I appreciate your articulation of your disagreement with what Spira says, but I - in turn! - strongly disagree with what you share and what I have heard from other radical non-dualists (if I may use that term). Radical non-duality is, let me be frank, nothing new. That understanding is present in Dzogchen, Advaita, some other forms of Buddhism etc. The vehicles in which that teaching is shared include other aspects, some times forms of meditation or other practices aimed at bettering the experience of the apparent person - with full awareness of the paradoxical nature of that combination. Like Spira himself often says, these are compassionate compromises that don't point straight to the truth, but have their proper time and place, within the apparent experiences of apparently other people. "Radical" non-duality, not surprisingly, was "found out" (not the proper term) by a few western teachers who tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Hilariously, I've heard Tony Parson make the challenge "find someone who shares exactly what I share! All religions and traditions simply miss the mark!" I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it feels to me like it all ultimately boils down to a game of semantics and policing which (inevitably inaccurate) explanation of reality is the "purest" one. This is what the "non-dual police" expression refers to , I suppose. The fun thing is, there are plenty of teachers who had a "radical" phase - Lisa Cairn and Jeff Foster come to mind - and eventually got back to the task (the game?) of contributing to other people's life without any superfluous need for purity. I would recommend Fred Davis as someone who is VERY clear about the un-reality of it all, but still engages with his followers in a more compassionate matter (he often expresses this paradoxical attitude with "nothing matters! ...but everything counts.") What radical non-duality seem to miss, from my perspective, is the "multi-tasking" intention of pointing to the truth while addressing other issues - since all these apparent efforts ultimately boil down to the pursuit of happiness, at least from the human point of view. I do respect the genuine intention of not mixing up the finger with the moon; that is something that I understand and appreciate. But I also inevitably see the risk, in radical non-duality, of impoverishing people's experience and potentially sending them down oddly dark paths; it all is, I know, appearing in the unreality of our lives. Still, I prefer teachers who openly prioritize skillfulness in pursuing happiness over an excessively zealous attempt at being 100% non-dual. Genuine thanks to everyone who made it this far, and read everything I wrote! 😅
Wanda! Such an eloquent and thoughtful reply, obviously from a life of work and experience on the path. Thank you. You said better than anyone could have, and I appreciate your points, your call-outs and examples. Great clarity, my friend! Thank you!!!
Yes I got to the end . . . it will be interesting if I one day return to offering satsang and satsang therapy and point to one's nature as being a source of joy and silence. So far . . . these animations laugh at my journey of pointing to awareness and love, and then how it was 'seen' there was no awareness. Gone were those awake and others not awake, gone was seeing people as needing to realise something, work on themselves etc etc. Non-duality doesn't help those who want to find happiness (nothing wrong with wanting to find happiness) in fact ND doesn't really help anyone . . . . but it's a wonderfully shocking message that can flatten all spiritual notions, leaving just 'what is' . . . . including the 'what is' of expressing this in animation. Including the 'what is' of us seemingly communicating. It can take your breath away when it hits.
@Non Dual Fun -- It all comes down to paradox in a way and Rupert has addressed this contrary to what seems to be said in this video. That is, paraphrased - One finds once seeking stops. Yet without a seeker, there is no finding. There is a self, there isn't, etc. etc. As he has stated himself and I have observed over years, he tailors his responses to questions according to what he senses is the place/space of the question/questioner is in, and what may be appropriate. He's even stated that his replies can seem to contradict themselves - sometimes it needs to firm, other times gentler In some videos this is very evident in how he pauses, sometimes for 10 seconds or more before saying anything. There is also the ethos created by the aggregate of a group in which he is speaking, a kind of overall hologram of the flow and subject matter that arises. Which can and does vary from video to video. In short, pinning him down to being and doing only this or that is IMO more, well, this vs. that. Every "localization" of C/consciousness (or absence of it - lol) varies, and so who and how it is danced will vary. Do and be what works for you or the non-you you are or are not. :) Comparisons are ultimately irrelevant.
@@-a-l-t- On one level, true. On an other, not. "There is detachment and there is attachment. But be aware also that there is 'attachment to detachment'". -- (paraphrased pretty much verbatim from a meeting with Swami Satchidananda in the early 80s at which I happen to be present). Meaning that one can get lost in any extreme or dogma or should-ism. In this context, if one is so attached to seeking, finding is not possible for it is always some time, somewhere else in the future. On the other hand, if on thinks one has "found" it and sees that as the end of seeking, that is also an illusion. Hence back to what I pointed to in my first response here about the paradox of the seeker and seeking. In personal terms, the "dropping away" (or finding, so to speak) is occurring whereby the load of "the veil of separation" is getting thinner, but that does not mean I "got it" by any means, it IS an ongoing thing. But I don't see is so much as seeking, but a gradual integration or polishing of the rough and sharper edges of dual or fear-based perceiving-believing, etc. for the essence of it is really quite simple. But not easy or instant or seemingly permanent, even though that essence IS paradoxically never not-there, hence actually permanent. Something like that. Trying to weave this kind of stuff with words is very inexact. :)
I like this a lot. I went to a Rupert meeting a few years ago and it was (in my view) rather obvious that here was a seeker giving advice to other seekers.
I was very much sucked into the idea that I needed to be enlightened by reading eckhart tolle and others that are similar. I came across this “radical nonduality” about a year later and began to learn about that one as well. I finally came to the understanding that I had never had any idea of what I was looking for and had no clue how i was going to get there. I wanted to badly to “end my suffering.” I decided I didn’t care about any of these teachings. I was going to just get to the bottom of this myself. I had started meditating and going about my day just paying attention to everything that was happening. Paying attention to thoughts and senses and what have you. I won’t speak much on what was realized by doing this because words always seem to spark disagreement about it. That being said, I completely understand your take on this. However, after “doing” this work, I listen and read the works of Rupert Spira ans Tolle and I can understand why they say the things they do. Again the only problem being that the wordage implies that someone has to do something to get somewhere. I think that both sides of the nondual perspective can be important in this. I couldn’t imagine showing someone who is new to this stuff your videos right off to the get go lol. It’s almost like it has to be leaned into. I know that even those last two sentences don’t really make sense with the truth, but sometimes it’s just the way that we have to talk lol. All this being said, I really like your videos and great work! This is just my two cents that nobody (literally) asked for.
Agreed if someone is suffering you don’t just say oh well you don’t exist, these radical teachings are for people who are ready to be pushed over the edge, imagine saying these things to someone with a lot of ptsd and trauma, just gonna fuck that person up even more
@@3william714 yes bro. In the Bhagavad Gita is says that to unsettle someone’s mind who isn’t ready is actually immoral. I SO understand that because non duality is absolutely the best, and WORST message I’ve ever come across. Some of the mental gymnastics I’ve experienced are horrendous and have nearly left me insane at times along the way. Jesus Christ I’ve suffered the non dual message, in great degree at points. The mind is quite the trickster and IT isn’t what understands anyway but it sure can and has taken itself in many a crazy ride. I honestly wouldn’t wish it on somebody I didn’t like what I’ve been through with this. Ramana, Rupert, Nisagardatta, Lucille, Byron Katie, and on and on. I get a felt sense that I understand what the fuck is Everybody is talking about and the head really really wants to understand but what I understand is that the head isn’t gonna get it. There is no me that’s gonna get it even though there’s a me that me that’s gonna get it but it’s just not me. See what I mean 😜🤪😜🤪 Who knows. I would never want to unsettle somebody’s mind with this message having had the experience of being unsettled myself
I listened to Rupert Spira, read his books, and it 'appeared' that a point came where I just couldn't anymore. He was saying there is no one, no chooser, no doer, then he would have everyone doing these long meditations. Or self inquiry (are you aware?). The thought kept coming up "who is meditating? Who is inquiring?" Meditation and self inquiry have fallen away for 'me'. Seeking seemed to be reinforced with his teaching. I stumbled upon Kenneth Madden, Jim Newman, and a couple of others and realized they were what Spira refers to as Neo-advitists in a disparaging way. I completely agree with you in this video. The difference is they are not teachers. They continually pull the rug out from under the whole separate self illusion. They make no concessions. No compromise. They continually share that there is nothing you can do because there is no you and that this has always been the case. It does, however, seem that there is a progression or needs to be a readiness for the radical Nonduality. Now, I can no longer listen to Spira. He's a person speaking to a person, which just reinforces the seeking energy and there's absolutely no resonance at all. I want to repeat though, as others in this comment section have said, there does seem to be a need for readiness for radical Nonduality.
Lovely video. I had exactly the same turnaround as you. For 20 years I have been passionately teaching the message of classical nonduality, with, of course, great emphasis on Awareness. Wrote books about it. When I came in touch with Jim Newman, Andreas, Tony and Kenneth Madden, everything completely collapsed. It was seen that it had all been a teaching of ignorance. Without there being a someone being ignorant, of course. Just ignorance, owned by no one. Stopped all my meetings and retreats, just can’t get that story out of my mouth anymore. Thanks for pointing out the difference between the apparent two versions of nonduality in such a light way.
“Good news is” no one did these teachings. No one chooses to start or to stop teaching, to start or to stop seeking. It’s so empty, no owner, no doer. You couldn’t prevent it, you couldn’t do it differently, you didn’t do anything wrong and of course you didn’t do anything right also. Just what happened apparently. So nothing to be shamed or guilty (talking overall), it’s this freedom of that one, who was doing something and was responsible, it’s freedom of this heaviness, although heaviness may still appear, just for no one. Liberation for no one. Who wants that? No me wants that! Me wants carrots, something to do, as it thinks/is told to that it is broken and it can fix it, it can improve, it can become, it can get enlightened etc… versus radical nonduality that doesn’t see me, doesn’t give anything to the me, doesn’t give instructions, doesn’t help, doesn’t sell hope. Of course it will never be popular and it doesn’t have to be any other way. It’s done. It’s perfect. It’s whole already 🎉❤
Thank you for the videos. For those who want to argue, critique, or defend Rupert’s honor, I would say watch the videos again and again and again. Or not. There is no message there for “you”, so there is no she’s right or she’s wrong. All you can do is watch them many times and maybe! there is a perspective change, a seeing occurring, something shifts. That’s it. Discussion isn’t a part of it.
Just say you're a nihilist and spare everyone the hassle... oh wait, everyone else doesn't exist right. You or your "awareness" is the only one here. So profound @@lisabalach6213
Radiacal nonduality says that there's neither an object nor a subject. There's no thing, the brain is neither thing nor object nor subject. "The universe" is of a quality that is ungraspable, inexplicable, ununderstandable, unnameable, because there'd have to be a position outside of it to grasp it. It is neither full nor empty, neither real nor unreal, neither solid nor fluid. The illusion of solidity, reality, subject, object, relationship etc. stems from the brain "faking" a separate observer/experiencer/seer/hearer/witness/consciousness etc. As soon as the "experiencer" "functions" it experiences reality, subject, object and relationship, which is uncomfortable because feeling separate feels painful and mortal. It tries to escape that discomfort by a variety of means. What Rupert teaches is to alleviate the discomfort by transforming experiencing (which is the same as consciousness) into a refined, sophisticated state in which the experiencer feels more vast, spacious and peaceful by hovering above the sense of separation. However refined, it still remains subtly uncomfortable and so Rupert teaches to practice more. But the only way for experiencing not being uncomfortable is death.
@@michaelmcclure3383 appreciate what you wrote! This style is very different. There is no one to see. No students anywhere. One appearance. Can be like hit with cold water. It can seem kind to see students as students and then that view can suddenly he seen as cruel. It can seemingly perpetuate the the sense of self. This different take can be a sudden pulling of the rug. It turns the head and is impossible to return to seeing differences in students. It’s like seeing all the waves as water and no longer waves that need something. But I appreciate what you wrote.
Nice video. It was said that consciousness requires the being 'conscious of' something which implies two, however the 'consciousness of' does not change that there is still already everything as a whole and so the seeming distinction or specificity, as it has no effect on everything has no reality, or isnt real, or isnt happening, and so even with being 'conscious of' there is still just wholeness which includes consciousness.
It seems that this video is provoking a lot of reactions. There was a time when "I" was like that too. My little concepts were not to be disturbed, "I" wanted them safe as in a castle. And, little by little here, the "person" guarding the castle naturally decomposes and all that's left is what seems to appear and has always been... without a so-called me or a so-called consciousness that have never existed.
Interesting however these types of statements about there being nobody and nothing are like a snake eating it's own tail , it kinda cool and points towards the truth but ultimately limited as it doesn't translate and just goes around and around , what Rupert does is actually creates a tangible bridge to such a understanding via direct experience beyond just say nobody is here , I have seen many teachers speak about non duality and radical non duality is like a man standing in a mirror telling himself aka all the viewers that nothing exists yet has created a video to tell the imaginary people about it , the action and words don't make sense and contradict the message , personally I find radical non duality pointless but based on its own teachings of which there cannot be any it appears that's it's point , which brings us again to the snake eating it's own tail.
