a natural surrender to reality. That happens to me too, but only on good days when I'm in an opening phase. The perception of the formless essence, as I described before, is relatively stable, even on the worst days. However, I view the perception of the formless in everything merely as a learning device. And what do you envision by that? A state of permanent revelation? I sometimes think that when I read your posts, but I believe that's extremely rare and not really achievable except under extraordinary circumstances. What I want is a permanent shift in identity and perception. To turn everything upside down for good, so to speak. A perfect awareness of oneness. So far, these are just phases, but I know I can stabilize it, though it will take some years more. I have experienced this on 5-MeO-DMT as well, and often on LSD. I had called it existential terror. Why did you take a long break and why did you start again? I'm asking because I'm no longer sure if psychedelics are still beneficial for me or if they're more of a hindrance. I've also been on a long break, and lately I've been thinking about them a lot again. I somehow don't see any reason to take them anymore. I'm no longer looking for experiences or insights. What I want is a lasting openness, and the work for that lies in everyday life. I find psychedelics distract you from that because the chemical alteration puts you in a state that doesn't correspond to actual reality, and then you can't work where you are. What do you think about that? Same here. Before, I was driven. Now, it is simply what remains. The natural tendency of the mind to be completely free.

Then truth would be dead or limited. For me, truth is alive. It is not a static thing or a concept, but living being. And the nature of being is eternal expansion because it’s freedom is total.

The Course states that it cannot teach what love is, but it constantly emphasizes that love is the generative principle behind reality and that God is Love. Ralston says he doesn't talk about love because, for him, it has nothing to do with truth.

Yes, that's what I mean. Deconstructing the mental construct of the world so that one perceives it as unfiltered as possible. That's exactly what I strive for. Living in the light. A fresh perception that slows everything down and honors it. The Gospel really gives a very good insight into his life. He truly worshipped all forms as Kali, in a way that even truly spiritual people considered insane. His life is really interesting when you consider how open he was. For someone like him, it would be impossible to live in society. Small things were enough for him to shatter all boundaries, and he would be completely gone in Samadhi, often for hours, and his devotees had to care for him like for a child. He trurly lived as a child of Kali in complete innocence. I have trained my mind to perceive the formless as the essence in everything. Often, for example, I look around and everything appears identical to me. Of course, I see different forms, like a table and a screen, but everything shares the same formless essence, that which never changes. And for me, the formless also has a quality; I don't see it as neutral in the sense of being without attributes, but simply neutral in the sense that there is no opposite to it, no polarity. Formless being is pure joy and imbued with the deepest peace. I am aware that this path is not the only way to liberate the mind and open oneself up. It simply happens that this path best suits my experiences and inclinations. For a time, it might seem limited, but I believe that in the end, everything leads to the same goal: the complete opening of the mind.

But as long as fear is still tied to one's perception of the world, the world can still hold one captive. That's why I think one must first break free from the shackles of the world in order to live freely in the real world. For me, form is only here to help me learn how to free myself from it. Ultimately, I see it as a projection of the mind, and when the mind is completely pure, there is no more projection, only endless expanse without limits. It's both, in my opinion. A boundless, otherworldly peace, so glorious that every word about it only spoils it. By the way, if you like Kali, you should read The Gospel of Ramakrishna if you don't already know it. He embodied Kali and surrendered himself completely to her. The openness in which he lived is beyond comprehension.

Yes, for me too I only experience occasional, spontaneous moments of complete openness. When I write that I can relatively easily rest in openness during meditation, I mean that during formal meditation I can relinquish my resistance to closedness and thereby sink deeper into openness. However, it's very rare that all boundaries are completely transcended, and even then, only very briefly. I believe that as long as one is still attached to things in the world, it's impossible to disappear into openness for any length of time. The structures return too quickly because they are still real to us in that moment. This is a good example of what I meant above. Normal relationships, like most people have, have a pull and draw us back into the ego. That's why I see it as necessary to first recognize all these structures that the ego uses to maintain separation in order to interpret them correctly and see them for what they truly are. Our entire world is literally built around escaping emptiness. When I began to fall into the void, at first I desperately wanted to undo everything and return to living in ignorance, but I knew it was too late. It took quite a while until I was forced to give up, which allowed me to realize that emptiness is the peace I had been searching for. I also believe that if one hasn't deeply grasped this, then it's impossible to live beyond the boundaries of the ego.

