Peter Ralston On LOVE - Newsletter Response

[UnbornTao]

@CARDOZZO

Quote

Peter: If it were true that love is an inherent aspect of the Truth, then we'd imagine that all people who've had direct consciousness would be pretty loving, no? Yet we see this isn't true at all. Only the loving ones are loving. But I hear your point, beyond an emotion perhaps there is something we might call love that has some relationship to absolutes. Let's consider this. 

If the absolute has no form whatsoever, then where would something that only shows up as a disposition and in relationship exist there? We see it couldn't. Nothing but the absolute could. So, love can't be a quality of absolute truth. Yet, perhaps we are talking about the effect knowing the absolute has on a person.

What effect does becoming conscious of the absolute nature of existence have on a person? Primarily, consciousness. After that is more or less up in the air. But generally, it seems freedom accompanies this consciousness. The mind grasps its own activity as a fabrication and unnecessary when it comes to the Truth and although necessary for survival it becomes clear(er) that the bulk of our mental and emotional activities are unnecessary and often dysfunctional. This certainly clears the decks for a different experience to arise.

As I've said before, the lack of fear and the acceptance of others, as well as a sense of connection, allows a different disposition to take place. Acceptance being foundational for love, as well as a sense that oneself includes another or others in some way, makes some universal and impersonal "love" or compassion more likely with this kind of consciousness. But let's balance this observation with the likelihood that we like the idea that the Truth and love go together. It makes it a “feel-good” and totally positive fantasy, tying our already “perfect” ideals into a great bow. This preference is based on our suffering and fears and the desire to feel safe, loved, and accepted. Such a preference shouldn't bias our look into the truth, love, or anything else.

In the end, the Truth is only the Truth, there is nothing attached to it and whatever changes might occur as a result of direct consciousness is secondary and should not be the focus of any intent to experience the Truth.

Edited 18 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Breakingthewall]

56 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If the absolute has no form whatsoever

The absolute has form. Its positive, affirmative. 

Let's see, you can reach a state of empty mind and think: this is the absolute, the boundless expanse of consciousness. But it's not like that; there's something more. Reality is generative; it's the creative source of universes and life.

The true absolute isn't emptiness; it's what lies at the bottom of emptiness. This is the real revelation, accessed through absolute surrender. Absolute surrender implies accepting absolute emptiness. When this happens, what you are is revealed. It's the absolute power that emanates from boundlessness and creates universes.

Ralston is on the surface level. Christ touches the depths. The bleeding heart of Christ represents absolute generative power. Opening yourself to it is opening yourself to glory.

Brahman, Shiva, and Kali are good analogies. Ramakrishna is a good mystic, Christ also. Both point to the source. Neo advaita point to "consciousness", just empty mind, nothing more than a mental state. 

[Willy Phallicus]

5 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If it were true that love is an inherent aspect of the Truth, then we'd imagine that all people who've had direct consciousness would be pretty loving, no? Yet we see this isn't true at all.

There's his problem.  Big assumption followed by the assumption he is correct.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

You might get surprised to know that Ralston is a cult leader under the psychotic belief that his meta understanding of reality is truth.

he has no direct experience of the truth, he is always in contact with his direct experience of his body projection / body of belief.

but here is the thing, there might be no one or nothing that can go out of it.

there are no distinctions between being delusional & being clear, Ralston is so deeply self convinced that he is holding some "thing".

When you love someone, it isn't delusion, it's not falacy, it's not some dopamine in the brain, it is absolute truth, it is meeting with god, it is sex with geometry.
 

Ralston would tell you this isn't true, that love is a "state feeling" or some bullshit he rationalized.

Ultimately you gotta stop ass lick dead fanatic corpses and start to live inside your reality.

Edited 17 hours ago by AerisVahnEphelia

[Ziran]

5 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If it were true that love is an inherent aspect of the Truth, then we'd imagine that all people who've had direct consciousness would be pretty loving, no?

No.  Those who are fully conscious behave in a manner which is consistent with their natural inclinations and potential.

Love is inherent, in each and everything, and beyond, as a vessel, which can be empty, full, or anything in-between.  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

10 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

You might get surprised to know that Ralston is a cult leader under the psychotic belief that his meta understanding of reality is truth.

he has no direct experience of the truth, he is always in contact with his direct experience of his body projection / body of belief.

but here is the thing, there might be no one or nothing that can go out of it.

there are no distinctions between being delusional & being clear, Ralston is so deeply self convinced that he is holding some "thing".

When you love someone, it isn't delusion, it's not falacy, it's not some dopamine in the brain, it is absolute truth, it is meeting with god, it is sex with geometry.
 

Ralston would tell you this isn't true, that love is a "state feeling" or some bullshit he rationalized.

Ultimately you gotta stop ass lick dead fanatic corpses and start to live inside your reality.

Rolf I like to remember what @Hojo once said - never trust an old white dude guru (or some such words), white people did some bad voodoo juju in our past 🤣🤣🤣

[tsuki]

What does it matter what Ralston is saying about the nature of love? What good does it do to you? It's just hearsay and belief for you, so why bother?

Edited 4 hours ago by tsuki

[Breakingthewall]

11 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What does it matter what Ralston is saying about the nature of love? What good does it do to you? It's just hearsay and belief for you, so why bother?

Because he's an iconic spiritual teacher listened to by millions, and he defines what human spiritual awakening is. The thing is, he's a limited, misguided, and perhaps quite narcissistic guy, and that's rather sad, since he defines the current level of human spirituality. 

[tsuki]

32 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Because he's an iconic spiritual teacher listened to by millions, and he defines what human spiritual awakening is. The thing is, he's a limited, misguided, and perhaps quite narcissistic guy, and that's rather sad, since he defines the current level of human spirituality. 

