Where is Peter Ralston wrong?

[kbone]

1 minute 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.

You can think whatever you want to think, reason whatever you want to reason, judge whatever you want to judge, etc. Paint the picture; see what you want to see...

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, kbone said:

You can think whatever you want to think, reason whatever you want to reason, judge whatever you want to judge, etc. Paint the picture; see what you want to see...

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.

[AION]

28 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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

First off, he doesn’t secretly believe in a perceiving center. In fact, a huge part of his work is aimed at helping people directly realize that the perceiver, the subject-object split, and the idea of a “center” are illusions. When he says “there is only consciousness” or “this is consciousness,” he’s not talking about perception in the usual dualistic sense. He’s pointing to the actuality of being, not a subject being aware of an object, but the direct actuality that exists prior to that structure.

 

He uses the word “consciousness” to refer to what is actually present, not a mental state or thought process. And yes, he sometimes equates consciousness and reality  but only in the sense that what is conscious is what is, and what is actually real is directly conscious, not conceptual.

 

As for form and differentiation, he doesn’t deny them. He invites people to deeply inquire into the nature of form: what is it really? What is it made of? What is its relationship to consciousness? His method isn’t to give abstract metaphysical answers but to push people into a confrontation with their direct experience, beyond assumption and belief.

 

Calling it “spiritual hamburger” misses the whole point. His work is actually demanding and often uncomfortable, precisely because it doesn’t let you settle for intellectual positions, it forces you to look at what’s true without filters. You might disagree with his conclusions, but dismissing it as simplistic or “selling well” probably means you haven’t really engaged with the depth of what he’s pointing to.

 

[kbone]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

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.

Oh, sure, one can be very wrong. If they get knocked down by such wrong decisions or reach a dead end in their search, the mind is put on notice.

If open, even a wee bit, they may get up and/or try a different way. If closed, stagnation starts to set in. Typically, mind can only handle that for so long until it gets up off its ass and tries something else. It's a relative thing, of course.

@Davino is making guesses about people he knows close to nothing about based on his his mind's (with all its supercharged 5meo self knowledge-bearing experiences) interpretations, maybe even hoping he's right. Doesn't matter, like at all.

[gettoefl]

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. 

He has given good counter points and what he says is on the money. They don't fit your narrative. You are bringing emotionality to this. Read his last 1000 posts and see where there is any emotion. Don't confuse sarcasm with emotion. The former is a teaching tool. It' went over your head. He is the most helpful and sincere person you will find. Unless you are sticking to a narrative.

[Davino]

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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.

I liked the logical point on numbers, it was good. Although for me the logical problems is that reality cannot happen without perception. I'm not referring to dual perceptions, I mean any type of sensation arising in the field of consciousness. All possible experience are but that, experiences and experience is another name for consciousness. It's different configurations and manifestations of Consciousness/existence.

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 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?

Consciousness is all of Reality. Consciousness then metamorphs into every possible shape, mode, state, space imaginable.

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Does that mean that reality operates sequentially? Is it within a timeline? Is reality subordinate to time? Then reality would be time, not reality.

I don't know what you mean here but certainly my understanding of reality is not locked in time or space.

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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 July 2 by Davino

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour 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 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.

 

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.

[Davino]

@kbone Consider the possibility that you could understand something so well that by reading others you know where they are because you've been there. It's like in physics, a PhD can know: oh he might be in second year or doing his master's degree. Same way with spirituality. 

[Davino]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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.

See I agree here with you. We agree in lots of things actually.

[UnbornTao]

Jesus Christ.

[CARDOZZO]

"Defending your worldview is unconscious behavior."

The forum should not exist. Every thread on this forum is unconscious behavior.

[kbone]

3 minutes ago, Davino said:

@kbone Consider the possibility that you could understand something so well that by reading others you know where they are because you've been there. It's like in physics, a PhD can know: oh he might be in second year or doing his master's degree. Same way with spirituality. 

I understand that and am open to it, yes.

[gettoefl]

2 minutes ago, AION said:

@gettoefl It is hard to read what he says because he is so emotional, snappy and bitchy about it. I’m not the only one who experiences it since mods have made remarks about it.

He is stating the obvious and trying to make it digestible. It is as clear as day that is what is happening.

[kbone]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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.

That's more or less what I said.

The 'form is formless, formlessness is form' realization is easily a deeper and inclusive of nothingness.

Sometimes, teachings intending to help beginning meditators or seekers focus their minds less on the 'everyday' objects/objectives in which the left-brained intellect is constantly engaged, choppy, and in solid control, might try to get them to shift their attention. A lot of the approach you advocate is engaging that aspect of the mind, rather than the right-brain (which you allude to indirectly). Check out a TED video by Jill Bolte-Taylor in which she describes her stroke experience. It has some clues.

[kbone]

17 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Jesus Christ.

The search requires a LOT of 'missing the mark' (i.e., sin).

Forward.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

See I agree here with you. We agree in lots of things actually.

Yeah, except in the thing of conciousness. 

 

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Consciousness is all of Reality. Consciousness then metamorphs into every possible shape, mode, state, space imaginable.

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.

 

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]

Hey, not to derail the topic, but consider: https://www.actualized.org/insights/the-concept-of-bullshit

Now, who will take that personally?

Boy, this is going to make me even more popular.

Edited July 2 by UnbornTao

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Still confusing nonduality with absolute truth, are we?

Neither is really a thing. There is only what is and what is, is neither nondual nor dual or truth just Absolute, timeless, boundless energy appearing as form. I'm not confusing anything because confusion cannot arise where there are no opposites and other to be confused about. Confusion may appear to happen in the relative sense and that's only apparent in the dream of separation so if I'm confusing anything it only appears that way to you the observer, which is fine but when you mention Absolute truth in the same sentence, I had to break it down.

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

"Defending your worldview is unconscious behavior."

The forum should not exist. Every thread on this forum is unconscious behavior.

Is that your worldview.

[CARDOZZO]

9 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Is that your worldview.

Including that one 😂