It’s only limited when you try to externalize it and no longer realize it’s just “you” because you are thinking about or pointing at something outside (which creates an implicit duality)
Tribalism is in our Human culture and DNA (maybe) “No Self” is not truer than “Self” Comparison is clearly Dualistic The Shankara quote I shared below hold the essence of this Trying to use the right words, and “othering” those who use the “wrong words” is clearly not “non” duality
It was the comparison that was so shocking . . . . that blew my mind. So I see the comparison as mind-blowing and a wonderful thing. It even blew the whole concept of spirituality, of others who were or weren't enlightened . . .leaving just one appearance, all equal, nothing separate from love, not because there was a need to find love but because it was all love anyhow. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my rant . . . that was more intended to be a laugh at the seeking . . . . . I'm laughing at the seeking and at the idea I had found something . . . and in the end there is just 'what is'.
I love these videos so much. I used to listen to Rupert a lot, but after a drop of the me (all of it apparently of course) it's just impossible to believe what he says any longer.
Rupert wallows in a dualistic self-referential quagmire. He talks about an 'I' who has or 'owns' a 'self' and a 'mind'. This 'I' can then engage is some kind of activity in order to be virtuous state of selfless, self! The self cannot find its own absence. The so called self is an illusion. What then is non self - a non-illusion then?
@@marksmith1779 interesting take. I enjoy Rupert and heard him address the activity of the separate self, and what the separate self can do. Despite its non-existence, of course. He said the separate self can continue to turn attention towards awareness so that it can realize it’s own non-existence. Apparently, upon the separate self, even though it doesn’t exist, realizing it’s on non-existence well, then be swallowed up and/or disappear magically somehow despite it never existing in the first place. fuck I don’t know. Non-duality is both the best, and worst message I’ve ever come across
@@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496 You are still thinking in dualistic terms. There is only what appears to be happening. That includes everything; all there is. How could there be something more than all there is? There is no subject outside of all there is which can know all there is as an object. All there is, is not a thing. It is not a 'something.' It cannot be known since any attempt to know it would also be it. It is no thing or nothing and yet it includes everything. It is therefore nothing appearing as everything. For no one. There is no separation. Nothing needs to happen for this to be what it already is. It already is what it already is. In our naivety we think that I am separate from life. We think that life is happening to me. We think that I have a life. That is the delusion. We are life. No one is born and no one dies. There is life but no one has it. Without any separation there is just infinity. Everything and nothing simultaneously. Consciousness and awareness are separation. They are the illusion of separation. That is duality. The Spiritual seeker is unhappy with life. He/she thinks it is their fault. He/she thinks that they must be punished or rewarded for being virtuous. He/she thinks that they must go on a quest to find something that is missing. NO. Nothing is missing. There is only what is. it does not depend on me. It does not need me. The appearance of separation comes from the contraction of energy in the body which gives rise to the sense of I AM. That is the primary delusion from which the whole of the so called human condition follows.
@@marksmith1779 yet would be possible to go through life without this delusion, having no sense of self is a slippery slope, it might work if you live in a cave, but I’d love to see you walk down a street in nyc with no sense of self, all that noise that would be filtered through your mind would overwhelm you, you would have no social awareness and there’s a good chance you would probably get mugged.
some non-duality speakers have said that this 'wholeness' or 'what is' is just apparently spontaneous energy, or 'unconditional love'. i don't understand why it would be unconditional love, it makes sense that it's unconditioned, for the lack of causality, but why 'love'? couldn't we say that it's 'unconditional indifference'? it makes more sense, or lack of, however we want to express that.
Yes, my preference is to use the word energy. Love, even the words 'unconditional love' can conjure up a sense of 'a something loving its many parts', which would give it a knowledge that it must then have about those parts in which to love unconditionally. Having said that . . . when the me collapsed here, there was a heck of a lot of love . . . as if everything was and is love itself. It was inexplicable and doesn't make sense. Even so . . . I still prefer the word energy. Chaotic energy, with no witness. It is soooo unknowable, . . . . and any 'human knowing' is only an appearance appearing . . . . so not exactly knowledge since its not separate to observe. I wouldn't say unconditional indifference, although I get your point . . . . only because the word indifference still makes it a something that happens to be indifferent to its parts. It's more, as I said, that it has no ability to witness itself, it just is itself . . . . and even my saying 'it is itself' isn't quite right because it isn't even a thing . . . . it can only ever be a mystery. Isness, is-ing? Unconditional love does I suppose suggest an inclusiveness to everything. Everything rotten is included in the appearance along with everything we think is wonderful. But the words are a bit too related to a religion with a god . . . or tends to project a human love onto 'what is'. Also it can either give the mind a nice picture to hold onto or be one of those irritating sayings that the mind starts to chew on . . . . whereas the word energy is wonderfully vague and unknowable, it doesn't give the mind anything to hang on nor does it sound like a paradox that must be solved making some poor seeker chew on it endlessly even though it will never be known. There are a few sayings I'd jettison and unconditional love is one of those.
I wonder what you'd think of Franklin Merrill Wolfe (it would only take a minute, just read his 3 realizations and aphorisms.) I'm so pleased you enjoyed Douglas Harding and linked to "Read the Faerie Tale and Die". Thanks so much for your amusing takes on all this stuff.
I hadn't heard of him . . but I'm enjoying reading about him now. Is there a particular book or kindle? I can't seem to find one that isn't selling for less than an outrageous price of $70.
The word "Consciousness," and Rupert would agree, is a compassionate concession to one that believes themselves to be a skin encapsulated ego. The word Consciousness is a "thorn to remove another thorn." The word "consciousness" is a thorn used to remove the other thorn "skin encapsulated ego." We don't stop at "consciousness", otherwise we remain in duality as the cartoonist rightly pointed out. The issue here is that they aren't familiar enough with Rupert's teaching to know that he is using the word "consciousness or awareness" in this way. It isn't an endpoint. Talking about the "mammoth difference" between "one non duality" and another "non duality" is kind of an oxymoron isn't it? "Non-duality" can't really be spoken about with any precision, but skilled teachers (like Rupert) will use compassionate concessions to help one that believes themselves to be an ego to confront those unexamined beliefs that the cartoonist here thoughtfully pointed out. If you were to ask Rupert if he thought "ultimate reality" is consciousness, he would say "if we really wanted to speak the truth, we'd remain silent." He's said that many times. I am not at all offended by this video. I do believe that it is talking about a subject and teaching which hasn't been thoroughly explored by the cartoonist. At worst, the video is an attempt to garner attention by "trolling." Ultimately, no one can tell you about "Truth". You have to discover it for yourself. "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." "The truth that can be spoken is not the eternal truth.
Oh . . . . well . . . one is saying you are consciousness and the other is saying there is no you and no consciousness. One says there is a you who can realise yourself as Consciousness while the other is saying the illusion of consciousness is creating a false you and that's what's creating a false sense of separation. But many report exactly as you have . . . . and then it hits!
What i like about these video’s is that there is no separate self betraying itself by saying there is no self. It’s just an animation that appears on the screen with wisdom Botox inbefore the next video! 😅
I'm curious about how to approach this video and I'd sincerely love more clarity. I've been engaging with nonduality for a while, working one on one with someone fully realized and making what I feel is amazing progress. I'm happier, lighter, and can feel the rapid thinning perception and increase of sense of connection and love. I'm having a great time, and am encouraged with the other students of this particular teacher, as they all seem emotionally free and intellectually vibrant. That brings me to this video - what I like about Rupert Spira's message is that he talks more about the lived experience of happiness and peace, and not just ideas of the nature of reality and consciousness. He talks plenty about concepts, but he seems to make it very practical and lived and, clearly, he himself is happy. It radiates from him. As I listen to this video, it feels unhappy. I can't tell if it's poking lighthearted fun or not, but there's a jadedness that comes through. It feels bitter and resentful. I want to engage with the ideas in this, but there's an overarching sense that it doesn't contain joyfulness and freedom. It seems like a disposition of peace and happiness would be the evidence of wisdom, particularly with this subject, but that doesn't come through, quite the opposite. It leaves me curious about what happened along the narrator's journey, which I'd sincerely love to know. The video speaks about pitfalls in a sort of general sense, but there are countless vibrant people living in the world who are the expression of these teachings and they seem to be very happy.
That's a great question! And it's even something I'm putting into the next video because there is an aspect of huge joy and love and bliss when it feels like illusions are dropping and one is getting closer to silence and emptiness. Sorry about the jadedness seeming to come through. The animation is definitely too frowny! The joy you mention can be a bit like the finding from neuroscientists about those who believe in a god who is looking after them. Those who believe in a god are found to be happier than those who do not. This non-duality is so different. It has nothing to do with happiness. It's the end of the separate seeker. It's seeing how there are no seekers because there is already no-one and no thing that is separate. It's no perception. It's no conclusion as to what This is. The appearance of vibrant people is the same appearance of those who aren't vibrant. When I was a vibrant person and high on bliss and free of triggers I wanted everyone else to have that same experience, the same realisation. And those who weren't vibrant and on bliss they were unenlightened, unspiritual, they needed to work on themselves to become free and awake. Now it's . . . no view. No one to have an experience even though there is experience . . . . all experience is in the appearance, meaningless. No one to become free. There is just 'what is'. No real witness, so no-one to project a god or a vast consciousness or a spiritual realm. No-one to see other . . . which is what non-duality means. No-one really living in time. No-one on a journey. No enlightenment for anyone because there is no-one . . . and no vibrancy as a sign that a someone is becoming enlightened. Vibrancy may or may not be appearing but for no-one. It's amazing how the illusion of a conscious witness turns out to be the only illusion. The dream of being separate is just a dream. Already This is everything. For some this hits as a huge resonance. It comes as a "holy F!" No more the idea of being a someone with any autonomy anywhere. It is no longer necessary that anyone even come across non-duality because there is no-one separate already. There is nothing for the illusory me. I can seemingly make jokes about non-duality . . . but it isn't for anyone. No-one gains anything. You lose everything . . . or discover you never had anything to begin with because it is just this . . . . just this . . . . just this . . . . as a whole.
This all feels familiar, from Buddhism and other religions. Like the debate between eternalism and nihilism or the debate between those who believe in ‘buddha nature’ or ‘just’ emptiness of the self. One of the differences between Tony and Rupert in style is that Tony is often differentiating his words from what has gone before, saying ‘this is radically new’ whereas Rupert amalgamates some other sages ‘teachings’, from different traditions. Tony also seems delighted to be irreverent and amusing. Quite like them both. Not sure they actually exist though. Thanks for the video.
@@andrewsmyth2673 but you are stacking the incorrect concepts. Rupert says that you don’t have a free will, but then recommends you to do something. With concepts like that, you will end up in mental institution 😂. Good luck.
The more so called radical nonduality speakers absolutely do acknowledge that there is, for the person, a sense of I am someone, but point out that it is an illusion. Ie something that seems real but in actuality, is not.
Awareness and consciousness mean some kind of 'knowing'. Knowing implies separation and separation implies duality. Radical non-duality is not about 'knowing'. What is cannot be known. There is no subject outside of all there is which can know all there is as an object. The way it is cannot be known. Any attempt to know it would also BE IT! There is no TIME. The past is a memory. The future is projection. The Present Moment is also just a concept. Where is the boundary between the past/future and present? How short is the present moment? Is it 100th of a second? Less? The present disappears to a vanishingly small space. Eventually it comes to zero. Zero is nothing. Zero is also infinite. Because it is infinite, it includes everything. Therefore the present is No thing or nothing appearing as everything. It is nothing and everything simultaneously and since there is no separation, there is not two. Nothing appearing as everything for no-body. Thus if there is no time, there is no one moving in a bubble through time called 'my life.' There is life but no one has it.
Lol the first minute of the video says “Rupert doesn’t understand radical nonduality” whatever is said from this point on is irrelevant because who can understand radical nonduality?? I liked this channel a lot when I first started watching Tony and Jim, but then I realized how the ego likes to create “nondual selfs” and I see it clear as day in these individuals. It is what it is, I just don’t listen to them anymore. We are all on our own journey, and anytime you see someone doing something like this, know it’s another trap of the illusory self 😂
That’s it. The ego is always there and is going to try to trick you because it’s its job. So whatever isn’t that is you. Or whatever isn’t you is you. Doesn’t matter how you think about it, but I’d say that the non self is the self
Yikes! A non-dual self is about as bad as an enlightened self! Sorry that my videos aren't louder in expressing how one is still a moron after the collapse . . . and how utterly irrelevant a collapse is.
Yes, Steven Wolinsky talks about the "no-self self". If someone really accepted Radical Non Duality, they'd never speak about it as it would suppose there is a "someone" to hear them (which goes against the very philosophy).
All I took from this is that there is no radical nonduality. Seems like your just disagreeing to disagree. He said the only radical teaching was silence as in the person would remain silent, wouldn’t speak about this. Obviously you knew that but said the only silence in the world is at an echo chamber. he’s talking about the person remaining silent. This is just spiritual warfare, non-dual vs radical non dual vs radical radical nondual. All semantics. I also love seeing people discover nonduality and talk about there being no one. And than there whole personality is about being no one, and they only associate with other nobody’s. it’s got to be the strangest thing I’ve ever scene. You’d be suprised how many people have probably discovered non duality and have never spoken about it. And there’s the people that discover and develop a god complex
Yes no radical non-duality! No non-duality full stop. War fare isn’t meant. It’s just so funny that what one group says is the bridge to Oneness is the exact thing which turns out to be illusory. Or the thing that mattered doesn’t matter at all. Funny if you’ve been on the long journey and have the rug pulled. And yes, lots don’t say anything. No need. And in the appearance some talk. Nothing going anywhere. Had we both been selling vacuum cleaners we’d talk about that.
