Breakingthewall

This is exactly the problem. If the basis of your ontology is a limit, all its development will be limited. You might think that's not the case, that consciousness is infinite and therefore unlimited. A straight line can also be infinite, but it's limited to its straightness. If you develop an ontology for years based on an error, you deepen the error, you are absolutely convinced that you are right, and you draw many people to your perspective. These people will have the feeling that they have left a limited materialist paradigm to enter another, broader dimension, but they will always have the feeling that something is missing, a slight dissatisfaction. Ralston would tell them: you have not yet reached pure consciousness; there is still noise in you. And they will never get out of there.

Where are bullshit? I'm just developing the inevitable consequences of the absence of limitations

Energy is form, any energy is measurable, have a frequency, an intensity, a quality. From a physics perspective, energy is the fluctuation of a field of reality. A field is a reality-based structure where fluctuations can potentially occur, and therefore always do. A field is never static; it vibrates at different levels. If we assume that reality has no limits, a field cannot have them either it has local limits but not absolute ones. It is a relational structure, that is, a form that can unfold in infinite relationships. This implies that everything that exists as form can unfold infinitely, without a background, and all the relationships that would appear would be perfectly synchronized and infinitely interconnected. Reality would be an unthinkable compendium of limitless interconnected relationships. It is immeasurable; what is accessible is its essence, which is what is related, which is its substance. The substance is the openess that allows the relationship and make it inevitable and without limits. This is our nature, enlightenment is openess .

That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. That statement is incoherent, and I'll explain why. If you say that the perceiver and the object are illusions, then why do you call reality consciousness? If there is no subject and object, then consciousness would be an appearance; there would only be undifferentiated reality. But the fact is that differences exist. Differences are necessarily relationships between opposites, between different states. These differentiations must be dynamic, constantly changing, otherwise they don't exist. So, what changes? With respect to what? Ralston's entire ontology, from the ground up, is wrong. Let's see, forget about competing to see who's right and, as a mental experiment, consider my perspective and the possibility that Ralston is radically wrong. Then return to the mental framework where Ralston is right. See if there's any difference, if your mind expands or contracts with the different perspectives.

Yeah, except in the thing of conciousness. That's limiting concept, you will see. For perception to exist, there must be change. If there is no change, there is no perception , only anesthesia, cessation, or a temporal gap until the next change. Even if you are in the deepest state of meditation, like the greatest Zen master in history, it may seem that you are in a state without change, but in fact, countless interconnected changes are occurring that generate the appearance of stillness or emptiness. Reality is always in motion because the absence of movement is not simply a pause , it is non-manifestation ,"never". If there are no limits, at some point fluctuation inevitably arises. And "at some point" means always, because any interval without change is simply never. If it happens, means that happens infinitely now, that is, always. Then the essential question is: what is change? It is the contrast between opposites or between different states. There can be no change except relative to something else, because in the absence of limits, without a reference, there is no movement. All change is relative. The next question is: relative to what? There is only one possibility :to another dimension of reality, to a self-folding of reality that contrasts with itself. Within infinity, this potential movement is inevitable reality. This means that every perception is the perception of "otherness". You could object: no, it's just a thought . it's me observing myself. But a thought consists of countless opposing relational movements. The fact that you observe it within what appears to be "your mind" does not exclude the possibility that it is the perception of another layer of reality external to your apparent center. Everything that appears is infinity unfolding through endless relative state changes, which synchronize into stable patterns because possibilities that do not synchronize simply do not manifest. Thus, consciousness does not metamorphose into forms. Consciousness is the sustained perception of relational change from a relational node complex enough to maintain that structure. It is the observation of "otherness" , of countless others ,which themselves unfold into infinite, interconnected relationships in all possible directions. The others are the same, the unlimited, but in another dimension, another plane. Think this obvious fact: the form that you are now in going to dissapear and another form will be. When? In the future? Subtle difference: reality is infinite conciousness. Closed frame Reality is infinitely concious. Open frame.

Nothingness is a limited realization because excludes the form, and nothingness is a wrong term because the absence of form is full of being, absolute potential and it's everything. Realizing the absolute, unlimited potential that you ultimately are and being able to access it is basic to spirituality, the most fundamental step. There you fully recognize yourself as the unlimited being. The point is to be able to access that reality at any moment, but this is not the end of the path, since form exists and unfolds in infinite interconnected dimensions. Denying form as "maya" is spiritual castration. Form is as real as formlessness. Thoughts are form, they are real energetic structures, and they unfold infinitely like any other form. True spirituality is recognizing form as the inevitable manifestation of limitlessness and delving into it to the fullest.

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 😂