Loved this video. What's usually referred to as "progress" is just further dropping of 'selfing' or identification (belief) as separate. Years of conditioning leave strong impressions. Seeing again and again, lifts the fog with time. It's a process, like growth in nature. And like nature produces waterfalls, this produces buddhas. And like a waterfall has no separate essence, neither have buddhas. Still they both continuously pour refreshment to the world.
I think, during self-inquiry, people stop at "I am consciousness", as in we stop unearthing our beliefs about ourselves at that step. It feels correct, so we hold that as knowledge and imagine ourselves as being consciousness. I think this is important to recognize since It's using the same mechanism, thought, to imagine ourselves, which may be itself the error.
It depends on how we define the words. If we define consciousness as the existence/being then consciousness = "what is" =wholeness and no one needs to do anything to realize or find it. But I think in the video you say that gurus use consciousness as something that is personal and I think this is generalization. Not all.
Magnificent..💙 Now I'm beginning to fall in love...not with the character..although she is kind of cute..🧐 😆😆😆 Much love and the deepest respect miss Funny. Do wish to see you one day
Excellent video. Very clear. I used to be in the awareness/consciousness guru mentality. Your videos actually introduced me to @emersonnonduality and he was the last nonduality speaker I heard and the seeking collapsed. Can you feature him again but this time as as speaker? Thanks for these amazing videos it was a catalyst.
Hello ,Thank you so much for making this message so interesting and clear. Though I am not really getting what you are saying ,it does resonate very very well. Thank you.🙏🙏👌👌 .
While consciously writing this comment I unconsciously broke wind. The cat consciously ran out the door as the canary became unconscious in the bottom of its cage. I think I see your point!
LOL! 'Conscious of something as a process versus consciousness as an ethereal noun bubble! Conscious of farting while cat conscious of running and canary not conscious of anything and no ethereal consciousness of canary floating up to canary heaven.
@@nondualityfun Yes, and as I was thinking of all of this as an illusion, nothing really happening here, someone shouted from the next room “Alright…..who farted!!!!!!’”
@@AKA_SIMPLYHUMAN LOL! I do hope you're a fan of the British show Slow Horses with Garry Oldman. PS Saying it is all a dream belongs to the non-duality that says everything is ethereal consciousness. No one knows what the material of reality is.
@@nondualityfun Funny you should bring up Slow Horses. I have never seen a show. However, the last ten years of my working career was exactly that scenario. A top employee falls from grace and is not let go but exiled into assignments that are meant to drive the employee into quitting or retirement. Is this synchronicity? PS. What you keep hinting at as ethereal is actually what the ancients called “The Aether”. And I could give you the scientific evidence that it has to exist. The Aether most likely is base reality. Spinoza’s “first substance”. It’s the electric field.
Isn't it both/and? You're right that consciousness is not there, that twoness is not there, but it also IS there, but not ultimately there, independently there. Conventional is ultimate is conventional; form is emptiness is form; it's not ONLY emptiness. *What Is* is form/emptiness, twoness and nonduality. Both/and. Your videos are excellent, challenging, informative, and fun - I love the humor. I get the need to point out that consciousness-twoness is not independently there - but, if we take nonduality to its fullest consequences, then twoness-duality-conventional-mundane-appearance world is there, but not there-there in an independent-ultimate sense, yes? It would also be helpful to point out that you're aiming largely at the Advaita worldview of Atman-Brahman and suggesting (I think) a more Buddhist no-self/no-phenomena emptiness worldview, yes? Again, thank you for this contribution.
Thanks Blaine! So . . . it's not just not independently there. It isn't there. I suppose the best analogy would be to say, there is absolutely no water in the mirage, even though there seems to be a mirage. You couldn't say water is also there. It's categorically Not There. So to try and find the water, or make the water holy in some way or aspire to have still water, or silent water, or make out someone is holy if they find the water or get rid of the water is all seen as amazingly futile and false. And yet most teachings point to all the ways to become that water as if it is sacred and will give you a spiritual perception. With categorically no water, what is left is EVERYTHING exactly as it is . . . and it's extraordinary and ordinary. There is just 'what is' . . . . and an appearance of people with consciousness. Which is the same as no water . . . yet an appearance of a mirage of water.
@@nondualityfun I don't think we're saying different things but I do think we're trying to say the nondual unsayable using different nondual traditions - you referencing the Adviata and me the Mahayana Buddhist. Quite right that the water categorically isn't there in the mirage example, but the mirage IS there, an appearance brought about by the specific conditions that bring such appearances on. From the Mahayana standpoint, the entire manifest world consists of appearances, conventionally real but not ultimately real. Only emptiness is ultimately real, and in the end, the two are same and different/not-same and not-different. That's why I was saying, "Isn't it both/and?" There's a difference between the mirage which is there and the water which isn't, so from the Mahayana perspective, the former is an appearance while the latter is an illusion and both are empty of inherent existence, per the emptiness doctrine. If I understand the Advaita perspective in the mirage example, you're saying Advaita teachers are claiming the mirage is an illusion while the water is the unseen Self, the True Reality, while the mirage, like all else in life, is illusory. Our job, so they say, is to find the True Self behind all the maya, and embrace it, make it holy, silent, glorious, or whatever. The mirage example doesn't quite work as an example for Buddhist emptiness but it could be used in other ways. In any case - thanks for engaging. Cheers!
Neuroscience agrees that the self is illusory. However, there’s more to the nondual message. When nondual speakers say things like there’s no time and no cause and effect, aren’t those just more beliefs? From one perspective, only the present moment exists. From another perspective, we couldn’t even say that time is an illusion absent the time required to speak the words. Who’s to say which perspective is more real?
Without the sense of 'me' there isn't a sense of time. It is brain related. There's time in the appearance but there is no knowing whether time is or isn't real. It's interesting that Turjman also says that without the self there is no time and that it isn't known. The whole concept about time is a funny thing. I don't recall getting into all this because I had a concern about time. I will say though that the past has become increasingly harder to access as a reality and the future is certainly an unknown . . . but so what? In some respects I'd say that everything is energy . . . and I'm not sure anything else can be added. Although I do understand in some ways why it is said by presenters . . . it can cut the notion that there is a self walking in a line toward a personal destination . . . so with that in mind it can stop the idea that there is a me who after doing some exercises will one day in the future arrive at enlightenment. And instead there can be a sudden seeing that everything is wholeness and can't be divided and wholeness has no idea of a separate you.
It isn’t that the music’s too loud, but it is too similar on range and cadence as the voice. The principal of mixing VoiceOver of music is they have to be in different ranges or placement state each other. No amount of “turning it down“ will make it seem easy to take. It sounds kind of messy because of this and doesn’t do the material justice. I wound actually love to hear the material but find it difficult to focus on what is being said.
Apologies. For those who don't like the music (for the reasons you've just said) there is a link to this video with softer music and another with no music at all. For no music ua-cam.com/video/xb-Y4KrZmO4/v-deo.html. and for softer music ua-cam.com/video/U14c-jEEaas/v-deo.html
Yes nonduality is truth. We are sharing one being. And it’s quite simple. Just go skydiving for the first time. “I” will disappear and there will be experiencing without experiencer. And everything will function until you safely land on the ground. Technically that is called pure awareness. But we are here in this dreamed world to live duality. So sticking too much to nonduality is another spiritual ego to me. I have seen this too many times on youtube.
Hmmm . . . that's the thing . . . pure awareness is the illusion . . . and it's that illusion that creates the discomfort that starts the seeking. It's the collapse of that illusion that these videos point to. No-one's sharing one being. These videos point to the collapse of that idea . . . . seeing there's no-one already. No dreamed world and no actual duality and no actual non-duality. No truth. No non-duality to stick to. Non-duality as a truth would just be another tedious belief system and yes that would be yet another boorish spiritual ego!
