Peter Ralston On LOVE - Newsletter Response

[James123]

2 hours ago, emil1234 said:

how is everything identical if everything is not you?

Everything arises and falls within You, but You are none of them.

[Willy Phallicus]

12 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yes exactly. 

 

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Love has nothing do with semantics.

I meant that Ralston (and those agreeing with him) are using semantics to deny or at least greatly diminish the patently obvious.

For me its always the same question when talking enlightenment: How do you not know what you are made of?

Regardless of how you got there, if you have had the complete experience of universal or "christ consciousness" how is it possible that Love escaped you?  Its all Love. That's a huge part of the revelation or gift - sorry for all the torture and suffering but I couldn't wake you up otherwise.  Do you know how much you have to love something to let it agonizingly suffer so that its full potential can be realized so as to free it?  

It should always be kept in mind the Transcendent Infinity has always had within itself the option of self annihilation and oblivion.  The reason why something exists rather than nothing is that unfathomable something which is far more grand and expensive than me, in its wisdom, prefers it this way - and that to me speaks volumes.

I don't care what teacher you follow or what path you take if you're not asking and finding out for yourself what is at the heart of this matrix then all you will end up with is an incomplete picture.  Is it malice or love?  I still suffer many doubts but I have my answer.

[emil1234]

@James123 so theres a You which is not identical to everything else

[Breakingthewall]

The problem is the word "love." Normally, love means the feeling you have for someone or something. But in a broader sense, it means unity, creation, expansion, and generative power.

If you fully open your psyche until not even the slightest barrier remains, what is revealed is the unlimited, and the unlimited, having no limits, is infinite creative power, absolute fullness. This can be called love.

Ralston, Spira, and non-dualists in general have a very limited view of enlightenment. For them, it's something mental, understanding what reality is, the screen where everything happens, etc. They are disconnected from life, and they are not enlightened; they are rather endarkened, same than bitter james 😘. They don't want to understand because they prefer to be right than to be really enlightened. A problem of humility 

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

7 hours ago, Hojo said:

Yea saying I have OCD just means you are willingly being insane. 

This guy tells good story about OCD. Hes literally saying hes intentionally doing it in the interview.

There's a lot of different flavors of OCD ranging from mild to severe but it basically is rooted in the inability to feel certainty and it will cause you to have obsessive thoughts.  Those obsessions could be anything. There's even something such as existential OCD.  Compulsions are then done to ease the obsessions but give a temporary and kind of false sense of certainty which may quickly fade repeating the cycle even stronger. For me I could hide it because the compulsions were only mental and done in my mind which is called pure OCD.  No physical compulsions.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

27 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The problem is the word "love." Normally, love means the feeling you have for someone or something. But in a broader sense, it means unity, creation, expansion, and generative power.

 

But see this radically redefines the word love.   Why still use the word if the metaphysical definition is now so different from the definition of "relative" love.  Don't you see the issue here?  Ralston wants us to take a look at this more closely and wonder if your statement that God is love isn't just something you took as a belief from some other guru a thousand years ago.  Because notice the definition of existential love is radically different- almost removing the very attributes that made the word love love in the first place.  We must be very careful here.

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1

[James123]

30 minutes ago, emil1234 said:

@James123 so theres a You which is not identical to everything else

There is not a you, You are the Source.

Even the sentence of "You are the source".

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Do you think the possibility exists Ralston is heavily compartmentalizing his feeling / emotional capacity & expression purposely? 

Ralston is simply completely wrong from the ground up. For him, there is such a thing as "absolute truth," which is something you come to know when you free yourself from those sticky, false human feelings.

Human feelings are an expression of what reality is, only biased, compartmentalized in order to allow the survival of concrete, self-preserving forms, that is, life.

The absolute is not consciousness where images appear; that is logically absurd, since "absolute" cannot be something where something else appears. The absolute is the total, and the total is being. Being is affirmative: it is. And this translates into absolute power.

Opening yourself to the total is opening yourself to the power of infinite supernovae, not to tranquil, empty screens. Leo is much closer to explaining enlightenment than the non-dualists; his flaw is that he cannot detach himself from centrality (aka solipsism), but at least he understands true substance.

[James123]

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Ralston, Spira, and non-dualists in general have a very limited view of enlightenment. For them, it's something mental, understanding what reality is, the screen where everything happens, etc. They are disconnected from life, and they are not enlightened; they are rather endarkened, same than bitter james 😘. They don't want to understand because they prefer to be right than to be really enlightened. A problem of humility 

Enlightenment has nothing to do with beliefs, experiences, ideas, etc... 

Enlightenment is completely Being naked.

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

But see this radically  redefines the word love.   Why still use the word if the metaphysical definition is now so different from the definition of "relative" Love.  Dont you see the issue here?  Ralston wants us to take a look at this more closely and wonder if your statement that God is love isnt just something you took as a belief from some other guru a thousand years ago.  Because notice the definition of existential love is radically different- almost removing the veey attributes that made the word love love in the first place.  We must be very careful here.

