Peter Ralston On LOVE - Newsletter Response

[integral]

On 5/8/2026 at 9:45 PM, Leo Gura said:

Well, this is a problem. How can I give you something stronger than weed if you can't handle weed? That would be irresponsible of me.

I can take massive amounts of LSD but if I take any weed at all it's nothing but hell and anxiety, and none of it is a mental thing or can be meditated away, it's a physiological response to the substance.

Maybe Related to Mast Cell Activation Syndrome

Edited yesterday at 07:09 PM by integral

[Grateful Dead]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Love is other than unity in an actual sense. Unity is unity.  That's the whole issue here.  

Unity is not a sterile fact. When all separation is abolished, what remains is not just an empty unity. The fundamental quality of perfect unity is love. One could say love is the heart of unity.

[Hojo]

1 hour ago, integral said:

I can take massive amounts of LSD but if I take any weed at all it's nothing but hell and anxiety, and none of it is a mental thing or can be meditated away, it's a physiological response to the substance.

Maybe Related to Mast Cell Activation Syndrome

Thats what weed is for. You get anxiety because you think you are the voice in your head. When you smoke weed your ego goes crazy, it says im dying im dying. Do enough and you will realize the anxiety is just made up BS.

Psychological is mental. So this is contradictory.

You can meditate it away.

Weed is like a drug that turns your ego on fast mode, you can then see what it is.

Weed isnt giving 'you' anxiety its giving your ego anxiety and you are believing that to be you.

When I first try weed me brain say Im dying, my brain is glitching out, im looping, im dead over and over and over. It was just a lie.

Edited yesterday at 08:13 PM by Hojo

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

Unity is not a sterile fact. When all separation is abolished, what remains is not just an empty unity. The fundamental quality of perfect unity is love. One could say love is the heart of unity.

So then it is a fundamental quality of unity not unity itself? Or it is the heart.  So what is the heart?  Is it feeling, emotion, desire, euphoria, all of these things. Or is it ineffable? find out by awakening.  Well then you could say it is Truth. It is God.  It is Awakening.   If you call it Love notice now your definition of metaphysical Love no longer resembles what the word Love is.   So why use it?  I am just pondering.  I am not asking for an answer unless you want to.  

So back to unity.  What is empty unity vs full unity.  If you mean Love is what fills unity and completes it then you can say it is both a facet of unity and the whole of it, depending on perspective.  Thats fine.  It is a facet of the Absolute but also the whole of it.  Just as the finger is the hand.  But it can thus be looked at as a distinct facet or the whole.  I have been asking what it is as a distinct facet of the Absolute (Oneness).  But no one seems to know or want to answer that. Other than saying it is Unity.

Edited yesterday at 09:06 PM by Inliytened1

[integral]

2 hours ago, Hojo said:

Thats what weed is for. You get anxiety because you think you are the voice in your head. When you smoke weed your ego goes crazy, it says im dying im dying. Do enough and you will realize the anxiety is just made up BS.

Psychological is mental. So this is contradictory.

You can meditate it away.

Weed is like a drug that turns your ego on fast mode, you can then see what it is.

Weed isnt giving 'you' anxiety its giving your ego anxiety and you are believing that to be you.

When I first try weed me brain say Im dying, my brain is glitching out, im looping, im dead over and over and over. It was just a lie.

Thats possible, but most people that do weed get a body high and just relax, have sex, they even go to bed.

I know alot of weed smokers, they definitely dont have anxiety from it, like at all... none.

They have no spiritual concept or even any emotional development, there just random people. 

And dont tell me its the strain, what im saying goes deeper then that.

Edited yesterday at 10:19 PM by integral

[Willy Phallicus]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I have been asking what it is as a distinct facet of the Absolute (Oneness).

Its the same question as "what is the absolute? or what is oneness?" - a question that can only be answered by the individual who goes beyond choronzon where the doors of perception are cleansed and everything is revealed.  When that individual comes back, they can't tell you what it is in a way that can be truly understood by someone who never experienced it.

It just is and you just know it.  Love is Infinity and vice versa but saying it as concisely as that still wholly fails to do it any kind of justice.  You need the experience not the answer to a question.  The experience shows you are the answer to the question and there was never any question to begin with.  Total mindfuckery. 

Its like when people go 'i just had this realization and felt this type of way' and you tell them they are God.  Its true but most of them will never believe/embody it so they doubt it like Ralstons doing.

