Bufo Alvarius

Welp, brings a litte story to mind: "After enlightenment, the Buddha hesitated to teach, telling his student 'No one will get it anyway.'. His student replied 'Maybe one person will.'. And so the Buddha began to teach."

According to his newsletter, Peter has been working on a new, very advanced consciousness workshop, called "Absolute Consciousness". He will hold this workshop for the first time in this year's fall retreat. He's also working on a new book, which is supposed to be an extremely advanced consciousness book, for those interested in pursuing a much deeper consciousness. Curious to see what he's been cooking.. Peter-Ralston-Summer-CHNL-2025.pdf

This guy gets it

@Rafael Thundercat good question, I was hesitant to share this at first, as this was done purely out of curiosity and I haven't really contributed much in that sense. I guess in the end, it was the excitement of reading a Chatgpt Leo

Out of curiosity (and entertainment ), I fed ChatGPT Leo's recent blog posts—"We Who Wrestle With Demonic Rhinocerii"—and asked it to analyze it, no hand-holding, no trying to be polite or agreeable. Just full-on critique mode. I wanted to see if it could actually reason through the piece with clarity and rigor, instead of just spitting out buzzwords. Here's a short summary of what it came up with: "Dear Leo, Your piece is intense, vivid, and hits on something real—human corruption as the central constraint on political progress. What works best is your unapologetic tone, thematic consistency, and moral clarity in confronting uncomfortable truths. But it leans heavily on sweeping generalizations, flattens complex histories, and verges on nihilism without offering a pathway forward. It’s not wrong so much as incomplete. It’s not ideological—until it becomes a kind of dark ideology of its own. More precision, more differentiation, and a pinch of humility would elevate it from a righteous rant to a lasting framework." Then I asked it to rewrite the blog post using its own critique—while keeping your tone, style, and edge intact. Here’s the result: "We Who Wrestle With Demonic Rhinocerii Make no mistake: conservatism is, at its root, the justification of corruption and arrested development. It always has been. Always. That sounds biased and unfair, like some liberal insult—but truth doesn’t care about your balance reflex. That's just how the cookie crumbles. Now, don’t get confused. This isn’t about “left good, right bad.” This isn’t a cartoon. Conservatism isn’t always wrong. In fact, in many cases, it's the only thing that works—precisely because humanity is so corrupt that better options are unworkable. Progress stalls not because the goal is wrong, but because the species can't handle the weight of it. I’m not moralizing. I’m not tribalizing. I’m describing. Human beings radically underestimate their own moral dysfunction. And I’m not talking about “there’s bad apples.” I mean systemic, built-in, tribal, self-serving rot that operates by default, under layers of rationalization and civility. We are at least 100x more corrupt than we pretend—and the pretending itself is part of the corruption. And so, paradoxically, the corrupt systems we hate? They persist because they fit. They survive because they’re tailored to the animal wearing them. Corruption, inequality, authoritarianism—these aren’t bugs. They’re features, because they mirror us. So when progressives roll out beautiful policies that rely on decency, empathy, or foresight—they fail. Not because they’re “too radical,” but because they require a moral software update the species hasn’t written. Progressives go wrong not by overestimating the opponent, but by overestimating the people. They imagine humanity wants what’s good for it. That we’re teachable. That we can grow up. But the track record is brutally clear: we can't. Or won’t. Or not fast enough. Take immigration. Progressives want open borders, humanitarian compassion, shared futures. But they radically underestimate how racist and tribal ordinary people are. The average person doesn’t want to live beside the other. Most humans don't want multiculturalism—they want familiarity, homogeneity, status. They fear dilution. So progressives open the gates, and then wonder why there's backlash, nationalism, fascism. It’s ironic. Progressives are accused of calling everyone racist—but the deeper problem is that they don’t believe it’s true enough. If they really believed most humans were racist, they’d design policy accordingly. They don’t. So they get blindsided when reality kicks the door down. And so, bizarrely, conservatives “win” on immigration—not because they’re right, or moral, or wise—but because their policies line up with the degenerate instincts of the masses. Conservatism wins because it accommodates evil. It wraps its arms around it and says: "this is just who we are." That’s why communism fails. That’s why environmentalism stalls. That’s why Israel-Palestine is an endless wound. That’s why immigration collapses. That’s why demilitarization flops. That’s why veganism doesn’t scale. That’s why libertarianism, drug decriminalization, and “defund the police” all fizzle. That’s why the UN is toothless. That’s why world peace is a slogan. That’s why free love turned into Tinder. That’s why the hippies sold out. That’s why strongmen—Trump, Putin, Xi, Orban, Erdogan, Netanyahu—rule. Because the system that wins is the one designed for primates with delusions of grandeur. And conservatism, at its core, is realism in the language of fear. This isn’t praise. This isn’t condemnation. This is modeling. This is understanding the beast. Conservatism thrives because it reflects who we are. Not who we wish we were. It succeeds because it bows to corruption. Humanity is not misaligned with evil. Humanity is evil, in a slow-burning, soft-spoken, committee-approved way. And progressives fail not because they’re bad—but because they keep trying to build spaceships for creatures that barely stand upright. If you don’t understand this, you’ll fail at politics, again and again. You’ll make the wrong predictions, throw your weight behind the wrong candidates, the wrong causes. Because you mistook the demon for a dog. You must understand the beast you are wrestling with—or it will gore you. Leftists see humanity as a cute puppy. But it’s a demonic rhinoceros with a God-complex and nuclear weapons. We, those of us who still try—who still believe in decency despite the odds—we wrestle with demonic rhinocerii. And real, clear-eyed conservatism—the kind not based in delusion or domination, but in insight—comes only when you’ve stared into the void and recognized that mankind, especially in groups, behaves like a cult of deluded demons, chasing pleasure and power and status at all costs. This isn’t ideology. It’s observation, hammered into insight through failure, contemplation, and the painful burden of consciousness. Stop underestimating corruption."

