Where is Peter Ralston wrong?

[AION]

I read a lot of criticism about him on this forum.. 

[Jannes]

Oh I think he is super on point with most stuff, but he is no psychonaut. 

[Breakingthewall]

I criticize him because he's limited and absolutely certain he's "enlightened." He drags many people into his closed ontology, which leads to flat EEG, anesthesia, and lobotomy. In my opinion, he's a particularly foolish guy with a gigantic self-concept, a typical spiritual narcissist who, because he's very superficial, believes that by simplifying everything and subtly ridiculing the deepest perceptions, he's on top.

First, his idea that reality is consciousness. So, what is consciousness? Consciousness! Tadah!!! Ah, consciousness of something? No! "Something" is a dream of consciousness!! Tadah!!! But then, is consciousness an entity that dreams things? Friend, those questions come from the conditioned mind. Let them fall and you're already enlightened. Tadah. All of this is totally false, totally limited, and has an enormously low level of understanding.is just be lobotomized to avoid the complexity or reality and can handle it from a limited state and then believing that you are on top, "enlightened"

 

[AION]

8 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Oh I think he is super on point with most stuff, but he is no psychonaut. 

He is against it?

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I criticize him because he's limited and absolutely certain he's "enlightened." He drags many people into his closed ontology, which leads to flat EEG, anesthesia, and lobotomy. In my opinion, he's a particularly foolish guy with a gigantic self-concept, a typical spiritual narcissist who, because he's very superficial, believes that by simplifying everything and subtly ridiculing the deepest perceptions, he's on top.

First, his idea that reality is consciousness. So, what is consciousness? Consciousness! Tadah!!! Ah, consciousness of something? No! "Something" is a dream of consciousness!! Tadah!!! But then, is consciousness an entity that dreams things? Friend, those questions come from the conditioned mind. Let them fall and you're already enlightened. Tadah. All of this is totally false, totally limited, and has an enormously low level of understanding.is just be lobotomized to avoid the complexity or reality and can handle it from a limited state and then believing that you are on top, "enlightened"

 

I sense a lot of anger my young padawan and he has some interesting things to say about anger. Personally I think criticism towards him is ungrounded. People don’t want to understand or have some internal reasons why not to. He is basically the Yoda of our time. He should get more slack on this forum. 

[Breakingthewall]

18 minutes ago, AION said:

He is against it?

I sense a lot of anger my young padawan and he has some interesting things to say about anger. Personally I think criticism towards him is ungrounded. People don’t want to understand or have some internal reasons why not to. He is basically the Yoda of our time. He should get more slack on this forum. 

So, as you don't like what I said you point that I ve a lot of anger but you don't go into any specific point of what I have said. Just your feelings.  

Why he's yoda? Because your feelings? Be careful with the deception, this is not a work when you can follow you feeling, because there are a lot of profesional scammers lurking for the tender lambs. 

 

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Imagine that someone asks this to Ralston:

Saying that reality is consciousness inevitably leads to a contradiction if analyzed rigorously: consciousness, by its very definition, only exists in relation to an object , that is, to something perceived or appearing. There is no consciousness without something to be conscious of. If one claims that reality is consciousness, they are saying that reality, in its entirety, is a relationship between perceiver and object. But then the inevitable question arises: why is there movement, form, relationship, difference? If everything is consciousness, where does what is perceived come from? Is consciousness “imagining” forms, movement, difference? But in that case, consciousness is not a passive or absolute background, but an entity with the capacity to imagine, that is, to generate internal distinction. But what, then, is imagining? Imagining implies distinction, the emergence of forms within a framework, which means that consciousness already contains relationship, structure, and potential movement within itself. But if this is true, one cannot say that reality is consciousness; rather, consciousness is already a differentiated form within a greater reality, where relationship and movement exist as a prior condition. Ultimately, claiming that all is consciousness creates a closed conceptual loop that attempts to explain appearance from appearance itself, without seeing that the very possibility for something to appear , whether as perception or imagination, requires a prior background, an openness that is neither perception nor imagination, but that which allows relationship to arise. Reality is not consciousness; consciousness is merely an inevitable effect of unlimited openness when it organizes itself into a relational form capable of perceiving.

Then he would laugh and answer: ah my Padawan, a lot of mental noise in you, hahahaha, just let it go , and.....tadah! 

And the student would think: ohh yes, of course, he's enlightened. 

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I criticize him because he's limited and absolutely certain he's "enlightened." He drags many people into his closed ontology, which leads to flat EEG, anesthesia, and lobotomy. In my opinion, he's a particularly foolish guy with a gigantic self-concept, a typical spiritual narcissist who, because he's very superficial, believes that by simplifying everything and subtly ridiculing the deepest perceptions, he's on top.

First, his idea that reality is consciousness. So, what is consciousness? Consciousness! Tadah!!! Ah, consciousness of something? No! "Something" is a dream of consciousness!! Tadah!!! But then, is consciousness an entity that dreams things? Friend, those questions come from the conditioned mind. Let them fall and you're already enlightened. Tadah. All of this is totally false, totally limited, and has an enormously low level of understanding.is just be lobotomized to avoid the complexity or reality and can handle it from a limited state and then believing that you are on top, "enlightened"

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Deep argument, I have to admit . Subtle and direct to the root. I know what you would say:; there is not subject and object, just conciousness. But then, why there are forms? Because are imaginary. This is not sustainable because its basis is the category of "imaginary", that means nothing. There are forms, where those forms come from? From my imagination? That's not enough, that means nothing. Then the answer is that I'm god imagining. This is not conciousness, it's something else, but still it's limited. It's very obvious...

