What Peter Ralston Gets Wrong

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

I am so afraid to be banned. Thank you very much for your support, service and help. Amazing. Unbelievable.

No worries ! Thank you for the support 

[Monster Energy]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is part of the story he tells himself  

Everyday day in the mirror 

[r0ckyreed]

Another contradiction in Peter Ralston’s teaching is the assertion that mind doesn’t exist. It’s funny though because he is using his mind to claim mind doesn’t exist. 

[gettoefl]

7 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Another contradiction in Peter Ralston’s teaching is the assertion that mind doesn’t exist. It’s funny though because he is using his mind to claim mind doesn’t exist. 

Does fear exist? No. It is a rope appearing as a snake. I misperceived. I enslaved myself. I limited myself. There was nothing to fear. When seen, it departs. The snake was never there. It was a rope the whole time. This may be realised. That the limited mind is non-existent. Absolute Mind is the causeless source and the true nature.

Edited May 22 by gettoefl

[Breakingthewall]

On 22/5/2026 at 4:34 AM, r0ckyreed said:

Another contradiction in Peter Ralston’s teaching is the assertion that mind doesn’t exist. It’s funny though because he is using his mind to claim mind doesn’t exist. 

The mind is as real as the body. Imagine the quantum synchronicity that must occur in reality for a mind to exist. Ask Ralston if a city is real or not. The mind did it. How could something unreal do something real? 

Edited May 24 by Breakingthewall

[r0ckyreed]

Peter Ralston is a physicalist. I’m 3/4 done with the book, and he is making physicalistic arguments. He basically says consciousness is a byproduct of the body/brain. Anybody else get this vibe?

[aurum]

37 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Peter Ralston is a physicalist. I’m 3/4 done with the book, and he is making physicalistic arguments. He basically says consciousness is a byproduct of the body/brain. Anybody else get this vibe?

Yup.

I'm only like two chapters in, but already it feels that way. There are some physicalist undertones.

I will finish reading and see what I think at that point. He could be holding back.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

Peter Ralston is a physicalist. I’m 3/4 done with the book, and he is making physicalistic arguments. He basically says consciousness is a byproduct of the body/brain. Anybody else get this vibe?

You don't have to be a physicalist to see that there seems to be a correlation between brain states and aspects of experience. Is he saying Consciousness is caused by brain states or is he saying aspects of experience seem to have consistent neural/bodily correlates?

Edited 20 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[r0ckyreed]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You don't have to be a physicalist to see that there seems to be a correlation between brain states and aspects of experience. Is he saying Consciousness is caused by brain states or is he saying aspects of experience seem to have consistent neural/bodily correlates?

He explicitly states consciousness is caused by brain states. That what you are is a body and mind doesn’t exist. Idealism would say the opposite.

[r0ckyreed]

10 hours ago, aurum said:

Yup.

I'm only like two chapters in, but already it feels that way. There are some physicalist undertones.

I will finish reading and see what I think at that point. He could be holding back.

Yeah. He keeps going deeper into Physicalist explanations. Nothing wrong with it per se. It is a different perspective.

[Leo Gura]

On 5/21/2026 at 7:34 PM, r0ckyreed said:

Another contradiction in Peter Ralston’s teaching is the assertion that mind doesn’t exist. It’s funny though because he is using his mind to claim mind doesn’t exist. 

He distinguishes between mind and Consciousness/Reality/Being. So when he says mind doesn't exist it is like saying the human self doesn't exist. He is speaking from the Absolute perspective.

Ralston does not use "mind" in the same way I do. His notion of mind is not infinite.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

@r0ckyreed You're barking up the wrong tree here.

[r0ckyreed]

I’m almost done with the book. I will post my full critique here when I’m finished. He is starting to break the matrix near the end of the book

[Yimpa]

12 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

He is starting to break the matrix near the end of the book

Thank Goodness.

I skipped to Chapter 18 and will just read the ending.

I didn't read his other books.

F the ruels!

 

An excerpt near the end of the book:

Spoiler

I think there is some confusion in consciousness work concerning the idea of a “correct way to be.” When people take up some sort of “spiritual” or consciousness practice, they are often searching for a way to be that will improve them; and when they follow a teaching, they assume that it contains in it a prescription for how they should think and behave, as well as what to believe. It should be clear to you by now that I don’t provide any of these and recommend that you don’t think in those terms.

Edited 6 hours ago by Yimpa

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

He explicitly states consciousness is caused by brain states. That what you are is a body and mind doesn’t exist. Idealism would say the opposite.

Idealism, depending on the type, is capable of distinguishing between personal minds and transpersonal Mind. It would say personal minds are epiphenomenal/products of transpersonal Mind and thus not ultimately "real". The greater Mind is what is the ontological ground. 

This lies behind the distinction between Maya and Truth. This lies behind the distinction between the limited world of perception (sounds, colors, sensations, thoughts; things you divide and label through concepts) and pure Consciousness (prior to dividing it up into labels, categories, concepts).

More naive ideas of non-duality actually make this distinction implicitly when they say "everything is mind and everything else is just a concept". Where do the concepts come from? Can it be described, systematized? A good philosophy systematizes useful notions like that, hence it introduces distinctions like personal minds and transpersonal Mind.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

So you're dreaming at night. You dream that you're John in Paris. You wake up and you remember you're Sam in London. You can also wake up (again) and realize you're God dreaming everything. Then what are John and Sam? They are dream characters, dreamt up inside the dream, and they seem to experience the world from their own limited perspective (by virtue of the fact that you dreamed as them and they seemed to be in different places with different impressions and feelings). That limited perspective is their mind. The dreamer of all the minds is God. And God is a big Mind.

So what is the brain inside the dream? It's a thing that correlates with other things in the dream. When you touch your nose, you can see brain activity light up related to the nose. When you close your eyes, you can see brain activity related to closing your eyes. You can use brain activity to predict many things that happen in the dream. But the brain is still inside the dream. It is not ultimately "creating" the dream. It is part of the consistency of the dream. Just like when the temperature drops, the thermometer shows a drop in temperature, when brain activity drops, you see a drop in certain behaviors of the mind.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard It's all just atoms and shit.