Peter Ralston On LOVE - Newsletter Response

[Breakingthewall]

For example this video. He talks about feeling of incompletude of humans and he compares it with a 3 legs dog that doesn't feel incomplete . 

Let's see, humans have evolved for millions of years as tribal beings, part of a group. There are many neurological mechanisms that form the human structure of group cohesion and comparison. This has enormous power. Rejection from the group activates pain receptors equal to, perhaps even greater than, physical pain. If a chimpanzee loses its status in the group, its cortisol levels and systemic inflammation skyrocket. The same happens in a human. Nowadays we live in an artificial society that is heritage of the horror of 18, 19, and 20 centuries, when the party in London or Moscow being a worker seemed more or less to the hell. Then the fool humans feel incomplete. That's absolutely normal 

You can transcend this plane of functioning with enormous insight and difficulty, but to say it's an illusion is a joke. Especially coming from a guy who's been a champion of everything, a millionaire, idolized. His way of expressing is like, it's so fool, poor idiot humans, feeling incomplete.

The dog doesn't feel incomplete with 3 legs, but if you isolate it in a room for 1 year, it will feel absolutely incomplete, depressed and probably if will die. 

Then, what's the point of those speeches? 

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Ziran]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I think that unity doesnt mean love. it's obvious that everything is the reality in different manifestations, no one could argue this, but this doesn't mean that reality "loves" itself because it's one. 

I think that love is the positive drive of reality channeled from a human interface that excludes what threatens it. Positive drive in the sense of affirmative, being, manifestation, creation, expansion.

I think there's an important distinction between "unity" and "uniting".  The content of my post relies on this distinction. 

If so, what I'm hoping to share is this:  There cannot be "uniting", ( the primordial on-going event which is at the root of nearly everything ) lacking an outeaching, benevolent motive.  This specific motive, outreaching and benevolent, both simultaneously, is the thing, for lack of better words, commonly referred to as "Love" or "Loving".

[Breakingthewall]

47 minutes ago, Ziran said:

I think there's an important distinction between "unity" and "uniting".  The content of my post relies on this distinction. 

If so, what I'm hoping to share is this:  There cannot be "uniting", ( the primordial on-going event which is at the root of nearly everything ) lacking an outeaching, benevolent motive.  This specific motive, outreaching and benevolent, both simultaneously, is the thing, for lack of better words, commonly referred to as "Love" or "Loving".

It depends a lot. Sitting Bull, who was a great mystic, might have felt the absolute power of Wakan Tanka , the great mystery, by torturing himself with the Sun Dance, or in a ritual torture of a tribal enemy, in which the enemy was skinned alive and then devoured by ants.

 Perhaps Sitting Bull would have seen the creative and destructive power of reality in all its brilliance, and might have fervently wished to be the one offered as a sacrifice to the cosmos to dissolve in the whole, demonstrating his courage.

That's absolute love. But yes you are right, it's about union

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Grateful Dead]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

But now you run into the issue of no longer needing two words again.

We can use two words: one to describe the pure existence that is being, and the other to describe the quality of that being that is love.

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

But you cannot escape then by describing this facet of Love as Divine feeling, Divine Emotion, Divine affection, and Divine Desire.  God's Love for itself and all of it's parts.  Its a sexy mofo!

The problem i have with those proclaiming reality is Love want to run away from the very qualities of Love and create some mysterious metaphysical definition that doesnt even exist.

I do not deny that love expresses itself in humans as an ecstatic feeling and a longing for union. Just as Being expresses itself in humans through a clear, unfiltered, pure presence.

But these are both effects that it has on our mind. What I wrote was trying to describe the nature of reality prior to interpretation by a mind.

[Joseph Maynor]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

The problem i have with those proclaiming reality is Love want to run away from the very qualities of Love and create some mysterious metaphysical definition that doesnt even exist.  Perhaps they want to run away from it because they are afraid of what Love actually is.  

I agree with this.

[Breakingthewall]

27 minutes ago, Grateful Dead said:

Just as Being expresses itself in humans through a clear, unfiltered, pure presence.

Maybe that's what you see in the Ralston paradigm, then I agree in some extent. Unfiltered and pure presence for me is the result of absence of inner friction, and it's the pre requisite for enlightenment (in my opinion). It's the result of a inner work where you face all your trauma and fear.

Anyway, For me Ralston doesn't transmit that pressence when I listen him, but who knows . Over all, that's not enlightenment. Enlightenment is more like Jesus christ, al hallaj or Ramakrishna. It's the openess to the absolute. And I think you agree with this, then how's possible that you don't see the Ralston limitation?

