Review Ending unnecessary Suffering by Peter Ralston

[Dan502]

One thing I've noticed about Peter and Brendan's content is that they do have a habit of getting angry at the viewer from time to time (raised volume, coarse language). I interpret this as projected anger and blame. And they make statements like "you're doing x" or "you can change x", "x is unnecessary". I think these are relative statements. I guess it's the nature of their work. Consciousness and skill. Some parts lean towards skill development and I can see why some, who aren't able to develop such skill, might be offended.

Pretty hard to teach any humans anything without some of them struggling to grasp it, becoming frustrated and potentially arguing about it.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I need to bring my crowbar in to wrench some of these ideas out!

I will prompt you to think about your concept of 'openness' and how you aren't embodying 'openness' by refusing to read Ralston. Or attempting to understand what he is saying. 

I don't quite understand you're arguments here @Breakingthewall - is your reason for rejecting Ralston just 'its too hard to stop thoughts'? 

I mean - of course its hard!

[Breakingthewall]

42 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

will prompt you to think about your concept of 'openness' and how you aren't embodying 'openness' by refusing to read Ralston. Or attempting to understand what he is saying. 

I never read spirituality, I ve no patience, I start and stop in page 10. I could read if it's extremely super accurate and true, but where is that in spirituality? I never found it, and listening Ralston I get lazy immediately, because I perceive he's wrong in his basis. Is just my perception, but it's clear in this case

Openess doesn't mean open minded, means that your structure is open, not limited, let's say that you perceive yourself as the flow of reality taking this form but you are the flow, not the form, but you can get closed in any moment, problems, threats etc 

42 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

your reason for rejecting Ralston just 'its too hard to stop thoughts'? 

I mean - of course its hard!

No, I don't mean that, what I mean is that the idea of stopping your thoughts is a basic mistake. If a  recurrent thought exists, it's for a reason. Stopping the thought doesn't solve the cause. I gave you an example earlier: a person who has everything but has obsessive thoughts about getting sick and dying. According to Ralston, how would you address that? Or tell me any other example and how can be solved with the Ralston idea

 

Edited Saturday at 10:24 PM by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 I gave you an example earlier: a person who has everything but has obsessive thoughts about getting sick and dying. According to Ralston, how would you address that? 

Address the thought with the aim to stop them occuring. 

You contemplate. Why am I having this thought? Fear. What am I afraid of? A concept. Is that real? What IS it? Can I touch it? Smell it? Taste it? No. It is not real. It is not in reality. It is a concept feeling negativity. It is blinding me, spoiling my experience. It is a thought. It. Is. Not. Real. 

Once you realise the above, the source for the thought, the fear, dissolves. No repression. Genuine insight. 

This is what Ralston is saying.

 

[UnbornTao]

A minimum requirement for reviewing or discussing a book should be having started reading it.

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Address the thought with the aim to stop them occuring. 

You contemplate. Why am I having this thought? Fear. What am I afraid of? A concept. Is that real? What IS it? Can I touch it? Smell it? Taste it? No. It is not real. It is not in reality. It is a concept feeling negativity. It is blinding me, spoiling my experience. It is a thought. It. Is. Not. Real. 

Once you realise the above, the source for the thought, the fear, dissolves. No repression. Genuine insight. 

This is what Ralston is saying.

 

Then anything should be material and touchable to being real? That's just his assumption, and in my opinion very simplistic. 

So, if I tell Ralston that in two hours I'm going to grill his entire family in front of him and then lock him in a one cubic meter box full of rats where I'm going to make him survive for 5 years, he'll feel wonderful, since he can't touch and smell his grilled family, at least for another two hours, then yes.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

51 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then anything should be material and touchable to being real? That's just his assumption, and in my opinion very simplistic. 

So, if I tell Ralston that in two hours I'm going to grill his entire family in front of him and then lock him in a one cubic meter box full of rats where I'm going to make him survive for 5 years, he'll feel wonderful, since he can't touch and smell his grilled family, at least for another two hours, then yes.

This answer is why you need to read Ralston.

As @UnbornTao raised above, you do need to try to understand what he is saying by reading the material.

From this entire dialogue all I see is no attempt to understand the material - and a lot of hubris to so reject and critisize it. Due to that I do seriously suspect you are courting some internal delusions yet to be revealed. 

Hopefully your time on the forum is assisting with this, rather than building on wonky foundations.