I agree, well said! Yes, that is exactly the process I am going through as well. I view it this way: the phases of openness are brief glimpses of freedom, and when things close up again, we are shown exactly where the ego is still trying to hold on, so we know where the work is. To me, the mind calling those experiences a fantasy is just another layer of the barrier. The more I am willing to lean into the closed phases and the doubt, the less they bother me. At a certain point, it all becomes transparent, even the forgetting, and I realize that what is absolute never actually left. During formal meditation, I find it relatively easy to rest in this openness. The real challenge for me lies in integrating this into everyday life, in remaining transparent amidst the movements of life. Like to not simply ignore the closedness and go about my usual activities, but rather to pause for a moment to recognize the resistance precisely at the instant it arises.

I have a different view. The door is always wide open, but it's guarded by the ego, and you simply have to slip through quietly. Yes, I generally agree! The relaxation referred to the point where one has already perceived the barriers and realized that you do not want them. But I would say that once you see through the ego, it's easy, almost too easy. Because every time you perceive inner conflict or resistance you pretty much immediately know, "Ah, that's the ego trying to maintain the separation," and you know you don't want that, so you simply open yourself up again or as I said before, relax/surrender. God IS perfect unity, which is pure Love. I can sense the presence/silence of God right now. Isn't what you call absolute emptiness simply the ego's perception of God's perfect silence? I've been in the 'black and white dead landscape'. I've faced the worst-case scenario where I felt completely abandoned by God for years and during this time I was sure that all my spiritual experiences/insights etc. were just naive delusions and that I had fooled myself. I stood in the mechanical, bottomless abyss where everything seems like a dead illusion. But at some point, I realized that dead void isn't the ultimate reality, but merely the ego's interpretation of perfect silence/God. In other words, nihilism is the ego's final interpretation of its own annihilation. And when you ultimately have to surrender to the void, you realize that emptiness isn't dead, but merley a perfect stillness that the mind perceives as nothingness. So when I speak of God, I don't mean a mental safety net or a theological concept that allows me to escape the abyss. I'm talking about what remains after being thrown into the abyss without any safety nets and realizing that emptiness is/was the last veil of the individual self. Surrender to God what happens after realizing that nihilism, too, is just another fearful thought. And I don't believe it's our choice whether we completely surrender to emptiness, because if we could choose, we would always choose against it. You're pushed into a corner until you have no other choice but to surrender. I believe everyone who has a body is closed to some degree. Some are more transparent, others very dense. The work you talk about is the only thing truly worth doing here anyways, and I do it gladly and with joy. Because I know that the Self remains beyond the body and its barriers, and that is what I truly am.

Yes, that's one way to put it, that's what I mean. I'm wondering, what exactly is your technique for breaking down these barriers? As I see it your natural state must be there when you stop trying to do something or change it, so I understand as long as you're trying to achieve something, you're essentially preventing yourself. I do believe that one has to make an effort for a while to prepare the mind to wake up and recognize where the barriers are. My view is that the closed state is something we actively maintain, and if you simply relax completely or stop doing anything, then you don't have to dissolve anything because you're not maintaining anything. Like the more I try to dissolve something, the more I'm actually strenghtening the one who wants it to fall. For me, simply relaxing into the 'closed' state or the fear is what eventually reveals it to be transparent. It’s not a mental trick, but a total surrender to whatever 'what is' looks like in this moment even if it looks like contraction. Another way I like to describe it, is that I open my mind and surrender all my thoughts to God.

Yes, I see it the same way. But only to the Ego. I think it’s enough to notice the barriers and then simply relax into them. For me, meditation is just the deepest form of relaxation. It seems to me that every form of effort or struggle is the ego’s natural attempt to maintain control. When I see through the struggle, reality simply is as it is. To me, it sounds like you want to use meditation to reach a specific state like boundlessness. For me, it's more about accepting every state exactly as it is, in order to remain open to that which never changes. Basically, I step back and let it all happen, allowing my mind to sink into the Self.

Yes, once the mechanism of the ego is seen through, meditation becomes effortless and natural. I think a major obstacle is our understanding of time, the idea that we have to meditate for longer than a moment. If you consider the present moment as the entirety of time, the need to meditate longer than now disappears. Sometimes my mind is very quiet during meditation, and sometimes not, that doesn't make much difference to me. I let my mind be as it is and don't try to change it, revealing a stillness that is already present, independent of whether the mind is active or quiet.

I think he's keeping it secret because Salvia can be very dangerous and he doesn't want to glorify it. It's absurd that you think Leo is inventing new psychedelics. He already said that the substance has been studied, so it must be somewhat known. You can't give 20 people a new, unknown substance that only he has tested.