Breakingthewall

It's not a matter of letting go or being detached, but of being one with yourself, of breaking the separation that the pain of being human, being part of a humanity that is a well of brutal suffering, inevitably creates. We are the heirs of the most extreme brutality, both physical and psychological. Heirs of generations of minds imprisoned in dogma and terror, enslaved and violated. Breaking the separation, the alienation that human activity has created, cannot be achieved with mental tricks.

@Grateful Dead I'm too lazy to explain the depth of my trauma and its causes right now, but in short, my mental vibration was hellish for years, every second. Obviously, I was seduced by Tolle, Adyashanti, and all those who sell liberation. I saw that it was completely obvious that I was creating my suffering and that it was simply a matter of attitude to stop doing it. This makes you a dissociated being, separates you from yourself. You try to convince yourself that the self is an illusion, and thus you alienate yourself from yourself. You try to empty your mind because you believe that mental activity is what creates the horrible, constant anxiety you live with, and it's exactly the opposite. There is only one real way to resolve an emotional structure based on suffering, and that is to see it directly, to accept that you are a process that is happening, that is interconnected with everything, not an island that decides how to feel, and from there act with absolute determination to integrate that energetic structure that reality has created and that you are, and use its momentum to take a step to another level. You have to make your pain your tool, not try to get rid of it as if it were a mistake. Your anxious nature manifests in your whole being, in your body, in every breath, in every tiny gesture. You must see it as the expression of the reality now, and channel your suffering to open yourself to another level. If you label your trauma as a thought, illusion, mistake, you are trapped for ever, in the infinite carrot. Life is not easy, fair, controllable. Ralston and Tolle sell that you can control your inner state. You? Who? The ego? How? Labeling the real you as an illusion. The real you is what you are now, how you are vibrating now in the hiper complex process that being human is and that is interconnected with everything, not the one who decides stop suffering now. Ralston says: you are doing it! Stop doing it now!!! Who is doing it? It's the reality that is happening as a process that feels like suffering, the real you that Ralston and Tolle talks about is precisely the ego, they are absolutely wrong,.180 degrees wrong, like all non dualistics. At the end, when you have a really anxious and traumatic structure, there is only one way. It's the reality that is pushing itself to make a movement, and you have to face the reality so directly and without any filter, any grip, until you are able to open yourself to the unlimited, but not the unlimited "being" that is the truth, etc, but the heart of the reality, the source. If Ralston and Tolle would do that step they will understand what is a human, then they wouldn't categorize the lack, the mental suffering as falsehood. "Mental" is not different that physical. Everything is real, there are not illusions. I thought that for me in this life would be absolutely impossible stop the sick intensity of my suffering, but I managed to find the way. Absolutely, total transformation, a miracle that was just an utopia. Not something that is "almost", some days good, others not so, but totally clean. It's not a matter of identity, it's a matter of conquest your freedom changing the level where you operate. You can't do that denying the previous level as false, because it's absolutely real. Its precisely the reality happening.

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 do 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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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?

He always use the term: absolute truth. He can say anything, but "truth" implies a mental valoration. 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. 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 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 watched more that 20 videos of Ralston, including this one about love that you posted before. Maybe I'm ignorant about the real message of Ralston. If I discover that I was wrong and Ralston is really accurate, I would be happy to realize it.

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 . About Ralston, I ve watched many videos, I'm going to watch more, maybe I misunderstand him totally, but in his videos I think that his paradigm is clear. Anyway, what do you think about a spiritual teacher who ridicule 5meo DMT calling it laughing "toad juice" without having tried it? He says that he did LSD when younger and it's not enlightenment. Well, maybe for him in this moment, but what is for others? He doesn't care, he just laugh implying that people who do psychedelic are idiot. It's what I understand listening him, then I don't feel motivated to read his books

I haven't read any of his books because when I hear what he says in his videos, for me he's wrong. He divides reality into truth/physical direct experience, falsehood/conceptual constructs, and for me, this is a mistake, both are direct experience in different mode. When he talks about enlightenment, he's talking about absolute truth, which is your direct experience. The fact of direct experience, not the content. For me, this equates to the non-dual paradigm that reality is consciousness because I, a human, am a conscious process occurring in reality then reality is consciousness and the content of the consciousness is an illusion. Ralston also says that you create your trauma with your mental activity, and I think that your mental activity is created by your trauma. For me he's similar that Eckhart Tolle but in a different vibration. Both sounds true, but they have a mistake in their basis.

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.

Then what is exactly enlightenment according Ralston?

@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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

It's possible, but I think that I understand his paradigm, and in my opinion it's wrong. Totally wrong in its basis. Anyway, you wont agree with me because you think that his paradigm is true. That reality is consciousness and realizing that you are consciousness is the absolute truth. I think it's absolute falsehood 😅. "Consciousness" means the reality being conscious of itself. So "the absolute truth" would be the reality. Seems something banal, just an interpretation, that really we are in the same idea. No, it's absolutely different. His paradigm will bring you to a dead end, to a limit . Anyway, if I misunderstood Ralston, you could explain his essential paradigm, let's see what is it. I read fragments, but I don't going to read a book because in the moment that I see a total mistake (in my (humble) opinion) I stop reading

Well, what I really think is that Ralston is fundamentally wrong. His error is complete, like all Zen Buddhism and neo-Advaita spirituality. His ontology has false pillars, and that leads him down a dead end. Reality is not consciousness, it is conscious. The empty mind is not your essential self; this is absurd. Why is an empty mind the origin of the universe? Of course, because the universe is an illusion. error and narcissism. Why the empty mind is creating this illusion? All spirituality is based on this, let's say, strange premise. The self is false? Why? The self is an expression of the reality. Consciousness is the action of the reality observing itself. Empty mind is a pre requisite to open yourself to the core of what reality is, the absolute unlimited, the source . empty mind is not the "truth". Nothing is false or illusory but layers of the reality. All the modern spirituality is based in zen Buddhism and neo advaita, and this happen because it seems logical. But it's simply a mistake. You can open yourself to the absolute, to the generative power of reality. In fact it's what we are, expressed in this form. This openess is unlimited.