Ralston Gives A Clear Answer To Metaphysical Love Question

[Jehovah increases]

58 minutes ago, Jehovah increases said:

Please enlighten me on what is Enlightenment.

 

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Someone here I am not rude out of thin air, but after months and years of putting up nonsense.

You guys need to get serious. You are making poor arguments and getting lost in the same self-deceptions over and over again.

You should notice that I use a variety of methods on you. I use logic, I use humor, I use patient explanation, and when all that fails I get rude with you. And finally I ban you. This is the ladder of escalation.

I agree that some people we find difficult to deal with have been put in our path in order to teach us something.. even if it's only how to deal with difficult people like you .but .. Unfortunately.. the presence of A-holes in positions of spirituality is extremely common..so the skill of talking respectfully to your followers can be very valuable.

please try to bite your tongue with this rudeness and you may be glad you learned this kind of restraint at some later date whenthe stakes are higher. So...❤

[Osaid]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No they won't.

You are speaking garbage.

Ralston's idiot enlightened apprentice, Brendon Lea, has no idea what Love is. And that's because all he does is blindly follow Ralston's every word. Which does not include Love.

How many of Ralston's followers have had confused breakdowns about solipsism? And love?

What about your followers? Are they becoming more enlightened than Ralston when they take psychedelics? Apply your own criticisms to yourself.

You will find many frequent psychedelic users who are just batshit confused about their experiences, and looking to YOU for solace on their metaphysical insights. That's basically the gist of this entire forum. Because they are not even aware of what they are talking about. That is the dynamic here. But this also happens percisely because you are not aware of it as well. So it is ignorance and I am not blaming you.

Your followers are blindly adopting your own words as well. This is not purely a Ralston phenomenon. This is a phenomenon of human psychology in general.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Osaid

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Osaid said:

How many of Ralston's followers have had confused breakdowns about solipsism? And love?

No idea.

Love? Probably none.

Quote

What about your followers?

Solipsism, certainly. Which is why I took down that video.

Quote

Are they becoming more enlightened than Ralston when they take psychedelics?

Some are, some aren't. It's hard to measure such things.

Quote

Apply your own criticisms to yourself.

That's fair.

But in this case my point was very specific. Ralston's apprentice claims to be "enlightened" by your and Ralston's definitions. However, he doesn't know what Love is. How can this be?

Quote

You will find many frequent psychedelic users who are just batshit confused about their experiences, and looking to YOU for solace on their metaphysical insights.

And I give fairly straightforward answers about what psychedelic experiences are and how they work. Of course that doesn't mean people will have an easy time integrating or embodying them.

Yes, psychedelics will screw with your mind. But they can also take you to insane levels of understanding yourself and reality. I'm not that relevant to the process. In a sense, the psychedelic is your teacher, not me. Which is what makes psychedelics superior to all human teachings. If you are smart you will use psychedelics to replace me as your teacher.

Of course, be warned, the higher you go in consciousness the more unstable your mind will become. This level of instability is not reached via any other spiritual techniques because no other spiritual technique grants you such high consciousness. So don't bite off more than you can handle.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Osaid]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But in this case my point was very specific. Ralston's apprentice claims to be "enlightened" by your and Ralston's definitions. However, he doesn't know what Love is. How can this be?

I don't know him very well, but this can't be the case if he is actually enlightened.

I also don't trust your assessment that he "doesn't know what Love" is, because this is what you claimed of Ralston a few times in this thread, which I disagree with.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Osaid

[Inliytened1]

@Leo Gura I want to clarify my position on this.  If Ralston does not acknowledge that Love and Goodness are not identical to Truth and properties of the Absolute then his enlightenment is half baked.  That said, you don't need a direct awakening to Love or Goodness in order to be enlightened.    This to me was already so obvious I didn't need it.   I was already conscious of it.  So you aren't going to bave a direct realization to something that is already completely obvious to you.  You are going to have other realizations - such as no self, and Infinity, and that everything is held within your mind.  Much stronger illusions.  These types of things.  So to say someone isn't enlightened because they didn't have the insight- oh my God, reality is made of Love, does not mean they aren't enlightened.   I haven't really listened to much of Ralston, but if he is saying Truth does not have the aspect of Love and Goodness then I believe he is missing a huge part of Truth.   But on the flip side to proclaim that an explicit realization to Love is necessary - it is not.  Because when you become God- you become Love.   The realization of both is redundant.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Osaid said:

I don't know him very well, but it can't be if he is enlightened.