@@nondualityfuni do not see it that way, I agree with everything she is pointing to but I struggle moving from “awareness” being all there actually is. Parsons and Newman talk of “the unknown”, “the infinite” and “The beloved”, replace that terminology with “awareness” and I am there. Even Parsons in his earlier writing, starts with “awareness” and in a more recent interview did not outright reject “consciousness” which he has done on many occasions but stated he preferred the term “being”. The problem is and always will be trying to express concept for which language only gets in the way. I have also seen Newman avoid responding to being asked about what is aware of that which is “emerging”. Shrugged shoulders was his response. In some there is such a rigid rejection of awareness but such rigidity on the suggestion of the “beloved” and “boundless energy”. A recognition of energy and rejection of awareness seems strange to me. She states in an earlier video, that all arising from consciousness is duality but fails to recognize all arising from energy would be the same dualistic proposition. She is right about Spira and his romanticized, comforting version of non duality but she would be better considering the work of Bernard Khastop who has no such sentimentality.
all this videos is warthless for your peace of mind and happiness....real nonduality make you and peace in most or al expreincse in live....so if you feel misrable and not usufull after all this vidious is not the rigth teeching for you
The reason your frustrated is because your not realizing and acknowledging your higher self…which is only you because all that is created by Allah is high and mighty but you must give thanks in order to see.
Is there a particular section in the video that is confusing? Not that clarity is any better than confusion . . . they are both 'what is' . . . and thoughts can't grasp this . . they can only seemingly appear and disappear to one another but not to any-one.
There is an appearance of no-one, being bothered and judging the naff music as unnecessary and annoying, as well as a stream or barrage of apparent reasoning that never lets up and allows no-one to digest what is being said, or maybe that’s the point. So already I’m questioning the insight of someone doing that. The mind is not the right tool to get this, all the foolosophizing brings the energy into the head. When the message is decoupled from the messenger as in a cartoon, you are missing a lot of other cues, that would add or detract from its authenticity and integrity. For example, when watching Newman or Parsons or other teachers, I get a vibe, which often comes across as fundamentalist, arrogant, mental, or a game of egoic spiritual oneupmanship and how they interact with people, that affects me more than their concepts and abstractions.
I got lots of complaints about the music and do I have one with no music. And yes complaints about so much in there people need time to digest! I should have gone to film school! Best I could do. At least you have the option to pause the video. Not that you sound interested in replaying it but here is a link to the video without any music ua-cam.com/video/xb-Y4KrZmO4/v-deo.html
Ok, you don’t need film school, you just need to be sensitive and thoughtful around it. Either that’s innate, or can be brought out by being in your body and energy, slowing down, opening to your feelings, listening to good music and flow and thinking critically about it, listening as an audience would and getting feedback etc, which I guess is what’s happening. Don’t mean to be harsh.
Just saw your added paragraph (which didn't show up in the email.) Arrogance is unhelpful. Partly the cartoons are to show the goofiness. To take the fundamentalism and show the silliness. The search can be a serious business. Maybe other videos (with no talking) might be better. This is the intro to the Dream Bus Tours . . . ua-cam.com/video/_JLgn7awTeQ/v-deo.html Or this one with some talking but maybe not as irritating ua-cam.com/video/xyHCJ0q2q0s/v-deo.html And again my style may not be suited to you at all. My style is to highlight the silliness whether it be searching or even after the collapse of a me. There is a reduction in power if anything. It's possible though that Tony and Jim are being precise. I too am judged for being precise because it's the precision or clarity that can be mind-blowing when it hits. Yet precision can seem like there is a knower who is declaring to know something when really it is an attempt to say "I don't know and here is why no-one can know this". It's like a body of science that has come about from looking through a particular microscope which turns out to be faulty. This non-duality is pointing to the faulty microscope and saying Look! It's faulty! All prior conclusions can't be correct. And pointing to the faulty microscope seems to really annoy people, especially if they like the conclusions drawn. But . . . . I was once the same! Which is why I use humour . . . not that that humour is always appreciated.
When I listen to or read from this guys you mention, or the lesser known like, Angelo Dilullo, Daniel Ingmar, Frank Yang, Suzanne Chang e.g., I have the gut feeling, they are sharing they experience with me. I have the feeling when listen to you, that this is not about experience, but semantics and logic. You are telling in other words, that all of this guys, incl. religions etc, are lying or to put it mildly, they have missunderstood they own experience, about Unity, after the ego fall apart. You have a theory what this guys mean by consciousness. But I have somehow the feeling, that you are not talking from experience. It's like listening to a cynical, phylisophy professor, who tries to understand this with his intellect. Strangely, I never had the sense that "non-duality business" is selling me something under consciousness. If that would be another persona, I should identify with, after the "big shift". They, and all other religions, practice are talking about the same thing. You use the word wholeness for it, some use god and some use consciousness. Since I'm a practical guy and I don't see a point in endless mindfuckery about terms, I would ask you about your experience with being. I tell you my state: I (still?) didn't had the sensation of falling apart. I had a realization that the character and persona is constructed by thoughts, memories and projections. This became an inherent sensation. And it got stronger through self-enquiry. I see the world with other eyes, my meditation got deeper, I can focus more and connect more to people, sense them more, thanks to the realization and the detective work, the self-enquiry, through which I understood the mechanism of thoughts and feelings better. Since I'm aware of them and I don't identify with them, I can be in a state where the monkeymind is slower, more silent. I can sit in equanimity for a long time. I had also body sensation with energy, chakraopening, auaraseeing etc. Nevertheless, it is a pulsation, the ongoing change between this state and the focused "normal" state, in which the thoughts are more vivid and the feeling of the separate self is stronger. But the sensation of witnessing is also there always (this was not the case before the realization. It was identification instead.). I feel a lot of love and compassion towards creatures and even objects. Nevertheless, I don't have the sensation, of "no-one", of melting together with the wall, to stay with your example. I still sense the world as a separate being, as a watcher, doer. Why I'm meditating and spend time at all with any kind of teaching, incl. non-duality, is to have that kind of "meltedness", bliss, satchitananda, consciousness, wholeness, oneness, call it as you like. I hope from this process, this"conversion" to become an even more loving, feeling, compassionate entity and to love the creatures as they need to be loved, to love even when I'm (?) not loved. To see them without the noise of my still existing ego in the background. Which I'm aware of and I try not to identify myself with it, but still it is there. I hope there is a state where it vanishes completely, with all it's doubts, struggles, fears, and false hopes. As far as my understanding goes, this is described in the above-mentioned terms, and this is till now the direction I'm witnessing through my humble practice and efforts. I don't care if I'm experiencing the "oneness", because at the end of the rabbit hole there is nobody here, and we are all together the big "nobody", consciousness whatever, or there is not even that existing. I feel a kind of nihilistic worldview in what you are saying. If there is no-one, no self, no consciousness, no "Us", no karma, no binding "universal love", etc., then why do we exist? If there is just nothing, then there is no difference between Siddharta and Hitler. If everything flows in the same direction (enlightenment) and every state has it's role in it, then there is no difference. I understand that and respect every state, but as I understand your philosophy, there is no sense acc. to you to strive, since there is nothing just waste nothingness. Hence, there is no difference if I would hug you, or kill you and rape your corpse, if we would meet up for a coffee? Or am I misunderstanding the whole "radical teaching"? It can be, since I don't have the experience. But do you? What is your day to day experience? Or is this "radical nothingness" just another narrative?