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Don't need to make questions, the worldview of people is manifested is their expression. I understand quite good the people with I'm talking with .

The above means you will found beliefs about a person based on assumptions and inferences. Not what a user actually reports, thinks and feels. While you can guess based on the above to a degree - it will always be that - a guess.

It means you don't care about another's truth or really understanding. There's no way to effectively argue a case without this knowledge.

You actually don't understand anything as a result.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The above means you will found beliefs about a person based on assumptions and inferences. Not what a user actually reports, thinks it feels. While you can guess based on the above to a degree - it will always be that - a guess.

It means you don't care about another's truth or really understanding. There's no way to effectively argue a case without this knowledge.

You actually don't understand anything as a result.

You seem very angry, I'm sorry. Anyway, we are talking about Ralston. I said some opinions about the Ralston paradigm, for example above about a video where he talks about incompletude. You could point all my mistakes in my comment, then maybe I could see them

And of course, I make my opinion about others observing them, not believing what they say about themselves 

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

You seem very angry, I'm sorry. Anyway, we are talking about Ralston. I said some opinions about the Ralston paradigm, for example above about a video where he talks about incompletude. You could point all my mistakes in my comment, then maybe I could see them

Not angry no, I just don't understand the closed mindedness. But it's your will, so be it.

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Not angry no, I just don't understand the closed mindedness. But it's your will, so be it.

That's good that you call me closed minded. Anyway, where are my mistakes? 

For example in my comment  in the video about incompletude 

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's good that you call me closed minded. Anyway, where are my mistakes? 

For example about the video about incompletude 

If we don't try to understand another's worldview, how can we effectively argue against it? If you base what you 'think' you know on assumptions and inferences without attempting to understand the source, you will simply misrepresent the other position and form an easy takedown to gratify the ego. Over persuing true understanding and good faith discussion.

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

If we don't try to understand another's worldview, how can we effectively argue against it? If you base what you 'think' you know on assumptions and inferences without attempting to understand the source, you will simply misrepresent the other position and form an easy takedown to gratify the ego. Over persuing true understanding and good faith discussion.

Listen to Ralston's video, read my comment, and tell me where I'm wrong. If you're right, I'll admit it.

[Joseph Maynor]

Some people just have to be right and controlling.  It's a personality type.  The way I learned what I said is by interacting with people face to face in real life.

Edited 1 hour ago by Joseph Maynor

[Breakingthewall]

39 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Some people just have to be right and controlling.  It's a personality type.  

It's very different to have the need of being the one who's right than seeing the absolute mistake in a spiritual teacher that has great influence in the spiritual human paradigm nowadays and don't point it. It's not a matter of opinion, it's that he's totally wrong and is a huge hindrance for any Spiritual seeker. His message is seductive and false from my view. Anyway, many tell me that I'm this and that but no one say nothing about what I said about Ralston paradigm, except greateful death . Maybe it's me who's wrong, then tell me where

For me this is like an exercise to see where are the barriers, not an exercise to be great. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The way I learned what I said is by interacting with people face to face in real life.

But we are not talking face to face. Anyway, it's still real life. You could judge the message instead the messenger, then we can talk about the topic 

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

But we are not talking face to face. Anyway, it's still real life. You could judge the message instead the messenger, then we can talk about the topic 

I would say not really.  I don't even know what you look like.

[Grateful Dead]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Ralston also says that you create your trauma with your mental activity, and I think that your mental activity is created by your trauma.

I think Ralston would say that while an initial traumatic event happens, the ongoing trauma and suffering are actively created and maintained by the mind's unconscious assumptions and defensive reactions.

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

He always use the term: absolute truth. He can say anything, but "truth" implies a mental valoration. 

As I understand it, Ralston doesn't use the expression "absolute truth" to divide something into true and false, but rather to point to what actually is when all concepts fall away. Where you say "hallelujah," "glorious," Ralston says: "absolute truth."

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Saying that separation is an illusion is another mental valoration. What means separation? If you meditate and your mind is empty, you don't think: oh, there is no separation. Separation between what? Your mind is empty, period. Separation is real, you are an organism interacting with the external. You can empty your mind, but this doesn't implies that there is no separation, implies that your mind is empty. 

Nothing is "absolute truth", because nothing is false. What you can do is open yourself to your ultimate nature, to the unlimited that is, but this doesn't implies that the fact your 4 cm dick (following the previous conversation, not personal 😅)is short is an illusion, it's a reality in a level. 

