Breakingthewall

Yes but also you can be wrong. If you accept that reality is unlimited, your conceptual framework must be unlimited, because if it's limited, it will limit your perception. Your conceptual framework is an energetic reality, and if it's closed, it closes you down.

Just because perception is limited to one dimension. If there are Infinite odd numbers, is reality odd numbers? Perception is a structure that appears in reality, it's absolutely obvious. If it appears, it means that perception is infinite, but being infinite, it's not absolute, just as odd numbers aren't. It's a facet of reality. It's exactly the same as the absence of consciousness, or perhaps you think that the entirety of reality is your field of consciousness and that then there will be another field and another dimension, and then reality will be that field? Does that mean that reality operates sequentially? Is it within a timeline? Is reality subordinate to time? Then reality would be time, not reality. As you said before, it doesn't depends of the mystical experience or open disposition, but of the logical reasoning that comes after, but I think it is essential not to fall into limited ontological patterns because they close you completely

Ralston equates reality with consciousness, since for him, reality is direct experience, and direct experience is what he calls perception. He calls it this because deep down, he perceives a perceiver and the perceived, a perceiving center. He says he has dissolved that center and that there is no perceiver; therefore, there is only consciousness, and there is only "this," and "this" he calls consciousness. The word consciousness or perception implicitly implies being aware of something, and this implicitly implies a subject, an object, and a connection between the two, which is perception. Therefore, his perspective is limited, simplistic, mistaken, and very unintelligent. Sounds good, sells well, and is spiritual hamburger. This without go in the fact of the existence of the form and the relations. Why there are forms if really is conciousness? Is conciousness something that creates differentiation? Why? I said that 20 times with different words. Maybe it's too complex for you, but it's an argument, even you don't like or you can't understand it. I'm sorry of disagree with your guru, but this is a forum, not an ashram where we worship the guru

I wrote a ton, what if you read and then show me that im wrong, instead of be angry screaming without any single argument? Look, saying "Comparing Ralston with Ibn fucking Arabi lmao " is not an argument. Try to develop, spirituality is extremely twisted and full of traps, be skeptical If you truly are interested in spirituality you must be extremely acute, don't trust anyone, they are liars looking for attention

Don't you see that he's limited? He is locked in a vision in which he defines his experience from another mental dimension, which is what he calls direct observation, without the slightest openness to the nature of reality. He is a flat, emotionally narcissistic, self-satisfied guy who feeds on admiration and being on a higher level. Their ontology is limited. "Reality is consciousness." Of course, since in your human experience reality is perception, then reality is perception. Let's see, analyze perception. It means feeling something, that a sensation exists. Of course, without sensation there is no perceptible reality, and therefore logic dictates that without perception there is no reality. An absolutely limited vision, closed in the human dimension. There are infinite possible dimensions and states literally unimaginable. Reality is the source of perception, not perception. It's absolutely basic, obvious, but it doesn't sell as well as simplifications. Ralston, Spira, Mooji, Sadhguru. all those people are narcissists who thrive on being worshipped as superior beings. Spirituality is a factory of narcissists How do you know if that is true?

You are so emotional, you will be scammed again and again in life. I watched like 1 hour but with 5 minutes is more than enough, he's limited, just a narcissist who created a identity of enlightenment, totally disconnected of himself, like 99% of spiritual people It's just because you can't understand me, believe me.

I think Rumi, Ibn Arabi, more or less tao te quing, Christianity from a certain perspective, a certain type of Buddhism (rare) that does not operate from denial, Leo in its origins promised, then he deviated a bit because some basic mistake that closes very similar than the Ralston mistake, ram dass and adyashanty have good intentions, like emotional openness, although I see clear limitation, maybe thisdell but not sure. I don't know, maharsi seems that he operates from openenss but when he explains sounds limited, maybe he had a strange mind and can't explain good...well he said that he enlightened a cow, I don't know. The point is clear: absence of limitation is a must. My first message was too idiotic, agree, but after that I tried to do better. I was watching some videos before writing and the Ralston way to explain seem very wrong too me, that's why

I'm a manifestation of the reality, that means that I'm the reality in a relational form, I'm unlimited as a reality but I'm not the only possibility that can exist, then saying that kind of assessment is just a limited perspective

I'd say he's wrong because he's limited. It's easy to follow his mental process. If you delve into yourself, you'll eventually see that everything that is is awareness, so reality is awareness. No, it's the other way around; awareness is a manifestation of reality.

That's not the point. Any teacher is incomplete, Rumi is incomplete, but Rumi is not wrong in his foundation

Yes, would be good. Or anyone who knows Ralston ontology

He can't explain why awareness is the source of forms, it has no sense, then Im not motivated for reading his book. If I see some incongruence I can't read more, then I probably will finish at page 1. But you could explain it if you want

What is conciousness exactly? When Ralston says "level of consciousness", what he means? Level of what you are conscious of. So there's a subject, you, who are conscious, and you can be conscious at a superficial or deeper level. Therefore, there's an object to delve into. Let's follow that this object is reality. So you, who are consciousness, are conscious at different levels of reality, which in turn is consciousness. And if you operate in the ego mind, you, consciousness, are unconscious of consciousness. Well, I don't know...

Conciousness means perception. How perception is causing that elephants exist?