Great questions! I used to follow and teach the satsang path. Silent mind, lots of bliss, big experiences from meeting gurus. I was so sure my consciousness (and everyone else's) was the True state. One had only to see it. I was encouraged to teach and I did . . . fully believing that if one looked hard enough one could see their true self as consciousness . . . empty, silent consciousness. I was so full of bliss and I had wanted to point out that emotions and mind states were temporary and illusory. This is different. No need to be a particular way. No need to be silent, special, holy, loving. There isn't a me or a you. It is theoretical to say there is no difference if one hugs or rapes. Of course there is a difference. No need to even become theoretical. No need to even argue over points about non-duality. It's all 'it', in the way body parts are all the body and none of the parts can be separate from one another. One part doesn't need to prove itself against another part. It's all it. But just because horror is 'it' in the same way love is 'it', it doesn't mean horror is okay. It's still horror. Rape would still be rape and horrifying. It is not nihilistic but instead inclusive. Everything is included just the way it is. So rather then a me as an authority and telling a 'you' how to get it . . . there is no-one either here or there. Not really, even though there will always be an appearance of a you and a me. As much as I would like to be an appearance like Ramana and be holy and loving . . . instead it comes out as it comes out. It's not for anyone. It is simply expression. It's another way . . . it is no longer seen as compassionate to be helpful to a person to 'get it'. That just continues the suffering or the idea of a someone who must 'get this' and they must then present it like everyone else does . . . and they need to prove they have it. No! There is only this. No-one to prove anything. It isn't in a human being. It can't be gotten by a human being. There isn't a particular way to be. When I was teaching satsang it was different. I was silent and loving and pointing to a truth . . . but that truth wasn't real. What does it matter how my life looks? There are non-duality teachers (apparent great ones) who have odd interests, or some watch movies. What does it matter? This is about loss not gain. Was anything really lost when the belief in Santa was no longer held as a truth? Did it need to be replaced by a wonderful new state? Or was it just gone? Seeking ends and there is no authority anywhere to say what happens next because anything and everything can seemingly happen. When I was silent and loving there was judgement. I judged others. They needed to see what I saw. They needed to wake up. Now . . . . no-one wakes up. No one has it. There are no others. There is no-one who is spiritual. There is no-one who needs to present in any other way than they are already. Everything is already it. The videos laugh at my seeking. I was a big seeker! If it isn't funny for you . . . then it isn't funny and that's okay . . . . you can watch other people's videos. It's so wonderfully unimportant. No-one needs to be freed. That's the HUGE difference.
I don't understand. I mostly enjoyed these videos. There is the isness of things and apparent awareness of the isness of things as part of the isness of things. Why bother to say there is no awareness as we speak within the isness of things utilising the apparent attribute of awareness within the isness of things. There is only the isness of things, so don't think I'm attributing awareness to other than anything but the isness of things "in" the isness of things. I mean I get you are concerned about personal attribution of awareness but I don't think you have to hold such a strong stance against it. I do realise that this too is the isness of things but I wanted to speak as I felt some resistance. Perhaps from a sense of separateness but it is what it is. So my question is, why do you hold this opinion so strong about the words awareness or conciousness? It's the same thing that creates duality when attributed to a person that allows the apparent realisation that there isn't a person attributed to it. Both are illusionary in the true sense because it's just a part of what is. Okay now I'm tired of saying "what is" (which is also a part of what is 🤦)
Great question! The reason for the stance taken on consciousness and awareness is because it is illusory. When you ascribe 'isness' as being inclusive of consciousness, that is like saying Santa is also a part of Isness yet there is no Santa. Non-duality is the realisation (but by no-one) that there is no consciousness, or another way to put it, is that isness doesn't have a conscious witness. The witness is like Santa. We can talk about Santa or the tooth fairy or a man in the sky judging everyone harshly but not one of them are a part of Isness. You can have an apparent conversation about illusions but the illusions themselves are never there . . . not even apparently.
Yes I get told off about the music in this video quite a lot! So much so I put out two other versions, one with softer music and one with no music . . . . Non-duality With Consciousness and without Consciousness with No Music ua-cam.com/video/xb-Y4KrZmO4/v-deo.html and the link with softer music Non-duality with and without Consciousness Softer Music ua-cam.com/video/U14c-jEEaas/v-deo.html
I am blind. Could somebody who is not blind and can see please describe to me what it’s like to see so that I might gain an intellectual understanding of what it is like to see and maybe somehow perhaps I can achieve sight through understanding it via our talking about it (exchanging thoughts)? 😂😂😂😂😂
Consciousness is a field. Non-duallity seems to be obsessed with the idea that there is no agent. Or that when you die your brain produced consciousness dissolves. This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard and totally trashes all paranormal experiences and even the idea of non-locality, or the sufi doctrine of unity and the manifold.
Le problème avec les radicaux c est qu ils n arrêtent pas de taper sur les autres.. ils savent mieux.. ils ont raison.. les autres se trompent, les cons..😁 y a même eu une émission avec andreas et emerson qui lisait des paroles de ramana ou autre et andreas qui juge si c est écrit pour un moi ou pas..🤣🤣🤣 nan mais des choses pareilles..🤭🤭🤭
Tout d'abord, pardonnez mon google français! Oui, je comprends. Le problème est d'essayer de montrer l'énorme différence entre quelqu'un qui pense que la conscience est la réponse par rapport à personne déjà nulle part et rien à atteindre. De personne n'importe où, il devient drôle que certains pensent que la conscience est la réponse. Surtout drôle après avoir suivi les gens qui se disent éclairés. C'est comme l'histoire de l'empereur sans vêtements. Ainsi, même s'il peut sembler impoli de souligner les différences, il s'agit en réalité de comparer pour mettre en évidence l'énorme différence.. C'est une apparence égale. Ce n'est qu'une apparence. Pas quelqu'un de supérieur à adorer et quelqu'un qui doit suivre.J'inclurai également la version anglaise au cas où Google aurait totalement mutilé mon français !!!!! Firstly, forgive my google french! Yes, I understand. The problem is trying to show the huge difference between a someone thinking consciousness is the answer compared to no-one anywhere already and nothing to attain. From no-one anywhere, it becomes funny that some think consciousness is the answer. Especially funny after following the people who say they are enlightened. It is like the story of the emperor with no clothes. So while it may seem rude to point out the differences, it is really just highlighting the enormous difference. It is an equal appearance. It is just one appearance. Not a superior someone to worship and a someone who needs to follow. I will include the english version as well in case google totally mangled my french!!!!!
Oh the language game of modern non duality, silly you. Nothingness appears to be consciousness when in contact with its energy structures, which is nothingness appearing as everything as an apparent relationality, if there is no consciousness how is there knowing that your making these videos? Don’t tell me there is no knowing that videos are being made here😂 It’s important to note nothingness is ultimately used here for the direct human experiencial psychology to realise its not a thing, or object to be grasped at, but quote the opposite. This is why many turn it into a no-thingness, because to confuse it as if it were an ontological claim would imply non existence, which is clearly not the case and impossible as there is clearly energy happening and it knows itself to be happening as energy. This is why I find beingness to be more precise, but the advaitic tradition used the word san, meaning existence. Pure existence, which is non differentiation, in other words, non dual existence. This is no-thingness existence appearing as everything. The language game of modern non duality is useful for the odd energy structure to resonate, but the majority don’t because the egoic karma is to fixed, hence practises are useful to an extent for loosening up the karmic ego, so that this kind of communication has more power is affecting the deconstruction of conceptual and contracted ‘meness’ so that it can be realised it was never actually real.