The quote provided from Ralston from Unborn Tao shows where the fly in Ralstons ointment is.  It sounds like he caught only a glimpse (albeit a real good one) of the mystery so he was never really transformed or touched by it and then used his brain exclusively to say something completely redundant (and derivative) about the nature of being but with a closed mind.  

Basically, he didn't turn into a living depiction of Jesus Christ upon reveal so in his estimation there's no way Love can be the heart of this matrix. 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[Ziran]

 

8 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Love is other than unity in an actual sense. Unity is unity.  That's the whole issue here.  

Unity lacking love isn't unity.  It's subjugation.  It's conquering.

Edited 20 hours ago by Ziran

[Inliytened1]

4 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Its the same question as "what is the absolute? or what is oneness?" - a question that can only be answered by the individual who goes beyond choronzon where the doors of perception are cleansed and everything is revealed.  When that individual comes back, they can't tell you what it is in a way that can be truly understood by someone who never experienced it.

It just is and you just know it.  Love is Infinity and vice versa but saying it as concisely as that still wholly fails to do it any kind of justice.  You need the experience not the answer to a question.  The experience shows you are the answer to the question and there was never any question to begin with.  Total mindfuckery. 

Its like when people go 'i just had this realization and felt this type of way' and you tell them they are God.  Its true but most of them will never believe/embody it so they doubt it like Ralstons doing.

The quote provided from Ralston from Unborn Tao shows where the fly in Ralstons ointment is.  It sounds like he caught only a glimpse (albeit a real good one) of the mystery so he was never really transformed or touched by it and then used his brain exclusively to say something completely redundant (and derivative) about the nature of being but with a closed mind.  

Basically, he didn't turn into a living depiction of Jesus Christ upon reveal so in his estimation there's no way Love can be the heart of this matrix. 

 

 Consciousness is mysterious - can you describe what it is or are the definitions circular.   If Love is a quality of Consciousness - then this is not necessarily disagreeing with Ralston because Love is a part or an aspect of Consciousness.   If it is identical but also a facet  (2 sides of the coin) the what is that side. I guess you can't really explain either without using circular definitions as other stated it is just via Being that one truly understands.  

Anyone who has gotten a glimpse of Absolute love please let me know what made it distinct from Consciousness/Being/Unity/Oneness/Infinity for you .

Edited 19 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Grateful Dead]

There is no distinction between love and being. The point is that being IS love. So the realization is that the substance of being is love. Consciousness IS love. You can't differentiate them further, as they are inseparable.

I believe you can actually overlook this realization if you have a very clinical Zen background like Ralston. He simply didn't connect the two points; it's not that absolute truth is something different to him.

We use the word love because it perfectly captures what it's all about: the profound openness and infinite fullness of being and the absence of fear, separation, and defensiveness.

[tsuki]

 

[Breakingthewall]

20 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

Furthermore, he says that the self (ego) is a construct created by the mind. If you confuse your true being with this mental construct, you live in an illusion.

Let's see if I can explain it. Ralston sees everything as truth vs. falsehood. Those are just his opinions; it's a completely superficial (and misleading) view.

The ego, the self-image, isn't an illusion created by the mind; it's a reality created by millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of social interaction. You can transcend the ego, meaning you can not care that your penis is 4 cm, but that doesn't mean the fact that your penis is small is "false."

If you're going to have sex with women, they'll think: "Oh, his penis is small." This isn't false. And this reduces your chances of finding a partner and reproducing, and your operating system is coded to say you should have sex. This isn't false. Perhaps it's a basic level you can transcend, but your 4 cm penis is small, period.

20 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

He says, just like you, that the state of not-knowing, which you call an empty mind, is merely a prerequisite for opening oneself to absolute truth. By not-knowing he means a radical removal of all conceptual frameworks so that it becomes possible to open oneself to the absolute truth. 

The state of not knowing, the silent mind, when you only feel physical sensations, is not more true that the state where you interpret reality, it's just another level of processing. In fact he's interpreting the reality thinking that this state is true and the other is false. 

20 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

What is true is that he sees only formless, pure, inseparable, unlimited being as absolute truth. Which I can well understand, as it is also the highest truth I have realized. What Ralston may not have understood is that the perfect unity is love, and that this is literally the substance of reality.