At the end the unlimited power that is being without boundaries is exactly the same than the love that a mother feels for her baby but without boundaries. Then if you say that the absolute is love, or being, you are closer than if you say that the absolute is consciousness. 

Anyway, if you ask Ralston about it he would answer: aaahyshhh young ignorant and almost retarded baby, you say that because any scammer told you, and you, who are simple piece of shit without brain, bought it, look, buy my book, ok retarded? And stop disturbing. 

I understand that this message is seductive for many, but I see it bit....well, arrogant. Over all if it comes from a closed mind

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, James123 said:

Enlightenment has nothing to do with beliefs, experiences, ideas, etc... 

Enlightenment is completely Being naked.

Enlightenment is james with a dick of 1 m saying 1 millón of bullshit for minute. That's absolute truth. Only the dick of james is the truth, lets bow before it and let's worship it. 

Man, try to have any conversation that is not insulting people, it's boring 

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

At the end the unlimited power that is being without boundaries is exactly the same than the love that a mother feels for her baby but without boundaries.

I'm not going to get into an endless debate with you but notice how you just snuck feeling into the metaphysical definition if you are saying that unlimited power is the same.  

So if you say reality is literally made of Love, that Love is the fabric of reality, but then you omit the qualities of love, then you are no longer saying it is love, you are saying something else.

[Breakingthewall]

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'm not going to get into an endless debate with you but notice how you just snuck feeling into the metaphysical definition if you are saying that unlimited power is the same.  

So if you say reality is literally made of Love, that Love is the fabric of reality, but then you omit the qualities of love, then you are no longer saying it is love, you are saying something else.

I wouldn't say that reality is love; I would say that love is reality, and so is the Hiroshima bomb.

The ultimate foundation of reality is the absence of limits, and limitlessness translates into being. Being implies creation without barriers, and this force is equivalent in quality to what we call love.

Destruction is the other side of creation, and its substance is the same, but we cannot see it because we have an absolute bias toward survival, as the self-preserving structures that we are.

[Ziran]

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

One thing I will say here is Love is not synonymous with Truth, and those who say this don't know anything about Love. It's obvious to spot.

 

9 hours ago, JoshB said:

Pure delusion Love is the very substance of Truth itself 

May I interject?

The illusory obstacle in reconciling Truth ( capital T ) and Love ( capital L ) dissolves when both are understood as energetic not in stasis.  If so, Love is better described as Loving, an ongoing event, and Truth is better described as Revealing-Equivalence.   Using these more accurate descriptions, yes, Love = Truth = Consciousness.

Edited 3 hours ago by Ziran

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall I don't think anyone is wrong about everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You misunderstand Ralston.

Bit too austere for me. I won't converse over this.

[Breakingthewall]

34 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Breakingthewall I don't think anyone is wrong about everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You misunderstand Ralston.

Bit too austere for me. I won't converse over this.

It's not that he's right or wrong, it's that he never opened the door to the totality in his life and thinks enlightenment is "this." So if someone asks him about, let's say, "mystical" things, he responds with superiority, saying that it's all emotional nonsense.

Or if you ask him about psychedelics, he dismisses them because he took LSD when he was 18, so he already knows everything. It's like a blind man saying that sight doesn't exist, and all those who claim to see are just naive children deceived by some guru. 

It's very easy to see that he's closed due a heavy ego that is attached to the mind thinking that this is the no mind

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[CARDOZZO]

Wow.. what happened 💀

You guys love to talk about love ❤️😂

[Willy Phallicus]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ralston wants us to take a look at this more closely and wonder if your statement that God is love isn't just something you took as a belief from some other guru a thousand years ago.

So basically Ralston's target audience are the wholly uninitiated?  I guess that makes sense.  Telling people what you think or what to think or how to think only goes so far though.  Each individual has to navigate their own path to the center and actually make it.

What about when you meet God and there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that you are the product of an unconditionally loving force that gives of itself freely?

[Inliytened1]

44 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

God and there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that you are the product of an unconditionally loving force that gives of itself freely?

Then that's fine and I'm not necessarily disagreeing.  That's what you could say was my experience but not based on concept or any intellectual realization necessarily.  It was just innate in all of my awakenings and present.  Love was present.  Is it a feeling - feeling and emotion is definitely part of it..But it isn't something I can necessarily pinpoint or pin down to any one particular thing.  Saying it is the realization that there is no difference between anything does not fully encompass all the dimensions of Absolute Love imo.  Love is self describing or autological. 

Edited 22 minutes ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

16 hours ago, JoshB said:

A coin has 2 sides (Love/Truth) but is 1. You can use multiplicity to explain a singularity. That actually shows the CORE of Infinity. If God couldn't be multiple things God would not be Infinte. 

@Inliytened1 

I understand that i asked him what side of the coin is Love.  What is Love to you?  

Edited 11 minutes ago by Inliytened1