There is this guy named Dave Shapiro, who runs a well structured protocol with an a.i. chatbot to help him track, diagnose and recover from his chronic health issues. He posted a tutorial for how to set up the protocol he runs. From what he is saying, he seems to be getting very good results, in particular the speed at which the a.i. is helping him to identify potential root causes for his illness is remarkable and will probably save you weeks and months of guess work and going to different doctors. While it's not a substitute for real medical exams and test like blood work and stool analysis etc., is sure seems like a fast track for dialing into the main causes of your symptoms.

I'm curious, can you elaborate or make a short list of more facets that haven't been mentioned yet?

Peter starts a new podcast and asks to send high quality questions. Everyone, send your deepest metaphysical inquiries! https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC4y8BsIrR5rQj5dzpEbOpmA/community?lb=UgkxqonrjGz1rrYAxT6BbapyLlL48rCZsTa4

Consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality. Perceptions are information streams accessed by consciousness. You, as a piece of consciousness, receive these information streams from the greater part of your Consciousness.

Consciousness is the core of reality, serving as both, the source and processor of information. Perception is how consciousness accesses and interacts with information. Consciousness uses perception to interpret information, which give rise to the reality we experience. So, if reality doesn't manifest as perception, it doesn't mean consciousness ceases to exist; rather, it might not be actively engaging with that reality. Consciousness persists but is in a more dormant or non-experiential state until it encounters a new reality information stream to perceive. Of course, that information stream arises out of itself, as stated in the beginning, consciousness serves as both, the source and processor of information. After all, you are a piece of consciousness in a larger web of the totality of Consciousness.

