IGX

Peter Ralston has produced the same level of completeness on a book about consciousness that he did on movement with "The Principles of Effortless Power"

This book is huge, deep, and thoroughly worthwhile, IMHO.

Ralston's main assertion is that there is a possibility, right now, to directly experience the true nature of who and what you are - what he calls Being.

What keeps each of us away from this experience is what I consider an interesting twist on the old Buddhist perspective of Self. Ralston claims that the drive of Survival motivates everything we do, think, and perceive. Survival started with the physical, but, as we are conceptual beings, has evolved into survival of any form - social survival, self-image survival, etc... Our bodies and minds did not evolve to directly perceive and experience things as they are, but instead to filter, interpret and analyze everything in order to relate it to our own survival. This "self" creates either positive or negative "charge" on every perception or idea and this forms the basis for motivating your actions. Of course, a different way of motivating actions exists - one of pure choice - which is beyond simple self-survival and is one of the main points of the book. A lot of the time "self" is just great and works fine for us. However, it is also the cause of all human struggle and suffering. Yet we don't and often can't make the distinction. The Truth is what "is" already - independent of our beliefs, assumptions, etc... (this last sentence had a big impact on me).

So, this is a quick and very incomplete summary of the "theory" parts of the book. More importantly, for me at least, were the practical parts of the book.

1. Identify and remove all beliefs, assumptions, cultural "rules", etc... They are completely unnecessary.
2. Don't fill up the void with any other beliefs, assumptions, etc..., including the ones in this book.
3. Direct the self-mind to identify that which is disingenuous, fake, insincere, or otherwise false in any experience you are having. This allows the self-survival process to align easier with it's own undermining
4. Contemplate. Contemplation is deep, focused questioning and is the cornerstone of this practice. It is not meditation but it is not 100% different either - from what little I've practiced. Ralston describes two types - a daily practice on the foundational questions (who am I, what is life, etc...) and a more situational contemplation that you take up whenever, often, and frequently on just about any subject. An example would be to find the underlying assumption or belief that just motivated your anger during that argument with your wife 10 minutes ago. Again, his assertion is on direct experience, not the generation of a good idea or a neat sensation in your dan tien.

The only con, possibly, is that the first 200 pages may be viewed as repetitive. In fact Ralston himself says the book is like climbing a switchback mountain trail - you repeatedly see the same view, but each time from a higher perspective.

It's 581 pages of small font type, about $25, and contains zero ad-copy and no reference to kettlebells.

BucketHead wrote:The Truth is what "is" already - independent of our beliefs, assumptions, etc... (this last sentence had a big impact on me).

Me as well. It reminds me a lot of some of the things I read in "What The Buddha Taught".

Nice review, Bux. I'll be purchasing this.

Quite a bit of it is available for browsing here, including the TOC

http://books.google.com/books?id=IUljRh ... &q&f=false

A decent review:

More seriously and more importantly, there really isn’t any belief in this book. No dogma, no esoteric teachings of looking at a toilet seat and being One with it. The Book of Not Knowing is full of experiential exercises and the point is made more than once that belief isn’t what Ralston is going for here.

Link

Not trying to be a smartass, but it seems like he's saying that one should believe whatever the hell one wants (unless there's some sort of objective standard that one is judged by). Am I getting that right?

Also not trying to be a smartass, but how you could come to that conclusion from the text on this thread and link is surprising. You're exactly 180 degrees out.

Ralston's experience is that we typically use beliefs and assumptions as "anchors" - they are the motivations behind our actions. He says that this is not the only way to live and, in his opinion, the main cause of struggle and suffering. So, instead of "believe whatever the hell one wants", Ralston recommends, instead, that we challenge each and every one of our beliefs - often ditching them completely.

I also, maybe incorrectly, got from your post an implication of relativism. If so, it would, again, be misguided. Ralston's foundations is that what is real, is real - regardless of our thoughts or beliefs about it. So instead of the popular philosophy of having "core beliefs" that are "unshakeable", he instead has no beliefs and works to experience the truth.

To couch it in an example that I think would resonate with you is the belief in God. Why would it matter to believe in God? If God happens to be real, then he's real no matter what you believe. And if you align yourself with honesty and truth in every aspect of your life, do you not align with God? Which illuminates why he titled the book as he did. Instead of trying to know things, especially intellectually, and trying to base your actions off of these, he recommends practicing the lost art of "not-knowing" through honest contemplation and wonder.

