What Peter Ralston Gets Wrong

[VeganAwake]

He is describing authentic awakening details.

Meaning purpose and value are clearly seen through 

I don't understand his motivation to teach. I think that body must like it!

[Leo Gura]

@James123 @Mellowmarsh

You two are spreading confusion and falsehood.

[James123]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@James123 @Mellowmarsh

You two are spreading confusion and falsehood.

Experience belongs to body, not you. 

Therefore, Ralston says that experience are not reliable. 

Peace.

[Mellowmarsh]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@James123 @Mellowmarsh

You two are spreading confusion and falsehood.

Ralston is a concept known. 
 

Known by the only knowing there is. Is this”one knowing”confused or a falsehood? Can this one not know a concept it knows. Can this one experience the absence of its own knowing, and know its own absent knowing ?

What would an absent knowing know, exactly?

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

I don't understand his motivation to teach.

That’s the nature of business. 
 

 No one’s business. 
 

Parrot droppings will drop. It’s the gravity of love. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It is a shame there isn't more willingness to explore each others worldviews, instead there is insistence on our own.

[Mellowmarsh]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is a shame there isn't more willingness to explore each others worldviews, instead there is insistence on our own.

All world views are sourced from the same place.

 

A seer can’t view everywhere. A seer can only view what’s in its own viewfinder. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Mellowmarsh said:

All world views are sourced from the same place.

 

A seer can’t view everywhere. A seer can only view what’s in its own viewfinder. 

That's a pity.

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

That's a pity.

Have you looked everywhere? If you have then there’s nowhere else for you to look. 

[Davino]

4 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Your What is Perception video explains this eloquently. 

It's the only video I dislike very much, I find it to be potentially very very misleading. It's mostly word choice and framing, but to me adds unnecessary complexity and confusion; at the same time deconstructs that weird definition presented as perception but then doesn't explain existential "base" reality, therefore lacking the philosophical depth necessary for resolving those mental gymnastics into metaphysical truth, imo.

Or to simplify: Experience is truth and it's absolute. It may be absolute bullshit with the ego or absolute clarity, but experience is the absolute truth no fucking matter what. There's nothing but experience, perception, phenomena, sensations which is one and the same as consciousness. Leo of course knows this. That video may have been influenced by Ralston style at that time, I'm sure he would shoot quite differently that episode now.

Probably this video gets across better the point that Ralston is trying to make or what I feel was the message of perception:

 

And this one scratches better the existential itch:

 

Edited yesterday at 10:05 AM by Davino

[gettoefl]

Does the anger experience exist?

No.

It is me pretending to be God and claiming you have sinned and are bad

as if that could be true.

No such situation exists.

It seems to exist - because yours truly enjoys cosplaying God and smacking down other separate selves.

It's an obstacle to Truth.

Truth allows this but knows nothing of false stuff.

Anger doesn't exist save in silly dreams.

Your anger is why you didn't awaken.

Edited yesterday at 10:09 AM by gettoefl

[r0ckyreed]

Thanks. I will post more on this thread as I read the book in here to clarify misconceptions I and other readers may take from the book.

[UnbornTao]

The arrogance of thinking you grasp it because you understand the expression when compared to your own "framework."

Contrasting philosophies isn't really the point, either.

[Terell Kirby]

What Ralston gets right:

• Our understanding of ANYTHING is often largely conceptual, not grounded in direct experience or consciousness of the truth and/or reality of a thing.
• Not making a clear distinction between conceptual knowledge and direct experience is the foundation of all self deception.

What Ralston gets wrong:

• Not acknowledging that subjective states of Consciousness matter. Misses the necessity of exploring altered states of Consciousness to deepen one’s understanding of Reality (this creates his bias against psychedelics).
• Not an emphasis of cognitive stages of development and why they matter.  This is where Leo’s work comes in to fill that gap.

Ralston is an amazing teacher, but he gives the vibe of a stubborn old man, because…well..he is one lol.

As with any spiritual teacher, they have biases. It’s the responsibility of the student to make a teachers biases clear.

[Willy Phallicus]

Ralston makes the same mistake all gurus and teachers do - they start believing their own bullshit.

Can't say I blame them, we all do the same thing in one form or another.  

[Davino]

@Willy Phallicus Ralston is too genius to see the genius in others. He may be blind by his own brilliance.

[Mellowmarsh]

9 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Ralston makes the same mistake all gurus and teachers do - they start believing their own bullshit.

Can't say I blame them, we all do the same thing in one form or another.  

This is the elephant in the room that refuses to be seen by some gurus. . . You cannot know anything about anything except as a make-believed story, which is born of linguistics. Outside of which remains a totally silent mystery that no temporal life form can ever decode.

 

Every human being is their own guru. So yes, of course everyone is going to believe their own BS 

I mean what can the human mind do with nothing. It’s obviously going to fill in the blank with something.

 

But here’s the kicker. If or when just one single person ever claims to genuinely know what they are talking about regarding the absolute nature of reality - then anyone can do the same, and not one single one of them will be wrong about their claim because all these claims are being sourced from the exact same place, namely a brain.

Now, unless you have been unfortunate to have been born without a brain, then you are exempt from make-believe story telling activity. 
 

Outside of human conceptually created story-telling, there’s just life living completely, absolutely, perfectly, effectively, efficiently, rightly, and true without any artificially created human theory being overlaid upon it whatsoever.

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

He has obviously had a huge impact on many of you, so that speaks for itself.  I worry if he has too much of an empiricist approach.  Reminds me of my same worry with Zen, although this can be good on the path too.  

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Outside of human conceptually created story-telling, there’s just life living completely, absolutely, perfectly, effectively, efficiently, rightly, and true without any artificially created human theory being overlaid upon it whatsoever.

I'll push back on one assumption here.  Is all conceptual story-telling human created?

[Mellowmarsh]

38 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'll push back on one assumption here.  Is all conceptual story-telling human created?

Well so far I’ve not morphed into a talking snake.

Edited 3 hours ago by Mellowmarsh