If anyone is interested, I posted a series of links to articles related to the many topics that came up during the interview. That may help clarify anything we skimmed over. davidya.ca/2015/10/12/batgap-interview-live/
As I noted in the opening, this conversation is the story of the unfolding of some person. The value of telling the story is not in the story itself, the content. That's just personal details. The value is in what is behind that, in the speaking and the listening, in simple awareness, the process of experience itself. That's where you find what is really here.
The best so far in terms of content. Having read James Swartz blog and articles, the ability to correlate that information with David's experience made it profound watching. And Rick this is a new standard you have set for future interviews. You asked the right questions at the right time - questions which popped in my head and you were almost reading my mind and asking them.
+sandesh sheth Thanks. You know James Swartz is coming up in a couple of weeks. Let me know through the form on batgap.com/future-interviews/upcoming-interviews/ if you have any questions.
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump Rick, I would like to thank you. May you achieve in this lifetime what you seek. Through you I was able to discover stalwarts that helped me progress (the intellectual understanding and the experience that there is a witness) in my spiritual journey. James is one of them. His blog helped me a lot. With the bar being set very high after the interview with David, I request you to ask more probing and difficult questions to all your interviewees. A few sample questions include: What is the goal of human life? Is it to seek the absolute truth? If not, what is? If this life is Maya then why did they seek the truth / how did they get on to the journey of awakening. Now that I know for certain that there is a witness then what is the goal of the human life? After the realization that there is a witness is set in, is the goal just to watch the person perform the actions and in that process, finish off the balance karma? If yes, then why do the awakened go about educating others. This begs a follow up question. Is there a free will in human form? If no then why do the awakened educate others. Since there is no free will they cannot do anything for anyone. Or that anyone can do anything after listening to them. Why is there suffering? If the answer is linked with past karma, then there is free will. Now whose free will is it. The free will of the exploiter or the free will of the exploited. Answers such as 'we decide what we want to suffer prior to taking human form' just don't cut the logic. If it is just a movie being played on a screen then why evangelize the awakening. How do the awakened explain science and technology advancements? Why would the witness create them? If the mission of the awakened is to spread the knowledge and elevate the world to a higher level, then why not do it from a pulpit that gives maximum leverage. For e.g. contest elections to the highest offices in the country, be CEOs of organizations. The reach and richness of impact would be much higher. Thank you once again for the fantastic job being done by you.
+sandesh sheth My “rude” replies follow :-) >>What is the goal of human life? You are a human, I assume. What is your goal? Do you truly think all humans have same goal? Do you truly think that Udai Hussein (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein), Mother Teressa, Mahatma Gandhi and Ramana Maharshi had same goals? >>Is it to seek the absolute truth? No The absolute truth is the human life. It doesn’t need to seek itself. >>If not, what is? Love, Experience and Relationships. Experience - that’s why we have senses. >>If this life is Maya then why did they seek the truth / how did they get on to the journey of awakening. (Almost) Nobody “seeks” “truth”. To many, the “truth” comes unannounced, uninvited. Most spiritual seekers seek “enlightenment”. Most spiritual seekers equate enlightenment with the “supreme happiness”, “supreme peace”, “end of suffering”, “endless bliss”, “unlimited bliss”, “love”. >>Now that I know for certain that there is a witness then what is the goal of the human life? Love, Experience and Relationships. >> After the realization that there is a witness is set in, is the goal just to watch the person perform the actions and in that process, finish off the balance karma? It depends. For Osho, it was Rolls Royce, diamonds and women. For Ramana Maharshi, it was the cave and the temple. >>If yes, then why do the awakened go about educating others. Not all do. There are many more whom you have never heard of. >>This begs a follow up question. Is there a free will in human form? Yes. But, it is more like “free won’t”. >>If no then why do the awakened educate others. See above. >>Since there is no free will they cannot do anything for anyone. See above. >>Or that anyone can do anything after listening to them. See the above. >>Why is there suffering? Are you suffering? Are you suffering right now? If you are suffering it is because you don’t know any better right now. If I am suffering, it is because I don’t know any better right now. If we are suffering, it is because we don’t know any better right now. BTW… ...what is wrong with suffering? Suffering is like friction. Some of it is necessary. >>If the answer is linked with past karma, then there is free will. Now whose free will is it. The free will of the exploiter or the free will of the exploited. See above. >>Answers such as 'we decide what we want to suffer prior to taking human form' just don't cut the logic. >>If it is just a movie being played on a screen then why evangelize the awakening. It is not just a movie being played. >>How do the awakened explain science and technology advancements? They don’t. The scientists do. >>Why would the witness create them? The witness is a faculty of Consciousness - nothing more - nothing very special. >>If the mission of the awakened is to spread the knowledge and elevate the world to a higher level, It is not. It is nobody’s mission except those who choose to make it their mission. Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi didn’t go roaming around the earth or holding daily public meetings in Chennai, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and London to spread his “message”. >>then why not do it from a pulpit that gives maximum leverage. For e.g. contest elections to the highest offices in the country, be CEOs of organizations. The reach and richness of impact would be much higher. Many “awakened” people neither have the necessary qualification, power, popularity, reach or desire.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) Let me take some time to assimilate your response. I had this shift a few months and now keep going between this self and the Self. Mostly I am in self 99% of the time, but I understand what Self means and how it feels. Though I was on this journey was last 20 years, my journey just began a few months back in terms of experience. The reason I undertook this journey was to get answers to my questions. Today all I know is that there is a Self and a self, but my questions still remain unanswered. My quest continues either till I get answers or I have no need for answers. Thank you for your effort.
This is what I know: 1. I AM 2. I don’t and I can’t really know anything other than I AM 3. Whatever else (other than I AM) I see, perceive, sense or “know”... ...I know it as an object - all my “knowing” (other than I AM) is already dual. I AM THAT I AM Even when I try to know, analyze, understand "I AM" - I have already made it into an "object", I have already created a duality. Even when I call it Consciousness, Awareness and try to investigate, understand and know it, I have already made into an object and I have already created duality. 4. One of the main purpose of all “knowing” is utilitarian i.e. to learn to how to use “objects” to help the body survive or to experience, enjoy and love. 5. Most, if not all knowledge (except I AM) is at best is an examined, investigated, verified belief based on reason, logic, senses, observation, investigation, math and science. 6. Science is the best method we currently have to understand things and to investigate, examine and verify beliefs.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) I would remove the "can't" from # 2. You can know quite a bit more because who you are is deeper than this. Under Amness is Isness, pure being. And under Isness, beyond even the subtle duality of being and non-being is what the vedas call Brahman. Amness is a great start but there is much more.
+David B I am fine with stopping at I AM. Everything else is either a product of senses (seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting) or thinking (believing, dreaming, imagining, reason, logic, science, memory) or feeling (sensing, emotions, sensation)... With or without any of these…I AM With or without believing in Vedas, Puranas, Gita, Quran, Bible, soul, reincarnation, angels, demons, free will, choice, destiny, body, time, space, inside, outside, enlightenment, awakening I AM
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) And when the I AM is established, then what happens? Evolution continues. Where can it continue? In the realm of the senses. They begin to refine, and subtler perception begins to reveal the subtle realms. Eventually, the finest value of the relative is appreciated. What lies beyond that? The Absolute value of the objects of perception. So they begin to be appreciated in terms of the Self, and in time, a larger wholeness dawns which includes both Absolute and relative and is more than the sum of both. And still, evolution continues....
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump >> And when the I AM is established, then what happens? Evolution continues. Where can it continue? That depends on what you think the evolution is. “What” you think is “evolving”? Does “I AM” truly evolves? Does the “Satchitananada” evolves? Has “Satchitananda” evolved in last two thousand years? Is the experience of I AM for 21 years old is really different from the experience of I AM for a 51 years old or for a 81 years old? >> In the realm of the senses. They begin to refine, and subtler perception begins to reveal the subtle realms. I think they are largely just dreams… ...not that much more valuable than the dreams that most humans have in the night time as they sleep. >>Eventually, the finest value of the relative is appreciated. Which is the Absolute. Which is the Consciousness. >> What lies beyond that? Nothingness. Unknowable. >>The Absolute value of the objects of perception. So they begin to be appreciated in terms of the Self, and in time, a larger wholeness dawns which includes both Absolute and relative and is more than the sum of both. And still, evolution continues.... because, the evolution is not much to do with it. The “evolution” (as science defines it) continues because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt decide to mate and have children. Their genes get passed on. This process is not directly impacted by whether I am established as I AM or not.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) >> Does the “Satchitananada” evolves? Yes. >>Eventually, the finest value of the relative is appreciated. Actually there are 7 koshas or layers to it. The physical is the last and most dense, consciousness is the first. But it's still a kosha. It is not the final reality.
*Unrated because of a mixed bag of interactions on His blog* This was originally a new favorite. Seemed like no poser, no publicity seeker, seemed absolutely authentic, pretty rational, no BS, highly nuanced, detailed, original, cosmological contributions to boot, and I recommended him ! But after subscribing to his blog, something I would usually never dream of doing, I had some exchange which seriously evoked doubts whether he is indeed the real deal and whether indeed his cosmological contributions are original. Even in this interview the terminology involved was so hindu and/or veda and/or TM influenced (and not even correct in some cases, such as his use of "patala"), but in another video he used blatantly copied developmental models which seemed to be simply Ken Wilber rip offs with no attribution. At the same time he seems to have troubles reading correctly what someone writes and attributes his misunderstanding to his vis a vis, a very low state of conscientiousness, he has big holes in very basic philosophical principles of dialogue and seems, if caught in a mistake, to revert to condescension and projection. Therefore I un-recommend this guy. I am hearing on the grape-vine that other interviewees on the batgap gravy train have misused the publicity generated by their appearance here, and sadly Rick doesn't have sufficient nobility to be honest with his listeners about who it is, thus leaving them defenseless. Basically, batgap seems to have degenerated into the usual capitalist endeavor. _About the rating: anything below and including 0 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +2 to +2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
+Mary Gwen Dungan Ach I think Aalto would be a close, at least he could be, but he is more gentleman like, reserved and I think went public only after years of Rick's supplications. And as regards the woo woo, well, I would reserve that term for people with magical thinking instead of actual cosmological insight. This man here is not woo woo in my use of the term. Woo woo is more new age believers like Teal Swan and that law of attraction ilk and otherwise also traditionalists who merely repeat cosmological topoi without having actually realized them, and I sincerely hope that none of them are on the panel. In short *_"Woo woo no thanks, actual cosmological insight, yes please !"_* P.S.: regarding the cosmology of mystical trinity of a christian mystic, please read "What is Self" by Bernadette Roberts. And if you need a teaser, first read "The experience of No-Self", which is the last part of her spiritual auto-biography, and you will see why I want her on that panel, although she would be a kind of maverick there. She'd probably first need to warm up with Rick alone, but I doubt she will ever be teased out of her recluse life style: bernadetteroberts.blogspot.de/
There are universal principles that are in everything, everywhere beyond time and space, therefor all is these principles in different correlations and these principles are also one principle. In every variation we find the same primordial principles. That is why the whole universe is in a grain of sand. The grain of sand is a manifestation of the same principles as is the entire universe, or all universes.
Davidya, I have a question about the beginning part of interview, where you spoke about knowing all about objects and seeing objects from all sides. I have a particular interest in these ideas. You asked for an object, looked for an object, and Rick finally handed you an object. After obtaining this object Rick then asked if you could see the iron smelting or something like that, and, ironically, after searching for the object and getting the object, you then say that the type of knowing you are talking about doesn't have to do with physical objects, but with more subtle objects. I think you can see my question (from all sides no less). There is something a bit odd in this, that you wanted an object and then when you got it you seem unable to respond to Rick's question, and suddenly say it's only for subtle objects. If that's so, then why did you ask for a physical object? I would very much like to know, in any case, what it is like to see an object from all possible points of view simultaneously, if you would be inclined to answer that. Picasso attempted this, didn't he, or something to that effect, of trying to go beyond egoic perspective? I would further this by inquiring if you could define what your "knowing" or "knowledge" means, that is, how one knows when one knows; what is knowing? This is an epistemological inquiry. There's a heck of a lot to think about in this interview, and it is among my favorites. My questions are because I respect what was going on, not as a diss, please understand.
+jazzsnare Hi (I play drums a little too) Sounds like I didn't explain it well. A cognition isn't something we do with an object. It's something that shows up spontaneously. It's quite distinct from subtle perception, where we might explore the flow or energy in an object. It's also very distinct from intuitive knowing where I may have explored the nature of the example object. A cognition just shows up as a distinct kind of experience. Some of the Vedic texts are written records of cognitions, for example. Talk about subtle beings is not. Rick's mention of the metal's history was extending the metaphor. I didn't take it as a question nor was I attempting a performance for the camera. I was simply trying to illustrate the abstraction I was talking about. Here's an article where i discuss some classes of experience and then explore congitions and the nature of the three types. davidya.ca/2015/09/15/the-seeing-seer/ I'm not familiar with Picasso in that regard but he certainly tried to bend perceptual constructs. Seeing an "object" simultaneously from all angles is like seeing it from individual angles separately, only all at once. The mind can't process this, hence the need to "unpack" it into specific views, etc. We might use the analogy of a movie. A cognition is like seeing every frame of the film at once. Then the mind has to go into it and look at some of the frames. Some of the perspectives of time are similar, like experiencing all of the past and future in the present or all lifetimes simultaneously. I also have a post on my blog with the interview, then links to many articles that discuss some of the points raised for more detail, if that would be a useful reference. davidya.ca/2015/10/12/batgap-interview-live/ Hope this brings a bit more clarity.
+David B Thank you, Davidya. I haven't time right now to look into your links, as I am going drumming tonight very shortly. I hope to drum from all angles simultaneously. Before I say more I will definitely seek out the links. I also found the bit about space very hard to follow; it seemed the distinct spaces, whatever that is, overlap, or are "nested" but still not in the same place. I also don't follow the bit about "dimensions," which term you see as misused. I think the word is used to describe things of a different order, so to speak, not in the same order; it suggests an incongruity, doesn't it? You seem to use it in the sense of something in the same order, like north, south, east, west: dimensions within one structure. I am not sure why you argue it is a misused word. Time would be one dimension, and spatiality another, in my usage, but I think you disagree. I would like to find a source where you probably already delineated this. Well, off to my gig.
+jazzsnare I have links to articles that discuss these points on the mentioned interview page. But suffice to say space is like a Russian doll, one within the other. Within a given space like our universe, we experience it as basically infinite and are not aware of other universes. It seems a separate space. But within the larger creation space, we can see the other universes as it contains them. People often use the word dimension when layer or level would be more suitable. The word dimension means direction in space, as in the XYZ geometry used to map space as 3D. It is too often used to mean something else which causes communication issues. So just being fussy about terminology so meaning is communicated better. "spatiality" is not a dimension but rather is measured by dimensions. Buckminster Fuller argued, for example that is was better to model space with 4 dimensions. The astral, for example, is not another "dimension" because it is also a 3D space. It is another more refined layer that can become perceived if the senses are refined in a corresponding way. We might experience it as a separate "place" at first but later come to recognize it is not elsewhere but right here, interpenetrating the physical world. In this case, same space but a different resolution. I also consider time a different order than space because it is the effect of something different - the process of experience. This is why our sense of time changes differently than our sense of space. Time does have an apparent direction though, so we can describe it has having a dimension. But it's not the same type as space. Hope you enjoyed your gig.
Not sure if bullshit or real. I really get skeptical when people start talking about details regarding past lives. I would need more detail regarding this whole past life talk.
+Mary Gwen Dungan Hi Mary! you are absolutly right....it comes with the process! However it seems that people with very closed emotional bodies often have very little expierence of that even after awakening (since most energy is in the mental realm avoiding feeling their stuff fully). all the best to you Michael
+Mary Gwen Dungan In the interview, I attempted to point out why it unfolded here. In my own case, there was a need by the mind to understand the current circumstance. That drove the unfolding. Put another way, it depends on the karmic dynamics and the more effective ways to resolve the energy blocks. Remembering is one way that might facilitate that. For others where there isn't a driver for that, there is nothing to bring it up so it doesn't arise. One simply lives out or resolves the energy/ heals by other means. I can certainly see why some are skeptical of it. There is a great deal of wishful thinking around the topic out there. I spoke if it mainly because it was prominent for a period there due to the active karma in the life at the time.
+David B David I am curious how these past lives were revealed to you? How do you know that these visions weren't simply a creation of the mind? Are you now convinced that there is reincarnation? Does everyone have past lives and I'm assuming the answer is no since there has been a dramatic increase in population from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last century, so where do these new souls come from? Different planets? Maybe you answered some of these questions in the video but i am really interested in your response
+Pheene Z Yes, I went over the process to some degree in the interview. Long story that unfolded over awhile. Basically I had a life that wasn't making a lot of sense, work where I was a fish out of water, etc. The drive was there to understand. What began to happen was impressions arose briefly in awareness. They had a strong emotional charge. I didn't pay them much heed. Then over time, a larger window opened and some of the charge was processed. They didn't feel like "mine" but where somehow vaguely familiar. As it became more clear, it became apparent it had some relationship to current events and then that it was an old memory. I was pretty circumspect at first. But as the charge was processed the window opened wider and hunks of that lifetime where recalled. It explained current circumstances in all kinds of ways - why the work, the relationship, and older relationships I had with some people in my life. Further time and a few details emerged that could be verified in the world - historical events, objects, etc. The bigger proof for me though was that it brought sense to my life and unexpectedly allowed that baggage to be resolved and unloaded. Over time, other aspects of this have come up, like the energetic mesh of unresolved charge that interconnects lifetimes (the mechanics of karma), the larger flow of the cycles of time, and so on. Time itself also came to be experienced a number of ways, like the now, all time in the now, all time as simultaneous, time as an unfolding of awareness, and so forth. To me now, there are several ways of seeing it that are just different perspectives. Not reality but ways of seeing that may be instructive. Everyone has a process of unfolding. Most have a long series of past lives but there are various ways people come into a human cycle that can vary what the history is. Some return to a human lifetime quickly and some more slowly. It appears that during this transition time, many are taking a human life to make rapid progress during this profound time of transition. It's a large subject. On my web site under Key Posts, the section on Time links to a number of articles on related subjects. It's worth noting though that this just happens to be part of this process here. It has no great importance other than a possible way of healing in the larger arc of a journey. And it is the past, not what is here now.
+David B Another related detail to note. In Ayurveda, they view that our life is composed of 6 bhavas (shadbhava) or houses. 3 we get from our parents and 3 are from our past development. Of note are 2 of the second - Atman and Sattva. These are the 2 key aspects of spiritual evolution - consciousness and clarity. In others, our prior spiritual development is cumulative and we pick up where we left off. Most teachings these days tend to emphasize development of consciousness or development of clarity, refined perception, etc. But it's both together that bring the greatest results.
Re 3min. mark...Yes,Rick,we know all about those people who have read a lot of books and then foolishly think they know something(a favourite theme of the interviewer)since you are one of them,Rick.
+Jon W not so easy...one has to go against the tide of reverence for these people who never tire of talking about themselves,their never ending repertoire of second hand spiritual metaphors...and pointing to the people being interviewed,their massive egos and sheer arrogance and feeling of being special.
+Jon W well I'm not making a career out of it or cashing in on this ''spiritual'' thing. I made the point relating to Rick only after he made a particular criticism of people...people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But what have you to offer apart from one line quips?
I've always thought those in Unity had complete mind-body integration and had total command of all the laws of nature. They could manifest anything and fulfill any desire. Apparently from this interview it's not the case.
+Natlus K Actually, Unity has nothing to do with abilities. It is a change in the relationship of consciousness to itself within. It does require high levels of integration but is not about being a special superhuman. Over time, this leads to a progressive unification of all the layers of experience. Through clearing the various layers of our expression (purifying the subtle body, etc), greater clarity arises, along with gift and abilities that vary some. In this process, we do become the home of all the laws of nature. But how fully that may be expressed through the apparent form varies. This doesn't minimize it in the slightest though. The process also means that over time, all desires are fulfilled but some of that does unfold in the field of karma and time. Would such a person really want to mess with the flow of the divine? And is it any longer anything to do with personal gratification? Some teachers do speak about higher stages in very exalted terms. It is hard to express the profundity of it, so perhaps they amplify what people can relate to.
Is Davidya one of those who'' edited'' the old batgap comment section,a wonderful and fruitful resource until these vandals destroyed it. That is,the ''editors''(censors) being the vandals.
+glenemma1 I was not a moderator. I added the forum search tools and such. However, I do know that Rick had a terrible time with abuse. He repeatedly asked the group to self-police and follow a few simple rules. Didn't work so he had to shut it down.
+Mary Gwen Dungan There was also some great people in Comments that didn't migrate to the forum when he closed Comments. Not sure any Interviewees engaged there, though a few had in Comments.
I think one does a huge disservice to the truth, realization and true awakening by talking about, encouraging and promoting ideas like miracles, walking on water, past life memories, seeing angels, seeing demons and ghosts. Unfortunately, from his last three interviews, it appears that for Rick this is his home turf and in the heart of his heart - he is a true, hard-core beliver in mircales, walking on water, seeing angels, demons, past life memories. IOW… ...in spite of his years of meditation, inquiry and self -examination, Rick seems to still be as hard-core a believer as 11 years old very “religious” Christian or Muslim or Hindu boy might be. I, for one find it very sad and a great misfortune of spirituality. Personally, if I had to choose between A. the stories of seeing angels, ghosts, demons, walking on waters and B. the hard core materialsm of work your 9-6 job, watch sports, drink beer, sleep and then repeat - I will choose B. Fortunately, the real spirituality is not really that and it doesn’t require you to believe in anything that is not DIRECTLY available HERE and NOW in your own life - in your own Present Experience. From my perspective, an hour reading of Ramana Maharshi is worth far more than hours spent hearing these stories of past lives and angels. sergeyrubtsov.com/books/english/truth_revealed_reality_in_40_verses.pdf
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) I don't have those experiences myself, but those things are as "real" as anything else in the relative world, and sooner or later, one encounters them on the journey. Failure to understand them can be a pitfall. Therefore good to have a clear understanding of them.
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump Dear Rick: It is very hard to really argue against what someone believes - be it a hard-core Christian, Muslim, Hindu or a 11 years old boy. I have personal experience with it and the best I can do is to ask the believer to turn to himself/herself. I certainly don't believe in these things and I have surely not seen them. Very few have "claimed" to have seen them - I put the "claimed" in quotes because none of them are scientifically proven - someone had put one million dollars reward on these. These kind of "claims" and believing them has served as the foundation stone for much confusion and much "garbage" in our world. Example: this person is special because he heard directly from the "God". The believer of one man's "claim" form one religion and the believers of another man's claim form another and then they both fight. Sri Ramana Maharishi would always turn the seeker to the inquiry: Who Am I? Ms. Byron Katie recommends: 2. Can I absolutely know that it is true? I have said the following: 1. In this present moment, does believing this thought bring peace, love and happiness? 2. In this present moment, does this thought help calm the mind and make it restful, peaceful and still or does it make it more active, agitated, anxious and starts further into seeking? 3. Is this thought really necessary in this moment? 4. Is this thought really wise and useful in this moment? 5. What would happen if I don't have this thought in this moment - would I be more peaceful or more anxious, would I be more still or more seeking? 6. What I am really doing by believing, repeating and promoting these thoughts? Am I further fueling the mind and further fueling the seeking or am I bringing mind into calm, peace and stillness right in this moment? 7. Does repeating this belief, this thought help me get deeper into the Isness and the stillness of this moment or does it take me further into the past, future, seeking, dreams, illusion and imaginations?
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump In my view, the belief in miracles, "Gods", "angels", "demons", "souls"... and the "special beings" who see them is what has completely destroyed true spirituality and true investigation and inquiry. The believers have even killed scientists because the scientific findings went against what their chosen "special beings" had said. As far as I can tell, these kind of "beliefs" are the disease and problem and not at all a cure or solution. Humans have had these kind of unverifiable beliefs since as far as we know and many "special belongs" who really "see" these things have exploited, manipulated and used the gullible who believed them since as far as we know.
TRANSLATABLE INTO BUDDHIST TERMINOLOGY? It is my belief (or perhaps desire) that the religions of the world are for the most part just different languages expressing similar things. Many who identify with Buddhism forever emphasize (without understanding I believe) that whereas Hinduism believes in an ongoing self, Buddhism doesn't. For me the word "ego" is core here and it is THIS and not the Self of Hinduism that Buddhism is referring to , Yet orthodox Buddhism is clearly at its root a reaction to the beliefs of Hinduism most probably the worship of deities and Brahman "masters" in favor of direct experience. Mahayana Buddhism is of course full of reference to countless universes and beings. Some "early Buddhism" Buddhists (Theravadin) see this as being a kind of HIndu contamination. Others see this as an advance on what they see as the narrow focus of Hinayana (smaller vehicle) Buddhism. Of course "HInayana" is a concept invented by Mahayana and so should be treated with skepticism. My view is that all these traditions have in their ranks the whole gamut of human spiritual development. I wonder if what David so beautifully articulated in this talk could be expressed in terms of Buddhist language?
+David 2025 Hi David Yes, different expressions of the same common source. It is my understanding that Buddha's approach was to dump all the gods and yagyas (performances) that had cluttered the religious practices of the time and bring it back to it's core simplicity and direct experience. However, over time, many of those old gods have been added back again (sometimes with different names) in some branches because that was the experience. Hinduism itself doesn't really exist as a faith - it was a name given by the British. Rather it is a collection of faiths of India, such as Shaivism, Jains, and so forth. I lean back on the earlier Vedic framework as it is more experientially driven and philosophical but it does suffer from it's distance in time. It does posit an Atman or cosmic Self whereas Buddhism simply refers to no-self, as in egoless. But it's useful to recognize that Atman is simply a name for global consciousness which is not something Buddhists deny. It is just a bit different framing. Buddhism has come to emphasize awakening whereas popular Vedic thought like the Upanishads emphasizes later stages more. Buddha clearly spoke to all stages but that's not as explicitly unpacked now, other than perhaps in Zen. Unfortunately my knowledge of Buddhism is not good enough to translate all of it. And indeed, because of the above emphasis, it would be harder to find language for later stages in modern discourse. It's one of the reasons I've studied the Vedic canon most.
+David B Thanks for the reply David. I confess I had hoped it would be you who would reply. Sadly as I am sure you are aware there is a lot of dogmatism in this area. I was initially "triggered" into the whole area of consciousness exploration by reading about Ramana Maharishi via a polish follower Mouni Sadhu. Then I got involved in more vipassana type meditation. Now I am kind of experimenting on my own. Your talk provided great encouragement. I am pondering the similarity of the kind of experiences you refer to with the Buddhist Jhanas. Leigh Brasington who speaks from personal experience of them.writes about them briefly here ( www.leighb.com/jhana2a.htm ). All good things and thanks again.
+David 2025 hmmm - I'd suggest Jhana is more equivalent to Samadhi. Patanjali describes 8 stages/styles of that in the Yoga Sutra. Dhyana (meditation) is more the practice that leads to it. Myself, I find formal lists like the stages of samadhi or the Jhanas or for that matter the 10 stages of Unity are pointers to a process. Not everyone will unfold exactly as described and looking for that can get it the way of the process itself. It's the old issue of mistaking the map for the road. I'd also note that some practice concentration where, with an effortless approach, that concentrated focus arises automatically as the mind settles deeper. The tendency of the mind to force is derived from its desire to control and is an impediment. The article suggests a combination of effort and letting go which is a little conflicting. An effortless technique cultures allowing and thus letting go which is the essential aspect of surrendering identification that leads to liberation. I've written on such subjects in various ways on the blog.
"So for the skeptics in the audience, ahh...how do we know you just don't have a vivid imagination and dreaming up all this stuff?" We don't. Buyer beware....
+gani aylen I echo Mary Gwen's comment. You simply know that he's authentic and for me at a much much higher state / level as compared to where I stand in terms of experiences.
+Mary Gwen Dungan How do you know I haven't and just don't place much importance to them? Experiences come and go. I'm not interested in things that come and go. Years ago Papaji was hanging with Ramana and bragging about his relationship with Krishna. How Krishna appeared and talked to him. Ramana asked him if Krishna was here with him now. Papaji said no. Ramana told him to pay mind to that which does not come and go, no matter how wonderful and 'lofty' the experience. It's only entertainment. So when I say 'buyer beware' it is directed to those who sincerely wish to know the truth of existence. Don't waste your time with other people's stories. Find out 'Who am I?'
+Mary Gwen Dungan Seems to me our interests are different. I haven't paid mind to Batgap for quite awhile for reasons you yourself just gave. I only ended up here because I heard David was being interviewed. After reading his posts on BG for years, I wanted to see the face of someone I disagreed with from the get go. Not with his experience, because I can't know or doubt that, but with his expressions of that experience in the forms of all his stories of levels and such, which I always felt to be a distraction that misled people. That kinda stuff can cause great doubt for those along the way. I prefer a more direct pointing and prompting people into a direct experience of their own reality. In the end, all the words in the world can never convey what we are. That said, I found David to be refreshing from so many others that appear in these interviews. All the best to you and all who find this stuff of interest.
+Mary Gwen Dungan This is my go to place for actual enquiry. www.sandoth.com/Dogzen.htm It's a practical site. I love Edrid as he is gentle, kind, and very wise in the most direct and simplest of ways. Pretty much, I gathered the info and exercises and applying them to my life As far as a place to engage I enjoy DPS (Dead Posters Society) coronzon.com/deadposters/discussions. There is a wealth of information here about everything from movies, music, to i ching and non dual, advaita, emptiness. It's not an interview site, and is not politically or spiritually 'correct', but neither am I so it suits me. Lately, I been paying more attention to the 'work' I am enjoying from the Dogzen site. Less and less interest in sites as places to hang out, 'teachers' and their 'teachings', and words in general. Spending more time in the presence of trees and the ocean these days.
I think the idea of separation (and, even the idea of "coming" and "going", "birth" and "death", "reincarnation", "soul" and "liberation" and "enlightenment" is based on relying too strongly on the senses and on the belief that… 1. What I can’t see, touch, smell, taste or hear doesn’t exist 2. What I can see, touch, smell, taste or hear “really” exists. What is funny about this belief is that this belief denies the existence of the Very Thing I am Absolute Sure of. It denies my own existence! As I close my eyes and look - I can’t see myself. The Reality is what we already “see” but don’t and can’t believe. It is the SPACE (yes, empty space, yes, nothingness) that scientists say is about 100% of all what is inside and about 100% of all that is outside. Our very idea of “separation” is based on the idea that the Existence implies “being detectable by the five senses”. Our very idea of “separation” is based on the idea that if something doesn't respond to the five senses… ...it surely doesn’t exist. Our very idea of “separation” is based on the idea that if something doesn't react… ...it surely doesn’t exist. If we stop treating SPACE as “non existent”... ...exactly… ...where is then the separation? It is is like one body with the countless inter-connected, inter-dependent cells which themselves are further organized into interconnected cells again “separated” by the same “non reacting” SPACE. What is the difference between I AM (my own existence) and the SPACE. Nothing. Only difference is that the one I believe to be inside the body I am told is me and the other I believe to be outside. What is the difference between I AM (my own existence) and the SPACE… if I drop the belief of being this body. Nothing. There is no difference. Does that mean that the SPACE is Aware of hunger, thirst, joy, exhilaration etc? Of course. Even scientifically… ...it is about 99.99% space anyway. What is the meaning of the SPACE being born or dying? It has no meaning What is the meaning of the SPACE being liberated? It has no meaning Even scientifically… ...it is about 99.99% space (or emptiness or nothingness) anyway. Close your eyes… ...and, experience I AM… What it is? …
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) I would invite you to consider that the space you describe is created by the dynamics of consciousness interacting with itself. What is behind that space?
+David B As I experience it… ... Consciousness (Awareness) (AM), Existence (I), Spaciousness (Being) and Energy (Power) (Bliss) (Love) ...aren’t really separate or separable. All these are integral, indivisible and ultimately indistinguishable facets of the ONE reality… The fire is both hot and bright. The sun is both hot and light. SAT (Existence). CHIT (Consciousness). ANANDA (Aliveness, Energy, Love, Bliss… ...the Vibration of Existence, Vibration of Consciousness). By the way… ...the Inner SPACE has no shape or size and no location. Even the outer Space… ...has no shape or size or location. It is only the (apparent) things that make the space (nothingness) to have a shape and size and make it appear bounded.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) Yes, it's all one. But that oneness is discovered progressively. For example, in I Am we experience an internal space (list you provided) but your discounting of what is experienced in the world indicates duality. In a non-dual state the external is also recognized to be the same space/consciousness/ etc. This is a later progression called Unity. We can debate endlessly about meaning etc.. My suggestion was only to look at what is here more deeply. There is more.
+David B We don’t need to debate anything. My question and definition is very simple: In this moment, what brings me closer to the peace and stillness and what moves me away from it? Does the the idea that “there is more to discover” bring me closer to the peace, contentment and stillness or does it propel me further into discontent and seeking? Do I really need to know all of Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas, Quaran and Bible to experience Peace and Stillness in this moment?
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) No, you don't need to know any of that. Veda will come to you when the awakeness is deep enough. You may wish to be aware of the old analogy of dying the cloth. You dip the cloth in the dye, then bleach it out in the sun and repeat. Eventually the dye becomes fast. If your peace is disturbed by senses or ideas or anything else, it is not established, it is not fast. It is not satchitananda. When it is fast, it is undisturbed by anything. If it is not fast, this an invitation to bleach - to engage with the world. I'm not suggesting seeking. Just noticing. Once awareness is established it is attention that drives the process. Hence my suggestion to notice. Thinking you are done or have The Truth is an unnecessary limitation. Of course, it is your choice.
My views on nonduality ================== Non duality is simple - you don't exist. The moment you think you exist - you have already fallen into duality. The moment the me is dead - that is the moment of reality. The moment the "me" has arisen again - it is the moment of thinking - it is the moment of dreaming - it is the moment of samsara.
But, then, your existence too can’t be denied. You do exist when you do. You exist like light. You exist like fire. You exist like a wave. You exist like consciousness. You exist like digestion. You exist like breathing. You exist like the beating of the heart. You exist like music. You exist like a ripple on the water. You exist like a function. You exist the way you exist right now - sans all your memories - sans all your thoughts. You are light. You are consciousness. Light is a wave. Light is a function. Consciousness is a function. You are consciousness. You exist this moment. The moment you bring memories into it - you fall into duality. The moment you bring (the memories of) (the imagination of) (the thoughts of) other moments - you fall into duality.
Just as breathing is… ...you are… ...you happen every moment… Just as breathing continues… ...you continue… you continue every moment… Just as every breath in reality is a new, fresh breath… ...that in reality has never happened again and will never happen again… ...you are new and fresh every moment… ...never to be repeated… Just as breathing never truly gets born or dies… ...you don’t truly get born or die… Just as breathing is a function… ...you too are a function… THAT which runs breathing… ...also runs the…. ...creation of you… THAT for whose interests and needs… ...there is breathing… ...for that’s interests is your creation… ...there are certain needs for which it needs you… ...senses... ...movement... ...thinking… ...language… ...memory... ...observation, logic, reason, analysis, speculating, predicting, planning… ...making decisions… ...sense of time… ...sense of space… ...sense of boundary... ...locating body in the space…
Whom does the breathing serve? You serve the same one. Who runs breathing? The same ONE runs the creation of you. The same one puts you in deep dreamless sleep. The same one puts you in dream. The same one wakes you up. The same ONE runs your thoughts too. When you were a teenager, the hormones were flowing and you were chasing girls (or boys) and you thought you were doing it on your own, you were making your own decisions, you were doing it all because you wanted to. Right now is not that different. That which creates you, also runs you. Who is IT?
To clarify it further... You don't exist as an entity. You don't exist as a thing. You don't really continue in time... The breathing continues in time... ...but... ...each breath is new and fresh. Never before. Never again. The breathing continues in time... ...but... ...it is an error to think that... ...this breath the body is taking now... ...is the same one that was there yesterday, five days ago, five years ago or... ...five seconds ago. In reality, this breath has no independent existence. This breath is not an entity. It has never existed ever before. Five minutes from now... ...breathing would very likely still continue... ...and, a NEW Breath will be born. No matter how "similar" to this breath I am taking right now it looks... ...it is not the SAME breath. The body has a past and future, you don't... ...because you are not an entity. You don't have an independent existence. You don't exist in time. Like this heart-beat, like this breath... ...you are produced by a running function and that running function will produce something very similar to you again. When you exercise... ...it is the body that changes... When you eat good food... ...it is the body that changes... With the changed body... ...the heart beats differently and the heart-beat is little different (for example, there are no blocks and thus the heart beat is smooth, peaceful and effortless). When you meditate... ...it is the body that changes... When you read good text... ...it is the body (the memory, the knowledge, the conditioning) that changes... With the changed body... ... When the body is disturbed... ...such as a blow to the head, lack of oxygen to the brain, lack of breathing, lack of blood... ...excess drug... ...or general anesthesia... ...the function of the neural network of the body is interrupted... When that function is interrupted... ... ... ...where is you??? In reality, you can only truly answer it directly... ...when the body is unconscious... ...but, can you??? Did you like this (plausible) "reality" of you? ...most likely not! So what you can do? ...believe what is written in your favorite book, I guess :-)
Nonduality is true because there is ONLY ONE Reality all along. Rest everything is its function. Even the "feeling of separation", even "the feeling of duality" is its function... ...as is the entire universe. And, yes... ..."the feeling of separate existence"... ..."the feeling of I", "the feeling of me"... ...is one of its function... as is the feeling of... ..."free will" and "choice".
All sorts of stuff, I just get really bored of the TM aspect of BATGAP, I find MM Yogi and the whole TM cult entirely unconvincing and exploitative. Since you ask, I've got a lot from Nisargadatta, Ramana, Jean Klein, Robert Adams, The Tao Te Ching, Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, Adyshanti and Jackie Collins.
Awesome. One of the authentic interviews on batgap. What set it apart is the content based on experience.
Wonderful words, Davidya and Rick. Sumptuous auric modeling. What a treasure. Thank you both so much.
+Rose Rosetree
Thanks, Rose
Thank you David... your refreshing in the Light of who you are..Love to you
Great interview the mystery continues!
If anyone is interested, I posted a series of links to articles related to the many topics that came up during the interview. That may help clarify anything we skimmed over.
davidya.ca/2015/10/12/batgap-interview-live/
As I noted in the opening, this conversation is the story of the unfolding of some person. The value of telling the story is not in the story itself, the content. That's just personal details. The value is in what is behind that, in the speaking and the listening, in simple awareness, the process of experience itself. That's where you find what is really here.
The best so far in terms of content. Having read James Swartz blog and articles, the ability to correlate that information with David's experience made it profound watching.
And Rick this is a new standard you have set for future interviews. You asked the right questions at the right time - questions which popped in my head and you were almost reading my mind and asking them.
+sandesh sheth Thanks. You know James Swartz is coming up in a couple of weeks. Let me know through the form on batgap.com/future-interviews/upcoming-interviews/ if you have any questions.
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump Rick, I would like to thank you. May you achieve in this lifetime what you seek. Through you I was able to discover stalwarts that helped me progress (the intellectual understanding and the experience that there is a witness) in my spiritual journey. James is one of them. His blog helped me a lot.
With the bar being set very high after the interview with David, I request you to ask more probing and difficult questions to all your interviewees. A few sample questions include:
What is the goal of human life? Is it to seek the absolute truth? If not, what is? If this life is Maya then why did they seek the truth / how did they get on to the journey of awakening.
Now that I know for certain that there is a witness then what is the goal of the human life?
After the realization that there is a witness is set in, is the goal just to watch the person perform the actions and in that process, finish off the balance karma? If yes, then why do the awakened go about educating others.
This begs a follow up question. Is there a free will in human form? If no then why do the awakened educate others. Since there is no free will they cannot do anything for anyone. Or that anyone can do anything after listening to them.
Why is there suffering? If the answer is linked with past karma, then there is free will. Now whose free will is it. The free will of the exploiter or the free will of the exploited. Answers such as 'we decide what we want to suffer prior to taking human form' just don't cut the logic. If it is just a movie being played on a screen then why evangelize the awakening.
How do the awakened explain science and technology advancements? Why would the witness create them?
If the mission of the awakened is to spread the knowledge and elevate the world to a higher level, then why not do it from a pulpit that gives maximum leverage. For e.g. contest elections to the highest offices in the country, be CEOs of organizations. The reach and richness of impact would be much higher.
Thank you once again for the fantastic job being done by you.
+sandesh sheth Good questions. I'll save them. Thanks.
+sandesh sheth My “rude” replies follow :-)
>>What is the goal of human life?
You are a human, I assume. What is your goal?
Do you truly think all humans have same goal?
Do you truly think that Udai Hussein (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein), Mother Teressa, Mahatma Gandhi and Ramana Maharshi had same goals?
>>Is it to seek the absolute truth?
No
The absolute truth is the human life. It doesn’t need to seek itself.
>>If not, what is?
Love, Experience and Relationships.
Experience - that’s why we have senses.
>>If this life is Maya then why did they seek the truth / how did they get on to the journey of awakening.
(Almost) Nobody “seeks” “truth”.
To many, the “truth” comes unannounced, uninvited.
Most spiritual seekers seek “enlightenment”. Most spiritual seekers equate enlightenment with the “supreme happiness”, “supreme peace”, “end of suffering”, “endless bliss”, “unlimited bliss”, “love”.
>>Now that I know for certain that there is a witness then what is the goal of the human life?
Love, Experience and Relationships.
>> After the realization that there is a witness is set in, is the goal just to watch the person perform the actions and in that process, finish off the balance karma?
It depends. For Osho, it was Rolls Royce, diamonds and women. For Ramana Maharshi, it was the cave and the temple.
>>If yes, then why do the awakened go about educating others.
Not all do. There are many more whom you have never heard of.
>>This begs a follow up question. Is there a free will in human form?
Yes. But, it is more like “free won’t”.
>>If no then why do the awakened educate others.
See above.
>>Since there is no free will they cannot do anything for anyone.
See above.
>>Or that anyone can do anything after listening to them.
See the above.
>>Why is there suffering?
Are you suffering? Are you suffering right now? If you are suffering it is because you don’t know any better right now.
If I am suffering, it is because I don’t know any better right now.
If we are suffering, it is because we don’t know any better right now.
BTW… ...what is wrong with suffering?
Suffering is like friction. Some of it is necessary.
>>If the answer is linked with past karma, then there is free will. Now whose free will is it. The free will of the exploiter or the free will of the exploited.
See above.
>>Answers such as 'we decide what we want to suffer prior to taking human form' just don't cut the logic.
>>If it is just a movie being played on a screen then why evangelize the awakening.
It is not just a movie being played.
>>How do the awakened explain science and technology advancements?
They don’t. The scientists do.
>>Why would the witness create them?
The witness is a faculty of Consciousness - nothing more - nothing very special.
>>If the mission of the awakened is to spread the knowledge and elevate the world to a higher level,
It is not.
It is nobody’s mission except those who choose to make it their mission.
Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi didn’t go roaming around the earth or holding daily public meetings in Chennai, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and London to spread his “message”.
>>then why not do it from a pulpit that gives maximum leverage. For e.g. contest elections to the highest offices in the country, be CEOs of organizations. The reach and richness of impact would be much higher.
Many “awakened” people neither have the necessary qualification, power, popularity, reach or desire.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) Let me take some time to assimilate your response. I had this shift a few months and now keep going between this self and the Self. Mostly I am in self 99% of the time, but I understand what Self means and how it feels. Though I was on this journey was last 20 years, my journey just began a few months back in terms of experience. The reason I undertook this journey was to get answers to my questions. Today all I know is that there is a Self and a self, but my questions still remain unanswered. My quest continues either till I get answers or I have no need for answers. Thank you for your effort.
This is what I know:
1. I AM
2. I don’t and I can’t really know anything other than I AM
3. Whatever else (other than I AM) I see, perceive, sense or “know”... ...I know it as an object - all my “knowing” (other than I AM) is already dual.
I AM THAT I AM
Even when I try to know, analyze, understand "I AM" - I have already made it into an "object", I have already created a duality.
Even when I call it Consciousness, Awareness and try to investigate, understand and know it, I have already made into an object and I have already created duality.
4. One of the main purpose of all “knowing” is utilitarian i.e. to learn to how to use “objects” to help the body survive or to experience, enjoy and love.
5. Most, if not all knowledge (except I AM) is at best is an examined, investigated, verified belief based on reason, logic, senses, observation, investigation, math and science.
6. Science is the best method we currently have to understand things and to investigate, examine and verify beliefs.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening)
I would remove the "can't" from # 2. You can know quite a bit more because who you are is deeper than this. Under Amness is Isness, pure being. And under Isness, beyond even the subtle duality of being and non-being is what the vedas call Brahman.
Amness is a great start but there is much more.
+David B I am fine with stopping at I AM.
Everything else is either a product of senses (seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting) or thinking (believing, dreaming, imagining, reason, logic, science, memory) or feeling (sensing, emotions, sensation)...
With or without any of these…I AM
With or without believing in Vedas, Puranas, Gita, Quran, Bible, soul, reincarnation, angels, demons, free will, choice, destiny, body, time, space, inside, outside, enlightenment, awakening
I AM
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) And when the I AM is established, then what happens? Evolution continues. Where can it continue? In the realm of the senses. They begin to refine, and subtler perception begins to reveal the subtle realms. Eventually, the finest value of the relative is appreciated. What lies beyond that? The Absolute value of the objects of perception. So they begin to be appreciated in terms of the Self, and in time, a larger wholeness dawns which includes both Absolute and relative and is more than the sum of both. And still, evolution continues....
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump >> And when the I AM is established, then what happens? Evolution continues. Where can it continue?
That depends on what you think the evolution is.
“What” you think is “evolving”?
Does “I AM” truly evolves?
Does the “Satchitananada” evolves?
Has “Satchitananda” evolved in last two thousand years?
Is the experience of I AM for 21 years old is really different from the experience of I AM for a 51 years old or for a 81 years old?
>> In the realm of the senses. They begin to refine, and subtler perception begins to reveal the subtle realms.
I think they are largely just dreams… ...not that much more valuable than the dreams that most humans have in the night time as they sleep.
>>Eventually, the finest value of the relative is appreciated.
Which is the Absolute.
Which is the Consciousness.
>> What lies beyond that?
Nothingness. Unknowable.
>>The Absolute value of the objects of perception. So they begin to be appreciated in terms of the Self, and in time, a larger wholeness dawns which includes both Absolute and relative and is more than the sum of both. And still, evolution continues....
because, the evolution is not much to do with it.
The “evolution” (as science defines it) continues because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt decide to mate and have children. Their genes get passed on. This process is not directly impacted by whether I am established as I AM or not.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening)
>> Does the “Satchitananada” evolves?
Yes.
>>Eventually, the finest value of the relative is appreciated.
Actually there are 7 koshas or layers to it. The physical is the last and most dense, consciousness is the first. But it's still a kosha. It is not the final reality.
*Unrated because of a mixed bag of interactions on His blog*
This was originally a new favorite. Seemed like no poser, no publicity seeker, seemed absolutely authentic, pretty rational, no BS, highly nuanced, detailed, original, cosmological contributions to boot, and I recommended him ! But after subscribing to his blog, something I would usually never dream of doing, I had some exchange which seriously evoked doubts whether he is indeed the real deal and whether indeed his cosmological contributions are original. Even in this interview the terminology involved was so hindu and/or veda and/or TM influenced (and not even correct in some cases, such as his use of "patala"), but in another video he used blatantly copied developmental models which seemed to be simply Ken Wilber rip offs with no attribution. At the same time he seems to have troubles reading correctly what someone writes and attributes his misunderstanding to his vis a vis, a very low state of conscientiousness, he has big holes in very basic philosophical principles of dialogue and seems, if caught in a mistake, to revert to condescension and projection. Therefore I un-recommend this guy. I am hearing on the grape-vine that other interviewees on the batgap gravy train have misused the publicity generated by their appearance here, and sadly Rick doesn't have sufficient nobility to be honest with his listeners about who it is, thus leaving them defenseless. Basically, batgap seems to have degenerated into the usual capitalist endeavor.
_About the rating: anything below and including 0 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +2 to +2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
+Mary Gwen Dungan Ach I think Aalto would be a close, at least he could be, but he is more gentleman like, reserved and I think went public only after years of Rick's supplications. And as regards the woo woo, well, I would reserve that term for people with magical thinking instead of actual cosmological insight. This man here is not woo woo in my use of the term. Woo woo is more new age believers like Teal Swan and that law of attraction ilk and otherwise also traditionalists who merely repeat cosmological topoi without having actually realized them, and I sincerely hope that none of them are on the panel. In short *_"Woo woo no thanks, actual cosmological insight, yes please !"_* P.S.: regarding the cosmology of mystical trinity of a christian mystic, please read "What is Self" by Bernadette Roberts. And if you need a teaser, first read "The experience of No-Self", which is the last part of her spiritual auto-biography, and you will see why I want her on that panel, although she would be a kind of maverick there. She'd probably first need to warm up with Rick alone, but I doubt she will ever be teased out of her recluse life style: bernadetteroberts.blogspot.de/
+Mary Gwen Dungan Other participants, subject to change, will be
1. Amoda
Maa Jeevan
2. Clare
Blanchflower
3. Andree
Morgana
4. Chuck
Hillig
5. Clare
Blanchflower
6. Craig
Holliday
7. Dana
Sawyer
8. David
Buckland
9. David
Ellzey
10. Francis
Bennett
11. Jeffery
Martin
12. Kristin
Kirk
13. Laurie
Moore
14. Mariana
Caplan
15. Rick
Archer
16. Susanne
Marie
17. T
Proctor
There are universal principles that are in everything, everywhere beyond time and space, therefor all is these principles in different correlations and these principles are also one principle. In every variation we find the same primordial principles. That is why the whole universe is in a grain of sand. The grain of sand is a manifestation of the same principles as is the entire universe, or all universes.
Davidya, I have a question about the beginning part of interview, where you spoke about knowing all about objects and seeing objects from all sides. I have a particular interest in these ideas. You asked for an object, looked for an object, and Rick finally handed you an object. After obtaining this object Rick then asked if you could see the iron smelting or something like that, and, ironically, after searching for the object and getting the object, you then say that the type of knowing you are talking about doesn't have to do with physical objects, but with more subtle objects. I think you can see my question (from all sides no less). There is something a bit odd in this, that you wanted an object and then when you got it you seem unable to respond to Rick's question, and suddenly say it's only for subtle objects. If that's so, then why did you ask for a physical object? I would very much like to know, in any case, what it is like to see an object from all possible points of view simultaneously, if you would be inclined to answer that. Picasso attempted this, didn't he, or something to that effect, of trying to go beyond egoic perspective?
I would further this by inquiring if you could define what your "knowing" or "knowledge" means, that is, how one knows when one knows; what is knowing? This is an epistemological inquiry.
There's a heck of a lot to think about in this interview, and it is among my favorites. My questions are because I respect what was going on, not as a diss, please understand.
+jazzsnare
Hi (I play drums a little too)
Sounds like I didn't explain it well. A cognition isn't something we do with an object. It's something that shows up spontaneously. It's quite distinct from subtle perception, where we might explore the flow or energy in an object. It's also very distinct from intuitive knowing where I may have explored the nature of the example object.
A cognition just shows up as a distinct kind of experience. Some of the Vedic texts are written records of cognitions, for example. Talk about subtle beings is not. Rick's mention of the metal's history was extending the metaphor. I didn't take it as a question nor was I attempting a performance for the camera. I was simply trying to illustrate the abstraction I was talking about.
Here's an article where i discuss some classes of experience and then explore congitions and the nature of the three types.
davidya.ca/2015/09/15/the-seeing-seer/
I'm not familiar with Picasso in that regard but he certainly tried to bend perceptual constructs.
Seeing an "object" simultaneously from all angles is like seeing it from individual angles separately, only all at once. The mind can't process this, hence the need to "unpack" it into specific views, etc. We might use the analogy of a movie. A cognition is like seeing every frame of the film at once. Then the mind has to go into it and look at some of the frames.
Some of the perspectives of time are similar, like experiencing all of the past and future in the present or all lifetimes simultaneously.
I also have a post on my blog with the interview, then links to many articles that discuss some of the points raised for more detail, if that would be a useful reference.
davidya.ca/2015/10/12/batgap-interview-live/
Hope this brings a bit more clarity.
+David B Thank you, Davidya. I haven't time right now to look into your links, as I am going drumming tonight very shortly. I hope to drum from all angles simultaneously. Before I say more I will definitely seek out the links. I also found the bit about space very hard to follow; it seemed the distinct spaces, whatever that is, overlap, or are "nested" but still not in the same place. I also don't follow the bit about "dimensions," which term you see as misused. I think the word is used to describe things of a different order, so to speak, not in the same order; it suggests an incongruity, doesn't it? You seem to use it in the sense of something in the same order, like north, south, east, west: dimensions within one structure. I am not sure why you argue it is a misused word. Time would be one dimension, and spatiality another, in my usage, but I think you disagree. I would like to find a source where you probably already delineated this. Well, off to my gig.
+jazzsnare
I have links to articles that discuss these points on the mentioned interview page. But suffice to say space is like a Russian doll, one within the other. Within a given space like our universe, we experience it as basically infinite and are not aware of other universes. It seems a separate space. But within the larger creation space, we can see the other universes as it contains them.
People often use the word dimension when layer or level would be more suitable. The word dimension means direction in space, as in the XYZ geometry used to map space as 3D. It is too often used to mean something else which causes communication issues. So just being fussy about terminology so meaning is communicated better. "spatiality" is not a dimension but rather is measured by dimensions. Buckminster Fuller argued, for example that is was better to model space with 4 dimensions.
The astral, for example, is not another "dimension" because it is also a 3D space. It is another more refined layer that can become perceived if the senses are refined in a corresponding way. We might experience it as a separate "place" at first but later come to recognize it is not elsewhere but right here, interpenetrating the physical world. In this case, same space but a different resolution.
I also consider time a different order than space because it is the effect of something different - the process of experience. This is why our sense of time changes differently than our sense of space. Time does have an apparent direction though, so we can describe it has having a dimension. But it's not the same type as space.
Hope you enjoyed your gig.
Not sure if bullshit or real. I really get skeptical when people start talking about details regarding past lives. I would need more detail regarding this whole past life talk.
+Mary Gwen Dungan Hi Mary! you are absolutly right....it comes with the process! However it seems that people with very closed emotional bodies often have very little expierence of that even after awakening (since most energy is in the mental realm avoiding feeling their stuff fully).
all the best to you
Michael
+Mary Gwen Dungan
In the interview, I attempted to point out why it unfolded here. In my own case, there was a need by the mind to understand the current circumstance. That drove the unfolding.
Put another way, it depends on the karmic dynamics and the more effective ways to resolve the energy blocks. Remembering is one way that might facilitate that.
For others where there isn't a driver for that, there is nothing to bring it up so it doesn't arise. One simply lives out or resolves the energy/ heals by other means.
I can certainly see why some are skeptical of it. There is a great deal of wishful thinking around the topic out there. I spoke if it mainly because it was prominent for a period there due to the active karma in the life at the time.
+David B David I am curious how these past lives were revealed to you? How do you know that these visions weren't simply a creation of the mind? Are you now convinced that there is reincarnation? Does everyone have past lives and I'm assuming the answer is no since there has been a dramatic increase in population from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last century, so where do these new souls come from? Different planets?
Maybe you answered some of these questions in the video but i am really interested in your response
+Pheene Z
Yes, I went over the process to some degree in the interview. Long story that unfolded over awhile. Basically I had a life that wasn't making a lot of sense, work where I was a fish out of water, etc. The drive was there to understand. What began to happen was impressions arose briefly in awareness. They had a strong emotional charge. I didn't pay them much heed. Then over time, a larger window opened and some of the charge was processed. They didn't feel like "mine" but where somehow vaguely familiar. As it became more clear, it became apparent it had some relationship to current events and then that it was an old memory.
I was pretty circumspect at first. But as the charge was processed the window opened wider and hunks of that lifetime where recalled. It explained current circumstances in all kinds of ways - why the work, the relationship, and older relationships I had with some people in my life. Further time and a few details emerged that could be verified in the world - historical events, objects, etc. The bigger proof for me though was that it brought sense to my life and unexpectedly allowed that baggage to be resolved and unloaded.
Over time, other aspects of this have come up, like the energetic mesh of unresolved charge that interconnects lifetimes (the mechanics of karma), the larger flow of the cycles of time, and so on. Time itself also came to be experienced a number of ways, like the now, all time in the now, all time as simultaneous, time as an unfolding of awareness, and so forth. To me now, there are several ways of seeing it that are just different perspectives. Not reality but ways of seeing that may be instructive.
Everyone has a process of unfolding. Most have a long series of past lives but there are various ways people come into a human cycle that can vary what the history is. Some return to a human lifetime quickly and some more slowly. It appears that during this transition time, many are taking a human life to make rapid progress during this profound time of transition.
It's a large subject. On my web site under Key Posts, the section on Time links to a number of articles on related subjects. It's worth noting though that this just happens to be part of this process here. It has no great importance other than a possible way of healing in the larger arc of a journey. And it is the past, not what is here now.
+David B
Another related detail to note. In Ayurveda, they view that our life is composed of 6 bhavas (shadbhava) or houses. 3 we get from our parents and 3 are from our past development. Of note are 2 of the second - Atman and Sattva. These are the 2 key aspects of spiritual evolution - consciousness and clarity. In others, our prior spiritual development is cumulative and we pick up where we left off.
Most teachings these days tend to emphasize development of consciousness or development of clarity, refined perception, etc. But it's both together that bring the greatest results.
Re 3min. mark...Yes,Rick,we know all about those people who have read a lot of books and then foolishly think they know something(a favourite theme of the interviewer)since you are one of them,Rick.
+glenemma1 Easy to be the jerk-off sniping from the sidelines, isn't it?
+Jon W not so easy...one has to go against the tide of reverence for these people who never tire of talking about themselves,their never ending repertoire of second hand spiritual metaphors...and pointing to the people being interviewed,their massive egos and sheer arrogance and feeling of being special.
+glenemma1 Like you, for instance?
+Jon W well I'm not making a career out of it or cashing in on this ''spiritual'' thing. I made the point relating to Rick only after he made a particular criticism of people...people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But what have you to offer apart from one line quips?
+glenemma1 Nothing. One-line quips are my limit.
I've always thought those in Unity had complete mind-body integration and had total command of all the laws of nature. They could manifest anything and fulfill any desire. Apparently from this interview it's not the case.
+Natlus K
Actually, Unity has nothing to do with abilities. It is a change in the relationship of consciousness to itself within. It does require high levels of integration but is not about being a special superhuman.
Over time, this leads to a progressive unification of all the layers of experience. Through clearing the various layers of our expression (purifying the subtle body, etc), greater clarity arises, along with gift and abilities that vary some.
In this process, we do become the home of all the laws of nature. But how fully that may be expressed through the apparent form varies. This doesn't minimize it in the slightest though.
The process also means that over time, all desires are fulfilled but some of that does unfold in the field of karma and time. Would such a person really want to mess with the flow of the divine? And is it any longer anything to do with personal gratification?
Some teachers do speak about higher stages in very exalted terms. It is hard to express the profundity of it, so perhaps they amplify what people can relate to.
Is Davidya one of those who'' edited'' the old batgap comment section,a wonderful and fruitful resource until these vandals destroyed it. That is,the ''editors''(censors) being the vandals.
+glenemma1
I was not a moderator. I added the forum search tools and such. However, I do know that Rick had a terrible time with abuse. He repeatedly asked the group to self-police and follow a few simple rules. Didn't work so he had to shut it down.
+Mary Gwen Dungan
There was also some great people in Comments that didn't migrate to the forum when he closed Comments. Not sure any Interviewees engaged there, though a few had in Comments.
I think one does a huge disservice to the truth, realization and true awakening by talking about, encouraging and promoting ideas like miracles, walking on water, past life memories, seeing angels, seeing demons and ghosts.
Unfortunately, from his last three interviews, it appears that for Rick this is his home turf and in the heart of his heart - he is a true, hard-core beliver in mircales, walking on water, seeing angels, demons, past life memories.
IOW… ...in spite of his years of meditation, inquiry and self -examination, Rick seems to still be as hard-core a believer as 11 years old very “religious” Christian or Muslim or Hindu boy might be. I, for one find it very sad and a great misfortune of spirituality.
Personally, if I had to choose between A. the stories of seeing angels, ghosts, demons, walking on waters and B. the hard core materialsm of work your 9-6 job, watch sports, drink beer, sleep and then repeat - I will choose B.
Fortunately, the real spirituality is not really that and it doesn’t require you to believe in anything that is not DIRECTLY available HERE and NOW in your own life - in your own Present Experience. From my perspective, an hour reading of Ramana Maharshi is worth far more than hours spent hearing these stories of past lives and angels.
sergeyrubtsov.com/books/english/truth_revealed_reality_in_40_verses.pdf
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) I don't have those experiences myself, but those things are as "real" as anything else in the relative world, and sooner or later, one encounters them on the journey. Failure to understand them can be a pitfall. Therefore good to have a clear understanding of them.
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump Dear Rick: It is very hard to really argue against what someone believes - be it a hard-core Christian, Muslim, Hindu or a 11 years old boy. I have personal experience with it and the best I can do is to ask the believer to turn to himself/herself.
I certainly don't believe in these things and I have surely not seen them. Very few have "claimed" to have seen them - I put the "claimed" in quotes because none of them are scientifically proven - someone had put one million dollars reward on these.
These kind of "claims" and believing them has served as the foundation stone for much confusion and much "garbage" in our world. Example: this person is special because he heard directly from the "God". The believer of one man's "claim" form one religion and the believers of another man's claim form another and then they both fight.
Sri Ramana Maharishi would always turn the seeker to the inquiry: Who Am I?
Ms. Byron Katie recommends: 2. Can I absolutely know that it is true?
I have said the following:
1. In this present moment, does believing this thought bring peace, love and happiness?
2. In this present moment, does this thought help calm the mind and make it restful, peaceful and still or does it make it more active, agitated, anxious and starts further into seeking?
3. Is this thought really necessary in this moment?
4. Is this thought really wise and useful in this moment?
5. What would happen if I don't have this thought in this moment - would I be more peaceful or more anxious, would I be more still or more seeking?
6. What I am really doing by believing, repeating and promoting these thoughts? Am I further fueling the mind and further fueling the seeking or am I bringing mind into calm, peace and stillness right in this moment?
7. Does repeating this belief, this thought help me get deeper into the Isness and the stillness of this moment or does it take me further into the past, future, seeking, dreams, illusion and imaginations?
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump In my view, the belief in miracles, "Gods", "angels", "demons", "souls"... and the "special beings" who see them is what has completely destroyed true spirituality and true investigation and inquiry. The believers have even killed scientists because the scientific findings went against what their chosen "special beings" had said.
As far as I can tell, these kind of "beliefs" are the disease and problem and not at all a cure or solution.
Humans have had these kind of unverifiable beliefs since as far as we know and many "special belongs" who really "see" these things have exploited, manipulated and used the gullible who believed them since as far as we know.
How can you say such experiences are real if you haven't experienced them?
+Robby R Does the Santa Clause exist? How can you say he doesn't exist if you have never seen him?
Please interview Emma Seppala, Rick:
www.emmaseppala.com/18-science-based-reasons-try-loving-kindness-meditation-today/
TRANSLATABLE INTO BUDDHIST TERMINOLOGY?
It is my belief (or perhaps desire) that the religions of the world are for the most part just different languages expressing similar things. Many who identify with Buddhism forever emphasize (without understanding I believe) that whereas Hinduism believes in an ongoing self, Buddhism doesn't. For me the word "ego" is core here and it is THIS and not the Self of Hinduism that Buddhism is referring to , Yet orthodox Buddhism is clearly at its root a reaction to the beliefs of Hinduism most probably the worship of deities and Brahman "masters" in favor of direct experience. Mahayana Buddhism is of course full of reference to countless universes and beings. Some "early Buddhism" Buddhists (Theravadin) see this as being a kind of HIndu contamination. Others see this as an advance on what they see as the narrow focus of Hinayana (smaller vehicle) Buddhism. Of course "HInayana" is a concept invented by Mahayana and so should be treated with skepticism. My view is that all these traditions have in their ranks the whole gamut of human spiritual development. I wonder if what David so beautifully articulated in this talk could be expressed in terms of Buddhist language?
+David 2025
Hi David
Yes, different expressions of the same common source. It is my understanding that Buddha's approach was to dump all the gods and yagyas (performances) that had cluttered the religious practices of the time and bring it back to it's core simplicity and direct experience. However, over time, many of those old gods have been added back again (sometimes with different names) in some branches because that was the experience.
Hinduism itself doesn't really exist as a faith - it was a name given by the British. Rather it is a collection of faiths of India, such as Shaivism, Jains, and so forth. I lean back on the earlier Vedic framework as it is more experientially driven and philosophical but it does suffer from it's distance in time. It does posit an Atman or cosmic Self whereas Buddhism simply refers to no-self, as in egoless. But it's useful to recognize that Atman is simply a name for global consciousness which is not something Buddhists deny. It is just a bit different framing. Buddhism has come to emphasize awakening whereas popular Vedic thought like the Upanishads emphasizes later stages more. Buddha clearly spoke to all stages but that's not as explicitly unpacked now, other than perhaps in Zen.
Unfortunately my knowledge of Buddhism is not good enough to translate all of it. And indeed, because of the above emphasis, it would be harder to find language for later stages in modern discourse. It's one of the reasons I've studied the Vedic canon most.
+David B Thanks for the reply David. I confess I had hoped it would be you who would reply. Sadly as I am sure you are aware there is a lot of dogmatism in this area. I was initially "triggered" into the whole area of consciousness exploration by reading about Ramana Maharishi via a polish follower Mouni Sadhu. Then I got involved in more vipassana type meditation. Now I am kind of experimenting on my own. Your talk provided great encouragement. I am pondering the similarity of the kind of experiences you refer to with the Buddhist Jhanas. Leigh Brasington who speaks from personal experience of them.writes about them briefly here ( www.leighb.com/jhana2a.htm ). All good things and thanks again.
+David 2025
hmmm - I'd suggest Jhana is more equivalent to Samadhi. Patanjali describes 8 stages/styles of that in the Yoga Sutra. Dhyana (meditation) is more the practice that leads to it.
Myself, I find formal lists like the stages of samadhi or the Jhanas or for that matter the 10 stages of Unity are pointers to a process. Not everyone will unfold exactly as described and looking for that can get it the way of the process itself. It's the old issue of mistaking the map for the road.
I'd also note that some practice concentration where, with an effortless approach, that concentrated focus arises automatically as the mind settles deeper. The tendency of the mind to force is derived from its desire to control and is an impediment. The article suggests a combination of effort and letting go which is a little conflicting. An effortless technique cultures allowing and thus letting go which is the essential aspect of surrendering identification that leads to liberation.
I've written on such subjects in various ways on the blog.
+David B Thank you so much David. It makes a lot of sense.
"So for the skeptics in the audience, ahh...how do we know you just don't have a vivid imagination and dreaming up all this stuff?"
We don't.
Buyer beware....
+gani aylen I echo Mary Gwen's comment. You simply know that he's authentic and for me at a much much higher state / level as compared to where I stand in terms of experiences.
+Mary Gwen Dungan How do you know I haven't and just don't place much importance to them? Experiences come and go. I'm not interested in things that come and go. Years ago Papaji was hanging with Ramana and bragging about his relationship with Krishna. How Krishna appeared and talked to him. Ramana asked him if Krishna was here with him now. Papaji said no. Ramana told him to pay mind to that which does not come and go, no matter how wonderful and 'lofty' the experience. It's only entertainment. So when I say 'buyer beware' it is directed to those who sincerely wish to know the truth of existence. Don't waste your time with other people's stories. Find out 'Who am I?'
+Mary Gwen Dungan Lucky you for having a contact with Krishna. I would give my arm and leg for that.
+Mary Gwen Dungan Seems to me our interests are different. I haven't paid mind to Batgap for quite awhile for reasons you yourself just gave. I only ended up here because I heard David was being interviewed. After reading his posts on BG for years, I wanted to see the face of someone I disagreed with from the get go. Not with his experience, because I can't know or doubt that, but with his expressions of that experience in the forms of all his stories of levels and such, which I always felt to be a distraction that misled people. That kinda stuff can cause great doubt for those along the way. I prefer a more direct pointing and prompting people into a direct experience of their own reality. In the end, all the words in the world can never convey what we are. That said, I found David to be refreshing from so many others that appear in these interviews.
All the best to you and all who find this stuff of interest.
+Mary Gwen Dungan This is my go to place for actual enquiry. www.sandoth.com/Dogzen.htm
It's a practical site. I love Edrid as he is gentle, kind, and very wise in the most direct and simplest of
ways. Pretty much, I gathered the info and exercises and applying them to my life
As far as a place to engage I enjoy DPS (Dead Posters Society) coronzon.com/deadposters/discussions. There is a wealth of information here about everything from movies, music, to i ching and non dual, advaita, emptiness. It's not an interview site, and is not politically or spiritually 'correct', but neither am I so it suits me.
Lately, I been paying more attention to the 'work' I am enjoying from the Dogzen site. Less and less interest in sites as places to hang out, 'teachers' and their 'teachings', and words in general. Spending more time in the presence of trees and the ocean these days.
I think the idea of separation (and, even the idea of "coming" and "going", "birth" and "death", "reincarnation", "soul" and "liberation" and "enlightenment" is based on relying too strongly on the senses and on the belief that…
1. What I can’t see, touch, smell, taste or hear doesn’t exist
2. What I can see, touch, smell, taste or hear “really” exists.
What is funny about this belief is that this belief denies the existence of the Very Thing I am Absolute Sure of. It denies my own existence! As I close my eyes and look - I can’t see myself.
The Reality is what we already “see” but don’t and can’t believe. It is the SPACE (yes, empty space, yes, nothingness) that scientists say is about 100% of all what is inside and about 100% of all that is outside.
Our very idea of “separation” is based on the idea that the Existence implies “being detectable by the five senses”. Our very idea of “separation” is based on the idea that if something doesn't respond to the five senses… ...it surely doesn’t exist. Our very idea of “separation” is based on the idea that if something doesn't react… ...it surely doesn’t exist.
If we stop treating SPACE as “non existent”... ...exactly… ...where is then the separation?
It is is like one body with the countless inter-connected, inter-dependent cells which themselves are further organized into interconnected cells again “separated” by the same “non reacting” SPACE.
What is the difference between I AM (my own existence) and the SPACE. Nothing. Only difference is that the one I believe to be inside the body I am told is me and the other I believe to be outside.
What is the difference between I AM (my own existence) and the SPACE… if I drop the belief of being this body. Nothing. There is no difference.
Does that mean that the SPACE is Aware of hunger, thirst, joy, exhilaration etc?
Of course. Even scientifically… ...it is about 99.99% space anyway.
What is the meaning of the SPACE being born or dying?
It has no meaning
What is the meaning of the SPACE being liberated?
It has no meaning
Even scientifically… ...it is about 99.99% space (or emptiness or nothingness) anyway.
Close your eyes… ...and, experience I AM…
What it is?
…
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening)
I would invite you to consider that the space you describe is created by the dynamics of consciousness interacting with itself. What is behind that space?
+David B As I experience it…
... Consciousness (Awareness) (AM), Existence (I), Spaciousness (Being) and Energy (Power) (Bliss) (Love)
...aren’t really separate or separable.
All these are integral, indivisible and ultimately indistinguishable facets of the ONE reality…
The fire is both hot and bright.
The sun is both hot and light.
SAT (Existence). CHIT (Consciousness). ANANDA (Aliveness, Energy, Love, Bliss… ...the Vibration of Existence, Vibration of Consciousness).
By the way… ...the Inner SPACE has no shape or size and no location.
Even the outer Space… ...has no shape or size or location. It is only the (apparent) things that make the space (nothingness) to have a shape and size and make it appear bounded.
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening)
Yes, it's all one. But that oneness is discovered progressively.
For example, in I Am we experience an internal space (list you provided) but your discounting of what is experienced in the world indicates duality. In a non-dual state the external is also recognized to be the same space/consciousness/ etc. This is a later progression called Unity.
We can debate endlessly about meaning etc.. My suggestion was only to look at what is here more deeply. There is more.
+David B We don’t need to debate anything. My question and definition is very simple:
In this moment, what brings me closer to the peace and stillness and what moves me away from it?
Does the the idea that “there is more to discover” bring me closer to the peace, contentment and stillness or does it propel me further into discontent and seeking? Do I really need to know all of Vedas, Vedantas, Puranas, Quaran and Bible to experience Peace and Stillness in this moment?
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening)
No, you don't need to know any of that. Veda will come to you when the awakeness is deep enough.
You may wish to be aware of the old analogy of dying the cloth. You dip the cloth in the dye, then bleach it out in the sun and repeat. Eventually the dye becomes fast.
If your peace is disturbed by senses or ideas or anything else, it is not established, it is not fast. It is not satchitananda. When it is fast, it is undisturbed by anything. If it is not fast, this an invitation to bleach - to engage with the world.
I'm not suggesting seeking. Just noticing. Once awareness is established it is attention that drives the process. Hence my suggestion to notice. Thinking you are done or have The Truth is an unnecessary limitation.
Of course, it is your choice.
My views on nonduality
==================
Non duality is simple - you don't exist. The moment you think you exist - you have already fallen into duality. The moment the me is dead - that is the moment of reality.
The moment the "me" has arisen again - it is the moment of thinking - it is the moment of dreaming - it is the moment of samsara.
But, then, your existence too can’t be denied. You do exist when you do.
You exist like light. You exist like fire. You exist like a wave. You exist like consciousness. You exist like digestion. You exist like breathing. You exist like the beating of the heart. You exist like music. You exist like a ripple on the water. You exist like a function.
You exist the way you exist right now - sans all your memories - sans all your thoughts.
You are light. You are consciousness. Light is a wave. Light is a function. Consciousness is a function.
You are consciousness. You exist this moment. The moment you bring memories into it - you fall into duality. The moment you bring (the memories of) (the imagination of) (the thoughts of) other moments - you fall into duality.
Just as breathing is… ...you are… ...you happen every moment…
Just as breathing continues… ...you continue… you continue every moment…
Just as every breath in reality is a new, fresh breath… ...that in reality has never happened again and will never happen
again… ...you are new and fresh every moment… ...never to be repeated…
Just as breathing never truly gets born or dies… ...you don’t truly get born or die…
Just as breathing is a function… ...you too are a function…
THAT which runs breathing… ...also runs the…. ...creation of you…
THAT for whose interests and needs… ...there is breathing… ...for that’s interests is your creation… ...there are certain needs for which it needs you…
...senses... ...movement...
...thinking… ...language…
...memory... ...observation, logic, reason, analysis, speculating, predicting, planning… ...making decisions…
...sense of time… ...sense of space… ...sense of boundary... ...locating body in the space…
Whom does the breathing serve? You serve the same one.
Who runs breathing? The same ONE runs the creation of you. The same one puts you in deep dreamless sleep. The same one puts you in dream. The same one wakes you up.
The same ONE runs your thoughts too. When you were a teenager, the hormones were flowing and you were chasing girls (or boys) and you thought you were doing it on your own, you were making your own decisions, you were doing it all because you wanted to. Right now is not that different. That which creates you, also runs you.
Who is IT?
To clarify it further...
You don't exist as an entity.
You don't exist as a thing.
You don't really continue in time...
The breathing continues in time... ...but... ...each breath is new and fresh. Never before. Never again.
The breathing continues in time... ...but... ...it is an error to think that... ...this breath the body is taking now... ...is the same one that was there yesterday, five days ago, five years ago or... ...five seconds ago. In reality, this breath has no independent existence. This breath is not an entity. It has never existed ever before. Five minutes from now... ...breathing would very likely still continue... ...and, a NEW Breath will be born. No matter how "similar" to this breath I am taking right now it looks... ...it is not the SAME breath.
The body has a past and future, you don't... ...because you are not an entity. You don't have an independent existence. You don't exist in time. Like this heart-beat, like this breath... ...you are produced by a running function and that running function will produce something very similar to you again.
When you exercise... ...it is the body that changes... When you eat good food... ...it is the body that changes...
With the changed body... ...the heart beats differently and the heart-beat is little different (for example, there are no blocks and thus the heart beat is smooth, peaceful and effortless).
When you meditate... ...it is the body that changes... When you read good text... ...it is the body (the memory, the knowledge, the conditioning) that changes...
With the changed body... ...
When the body is disturbed... ...such as a blow to the head, lack of oxygen to the brain, lack of breathing, lack of blood... ...excess drug... ...or general anesthesia... ...the function of the neural network of the body is interrupted...
When that function is interrupted... ... ...
...where is you???
In reality, you can only truly answer it directly... ...when the body is unconscious...
...but, can you???
Did you like this (plausible) "reality" of you?
...most likely not!
So what you can do?
...believe what is written in your favorite book, I guess :-)
Nonduality is true because there is ONLY ONE Reality all along. Rest everything is its function. Even the "feeling of separation", even "the feeling of duality" is its function... ...as is the entire universe. And, yes... ..."the feeling of separate existence"... ..."the feeling of I", "the feeling of me"... ...is one of its function... as is the feeling of... ..."free will" and "choice".
Really dull, TM is a just a racket/cult/pile of old bullshit...20 minutes was enough for me.
+MrSimonj1970 So whats your thing then? I mean what do you find interesting?
All sorts of stuff, I just get really bored of the TM aspect of BATGAP, I find MM Yogi and the whole TM cult entirely unconvincing and exploitative.
Since you ask, I've got a lot from Nisargadatta, Ramana, Jean Klein, Robert Adams, The Tao Te Ching, Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, Adyshanti and Jackie Collins.
+MrSimonj1970
I've enjoyed Adyashanti also. Very practical and real about it.
+MrSimonj1970 Jackie Collins? You mean this one:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Collins
+TOA (Transmission of Awakening) I wasn't being entirely serious about that one ;)