Anyway Ralston would tell me that's conceptualizing, that only direct experience counts, and that's consciousness. That's a gross simplification that sells because it's seductive and easy, but it completely shuts you down. If you buy it, it's your decission

 

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

@Breakingthewall Dude, you are asking for things to be put into words that cannot be put into words.

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@Breakingthewall Dude, you are asking for things to be put into words that cannot be put into words.

Words are a pointer that opens or closes. If someone's words close, it's because they operate from a closed position. So it's legitimate to point out that you should be careful with that discourse; it has a limited basis and will be an obstacle if you internalize it. For me it's obvious that it's the Ralston's case

[Breakingthewall]

@Leo Gura btw If I recall correctly, you asked him an interesting question about Mashamadi and 5meo on his blog, and he responded with superiority, condescension, denial of the legitimacy of your experience, a certain passive-aggressiveness, an implication that you're not "there," and a puritanical condemnation of psychedelics. For me, that's very revealing.

But that is not needed, just listening him 5 minutes is enough 

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is no consciousness without something to be conscious of.

You seem hell bent on this particular argument. Until you let it go- you won’t get it.

Consciousness is conscious of itself. There can be nothing outside of Consciousness because it’s all that exists. There is NO reality without Consciousness .. Reality IS Consciousness.

Your mind is addicted to going in constant loops over and over. It’s fearful of there being an ultimate ontological tautology in understanding absolutely everything about reality and existence. A good exercise would be to contemplate why that is the case.

Consciousness is fundamental-you can’t escape it no matter how hard your mind tries.

Edited July 1 by Terell Kirby

[Breakingthewall]

58 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

You seem hell bent on this particular argument. Until you let it go- you won’t get it.

Consciousness is conscious of itself. There can be nothing outside of Consciousness because it’s all that exists. There is NO reality without Consciousness .. Reality IS Consciousness.

Your mind is addicted to going in constant loops over and over. It’s fearful of there being an ultimate ontological tautology in understanding absolutely everything about reality and existence. A good exercise would be to contemplate why that is the case.

Consciousness is fundamental-you can’t escape it no matter how hard your mind tries.

I think you don't understand me.

Consciousness is an arising that occurs in reality. Reality is not consciousness, reality is reality. Let me explain: reality is limitlessness. Existence is the manifestation of the limitless, that is, the relational contrast. What you call consciousness is the appearance of a substance in which your subjective reality occurs. This is a limited vision. Your subjective reality is a perspective of infinity in its infinite relation. There are infinite possible dimensions and infinite possible states, infinite consciousness and infinite unconsciousness. You could perhaps say that existence is infinite being, but what exactly is being? You can go much deeper. You are operating on the surface, on the ice crust. If that thin layer breaks, the depth manifests. Believe me, don't speak so angry and try to understand 

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[Terell Kirby]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Consciousness is an arising that occurs in reality. 

Backwards-

What you call reality is an arising in Consciousness (Gods Mind).

Better yet- Reality is Consciousness, Reality is God’s mind.

Either you are directly conscious of this or not. Unfortunately there is no in between.

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Either you are directly conscious of this or not. Unfortunately there is no in between.

Yes I know that argument: conciousness can't be explained, you should be awake to it. I am, and you? Maybe you are..... asleep? Then you can't see. 

Nah, this is the cause that spirituality is just religion. It must change. 

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Terell Kirby said:

You seem hell bent on this particular argument. Until you let it go- you won’t get it.

Consciousness is conscious of itself. There can be nothing outside of Consciousness because it’s all that exists. There is NO reality without Consciousness .. Reality IS Consciousness.

Your mind is addicted to going in constant loops over and over. It’s fearful of there being an ultimate ontological tautology in understanding absolutely everything about reality and existence. A good exercise would be to contemplate why that is the case.

Consciousness is fundamental-you can’t escape it no matter how hard your mind tries.

Your message illustrates very clearly a typical psychological mechanism: a set of dogmatic affirmations combined with passive resistance to questioning, functioning as a defense of a belief structure perceived as essential for emotional stability. It's a common pattern where conceptual certainty, framed as openness, serves to maintain a sense of control. If you're interested, I’d be glad to analyze it paragraph by paragraph, purely structurally, to help clarify these dynamics

Edited July 1 by Breakingthewall

[archi]

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

Oh I think he is super on point with most stuff, but he is no psychonaut. 

he used to be, I think LSD 

[Leo Gura]

@Breakingthewall Questioning is good, but you are out of line.

[AION]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Leo Gura 

But that is not needed, just listening him 5 minutes is enough 

And you call him arrogant 😭

 

[AION]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I criticize him because he's limited and absolutely certain he's "enlightened." He drags many people into his closed ontology, which leads to flat EEG, anesthesia, and lobotomy. In my opinion, he's a particularly foolish guy with a gigantic self-concept, a typical spiritual narcissist who, because he's very superficial, believes that by simplifying everything and subtly ridiculing the deepest perceptions, he's on top.

First, his idea that reality is consciousness. So, what is consciousness? Consciousness! Tadah!!! Ah, consciousness of something? No! "Something" is a dream of consciousness!! Tadah!!! But then, is consciousness an entity that dreams things? Friend, those questions come from the conditioned mind. Let them fall and you're already enlightened. Tadah. All of this is totally false, totally limited, and has an enormously low level of understanding.is just be lobotomized to avoid the complexity or reality and can handle it from a limited state and then believing that you are on top, "enlightened"

 

 I’m talking about emotions because emotions can cloud the judgement. You are clearly angry about something and you don’t know why. Talking about lobotomy (of emotions). If you disown your emotions you are basically throwing away pieces of your soul. That is why you don’t resonate with Ralston. Because it is emotionally hard work and ego crushing. 

Edited July 1 by AION