His whole teaching is about getting you to contemplate the matter for yourself. He's not going to tell you anything, ever. That's the point of his reply. Have you ever read or watched anything he created? It should be clear.

[Breakingthewall]

21 minutes ago, tsuki said:

His whole teaching is about getting you to contemplate the matter for yourself. He's not going to tell you anything, ever.

He has a clearly defined paradigm, like any other teacher. For example, in this thread we're discussing his statements about love.

The thing is, his paradigm is completely aligned with Zen Buddhism and Neo-Advaita non-duality. And what happens is that these spiritual currents are (in my opinion, of course) limited. And in the spirituality, limited is equivalent to false. Especially when you claim that your limits are absolute and deny everything that goes beyond them. 

[tsuki]

10 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

He has a clearly defined paradigm, like any other teacher. For example, in this thread we're discussing his statements about love.

The thing is, his paradigm is completely aligned with Zen Buddhism and Neo-Advaita non-duality. And what happens is that these spiritual currents are (in my opinion, of course) limited. And in the spirituality, limited is equivalent to false. Especially when you claim that your limits are absolute and deny everything that goes beyond them. 

You're just mad he's not supporting your favorite way of expression. Isn't it just identification? Truth needs no defending, it's self apparent, no?

[tsuki]

Unless your metaphysics are apophatic, there is always a limited paradigm.

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You're just mad he's not supporting your favorite way of expression. Isn't it just identification? Truth needs no defending, it's self apparent, no?

45 minutes ago, tsuki said:

 

Well, what I really think is that Ralston is fundamentally wrong. His error is complete, like all Zen Buddhism and neo-Advaita spirituality. His ontology has false pillars, and that leads him down a dead end.

Reality is not consciousness, it is conscious. The empty mind is not your essential self; this is absurd. Why is an empty mind the origin of the universe? Of course, because the universe is an illusion. error and narcissism. Why the empty mind is creating this illusion? 

All spirituality is based on this, let's say, strange premise. The self is false? Why? The self is an expression of the reality. Consciousness is the action of the reality observing itself. Empty mind is a pre requisite to open yourself to the core of what reality is, the absolute unlimited, the source . empty mind is not the "truth". Nothing is false or illusory but layers of the reality. 

All the modern spirituality is based in zen Buddhism and neo advaita, and this happen because it seems logical. But it's simply a mistake. 

4 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Unless your metaphysics are apophatic, there is always a limited paradigm.

You can open yourself to the absolute, to the generative power of reality. In fact it's what we are, expressed in this form. This openess is unlimited.

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[CARDOZZO]

When you see the words Ralston + Love on a phrase or post, it is probably ragebait 😂

[tsuki]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Reality is not consciousness, it is conscious. The empty mind is not your essential self; this is absurd. Why is an empty mind the origin of the universe? Of course, because the universe is an illusion. error and narcissism. Why the empty mind is creating this illusion? 

You're bringing up the empty mind again and I'm quite sure that I've never heard Ralston speak about the empty mind in any of his youtube content, and it is not mentioned once in the book of not knowing. What he's actually doing is dunking on buddhism (zen included) several times for their propensity to believe dogma and mixing cultural stuff with contemplation. I've seen several times that he's advocating against trying to stop the mind so that it's empty. I'm quite sure he does not take the empty mind as absolute reality (when mind is understood as the experience of having a brain).

What he is saying though is that what is true, just is, and is as itself. He opposes it to the things that you are doing. This can be found in the middle of the book of not knowing. This is the distinction between doing and being. He is never opposed to things that don't exist as falsehood, as if it's something you are morally not supposed to do. This is how you create stuff and I've seen him explicitly encourage his students to do so to develop their ability. What he advocates for though is being honest in what you are doing. That is the point of contemplation.

[tsuki]

There may be some confusion about calling things false or true so I'm going to follow up on that. What is true, just is, is as itself and is not altered to be that. When you inspect it, it does not turn out to be something else, if it were something else upon inspection, it would be an illusion. Something is existentially true if it exists because of its necessity, it exists through itself and for itself and for its own sake. Everything else is false. This ties to his idea of existential thinking, which means thinking while suspending all knowledge, expectation and assumption. Thinking from nothing, creating from nothing.

This does not imply in any way that whatever is false is bad. He is extremely clear in his communications that good and bad are within the domain of value judgements that serve the purpose of survival/self persistence. He is extremely clear that this is not the pursuit of consciousness and is not contemplation. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

The thing is, his paradigm is completely aligned with Zen Buddhism and Neo-Advaita non-duality. And what happens is that these spiritual currents are (in my opinion, of course) limited. And in the spirituality, limited is equivalent to false. Especially when you claim that your limits are absolute and deny everything that goes beyond them. 

I think you misunderstand Ralston if this is your takeaway.

[Breakingthewall]

55 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I think you misunderstand Ralston if this is your takeaway.

It's possible, but I think that I understand his paradigm, and in my opinion it's wrong. Totally wrong in its basis. Anyway, you wont agree with me because you think that his paradigm is true. That reality is consciousness and realizing that you are consciousness is the absolute truth. I think it's absolute falsehood 😅. 

"Consciousness" means the reality being conscious of itself. So "the absolute truth" would be the reality. Seems something banal, just an interpretation, that really we are in the same idea. No, it's absolutely different. His paradigm will bring you to a dead end, to a limit . 

Anyway, if I misunderstood Ralston, you could explain his essential paradigm, let's see what is it. I read fragments, but I don't going to read a book because in the moment that I see a total mistake (in my (humble) opinion) I stop reading