There is no choice to talk about this or not to talk about this. I don’t know that but i guess there are way more these who doesn’t talk about this. Because it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t serve any agenda/purpose/meaning. It even doesn’t bring food to the table so to speak. It is just whats happening apparently. This appearing as teacher or speaker. One is teaching others as there are other. Second is talking nothing to nobody, no agenda. Both are empty, no doer, no teacher, no speaker, no student, no seeker, no choice or free will. Me will never realize that there is simply not two, as me is dream of duality. It can be only realized by no one. Or me can intellectually understand this and then teach ND and act as he got something or it knows something and trying to maintain this. When this is effortless, empty, nothing, freedom for no one. There is nothing to teach, no one to teach, it can happen only in dream of duality. Nothing wrong with anything, as nothing right. Just what seems to happening. Empty happening 🎉❤
@@erenonduality I wonder why comments that don’t agree with your explanations on your UA-cam channel, are being blocked, if there is nothing wrong with anything 🤷. What if some of your explanations are incorrect, and it’s causing harm to people who believe it. Why not allow your listeners to have the option to hear different opinions about this ? I am not trying to be confrontational, just curious, you seem otherwise like a sincere person. Good luck 🍀
In the end we forget one thing - a teaching is just a teaching. It is for the people to do something whit it. It is not to have anything with the truth in its purest form. Firstly because it is inherently impossible because if the map/location problem, second because we don't have the ability to go out of ourselves and our own experience no matter what we do and everything else is mental except our own second to second experience of pure awareness including or excluding objects in it. This channel has the strange ability to not fully understand awareness and consequences. So it says a lot of true things and a lot of doubtful things as well. It says that consciousness and awareness cut reality. And in personal I-ego consciousness this is of course truth. But there's one thing that this wonderful animated lady misses out, and it is that in the end we only have this I-i awareness absolutely granted to us, the existence of the outside world is only mental preposition or speculation. And in fact exactly the nondual part is the one that is not obvious and is the most speculative part of it. So to say that noone exist in nothingness that appears as something is just well beating around the bush or philosophical bypass to make just a spectacular teaching, but teaching what? Whom? And why? No purpose. It is pointless paradoxical ego trip of radicalism. Sprout out of a neglecting awareness as a vital component, just because it ruins the radical picture. Exactly the awareness is the thing we have for sure, and yes, we make it sort of identity because we cannot neglect it, it simply is. The only sure thing.
Some teachers say they are teaching using The Direct Path and then guide you with their ten thousand books and videos, retreats etc all of which seem quite lucrative.
After a glimpse/kensho after many years of seeking meditating and binge watching all non dual teachers. I feel this was a bit confusing. There definitely is silence as where do the the thoughts come and go? As the years have gone by this silence has come more forwards and thoughts are less sticky. In the kensho all was still and silent, so not sure where your coming from. But im happy to understand and not trying to say your wrong, maybe im wrong 😅
And now the seeker has found a new girl and she's called radical non-duality .Like non-duality can be non radical .A lot of teachers speak about oneness but one what ? One jar of peanutbutter ?
The modern non-duality notions tend to be very concerned to prove claims of all being one. Fun, debates of paradox and appearances… sure. Advaita, accepting that fact though, has a far easier time understanding, accepting and livng with the many apparent, and apparently divided phenomena.
So consciousness is an illusion in non-dual brahman. I agree. We are always in one of those illusions or we don't exist at all. If we are lucky (obviously we can't influence it), part of our illusion of consciousness will be how the illusion came about. That's how I imagine Realization or Enlightenment - to be like a person at a magic show who knows the essence of the trick. He sees and feels exactly the same as others, but perceives it completely differently.
I once read that the last realization a Bodhisattva has before becoming a "full Buddha" is "there are no sentient beings to liberate from cyclic existence" - the complete opposite of the vow taken at the "start" that one shall not rest or flee into nirvana before all beings are liberated. Quite tricksy, these Buddhists!!
Dont think, feel, It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. Bruce Lee. Enter the Dragon.🙏😊
Great explanation of the non dual perspective. It's funny that it has to be labeled "radical" non duality, but I see why. Non duality is used by people who think they have "attained" that state but are firmly planted in the realm of dualism just having replaced the idea that they are a body with the idea that they are this thing called consciousness. But I completely understand and sympathize with people who think that radical non duality is horse shit. I did too until very recently and then something flipped and I suddenly saw Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira speaking untruth and Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, Andrea Müller and a host of others speaking about how things really are. No one and nothing anywhere to be found. Just the unknowable appearing as THIS.
Sounds like this video is taking a position and making assertions. This is not doing non-duality any favours by apparently dividing that which is beyond division. Just loads of thoughts and mind, just like this comment. Best be quiet.
It wasn’t meant to be divisive so much as clear on the differences. It can be great to get donged (humorously) on the head and discover the self isn’t there in yourself or anyone else. It can be a relief. So no harm is meant by clarifying. And if you like the other style then that is what you like. And others like to see the difference. It can be enormously funny …. or not. No matter. (and my humour in explaining the difference isn’t to everyone’s taste).
Its just a matter of defining conciousness, im not defining it as any sort of constainer of exoperience or a thing, but simple fact of knowing of experience. So its pretty wierd when i hear that consciousness doesnt exist, you may argue that conciousing is happening but theres no connsciousness, but its like to say experience can be known but theres no such thing as knowingness, theres no object there but it is happening.
This pretty much nailed it, thank you. There is no knowing, and there is no "not knowing" knowing. There is no Abstract absence of knowing, a not-knowing. Everything returns to Consciousness Period. Or everything falls in on itself. Also my view: The Complexity of Intrinsic Mind allows for a degree of diversity within the Oneness. The very nature of Consciousness itself in its imagination and vantage point perspectives. It is itself an infinity of diversity. This is being missed imo. Such has nothing to do with Intrinsic Separateness.
Prapanca/Nisprapanca. Relative/Ultimate Truth. Yin/Yang. Good/Evil. All linguistic attributions. Experiences come and go: an "experience" of "Unified Oneness" (which I assume gives rise to the description "White Light of the Void" and such) - which, actually is only a MEMORY once you can actually think about it - can be achieved (seemingly - I certainly have, ONCE!) but then goes again, thus functionally appearing no different to all other "phenomena" - vijnana - SO JNANA IS VIJNANA! But, the "calmness", the "peace", the "Nothingness" (at least in the recollection...): there was/is a cessation of "striving". Compared to what we might term "ordinary" consciousness it is an incredible revelation, and, just for a moment, I thought I'd grasped it, lol 🤣 I thought: This must be satori! This must be what the Buddha experienced!! And, of course, who knows? Maybe it was...but SO WHAT? What's that ?Zen quote that goes something like "from the beginnings of infinite time pure and unadulterated enlightenment has done me not the slightest bit of good" (I may have got the quote wrong). We live. We all know what shouldn't be done and what should be done ("morally" speaking) - unless we are so damaged that we're termed psychopaths - so why don't we just DO it instead of wondering around in circles? Just some thoughts. And superficially I just don't gel with Spira, I prefer Tolle and Jason Gregory - but it's all just an aesthetic taste when it gets to that (probably contaminated by various psychodynamic transference issues, rofl)
@@nondualityfun I've also recently been looking at 'Perfect Brilliant Stillness by David Carse. I've listened to it twice now on Audible and have a PDF of the book. What confuses me is that he apparently had the me dropping away phenomena occur. And a lot of what he say sound exactly like what is accounted by (others) who have had this occur. Yet he talks a lot about awareness and consciousness.... "All is Presence, Awareness, in which all apparent thoughts and concepts, events and actions, arise spontaneously...... "There is only this, this thisness, Awareness, and that is what ‘I’ is." And the like...He uses the word awareness 86 times in the book. I don't understand? He seems to have a foot in each camp..haha Love the video's :)
@@richardverney3439 I've just started the book so can't answer just yet. . . . but yes so far lots of talk about Awareness ... in Tony Parsons' first book he also referred to oneness as consciousness and then changed that. It is a big difference. Awareness is a projection of the seemingly human element. I know when I supposedly had a big awakening it correlated so much with all the stories around the Ramana lineage that it seemed easy to conclude that awareness was the substrate of everything. Yet it is a projection leading to all the romantic notions of a divine intelligence, a knowing that one can reach. Yet . . . I would say when the me collapses . . . there is no actual witness to know, no divine intelligence behind everything that is linked to human consciousness, no real knowing . . . only 'what is'.
@@nondualityfun a lovely response, thanks…and fair enough, I hear what you’re saying about awareness. The dictionary says awareness is…’knowledge or perception of a situation or fact’, which is pretty straight forward. Yet linguistically awareness in non-duality is a polysemous word and is certainly used to mean subtly different things by different speakers and teachers. Which makes things a little tricky. Non-duality needs a standardised dictionary! From what I can recall about the triad of the witness, witnessing and the witnessed, it makes sense that there would be ‘no actual witness to know’, but only ‘what is’ when the me falls away. If the witnessed and witness are only real in a subjective experience, then there’re an illusion because the separation isn’t real. I get the theory of that. I liked David's book, I guess there’s a lot in it for the seeker. He appeared to have the ‘me’ fall away and then tried to understand more about it and perhaps was then influenced by Ramesh? Who apparently also changed his teaching a lot in his later life. Carse went to see Ramesh and became friends. Ramesh was also a student of Ramana's. (Sorry for the spoilers!) So, he might have just got into using that inherited lingo? I don't know a lot about those guys but I do know Ramana is the 'Who Am I? man! And self-enquiry is not the Radical/Pure Non-dual communication, apparently... as who would be asking? Looking forward to the next cartoon instalment..:)
If everything is just appearing to happen and no one is doing anything, then this obviously applies to EVERY so called teacher , so why are you arguing? You are contradicting your own ideas by "diagreeing" with another "No one ". Who are you to think you are "right" and another is " wrong"? You are caught again in a dualistic perspective by trying to prove that you are right and someone else is not right. Aren't you saying that EVERYTHING is IT ?! And EVERYTHING is just happening for NO ONE. There's no free will or choice? So there's no Rupert speaking , it's simply NOTHING or Consciousness speaking through the illusion of a person named Rupert. Don't you say there are no individuals? You shouldn't criticise others, by so doing you completely lose your own argument.
Yes ☺ ! ...within the parameters of the paradigm expounded here this is certainly true! 😂..I did see this of course, but still a reply seemed appropriate because non duality speakers who criticise so called "others" seem to still be stuck in ego mind mentality. True enlightened masters never criticise "others" and the "content" of what is said through a true enlightened master has a wisdom, beauty, and power which transcends petty criticism about who is right and who is wrong. It's not nice to try and denigrate "others" . It doesn't come from an awakened state of consciousness. Such talk comes from a "position" of false pride and arrogance. It comes from "Mind" Its not true wisdom. As Rupert wisely says in the clip she is "critiquing", "The only true radical non duality teaching would be "Silence". If you have a "point" to make - especially in the low frequency consciousness of a personal attack, against another "person" or group of "people" - , that must mean its coming from the contracted state of Consciousness , ego identity, not Cosmic Consciousness.
@@liz460 I have to say that the radical non duality explanation of reality seems to me to be the correct one, since being aware of something does creates two, subject and object 🤷🏼♂️
@@liz460No-one here who is enlightened. That is the point. That is what ends. The idea of a someone who goes from unenlightened to enlightened when all there is is, 'what is'. It's breathtakingly different. And why silence isn't such a great teaching is again, you have someone who has to find silence. It's with love and humour and compassion that this is expressed. Mostly the laughter is self deprecating. I don't know anything. And while I used to have a seemingly silent mind and pointed to love and awareness and enlightenment it was then mind-blowing to see the difference of no awareness. All is an equal appearance. The search was illusory. That's what these animations say.
The truth is within. Non Duality means ONE. Never two or more. Never an 'other' as in an expert/teacher/guru. 'I' is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Creator except through 'I'.
Yes! Blowing raspberries under water! That’s what it comes down to! I almost added that at the end but it was already too long! Shakespeare put it better …. it’s all much ado about nothing! Emphasis on the nothing!
Right and wrong is not the intention. One non-duality says Consciousness is your true self. The other suggests consciousness is the illusion creating a false sense of separation. Without that sense of consciousness there is no authority. Who is right or wrong doesn’t really come into the equation. Comparison can be used to highlight the difference but that is all. On the radical side there are no winners. I don’t win. That is what is funny ….. all that supposed seeking and no-one can win. You can have winners in the traditional non-duality or a someone who has it right but no winners or anyone right on the radical. Just ‘what is’. It’s a comedic rant pointing out the difference.
