Where is Peter Ralston wrong?

[kbone]

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Aether Phoenix if you go back and read where it all started it was Leo telling me what the fuck is wrong with this guy just because i asked why Ralston doesn't have any  ebooks. So it's actually Leo who started all this nonsense. But  I'm thrilled about the direction of this thread .

What direction is that, exactly? 

Is it comforting drama, or is it providing the mind with contexts for penetrating perceived boundaries?

[Davino]

2 minutes ago, AION said:

People like Breaking the Wall can’t be taken serious. Firstly because of his name. 

No personal attacks, thanks.

[CoolDreamThanks]

Peter Ralston seems very wise. I believe one of the things he talks about is nothingness, the highest Buddhist attainment, which shows you the non-dual, formless nature of Self.   
 

I think Frank Yang talks about the same thing.
 
When listening to Peter’s videos he just seems so grounded and clear.

I haven’t attended Peter’s workshops nor I have been his apprentice nor have I done his online courses, but from the snippets online and the podcast episodes now available he seems to be the real deal. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:36 AM by CoolDreamThanks

[kbone]

50 minutes ago, Davino said:

No, I don't know what you mean.

Drugs change your state of consciousness. Psychedelics change your state of consciousness and make you more conscious.

Clearly it's not required to get it, Ralston is the prime example of how far you can get without them. Sri Anandamayi Ma was full blown God Realized and didn't take psychedelics.

My point is simple, if you're so talented you can get there without psychedelics. Lmao, if you take them you're gonna be on fire.

Many here ascribe to the notion that 'all is consciousness', including Ralston, the apparent teacher in question. So, any mention of 'more consciousness' would logically mean that they are lacking the 'needed consciousness' to understand the 'All'. The mind often reverts to amount, a quantity, rather than peel back into the layers of quality, all the way into the NOTHINGNESS to which is pointed. Once realized, only then can one begin to grapple with the mind's protests.

You assume Ralston has never done psychedelics when it says on his webpage that he shacked up in Berkley, which is basically the Mecca of psychedlic studies in the US. So, there's that.

Psychedelics can be useful for breaking down unconscious, misconceived barriers firmly entrenched in the mind, and these may be conducive to deep insights and profound experiences. No probs. But, they do not 'cause' Truth (or it's Realization), nor do they 'cause' enlightenment. Those are realized in the 'acausal' realm of/as existence.

Sure, if you take them, you may experience profound states of consciousness, but that's just mind stuff. All good and fun/terrifying. Psychonauts, if caught up in their delusions, tend to get stuck there by the well, reaching into it again and again, looking for something they think they are missing.

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, AION said:

you watched couple of his videos and you crafted that criticism? You haven’t even read his books. You are as foolish as those two crazy ladies defending you.  This is insane.☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

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 

 

 

9 hours ago, Someone here said:

I criticize him as much as I want . You never get a single conclusion from his word salad. You can't argue with him about anything or get anywhere because he uses no strict rules to his logic. he just uses anything he wants  to justify anything he wants.

@Breakingthewall I like you .

It's just because you can't understand me, believe me. 

 

[kbone]

2 hours ago, CoolDreamThanks said:

Peter Ralston seems very wise. I believe he talks about nothingness, the highest Buddhist attainment, which shows you the non-dual, formless nature of Self.   
 

I think Frank Yang talks about the same thing.
 

I haven’t attended Peter’s workshops nor I have been his apprentice nor have I done his online courses, but from the snippets online and the podcast episodes now available he seems to be the real deal. 🙏 

I'll eventually get around to listening to Ralston's expression more, but maybe there's a point to be made. Not sure if Ralston distinguishes this or not, but this mind might express that people are seeking a transcendent experience, and they may/may not follow it/them to its most trans-rational, trans-logical end... into the realization of the NOTHINGNESS you speak of. Yes, that is the realization of the formlessness. It is neither necessary, nor guaranteed, nor even likely that that 'penultimate goal' of seeking will emerge. Dunno. A lot of it depends on the existential necessity arising, or so it seems.