Hi Conrad. I received the first thing you wrote and wrote a reply but that first comment is now missing. The reply probably still applies . . . Consciousness is not the nothing. Consciousness is the illusion. There is no knowing that there is nothing . . . there is no knowing. Knowing is only the division of everything into a ‘me’ and things out there. That is all that ‘knowing’ can do. It’s an artificial action of division and then the illusory me believes the divided things are real. Without the action of division there is ‘what is seemingly happening’ but no knowing what that could be. It’s no thing. There is not a big black emptiness called Nothing that needs to be found. And it certainly can’t be found by an artificial me who is like a one trick pony. Divide. Divide senses into sight, hearing, feelings. Divide sight into objects, name them and on it goes.Then the so called 'me' hears about non-duality. Thinks it is a thing to be found. Looks for Oneness. Tries to include itself as a part of Oneness but itself is only an illusory dividing action. Nothing can be said about Oneness . ... .. there is no Oneness. It’s an appearance . . . known by no-one because there is no-one. It's an appearance.There is no fixed conscious person so no karma. Consciousness is part of the appearance but no real consciousness. Responses seem to happen, videos seem to be made but not by a conscious person. That's the only illusion in the
@@nondualityfun if consciousness is the illusion how is it that you could respond to my comment? If there is no consciousness and it’s just an illusion you wouldn’t even know this is happening so there wound be no response. If consciousness is then said to be apparently real, then it’s not really real so then there can be no power of responding through communication cos there would be no knowing that communication is occurring in the first place. How do we explain this situation then? Consciousness isn’t anywhere and it’s everything and it’s no-thing. Hence san chit ananda. Existence consciousness bliss. Bliss being the freedom of boundless completeness. It lacks nothing cos it’s not dual. Nothing it’s true something that can be found by senses cos it’s simply existence without location and structure and duality. Which is why I said it’s used for the sake of human psychology to realise it’s not a thing to be found or grasped in any way, it’s already what it is. Existence.
@@nondualityfun the only response I can think of is that because there is no person there is no free will, so all this is a complete determination of an apparent happening, but then the question remains, how is there a knowing that it’s an apparent happening for this communication to occur? If there is no consciousness this wouldn’t even be happening. In deep sleep the structure of the person shuts down. Memory ceases, just dense sleep energy, in the body there is no light. So there is an inference that consciousness/existence is as absence of personhood.
@@nondualityfun the spiritual experience of consciousness being seperate form what is experienced is primary apparent movement, but there is then an apparent deepening where there is no duality of consciousness and experiences or existence, consciousness and existence are the same thing. Consciousness has no location there is a feeling of being everythingness. That is nothingness. Pure undifferentiated existence.
Yes . . . maybe it does seem like a trend . . . not dissimilar in appearance to when satsang burst upon the scene . . . followed by the Tolle trend . . . but such a wonderful mind blowing paradigm shift . . . and oddly a return to the real meaning of the Vedas - the end of knowledge. No knower, no knowledge . . . and instead of beginning as a separate 'me' in search of Oneness it begins and ends with Oneness and literally nothing in the middle. It's been such a ridiculous search . . . and so many carrots offered . . . . and so many middle-men appearing as an authority . . . and all were seeing duality! So . . . a gorgeous relief! No real duality in any appearance. The pin gets well and truly pulled. A fake knower, a fake search, a fake me propping itself up with knowledge . . . and it didn't even exist in the first place. All there is, is virgin territory . . . absolutely unknowable. The pin gets pulled on everything. Not a bad trend I would say.
@@nondualityfun “All there is, is virgin territory . . . absolutely unknowable” What is meant by “unknowable”? In your own post you are making claims about that which purportedly can’t be known. Saying that there is no knower is a knowledge claim. Saying that there is no knowledge is a knowledge claim. “Oneness”, as described, is an outright concept. Fake search = Another claim. Fake me = Another claim.
@@DrHowbeit Yes this is so hard to describe. It's impossible. There are paradoxes and it doesn't make sense. When the sense of a 'me' collapses and it's recognised there never was a 'me', how to describe what is left that recognises that? And also how to describe a recognition that no matter what the experience, there are still no real 'me's' anywhere? It's not really like a reflection suddenly seeing it is a reflection and seeing it has always been a reflection with no knowledge of it's own because a reflection can't recognise that . . . . .. Maybe a better analogy would be discovering that a particular microscope that you're using is actually a mirage microscope and immediately recognising that all conclusions made from using that microscope are false. The mind is like that mirage microscope. It's like a visceral whomp of an epiphany that the 'me' isn't real. Or the 'me' can just fade away but no matter how it is seen, explaining it is impossible . . . .It's a pity that language doesn't help because in the end it's quite simple. The sense of separation is false because the secondary dual position of a 'me' is false. Suddenly all those attempts to reach Oneness are seen as false. And even the word Oneness doesn't do it justice. It too is a made up word. To answer your question, knowable is the sense of consciousness . . . to become 'conscious of' describes a split . . . a 'me' who is conscious of that. It's that knowledge that is found to be false. Every bit of knowledge though is already on some level known to be false. We know that the word tree isn't a tree. But what is harder to explain is that the knower is false. And then it's not even important to share that, as if it is something that everyone should now know. It's in these videos but that's to laugh at the prior search using a fake instrument that can only divide 'what is' into a 'me' and knowledge . . and how that search can end when it's somehow seen that the knowing seeker is false.I apologise that I can't make it clearer. It's funny . . . non-duality is funny and absurd and meaningless and unnecessary . . . . and after the 'me' dies language will still be used and logic won't help and no-one will know anything or even know there is no 'me', there'll just be no me's anywhere and no-one who needs to know anything . . in the same way your kidney doesn't need knowledge to function it just functions . . . the brain will still function but it's just functioning, it's not able to 'know' anything, it just appears to know because it divides 'what is' into language.
Have a look at these two videos . . . more entertaining than the essay above :) What the F is consciousness? ua-cam.com/video/FnLCy-vkoQI/v-deo.html and Seeking Non-Duality ua-cam.com/video/HBwiIlVLJ50/v-deo.html
This is absolutely wonderful - funny, light and "right" ... !! Many greetings & much love!!
jajaja yeah and "gluten free" :-b
Thanks Andreas!!! Much much love to you too!!
How did I miss this for such a long time. Awesome videos! Thanks a lot!
Loved this video. What's usually referred to as "progress" is just further dropping of 'selfing' or identification (belief) as separate. Years of conditioning leave strong impressions. Seeing again and again, lifts the fog with time. It's a process, like growth in nature. And like nature produces waterfalls, this produces buddhas. And like a waterfall has no separate essence, neither have buddhas. Still they both continuously pour refreshment to the world.
seeking is still wholeness
"Well that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton
As always magnificent and deep sermons, thank you so much for post new video😊🙏
I think, during self-inquiry, people stop at "I am consciousness", as in we stop unearthing our beliefs about ourselves at that step. It feels correct, so we hold that as knowledge and imagine ourselves as being consciousness. I think this is important to recognize since It's using the same mechanism, thought, to imagine ourselves, which may be itself the error.
Absolutely brilliant 💛
There Is an appearance of a new subscriber and a “like.” Well done nothingness, well done.
It depends on how we define the words. If we define consciousness as the existence/being then consciousness = "what is" =wholeness and no one needs to do anything to realize or find it. But I think in the video you say that gurus use consciousness as something that is personal and I think this is generalization. Not all.
👏👏👏 your videos are always such a breath of fresh air☺️
Magnificent..💙 Now I'm beginning to fall in love...not with the character..although she is kind of cute..🧐 😆😆😆 Much love and the deepest respect miss Funny. Do wish to see you one day
‘The Absent Pilot” very good. 🎉
Excellent video. Very clear. I used to be in the awareness/consciousness guru mentality. Your videos actually introduced me to @emersonnonduality and he was the last nonduality speaker I heard and the seeking collapsed. Can you feature him again but this time as as speaker? Thanks for these amazing videos it was a catalyst.