@@yoeyyoey8937 Rupert claims that the awareness/ consciousness/ the observer is ultimately the god. All there is is awareness being aware of it self - that’s what he claims. The radical non duality people claim that the awareness/ the observer is actually the cause of separation, that it is the “Me “ sense, and that it is illusory. For example, radical non duality supporters claim that there is just sound without anyone hearing the sound, there is just sensation without anyone feeling the sensation, there is just appearance of objects without anyone seeing it, etc. Those two points of view are pretty much complete opposite. And then there is lots of people on UA-cam who don’t comprehend this correctly, and mix up both of those together 😂, and then there are others, who claim that they lost the sense of “ME “, but they didn’t, and talk from the viewpoint of “ME” about no me 😵💫, which then causes mass confusion among the radical non-duality crowd.
Your complaints against what Rupert says fall flat. You seem to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what he is saying. Every point you criticize is something he didn’t say. You throw up so many straw men, it’s hard to keep track! I would be good for you to talk to him about these points. It sounds like you believe there are some essential points he just doesn’t grasp. It sounds like you are stuck on certain words and highly triggered to make this video, in which you criticize things someone didn’t say. Listen to Rupert again, or talk to him, or make another snarky video about how others just don’t get it as clearly as you do.
Oh I’m so sorry it came across that way! Although I’ve heard enough of what he says to point out the difference between non duality with consciousness rather than without. And I do say I’m sure he’s nice and I loved that style of non-duality. Sorry if the humour seemed snarky. I’m more laughing at my own seeking and pointing out the stark difference. My humour doesn’t suit everyone.
This that we all share can be expressed in infinite ways. There is so much room for all of it...all emotions, sensations, stillness, turmoil, resistance, acceptance....it's all a rich field of being and nothing/no one is right or wrong. Nothing needs to be, nor can be, omitted. It's all the beautiful experience/expression of our being. We are all alive within all of it. Denying any of it is the mistake that feels so painful...nothing needs to be excluded. We are ALL of it and there is no problem. Sharing this experience is what connects us and establishes the one immediate truth. We are all THIS one expression of everything and every point of view. There is no need to struggle to explain anything but struggling to get it is also fine...just not necessary.
Oh yes! I read everything I could get my hands on that he wrote. What a wonderful approach he had! I like him so much I put him in Read This Faerie Tale and Die. He's in the trailer for the book too. You can see the trailer and pics if you scroll down here www.nonduality.fun/read-this-faerie-tale-and-die . His approach was slightly different but wonderful nevertheless. I don't really see people as awakened or not awakened. I see everyone as a part of the appearance of 'what is'. Some approaches point and some point in directions that while they seem good can keep the seeker seeking in that they dangle carrots. I don't think Douglas Harding dangled carrots. What he offered was so close to radical non-duality . . . and so novel.
It took a while, but I think I finally get your point about how radical nonduality is different from Advaita. To sum up, both sides say the self is illusory, meaning that the belief in the thoughts claiming to be the self in control of the body is seen to be false. As nothing more than a collection of thoughts, the self can’t possibly *do* anything. It’s like seeing the nervous, sweaty little man furiously turning wheels and levers behind the curtain and dropping the belief that the big floating head is the real Wizard of Oz. The difference is that radical nonduality doesn’t offer a replacement self, while the other side does. They say your *real* self is your awareness or consciousness, which is somehow not separate from the single universal consciousness in which oneness appears. So if you skip the step of dropping the self, you end up with a personal (as opposed to impersonal) self that now contains everything. Talk about an inflated ego!
LOL! Yes! And there is no-one who can drop the self because it's already not there. It's the dreamt sense of consciousness that divides everything . . . but it's only an illusory division.
@@joolslorien3936 I’m curious to hear more. Could you share the title of a video or post where Rupert discusses how to disidentify with awareness/consciousness? I’ve seen videos of his where he says that the *separate* or *finite* self/ego/finite mind is illusory or an act of awareness/consciousness but he usually goes on to say that the *real* self is god/awareness/consciousness/love. For example, listen to his video: The Self in You is God’s Self, or The Pinnacle of Nondual Understanding, which he summarizes as: “Whosoever knows their self knows their Lord.” To be clear, I have problems with the radical nondualist dogmatic and uncompromising adherence to the absolute perspective and rejection of the relative. Adherents are the first to admit that their message is useless. I’d add that it can be damaging. @thegloriousbothand has many videos on that topic. That said, while I appreciate Rupert’s poetic descriptions, I prefer Angelo Dilullo’s more practical approach of relying on direct experience. The self is nothing more than self-referential thoughts that say things like: I did or I should (not) do , etc. Other than as thoughts, there is no self in direct experience. In direct experience there is only conscious awareness of some combination of thoughts and sensations. Conscious awareness is at the base or ground level of all experience, but it has nothing to do with the illusory self, it just is. Associating it with anything like an impersonal self or god or love is another thought or belief, not a direct experience. Similarly, speculating that god/consciousness chose to veil its true nature from itself and the reasons why are more thoughts and beliefs and also not part of direct experience. Personally, I think whether you call it oneness or capital-s-Self or god or infinite consciousness, the labels are all pointing to the same thing. I just think some approaches are more confusing and error-prone than others. To me, the most error-prone approaches are the ones that either say a) everyone’s already enlightened, so there’s nothing to do or b) you don’t exist, so there’s nothing you can do (and the decades this character spent doing practices were seen to be completely irrelevant to the apparent realization). Rich Doyle says that the idea that you don’t need to do anything to awaken is (to put it charitably) a retroactive illusion. While the idea that the self, being only a thought, can’t do anything is strictly true, in the relative sense it’s discouraging to individuals who don’t yet understand the illusory nature of the self. Even absent a self and free will, individuals can apparently do things that bring about realization. It would be much more useful to expose individuals to practices for realizing the nature of the illusory self rather than running the risk of ending the search prematurely, or worse, completely demoralizing and demotivating them, sometimes to catastrophic ends. The message that it’s hopeless because there’s nothing you can do can push someone who’s suffering and at the end of their psychological limit over the edge, and it has. I find it incredibly hypocritical that radical nondualists say things like there’s no cause and effect because time and space are an illusion. Then you go to their website and see a notice that they’re appearing in Amsterdam next weekend and the entrance fee will be collected at the door. It’s really quite funny to see how quickly they drop their uncompromising absolute perspective and adopt the relative when they’re off camera and money is involved. When pressed on the discrepancy, they use weasel words like I didn’t write that. Well who wrote it? No one did, obviously. It reminds me of the ghostly NOT ME character from the Family Circus comic strip. Who made a mess in the living room? NOT ME. 🤨
@@joolslorien3936 who would be seeing awareness as illusory? And why, or indeed how, would one drop something that isn't there? Part of the illusion is that there is something to do, because something needs to happen. This is the inescapable dilemma for the individual seeker. The end of seeking seems to happen when it's recognised that there is no one living in separation in the first place. This is not a mental recognition by way of an understanding, it's the energetic collapse of anything that could be sensed as something that exists. There is just wholeness already. Home is never lost.
Thankyou for your videos and thank you for this one. I'm going to politely disagree. This is at present what I'm seeing: Nonduality no Theism: Detachment that is impossible to actually pull off, and in the end itself does not exist. Nonduality Theism: Acceptance that is not intended to be absolute just productive and meaningful. The Intrinsic has to know what it is doing. What is being missed in my view is the complexity of Intrinsic mind. So complex that it is One with Diversity. It's the absolute "either or" that is very common in so many aspects of Human thinking and philosophy that becomes the beginning of the problem. It's the thought that distinctiveness cannot be One. But in Mind it can in my view and in Intrinsic Mind it most likely is. It's almost always the absolute "either or" that causes the paradox when there is no actual paradox. Consciousness is the answer.
That’s believable. And if I’m wrong it doesn’t matter, that’s why so much is going to get replaced by AI it’s because there wasn’t much value there to begin with. Might as well have a machine do it
Based upon your lengthy and detailed explanation, it seems like you too must have traversed the territory Rupert Spira teaches. No shame in that. I respect where you are at, and accept that there are many paths to there or nowhere as the case may be. There is a core perennial understanding or enlightening which you obviously share with Zen and other traditions, including Rupert Spira. You are not in opposition (how can you be?) to Rupert or Swami Sarvapriyananda or Eckhart Tolle, etc., but what you call radical is just the other side of the apparent coin in a universe without currency.
Isn't the confusion these conversations create the most obvious "pointer'......let it go and breathe. There is absolutely no need to dig around in/explore what doesn't need to be defined. It's the most harmful distraction from what is shining in plain view....our immediate presence. I've been immersed in this never ending discourse for way too long and gotten absolutely no where. The hole just keeps getting deeper. My advice to myself is enough already!!!! There is no need for this!
@Neil saying happens, no one does it. There is only what appears to be happening. There is not two. Non duality frustrates the seeker. There is no hope for the seeker.
Serious question, can you stop being I? Do you have this center of existence where experience starts from? Thrs no separate individual but thrs an underlying reality in which all of appearance appears.
You can’t stop being I , because you are the I . You don’t have this center of existence, because you are that center. But that center / I , is an illusory experience, because everything is one, the same energy, with no separate thing located in it.
@@ccr7712 exactly u can't stop being that, most teachings are saying the same thing but in thr own way. It's hilarious people like this lady and Ug is so hell bent on proving others wrong. It's like saying all of humans that existed before is wrong only what I am saying is right, sounds like too much Ego to me.
@@Iam590 I don’t think that she claims that you can stop being that. She is saying that that experience of being I, being the center is just illusory/ psychosomatic misunderstanding, and it can just stop happening .
Can see that having self belief as a thing in the first place and using a no self method such as 'Who am I' could be just that- a self belief owning a method. However if 'you' don't believe in a self thing in the first place using a method such as noticing the impermanence of thought arising through the backdrop helps to stop exaggerating and fixating. We live in social world that tends to stencil us in with false belief whether we like it or not. For practical purpose, wouldn't totally dismiss the local vicinity in interacting with the social, and do have an area of transient interaction/being , and sometimes it is necessary to set imaginary boundaries, and do use pronouns less people eat us for not being sentient LOL.
"Radical nonduality" is simply mental gymnastics, that takes no self-awareness at all. For God's Sake (literally!) nonduality is an EXPERIENCE, not just a clever idea that someone like Tony Parson's or Jim Newman can spout! Look to find it instead in the living Presence of people like Rupert, or Eastern spiritual masters, and compare it to this person, who can't even show her face as she glibly chatters on! It is true, all words, even those of the masters, are meaningless babble, symbols of symbols, compared to the true Oneness that ultimately manifests in infinite love and peace, and can only be experienced by one who has totally forgiven and released their attachment to the illusion of a separate self. Perhaps these people have forgotten that such a person has often spent their entire lifetime in meditation and self-enquiry to reach this state of awareness. This is true spirituality we are talking about here, folks, not some online sophistry. Don't try to analyze what Rupert is saying, but instead sit back and FEEL it. Then you might come to some kind of an understanding. Arguing about the IDEA of nonduality necessarily ALWAYS leads to contradictions. It HAS to. That is why all genuine teachers of Oneness will end with the advocation of Silence
Oh dear me! Yes I've been there and taught all that. And yes a lifetime in meditation and feeling and all that. And it was glorious! But no . . . when it hits it hits . . . and yes I do show my face in some videos . . looks exactly the same as the animation. And maybe it seems like sophistry .. . but it isn't. And when it's seen (by no-one) all the tomfoolery of a someone with awareness finding themselves as awareness and all that spiritual hierarchy . . . when all along it is just what is present . . . not as awareness . . . . just 'what is', it is so simple. This video was a comedic rant . . . all this non-duality is very funny when it hits. I apologise if it hit in such a way to antagonise. No need to educate. Just enjoy whatever it is you've found. I loved it when I was in it. Adored all that awareness stuff. But this non-duality doesn't include anyone. No need to be so annoyed that I say there is no such thing as silence . . . . what a thing to ask a human to find so they can then feel themselves as spiritual. It's simpler .. . much much simpler. No-one to find anything . . . . . it's beautiful. Sorry that that beauty was missed . . . but not everything fits into one video . . . and this was a comedy video. All the best to you . . enjoy your infinite peace and state of silence if that is what you say you have.
Spira is completely clueless about non-duality, and much more that he endlessly prattles on about! There is only ONE non-dual Reality, saying that there are two means that you are completely lost in the dualist delusion!
It all comes down to suffering caused by uncontrolled useless thinking. Any technique which allows you to control your thoughts is valid. Eckhart Tolle and others do say some useful things but they seem to need to extrapolate this to some kind of absolute truth. In other words they just take it too far.