Here's where @Breakingthewall feels the rub, and that's fine. Most 'teachers' in the various schools of unlearning, at least the one's worth listening to, are teaching to those that are seeking to transcend. The NOTHINGNESS is not the end all be all. In fact, when listening to certain teachers, one has to be aware of whether or not they get stuck and attached to nothingness, in which case the mind has taken credit for realization (as in, my seeking caused/succeeded in finding and now I'm gonna teach the only path, I'm special, everyone else is just dumb and blind... I alone hold the truth, so drink up). Breaking calls this 'limited', because it is.

After the realization of NOTHINGNESS (i.e., infinite potentiality, fully pregnant as Beingness), things get even weirder as one grapples with the complexities of informing mind as one uses it to re-engage the world as it is unfolding. During that process, many/most will become enraptured by and attached to freedom itself. They get stuck in the returning phase. Only those that make it fully through this phase are said to be 'enightened'. Typically, there are certain nuances and qualities in the expression that can be intuited if one KNOWS how.

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:33 PM by kbone

[kbone]

1 minute ago, kbone said:

I'll eventually get around to listening to Ralston's expression more, but maybe there's a point to be made. Not sure if Ralston distinguishes this or not, but this mind might express that people are seeking a transcendent experience, and they may/may not follow it/them to its most trans-rational, trans-logical end... into the realization of the NOTHINGNESS you speak of. Yes, that is the realization of the formlessness. It is neither necessary, nor guaranteed, nor even likely that that 'penultimate goal' of seeking will emerge. Dunno. A lot of it depends on the existential necessity arising, or so it seems.

Here's where @Breakingthewall feels the rub, and that's fine. Most 'teachers' in the various schools of unlearning, at least the one's worth listening to, are teaching to those that are seeking to actually transcend. But the NOTHINGNESS is not the end all be all. In fact, when listening to certain teachers, one has to be aware of whether or not they get stuck and attached to nothingness, in which case the mind has taken credit for realization (as in, my seeking caused/succeeded in finding and now I'm gonna teach the only path, I'm special, everyone else is just dumb and blind... I alone hold the truth, so drink up). Breaking calls this 'limited', because it is.

After the realization of NOTHINGNESS (i.e., infinite potentiality, fully pregnant with Beingness), things get even weirder as one grapples with the complexities of informing mind as one uses it to re-engage the world as it is unfolding. During that process, many/most will become enraptured by and attached to freedom itself. They get stuck in the returning phase. Only those that make it fully through this phase might be said to be 'enightened'. Typically, there are certain nuances and qualities in the expression that can be intuited if one KNOWS how.

 

 

[AION]

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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. 

 

Just for the record. 
 

Please state your arguments against Ralston.
 

Instead of 

• gas lighting 
• getting emotional 
• Shitting all over my thread 
• Comparing Ralston with Ibn fucking Arabi lmao 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Ralston is amazing, my only criticism is that he's becomes locked in its own brilliance and therefore decelerates his own ability to keep increasing consciousness.

The only thing that lacks Ralston is 5Meo. Oh God, what that man would achieve with psychedelics.

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

 

25 minutes ago, CoolDreamThanks said:

Peter Ralston seems very wise. I believe one of the things he talks about is nothingness, the highest Buddhist attainment, which shows you the non-dual, formless nature of Self.   
 

How do you know if that is true?

 

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, AION said:

Just for the record. 
 

Please state your arguments against Ralston.
 

Instead of 

• gas lighting 
• getting emotional 
• Shitting all over my thread 
• Comparing Ralston with Ibn fucking Arabi lmao 

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 

Edited Wednesday at 11:10 AM by Breakingthewall

[kbone]

1 hour ago, AION said:

People like Breaking the Wall can’t be taken serious. Firstly because of his name. Secondly, he is not open for discussion and he doesn’t come with arguments. Just emotional ranting. Everybody can be passionate about something as long as it doesn’t cloud the judgement. And his judgement of Ralston after few minute videos is insane and ludicrous. It is hard to understand Ralston after one read of his books. For example the book of not knowing has to be read twice to get a descent grasp and he thinks he can understand him after couple of minutes. It is feeding pearls to pigs. 

