How is it possible that Leo and Ralston disagree?

[Consilience]

3 hours ago, wavydude said:

@Consilience

Notice how quick your mind came to assume that I don't know what Ralston is talking about and that I didn't take 5MeO, which both are just that, your mind's assumptions.

1) You *don’t* know whether Ralston knows what he’s talking about, you aren’t Ralston. This is a basic fact of realty. Ralston is something you’re imagining, creating, and interpreting, what he’s talking about you will only indirectly know. Again, fact not assumption. Basic philosophy dude. 

2) Im not assuming you haven't taken 5-MeO, Im making the claim that unless you’ve tried it, you dont have the epistemological grounds to criticize Leo. 

Nice try there, but read more carefully. Notice you’re incorrectly interpreting my comment through a lens of bias and ego. Your mind sees what it wants to. 

[Artaemis]

Leo has psychic abilities but he's unconscious to it.  

There are two Leos.

The unconscious one and the scary one. 

[Artaemis]

And that's in his normal state.

[Artaemis]

Maybe he becomes conscious of the 'scary' (It might be only scary because it's strange to me) one on 5 MeO DMT.

[The observer]

@Artaemis Your comments are lovely  The scary one though? 

[Artaemis]

The side of him he is unconscious to is unlike anything I've seen before.

[Mafortu]

Well, both Leo and Raltson are kinda right and wrong at the same time.

Raltson's response was excellent, but I do wonder if Raltson was/is passionate about truth as much as Leo is.

To not have done any psychedelics in the last 50 years is... weird, even if you are done seeking. Does he ever watch a movie or read a book? If so, then there is also time for some fun and lighthearted recreational shrooming

[wavydude]

5 hours ago, James123 said:

@wavydude The only thing that we must know is that I am the creator, i am all you and infinite, you are me, all is one, one is all and purpose of creation is the love. 

But how can "we" know these things if "we" don't really exists?  There is only knowing.

The one who thinks that he knows, he doesn't need to be concerned with it, in fact he only gets in the way.

4 hours ago, Consilience said:

1) You *don’t* know whether Ralston knows what he’s talking about, you aren’t Ralston. This is a basic fact of realty. Ralston is something you’re imagining, creating, and interpreting, what he’s talking about you will only indirectly know. Again, fact not assumption. Basic philosophy dude.

 

You don't know whether I know what he's talking about, you aren't me. We can argue like that all day. Seems to me that you are more concerned with doing some mental, philosophical exercises than finding truth, which is fine. Personally I find philosophy quite useless. 

[Consilience]

4 minutes ago, wavydude said:

You don't know whether I know what he's talking about, you aren't me. We can argue like that all day. Seems to me that you are more concerned with doing some mental, philosophical exercises than finding truth, which is fine. Personally I find philosophy quite useless. 

?‍♂️

Good luck on your path.

[James123]

1 hour ago, wavydude said:

6 hours ago, James123 said:

 

But how can "we" know these things if "we" don't really exists?  There is only knowing.

Because, you have never experienced non duality. There is only knowing. loll. If you never learn the language, how wojld you even know that knowing is possible?  You never experienced being exist as nothing. So you are stuck with in the language dilemma. You cant get it without direct experience. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by James123

[Harikrishnan]

9 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Notably Ralston skipped over these  questions .  I suspect he is not on this on this solipsistic page 

 

 

If you are writin about 4 question leo asked, read the article again.

[Harikrishnan]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Watch me do it.

You don't know anyone because this is cutting edge stuff that has only been possible in the last 20 years. Someone has to pioneer it despite all the closeminded naysayers.

This reply made me thinking. Even after  2000+ year later after budha there are still people saying meditation is evil.

[wavydude]

 

19 minutes ago, James123 said:

Because, you have never experienced non duality

Yes, the "you" that you are referring to never experienced non duality and never will. That's because that "I" is just a thought, an illusion, it need to be seen as that. You will never experience non duality, it can bee seen only when "you" stops, quiets down, is seen as not true. In fact non duality is already the case no matter what proces is going on within the self structure. 

[James123]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

@wavydude  I know, i had direct non duality experiences 3 times with mushrooms and 2 times with meditation. How can you explain that someone that he has no idea about ego death. Take it easy. He is still talking about knowing something With in language structure.

 

[Jacobsrw]

@Virtually I feel they are speaking about consciousness from two completely contrasting dimensions. I could be wrong but it seems, Leo is speaking about it through the lens of human subjectivity, where it seems Ralston is speaking about it through the lens of consciousness itself. 

Ralston is trying to convey the fundamental nature of Truth where Leo is elaborating on all the finite compartments within it.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Commodent]

"If we look to the avatars, great teachers, and enlightened sages throughout history, their descriptions of the Ultimate Reality (God) are the same. There is an absolute concordance that Divinity is infinitely compassionate, loving, peaceful, silent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benign. It is obvious to all that the essence of God shines forth as Creation and is the Infinite Totality and Source of all existence. Divinity is without parts or division."

Hawkins, David R.. I: Reality and Subjectivity: 1 . Hay House. Kindle Edition.

[Mafortu]

1 hour ago, Meta-Man said:

Well, he gave up his life for the Truth, so how much more can you ask for?

Why would you bother if you are 10/10 content and satisfied with the present moment?

Have you ever eaten so much chocolate that you’ve simply had enough? Why would you eat more chocolate?

All right.. let me ask you then, why would you watch a movie ever again? Or read a book ever again? Or listen to any new music ever again? Why would you travel to places you have never been before?