[Breakingthewall]

36 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This answer is why you need to read Ralston.

As @UnbornTao raised above, you do need to try to understand what he is saying by reading the material.

From this entire dialogue all I see is no attempt to understand the material - and a lot of hubris to so reject and critisize it. Due to that I do seriously suspect you are courting some internal delusions yet to be revealed. 

Hopefully your time on the forum is assisting with this, rather than building on wonky foundations.

You told me a resume, it's very similar that Eckhart Tolle. According to them, suffering is a mental construct because without physical pain, any suffering is imaginary. They don't understand that physical and psychological pain are exactly the same; they are mechanisms of reality to promote survival. A cow suffers if you burn it so it can move away and not be burned. If it can't move away because it's in a cage, it will suffer just the same. Even if you tell it: "Why are you suffering if you can't do anything?" Fire burns and that's it. The human mind is designed by reality for the same thing: to move away from fire, only it does it before the fire arrives. This is not a defect, it's an evolutionary advance.

Self-help gurus want you to return to the cow state, but that won't work; openness works. It's you who doesn't want to understand and who speaks to me condescendingly, without real perception, just defensive, But ok, try the Ralston theory, maybe it works for you 

Edited Sunday at 12:10 AM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

A minimum requirement for reviewing or discussing a book should be having started reading it.

I watched many videos and reading many comments here, I think it's enough. Only with the first video was enough, but I watched like ten. Not a single word of true openess, just a man locked in his history believing he's a genius and making it believe to others. But why I care that? Really I'm not sure, maybe because I need to see those mistakes to don't fall in them. 99,99% of spirituality is simply false. Not because bad intention, just because they are locked. If anyone could listen without being defensive, it's so easy to show....but anyway, it's just opinion, nothing personal 

[Joshe]

21 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I think half the reason this concept gives people indigestion is the responsibility aspect

Yes, I agree. Metacognition seems to be very uncomfortable for most and they want to avoid it. I've suspected before it's because they intuit the entire domain implies responsibility.

That and like you said, people not being aware of their thoughts in the slightest. If you had very little awareness of your thoughts, of course this concept would seem useless, vague, and confusing, and therefore easy to discard.

Aside from that being a barrier, another - and probably most dominant in this case - is already having ideas that conflict with it. I suspect Breakingthewall is no stranger to metacognition, but they do seem to reject the idea outright due to already having what they perceive to be a better, more holistic understanding. 

[Joshe]

21 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe you have that thought because it is shitty. 

What about some of the happiest people on the planet being the poorest? And the most miserable, the richest? 

Then, you also have some very miserable people who only claim to be miserable due to their poverty. And you also see very happy rich people. 

So what is the difference in them? 

Of course, it's how they think. Thing is, none of them intentionally shape their outlook on life. It all happens without them directing it. If you could devise a study to track all the thoughts of the happy and miserable people to see what they're doing differently, you would identify that the miserable people are not only allowing in certain thoughts that create their perceived misery, but they are consistently nurturing those thoughts on a daily basis. The happy cohort is not doing that, which is why they're happy. 

This path at least is logical and makes sense as to how you'd get from A to B. But I don't even understand your path. Can you elaborate on exactly how one would use your path to end suffering? What has to be done? 

Edited Sunday at 02:58 AM by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe Accurate.

In addition: typically, you see individuals being triggered by the responsibility point because they are irresponsible in other areas of life they do not wish to acknowledge. Shadow stuff.

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I watched many videos and reading many comments here, I think it's enough. 

I studied the surface of the ocean and asked peoples opinion on the surface of the ocean, so I understand all the ocean.

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

 But why I care that? 

Because the arrogance and hubris you see in Ralston is reflected in your unwillingness to throw away your current beliefs and consider other methods (not believing, not thinking). You, yourself, are displaying arrogance and hubris - the same behavior that you accuse of Ralston. He is your mirror. But I suspect you, at this present time, cannot see this. You are being triggered by Ralston and your obsessive compulsion to respond is reflected in that. You don't know why, rationally, you respond? Because it is an emotional reaction compelling you. And it is not isolated to this thread. Past threads on Ralston & all over the forum. I suspect you do not engage in many powerful grounding practices that cement you in reality. But this is speculation.

This is not to attack you at all - these sorts of processes are not obvious to one engaging in them. We can see this - you cannot. It is the same for me - I cannot see some of my own unconscious behavior. That is why it is called 'shadow'. 