@Water by the River @Leo Gura In his latest newsletter, Ralston gives a few key insights into how his consciousness has deepened. He is also writing a new book with the titel "Whereof One Cannot Speak" that is supposed to be the deepest and most advanced book he has written, in his own words "perhaps the deepest and most advanced conscious book ever written", where he will go into depth about his deepest awakenings and insights into absolute consciousness. The following is an excerpt from his newsletter: "Dear Cheng Hsin Community, Increasing consciousness just doesn't stop! I am so grateful for what I have become conscious of, not just over the many decades but even just last year! At this point, I'd like to just sit with people and share this consciousness as best I can —a consciousness that is everything, beyond self and not-self, including and squaring the absolute and the relative. It is unbelievable. But that would be for the me-that-really-doesn't-exist, and so selfish. What is best for people, however, is for you to do the work, step by step, and grasp all of the assertions made in the workshops. I might want to just jump to the end, but I realize that's not going to work for you, so I have to support you even if I'd love for you to just be free of it all already! (I have always tended to be impatient. :)) Although, I'd love to be able to simply share the humor and joy I feel, and have you get the consciousness from which it comes, it doesn't work that way. Tough noogies for me, eh? But I do want what's best for you. A New Depth of Consciousness Perhaps I should share a bit about this consciousness. I can see that one might ask: if I got What I am and What Another is, etc. so long ago, what was missing or not conscious for me that is now? Good question. As is often the case in consciousness work, some ignorance remains, or the dots don’t connect. So, although I was completely conscious of what I am, it was still what “I” am! There was no doubt that this is infinite and absolute, but the mind still held it as related to “I.” In this new consciousness, finally even my mind got on board and the "I" went. I know this is hard to understand. It’s not an either/or. In such consciousness “I” is seen for what it is, just as are mind, objects, and everything else. It’s like falling into the absolute consciousness that manifests as relative things—nothing is excluded. A final link was made. I had grasped my nature and even the nature of existence, and although I understood the absolute and relative can't be different, my mind still made a distinction between the relative and the absolute. Now I actually see the relative is the absolute, or to say it another way, I see the absolute in the relative—a very impossible thing for a mind to do. It has become obvious, and I smack my forehead that I didn't see it before. The real nature of existence both absolute and relative—is absolute consciousness. Me, and everyone else I know or have heard of, still had our enlightenments stuck in the distinction of me and not-me, even grasping that another is the same as me didn’t break the spell, it was understood that they had to be the same, but in reality, no one can square the absolute with the relative. But in this case, consciousness has now done just that. Anyway, once me and not-me disappeared, everything just fell into place—in a much more “inclusive” way than I could have imagined. It humbled me, at least in my heart—but as person (a limited form of consciousness) I’m still that presumptuous and insolent guy, I just laugh a lot more. Love and Sadness Once I was dining out and as I looked around at the various fellow diners, I did my best to experience the world they experienced. I supplemented this effort with my own memory of a world I experienced in which I lived many, many decades ago. My reaction to what I saw was a combination of love and heartbreak. Why those reactions? I recognize others as myself, and seem to have some kind of compassion or love for us all, and yet there was also a sadness. This sadness was based on seeing the unnecessary but incredibly solidly stuck limitations within which their whole world existed. This is hard to convey, it is certainly unusual, but you might be able to relate to something in this area given you've gleaned some of your own limitations and perhaps had breakthroughs allowing you to glimpse past them. One example that might shed a little light on this experience was a hit I had with one of my old t'ai chi teachers. He has accomplished his life goals, is at the top of his field and very successful, and yet as I brought him to mind I was suddenly sad because he is completely limited to that world and knows nothing else, having no access to any reality outside of this limited world. Whereas I had so much more. The good news, I suppose, is that he doesn't know he is limited, he only sees he is king of his world and thinks this world is important. Yet, to me this is sad because it is so ignorant about its limitations and myopic nature. This is the same for the vast majority of humans. That is why I had the heartbreak watching the people around me at dinner." Winter_CHNL2025.pdf

Tldr: Your actions, thoughts and believes will shape your afterlife environments.

This was spot on:

@Leo Gura how do you interpret Bashar's statement? As I see it, nothing that can be said will ever escape one's own direct experence, any notion of other will always be part of one's own perception. The only way how solipsism could be disproven imo, is how Ethan Kahn @Synchronicity (from 'Everything Explained' on yt) described it to me: He explained having two (in his case infinite) seperate experiences simoultaneously. While each perspective in itself is whole and closed off to the possibility of having an outside, he simoultaneously also inhabited all other perspectives. It was a paradox in the end. Have you ever experienced anything similar, like holding two perspectives at the same time?