Yes, there is only this immediate experience - around my particular body.
Thank you, loved it!
Specially the trampoline brick wall splat! That's definitely me! 😂😂😂
Hello ,Thank you so much for making this message so interesting and clear. Though I am not really getting what you are saying ,it does resonate very very well. Thank you.🙏🙏👌👌
.
While consciously writing this comment I unconsciously broke wind. The cat consciously ran out the door as the canary became unconscious in the bottom of its cage. I think I see your point!
LOL! 'Conscious of something as a process versus consciousness as an ethereal noun bubble! Conscious of farting while cat conscious of running and canary not conscious of anything and no ethereal consciousness of canary floating up to canary heaven.
@@nondualityfun Yes, and as I was thinking of all of this as an illusion, nothing really happening here, someone shouted from the next room “Alright…..who farted!!!!!!’”
@@nondualityfun And I said to myself, “No one is angry” “Nothing stinks” “It’s all a dream” as I sat out on the back porch, degassing!
@@AKA_SIMPLYHUMAN LOL! I do hope you're a fan of the British show Slow Horses with Garry Oldman. PS Saying it is all a dream belongs to the non-duality that says everything is ethereal consciousness. No one knows what the material of reality is.
@@nondualityfun Funny you should bring up Slow Horses. I have never seen a show. However, the last ten years of my working career was exactly that scenario. A top employee falls from grace and is not let go but exiled into assignments that are meant to drive the employee into quitting or retirement. Is this synchronicity? PS. What you keep hinting at as ethereal is actually what the ancients called “The Aether”. And I could give you the scientific evidence that it has to exist. The Aether most likely is base reality. Spinoza’s “first substance”. It’s the electric field.
Really good! I will keep this one at the top of my collection.
Do a video explaining Infinity next. Use thoughts and words.
I'm sure it will make perfect sense.
Lol.
I like the part at 8:45 where it is explained that consciousness is gluten-free.
The first ones just part of the path to the second one
Only half way in and the video is powerful, it is bringing in the silence and stillness / nothingness that is everything.
Ugh
the cartoon form is refreshing and original but the words are still words are still dual.
Isn't it both/and? You're right that consciousness is not there, that twoness is not there, but it also IS there, but not ultimately there, independently there. Conventional is ultimate is conventional; form is emptiness is form; it's not ONLY emptiness. *What Is* is form/emptiness, twoness and nonduality. Both/and. Your videos are excellent, challenging, informative, and fun - I love the humor. I get the need to point out that consciousness-twoness is not independently there - but, if we take nonduality to its fullest consequences, then twoness-duality-conventional-mundane-appearance world is there, but not there-there in an independent-ultimate sense, yes? It would also be helpful to point out that you're aiming largely at the Advaita worldview of Atman-Brahman and suggesting (I think) a more Buddhist no-self/no-phenomena emptiness worldview, yes? Again, thank you for this contribution.
Thanks Blaine! So . . . it's not just not independently there. It isn't there. I suppose the best analogy would be to say, there is absolutely no water in the mirage, even though there seems to be a mirage. You couldn't say water is also there. It's categorically Not There. So to try and find the water, or make the water holy in some way or aspire to have still water, or silent water, or make out someone is holy if they find the water or get rid of the water is all seen as amazingly futile and false. And yet most teachings point to all the ways to become that water as if it is sacred and will give you a spiritual perception. With categorically no water, what is left is EVERYTHING exactly as it is . . . and it's extraordinary and ordinary. There is just 'what is' . . . . and an appearance of people with consciousness. Which is the same as no water . . . yet an appearance of a mirage of water.
@@nondualityfun I don't think we're saying different things but I do think we're trying to say the nondual unsayable using different nondual traditions - you referencing the Adviata and me the Mahayana Buddhist. Quite right that the water categorically isn't there in the mirage example, but the mirage IS there, an appearance brought about by the specific conditions that bring such appearances on. From the Mahayana standpoint, the entire manifest world consists of appearances, conventionally real but not ultimately real. Only emptiness is ultimately real, and in the end, the two are same and different/not-same and not-different. That's why I was saying, "Isn't it both/and?" There's a difference between the mirage which is there and the water which isn't, so from the Mahayana perspective, the former is an appearance while the latter is an illusion and both are empty of inherent existence, per the emptiness doctrine.
If I understand the Advaita perspective in the mirage example, you're saying Advaita teachers are claiming the mirage is an illusion while the water is the unseen Self, the True Reality, while the mirage, like all else in life, is illusory. Our job, so they say, is to find the True Self behind all the maya, and embrace it, make it holy, silent, glorious, or whatever. The mirage example doesn't quite work as an example for Buddhist emptiness but it could be used in other ways. In any case - thanks for engaging. Cheers!
Great stuff, Clare. Really, great stuff. 😊😘
Awesome 👍🙏❤️🌈...so refreshing...
Brilliant. Thank you
Neuroscience agrees that the self is illusory. However, there’s more to the nondual message. When nondual speakers say things like there’s no time and no cause and effect, aren’t those just more beliefs? From one perspective, only the present moment exists. From another perspective, we couldn’t even say that time is an illusion absent the time required to speak the words. Who’s to say which perspective is more real?
Without the sense of 'me' there isn't a sense of time. It is brain related. There's time in the appearance but there is no knowing whether time is or isn't real. It's interesting that Turjman also says that without the self there is no time and that it isn't known. The whole concept about time is a funny thing. I don't recall getting into all this because I had a concern about time. I will say though that the past has become increasingly harder to access as a reality and the future is certainly an unknown . . . but so what? In some respects I'd say that everything is energy . . . and I'm not sure anything else can be added. Although I do understand in some ways why it is said by presenters . . . it can cut the notion that there is a self walking in a line toward a personal destination . . . so with that in mind it can stop the idea that there is a me who after doing some exercises will one day in the future arrive at enlightenment. And instead there can be a sudden seeing that everything is wholeness and can't be divided and wholeness has no idea of a separate you.
love the animations, nicely explained
Fabulous 😀
It isn’t that the music’s too loud, but it is too similar on range and cadence as the voice. The principal of mixing VoiceOver of music is they have to be in different ranges or placement state each other. No amount of “turning it down“ will make it seem easy to take. It sounds kind of messy because of this and doesn’t do the material justice. I wound actually love to hear the material but find it difficult to focus on what is being said.
Apologies. For those who don't like the music (for the reasons you've just said) there is a link to this video with softer music and another with no music at all. For no music ua-cam.com/video/xb-Y4KrZmO4/v-deo.html. and for softer music ua-cam.com/video/U14c-jEEaas/v-deo.html
Who’s bothered by it? Oh it was an appearance of bothered. I see. Wait who sees?
Well shit. Nothing ever happened at all
Fantastic!
Omg PRICELESS 🎉🎉🎉😂😂😂❤❤
Wow! 🙏🏻❤️🔥
Very good points..but... background music interferes with vocals.
Here you go . . . softer music version ua-cam.com/video/U14c-jEEaas/v-deo.html
Wonderful and so so funny! Thanks!
'You are not in prison, you ARE the prison'💣(yes yes apparently😜)
❤
No ‘you’ can ever get this…
Amazing
Interesting video. Thanks 🙏💗
Yes nonduality is truth. We are sharing one being. And it’s quite simple. Just go skydiving for the first time. “I” will disappear and there will be experiencing without experiencer. And everything will function until you safely land on the ground. Technically that is called pure awareness. But we are here in this dreamed world to live duality. So sticking too much to nonduality is another spiritual ego to me. I have seen this too many times on youtube.
