Grateful Dead

Interdependence is not Unity. Unity is perfect fullness; there is nothing outside of it on which it depends. The fact that the body needs sun and air only confirms, in my view, the fragile, vulnerable nature of the body. Reality doesn't depend on anything to survive; it is indestructible, and I base my existence solely on that. As I wrote before, for me the body is merely the tool through which the mind communicates. If you dream tonight that you are writing a novel, does that confirm the reality of the fingers in the dream writing it? Or does it confirm the reality of the mind imagining it?

Love is the ultimate reality, I agree. I see the body as both a tool and a limitation. It's like the second thorn I use to pull out the first. Love doesn't need a body to exist. The illusion of having a body is ultimately what obscures and limits love. True awakening is the realization of boundless love beyond the body.

I can certainly relate to what you are writing. It's a happy life and a functional state in the world, but I view it merley as an intermediate step toward true enlightenment. In absolute awakening, the world vanishes and only the Light reamins. You see the face of Christ everywhere and your heart overflows with love. This state is no longer functional within the survial matrix and it's not desirable for an individual being, which is why it's so rare. Many are in the process of awakening imo, but full attainment means the complete cessation of the illusion of being a separate body.

It is not about denying it. As I said above, that would be dishonest. It is about seeing it for what it is: a limited form of reality in which you do not want to remain. We can say it's an Illusion because that means that it is a deception. And that deception consists in making it appear as if reality is limited.

We could also say that there is no mind, only Spirit or that the mind is ultimately Spirit; I agree with that. To use your terminology: Spirit/Mind has the capacity to orient itself toward or identify with its own density, or it can orient itself toward or identify with its own boundlessness. And what is density, if not a temporary illusion that limits you? This conscious shift toward boundless freedom is what I mean by mind training. You can learn to choose clarity over confusion. When I speak of the mind, I am referring to that part of you that defines itself through boundaries and density; by Spirit, I mean the boundless. You may have phrased it better, as you point toward the ultimate unity, but I feel that approach can also lead to confusion. If you control the tab, you decide whether water comes out or not.

It is true that the mind cannot master itself. However, while the mind is a process, you are the Eternal Tao in which this process arises and subsides. You say that you possess the ability to steer a vision in a better direction; this implies that you are not merely this process, but something beyond it, something capable of choosing where to place its identification. You are the Spirit, free to choose whether to listen to the survival program or the Eternal Tao. The mind then becomes the servant of that choice. Ultimately, the sense of separation is indeed an illusion; but as long as we are still pointing in a better direction and engage in this very dialogue, it seems to me that a part of us still clings to the belief in separation, and that it has not yet been fully transcended. The entire world is a symbol of this separation.

There is no need to get defensive right away; I'm just interested in the dialogue. From a biological standpoint, you can no more stop your liver function than you can stop your mind. The liver produces bile, and the mind produces thoughts, though it is possible to influence both functions. If you identify with the mind, you become its slave; however, once you have examined the mechanism and understood it, you can determine how you want to interact with it. The untrained ego-mind is programmed for survival, but a disciplined mind is a tool that can be aligned with the Absolute. I’m not trying to stop my heart; I’m choosing which direction the life-force flows.

You can control your heartbeat through your breathing. Since you have changed that, you can also control your liver function through diet and breathing. Either you are the slave of your mind, or you make it your slave. Also, I didn't really mean that you should control the mind, but rather examine it; and the mind can learn.

I think that saying you should stop listening to the mind is an oversimplification. You must examine the mind and understand what is going on, to switch on the light, so to speak. I am training my mind to be a servant of the Absolute. Simply ignoring it offers only superficial liberation. The mind should serve as a tool imo.

Okay, from that perspective I can absolutely understand it. On an intellectual, conceptual level, I also find it problematic. Ramakrishna, for example, forbade his devotees from reading the Ashtavakra Samhita (a classic book on Advaita Vedanta). But for his most advanced and best students, he saw it as an invaluable tool. The distinction doesn't affect the reality of human experience, because as long as it's perceived as real, it should be treated as such. The core of this teaching lies in whether you identifie completely with the person having this experience, or whether you at least partially recognizes that you are indefinable and boundless. If you identifie solely with the transient biological organism, the separation feels one hundred percent real for yourself, and it would be wrong to deny it. However, if you recognize that you are in reality, completely free, this realization can soften the boundaries of identification, and the separation gradually loses its reality. I believe that someone who doesn't identify solely with the body can reamain anchored in an untouched core even in horrific situations like rape, preventing the trauma from defining who you are. Whereas someone who identifies completely as a separate individual is shattered at the deepest level.