2 Non Dualities The one you talk about is better than the other one he talks about 😕😒☹️😞😡😔🥺 (frown emojis 😅) Personally, I don’t resonate much with Rupert’s words or Tony’s/Yours (or I apologize if you got your ideas from somewhere else) I’m a big fan this Shankara quote: “ Brahman is Real The world is Illusion Brahman Is the World “ To me, this sums up the absurdity of the kind of dichotomy that you present in your video between your/Tony/Anna/Jim/Etc.’s view & Rupert’s, imo The difference between what you/Tony/Jim/Anna say & Rupert or anyone else, are only superficial imo ________ I love the creativity and playfulness you put into your videos! I just hope we can move past repeating what retired, rich type A personality males (who loves Trump and voted for Brexit, as he said in his “not satsangs”)
In effect Radical Non Dualists are saying "All the Dzogchen Masters are wrong and we are right. All the Zen Masters are wrong and we are right. All the Advaita Vedanta Masters were wrong and we are right. The Buddha was wrong. The Christ Was wrong. Lao Tzu was wrong. Hafiz was wrong. Rumi was wrong. But we are right. We are the first and only ones in history to understand that nothing exists and everything that appears to exist including consciousness/awareness is just nothing appearing as that." Forget the fact that the traditional Non dualists named above have all been saying exactly that all along, just in more sophisticated language (too sophisticated for you, clearly) we are the first ones to truly "get it." Forget the fact that every realized being is only a realized being because they have realized that nothing exists and everything that appears to exist including a separate self and the witness and consciousness is just an appearance of that nothing and has simply taught this realization in stages which met the student where they were at, hence initially and temporarily identifying the true self as "awareness" or "consciousness" or "the witness" we are the only ones who "really" recognized this. What this level of arrogance - to dismiss every realized being in history as not "getting it" as clearly as the Radical Non Dualists imagine they "get it" - speaks to, is a total collapse back into a level of thought identification so deep that their ideological possession by the ideology of "Radical Non Dualism" is so complete as to be pathological. They are so thought identified they cannot see how thought identified they are. They are so possessed by the ideology of Radical Non Duality that they cannot even see that it is an ideology. They have conflated the menu with the meal so hard that they are trying to eat the menu. Radical Non Dualists are the perfect example of what Jung pointed out..."People don't have ideas, ideas have people" tl;dr The apparent you has done nothing more that disappear up the apparent you's apparent asshole and you are not fooling anyapparentbody who is not hopelessly insecure and desperate to be seen as right. All words and concepts ABOUT Non Duality are bullshit. Non duality is a realization, not an idea. No amount of clever ideas and words can convince anyone who lives outside your skull that you have the first clue about Non Dual realization. All you clever words, constant promotion of your ideology and your desperate need to be right, just expose you as having NOT realized the Non Dual nature of reality. and to be, in fact, all talk and no trousers. Sigh.
Yes! That is what is shocking!!!!! That all the teachings that asked you to find your true self as consciousness sent you up your own backside for years on a futile search!!! And here is the miraculous AS THE APPEARANCE . . . AS THIS . . . even as an apparent argument via text! Look . . . take me out of the equation (because who cares?and clearly you don't like my style of humour) We won't meet and who cares who is right or wrong? Subtract me and you out of the argument . . . and all there is as 'what is' is the argument. That's the miracle. With the subtraction there is no person who needs to find something. No person who is either right or wrong. That's what's being pointed at. There can't be arrogance or ownership of this. I can't declare I'm right. That's the point. The videos are pointing to my futile search and how in the end you have nothing to show for it. There is no advantage in the radical non-duality. I don't win. I lose. You have winners in the traditional Non-Duality and only losers in the radical. It is funny. This is only meant to be a funny take on non-duality. It's comedy and presented as comedy. (Maybe not your sort of comedy . . . and it won't be to everyone's taste.)
@@nondualityfun "Yes! That is what is shocking!!!!! That all the teachings that asked you to find your true self as consciousness sent you up your own backside for years on a futile search!!!" This is more self justifying, rationalizing nonsense. Dzogchen, Zen, Advaita Vedanta DID NOT "send you up your own backside for years on a futile search" These teachings have pointed literally thousands to realization of the Non Dual nature of reality. Only those who failed to disidentify from their thoughts/mind through a lack of right practice, disappeared up there own backsides. In other words you and your fellow Radical Non Dualists. All the thousands of words you spout are nothing but your rationalizations and justifications for your failure to realize the non dual nature of reality through the traditional pathways that have returned thousands of others to reality. You failed and like bad workmen you blame the tools, instead of taking responsibility for your failure. And to protect your thought identified being from the pain of this irresponsibility you make up a ridiculous ideology that posits that YOUR version of Non Duality is different (ie superior) to the old version of Non Duality that you failed at. So you even fail to see the irony that you pathological inability to acknowledge your own failure has forced you to dualize Non duality by ideologizing TWO TYPES of NON TWONESS lol! You can't make this up. A 4 year old could see how full of shit you are haha It's all childish kintergarten level avoidance projection and blame and the more you seek to justify your obvious psychological shell game the sillier you look. The fact that you are continuing to attept to defend the indefensible, has inspired me to make a reaction video to your reaction video, so that the wider community can see just how childishly self justifying this whole "Radical Non Duality" ideology really is.
Radical non-duality is skipping to the end of the process. If you look at the 10 fetters, you don't really come to the nothingness until over halfway through. Check out simply always awake on YT if you're really want to understand the whole process better. In the end both are right, one just skips to the end and says there's no work here to do.
Bit of an odd response. The video she’s responding to, ua-cam.com/video/iqIglK1zvtc/v-deo.html, is focused on spiritual bypassing and the importance of meeting the seeker where they are in the moment. The response doesn’t address these things. Could be she’s right about the criticisms against ancient traditions (I don’t know them well enough) but the nonduality she refers to is different from Rupert Spira’s and different from any modern teacher I’ve seen.
Yes, I was only asked to comment on the part where Rupert was speaking about the radicals. Not the rest of the video. But it’s interesting you talk of spiritual bypassing and meeting the seeker where they are at. No seekers and nothing spiritual. Thats another big difference. No one separate already. The only illusion is seeing separation where there is none. There is nothing spiritual for an illusory person to attain.
@@nondualityfun Fair point! Good that you listen to your viewers. It seems to me that these non-radical teachers also do not believe in seekers or the spiritual. One of them even says "I see no people that are asleep" and actively avoids "spiritual" language. Yet they are willing to concede those points in order to meet me where I am. I still believe in separation, so they speak to those beliefs. "Give the intellect a cookie", as they say - and it works: I notice that when the intellect and ego are satisfied, they allow the awake parts of me some space to emerge, and those beliefs in separation slowly start to fade. The destination is likely the same (there is no destination), merely along a different path (which also turns out to be an illusion). Meanwhile, my life is already better and I'm happier, I feel more awake, aware, and empathetic with myself and others - even if I still believe in the illusion of separation and a spiritual path. That is the value of empathy.
Excellent video! Not sure why you keep saying that there is no help for the seeker though... Even if there is no real 'me' to seek anything, why can't the 'me' that exists in the appearance find solace in the recognition that 'my' existence as well as all of 'my' problems are illusory? Isn't all (apparently existing) suffering the result of taking the false 'I' seriously, even if there is no true self to be found anywhere?
Indeed, there could be potential calming effect of acknowledging that all these problems are actually illusory, based only on the working of thoughts 😇
Rupert says there is no separation. He uses the word Awareness you use the word this. What's the difference? This is all there is or Awareness is all there is same thing. Either way if any of us really believed these things we say, we wouldn't spend so much time thinking about it. Lots of thinking going on here!
The difference is that awareness creates separation. Awareness needs something separate to be aware of. So it’s an odd thing to saw awareness equals no separation. Also it’s humancentric. It places man at the centre of everything in the same way religion does. The radical nonduality points to the illusion of separation that is already the way it is. With there being no separation already, there is no need to go on a search. The search is founded on an illusion. Hope that clarifies things!
And it’s just in poor taste and tacky… really an animated cartoon people stopped using ten years ago? I think it was McKenna who said that if all else fails, if something is being presented as profound or world-changing, if it looks ugly then you can know for sure it’s not authentic.
Consciousness is not awareness. Consciousness arises in awareness or silence. All the great sages say stop searching. Or what you’re looking for is where you’re looking from. I suggest listening to Nisargadatta to get the full. They’re not saying clean it up. They’re saying you’re already the true Self but you don’t realize it. Just thought I’d add this as your video is somewhat.
Thanks . . . however Nisargadatta (who I love reading and even liked a few others who met with Nisargadatta) said there is no such thing as consciousness. It's the most wondrous paradigm shift. It is so gorgeously unknowable and for no-one. Suddenly there is no hallucinated containment for anything. There is just 'what is'. Admittedly this video is my poorest . . . but no matter.
The same old story that goes on in organized religion since at least 2000 years: I am right! My view and perspective is more close to the truth etc. And to hide behind a cartoon figure is kind of irritating…..
Well it's called radical because it is completely different from 'a you in time' who needs to or even could wake up. But yes you're right, there is no duality nor non-duality. The brain 'sees' only in terms of duality because it predicts (hallucinates) itself as an actual being who is separate so there is no actual duality . . . but then there is also no actual non-duality because there is nothing.
What I don't understand is then why are "You" making these videos???? You should explain it, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself. I do appreciate you making these videos though. 😅
I think what’s funnest about this is how wrong it is. Rupert is wrong. What this video says is wrong. Comparing the two is wrong. On the same token, Rupert is right. What this video says is right. Comparing the two is right. Any attempt to say what THIS is, is by the nature of the device (concepts), wrong. But also right, because even right and wrong are yet more concepts of the mind. Why make a video to say Rupert is wrong, when the video itself acknowledges there’s no point in any non-dual message, and no-one to hear it? But maybe that’s also the joke of the video, to amuse no-one, for no reason other than the reason no-one gave it. Even to say the author’s ego structure took umbrage with Rupert said is funny, because that would make the ego into a thing, which it isn’t, because it doesn’t exist. Other than to appear to exist to take umbrage. 🤣 Oh how strange this life is, and wonderful all at the same time ☺️❤️
What is your definition of a "self" and what is your definition of "existence"? Before you're certain and very clear on those concepts, everything else is basically gibberish.
There are a number of answers to what the self is. Here in these videos it refers to that sense of awareness that is owned by a person, or the sense of being present as consciousness. The sense of existence comes about from the sense of self, believing itself as real and so therefore everything else must be real or exist too. From a sense of self arises a sense of existence. Without self, no witness . . . . everything unknown . . . the word existence wouldn't apply. These videos point to the illusion of separation created by a sense of consciousness. It is only an illusory separation. Only from the perception of a conscious self does that separation seem to exist. I hope that answers your question.
I appreciate your articulation of your disagreement with what Spira says, but I - in turn! - strongly disagree with what you share and what I have heard from other radical non-dualists (if I may use that term).
Radical non-duality is, let me be frank, nothing new. That understanding is present in Dzogchen, Advaita, some other forms of Buddhism etc. The vehicles in which that teaching is shared include other aspects, some times forms of meditation or other practices aimed at bettering the experience of the apparent person - with full awareness of the paradoxical nature of that combination.
Like Spira himself often says, these are compassionate compromises that don't point straight to the truth, but have their proper time and place, within the apparent experiences of apparently other people.
"Radical" non-duality, not surprisingly, was "found out" (not the proper term) by a few western teachers who tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Hilariously, I've heard Tony Parson make the challenge "find someone who shares exactly what I share! All religions and traditions simply miss the mark!"
I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it feels to me like it all ultimately boils down to a game of semantics and policing which (inevitably inaccurate) explanation of reality is the "purest" one. This is what the "non-dual police" expression refers to , I suppose.
The fun thing is, there are plenty of teachers who had a "radical" phase - Lisa Cairn and Jeff Foster come to mind - and eventually got back to the task (the game?) of contributing to other people's life without any superfluous need for purity. I would recommend Fred Davis as someone who is VERY clear about the un-reality of it all, but still engages with his followers in a more compassionate matter (he often expresses this paradoxical attitude with "nothing matters! ...but everything counts.")
What radical non-duality seem to miss, from my perspective, is the "multi-tasking" intention of pointing to the truth while addressing other issues - since all these apparent efforts ultimately boil down to the pursuit of happiness, at least from the human point of view. I do respect the genuine intention of not mixing up the finger with the moon; that is something that I understand and appreciate. But I also inevitably see the risk, in radical non-duality, of impoverishing people's experience and potentially sending them down oddly dark paths; it all is, I know, appearing in the unreality of our lives. Still, I prefer teachers who openly prioritize skillfulness in pursuing happiness over an excessively zealous attempt at being 100% non-dual.
Genuine thanks to everyone who made it this far, and read everything I wrote! 😅
No duality means that nondualism doesn’t exist.
Wanda! Such an eloquent and thoughtful reply, obviously from a life of work and experience on the path. Thank you. You said better than anyone could have, and I appreciate your points, your call-outs and examples. Great clarity, my friend! Thank you!!!
@@Mikeshawtoday 🙏❤
Yes I got to the end . . . it will be interesting if I one day return to offering satsang and satsang therapy and point to one's nature as being a source of joy and silence. So far . . . these animations laugh at my journey of pointing to awareness and love, and then how it was 'seen' there was no awareness. Gone were those awake and others not awake, gone was seeing people as needing to realise something, work on themselves etc etc. Non-duality doesn't help those who want to find happiness (nothing wrong with wanting to find happiness) in fact ND doesn't really help anyone . . . . but it's a wonderfully shocking message that can flatten all spiritual notions, leaving just 'what is' . . . . including the 'what is' of expressing this in animation. Including the 'what is' of us seemingly communicating. It can take your breath away when it hits.
@@nondualityfun Well said. thanks for your authenticity!