Hmmm . . . that's the thing . . . pure awareness is the illusion . . . and it's that illusion that creates the discomfort that starts the seeking. It's the collapse of that illusion that these videos point to. No-one's sharing one being. These videos point to the collapse of that idea . . . . seeing there's no-one already. No dreamed world and no actual duality and no actual non-duality. No truth. No non-duality to stick to. Non-duality as a truth would just be another tedious belief system and yes that would be yet another boorish spiritual ego!
@@nondualityfuni do not see it that way, I agree with everything she is pointing to but I struggle moving from “awareness” being all there actually is. Parsons and Newman talk of “the unknown”, “the infinite” and “The beloved”, replace that terminology with “awareness” and I am there. Even Parsons in his earlier writing, starts with “awareness” and in a more recent interview did not outright reject “consciousness” which he has done on many occasions but stated he preferred the term “being”. The problem is and always will be trying to express concept for which language only gets in the way. I have also seen Newman avoid responding to being asked about what is aware of that which is “emerging”. Shrugged shoulders was his response. In some there is such a rigid rejection of awareness but such rigidity on the suggestion of the “beloved” and “boundless energy”. A recognition of energy and rejection of awareness seems strange to me. She states in an earlier video, that all arising from consciousness is duality but fails to recognize all arising from energy would be the same dualistic proposition. She is right about Spira and his romanticized, comforting version of non duality but she would be better considering the work of Bernard Khastop who has no such sentimentality.
😍 oh so well said
Hello. Is anyone there?
just nod if you can hear me... i don't think there is, mate
Hello it’s possible to have a french traduction please 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Wish the background music was a little less obtrusive.
Sorry about that. I'll try and make the next one less obtrusive!
Here you go. . . . a softer music version ua-cam.com/video/U14c-jEEaas/v-deo.html
Simple❤️🐧
Consciousness = now you’re here, now you’re not.
How can a character in a video game think beyond its programmed world
Ha! Love this question! It isn't a character in the first place and it isn't thinking.
all this videos is warthless for your peace of mind and happiness....real nonduality make you and peace in most or al expreincse in live....so if you feel misrable and not usufull after all this vidious is not the rigth teeching for you
The reason your frustrated is because your not realizing and acknowledging your higher self…which is only you because all that is created by Allah is high and mighty but you must give thanks in order to see.
👍👍👍👍👍👍
Wish I could understand it all..! I find it so confusing 🙄
Is there a particular section in the video that is confusing? Not that clarity is any better than confusion . . . they are both 'what is' . . . and thoughts can't grasp this . . they can only seemingly appear and disappear to one another but not to any-one.
Just stop watching this stuff. Your normal life is reality.
Your mind cannot solve this. No mind can. If you truly wish to realize it, I would recommend guidance to awakening.
There is an appearance of no-one, being bothered and judging the naff music as unnecessary and annoying, as well as a stream or barrage of apparent reasoning that never lets up and allows no-one to digest what is being said, or maybe that’s the point. So already I’m questioning the insight of someone doing that.
The mind is not the right tool to get this, all the foolosophizing brings the energy into the head.
When the message is decoupled from the messenger as in a cartoon, you are missing a lot of other cues, that would add or detract from its authenticity and integrity. For example, when watching Newman or Parsons or other teachers, I get a vibe, which often comes across as fundamentalist, arrogant, mental, or a game of egoic spiritual oneupmanship and how they interact with people, that affects me more than their concepts and abstractions.
I got lots of complaints about the music and do I have one with no music. And yes complaints about so much in there people need time to digest! I should have gone to film school! Best I could do. At least you have the option to pause the video. Not that you sound interested in replaying it but here is a link to the video without any music ua-cam.com/video/xb-Y4KrZmO4/v-deo.html
Ok, you don’t need film school, you just need to be sensitive and thoughtful around it. Either that’s innate, or can be brought out by being in your body and energy, slowing down, opening to your feelings, listening to good music and flow and thinking critically about it, listening as an audience would and getting feedback etc, which I guess is what’s happening. Don’t mean to be harsh.
Just saw your added paragraph (which didn't show up in the email.) Arrogance is unhelpful. Partly the cartoons are to show the goofiness. To take the fundamentalism and show the silliness. The search can be a serious business. Maybe other videos (with no talking) might be better. This is the intro to the Dream Bus Tours . . . ua-cam.com/video/_JLgn7awTeQ/v-deo.html Or this one with some talking but maybe not as irritating ua-cam.com/video/xyHCJ0q2q0s/v-deo.html And again my style may not be suited to you at all. My style is to highlight the silliness whether it be searching or even after the collapse of a me. There is a reduction in power if anything. It's possible though that Tony and Jim are being precise. I too am judged for being precise because it's the precision or clarity that can be mind-blowing when it hits. Yet precision can seem like there is a knower who is declaring to know something when really it is an attempt to say "I don't know and here is why no-one can know this". It's like a body of science that has come about from looking through a particular microscope which turns out to be faulty. This non-duality is pointing to the faulty microscope and saying Look! It's faulty! All prior conclusions can't be correct. And pointing to the faulty microscope seems to really annoy people, especially if they like the conclusions drawn. But . . . . I was once the same! Which is why I use humour . . . not that that humour is always appreciated.
Emptiness.....?
When I listen to or read from this guys you mention, or the lesser known like, Angelo Dilullo, Daniel Ingmar, Frank Yang, Suzanne Chang e.g., I have the gut feeling, they are sharing they experience with me. I have the feeling when listen to you, that this is not about experience, but semantics and logic. You are telling in other words, that all of this guys, incl. religions etc, are lying or to put it mildly, they have missunderstood they own experience, about Unity, after the ego fall apart. You have a theory what this guys mean by consciousness. But I have somehow the feeling, that you are not talking from experience. It's like listening to a cynical, phylisophy professor, who tries to understand this with his intellect. Strangely, I never had the sense that "non-duality business" is selling me something under consciousness. If that would be another persona, I should identify with, after the "big shift". They, and all other religions, practice are talking about the same thing. You use the word wholeness for it, some use god and some use consciousness. Since I'm a practical guy and I don't see a point in endless mindfuckery about terms, I would ask you about your experience with being. I tell you my state: I (still?) didn't had the sensation of falling apart. I had a realization that the character and persona is constructed by thoughts, memories and projections. This became an inherent sensation. And it got stronger through self-enquiry. I see the world with other eyes, my meditation got deeper, I can focus more and connect more to people, sense them more, thanks to the realization and the detective work, the self-enquiry, through which I understood the mechanism of thoughts and feelings better. Since I'm aware of them and I don't identify with them, I can be in a state where the monkeymind is slower, more silent. I can sit in equanimity for a long time. I had also body sensation with energy, chakraopening, auaraseeing etc. Nevertheless, it is a pulsation, the ongoing change between this state and the focused "normal" state, in which the thoughts are more vivid and the feeling of the separate self is stronger. But the sensation of witnessing is also there always (this was not the case before the realization. It was identification instead.). I feel a lot of love and compassion towards creatures and even objects. Nevertheless, I don't have the sensation, of "no-one", of melting together with the wall, to stay with your example. I still sense the world as a separate being, as a watcher, doer. Why I'm meditating and spend time at all with any kind of teaching, incl. non-duality, is to have that kind of "meltedness", bliss, satchitananda, consciousness, wholeness, oneness, call it as you like. I hope from this process, this"conversion" to become an even more loving, feeling, compassionate entity and to love the creatures as they need to be loved, to love even when I'm (?) not loved. To see them without the noise of my still existing ego in the background. Which I'm aware of and I try not to identify myself with it, but still it is there. I hope there is a state where it vanishes completely, with all it's doubts, struggles, fears, and false hopes. As far as my understanding goes, this is described in the above-mentioned terms, and this is till now the direction I'm witnessing through my humble practice and efforts. I don't care if I'm experiencing the "oneness", because at the end of the rabbit hole there is nobody here, and we are all together the big "nobody", consciousness whatever, or there is not even that existing. I feel a kind of nihilistic worldview in what you are saying. If there is no-one, no self, no consciousness, no "Us", no karma, no binding "universal love", etc., then why do we exist? If there is just nothing, then there is no difference between Siddharta and Hitler. If everything flows in the same direction (enlightenment) and every state has it's role in it, then there is no difference. I understand that and respect every state, but as I understand your philosophy, there is no sense acc. to you to strive, since there is nothing just waste nothingness. Hence, there is no difference if I would hug you, or kill you and rape your corpse, if we would meet up for a coffee? Or am I misunderstanding the whole "radical teaching"? It can be, since I don't have the experience. But do you? What is your day to day experience? Or is this "radical nothingness" just another narrative?