Consider the possibility that it can be, because your idea of enlightenment is childishly simplistic.

Quote

I also don't trust your assessment that he "doesn't know what Love" is,

Sure. Go make your own assessments.

Quote

because this is what you claimed of Ralston a few times in this thread, which I disagree with.

Or maybe you're just wrong.

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Leo Gura I want to clarify my position on this.  If Ralston does not acknowledge that Love and Goodness are not identical to Truth and properties of the Absolute then his enlightenment is half baked. 

Don't take my word for it. Feel free to ask him yourself.

Quote

That said, you don't need a direct awakening to Love or Goodness in order to be enlightened.    This to me was already so obvious I didn't need it.   I was already conscious of it.  So you aren't going to bave a direct realization to something that is already completely obvious to you.  You are going to have other realizations - such as no self, and Infinity, and that everything is held within your mind.  Much stronger illusions.  These types of things.  So to say someone isn't enlightened because they didn't have the insight- oh my God, reality is made of Love, does not mean they aren't enlightened.   

Oh, I'm saying something much more radical than that.

I reject the entire notion of enlightenment. So I'm not saying one has to realize love or not. I'm saying that the whole thing is a low level of consciousness.

Quote

I haven't really listened to much of Ralston, but if he saying Truth does not have the aspect of Love and Goodness then I believe he is missing a huge part of Truth.   But on the flip side that you need an explicit realization to Love is necessary - it is not.  Because when you become God- you become Love.   The realization of both is redundant.

Consider that there are realizations of Love so deep that you cannot imagine them yet.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[mindcentral]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No they won't.

You are speaking garbage.

Ralston's idiot enlightened apprentice, Brendon Lea, has no idea what Love is. And that's because all he does is blindly follow Ralston's every word. Which does not include Love.

 

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Someone here I am not rude out of thin air, but after months and years of putting up nonsense.

You guys need to get serious. You are making poor arguments and getting lost in the same self-deceptions over and over again.

You should notice that I use a variety of methods on you. I use logic, I use humor, I use patient explanation, and when all that fails I get rude with you. And finally I ban you. This is the ladder of escalation.

You say you are not rude out of thin air and that your rudeness is methodical, but the person you call an idiot is not on this forum nor a follower of your teachings.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Consider the possibility that it can be, because your idea of enlightenment is childishly simplistic.

Sure. Go make your own assessments.

Or maybe you're just wrong.

Don't take my word for it. Feel free to ask him yourself.

Oh, I'm saying something much more radical than that.

I reject the entire notion of enlightenment. So I'm not saying one has to realize love or not. I'm saying that whole thing is a low level of consciousness.

Consider that there are realization of Love so deep that you cannot imagine them yet.

I convulsed on the floor for hours from God realization/Love..  I think I know how deep it can get. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I convulsed on the floor for hours from God realization/Love..  I think I know how deep it can get. 

You contradict yourself. You just said above that love was so obvious to you that you didn't even need to have an awakening into it.

You made Love seem trivial. Now you make it seem epic. This is confusing students.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, mindcentral said:

You say you are not rude out of thin air and that your rudeness is methodical, but the person you call an idiot is not on this forum nor a follower of your teachings.

I wasn't addressing Brendon, I was addressing people here who are defending Ralston's ideas on Love.

You wanna follow Ralston? You will end up like Brendon.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Osaid]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

because your idea of enlightenment is childishly simplistic.

It's not an idea. It seems simplistic from your perspective because for you it is an idea.