@Non Dual Fun -- It all comes down to paradox in a way and Rupert has addressed this contrary to what seems to be said in this video. That is, paraphrased - One finds once seeking stops. Yet without a seeker, there is no finding. There is a self, there isn't, etc. etc.
As he has stated himself and I have observed over years, he tailors his responses to questions according to what he senses is the place/space of the question/questioner is in, and what may be appropriate. He's even stated that his replies can seem to contradict themselves - sometimes it needs to firm, other times gentler
In some videos this is very evident in how he pauses, sometimes for 10 seconds or more before saying anything.
There is also the ethos created by the aggregate of a group in which he is speaking, a kind of overall hologram of the flow and subject matter that arises. Which can and does vary from video to video.
In short, pinning him down to being and doing only this or that is IMO more, well, this vs. that. Every "localization" of C/consciousness (or absence of it - lol) varies, and so who and how it is danced will vary.
Do and be what works for you or the non-you you are or are not. :)
Comparisons are ultimately irrelevant.
seeking never stops.
ever.
@@-a-l-t- On one level, true. On an other, not. "There is detachment and there is attachment. But be aware also that there is 'attachment to detachment'". -- (paraphrased pretty much verbatim from a meeting with Swami Satchidananda in the early 80s at which I happen to be present).
Meaning that one can get lost in any extreme or dogma or should-ism. In this context, if one is so attached to seeking, finding is not possible for it is always some time, somewhere else in the future.
On the other hand, if on thinks one has "found" it and sees that as the end of seeking, that is also an illusion. Hence back to what I pointed to in my first response here about the paradox of the seeker and seeking.
In personal terms, the "dropping away" (or finding, so to speak) is occurring whereby the load of "the veil of separation" is getting thinner, but that does not mean I "got it" by any means, it IS an ongoing thing.
But I don't see is so much as seeking, but a gradual integration or polishing of the rough and sharper edges of dual or fear-based perceiving-believing, etc. for the essence of it is really quite simple.
But not easy or instant or seemingly permanent, even though that essence IS paradoxically never not-there, hence actually permanent. Something like that. Trying to weave this kind of stuff with words is very inexact. :)
@@NewSonicLight
agreed.
detachment is exactly attachment.
🙏🏼❤️
I like this a lot. I went to a Rupert meeting a few years ago and it was (in my view) rather obvious that here was a seeker giving advice to other seekers.
when you watch yourself, you recognize that you somehow formed the idea of the seeker and the teacher and that is somehow binding you
I was very much sucked into the idea that I needed to be enlightened by reading eckhart tolle and others that are similar. I came across this “radical nonduality” about a year later and began to learn about that one as well. I finally came to the understanding that I had never had any idea of what I was looking for and had no clue how i was going to get there. I wanted to badly to “end my suffering.” I decided I didn’t care about any of these teachings. I was going to just get to the bottom of this myself. I had started meditating and going about my day just paying attention to everything that was happening. Paying attention to thoughts and senses and what have you. I won’t speak much on what was realized by doing this because words always seem to spark disagreement about it. That being said, I completely understand your take on this. However, after “doing” this work, I listen and read the works of Rupert Spira ans Tolle and I can understand why they say the things they do. Again the only problem being that the wordage implies that someone has to do something to get somewhere. I think that both sides of the nondual perspective can be important in this. I couldn’t imagine showing someone who is new to this stuff your videos right off to the get go lol. It’s almost like it has to be leaned into. I know that even those last two sentences don’t really make sense with the truth, but sometimes it’s just the way that we have to talk lol. All this being said, I really like your videos and great work! This is just my two cents that nobody (literally) asked for.
Agreed if someone is suffering you don’t just say oh well you don’t exist, these radical teachings are for people who are ready to be pushed over the edge, imagine saying these things to someone with a lot of ptsd and trauma, just gonna fuck that person up even more
If what she is saying is correct, then she or you don’t have a choice In saying what you say or showing this video to someone.
@@ccr7712 sure you can put it that way. Doesn’t really deny what I’m saying.
@@3william714 yes, it can happen that way .
@@3william714 yes bro. In the Bhagavad Gita is says that to unsettle someone’s mind who isn’t ready is actually immoral.
I SO understand that because non duality is absolutely the best, and WORST message I’ve ever come across.
Some of the mental gymnastics I’ve experienced are horrendous and have nearly left me insane at times along the way.
Jesus Christ I’ve suffered the non dual message, in great degree at points.
The mind is quite the trickster and IT isn’t what understands anyway but it sure can and has taken itself in many a crazy ride.
I honestly wouldn’t wish it on somebody I didn’t like what I’ve been through with this. Ramana, Rupert, Nisagardatta, Lucille, Byron Katie, and on and on.
I get a felt sense that I understand what the fuck is Everybody is talking about and the head really really wants to understand but what I understand is that the head isn’t gonna get it. There is no me that’s gonna get it even though there’s a me that me that’s gonna get it but it’s just not me. See what I mean 😜🤪😜🤪
Who knows. I would never want to unsettle somebody’s mind with this message having had the experience of being unsettled myself
I listened to Rupert Spira, read his books, and it 'appeared' that a point came where I just couldn't anymore. He was saying there is no one, no chooser, no doer, then he would have everyone doing these long meditations. Or self inquiry (are you aware?). The thought kept coming up "who is meditating? Who is inquiring?" Meditation and self inquiry have fallen away for 'me'. Seeking seemed to be reinforced with his teaching. I stumbled upon Kenneth Madden, Jim Newman, and a couple of others and realized they were what Spira refers to as Neo-advitists in a disparaging way. I completely agree with you in this video. The difference is they are not teachers. They continually pull the rug out from under the whole separate self illusion. They make no concessions. No compromise. They continually share that there is nothing you can do because there is no you and that this has always been the case. It does, however, seem that there is a progression or needs to be a readiness for the radical Nonduality. Now, I can no longer listen to Spira. He's a person speaking to a person, which just reinforces the seeking energy and there's absolutely no resonance at all. I want to repeat though, as others in this comment section have said, there does seem to be a need for readiness for radical Nonduality.
Lovely video. I had exactly the same turnaround as you. For 20 years I have been passionately teaching the message of classical nonduality, with, of course, great emphasis on Awareness. Wrote books about it. When I came in touch with Jim Newman, Andreas, Tony and Kenneth Madden, everything completely collapsed. It was seen that it had all been a teaching of ignorance. Without there being a someone being ignorant, of course. Just ignorance, owned by no one. Stopped all my meetings and retreats, just can’t get that story out of my mouth anymore. Thanks for pointing out the difference between the apparent two versions of nonduality in such a light way.
“Good news is” no one did these teachings. No one chooses to start or to stop teaching, to start or to stop seeking. It’s so empty, no owner, no doer. You couldn’t prevent it, you couldn’t do it differently, you didn’t do anything wrong and of course you didn’t do anything right also. Just what happened apparently. So nothing to be shamed or guilty (talking overall), it’s this freedom of that one, who was doing something and was responsible, it’s freedom of this heaviness, although heaviness may still appear, just for no one. Liberation for no one. Who wants that? No me wants that! Me wants carrots, something to do, as it thinks/is told to that it is broken and it can fix it, it can improve, it can become, it can get enlightened etc… versus radical nonduality that doesn’t see me, doesn’t give anything to the me, doesn’t give instructions, doesn’t help, doesn’t sell hope. Of course it will never be popular and it doesn’t have to be any other way. It’s done. It’s perfect. It’s whole already 🎉❤
@@erenonduality The teachings are just what happens. No one does it.
That’s not classical non duality though. I’m not sure either of you all understand that to begin with
@@marksmith1779 yes, as I wrote☺️ just what happens apparently. Nothing wrong with anything.
@@erenonduality❤
Thank you for the videos. For those who want to argue, critique, or defend Rupert’s honor, I would say watch the videos again and again and again. Or not. There is no message there for “you”, so there is no she’s right or she’s wrong. All you can do is watch them many times and maybe! there is a perspective change, a seeing occurring, something shifts. That’s it. Discussion isn’t a part of it.
So who are you writing this comment for. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever you’re just in a dissociated state.
@@satepestage3599 You might experience it as a series of farts. Wholeness "farts" you out.
You're just a nihilist with extra steps. :) @@lisabalach6213
Just say you're a nihilist and spare everyone the hassle... oh wait, everyone else doesn't exist right. You or your "awareness" is the only one here. So profound @@lisabalach6213
I love ontology, and Rupert Spira gets so deep into it. I find his way of talking mesmerizing, calming, and very thought provoking.
Yes. Even though I might disagree with his conclusions there is much to appreciate!
Radiacal nonduality says that there's neither an object nor a subject. There's no thing, the brain is neither thing nor object nor subject. "The universe" is of a quality that is ungraspable, inexplicable, ununderstandable, unnameable, because there'd have to be a position outside of it to grasp it. It is neither full nor empty, neither real nor unreal, neither solid nor fluid. The illusion of solidity, reality, subject, object, relationship etc. stems from the brain "faking" a separate observer/experiencer/seer/hearer/witness/consciousness etc. As soon as the "experiencer" "functions" it experiences reality, subject, object and relationship, which is uncomfortable because feeling separate feels painful and mortal. It tries to escape that discomfort by a variety of means. What Rupert teaches is to alleviate the discomfort by transforming experiencing (which is the same as consciousness) into a refined, sophisticated state in which the experiencer feels more vast, spacious and peaceful by hovering above the sense of separation. However refined, it still remains subtly uncomfortable and so Rupert teaches to practice more. But the only way for experiencing not being uncomfortable is death.
Rupert is trapped in a dualistic ontology.
@@michaelmcclure3383 appreciate what you wrote! This style is very different. There is no one to see. No students anywhere. One appearance. Can be like hit with cold water. It can seem kind to see students as students and then that view can suddenly he seen as cruel. It can seemingly perpetuate the the sense of self. This different take can be a sudden pulling of the rug. It turns the head and is impossible to return to seeing differences in students. It’s like seeing all the waves as water and no longer waves that need something. But I appreciate what you wrote.
It it just more thinking. Don't you get that it is completely irrelevant for spirituality?
I came, I saw, I went.
These videos really are fun.
And by the way, it doesn't matter.
Nice video. It was said that consciousness requires the being 'conscious of' something which implies two, however the 'consciousness of' does not change that there is still already everything as a whole and so the seeming distinction or specificity, as it has no effect on everything has no reality, or isnt real, or isnt happening, and so even with being 'conscious of' there is still just wholeness which includes consciousness.
It seems that this video is provoking a lot of reactions.
There was a time when "I" was like that too. My little concepts were not to be disturbed, "I" wanted them safe as in a castle.
And, little by little here, the "person" guarding the castle naturally decomposes and all that's left is what seems to appear and has always been... without a so-called me or a so-called consciousness that have never existed.
Interesting however these types of statements about there being nobody and nothing are like a snake eating it's own tail , it kinda cool and points towards the truth but ultimately limited as it doesn't translate and just goes around and around , what Rupert does is actually creates a tangible bridge to such a understanding via direct experience beyond just say nobody is here ,
I have seen many teachers speak about non duality and radical non duality is like a man standing in a mirror telling himself aka all the viewers that nothing exists yet has created a video to tell the imaginary people about it , the action and words don't make sense and contradict the message , personally I find radical non duality pointless but based on its own teachings of which there cannot be any it appears that's it's point , which brings us again to the snake eating it's own tail.
It’s only limited when you try to externalize it and no longer realize it’s just “you” because you are thinking about or pointing at something outside (which creates an implicit duality)
Well put, Shine 360! Rupert is actually helpful to beginners and all those humble enough to admit they are on the journey.
@@Mikeshawtoday It’s not a journey, it’s a hamster wheel. The belief in the beginner and the experienced is what keeps the wheel turning.
@@JJ_Khailha Jean - Yes. I like your analogy. Thank you!
Thanks for the latest video. Imagine trying to will yourself into a dissociative state and then calling it enlightenment!
That is a possibility as well 🤷🏼♂️
Tribalism is in our Human culture and DNA (maybe)
“No Self” is not truer than “Self”
Comparison is clearly Dualistic
The Shankara quote I shared below hold the essence of this
Trying to use the right words, and “othering” those who use the “wrong words” is clearly not “non” duality
Yup
It was the comparison that was so shocking . . . . that blew my mind. So I see the comparison as mind-blowing and a wonderful thing. It even blew the whole concept of spirituality, of others who were or weren't enlightened . . .leaving just one appearance, all equal, nothing separate from love, not because there was a need to find love but because it was all love anyhow. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my rant . . . that was more intended to be a laugh at the seeking . . . . . I'm laughing at the seeking and at the idea I had found something . . . and in the end there is just 'what is'.
@@nondualityfun seeking is all you can do that’s the only thing that matters. It is “what is” but you don’t realize it when you are not looking
So lemmie get this straight: There's nonduality and then there's radical nonduality. Therefore there's duality.
TILT!
I love these videos so much. I used to listen to Rupert a lot, but after a drop of the me (all of it apparently of course) it's just impossible to believe what he says any longer.
