Review Ending unnecessary Suffering by Peter Ralston

[AION]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

I get it.  Its all very confusing.  But Leo is basically the offspring of Ralston turn psychonaut so if you stick to those two it will all make sense and you'll get enlightened 😀 hitting on girls is a whole other confusing matter.

Leo and Peter also diverge too. Problem with Leo is that he doesn’t have formalized definitions and teachings so it is sloppy from the get go. I hope his book will clear things up if he manages to finish it. 

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, AION said:

Leo and Peter also diverge too. Problem with Leo is that he doesn’t have formalized definitions and teachings so it is sloppy from the get go. I hope his book will clear things up if he manages to finish it. 

He will.  It will be his life's work. Like Tolkien.  

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

21 minutes ago, AION said:

Leo and Peter also diverge too. Problem with Leo is that he doesn’t have formalized definitions and teachings so it is sloppy from the get go. I hope his book will clear things up if he manages to finish it. 

They only diverge when it comes to Love being an Absolute.   And I'd like to see where Leo got that from.  Because it ain't a thing.  At least to us natural fuckers.  But psychedelics can't take you higher. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

@Leo Gura any comments? He says your teachings were all scrambled on YouTube. I found they were perfect and organized. He says you differ with many other teachers but hasn't exactly explained how.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

15 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Meditation and contemplation, to understand what is exactly his paradigm about suffering and how we are creating it,  also a a page would be interesting 

My copy of Ending Unnecessary Suffering is with my brother - my post was referencing The Book of Not Knowing (which I have as a soft copy and can paste some contemplations, but they do not directly relate to suffering, just examples).

Further to this - I might decline the request.

I do not believe you have any true intention to really understand Ralston. I believe you will not truly listen, comprehend and understand because you are approaching this entire topic with an agenda: something to prove. And if I know humans, it's that if they have something to prove they will never really listen to what the other person presents.

Coupled with the above, you have great issue with Ralston. There is evidence for this across many posts, threads, topics over the span of years on the forum. I don't believe you are earnest in wanting to understand. 

You have been recommended Ralston's work and books by myself and other members of the forum. Multiple times. In each instance - you never actually take action to read his works or teachings. You insist on someone else putting forth their interpretation and spin on their understanding. If you truly wanted a pure source and to understand, you would not be asking for secondary filtering through a user in this way (which can, and does, corrupt the teachings). I perceive you as wanting someone else to translate Ralston (and possibly accidently strawman him) so you can try to dismantle his work in a lazy manner.

Sorry, but not sorry.

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

My copy of Ending Unnecessary Suffering is with my brother - my post was referencing The Book of Not Knowing (which I have as a soft copy and can paste some contemplations, but they do not directly relate to suffering, just examples).

Further to this - I might decline the request.

I do not believe you have any true intention to really understand Ralston. I believe you will not truly listen, comprehend and understand because you are approaching this entire topic with an agenda: something to prove. And if I know humans, it's that if they have something to prove they will never really listen to what the other person presents.

Coupled with the above, you have great issue with Ralston. There is evidence for this across many posts, threads, topics over the span of years on the forum. I don't believe you are earnest in wanting to understand. 

You have been recommended Ralston's work and books by myself and other members of the forum. Multiple times. In each instance - you never actually take action to read his works or teachings. You insist on someone else putting forth their interpretation and spin on their understanding. If you truly wanted a pure source and to understand, you would not be asking for secondary filtering through a user in this way (which can, and does, corrupt the teachings). I perceive you as wanting someone else to translate Ralston (and possibly accidently strawman him) so you can try to dismantle his work in a lazy manner.

Sorry, but not sorry.

Has he even read Ralston? He talks of physics but has he read Einstein?

[Willy Phallicus]

Ralston isnt the problem its the people that get snowed by him.  Same goes for every other guru thats got shit to sell you.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Willy Phallicus said:

Ralston isnt the problem its the people that get snowed by him.  Same goes for every other guru thats got shit to sell you.

I got this watch that would look really good on you 😀

[Willy Phallicus]

Hope its got a long battery life because suffering is going to continue for eons to come.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Has he even read Ralston? He talks of physics but has he read Einstein?

From what I can infer - no to Ralston. Not sure about Einstein.

I don't understand continually wanting to take down Ralston but also resolutely refusing to delve into his work to understand.

If I wanted to tear apart someone's work I would first go straight to the source and investigate all counter claims to my own. This usually either convinces me out of my opinion or assists in my own ability to put forth a sound argument.

Probably why I like to go at users who I disagree with a lot - it helps me sharpen the mind

@Joshe 

>.>

<.<

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Hope its got a long battery life because suffering is going to continue for eons to come.

Well.  It's up to you how much faith you wanna put into the watch.  

[Inliytened1]

22 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

From what I can infer - no to Ralston. Not sure about Einstein.

I don't understand continually wanting to take down Ralston but also resolutely refusing to delve into his work to understand.

If I wanted to tear apart someone's work I would first go straight to the source and investigate all counter claims to my own. This usually either convinces me out of my opinion or assists in my own ability to put forth a sound argument.

Probably why I like to go at users who I disagree with a lot - it helps me sharpen the mind

@Joshe 

>.>

<.<

He doesn't delve into anything but his own convictions.  That's fine. But he admits he isn't enlightened so you would think he would. 

[Willy Phallicus]

20 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well.  It's up to you how much faith you wanna put into the watch.  

Depends on how good it actually looks on me which was the pitch.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Depends on how good it actually looks on me which was the pitch.

Yeah.  A rolex isn't always a Rolex. But sometimes it is.  So let me ask you. How do you find out?

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Fuck Rolex - I do not rate.

Enicar sherpa graph all the way - muah!

 

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Fuck Rolex - I do not rate.

Enicar sherpa graph all the way - muah!

 

Muah!  It was just a metaphor.

[Willy Phallicus]

19 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yeah.  A rolex isn't always a Rolex. But sometimes it is.  So let me ask you. How do you find out?

Whether its real or not wouldn't really matter to me.  It would be the difference between whether its a gift being given out of generosity because it would indeed look good on me or whether you're just trying to sell me a watch.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Whether its real or not wouldn't really matter to me.  It would be the difference between whether its a gift being given out of generosity because it would indeed look good on me or whether you're just trying to sell me a watch.

You know the good teachers from the bad.  You can intuit it.   Leo is a rolex. But he doesn't give it to you out of generosity or good intentions.  He had his own intentions.