Part of the deception is that anyone can claim they are enlightened. And if you're not enlightened yourself, all claims about enlightenment are equally real, because it is just an idea for you.

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Or maybe you're just wrong.

Of course, I have considered this. But, you know, he talks about it in that video. He also makes it clear he doesn't want to entice people with that word. So it makes sense.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Osaid

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You wanna follow Ralston? You will end up like Brendon.

Just suggesting that anyone here wants to follow anyone else, including you, doesn't make sense. We have to open ourself to reality and see. All that  terminology, love, truth, god, is limiting. and Ralston is limited, absolutely. only his position on psychedelics demonstrates this without a doubt. So, why were you being charitable and saying that he was awake when it is obvious that he is limited, that he has a limited idea of enlightenment?

Edited September 19, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[mindcentral]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I wasn't addressing Brendon, I was addressing people here who are defending Ralston's ideas on Love.

You wanna follow Ralston? You will end up like Brendon.

Indeed, you were not addressing Brendon, and yet you called him an idiot. I don't see how this can be didactic rudeness, as this is being rude to someone you are not addressing.

I did not make this post because I am a follower of Ralston or to defend his followers, but because your statement vis-a-vis your own rudeness is inconsistent with the rudeness in your post. Truth etc.

[Leo Gura]

27 minutes ago, Osaid said:

It's not an idea. It seems simplistic from your perspective because for you it is an idea.

Enlightenment is imagined by higher Consciousness.

Quote

Of course, I have considered this. But, you know, he talks about it in that video. He also makes it clear he doesn't want to entice people with that word. So it makes sense.

It's like two men stranded in the desert for days without water. One man asks the other, "Do you have water?" The other replies, "I have nothing." Then a few days later the man catches him taking a sip from a big bottle of water and he screams: "What?!!! You were drinking water all this time?!!! You told me you hand nothing!" The other man calmly replies, "I didn't want to entice you. What you call water I call nothing."

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You contradict yourself. You just said above that love was so obvious to you that you didn't even need to have an awakening into it.

Because the specific word Love never came to mind..unlike my other awakenings where I realized nothingness, infinity, no self, Aloneness, and that God was mind.  God realization itself is that already.  Words are semantics so we have to be careful there.  

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, mindcentral said:

yet you called him an idiot. I don't see how this can be didactic rudeness

This was exactly didactic rudeness because the point was to communicate to you guys here the stakes of this work. If you don't do this work carefully and properly you will end up an enlightened idiot. I'm not trying to be a jerk here for no reason. There are stakes here which are being overlooked.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Part of the deception is that anyone can claim they are enlightened. And if you're not enlightened yourself, all claims about enlightenment are equally real, because it is just an idea for you.

I understand what do you mean with enlightenment and I think it's legit, the true nature of existence, be open now of what this moment is, but there is more, we are the total existence, we can penetrate to the bottom of the flow, the cosmos, we are in a great thing, it's not an idea or a deceit, it's the reality, and I'd say that Leo is pointing that, but he does is a very difficult way to understand, at least to me

[Greatnestwithin]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Enlightenment is imagined by higher Consciousness.

It's like two men stranded in the desert for days without water. One man asks the other, "Do you have water?" The other replies, "I have nothing." Then a few days later the man catches him taking a sip from a big bottle of water and he screams: "What?!!! You were drinking water all this time?!!! You told me you hand nothing!" The other man calmly replies, "I didn't want to entice you. What you call water I call nothing."

@Leo Gura you mean that the experience of enlightenment is part of the dream? So what then do you refer to as to be awoken ? 

[Breakingthewall]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

reject the entire notion of enlightenment

Enlightenment as is described here is not false , it's limited to one dimension, the dimension of the quality. They say that they realize the true nature of reality, it's essence. It could be real, right? Why you don't admit it? Maybe someone realize the quality of reality full time more deeper that you, but you can penetrate in the depth of what reality is much more deeper that they. Imo enlightenment is límited but not false.