Great questions! I used to follow and teach the satsang path. Silent mind, lots of bliss, big experiences from meeting gurus. I was so sure my consciousness (and everyone else's) was the True state. One had only to see it. I was encouraged to teach and I did . . . fully believing that if one looked hard enough one could see their true self as consciousness . . . empty, silent consciousness. I was so full of bliss and I had wanted to point out that emotions and mind states were temporary and illusory. This is different. No need to be a particular way. No need to be silent, special, holy, loving. There isn't a me or a you. It is theoretical to say there is no difference if one hugs or rapes. Of course there is a difference. No need to even become theoretical. No need to even argue over points about non-duality. It's all 'it', in the way body parts are all the body and none of the parts can be separate from one another. One part doesn't need to prove itself against another part. It's all it. But just because horror is 'it' in the same way love is 'it', it doesn't mean horror is okay. It's still horror. Rape would still be rape and horrifying.
It is not nihilistic but instead inclusive. Everything is included just the way it is. So rather then a me as an authority and telling a 'you' how to get it . . . there is no-one either here or there. Not really, even though there will always be an appearance of a you and a me.
As much as I would like to be an appearance like Ramana and be holy and loving . . . instead it comes out as it comes out. It's not for anyone. It is simply expression. It's another way . . . it is no longer seen as compassionate to be helpful to a person to 'get it'. That just continues the suffering or the idea of a someone who must 'get this' and they must then present it like everyone else does . . . and they need to prove they have it. No! There is only this. No-one to prove anything. It isn't in a human being. It can't be gotten by a human being. There isn't a particular way to be. When I was teaching satsang it was different. I was silent and loving and pointing to a truth . . . but that truth wasn't real.
What does it matter how my life looks? There are non-duality teachers (apparent great ones) who have odd interests, or some watch movies. What does it matter? This is about loss not gain. Was anything really lost when the belief in Santa was no longer held as a truth? Did it need to be replaced by a wonderful new state? Or was it just gone? Seeking ends and there is no authority anywhere to say what happens next because anything and everything can seemingly happen.
When I was silent and loving there was judgement. I judged others. They needed to see what I saw. They needed to wake up. Now . . . . no-one wakes up. No one has it. There are no others. There is no-one who is spiritual. There is no-one who needs to present in any other way than they are already. Everything is already it. The videos laugh at my seeking. I was a big seeker! If it isn't funny for you . . . then it isn't funny and that's okay . . . . you can watch other people's videos. It's so wonderfully unimportant. No-one needs to be freed. That's the HUGE difference.
I don't understand. I mostly enjoyed these videos. There is the isness of things and apparent awareness of the isness of things as part of the isness of things. Why bother to say there is no awareness as we speak within the isness of things utilising the apparent attribute of awareness within the isness of things. There is only the isness of things, so don't think I'm attributing awareness to other than anything but the isness of things "in" the isness of things.
I mean I get you are concerned about personal attribution of awareness but I don't think you have to hold such a strong stance against it. I do realise that this too is the isness of things but I wanted to speak as I felt some resistance. Perhaps from a sense of separateness but it is what it is.
So my question is, why do you hold this opinion so strong about the words awareness or conciousness? It's the same thing that creates duality when attributed to a person that allows the apparent realisation that there isn't a person attributed to it. Both are illusionary in the true sense because it's just a part of what is. Okay now I'm tired of saying "what is" (which is also a part of what is 🤦)
Great question! The reason for the stance taken on consciousness and awareness is because it is illusory. When you ascribe 'isness' as being inclusive of consciousness, that is like saying Santa is also a part of Isness yet there is no Santa. Non-duality is the realisation (but by no-one) that there is no consciousness, or another way to put it, is that isness doesn't have a conscious witness. The witness is like Santa. We can talk about Santa or the tooth fairy or a man in the sky judging everyone harshly but not one of them are a part of Isness. You can have an apparent conversation about illusions but the illusions themselves are never there . . . not even apparently.
jUST absolutely wonderful AS IT IS
Nice, but too long, too much ....with annoying music...but nice idea
Yes I get told off about the music in this video quite a lot! So much so I put out two other versions, one with softer music and one with no music . . . . Non-duality With Consciousness and without Consciousness with No Music ua-cam.com/video/xb-Y4KrZmO4/v-deo.html and the link with softer music Non-duality with and without Consciousness Softer Music ua-cam.com/video/U14c-jEEaas/v-deo.html
I am blind. Could somebody who is not blind and can see please describe to me what it’s like to see so that I might gain an intellectual understanding of what it is like to see and maybe somehow perhaps I can achieve sight through understanding it via our talking about it (exchanging thoughts)?
😂😂😂😂😂
Consciousness is a field. Non-duallity seems to be obsessed with the idea that there is no agent. Or that when you die your brain produced consciousness dissolves. This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard and totally trashes all paranormal experiences and even the idea of non-locality, or the sufi doctrine of unity and the manifold.
Le problème avec les radicaux c est qu ils n arrêtent pas de taper sur les autres.. ils savent mieux.. ils ont raison.. les autres se trompent, les cons..😁 y a même eu une émission avec andreas et emerson qui lisait des paroles de ramana ou autre et andreas qui juge si c est écrit pour un moi ou pas..🤣🤣🤣 nan mais des choses pareilles..🤭🤭🤭
Tout d'abord, pardonnez mon google français! Oui, je comprends. Le problème est d'essayer de montrer l'énorme différence entre quelqu'un qui pense que la conscience est la réponse par rapport à personne déjà nulle part et rien à atteindre. De personne n'importe où, il devient drôle que certains pensent que la conscience est la réponse. Surtout drôle après avoir suivi les gens qui se disent éclairés. C'est comme l'histoire de l'empereur sans vêtements. Ainsi, même s'il peut sembler impoli de souligner les différences, il s'agit en réalité de comparer pour mettre en évidence l'énorme différence.. C'est une apparence égale. Ce n'est qu'une apparence. Pas quelqu'un de supérieur à adorer et quelqu'un qui doit suivre.J'inclurai également la version anglaise au cas où Google aurait totalement mutilé mon français !!!!!
Firstly, forgive my google french! Yes, I understand. The problem is trying to show the huge difference between a someone thinking consciousness is the answer compared to no-one anywhere already and nothing to attain. From no-one anywhere, it becomes funny that some think consciousness is the answer. Especially funny after following the people who say they are enlightened. It is like the story of the emperor with no clothes. So while it may seem rude to point out the differences, it is really just highlighting the enormous difference. It is an equal appearance. It is just one appearance. Not a superior someone to worship and a someone who needs to follow. I will include the english version as well in case google totally mangled my french!!!!!
Gurus are also what is .And wholeness and oneness are the new thing the seeker is looking for .It's one big cosmic joke .