This is just the zen paradigm, and it's, let's say, false. The empty mind is lot empty, it's full of sensations, perception of your body, could be pain, pleasure. It's just another level. Empty mind is necessary to open yourself to the totality, but it's not equivalent to open yourself to the totality. Empty mind and open heart. Open heart like Christ , Ramakrishna . How is the Ralston heart? 

How Ralston explains the creative power of reality? The universe and that? He would smile like implying that you are retarded and saying very happy of being Ralston: you can't know it! . No, you can know it, but not Ralston because he's closed to the source because he's a narcissist. What you are is the absolute power, the tao, the unlimited source, God. 

What kind of teacher would ridicule 5meo DMT without having tried saying toad juice? It's the way of expressing of a narcissist. He's not humble, he prefers be the one who's right that open himself to the absolute. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Love is not unity, it's the absolute creating power that emerges from the unlimited, the source of the reality that creates universes and life. You could call it absolute being, but it's not tranquil empty being, it's fire. It's the creation of the galaxies, the power that is making your brain interconnected like a magic machine in the middle of the abyss of the reality. It's expansion, big bang, birth and death, intelligence, openess. It's the positive drive of the unlimited. Positive in the sense of affirmation, existing, expanding. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Grateful Dead]

32 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The ego, the self-image, isn't an illusion created by the mind; it's a reality created by millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of social interaction. You can transcend the ego, meaning you can not care that your penis is 4 cm, but that doesn't mean the fact that your penis is small is "false."

If you're going to have sex with women, they'll think: "Oh, his penis is small." This isn't false. And this reduces your chances of finding a partner and reproducing, and your operating system is coded to say you should have sex. This isn't false. Perhaps it's a basic level you can transcend, but your 4 cm penis is small, period.

I never got the feeling that Ralston denied the biological reality of the body. He practiced martial arts for a long time, which is a good example of this. The evolutionary survival instinct is, of course, a fact, and he often talks about it, but the judgment and the mental construct that the mind builds: "I am inferior because of my small penis" is not a fact; it's a mental construct, an illusion that can be deconstructed. So, the assumption that the "self" is a fixed, independent entity is the conceptual illusion.

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The state of not knowing, the silent mind, when you only feel physical sensations, is not more true that the state where you interpret reality, it's just another level of processing. In fact he's interpreting the reality thinking that this state is true and the other is false. 

No one is saying that this state is truer than an active interpretation of reality. But you're more likely to have a breakthrough when your mind is clear and focused, or do you see it differently?

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

How is the Ralston heart?

Yes, I agree on that point; I also think Ralston's heart is closed.

38 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

How Ralston explains the creative power of reality? The universe and that?

Ralston says the diversity of the universe exists because consciousness draws boundaries and makes distinctions. The creative force is, so to speak, the universe's ability to bring form out of formlessness. Physical reality is not a construct separate from absolute Being. It is absolute Being itself, which makes itself perceptible as form through the activity of the mind. He wrote an entire book about it, 'The Genius of Being'.

38 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

What kind of teacher would ridicule 5meo DMT without having tried saying toad juice? It's the way of expressing of a narcissist. He's not humble, he prefers be the one who's right that open himself to the absolute. 

Again I kind of agree here. However, I don't think I would describe him as a narcissist. Perhaps somewhat arrogant or closed.

[Breakingthewall]

22 minutes ago, Grateful Dead said:

I am inferior because of my small penis" is not a fact; it's a mental construct, an illusion that can be deconstructed. So, the assumption that the "self" is a fixed, independent entity is the conceptual illusion.

It's not an illusion, it's a reality. You are inferior in a penis contest. What you could do is not participate in it, but if your inner drive is participating in penis contest because it's implanted in your system by evolution, you will lose the contest, so you are inferior. You could transcend your drive to participate in penis contest, but you can't deny that drive calling it mental illusion because it isn't. It's a drive that comes from the fight for reproduction when we were monkeys. If you deny it as an illusion you will be always under it's influence, but unconscious. Then you will be a narcissist. 

26 minutes ago, Grateful Dead said:

No one is saying that this state is truer than an active interpretation of reality. But you're more likely to have a breakthrough when your mind is clear and focused, or do you see it differently?

Sure, but saying that a clear mind is true and a noisy mind is false is like saying that being healthy is true and being sick is false. If you are a spiritual teacher and you spread those ideas , well, you are putting a mess in the minds of your readers. 

