Leo Gura

Funny enough, Rupert Spira has much better explanations of Love than Ralston.

Enlightenment is stupid nonsense.

To have $25M in cash he would have had to make $50M and pay taxes on it. Call it a hunch but I don't expect this jackass paid $25M in taxes. So that's another serious crime right there. If Tate made as much money as you guys claim, his biggest crime of all may be tax evasion. He could have easily stolen $10M to $50M in taxes. It would be interesting to know what the Romanian sentences are for such big tax evasion.

You have no idea what LOVE is.

I wasn't talking to you.

Why relate a duck to the human concept of energy?

@Scholar If Ralston is not conscious enough to understand Love, a spider certainly won't be either. God does not care if you rise to its level of consciousness. And if you don't, you will never understand Love. And if you do, you will regardless of how many legs you have.

I'm not gonna explain anything more to you. Go spend 10 years figuring it out until you choke on all that spiritual bullshit you've filled your head with.

There is big reason. And the only one who would say something so stupid is one who never AWOKE to LOVE.

Do not abuse my teachings.

Sounds like you would benefit from following some rules. Before you end up in prison.

@StarStruck I hope a bossy girl fucks you in the ass with a strap-on. Maybe it will knock some sense into your silly head.

I've had some very nasty classes which I hated. Just do your best. Don't beat yourself up over it. Some classes are shit.

He sure confused all of you into thinking LOVE doesn't exist. And ya'll are stupid enough to believe him.

You are picking the wrong women!

You have no idea what LOVE is.

Only because YOU ARE NOT AWAKE! No one here has one fucking clue what LOVE is. No one. The only one on this planet who understands LOVE is me.

Ralston is NOT AWAKE.

I'm not gonna trust any of his self-reported numbers.

I was once electrocuted by a small stingray.

Lol, I was there when he said it. No! He's not talking about what I am talking about. When I say LOVE I am not talking about compassion or helping people or any such human thing, nor a side effect of enlightenment. He did not address the issue of metaphysical love. He addressed the human emotion. Ralston does not actually tell you what Love is -- its existential nature. He misleads you by getting you to believe that it is impossible to have an awakening into the nature of Love. It would be like you asking him, what is the I? And he told you, the I is just an illusion invented by humans so don't think about it. This confuses the I with the human ego, like Love is being confused with human emotions. The only point of all this talk is for you to realize that there is a distinct realization/Awakening which you can have on the question of What is Love? Either you will have it or you won't. And it has nothing to do with how compassionate or good you are towards others.

No, he said love is a relative experience. And he is misleading people by telling them that love is just a human emotion. I understand his position. He doesn't want a bunch of New Age crap to infect his teachings. But Love is not merely a New Age thing, like astrology, that can be dismissed as a human invention, Love is fundamental to Consciousness. Ralston does not teach that. You figure out for yourself who's right.

I'm aware of it. I don't like splitting my content across multiple platforms.

Some classes will be harder than others simply because you can't be equally passionate about everything. Much of success is just grinding through a thing regardless.

Right, until you outgrow them.