Thats the point of all of this, isnt it? Reality is infinite and as Tolle said, it delights itself in manifesting new shapes and forms.. you are looking at psychedelics strictly as personal-development tools.. but they are SOOOO much more than that. 

I will never understand people that say "oh I did shrooms once, I dont see the point of doing them again", really shows how limited their scope is. 

[Scholar]

32 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

I did heavy dose mushrooms ~10 times, and I also did ayahuasca to the point where I realized they couldn’t take me any further. They were helpful up to a point (uprooting some shadow stuff, humbling me, showing me what’s possible), but they couldn’t take me to the goal. They wouldn’t make me fully awake.

As Ralston says, only you can know yourself.

Psychedelics also tend to have unpleasant body-load effects like nausea. Something like Salvia can even make you hurl yourself out of a window. Why would you subject yourself to that, when you are ‘already there’? Imagine yourself as Eckhart Tolle sitting there, homeless on a parkbench in Hampstead, bathing in peace and love. Where would the idea of taking psychedelics come from? The dude is barely having thoughts at all. Seeking has ended.

Eckhart even did LSD, yet said his natural state was far better.

Yes, psychedelics can show you all kinds of fancy visual phenomena, but that is not the goal. At least not my goal. It has nothing to do with awakening.

 

 

Do you think "Awakening" could not be observed as a process (or lack thereof) in the brain? Do you think it is impossible to alter the brain in such a way so as to remove Ego from it's structure?

I don't buy that. I think we could have a device that instantly increased your awareness to levels no Enlightened Master has ever reached, or to reach total non-duality and awareness of Nothingness instantaneously with no effort whatsoever.

 

Therefore, I don't see a good reason why there wouldn't be a substance that could do similar things. Ralstons view of Enlightenment is not very convincing to me.

 

To me permanent vs non-permanent enlightenment experience is nothing but the brain either being permanently changed or temporarly changed. These are the rules of Maya.

 

Equally I think there could be a device that would render Ralston unenlightened instantanously.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Scholar

[Javfly33]

16 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Well, it’s hard to say, because Consciousness is prior to the brain. I had my first glimpse of non-duality on a mild mushroom dose. After the ‘trip’ it was impossible to say that the glimpse happened because of the mushrooms I ate. 

I spoke to Leo about this earlier, and as he says it is like ‘reality is like a placebo unto itself’. It wakes up to itself in a trillion different ways. 

As for ego, I 100% believe it is a product of the brain. If anything, my theory is that ‘spiritual practices’ and psychedelics MAY shut down the centers in the brain responsible for creating the perceived subject-object division of the world that non-awakened humans experience. I also have a theory that classic natural awakening might be an endougenous release of dmt, that effectively shuts down these centers in the brain. But again that is all speculative. Because Consciousness is prior to everything. And so cause & effect  flies out the window ultimately.

IMO Ralston is absolutely correct. The absolute is the absolute. There is no absoluter than absolute. Anything else is exploring relativy. The absolute is the ground out of which everything emanates. It has no form. It is Nothing. And that is what we are. Remove all ego and illusion/division, and what is left is the Absolute. It is very simple and direct.

Isn´t the ego just an idea of you?

I wouldn´t say the ego happens in the brain, thoughts do appear which you pay attention to because you are maintaining an identity. But the point is identity is maintained with that attitude you are endelessly maintining, is not that there is an identity in the brain somewhere. It´s like you would say there´s a "you" somewhere in the brain. This is exactly what believes mainstream culture 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Javfly33

[Scholar]

18 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Well, it’s hard to say, because Consciousness is prior to the brain. I had my first glimpse of non-duality on a mild mushroom dose. After the ‘trip’ it was impossible to say that the glimpse happened because of the mushrooms I ate. 

I spoke to Leo about this earlier, and as he says it is like ‘reality is like a placebo unto itself’. It wakes up to itself in a trillion different ways. 

As for ego, I 100% believe it is a product of the brain. If anything, my theory is that ‘spiritual practices’ and psychedelics MAY shut down the centers in the brain responsible for creating the perceived subject-object division of the world that non-awakened humans experience. I also have a theory that classic natural awakening might be an endougenous release of dmt, that effectively shuts down these centers in the brain. But again that is all speculative. Because Consciousness is prior to everything. And so cause & effect  flies out the window ultimately.

IMO Ralston is absolutely correct. The absolute is the absolute. There is no absoluter than absolute. Anything else is exploring relativy. The absolute is the ground out of which everything emanates. It has no form. It is Nothing. And that is what we are. Remove all ego and illusion/division, and what is left is the Absolute. It is very simple and direct.

Consciousness isn't prior to anything, I think there is still some physicalism/dualism in your perspective, because of how you have constructed a new perspective that is somehow opposed to the materialist perspective. You have not transcendet it in a way to include both in a harmonic fashion.

The brain is consciousness, there is no before, after, behind, infront, etc. other than beforeness, afterness, behindness and infrontness.

 

The flying out the window is as much consciousness as the brain is, you are performing the same trick in reverse. The Absolute being Absolute is not opposed to anything that was said. In my opinion the problem is that Ralston does fundamentally not see the nature of the Circle. He still expresses the possible within a framework of logic, causality and so forth. "It is impossible for there to be something beyond this! It is true that there is nothing beyond this!".

Ralson fundamentally fails to see that this could be true, while untrue at the same time. That this could be true Absolutely, yet that there could still be something beyond. If I have realized one thing on this path so far is that Impossibility does not mean something is not the case. And furthermore, something not being the case does not mean something not being the case.

 

Ralston is trapped in the expression of the Line. He does not grasp true Paradox.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Scholar