What Peter Ralston Gets Wrong

[r0ckyreed]

I got Peter Ralston’s new book Whereof One Cannot speak. I just started reading it and am noticing one thing that doesn’t seem right. 

Peter Ralston states in the book that experience is subjective/relative/indirect and isn’t what is true/objective/direct. It seems like he is hinting at a veil of perception or something when he says our experience/perception isn’t truth. But it is. Qualia is Absolute Truth. Experience is what Truth is.

I can understand if he was referring to something subjective within our experience, but experience itself is Truth. It cannot be otherwise.

He also seems to hint at there being an objective world in which we interact with.

I will continue reading and contemplating to see if any new understanding comes about, but it seems like Ralston may be meaning something totally different when he refers to Consciousness and experience/perception.  But they are both the same in my eyes - no pun intended.  

Let me know your thoughts.

[Jirh]

It's not right or wrong. It's a perspective.

The idea that experience is truth is aligned with solipsism. But who's made that epistemic decision?

If you define the present moment as the truth, then yes experience is the truth.

But that's limited, and nobody truly lives that way. You may think it's because of delusion, but at the end of the day you are doing the same. You are believing in a past and a future, and you will probably never lose that belief. And you clearly believe in others, which you are seeking discussion with. These are truths. They're your reality, even if you pretend otherwise.

Ralston is not pretending, that's the difference.

Edited 11 hours ago by Jirh

[AtmanIsBrahman]

I noticed this too when I read the book. Either Ralston has totally different terminology than @Leo Gura, or there's a big difference in how they understand consciousness.

 

[James123]

4 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Experience is what Truth is.

Bullshit 

[Leo Gura]

He frames it in an poor and confusing way that makes it seem like experience isn't Truth.

What he means by "experience" is all the conceptual baggage the ego-mind adds to raw Being.

In his framework, if you strip away all the conceptual baggage from experience, then experience transforms into Being. Although of course nothing visually changes.

"Experience" is a loaded notion that implies a self who is the experiencer. If you remove the experiencer, you could say that experience stops being experience and becomes Being. Although, again, nothing visually changes.

If you remove the ego from experience it becomes Truth.

It's a silly confusion.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[James123]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

He frames it in an poor and confusing way that makes it seem like experience isn't Truth.

What he means by "experience" is all the conceptual baggage the ego-mind adds to raw Being.

In his framework, if you strip away all the conceptual baggage from experience, then experience transforms into Being. Although of course nothing visually changes.

"Experience" is a loaded notion that implies a self who is the experiencer. If you remove the experiencer, you could say that experience stops being experience and becomes Being. Although, again, nothing visually changes.

If you remove the ego from experience it becomes Truth.

It's a silly confusion.

 no. Experience becomes belonging to body. Not You.

Then realization happens that Entire universe arises and falls within You. Including this realization too.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

56 minutes ago, James123 said:

 no. Experience becomes belonging to body. Not You.

Then realization happens that Entire universe arises and falls within You. Including this realization too.

Thanks for sharing your perspective 😃

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, James123 said:

Not You.

No such thing is possible.

Everything is You.

"Not You" cannot exist.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[James123]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No such thing is possible.

Everything is You.

"Not You" cannot exist.

These are just attachments to beliefs and experiences.

Forgot even everything, just Try to find yourself in the body. Where are you? 

[James123]

25 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Thanks for sharing your perspective 😃

Including this arises and falls within You.

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, James123 said:

These are just attachments to beliefs and experiences.

Lol

Everything is You.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

56 minutes ago, James123 said:

Including this arises and falls within You.

A confession.

[James123]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

Everything is You.

Show, point out that beautiful you.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@Leo Gura How advanced do you consider Peter Ralston to be? If you realized everything he’s realized, how conscious would you be?

 

The reason I ask is because I’m trying to find other teachers, and Ralston seems like one of the good ones. But I know you think he is wrong about some things (like Love) and I don’t want to get caught in his limitations.

[Leo Gura]

48 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

How advanced do you consider Peter Ralston to be?

He is insanely advanced.

But that doesn't really help you, does it?

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, James123 said:

These are just attachments to beliefs and experiences.

Forgot even everything, just Try to find yourself in the body. Where are you? 

Yes, “you” is simply a concept known, concepts are many. Many of the One. 
A concept knows nothing because a concept is already known to the only knowing there is, One with the knowing, always absolutely itself, without a second. No other is the One. The One that cannot be conceived or conceptualised because that which is known conceptually, knows nothing. 


 

 

[Inliytened1]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He frames it in an poor and confusing way that makes it seem like experience isn't Truth.

What he means by "experience" is all the conceptual baggage the ego-mind adds to raw Being.

In his framework, if you strip away all the conceptual baggage from experience, then experience transforms into Being. Although of course nothing visually changes.

"Experience" is a loaded notion that implies a self who is the experiencer. If you remove the experiencer, you could say that experience stops being experience and becomes Being. Although, again, nothing visually changes.

If you remove the ego from experience it becomes Truth.

It's a silly confusion.

Your What is Perception video explains this eloquently. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Mellowmarsh]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

“Not You" cannot exist.

“Not You” cannot exist, still exists as a concept known by the only knowing there is here now, which can never not be here.

“cannot exist” is nonsensical in the sense “cannot exist”  cannot not exist clearly as the concept is known.

Just my two sense Leo, I’m not suggesting your two sense is irrelevant or wrong for you there, I’m just stating from here,  how I am personally reading this. 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

@Leo Gura How advanced do you consider Peter Ralston to be? If you realized everything he’s realized, how conscious would you be?

 

The reason I ask is because I’m trying to find other teachers, and Ralston seems like one of the good ones. But I know you think he is wrong about some things (like Love) and I don’t want to get caught in his limitations.

His book was the icing on the cake to Leo's videos for me.  I also enjoyed reading Marcus Aurelius.  Ultimately it will come down to the spiritual practices.  Spirituality is actuality not concept.

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Spirituality is actuality not concept.

That’s a category error. 

“Spirituality” is a concept known.

One cannot describe a concept known such as “spirituality” as anything other than this immediate knowing, that cannot be not known conceptually. 
 

Name one thing that cannot be named. Show one thing that is not that thing.