The difficult part of this conversation is you cannot see the attachment to beliefs you have. And you have a tendency to double down - which is what, I suspect, Leo has issue with. You have displayed a staunch inability to be reasoned with.

Regardless, you should have a good think about why you keep responding here. And refrain unless you are addressing the subject. This is a discussion about Ralston's book. Not your opinion on his arrogance. You did the same thing in the last Ralston topic.

[AION]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

A minimum requirement for reviewing or discussing a book should be having started reading it.

Some judge based on 5 minute video 🥲

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Joshe said:

What about some of the happiest people on the planet being the poorest? And the most miserable, the richest? 

Then, you also have some very miserable people who only claim to be miserable due to their poverty. And you also see very happy rich people. 

So what is the difference in them? 

Of course, it's how they think. Thing is, none of them intentionally shape their outlook on life. It all happens without them directing it. If you could devise a study to track all the thoughts of the happy and miserable people to see what they're doing differently, you would identify that the miserable people are not only allowing in certain thoughts that create their perceived misery, but they are consistently nurturing those thoughts on a daily basis. The happy cohort is not doing that, which is why they're happy. 

This path at least is logical and makes sense as to how you'd get from A to B. But I don't even understand your path. Can you elaborate on exactly how one would use your path to end suffering? What has to be done? 

Why do you think being poor or rich has any connection? It's because of their psychological structure, formed during their childhood and life through billions of interactions with their environment, their inherited value system, the genuine love they received from their parents, the closure created by hostile and competitive energies, by trauma, and by violence. If everything is understood superficially, only superficial solutions are sought, which won't work, since reality is profound.

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, AION said:

Some judge based on 5 minute video 🥲

Hey thanks for no insulting! I appreciate! I didn't need 5 minutes, with 2 was enough 

Edited Sunday at 09:25 AM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

@Natasha Tori Maru i changed a long answer explaining a lot of things for this shorter: I know how the psychological suffering works because I get very deep in it and I found the only real way to breaking it, because you have to break it. If you don't believe me and you need to speak condescending, ok, it's not my problem. I just say here my perspective and if it's useful to anyone great. I should stop reacting, but watching Ralston, it's stronger than me. I'm done with conversation with you because your only goal is egoic, or that's what I see. Gaslighting and Trying to be "above". I'm stupid if I waste my energy is those games, like the other guy insulting. My goal Is getting deep and clarify the spirituality. Then I can't lose energy in stupid games. Let's see if I can use this forum in a useful way without getting in personal nonsense 

Edited Sunday at 09:24 AM by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall I apologize for being condescending - or that it came out that way. It was not the intention.

The intention was for you to be able to hold space for another perspective and reasonably speak on why it was not valid. Which, perhaps you did do - but the explanation was lost in the process.

I have ego also, we all do. And all make mistakes and misunderstandings. No one is any better than the other.

I wish you well!

[Breakingthewall]

43 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Breakingthewall I apologize for being condescending - or that it came out that way. It was not the intention.

The intention was for you to be able to hold space for another perspective and reasonably speak on why it was not valid. Which, perhaps you did do - but the explanation was lost in the process.

I have ego also, we all do. And all make mistakes and misunderstandings. No one is any better than the other.

I wish you well!

I'm trying to talk about the Ralston approach, seems that it's difficult. Well, I'm sorry to don't believe Ralston, the other guy insulted me because that. Seems that for you is not good also. Let's see, if we were talking about the war in Ukraine could be understandable, but we are talking about an approach about spirituality, where there is a lot of deception. Now you answer like: look, I'm full of equanimity and very advanced. Look, much better than him, and saying absolutely nothing. Do you see the problem? A closed structure. That leads to suffering 

Edited Sunday at 10:26 AM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Anyway, in case anyone's interested: the only way out of psychological suffering is to open yourself to the flow of reality and understand that becoming occurs synchronously and surrender to it, not mental tricks. This understandig only comes with the total openess. 

Psychological suffering is the same as physical suffering; the physical is no more real or direct than the mental structure. The human mind is a living structure, not a deception. The fact that it can't be smelled or touched doesn't change this. Psychological suffering is the key to opening up; denying it closes it. If anyone doesn't like this, please, there's no need to insult. I understand that for many, this is the obvious reaction; it makes them feel safe, but let's raise the bar a bit.

Edited Sunday at 10:39 AM by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]