AION

miguel1, are you going to lecture him too?? I’m curious

So how would you rephrase what I said? I tried to explain it in the nicest way possible. By the way I get along with women ok now I understand how they work. Some guys treat women as they treat their male friends. That doesn’t work.

Relationships based on sex always fail. There are deep reasons for this but I won’t go into it. And it signals some other stuff too. It is a clear giveaway.

Wtf 😳

*Delulu intensifies* 🤣🤣🤣

I didn't say looks alone is enough. One is not going to get a girl while looking like a microwaved Brad Pitt, and be broke and have no game at the same time. So just being yourself is not enough.

If you are Brad Pitt you don't have to do anything to lock a woman in. But if you are not, you have to play with the toys god given you. So you either have to bring status or capital or the poor man's choice: romance aka story building. Greene talks about this extensively in his book Influence. You might want to look into it.

Just imagine you are a child and you have huge mood swings and much more fleeting states. And as a woman you are more prone to seek external safety and being embedded in the social matrix is much more important.

After reading this book (I haven’t finished it) but you will see that all problems are self made. Especially other people’s problems, dramas, and tragicomedies are self made and it can be clearly seen. Then I realized if other people’s problems are self made then my problems are self made too. And it is much more difficult to see my own bullshit. I couldn’t see through my own problems when I looked at my problems at “human time”. Humans don’t think on long term. Humans usually think in terms of days and weeks while some very successful people think in months and years while if you really want to see through shit you have to think in infinity. Every moment is infinity. The book until now is the book of not knowing 2.0 and it is very refreshing. Reading that book prior is necessary though. I tried to listen to the book but one really needs to put all of the attention of the book to get anything out of it.

You are getting everything ass backwards because you are not reading the books and not doing the work. So it is very tiresome to continually correct you because you are misunderstanding the points being made by the author. If you paid me 450 usd per hour I would gladly do it.

Pfff hahaahaha just stop

Inconsistent about what?

Only if you are a rookie

That is not what Wilber and Ralston says. 😭 Form does exist but the ground is formless.

Main teaching of Buddhism is the 5 states of consciousness. Wilber uses it in his waking up model which is not only from waking up from suffering but also waking up in general. It has direct correlation to Wilber´s book of this thread. To truly understand Ralston´s book you have to synthesize it with Wilber.

I’m visual learner. But some people learn better through listening. It depends on your brain type. But if it is a good book I use both the pdf as the audio at the same time.

Stop ruining my thread though. 😭

@Breakingthewall the best is that you read his book and contemplate it with AI. That is the only way to understand him. Because AI will correct you. Traditional contemplation without AI doesn’t work. Or you have to hire Ralston to contemplate with him together and he will correct you. But most people don’t have the cognitive skills to auto correct.

I doubt Natasha understands anything about Ralston. She is doing her best though.

Leo and Peter also diverge too. Problem with Leo is that he doesn’t have formalized definitions and teachings so it is sloppy from the get go. I hope his book will clear things up if he manages to finish it.

No, that is not what I meant.… they all have a different definition of “self”. Although somewhat overlapping but still different which is important to understand. Mfs don’t even understand the basics. This is tedious and important stuff.

The problem with this discussion is that the definition of “self” is different for every teacher. Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Peter Ralston, Leo Gura, Ken Wilber, psychologists have a different understanding of the word “self”. And when they talk about the subject of “self” they use the same word but they mean something else. But that is a discussion that transcends this forum. Don't expect that level of discussion on this forum.

The bottom line of the book is that dissolving the self dissolves our suffering. He is very clear in this.

Out of love. 🤣