Re Christianity, you're right-- God exists whether I believe it or not. However, the goal (in dogma) of most of Christianity is union with God, which can only be achieved thru God. Catholics, of course, have a strong belief in the ability of the devout but intellectually ignorant gaining serious enlightenment (ex the Thereses and Catherine of Sienna)-- I accept this without understanding it.

Seems to me that that type of belief is easily corruptible for some-- like most of the famous modern Existentialists. I would be interested in how he gets around this type of corruption, or if he's even considers it.

Again, not trying to criticize his belief/philosophy, just understand it. If he's saying that only a few are capable/willing to reach the level of enlightenment (or whatever he calls it) he espouses, that's not a bad answer. If he doesn't answer or address that question, it would seem that his belief/philosophy is purely personal, or not fully thought out.

Personally I believe that human nature is corrupted, and that this corruption is irredeemable by human action-- I probably couldn't accept what he's saying fully. But I'm not trying to start an argument about the supposed superiority of my beliefs vs. his. There still could be a lot to what he's saying. For example, IMO, Budda and Socrates espoused a lot worth reflecting on to tremendous benefit. Sartre, not so much.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote: However, the goal (in dogma) of most of Christianity is union with God, which can only be achieved thru God.

Why would that require belief

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:I would be interested in how he gets around this type of corruption, or if he's even considers it

He covers the danger of examining self.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:If he's saying that only a few are capable/willing to reach the level of enlightenment (or whatever he calls it) he espouses

He talks of Enlightenment experiences, not a state of Enlightenment. He admits to not knowing if there actually is such a "state". And he fully agrees that few make it very far.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:Personally I believe that human nature is corrupted

How can true nature be corrupted? Maybe what you mean is it is not what we'd like it to be.

Thanks for the answers, the book sounds interesting.

I accept the dogma that human nature was corrupted by original sin, and can only be restored by God. In Christianity, it is corrupted whether we want to believe it or not.

For most Christians, belief in God (in one way or another) is one of the conditions to union with him.

Again, not trying to say one way of thinking is better than another, just curious.

OK, I ordered the damn thing. Better be the best book ever.

Bux, since you've read Deep Survival, the idea of not-knowing kind of reminds me of the idea of 1) recognizing you're lost and 2) the need to live in the now and deal with it. This, as opposed to continuing to believe you're somewhere else and trying to validate it. I'm still only a chapter or two in, but it struck me immediately.

nafod wrote:Bux, since you've read Deep Survival, the idea of not-knowing kind of reminds me of the idea of 1) recognizing you're lost and 2) the need to live in the now and deal with it. This, as opposed to continuing to believe you're somewhere else and trying to validate it. I'm still only a chapter or two in, but it struck me immediately.

Agree. The entire time I read Deep Survival, I felt that the author had pulled heavily from Zen-ish type of ideas. Or, if he didn't, it is an amazing coincidence to arrive at similar conclusions from different perspectives.

This sounds like utter nonsense to me. You have to believe a whole world view and view of yourself -- sounds like 500 pages worth of it -- to pull out of the world and immerse yourself in self-reflective exercises to discover what he believes "is" as if something "is."

How about making full use of your skills and strengths to live life passionately and virtuously and consistently with worthy goals? Being reflective is part of that way of life, but it's there mostly for utility and otherwise is part of a balanced life as an end.

Hebrew, not sure where you got your interpretation because your whole second paragraph is inline with this book

So how do you do that without strong and passionate beliefs? Or is the idea to strip away the beliefs that are holding you back - that I can buy into, but your description makes it sound as if the book advocates a certain withdrawal and detatchment from life as opposed to passionate engagement.

Let's take an example. I served on the school board and believed kids should be required to wear uniforms. That required a good deal of reading and sorting through conflicting views on discipline, education, liberty, economics, coercion, etc. I did so and developed strong beliefs on these issues, but realized there is no truth or falsity to this, there is no "is," it's a world view that requires balancing and judgment. What would I do differently if I were a disciple of Ralston?

Hebrew Hammer wrote:That required a good deal of reading and sorting through conflicting views...I did so and developed strong beliefs on these issues, but realized there is no truth or falsity to this...

That really makes no sense to me.