Rupert wallows in a dualistic self-referential quagmire. He talks about an 'I' who has or 'owns' a 'self' and a 'mind'. This 'I' can then engage is some kind of activity in order to be virtuous state of selfless, self! The self cannot find its own absence. The so called self is an illusion. What then is non self - a non-illusion then?
@@marksmith1779 interesting take.
I enjoy Rupert and heard him address the activity of the separate self, and what the separate self can do. Despite its non-existence, of course.
He said the separate self can continue to turn attention towards awareness so that it can realize it’s own non-existence.
Apparently, upon the separate self, even though it doesn’t exist, realizing it’s on non-existence well, then be swallowed up and/or disappear magically somehow despite it never existing in the first place.
fuck I don’t know.
Non-duality is both the best, and worst message I’ve ever come across
@@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496 You are still thinking in dualistic terms. There is only what appears to be happening. That includes everything; all there is. How could there be something more than all there is? There is no subject outside of all there is which can know all there is as an object. All there is, is not a thing. It is not a 'something.' It cannot be known since any attempt to know it would also be it. It is no thing or nothing and yet it includes everything. It is therefore nothing appearing as everything. For no one. There is no separation. Nothing needs to happen for this to be what it already is. It already is what it already is. In our naivety we think that I am separate from life. We think that life is happening to me. We think that I have a life. That is the delusion. We are life. No one is born and no one dies. There is life but no one has it. Without any separation there is just infinity. Everything and nothing simultaneously. Consciousness and awareness are separation. They are the illusion of separation. That is duality. The Spiritual seeker is unhappy with life. He/she thinks it is their fault. He/she thinks that they must be punished or rewarded for being virtuous. He/she thinks that they must go on a quest to find something that is missing. NO. Nothing is missing. There is only what is. it does not depend on me. It does not need me. The appearance of separation comes from the contraction of energy in the body which gives rise to the sense of I AM. That is the primary delusion from which the whole of the so called human condition follows.
@@marksmith1779 yet would be possible to go through life without this delusion, having no sense of self is a slippery slope, it might work if you live in a cave, but I’d love to see you walk down a street in nyc with no sense of self, all that noise that would be filtered through your mind would overwhelm you, you would have no social awareness and there’s a good chance you would probably get mugged.
@@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496 yes! It’s the best and the worst message!!!
some non-duality speakers have said that this 'wholeness' or 'what is' is just apparently spontaneous energy, or 'unconditional love'. i don't understand why it would be unconditional love, it makes sense that it's unconditioned, for the lack of causality, but why 'love'? couldn't we say that it's 'unconditional indifference'? it makes more sense, or lack of, however we want to express that.
Yes, my preference is to use the word energy. Love, even the words 'unconditional love' can conjure up a sense of 'a something loving its many parts', which would give it a knowledge that it must then have about those parts in which to love unconditionally.
Having said that . . . when the me collapsed here, there was a heck of a lot of love . . . as if everything was and is love itself. It was inexplicable and doesn't make sense. Even so . . . I still prefer the word energy. Chaotic energy, with no witness. It is soooo unknowable, . . . . and any 'human knowing' is only an appearance appearing . . . . so not exactly knowledge since its not separate to observe.
I wouldn't say unconditional indifference, although I get your point . . . . only because the word indifference still makes it a something that happens to be indifferent to its parts. It's more, as I said, that it has no ability to witness itself, it just is itself . . . . and even my saying 'it is itself' isn't quite right because it isn't even a thing . . . . it can only ever be a mystery. Isness, is-ing?
Unconditional love does I suppose suggest an inclusiveness to everything. Everything rotten is included in the appearance along with everything we think is wonderful. But the words are a bit too related to a religion with a god . . . or tends to project a human love onto 'what is'. Also it can either give the mind a nice picture to hold onto or be one of those irritating sayings that the mind starts to chew on . . . . whereas the word energy is wonderfully vague and unknowable, it doesn't give the mind anything to hang on nor does it sound like a paradox that must be solved making some poor seeker chew on it endlessly even though it will never be known. There are a few sayings I'd jettison and unconditional love is one of those.
I wonder what you'd think of Franklin Merrill Wolfe (it would only take a minute, just read his 3 realizations and aphorisms.) I'm so pleased you enjoyed Douglas Harding and linked to "Read the Faerie Tale and Die". Thanks so much for your amusing takes on all this stuff.
I hadn't heard of him . . but I'm enjoying reading about him now. Is there a particular book or kindle? I can't seem to find one that isn't selling for less than an outrageous price of $70.
Loved this.
The word "Consciousness," and Rupert would agree, is a compassionate concession to one that believes themselves to be a skin encapsulated ego. The word Consciousness is a "thorn to remove another thorn." The word "consciousness" is a thorn used to remove the other thorn "skin encapsulated ego." We don't stop at "consciousness", otherwise we remain in duality as the cartoonist rightly pointed out. The issue here is that they aren't familiar enough with Rupert's teaching to know that he is using the word "consciousness or awareness" in this way. It isn't an endpoint.
Talking about the "mammoth difference" between "one non duality" and another "non duality" is kind of an oxymoron isn't it? "Non-duality" can't really be spoken about with any precision, but skilled teachers (like Rupert) will use compassionate concessions to help one that believes themselves to be an ego to confront those unexamined beliefs that the cartoonist here thoughtfully pointed out. If you were to ask Rupert if he thought "ultimate reality" is consciousness, he would say "if we really wanted to speak the truth, we'd remain silent." He's said that many times.
I am not at all offended by this video. I do believe that it is talking about a subject and teaching which hasn't been thoroughly explored by the cartoonist. At worst, the video is an attempt to garner attention by "trolling."
Ultimately, no one can tell you about "Truth". You have to discover it for yourself.
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."
"The truth that can be spoken is not the eternal truth.
Thank you Clare! (said no one)
This video is a headache, you use too many words to get your point across.
Too many words to get no point across other than the fact that she doesn’t understand no dualism at all
This is so interesting...I honestly see both pointing at the same thing. I don't see a difference. Huh.... thank you for sharing.
Oh . . . . well . . . one is saying you are consciousness and the other is saying there is no you and no consciousness. One says there is a you who can realise yourself as Consciousness while the other is saying the illusion of consciousness is creating a false you and that's what's creating a false sense of separation. But many report exactly as you have . . . . and then it hits!
@@nondualityfunyes! For 'me' it just hit and it was realized they aren't saying the same thing at all
What i like about these video’s is that there is no separate self betraying itself by saying there is no self. It’s just an animation that appears on the screen with wisdom
Botox inbefore the next video! 😅
I'm curious about how to approach this video and I'd sincerely love more clarity. I've been engaging with nonduality for a while, working one on one with someone fully realized and making what I feel is amazing progress. I'm happier, lighter, and can feel the rapid thinning perception and increase of sense of connection and love. I'm having a great time, and am encouraged with the other students of this particular teacher, as they all seem emotionally free and intellectually vibrant. That brings me to this video - what I like about Rupert Spira's message is that he talks more about the lived experience of happiness and peace, and not just ideas of the nature of reality and consciousness. He talks plenty about concepts, but he seems to make it very practical and lived and, clearly, he himself is happy. It radiates from him. As I listen to this video, it feels unhappy. I can't tell if it's poking lighthearted fun or not, but there's a jadedness that comes through. It feels bitter and resentful. I want to engage with the ideas in this, but there's an overarching sense that it doesn't contain joyfulness and freedom. It seems like a disposition of peace and happiness would be the evidence of wisdom, particularly with this subject, but that doesn't come through, quite the opposite. It leaves me curious about what happened along the narrator's journey, which I'd sincerely love to know. The video speaks about pitfalls in a sort of general sense, but there are countless vibrant people living in the world who are the expression of these teachings and they seem to be very happy.
That's a great question! And it's even something I'm putting into the next video because there is an aspect of huge joy and love and bliss when it feels like illusions are dropping and one is getting closer to silence and emptiness. Sorry about the jadedness seeming to come through. The animation is definitely too frowny! The joy you mention can be a bit like the finding from neuroscientists about those who believe in a god who is looking after them. Those who believe in a god are found to be happier than those who do not. This non-duality is so different. It has nothing to do with happiness. It's the end of the separate seeker. It's seeing how there are no seekers because there is already no-one and no thing that is separate. It's no perception. It's no conclusion as to what This is. The appearance of vibrant people is the same appearance of those who aren't vibrant. When I was a vibrant person and high on bliss and free of triggers I wanted everyone else to have that same experience, the same realisation. And those who weren't vibrant and on bliss they were unenlightened, unspiritual, they needed to work on themselves to become free and awake. Now it's . . . no view. No one to have an experience even though there is experience . . . . all experience is in the appearance, meaningless. No one to become free. There is just 'what is'. No real witness, so no-one to project a god or a vast consciousness or a spiritual realm. No-one to see other . . . which is what non-duality means. No-one really living in time. No-one on a journey. No enlightenment for anyone because there is no-one . . . and no vibrancy as a sign that a someone is becoming enlightened. Vibrancy may or may not be appearing but for no-one. It's amazing how the illusion of a conscious witness turns out to be the only illusion. The dream of being separate is just a dream. Already This is everything. For some this hits as a huge resonance. It comes as a "holy F!" No more the idea of being a someone with any autonomy anywhere. It is no longer necessary that anyone even come across non-duality because there is no-one separate already. There is nothing for the illusory me. I can seemingly make jokes about non-duality . . . but it isn't for anyone. No-one gains anything. You lose everything . . . or discover you never had anything to begin with because it is just this . . . . just this . . . . just this . . . . as a whole.
@@nondualityfun Thank you!
"Sri Sri Amazing Ji" Brilliant!
The arrogance of humans is unbelievable really.
This all feels familiar, from Buddhism and other religions. Like the debate between eternalism and nihilism or the debate between those who believe in ‘buddha nature’ or ‘just’ emptiness of the self. One of the differences between Tony and Rupert in style is that Tony is often differentiating his words from what has gone before, saying ‘this is radically new’ whereas Rupert amalgamates some other sages ‘teachings’, from different traditions. Tony also seems delighted to be irreverent and amusing. Quite like them both. Not sure they actually exist though. Thanks for the video.
Rupert is yet another Guru who does not know what he claims to teach.
And that's fine😉
True, but 'fine' that he misleads sincere people?
I have to agree with Rupert on this one.
Concept stacking is a steppingstone on the way towards non duality.
@@andrewsmyth2673 but you are stacking the incorrect concepts. Rupert says that you don’t have a free will, but then recommends you to do something. With concepts like that, you will end up in mental institution 😂. Good luck.
Rupert is talking about twoness
The more so called radical nonduality speakers absolutely do acknowledge that there is, for the person, a sense of I am someone, but point out that it is an illusion. Ie something that seems real but in actuality, is not.
@@NijFix that’s correct, Rupert claims that this I am/ awareness is not illusory but the ultimate reality / God .
Awareness and consciousness mean some kind of 'knowing'. Knowing implies separation and separation implies duality. Radical non-duality is not about 'knowing'. What is cannot be known. There is no subject outside of all there is which can know all there is as an object. The way it is cannot be known. Any attempt to know it would also BE IT!
There is no TIME. The past is a memory. The future is projection. The Present Moment is also just a concept. Where is the boundary between the past/future and present? How short is the present moment? Is it 100th of a second? Less? The present disappears to a vanishingly small space. Eventually it comes to zero. Zero is nothing. Zero is also infinite. Because it is infinite, it includes everything. Therefore the present is No thing or nothing appearing as everything. It is nothing and everything simultaneously and since there is no separation, there is not two. Nothing appearing as everything for no-body. Thus if there is no time, there is no one moving in a bubble through time called 'my life.' There is life but no one has it.
The present moment is actually the past b
Lol the first minute of the video says “Rupert doesn’t understand radical nonduality” whatever is said from this point on is irrelevant because who can understand radical nonduality??
I liked this channel a lot when I first started watching Tony and Jim, but then I realized how the ego likes to create “nondual selfs” and I see it clear as day in these individuals.
It is what it is, I just don’t listen to them anymore. We are all on our own journey, and anytime you see someone doing something like this, know it’s another trap of the illusory self 😂
That’s it. The ego is always there and is going to try to trick you because it’s its job. So whatever isn’t that is you. Or whatever isn’t you is you. Doesn’t matter how you think about it, but I’d say that the non self is the self
Yikes! A non-dual self is about as bad as an enlightened self! Sorry that my videos aren't louder in expressing how one is still a moron after the collapse . . . and how utterly irrelevant a collapse is.
@@nondualityfun a “non dual self” is why they have the concept of Brahman in Vedanta (among other features)
Yes, Steven Wolinsky talks about the "no-self self".
If someone really accepted Radical Non Duality, they'd never speak about it as it would suppose there is a "someone" to hear them (which goes against the very philosophy).
@@lucyhartman1501 Not necessarily, since there's probably no rule, that states, that information can't be freely shared as "what is" 😇
This teaching has been around for a very long time hidden in other teachings. Rinzai Zen i. e.