28 minutes ago, Grateful Dead said:

Again I kind of agree here. However, I don't think I would describe him as a narcissist. Perhaps somewhat arrogant or closed

Anyone who calls himself a spiritual teacher has to be absolutely humble an open, not arrogant and closed. If you go with the flag of the truth being a liar you are just a scammer, a narcissist. 

[Grateful Dead]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's not an illusion, it's a reality. You are inferior in a penis contest. What you could do is not participate in it, but if your inner drive is participating in penis contest because it's implanted in your system by evolution, you will lose the contest, so you are inferior. You could transcend your drive to participate in penis contest, but you can't deny that drive calling it mental illusion because it isn't. It's a drive that comes from the fight for reproduction when we were monkeys. If you deny it as an illusion you will be always under it's influence, but unconscious. Then you will be a narcissis

Lol, yeah, I knew you'd write that. You're right, it needs to be corrected or transcended. Simply calling it an illusion is more like spiritual bypassing.

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, but saying that a clear mind is true and a noisy mind is false is like saying that being healthy is true and being sick is false. If you are a spiritual teacher and you spread those ideas , well, you are putting a mess in the minds of your readers. 

But that's not what Ralston says. He only says that the state of not-knowing is the best prerequisite for enlightenment.

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Anyone who calls himself a spiritual teacher has to be absolutely humble an open, not arrogant and closed. If you go with the flag of the truth being a liar you are just a scammer, a narcissist. 

Yes, I see it the same way. For me, Ralston is more like a scientist who deals with consciousness. He has radically deconstructed and investigated the mind. I find his books to be well-written and clear, but sometimes a little redundant.

[Breakingthewall]

23 minutes ago, Grateful Dead said:

But that's not what Ralston says. He only says that the state of not-knowing is the best prerequisite for enlightenment.

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

 

I think that what he says is the the state of not knowing is enlightenment itself. But at the same time, he's creating a contradictory mental mess because all his teach is knowing what is absolutely true.

He says: What is absolutely true? That which never changes. That which changes is false. This is within the domain of the evaluative mind. He doesn't understand that what is absolutely true for him, what never changes, is the observer. This is the paradigm of non-dual spirituality, and it's completely wrong.

The observer, what they call empty consciousness, the screen where everything appears according to Rupert spira, is precisely the self in its ultimate expression. It's a creation of the brain so that complex life forms can access a new phase of existence in which reality perceives itself.

It's called non-duality, and they glorify duality by elevating the observer to the category of "truth" and classifying what is observed as "illusion." This paradigm is absolutely limiting and causes millions of spiritual seekers to become stuck in an enlightenment that is mental castration. Seriously, it's better to become a Muslim or a Jehovah's Witness than a non-dualistic neo-Advaita.

Edited 6 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Grateful Dead]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

I think that what he says is the the state of not knowing is enlightenment itself. 

No, that's incorrect. Ralston clearly states that not-knowing is a method, an attitude or a tool. It's a prerequisite for direct experience, but not enlightenment itself.

11 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

He says: What is absolutely true? That which never changes. That which changes is false. This is within the domain of the evaluative mind. He doesn't understand that what is absolutely true for him, what never changes, is the observer. This is the paradigm of non-dual spirituality, and it's completely wrong.

The observer, what they call empty consciousness, the screen where everything happens according to Rupert spira, is precisely the self in its ultimate expression. It's a creation of the brain so that complex life forms can access a new phase of existence in which reality perceives itself.

For Ralston, the observer is not absolute truth. He describes the observer merely as another construct of the self, which should be deconstructed.

What is true is that Ralston calls that which never changes truth, but he sees this as Being where the distinction between observer and observed has also broken down. Being is timeless and eternal; therefore, it does not change. Do you believe the truth changes?

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

No, that's incorrect. Ralston clearly states that not-knowing is a method, an attitude or a tool. It's a prerequisite for direct experience, but not enlightenment itself.

For Ralston, the observer is not absolute truth. He describes the observer merely as another construct of the self, which should be deconstructed.

What is true is that Ralston calls that which never changes truth, but he sees this as Being where the distinction between observer and observed has also broken down. Being is timeless and eternal; therefore, it does not change. Do you believe the truth changes?