It means that when I advocate for a position, I say "I think this is the right thing to do because of x, y, and z." I don't add "this is the truth" or "I believe this is true." The concept, "this is the truth" works well in logic, math, and a good part of science, but outside of those areas that it doesn't add much to the discussion. Searching for truth paralyzes -- living well demands that you use your best judgment and act.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:It means that when I advocate for a position, I say "I think this is the right thing to do because of x, y, and z." I don't add "this is the truth" or "I believe this is true." The concept, "this is the truth" works well in logic, math, and a good part of science, but outside of those areas that it doesn't add much to the discussion. Searching for truth paralyzes -- living well demands that you use your best judgment and act.

What about x, y, and z. Are they true? Or are you building your final decision on a house of cards? And is y an actual truth, or something you believe to be true without ever actually questioning it?

nafod wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:It means that when I advocate for a position, I say "I think this is the right thing to do because of x, y, and z." I don't add "this is the truth" or "I believe this is true." The concept, "this is the truth" works well in logic, math, and a good part of science, but outside of those areas that it doesn't add much to the discussion. Searching for truth paralyzes -- living well demands that you use your best judgment and act.

What about x, y, and z. Are they true? Or are you building your final decision on a house of cards? And is y an actual truth, or something you believe to be true without ever actually questioning it?

Let me try again. Say you're giving exam on stress capabilities of materials, and one of your students uses the wrong equation. You mark the answer as wrong. He says, "But I believed my answer to be right" You explain to him that belief doesn't matter here, the equation is the equation.

I like uniforms for urban education because it takes away from issues like gang colors, girls tarting themselves up, poor kids dressing differently from better off kids. On the the other hand, there is an element of coercion, there's an argument that it dulls creativity, and the statistical effect on test score improvement is mixed. I add that all together and my values lead me to believe that requiring uniforms is the right thing to do. I think my reasoning, values, and conclusions are solid, but I won't wave them under the banner of truth and belittle an opposing view by calling it false.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

nafod wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:It means that when I advocate for a position, I say "I think this is the right thing to do because of x, y, and z." I don't add "this is the truth" or "I believe this is true." The concept, "this is the truth" works well in logic, math, and a good part of science, but outside of those areas that it doesn't add much to the discussion. Searching for truth paralyzes -- living well demands that you use your best judgment and act.

What about x, y, and z. Are they true? Or are you building your final decision on a house of cards? And is y an actual truth, or something you believe to be true without ever actually questioning it?

Let me try again. Say you're giving exam on stress capabilities of materials, and one of your students uses the wrong equation. You mark the answer as wrong. He says, "But I believed my answer to be right" You explain to him that belief doesn't matter here, the equation is the equation.

I like uniforms for urban education because it takes away from issues like gang colors, girls tarting themselves up, poor kids dressing differently from better off kids. On the the other hand, there is an element of coercion, there's an argument that it dulls creativity, and the statistical effect on test score improvement is mixed. I add that all together and my values lead me to believe that requiring uniforms is the right thing to do. I think my reasoning, values, and conclusions are solid, but I won't wave them under the banner of truth and belittle an opposing view by calling it false.

HH, it seems like you are starting from the position that there is an 'Is'. The author is not.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

nafod wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:It means that when I advocate for a position, I say "I think this is the right thing to do because of x, y, and z." I don't add "this is the truth" or "I believe this is true." The concept, "this is the truth" works well in logic, math, and a good part of science, but outside of those areas that it doesn't add much to the discussion. Searching for truth paralyzes -- living well demands that you use your best judgment and act.

What about x, y, and z. Are they true? Or are you building your final decision on a house of cards? And is y an actual truth, or something you believe to be true without ever actually questioning it?

Let me try again. Say you're giving exam on stress capabilities of materials, and one of your students uses the wrong equation. You mark the answer as wrong. He says, "But I believed my answer to be right" You explain to him that belief doesn't matter here, the equation is the equation.

I like uniforms for urban education because it takes away from issues like gang colors, girls tarting themselves up, poor kids dressing differently from better off kids. On the the other hand, there is an element of coercion, there's an argument that it dulls creativity, and the statistical effect on test score improvement is mixed. I add that all together and my values lead me to believe that requiring uniforms is the right thing to do. I think my reasoning, values, and conclusions are solid, but I won't wave them under the banner of truth and belittle an opposing view by calling it false.

HH, it seems like you are starting from the position that there is an 'Is'. The author is not.

Buckethead wrote:The Truth is what "is" already - independent of our beliefs, assumptions, etc... (this last sentence had a big impact on me).