Deep analysis, indeed, his smile says a lot. It says: I'm smarter than you, you poor fool. You're so foolish that you make me smile, like a foolish child trying something beyond their capabilities. You inspire pity in me, and that makes me smile, and well, maybe you inspire a .....little bit of subtle disgust in me too ,but from the love and respect, of course 🤣🤣

Yeah, this is a thread to talk about Ralston right? I'm talking about Ralston, and the op and others are saying: Ralston is great, is like yoda, it's the best, without any analysis. Or you are wrong, you don't know nothing, without explaining. Emotional perspective.

No never, but watching some videos I could see that he's limited, He uses the dichotomy between truth and dream. For him, truth is realizing this experience beyond the mind and realizing that this experience is pure consciousness. That's not outside the mind, although he thinks it is, it's another dimension of the mind, another structure, like anything that you will perceive because the mind is a manifestation of the reality. He says the mind is a form of consciousness, but a "dumb" form, and that if you transcend the mind, you reach "truth," which is not conceptualizable. Let's see, it's obvious that any concept is a concept and not the thing it describes. In enlightenment and in anything, a concept is a mental structure. But he doesn't even remotely realize what mental structures are, they are a manifestation of the reality, exactly the same than the "things", just in another level between infinite possible levels He simplifies everything, He talks about reaching a meditative state without logical structure, in which everything is revealed as consciousness. This is limited; he's staring at a wall of consciousness, trapped in the frame of experience. Ultimate reality is absolute openness, limitlessness, totality, if you will. It's not something like consciousness; it's the absence of limits manifesting in absolute being. This goes beyond mental silence. Silence and the logical mind are exactly the same. They are manifestations of unlimited potential. Nothing is truth and lie, nor dream and reality. Everything is potential manifesting, and what you ultimately are is total potential because you are unfathomable. There is no "enlightenment experience," in the sense of peak experience of recognition of yourself as consciousness. Openness is in another dimension; it is the unfathomable depth that is in all moments that's perceived when the limits fall. is stepping out of the longitudinal movement of experience and expanding into the limitlessness that always is, and realizing that you are. You are total being, limitlessness itself, it's you, you could say it's in your heart, is the total depth. Consciousness and unconsciousness are the same. What appears is possibility occurring, and its nature is the relationship of infinite being to itself in all directions. Reality exists because it is limitless, and everything is limitless and infinitely alive, it's the same a thought than a thing in it's level of reality, are different in it's dimension. In those videos I see just limits . For example I think that sufis or tao te Quin point to the unlimited nature of reality, but Ralston is trapped in a limited point claiming that he's enlightened . Many are going to be frustrated imo

That's just your projection because I'm talking against an ontology that you like Lobotomy of real deep perception. Another projection without any foundation. I disagree with Ralston because he's limited. I explained very clear

Once you said: all human spirituality is bullshit. Well, maybe not all, just 95%, and Ralston is in. He is limited, and Id say that you agree . I'm not questioning, I'm pointing something obvious that I'm sure you also agree: reality is unlimited. We all agree on this, right? So, if a limitation is detected, it's legitimate to expose it. In almost all spirituality, there are subtle limitations; it's normal; it's how the mind works. We must constantly refine it until the conceptual framework is no longer closed from any angle. I'm not so arrogant, just natural deep perception 😂

Your message illustrates very clearly a typical psychological mechanism: a set of dogmatic affirmations combined with passive resistance to questioning, functioning as a defense of a belief structure perceived as essential for emotional stability. It's a common pattern where conceptual certainty, framed as openness, serves to maintain a sense of control. If you're interested, I’d be glad to analyze it paragraph by paragraph, purely structurally, to help clarify these dynamics

Yes I know that argument: conciousness can't be explained, you should be awake to it. I am, and you? Maybe you are..... asleep? Then you can't see. Nah, this is the cause that spirituality is just religion. It must change.

I think you don't understand me. Consciousness is an arising that occurs in reality. Reality is not consciousness, reality is reality. Let me explain: reality is limitlessness. Existence is the manifestation of the limitless, that is, the relational contrast. What you call consciousness is the appearance of a substance in which your subjective reality occurs. This is a limited vision. Your subjective reality is a perspective of infinity in its infinite relation. There are infinite possible dimensions and infinite possible states, infinite consciousness and infinite unconsciousness. You could perhaps say that existence is infinite being, but what exactly is being? You can go much deeper. You are operating on the surface, on the ice crust. If that thin layer breaks, the depth manifests. Believe me, don't speak so angry and try to understand

@Leo Gura btw If I recall correctly, you asked him an interesting question about Mashamadi and 5meo on his blog, and he responded with superiority, condescension, denial of the legitimacy of your experience, a certain passive-aggressiveness, an implication that you're not "there," and a puritanical condemnation of psychedelics. For me, that's very revealing. But that is not needed, just listening him 5 minutes is enough

Words are a pointer that opens or closes. If someone's words close, it's because they operate from a closed position. So it's legitimate to point out that you should be careful with that discourse; it has a limited basis and will be an obstacle if you internalize it. For me it's obvious that it's the Ralston's case

Deep argument, I have to admit . Subtle and direct to the root. I know what you would say:; there is not subject and object, just conciousness. But then, why there are forms? Because are imaginary. This is not sustainable because its basis is the category of "imaginary", that means nothing. There are forms, where those forms come from? From my imagination? That's not enough, that means nothing. Then the answer is that I'm god imagining. This is not conciousness, it's something else, but still it's limited. It's very obvious... Anyway Ralston would tell me that's conceptualizing, that only direct experience counts, and that's consciousness. That's a gross simplification that sells because it's seductive and easy, but it completely shuts you down. If you buy it, it's your decission