Again, I think Ralston wouldn't really disagree with you. Biological distinctions are functional realities. What you describe as an empty mind, Ralston would describe as a state, probably a state of not-knowing, and you're right, one doesn't think of separation in that state.

In my view, when Ralston speaks of the illusion of separation, he means psychological separation, that is, the idea that you are an isolated ego that has to survive in a dangerous world. Yes, in a certain sense, relatively speaking, that's true. But as you know, one can realize that the separate feeling of self is a pure mental construct, or do you disagree?

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then if Ralston says that enlightenment is knowing what is absolutely true, this implies that everything else is false, and this is a mistaken approach (for me). Of course he will say that. It's impossible to explain, it's enlightenment and you have to do it. But we can deduct his mistake from his words

I think you're misunderstanding. To my understanding, Ralston doesn't say that enlightenment is knowing what is Absolute Truth. Ralston says enlightenment is the moment of direct experience of Absolute Truth, precisely what you describe as openness to the unlimited. He almost never actually speaks of enlightenment, but only of enlightenment experiences.

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe that's what you see in the Ralston paradigm, then I agree in some extent. Unfiltered and pure presence for me is the result of absence of inner friction, and it's the pre requisite for enlightenment (in my opinion). It's the result of a inner work where you face all your trauma and fear.

Yes, that's what I see in Ralston and also in Tolle. And I don't believe that one can express and embody this presence without having had a profound opening and being in the process of enlightenment. Do I believe that Tolle or Ralston are as deeply realized as Jesus, Al Hallaj, or Ramakrishna? No, not even close, but they are some of the best teachers of our time and therefore relevant to me.

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Anyway, For me Ralston doesn't transmit that pressence when I listen him, but who knows . Over all, that's not enlightenment. Enlightenment is more like Jesus christ, al hallaj or Ramakrishna. It's the openess to the absolute. And I think you agree with this, then how's possible that you don't see the Ralston limitation?

I see the limitations in Ralston just as I do in Tolle. I also think that, to put it simply, both of them have closed hearts.

And I also don't think that Ralston transmits presence, at least not in contrast to Eckhart Tolle. But I think Ralston doesn't even want that, because then he would make you dependent on his presence. What I do notice with Ralston, however, is that he conveys presence and clarity through his teachings. So if I truly put into practice what he tries to teach, then I see the inner clarity of it and get a sense of the depth of his realization. With Tolle, it's the exact opposite: his teachings aren't profound or particularly deep, but his presence is very strong, and that conveys to me the depth of his realization.

So, while I see limitations in both, I also see that they are far ahead of me in many areas that I also aspire to embody, and therefore I learn from them. If it's purely about opening myself to ultimate reality, then I'm only following the teachings of Jesus. But since I'm unfortunately not permanently completely open and also have to be active in the world and live consciously there, I want to find ways to do this as smoothly as possible. Because Ralston and Tolle live in the same era as me and understand the demands of this world, I find it easier to relate to them in that sense. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

see the limitations in Ralston just as I do in Tolle. I also think that, to put it simply, both of them have closed hearts.

Then their level of enlightenment is exactly equal to zero. It's not like, he's almost enlightened. It's more: he's deceiving himself and others because he's a kind of narcissist very subtle, very difficult to grasp. Enlightenment means exactly open heart. Open heart means absence of defense. They operate from defense, just watch a Ralston video, it's obvious 

Lets see, the first time I read Tolle, I had the same reaction as everyone else: I thought, "It's obvious! This man is a true genius, it's all so simple..." But now, when I listen to him, he sounds.to me like a professional con artist. I suppose he doesn't do it on purpose... or maybe he does.

Let's see, when Tolle talks about the pain-body, how it activates, the trauma, and how you can choose to activate it or not, he's lying. It doesn't work like that. The trauma is embedded in your system, in your energetic vibration; it's absolutely real, it's your way of being now, it exists as a path in your brain. And if you categorize it as an illusion, a concept, a falsehood, as Tolle and Ralston do, you'll never get rid of it. It's the endless carrot; you'll always be chasing it, thinking, "I almost have it, it's as if I already have it, only... the trauma comes back." A minor flaw? No, an absolute con, and I'll try to explain how they to their movie 

Tolle tells you: a zebra doesn't care about what time is it, it's always now. It's similar than Ralston in the video I posted above saying that a 3 legs dog doesn't feel incomplete. A zebra and a dog are not a human 😅. It's like if I say to a zebra: why do you complain if I'm stabbing you? If I stab a three it doesn't complain, for a three everything is fine. I'm going to explain you my experience with trauma, I don't know if teorically, I know it absolutely directly 

Edited 33 minutes ago by Breakingthewall