That's what I took Bux to mean by this sentence. It's classic Platonism if I understand it.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

nafod wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:It means that when I advocate for a position, I say "I think this is the right thing to do because of x, y, and z." I don't add "this is the truth" or "I believe this is true." The concept, "this is the truth" works well in logic, math, and a good part of science, but outside of those areas that it doesn't add much to the discussion. Searching for truth paralyzes -- living well demands that you use your best judgment and act.

What about x, y, and z. Are they true? Or are you building your final decision on a house of cards? And is y an actual truth, or something you believe to be true without ever actually questioning it?

Let me try again. Say you're giving exam on stress capabilities of materials, and one of your students uses the wrong equation. You mark the answer as wrong. He says, "But I believed my answer to be right" You explain to him that belief doesn't matter here, the equation is the equation.

I like uniforms for urban education because it takes away from issues like gang colors, girls tarting themselves up, poor kids dressing differently from better off kids. On the the other hand, there is an element of coercion, there's an argument that it dulls creativity, and the statistical effect on test score improvement is mixed. I add that all together and my values lead me to believe that requiring uniforms is the right thing to do. I think my reasoning, values, and conclusions are solid, but I won't wave them under the banner of truth and belittle an opposing view by calling it false.

HH, it seems like you are starting from the position that there is an 'Is'. The author is not.

Buckethead wrote:The Truth is what "is" already - independent of our beliefs, assumptions, etc... (this last sentence had a big impact on me).

That's what I took Bux to mean by this sentence. It's classic Platonism if I understand it.

In line with the concept of gnosis (in the Greek, non-Christian, meaning)? That makes sense.

Ralston claims to have had many direct experiences of which he communicates in the book. I made an attempt to review this book even though it falls way short due to:
a) it was a summary
b) I have NOT had those experiences
c) I have most likely filtered what he wrote through my own beliefs and assumptions.
It seems, however, that we've completely jumped off track of even my initial misinterpretations.

HH, nowhere in the book would I find anything to support or refute your passion to have kids wear uniforms. I think Ralston's point would be that a) you don't really KNOW if its better for the kids or not and b) that the universe independently could give a shit either way. Reality "is" and is the truth, but it means nothing. You conceptually add meaning.

I also have seen Ralston often mention that Cheng Hsin is not a philosophy but relies on direct experience. The four cornerstones are Honesty, Openness, Deep Questioning, and Authentic Experience.

So pardon if I don't respond anymore to what you believe that I believe that Ralston may believe. Contact him directly at the below link. But if you have any actual questions about the book, I'd be glad to help.

http://chenghsin.com/interact-contactpeter.html

BucketHead wrote: I also have seen Ralston often mention that Cheng Hsin is not a philosophy but relies on direct experience. The four cornerstones are Honesty, Openness, Deep Questioning, and Authentic Experience

this is interesting to me, and parallel to my own thought about Complete Reality: endeavor to see things as they are, not as you wish them to be. i have too many books in the queue but I will get to this in time...I am reading Wisdom of No Escape right now.

BucketHead wrote:Ralston claims to have had many direct experiences of which he communicates in the book. I made an attempt to review this book even though it falls way short due to:
a) it was a summary
b) I have NOT had those experiences
c) I have most likely filtered what he wrote through my own beliefs and assumptions.
It seems, however, that we've completely jumped off track of even my initial misinterpretations.

HH, nowhere in the book would I find anything to support or refute your passion to have kids wear uniforms. I think Ralston's point would be that a) you don't really KNOW if its better for the kids or not and b) that the universe independently could give a shit either way. Reality "is" and is the truth, but it means nothing. You conceptually add meaning.

I also have seen Ralston often mention that Cheng Hsin is not a philosophy but relies on direct experience. The four cornerstones are Honesty, Openness, Deep Questioning, and Authentic Experience.

So pardon if I don't respond anymore to what you believe that I believe that Ralston may believe. Contact him directly at the below link. But if you have any actual questions about the book, I'd be glad to help.

http://chenghsin.com/interact-contactpeter.html

It's your explanation that I find difficult to understand. You seem moved by this, but I don't get what you're moved by. When you say things like "reality 'is' and is the truth, but it means nothing, and you conceptually add meaning," it sounds to me like a 60's parody, and a recipe for detached, disinterested living.

I didn't intend the uniform analogy to be about uniforms. It was about the role of belief in an engaged, passionate life, and about how paralyzing and futile it would be to contemplate disinterested non-meaning and reality.