If he doesn't say "you are consciousness", then it's not exactly the non dualistic paradigm but Its really the same in another formula. look, when Ralston says that absolute truth is being because it never changes, he means that in his actual subjective experience, if you achieve a state without inner friction and are totally present, without conflict, what remains is the feeling that you are, and for him, that is absolute truth, since you truly are. Then he does an interpretation: as this never changes (in those years that I remember), this is the absolute truth. Being a loser is false because it can change. Well, it's his interpretation of what "truth " means. You could call it truth or consciousness . This is just a mental differentiation between truth and falsehood, same than between consciousness and illusion. Means the negation of the content of the perception as falsehood or illusion 

Reaching a meditative state where all labels mean nothing to you and you are one with your body's sensations, with your current experience, is a much more pleasant way of existing as a human than being obsessed because your 3-year-old is autistic, but it's not more "truthful" it's simply the basis of the experience being a human. It's mindfulness, let's say another level of perception, more clean, difficult to achieve, you have to face and solve a lot of mental trauma for that. I try to be in that state all day if there is not a real problem; it's a state where there is no internal friction, and experience is fluid, pleasant, and beauty is appreciated in every moment, but that's not enlightenment or "truth".

one can open to total depth, being the reality perceiving what it truly is: its inner fire, the source, the creative power that implies the unlimited. You could call it God, maybe tao would be better. This is not a chimera; it is absolutely real, and I would say that you can't remain open to that for very long because it's not healthy, although I'm not sure about that, nor about what level of stable openness is possible. But this is not "always the case", it's a revelation that happens. And it's not an "illusion", it's the reality looking itself in all it's depth 

The problem with Ralston is not his teaching of clean mind, it's that he denies the mystical openess as false, illusory, because it's not always the case. "Always" in some years that we remember. If Ralston would teach mindfulness, perfect, but he says that this is enlightenment, and he ridicules deep perception. He ridicules Christ , al hallaj, Ramakrishna and lao tse. Maybe he won't say it but his message is: those are bullshit, go and smoke toad juice if you want, idiot. What is real is THIS, not those illusions. 

What Ralston really say at the end is the same than non dualistic: consciousness is real. Content is illusion. But in another formula 

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

@Grateful Dead

Deep down, what Ralston unknowingly believes is solipsism. Reality is me, the fact that I exist, but what I perceive is not real. It's an illusion. Only I, the perceiver, am real, because I never change; what is perceived changes, so it's not real, it's a dream. He doesn't formulate it this way, he says that observer and content collapse, but what he's saying is exactly that, the same as non-duality and idealism/consciousness, just calling truth/being the observer, falsehood the content. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Grateful Dead]

32 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

look, when Ralston says that absolute truth is being because it never changes, he means that in his actual subjective experience, if you achieve a state without inner friction and are totally present, without conflict, what remains is the feeling that you are, and for him, that is absolute truth, since you truly are. Then he does an interpretation: as this never changes (in those years that I remember), this is the absolute truth.

I really don't know how you arrived at these assumptions about Ralston. After all, he repeatedly emphasizes that this is not about attaining a pleasant state. As described earlier, for him, mindfulness or being an aligned human without frictionare are merely temporary experiences of the mind.

He explains all the time that enlightenment has nothing to do with feeling good or anything of that nature. So, your criticism here is truly completely unfounded.

According to Ralston, the direct awareness of Being is not about becoming an aligned person; rather, it is the complete collapse of the conceptual self. He states that enlightenment makes it possible to transform the self and achieve a state of inner freedom  but for him, that belongs to an entirely different domain, that of transformation.

38 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

He ridicules Christ , al hallaj, Ramakrishna and lao tse. Maybe he won't say it but his message is: those are bullshit, go and smoke toad juice if you want, idiot. What is real is THIS, not those illusions. 

As far as I understand it, Ralston does not deny mystical experiences either. He merely warns that the mind immediately attempts to label, categorize, and claim ownership of these experiences. For him, pure Being is the ultimate source and absolute power, and he argues that one does not need a mystical narrative to simply be that. I do not believe he is ridiculing Lao Tzu or Christ; rather, he is critiquing those who worship the descriptions of such experiences instead of seeking to have the direct experience themselves.

22 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Deep down, what Ralston unknowingly believes is solipsism. Reality is me, the fact that I exist, but what I perceive is not real. It's an illusion. Only I, the perceiver, am real, because I never change; what is perceived changes, so it's not real, it's a dream. He doesn't formulate it this way, he says that observer and content collapse, but what he's saying is exactly that, the same as non-duality and idealism/consciousness, just calling truth/being the observer, falsehood the content. 

I don't think so. I believe that by Being, Ralston means what it truly is.