That's not what I'm saying, I mean what you described further down. If you're closed off, then you're living in an illusion and life is torture. If you live with openness, then you're not trapped in mental constructs but in harmony with what is, in the flow of life. My point here is not about different locations, but rather about the depth of perception. It would be more like me saying: fear is an illusion and only love is real. I know you'll say, but fear is not an illusion; it's the product of billions of years of evolution. But this evolutionary program is only necessary as long as you perceive yourself as a separate, temporary organism. Okay, yes, what I meant by openness before was complete dissolution. What you mean now is living with an open heart, which I think is the best thing one can do. Total dissolution happens on its own; you can't force it. Why are you now done with psychedelics? I mean, because you recently said it was very beneficial to you. If you say that closeness stems from fear, then that's exactly what I mean when I say that closeness arises from a belief in separation. Why does someone experience fear and close themselves off? Because they perceive themselves as a separate, vulnerable being who needs to protect themselves from the world. For me, formless doesn't mean empty, cold, dead, or nothingness. I'm expressing that absolute reality has no boundaries, shapes, or coordinates in space; it is absolutely free, indefinable. Grace has no physical form; you can't draw a line around it. Yet it is indescribably positive, pure life itself, perfect presence, so good that just a breath of it transforms millions of years of evolution. And in this boundless freedom lies a peace so profound that nothing can disturb it. Yes, I completely agree with you. If the system closes itself off in defense, then I see it as being trapped in an illusion, namely the illusion of separation. Understanding and dismantling this defense mechanism is the daily practice whenever something arises that triggers it.

On a relative level, it is indeed true that evolution is a highly complex process. But you yourself say that you want to open yourself up, to what? To the Absolute. This means that, right now, in this very moment, you are not open to it; and what does that imply? That you are trapped in an illusion, a construct of reality that does not correspond to what really is. I, too, view the Absolute as boundless. But you regard it as the force that manifests itself in universes, whereas I see it as eternal, formless, motionless peace - the Source. The world of form, space, and time, all of this comes to pass when the formless is projected by a mind that believes in separation. Therefore, if we retrain the mind so that it ceases to believe in separation as, for example, as taught in Advaita Vedanta, it becomes open to receiving the Absolute. I do agree with you that simply thinking "everything is one" accomplishes nothing. Radical surrender is necessary. However, it doesn't have to be as violent as you describe it. You can also do it gently and with joy. For me, Absolute Reality revealed itself completely only once, and that was when I was listening to music, singing along to the song with total exuberance, and surrendering myself to it completely. That was the moment when grace revealed itself. I agree with that again. The opening is merely the beginning. Integration is a slow process of becoming transparent. It happens on its own, but if you follow a clear path, you waste less time.

Okay, yeah, that is a pretty good analysis in many respects. The idea of Tolle serving as a spiritual painkiller fits quite well. It is, in a way, true that his technique doesn't really work or, at best, serves only as a means of spiritual bypassing. You're right, that is quite different from the actual work.

But isn't that what Tolle means by overcoming the pain body? You've healed the energetic structure of your trauma and are now living from a deeper level that's no longer defined by suffering. I see no difference there from what Tolle describes. I don't understand your problem with the teachings of non-duality. I find Neo-Advaita aimless as well. But true non-duality dissolves barriers and opens you up to the Absolute. It is one of many ways that make it possible to bring the mind into harmony with reality. The goal is to see the light everywhere, until the seen and the seer dissolve into one another and only eternity remains. That is good, and you yourself say that it is merely the starting point for enlightenment. Now you still have to find a way to dissolve the barriers of the self. And how do you do that? What is your technique now? I do this, for example, by seeing the formless everywhere, much like light shining equally everywhere; in this, resistance dissolves within me, and I perceive this as true non-duality.

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.