Only someone deluded by duality thinks that there are 2 types of non-duality. That is dualist delusion. Speak of something that you actually know!
This video is the epitome of the action of overthinking.
Semantic confused nonsense...like ALL THOUGHT.
Oh the language game of modern non duality, silly you. Nothingness appears to be consciousness when in contact with its energy structures, which is nothingness appearing as everything as an apparent relationality, if there is no consciousness how is there knowing that your making these videos? Don’t tell me there is no knowing that videos are being made here😂
It’s important to note nothingness is ultimately used here for the direct human experiencial psychology to realise its not a thing, or object to be grasped at, but quote the opposite. This is why many turn it into a no-thingness, because to confuse it as if it were an ontological claim would imply non existence, which is clearly not the case and impossible as there is clearly energy happening and it knows itself to be happening as energy. This is why I find beingness to be more precise, but the advaitic tradition used the word san, meaning existence. Pure existence, which is non differentiation, in other words, non dual existence. This is no-thingness existence appearing as everything.
The language game of modern non duality is useful for the odd energy structure to resonate, but the majority don’t because the egoic karma is to fixed, hence practises are useful to an extent for loosening up the karmic ego, so that this kind of communication has more power is affecting the deconstruction of conceptual and contracted ‘meness’ so that it can be realised it was never actually real.
Hi Conrad. I received the first thing you wrote and wrote a reply but that first comment is now missing. The reply probably still applies . . . Consciousness is not the nothing. Consciousness is the illusion. There is no knowing that there is nothing . . . there is no knowing. Knowing is only the division of everything into a ‘me’ and things out there. That is all that ‘knowing’ can do. It’s an artificial action of division and then the illusory me believes the divided things are real. Without the action of division there is ‘what is seemingly happening’ but no knowing what that could be. It’s no thing. There is not a big black emptiness called Nothing that needs to be found. And it certainly can’t be found by an artificial me who is like a one trick pony. Divide. Divide senses into sight, hearing, feelings. Divide sight into objects, name them and on it goes.Then the so called 'me' hears about non-duality. Thinks it is a thing to be found. Looks for Oneness. Tries to include itself as a part of Oneness but itself is only an illusory dividing action. Nothing can be said about Oneness . ... .. there is no Oneness. It’s an appearance . . . known by no-one because there is no-one. It's an appearance.There is no fixed conscious person so no karma. Consciousness is part of the appearance but no real consciousness. Responses seem to happen, videos seem to be made but not by a conscious person. That's the only illusion in the
@@nondualityfun if consciousness is the illusion how is it that you could respond to my comment? If there is no consciousness and it’s just an illusion you wouldn’t even know this is happening so there wound be no response. If consciousness is then said to be apparently real, then it’s not really real so then there can be no power of responding through communication cos there would be no knowing that communication is occurring in the first place. How do we explain this situation then? Consciousness isn’t anywhere and it’s everything and it’s no-thing. Hence san chit ananda. Existence consciousness bliss. Bliss being the freedom of boundless completeness. It lacks nothing cos it’s not dual. Nothing it’s true something that can be found by senses cos it’s simply existence without location and structure and duality. Which is why I said it’s used for the sake of human psychology to realise it’s not a thing to be found or grasped in any way, it’s already what it is. Existence.
@@nondualityfun I say you but obviously there is no you but language is fundamentally dual so it’s the best that can be done ahah
@@nondualityfun the only response I can think of is that because there is no person there is no free will, so all this is a complete determination of an apparent happening, but then the question remains, how is there a knowing that it’s an apparent happening for this communication to occur? If there is no consciousness this wouldn’t even be happening.
In deep sleep the structure of the person shuts down. Memory ceases, just dense sleep energy, in the body there is no light. So there is an inference that consciousness/existence is as absence of personhood.
@@nondualityfun the spiritual experience of consciousness being seperate form what is experienced is primary apparent movement, but there is then an apparent deepening where there is no duality of consciousness and experiences or existence, consciousness and existence are the same thing. Consciousness has no location there is a feeling of being everythingness. That is nothingness. Pure undifferentiated existence.
Quite a pointless video. 😄 👏
This non duality trend.. 🙄
Yes . . . maybe it does seem like a trend . . . not dissimilar in appearance to when satsang burst upon the scene . . . followed by the Tolle trend . . . but such a wonderful mind blowing paradigm shift . . . and oddly a return to the real meaning of the Vedas - the end of knowledge. No knower, no knowledge . . . and instead of beginning as a separate 'me' in search of Oneness it begins and ends with Oneness and literally nothing in the middle. It's been such a ridiculous search . . . and so many carrots offered . . . . and so many middle-men appearing as an authority . . . and all were seeing duality! So . . . a gorgeous relief! No real duality in any appearance. The pin gets well and truly pulled. A fake knower, a fake search, a fake me propping itself up with knowledge . . . and it didn't even exist in the first place. All there is, is virgin territory . . . absolutely unknowable. The pin gets pulled on everything. Not a bad trend I would say.
@@nondualityfun a less trendy name such as "interbeing", coined by Thich Nhat Hanh might be of help.
@@nondualityfun “All there is, is virgin territory . . . absolutely unknowable”
What is meant by “unknowable”? In your own post you are making claims about that which purportedly can’t be known. Saying that there is no knower is a knowledge claim. Saying that there is no knowledge is a knowledge claim. “Oneness”, as described, is an outright concept. Fake search = Another claim. Fake me = Another claim.
@@DrHowbeit Yes this is so hard to describe. It's impossible. There are paradoxes and it doesn't make sense. When the sense of a 'me' collapses and it's recognised there never was a 'me', how to describe what is left that recognises that? And also how to describe a recognition that no matter what the experience, there are still no real 'me's' anywhere? It's not really like a reflection suddenly seeing it is a reflection and seeing it has always been a reflection with no knowledge of it's own because a reflection can't recognise that . . . . .. Maybe a better analogy would be discovering that a particular microscope that you're using is actually a mirage microscope and immediately recognising that all conclusions made from using that microscope are false. The mind is like that mirage microscope. It's like a visceral whomp of an epiphany that the 'me' isn't real. Or the 'me' can just fade away but no matter how it is seen, explaining it is impossible . . . .It's a pity that language doesn't help because in the end it's quite simple. The sense of separation is false because the secondary dual position of a 'me' is false. Suddenly all those attempts to reach Oneness are seen as false. And even the word Oneness doesn't do it justice. It too is a made up word. To answer your question, knowable is the sense of consciousness . . . to become 'conscious of' describes a split . . . a 'me' who is conscious of that. It's that knowledge that is found to be false. Every bit of knowledge though is already on some level known to be false. We know that the word tree isn't a tree. But what is harder to explain is that the knower is false. And then it's not even important to share that, as if it is something that everyone should now know. It's in these videos but that's to laugh at the prior search using a fake instrument that can only divide 'what is' into a 'me' and knowledge . . and how that search can end when it's somehow seen that the knowing seeker is false.I apologise that I can't make it clearer. It's funny . . . non-duality is funny and absurd and meaningless and unnecessary . . . . and after the 'me' dies language will still be used and logic won't help and no-one will know anything or even know there is no 'me', there'll just be no me's anywhere and no-one who needs to know anything . . in the same way your kidney doesn't need knowledge to function it just functions . . . the brain will still function but it's just functioning, it's not able to 'know' anything, it just appears to know because it divides 'what is' into language.
Have a look at these two videos . . . more entertaining than the essay above :) What the F is consciousness?
ua-cam.com/video/FnLCy-vkoQI/v-deo.html and Seeking Non-Duality ua-cam.com/video/HBwiIlVLJ50/v-deo.html
I watched it twice. It's even shallower the second time. Dumb