Very telling.

I wonder what Ralston would say about many of the posts you (seemingly unconsciously) write. Would you want that kind of attention?

[kbone]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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 

Tranquiiilo.

But sure, finding and trusting the only 'guru' you really 'know' is a massive milestone. The return to the market place is a strange one, indeed. Now you know why Jesus went on the rampage flipping tables at the temple, hehe.

[AION]

At this point he is just trolling. From page 1 he has been refusing to come with arguments. Mods please do something about this because he is ruining my thread. 

[kbone]

1 minute ago, AION said:

At this point he is just trolling. From page 1 he has been refusing to come with arguments. Mods please do something about this because he is ruining my thread. 

I understand your desire to explore Ralston. How about this... state and label what you find interesting, constructive, valid, revealing etc about Ralston's message. Those statements will provide springboards into the more in depth discussion you are seeking. The focal context will invite debate, rather than invite sweeping approvals or condemnations: you want the former, Breaking wants the latter, but you both want to flesh it out. 

[CARDOZZO]

If we want to do serious deconstruction of spiritual gurus, we should shave a "Spiritual Gurus Deconstruction Mega-Thread". Only pointing out wise, clear and valid points to their work and personality

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Reality is the source of perception, not perception. 

I used to think like that. But then realised that was an unquestioned assumption from materialist science.

There is perception and then a layer deeper than that which is the source of perception.

That's wrong. You know reality is One, perceptions are reality, there are no layers but one reality that may be subdivided in infinite layers. To believe there is something behind perception is an assumptions and a fantasy, how are you to verify that idea? If all you will ever have is perception, it's an absolute. Please tell me how you know there's something sourcing perception?

 

Reality is actually groundless and perception is pure consciousness.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, AION said:

At this point he is just trolling. From page 1 he has been refusing to come with arguments. Mods please do something about this because he is ruining my thread. 

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

Edited Wednesday at 12:32 PM by Breakingthewall

[Hyperion]

21 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Who is he teaching if he's so enlightened. He should know there's no one to teach from that position.

Still confusing nonduality with absolute truth, are we?

[Davino]

1 hour ago, kbone said:

Many here ascribe to the notion that 'all is consciousness', including Ralston, the apparent teacher in question. So, any mention of 'more consciousness' would logically mean that they are lacking the 'needed consciousness' to understand the 'All'. The mind often reverts to amount, a quantity, rather than peel back into the layers of quality, all the way into the NOTHINGNESS to which is pointed. Once realized, only then can one begin to grapple with the mind's protests.

Reality is consciousness. This for me is the Awakening threshold. I don't subscribe to such a point, it is my ever-present experience. Experience is Consciousness, sight, sound, sensations, touch, space, state; functions of Consciousness.

Of course, Consciousness is nothing. But nothingness does not fully encapsulate consciousness. The absence of sensations is but another sensation, another state of consciousness, experience of consciousness. See?

Although, I have to say that by the way you talk I feel you lack direct mystical experience. This is independent on whether we agree or not. I disagree plenty with Breaking the Wall and he's clearly a seasoned mystic and like recognises like.

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Davino said:

Reality is consciousness. This for me is the Awakening threshold. I don't subscribe to such a point, it is my ever-present experience. Experience is Consciousness, sight, sound, sensations, touch, space, state; functions of Consciousness.

Of course, Consciousness is nothing. But nothingness does not fully encapsulate consciousness. The absence of sensations is but another sensation, another state of consciousness, experience of consciousness. See?

Although, I have to say that by the way you talk I feel you lack direct mystical experience. This is independent on whether we agree or not. I disagree plenty with Breaking the Wall and he's clearly a seasoned mystic and like recognises like.

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

Edited Wednesday at 12:42 PM by Breakingthewall