Virtually

How is it possible that Leo and Ralston disagree?

251 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I'm writing this trying to make sure I don't bullshit myself on the path, given that two of the most reliable teachers I've learned the most from are disagreeing on such central issues, which I was not expecting

I just read Peter Ralston's response to mail Leo recently wrote to him, and I found some major disagreements on fundamental matters. You can read them yourself on page 15

https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d

So here's my take: there is some misunderstanding going on, especially due to the language Leo uses when he communicates, to which Ralston responds:

"Direct conscious is not relative and so there is no this or that. In your descriptions of awakening there are a lot of this’s and that's, here and nowhere. You may well have had some insights but I think you are also making conclusions about it and extrapolating out where things might go", pointing to 'conclusions' Leo made about the nature of Love

As far as I understand it, Ralston is concerned that Leo is mistaking the exploration of relativity with direct consciousness, which is what some users on the forum also said about Leo. They stated things along the lines of "levels of consciousness is a relative matter, no matter how high your level of consciousness is"

Once you get to the realization that relativity is identical to absolute, all there is left to do is to transform relative experience and raise your level of consciousness to match that. But that is different from direct realization. I don't doubt that Leo has had genuine enlightenment experiences on 5-MeO, although it seems to me that he's confusing the enlightenment itself with the state that better allows an awakening experience

Also @Leo Gura, as far as you know, has Ralston ever taken 5-MeO? He seems to be making such claims about the substance without having ever tried it, or only after having tried psychedelics for recreational use in the '60s

 

Edited by Virtually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AlphaAbundance said:

Where can I research about this? Read this email and response?

I edited my post and added the link to Ralston's newsletter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They didn't seem to be on the same page on this subject as far back as 2016-2017. This was the most awkward part of the interview (see part 27* on youtube if it does not link properly):

See part 22 for discussions about "love," which also seems to be a central difference between the two.

Quote

has Ralston ever taken 5-MeO? He seems to be making such claims about the substance without having ever tried it, or only after having tried psychedelics for recreational use in the '60s

In the newsletter it seems like he indirectly references taking LSD. Leo also refers to teachers who were "too scared" to take 5-MEO, and I'm assuming this is one of them based on his outward aversion to drugs.

Edited by ZZZZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also at a certain point leo asks if we can use the same words for describing the nature of consciousness. so maybe their disagreement is just in words. Absolute love is the same as absolute truth, they are talking about the "same" absolute. after all they're just words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, Virtually said:

@ZZZZ I think you were referring to episode 27

 

you're right, that's what I was remembering (and have edited to reflect that), but 22 does address "love" directly. I think it was Ralston's worst explanation if I remember correctly (and he admits that himself).

Edited by ZZZZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I like this guy. Once you become nothing, you become infinity. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Peter basically brought up all the points I was making in my discussions with Leo.

Also interesting how Leo says one ‘can’t be in a constant kensho’. This is not what I have found. Liberation/Final Awakening is basically that. No more ego forever. Which means Unity forever. Which means Love forever. And this isn’t the end of the hologram/dream. The hologram/dream keeps playing, only now you are not ‘trapped inside it’. You have transcended it.

I mean this is the goal of every serious Truth seeker. To finally let go of oneself and be one with God.


https://youtu.be/Ts_WDlgNMoo

Die before you die ^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ShivaShakti But even then, you can become conscious of Nothing and that Nothing = infinity, and that's all it is to it. Once you start to ascribe properties to it, you confuse it for the absolute. Mistaking a relative quality for the absolute is where you can bullshit yourself, and it is not the same recognizing that absolute and relative are identical, or "seeing the absolute in the relative" [I edited this last sentence]

Rather, those qualities can be seen as ways in which the two are identical. But again, "ways" / "facets" is relative - and may be contingent on the person who awakens

The words we use are secondary, which I think is what's going on about the "love" matter. Maybe it didn't occur to Ralston to call it love, ever

Edited by Virtually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, ShivaShakti said:

@Virtually How can you be conscious of nothing (a lack of anything)?

You can be conscious of that or not. Also, the distinction between something and nothing is imaginary. Nothing is what something is

Edited by Virtually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Virtually Nothing is a word that symbolises/points to a lack of something. You cannot conceptualise nothing. You can only experience it. If you're going to say distinctions are imaginary then I can say I am imaginary and so are you and render this argument pointless.

Edited by ShivaShakti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Virtually said:

@ShivaShakti But even then, you can become conscious of Nothing and that Nothing = infinity, and that's all it is to it. Once you start to ascribe properties to it, you confuse it for the absolute. Mistaking a relative quality for the absolute not recognizing that absolute and relative are identical

Yes, this is what I have found. To fully realize the absolute, you just have to give up ALL. It’s not rocketscience.


https://youtu.be/Ts_WDlgNMoo

Die before you die ^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, ShivaShakti said:

@Virtually Nothing is a word that symbolises/points to a lack of something. You cannot conceptualise nothing. If you're going to say distinctions are imaginary then I can say I am imaginary and so are you and render this argument pointless.

Right

I want to redirect the conversation to my original point though. Which is that Leo seems to be mistaking the exploration of the scope of relativity/infinity with infinity itself. That is, as Ralson says, infinity is not some "thing" which exists, it's not more and more. And I'm sure Leo is conscious of this.

Also, Leo said in this last video that after having being done with this first infinity, the possibility of exploring a second "order" of infinity came up, and so a third, a fourth, and so on until infinity. But this is exactly what both Leo and Ralston say about reality: you can go on exploring it for as long as you can. But that's just within the relative. You can't get "more" than absolute. Because it's everything already

Again, it may have to do with the way Leo's communicating

Edited by Virtually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Virtually said:

They stated things along the lines of "levels of consciousness is a relative matter, no matter how high your level of consciousness is"

If it’s being described, especially as others and their levels of consciousness, silence, truth, is abandoned, and “that ain’t it”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ShivaShakti Sure, distinctions are imaginary/relative. The nature of distinction is that every distinction is itself. That's what's absolute about it

Edited by Virtually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Nahm Can you please clarify what you mean? I don't understand what part of the conversation you're referring to

Edited by Virtually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Virtually

Sorry if confusing, it’s kind of the nature of the topic. I meant it in regard to what I quoted, to levels of consciousness. If I am assessing and communicating in regards to your “level of consciousness”, then I am believing there is you and that there are levels of consciousness, which is to say I am believing there is a me which is experiencing levels of consciousness. But there are not-two, wether that is me & consciousness, or you & consciousness, or a dichotomy of levels of consciousness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm ok that makes it much clearer, thanks

I think that's exactly the reason I started this topic: I find the same kind of language that I used in Leo's points

See the ways he describes his experiences with 5-MeO to Ralston, to which he responds: "go there, then come back and tell me what it was like"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now