How is it possible that Leo and Ralston disagree?

[Virtually]

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 April 27, 2020 by Virtually

[AlphaAbundance]

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

[Virtually]

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

[ZZZZ]

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 April 27, 2020 by ZZZZ

[Virtually]

@ZZZZ I think you were referring to episode 27

 

[Virtually]

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

[ZZZZ]

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 April 27, 2020 by ZZZZ

[ShivaShakti]

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

[Virtually]

@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 April 28, 2020 by Virtually

[ShivaShakti]

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

[Virtually]

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 April 27, 2020 by Virtually

[ShivaShakti]

@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 April 27, 2020 by ShivaShakti

[Virtually]

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 April 28, 2020 by Virtually

[Nahm]

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”. 

[Virtually]

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

Edited April 27, 2020 by Virtually

[Virtually]

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

Edited April 27, 2020 by Virtually

[Nahm]

@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 a 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. 

[Virtually]

@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"

[Nahm]

@Virtually Yes. I want to clarify though, what I’m saying has nothing to do with Leo, Peter, you, nor me. (Also, in case it makes a difference, I didn’t read the article or watch the videos posted. Which admittedly leaves room for miscommunication on my end)

[Nak Khid]

 

 

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

Ralston newsletter, correspondence with Leo Gura, p 15-16 (see link for full, inlc Gura letter)

(excerpts)

Leo,You are correct, I don’t agree with your formulation, sorry. Don’t hurt yourself with the drugs, it would be sad for your brain to be damaged by overdoing chemicals, and it can happen.

I will always disagree with you on the drugs, it's not possible for them to create enlightenment, but they can certainly change your state. Of course, you can become directly conscious no matter what is going on. But I will never support drugs. This is not because I am against them as a stance, I did many "consciousness raising" drugs in the late 60's in the San Francisco Bay Area, and then I stopped. It is because I know they can't do what you want them to do. Enlightenment isn't about physiology or chemistry. Timothy Leary gave it a really good try long ago, he was very serious, and even had levels on his property indicating the amount and constancy of being on LSD depending on where one was on the property. (I know LSD isn’t 5-MeO, but the message is the same). He was convinced he could become permanently and deeply conscious using it. He failed after decades of trying. It doesn’t work that way. I know he had extreme altered states, many insights, and seems he was a good person, but no real enlightenment.

It is OK that you go this route, and I hope you don’t hurt yourself, so be careful. But I know it will not work, in a year or a few years you will find that out. Only you can become directly conscious, no drug or state or change can do that for you. I hope you didn’t get discouraged with the direct approach and decided to be lazy, trying to get something else to do it for you.And actually, yes, I do walk around in a constant state of kensho and satori, but I suspect you have a different notion of what that means.I think what you mean as an awakening or a direct consciousness is experiencing something first hand. This is an important thing to do in this work but you misunderstand what direct means. And you confuse brain and neurological activity and what can be experienced with consciousness. As for your other questions:1. Yes to the beginning, no to the end. There is no "will". 2. Perhaps, but I disagree with your conclusions. It isn't that way. 3. Yes, but not as individuals or entities.4. No, no one has, no human mind can be omniscient, and in absolute consciousness there is no need for it, because nothing exists. You are speaking of experience, and that kind of experience might better be called psychic or supernatural or an altered state. Are such states possible? Yes, and it is possible for one to be very powerful and aware in many ways. But no state, no matter how grand, is enlightenment. !Love,!Peter

Edited April 27, 2020 by Nak Khid