Peter Ralston On LOVE - Newsletter Response

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Grateful Dead said:

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.

Then what is exactly enlightenment according Ralston?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

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

Let's see if I can explain this clearly and briefly because it's very obvious. Ralston says that enlightenment is when you realize what you are. Like a change of perspective, you are no longer the ego, but the entire experience. This is simply a change of identity that they call non-identification. You're still not open to what reality is. You simply think that you are not a person but the experience, but that means absolutely nothing 😅. It's a completely mental, flat story, without any importance. Maybe it allows you to disconnect from your suffering a little, because it depersonalizes you. It's a total scam 😂😂. Seriously, you can't imagine what a scam it is; that's not enlightenment. It makes absolutely no difference whether you are the ego, consciousness, the self, all of that is mental. The key is openness to the depths, to what you truly are. REALLY!! It's not an illusion, nor is it being or anything like that; you are the damn Tao, you are the absolute glory from which the cosmos emanates, you are the total source that springs from the limitless. You are the absolute intelligence that is shining in the trillions of connections in your brain. You are life, creation, glory, absolute perfection. It makes exactly the same whether you are the ego, the experience, the self, the consciousness or anything, you are the living reality that shines like a Big Bang. Hallelujah, my friend, because you are the unleashed absolute power of that which has no bottom. In your heart is life; you are life, not a perspective. You are the substance, not an idea.

Raston will tell you: I say eliminate all identification; what remains is what you are. Identification makes absolutely no difference. There is no difference. That enlightenment is not enlightenment. Ego or no ego is exactly the same. totally and exactly the same thing. Through the ego, that which lives can become transparent. In contrast, the "enlightened" are more closed. A mother in Africa dying of hunger can have a moment when the divine manifest a moment. An old man who's going to die alone of cancer, maybe in some moments, in a glimpse, see. He sees the light. The pure light of what is everything under the surface. He don't realize that he's this or that, he sees the light. And he is one with the light, because if the tao manifest to you, it's because the tao is seeing itself. 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Willy Phallicus]

17 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

can you describe what it is or are the definitions circular. 

Ive said this in other threads.  The argument, if you will, is exactly that - circular (so is everything in the solar system from planets to orbits).  That's not a mistake or some weird coincidence either.  See the ouroboros.   

Now of course circular reasoning isn't logically coherent but that's just par for the course when you're talking about the absolute or God.  I can't logically prove Inliytened1 is God but I know that he is.  So yeah, its circular and there's plenty of clues that's the case.

[Ziran]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Love is not unity, it's the absolute creating power that emerges from the unlimited

? Love is not unity ?

? Love is uniting ?

If so, the reconciled assertion reads as follows:

"Love is uniting.  It's the absolute creating power that is emerging from the unlimited."

Thoughts?

[Willy Phallicus]

Unity is love because love is unity.

When you love someone you feel connected with them and ultimately, you are them.

[Grateful Dead]

12 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then what is exactly enlightenment according Ralston?

A sudden, immediate breakthrough in direct consciousness, in which the fundamental nature of who and what you are is absolutely clearly recognized.

11 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Like a change of perspective, you are no longer the ego, but the entire experience. This is simply a change of identity that they call non-identification. You're still not open to what reality is. You simply think that you are not a person but the experience, but that means absolutely nothing 😅. It's a completely mental, flat story, without any importance. Maybe it allows you to disconnect from your suffering a little, because it depersonalizes you. It's a total scam

I am increasingly getting the impression that you haven't really engaged with Ralston's work. The very thing you describe here as his understanding of enlightenment is precisely what Ralston warns against in his books. He literally states that a genuine breakthrough is not an intellectual shift in perspective, but rather the actual, fundamental dissolution of the illusion of separation. It is raw, unfiltered reality, prior to thought and not merely a superficial mental narrative.

11 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

You are the absolute intelligence that is shining in the trillions of connections in your brain. You are life, creation, glory, absolute perfection. It makes exactly the same whether you are the ego, the experience, the self, the consciousness or anything, you are the living reality that shines like a Big Bang. Hallelujah, my friend, because you are the unleashed absolute power of that which has no bottom. In your heart is life; you are life, not a perspective. You are the substance, not an idea.

He also does not deny the reality of the profound essence to which you point. However, he refuses to express it in the Romance-based language you are using here. If you label ultimate reality as glorious, magnificent, or whatever else, then from his perspective you are once again turning it into a concept. So, I think he would say that you are replacing non-knowing with belief. He asserts that absolute Being requires no breathtaking description to be what it is. In other words, instead of remaining open and in a state of not-knowing, you cling to the mind that claims to know what reality is.

11 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Raston will tell you: I say eliminate all identification; what remains is what you are. Identification makes absolutely no difference. There is no difference. That enlightenment is not enlightenment. Ego or no ego is exactly the same. totally and exactly the same thing. Through the ego, that which lives can become transparent. In contrast, the "enlightened" are more closed. A mother in Africa dying of hunger can have a moment when the divine manifest a moment. An old man who's going to die alone of cancer, maybe in some moments, in a glimpse, see. He sees the light. The pure light of what is everything under the surface. He don't realize that he's this or that, he sees the light. And he is one with the light, because if the tao manifest to you, it's because the tao is seeing itself. 

Ralston says: detach yourself from every identification, and then, in a state of non-knowing, contemplate the essence of your Self and perhaps a spontaneous breakthrough will then occur. You say the dying man 'sees the light and is one with it.' In that moment of oneness, his ego-identity has collapsed. That is exactly what Ralston is talking about. The only difference is that Ralston provides a conscious, rigorous method to facilitate this collapse of separation here and now, rather than leaving it to chance or waiting for a crisis.

[tsuki]

@Grateful Dead Come on man, @Breakingthewall is here just to be a contrarian, he hasn't read or watched much of Ralston's communications and is speaking from ignorance. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

On 20/05/2026 at 0:26 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Anyway, you wont agree with me because you think that his paradigm is true. 

Do I? Or do I have my own truth? 

If you haven't noticed, across our dialogue, and all dialogue with others on this forum, you rarely ask questions about others worldview to try to understand in earnest. Let alone mine. 

You simply never drop frame and insist on your own. Again and again. And again. And again and again. 

And that's fine, you can do that if you will. Because you won't ever abandon your worldview in earnest open enquiry, to really try to understand someone else's, you misunderstand others. And this is why you don't understand Ralston. You demonstrate it with almost every statement you make. 

You also ask others to teach you about Ralston through their own lens of interpretation. Further removing you from understanding him.

My suggestion is, if you really want to participate in a real teardown of Ralston - you're going to have to batten down the hatches and read his books.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru