Keep up the good work to clarify these questions and ideas. As a Dzochen practitioner for many years these ideas are fascinating to me. Seems like you both are open minded with these ideas and are willing to grapple with them. Bernard Kastrup, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, and James Low, are some of my favorites. It’s all I can do to bring my mind home to rest. Blessings to all on the path. Effortless presence, aware in the heart; breathe in, breathe out… bring the mind home to rest.🙏
This is a fascinating discussion, about half way through. Buddhism has many texts about nonduality. In the Heart Sutra it says, form is emptiness and emptiness is form. It goes on to say that Emptiness is not other than form and form not other than emptiness (neither this nor that). Ramana Maharishi said that the highest form of teaching is silence. In the Buddhist Vimalakirti Sutra, the lay person Vimalakirtii bests the highest Bodhisattva’s in discussions of nonduality by simply remaining silent. I do appreciate Yahel’s perspective on how one understands emptiness, not just from texts. I saw into the emptiness of emptiness on a Francis Lucille Retreat when he was having an inquiry with someone. I have expressed it as the best hallucinogenic trip (without any substance), seeing forms as interdependent and emptiness as empty (neither this nor that).
Tibetan Buddhism (and Bön) has also a nondual meditation tradition called Dzogchen (Great Perfection), also called atiyoga (utmost yoga). It's a direct path to realize one's true nature, leading to complete non-dual awareness and the dissolution of dualities. It is very similar to the approach of Advaita Vedanta and leads to the same awakening.
Great Interview, the opening paragraph of the Rig Veda: "There was neither non-existence, nor existence then, there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomless deep?" This is the opening of the oldest ext of humankind, and a great paragraph to recite before sitting on the cushion. Brilliant interview Amir,.
The last half of the talk is just as juicy as the first. Nice discussion by Yahel about transcendence not being different than all things. In Mahamudra it is spoken of as One Taste.. Also pointing out Huineng’s verse (Sixth Patriarch Chan/Zen) is a great reference to this discussion. So agree that one continues to explore groundlessness and emptiness. For me it has been an onion, layer after layer. Lovely to have watched and enjoyed your dialogue. You could tell that you wear both enjoying the discussion.
Nice diagnosis by the host about the significant difference between Buddhism and non-duality: The question that represents the driving force of Buddhism is how to end suffering. Non-duality wants to understand what existence is, who it is, and what all this is. In my opinion, this question logically or philosophically precedes the question about the mechanism of the end to suffering. Thank you for this diagnosis
If awareness is the unkowable subject then we can never explore it to see if it is empty. We would have to objectify it as a mental construct and we would discover, surprise surprise, that it is empty. This doesn't mean that we have discovered anything about awareness, but only the concept we have created in our minds about it.
I tend to agree, in a pure logic what you shared makes sense to me Except that some claim that because awareness is what you are, it is knowable, or self knowing, as the lamp is self illuminating... And various paradoxes ensue
@adventuresinawareness if it is self-knowing then it isn't empty, it's full. I think it is empty if it depends on the object, in a mutually arising Buddhist way,, empty of independent existence. But if it is its nature to be aware of itself, then it does have independent existence and so not empty. Not that I really know anything, the level of the discussion was very high and maybe I didn't understand. Thank you for such a great channel!
@@Larcey Thanks Larcy - a useful perspective. I'm not sure I understood the whole conversation either! I'm hoping there will be a part two and I'll raise your point if there is 🙏🙏
In the sense of direct recognition Yahel contradicts himself in the sense he says it is a way of teaching, but later says that the process is about seeing or perceiving the unfabricated in relation to emptiness. Direct recognition in the first sense of a direct seeing can have thought associated with it, but it is about losing that later on. But with the seeing of its emptiness it is no different. That shows some bias towards the buddhist path.
Definitely just different ways of talking about the same thing. Swami Sarvapriyananda has said as much. In fact, I'd extend that to all mystical traditions, but Buddhism and Advaita seem the most "developed" in terms of methodology. But the actual language used never actually captures the "experience" being talked about (as language is inherently dualistic), so there's not much of a debate to be had, really. Different language works for different people.
@@adventuresinawareness of course, they would be adamant. Their whole religion is based on 'they are not Hindu' and their 2500 years of hard work. They can't just let it go.
@@FromPlanetZX That makes sense as a historical trend - but I'm not sure that is what motivates people like Yahel and others I have met to take this perspective... I will keep enquiring!
@FromPlanetZX Buddhisim is not considered a religion. As someone who has been steeped for years in first Advaita Vedanta and then Buddhisim, the difference is Advaita believes in an ultimate unchanging soul or Atman. In Buddhisim, one unfetters and experiences Anatta ( no self) and true emptiness. Actually being a Buddhist is the ultimate Letting Go. 😆
@adventuresinawareness I studied Advaita Vedanta and Buddhisim both for years. In Advaita, there is a belief in an ultimate unchanging Self that was never born and will never die, that is a part of consciousness. In Buddhist practice there is an unfettering from all beliefs and ideas of any self. It's a process of seeing through all concepts and beliefs to Anatta (no self) and understanding nothing is as we have thought and we will never know anything because there is no one to know anything. We are just emptiness dancing. Your minds will never figure this out. Sit on a cushion and inquire through direct experience. The only way is through. Thank you for this discussion. Rob Burbea was an incredible teacher.
Bouddhisme is for local part of India,zen belong to part of japanism culture,Tao or Daoism is part of cultural north west Chinese cultural and philosophical belongings, Western knowledge is so rich philosophically why do you look some where else the salute why.
Today I ate quinoa for breakfast, sushi for lunch and a ratatouille with Mediterranean salad for dinner.... if it's nourishing and tastes good, I don't mind where its from...
@SeiroosFardipour-sy3sh To say Western philosophy is rich enough is definitely not true! There are noted Western philosophers themselves that have turned eastwards, recognizing that they have not answered the fundamental questions of life itself. Furthermore, there really is no other body of knowledge ito volume, and scope that have explored life's big questions as deeply and committedly as have the ancient Indian scholars. However, if you're happy with your version of Western philosophy, then enjoy! Satre's Being and Nothingness is just that!
Keep up the good work to clarify these questions and ideas. As a Dzochen practitioner for many years these ideas are fascinating to me. Seems like you both are open minded with these ideas and are willing to grapple with them.
Bernard Kastrup, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, and James Low, are some of my favorites.
It’s all I can do to bring my mind home to rest.
Blessings to all on the path.
Effortless presence, aware in the heart; breathe in, breathe out… bring the mind home to rest.🙏
Thanks for sharing!
This is a fascinating discussion, about half way through. Buddhism has many texts about nonduality. In the Heart Sutra it says, form is emptiness and emptiness is form. It goes on to say that Emptiness is not other than form and form not other than emptiness (neither this nor that). Ramana Maharishi said that the highest form of teaching is silence. In the Buddhist Vimalakirti Sutra, the lay person Vimalakirtii bests the highest Bodhisattva’s in discussions of nonduality by simply remaining silent. I do appreciate Yahel’s perspective on how one understands emptiness, not just from texts. I saw into the emptiness of emptiness on a Francis Lucille Retreat when he was having an inquiry with someone. I have expressed it as the best hallucinogenic trip (without any substance), seeing forms as interdependent and emptiness as empty (neither this nor that).
Great comment! Thanks so much for sharing
Let us know what you think of the 2nd half of you get a chance...
Tibetan Buddhism (and Bön) has also a nondual meditation tradition called Dzogchen (Great Perfection), also called atiyoga (utmost yoga). It's a direct path to realize one's true nature, leading to complete non-dual awareness and the dissolution of dualities. It is very similar to the approach of Advaita Vedanta and leads to the same awakening.
Loved the conversation and it's exploration of such subtle states of awareness (and being).
Great Interview, the opening paragraph of the Rig Veda: "There was neither non-existence, nor existence then, there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomless deep?" This is the opening of the oldest ext of humankind, and a great paragraph to recite before sitting on the cushion. Brilliant interview Amir,.
Thanks for this amazing quote 🙏🙏🙏
That's Rig Veda 10:129, but yeah, profound.
The last half of the talk is just as juicy as the first. Nice discussion by Yahel about transcendence not being different than all things. In Mahamudra it is spoken of as One Taste.. Also pointing out Huineng’s verse (Sixth Patriarch Chan/Zen) is a great reference to this discussion. So agree that one continues to explore groundlessness and emptiness. For me it has been an onion, layer after layer. Lovely to have watched and enjoyed your dialogue. You could tell that you wear both enjoying the discussion.
Thanks for the comment. Great to see you over on this platform also 🙂
Nice diagnosis by the host about the significant difference between Buddhism and non-duality:
The question that represents the driving force of Buddhism is how to end suffering.
Non-duality wants to understand what existence is, who it is, and what all this is. In my opinion, this question logically or philosophically precedes the question about the mechanism of the end to suffering.
Thank you for this diagnosis
I resonate with this point very much
Interesting discussion.
I, like the host remain unsure as to whether 'awareness' is being used in the same sense by both speakers.
Recognition is the creator of the mind, and it depends on knowingness. 🙏 Recognition is cognition of cognition.
If awareness is the unkowable subject then we can never explore it to see if it is empty. We would have to objectify it as a mental construct and we would discover, surprise surprise, that it is empty. This doesn't mean that we have discovered anything about awareness, but only the concept we have created in our minds about it.
I tend to agree, in a pure logic what you shared makes sense to me
Except that some claim that because awareness is what you are, it is knowable, or self knowing, as the lamp is self illuminating...
And various paradoxes ensue
@adventuresinawareness if it is self-knowing then it isn't empty, it's full. I think it is empty if it depends on the object, in a mutually arising Buddhist way,, empty of independent existence. But if it is its nature to be aware of itself, then it does have independent existence and so not empty. Not that I really know anything, the level of the discussion was very high and maybe I didn't understand. Thank you for such a great channel!
@@Larcey Thanks Larcy - a useful perspective. I'm not sure I understood the whole conversation either! I'm hoping there will be a part two and I'll raise your point if there is 🙏🙏
@@Larcey Thanks for this Larcey, I don't know anything either but my intuition matches yours
@adventuresinawareness That is reassuring to hear. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
In the sense of direct recognition Yahel contradicts himself in the sense he says it is a way of teaching, but later says that the process is about seeing or perceiving the unfabricated in relation to emptiness. Direct recognition in the first sense of a direct seeing can have thought associated with it, but it is about losing that later on. But with the seeing of its emptiness it is no different. That shows some bias towards the buddhist path.
Definitely just different ways of talking about the same thing. Swami Sarvapriyananda has said as much. In fact, I'd extend that to all mystical traditions, but Buddhism and Advaita seem the most "developed" in terms of methodology. But the actual language used never actually captures the "experience" being talked about (as language is inherently dualistic), so there's not much of a debate to be had, really. Different language works for different people.
That's been my instinct also, but some Buddhists seem adamant their take is different 🤔🧐
@@adventuresinawareness of course, they would be adamant. Their whole religion is based on 'they are not Hindu' and their 2500 years of hard work. They can't just let it go.
@@FromPlanetZX That makes sense as a historical trend - but I'm not sure that is what motivates people like Yahel and others I have met to take this perspective... I will keep enquiring!
@FromPlanetZX Buddhisim is not considered a religion. As someone who has been steeped for years in first Advaita Vedanta and then Buddhisim, the difference is Advaita believes in an ultimate unchanging soul or Atman. In Buddhisim, one unfetters and experiences Anatta ( no self) and true emptiness. Actually being a Buddhist is the ultimate Letting Go. 😆
@adventuresinawareness I studied Advaita Vedanta and Buddhisim both for years. In Advaita, there is a belief in an ultimate unchanging Self that was never born and will never die, that is a part of consciousness. In Buddhist practice there is an unfettering from all beliefs and ideas of any self. It's a process of seeing through all concepts and beliefs to Anatta (no self) and understanding nothing is as we have thought and we will never know anything because there is no one to know anything. We are just emptiness dancing. Your minds will never figure this out. Sit on a cushion and inquire through direct experience. The only way is through. Thank you for this discussion. Rob Burbea was an incredible teacher.
You see it far to complicated,.,..
Reduced spirituality to Only mind games and word games.
Bouddhisme is for local part of India,zen belong to part of japanism culture,Tao or Daoism is part of cultural north west Chinese cultural and philosophical belongings, Western knowledge is so rich philosophically why do you look some where else the salute why.
Today I ate quinoa for breakfast, sushi for lunch and a ratatouille with Mediterranean salad for dinner.... if it's nourishing and tastes good, I don't mind where its from...
@SeiroosFardipour-sy3sh To say Western philosophy is rich enough is definitely not true! There are noted Western philosophers themselves that have turned eastwards, recognizing that they have not answered the fundamental questions of life itself. Furthermore, there really is no other body of knowledge ito volume, and scope that have explored life's big questions as deeply and committedly as have the ancient Indian scholars. However, if you're happy with your version of Western philosophy, then enjoy! Satre's Being and Nothingness is just that!