All I took from this is that there is no radical nonduality. Seems like your just disagreeing to disagree. He said the only radical teaching was silence as in the person would remain silent, wouldn’t speak about this. Obviously you knew that but said the only silence in the world is at an echo chamber. he’s talking about the person remaining silent. This is just spiritual warfare, non-dual vs radical non dual vs radical radical nondual. All semantics. I also love seeing people discover nonduality and talk about there being no one. And than there whole personality is about being no one, and they only associate with other nobody’s. it’s got to be the strangest thing I’ve ever scene. You’d be suprised how many people have probably discovered non duality and have never spoken about it. And there’s the people that discover and develop a god complex
Yes no radical non-duality! No non-duality full stop. War fare isn’t meant. It’s just so funny that what one group says is the bridge to Oneness is the exact thing which turns out to be illusory. Or the thing that mattered doesn’t matter at all. Funny if you’ve been on the long journey and have the rug pulled. And yes, lots don’t say anything. No need. And in the appearance some talk. Nothing going anywhere. Had we both been selling vacuum cleaners we’d talk about that.
There is no choice to talk about this or not to talk about this. I don’t know that but i guess there are way more these who doesn’t talk about this. Because it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t serve any agenda/purpose/meaning. It even doesn’t bring food to the table so to speak. It is just whats happening apparently. This appearing as teacher or speaker. One is teaching others as there are other. Second is talking nothing to nobody, no agenda. Both are empty, no doer, no teacher, no speaker, no student, no seeker, no choice or free will. Me will never realize that there is simply not two, as me is dream of duality. It can be only realized by no one. Or me can intellectually understand this and then teach ND and act as he got something or it knows something and trying to maintain this. When this is effortless, empty, nothing, freedom for no one. There is nothing to teach, no one to teach, it can happen only in dream of duality. Nothing wrong with anything, as nothing right. Just what seems to happening. Empty happening 🎉❤
@@erenonduality in both cases there doing it for the 💴
@@erenonduality I wonder why comments that don’t agree with your explanations on your UA-cam channel, are being blocked, if there is nothing wrong with anything 🤷. What if some of your explanations are incorrect, and it’s causing harm to people who believe it. Why not allow your listeners to have the option to hear different opinions about this ? I am not trying to be confrontational, just curious, you seem otherwise like a sincere person. Good luck 🍀
“Radical nonduality” is some western nonsense
In the end we forget one thing - a teaching is just a teaching. It is for the people to do something whit it. It is not to have anything with the truth in its purest form. Firstly because it is inherently impossible because if the map/location problem, second because we don't have the ability to go out of ourselves and our own experience no matter what we do and everything else is mental except our own second to second experience of pure awareness including or excluding objects in it.
This channel has the strange ability to not fully understand awareness and consequences. So it says a lot of true things and a lot of doubtful things as well. It says that consciousness and awareness cut reality. And in personal I-ego consciousness this is of course truth. But there's one thing that this wonderful animated lady misses out, and it is that in the end we only have this I-i awareness absolutely granted to us, the existence of the outside world is only mental preposition or speculation. And in fact exactly the nondual part is the one that is not obvious and is the most speculative part of it.
So to say that noone exist in nothingness that appears as something is just well beating around the bush or philosophical bypass to make just a spectacular teaching, but teaching what? Whom? And why? No purpose. It is pointless paradoxical ego trip of radicalism. Sprout out of a neglecting awareness as a vital component, just because it ruins the radical picture.
Exactly the awareness is the thing we have for sure, and yes, we make it sort of identity because we cannot neglect it, it simply is.
The only sure thing.
TU = Thumbs Up. That's the shadow of a TU. . . but not really.
Some teachers say they are teaching using The Direct Path and then guide you with their ten thousand books and videos, retreats etc all of which seem quite lucrative.
Cool handle bro. 😎
Yeah, the Buddha lived on alms, they say...different "zeitgeist"!! :)
After a glimpse/kensho after many years of seeking meditating and binge watching all non dual teachers. I feel this was a bit confusing.
There definitely is silence as where do the the thoughts come and go? As the years have gone by this silence has come more forwards and thoughts are less sticky. In the kensho all was still and silent, so not sure where your coming from. But im happy to understand and not trying to say your wrong, maybe im wrong 😅
You are right
And now the seeker has found a new girl and she's called radical non-duality .Like non-duality can be non radical .A lot of teachers speak about oneness but one what ? One jar of peanutbutter ?
The modern non-duality notions tend to be very concerned to prove claims of all being one.
Fun, debates of paradox and appearances… sure.
Advaita, accepting that fact though, has a far easier time understanding, accepting and livng with the many apparent, and apparently divided phenomena.
So consciousness is an illusion in non-dual brahman. I agree. We are always in one of those illusions or we don't exist at all. If we are lucky (obviously we can't influence it), part of our illusion of consciousness will be how the illusion came about. That's how I imagine Realization or Enlightenment - to be like a person at a magic show who knows the essence of the trick. He sees and feels exactly the same as others, but perceives it completely differently.
Not everyone is at the same level of awareness, but Awareness itself is ONE ENTITY, not many entities
I once read that the last realization a Bodhisattva has before becoming a "full Buddha" is "there are no sentient beings to liberate from cyclic existence" - the complete opposite of the vow taken at the "start" that one shall not rest or flee into nirvana before all beings are liberated. Quite tricksy, these Buddhists!!
Love it ❤
Dont think, feel, It is like a finger pointing away to the moon.
Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.
Bruce Lee. Enter the Dragon.🙏😊
Great explanation of the non dual perspective. It's funny that it has to be labeled "radical" non duality, but I see why. Non duality is used by people who think they have "attained" that state but are firmly planted in the realm of dualism just having replaced the idea that they are a body with the idea that they are this thing called consciousness. But I completely understand and sympathize with people who think that radical non duality is horse shit. I did too until very recently and then something flipped and I suddenly saw Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira speaking untruth and Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, Andrea Müller and a host of others speaking about how things really are. No one and nothing anywhere to be found. Just the unknowable appearing as THIS.
Sounds like this video is taking a position and making assertions. This is not doing non-duality any favours by apparently dividing that which is beyond division. Just loads of thoughts and mind, just like this comment. Best be quiet.
It wasn’t meant to be divisive so much as clear on the differences. It can be great to get donged (humorously) on the head and discover the self isn’t there in yourself or anyone else. It can be a relief. So no harm is meant by clarifying. And if you like the other style then that is what you like. And others like to see the difference. It can be enormously funny …. or not. No matter. (and my humour in explaining the difference isn’t to everyone’s taste).
@@nondualityfun what if the self is the non self?
Its just a matter of defining conciousness, im not defining it as any sort of constainer of exoperience or a thing, but simple fact of knowing of experience. So its pretty wierd when i hear that consciousness doesnt exist, you may argue that conciousing is happening but theres no connsciousness, but its like to say experience can be known but theres no such thing as knowingness, theres no object there but it is happening.
This pretty much nailed it, thank you. There is no knowing, and there is no "not knowing" knowing. There is no Abstract absence of knowing, a not-knowing. Everything returns to Consciousness Period. Or everything falls in on itself.
Also my view: The Complexity of Intrinsic Mind allows for a degree of diversity within the Oneness. The very nature of Consciousness itself in its imagination and vantage point perspectives. It is itself an infinity of diversity. This is being missed imo. Such has nothing to do with Intrinsic Separateness.
Prapanca/Nisprapanca. Relative/Ultimate Truth. Yin/Yang. Good/Evil. All linguistic attributions. Experiences come and go: an "experience" of "Unified Oneness" (which I assume gives rise to the description "White Light of the Void" and such) - which, actually is only a MEMORY once you can actually think about it - can be achieved (seemingly - I certainly have, ONCE!) but then goes again, thus functionally appearing no different to all other "phenomena" - vijnana - SO JNANA IS VIJNANA! But, the "calmness", the "peace", the "Nothingness" (at least in the recollection...): there was/is a cessation of "striving". Compared to what we might term "ordinary" consciousness it is an incredible revelation, and, just for a moment, I thought I'd grasped it, lol 🤣 I thought: This must be satori! This must be what the Buddha experienced!! And, of course, who knows? Maybe it was...but SO WHAT? What's that ?Zen quote that goes something like "from the beginnings of infinite time pure and unadulterated enlightenment has done me not the slightest bit of good" (I may have got the quote wrong). We live. We all know what shouldn't be done and what should be done ("morally" speaking) - unless we are so damaged that we're termed psychopaths - so why don't we just DO it instead of wondering around in circles? Just some thoughts. And superficially I just don't gel with Spira, I prefer Tolle and Jason Gregory - but it's all just an aesthetic taste when it gets to that (probably contaminated by various psychodynamic transference issues, rofl)
how about jed mckenna and david carse ?
Hadn't heard of either of them. Currently looking at some David Carse stuff and thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks!
@@nondualityfun oh I'm glad ! Jed Mckenna's books were the most impactful books I've ever read. Hope you read them too
@@nondualityfun I've also recently been looking at 'Perfect Brilliant Stillness by David Carse. I've listened to it twice now on Audible and have a PDF of the book. What confuses me is that he apparently had the me dropping away phenomena occur. And a lot of what he say sound exactly like what is accounted by (others) who have had this occur.
Yet he talks a lot about awareness and consciousness.... "All is Presence, Awareness, in which all apparent thoughts and concepts, events and actions, arise spontaneously......
"There is only this, this thisness, Awareness, and that is what ‘I’ is." And the like...He uses the word awareness 86 times in the book.
I don't understand? He seems to have a foot in each camp..haha
Love the video's :)
@@richardverney3439 I've just started the book so can't answer just yet. . . . but yes so far lots of talk about Awareness ... in Tony Parsons' first book he also referred to oneness as consciousness and then changed that. It is a big difference. Awareness is a projection of the seemingly human element. I know when I supposedly had a big awakening it correlated so much with all the stories around the Ramana lineage that it seemed easy to conclude that awareness was the substrate of everything. Yet it is a projection leading to all the romantic notions of a divine intelligence, a knowing that one can reach. Yet . . . I would say when the me collapses . . . there is no actual witness to know, no divine intelligence behind everything that is linked to human consciousness, no real knowing . . . only 'what is'.
@@nondualityfun a lovely response, thanks…and fair enough, I hear what you’re saying about awareness. The dictionary says awareness is…’knowledge or perception of a situation or fact’, which is pretty straight forward.
Yet linguistically awareness in non-duality is a polysemous word and is certainly used to mean subtly different things by different speakers and teachers. Which makes things a little tricky. Non-duality needs a standardised dictionary!
From what I can recall about the triad of the witness, witnessing and the witnessed, it makes sense that there would be ‘no actual witness to know’, but only ‘what is’ when the me falls away.
If the witnessed and witness are only real in a subjective experience, then there’re an illusion because the separation isn’t real. I get the theory of that.
I liked David's book, I guess there’s a lot in it for the seeker. He appeared to have the ‘me’ fall away and then tried to understand more about it and perhaps was then influenced by Ramesh? Who apparently also changed his teaching a lot in his later life. Carse went to see Ramesh and became friends. Ramesh was also a student of Ramana's. (Sorry for the spoilers!)
So, he might have just got into using that inherited lingo? I don't know a lot about those guys but I do know Ramana is the 'Who Am I? man! And self-enquiry is not the Radical/Pure Non-dual communication, apparently... as who would be asking?
Looking forward to the next cartoon instalment..:)
If everything is just appearing to happen and no one is doing anything, then this obviously applies to EVERY so called teacher , so why are you arguing? You are contradicting your own ideas by "diagreeing" with another "No one ". Who are you to think you are "right" and another is " wrong"? You are caught again in a dualistic perspective by trying to prove that you are right and someone else is not right. Aren't you saying that EVERYTHING is IT ?! And EVERYTHING is just happening for NO ONE. There's no free will or choice? So there's no Rupert speaking , it's simply NOTHING or Consciousness speaking through the illusion of a person named Rupert. Don't you say there are no individuals? You shouldn't criticise others, by so doing you completely lose your own argument.
In your answer you didn’t consider the fact, that even she has no choice in arguing about this or not, it’s just what’s happening 😂.
Yes exactly
Yes ☺ ! ...within the parameters of the paradigm expounded here this is certainly true! 😂..I did see this of course, but
still a reply seemed appropriate because non duality speakers who criticise so called "others" seem to still be stuck in ego mind mentality. True enlightened masters never criticise "others" and the "content" of what is said through a true enlightened master has a wisdom, beauty, and power which transcends petty criticism about who is right and who is wrong.
It's not nice to try and denigrate "others" . It doesn't come from an awakened state of consciousness. Such talk comes from a "position" of false pride and arrogance. It comes from "Mind" Its not true wisdom. As Rupert wisely says in the clip she is "critiquing", "The only true radical non duality teaching would be "Silence".
If you have a "point" to make - especially in the low frequency consciousness of a personal attack, against another "person" or group of "people" - , that must mean its coming from the contracted state of Consciousness , ego identity, not Cosmic Consciousness.
@@liz460 I have to say that the radical non duality explanation of reality seems to me to be the correct one, since being aware of something does creates two, subject and object 🤷🏼♂️
@@liz460No-one here who is enlightened. That is the point. That is what ends. The idea of a someone who goes from unenlightened to enlightened when all there is is, 'what is'. It's breathtakingly different. And why silence isn't such a great teaching is again, you have someone who has to find silence. It's with love and humour and compassion that this is expressed. Mostly the laughter is self deprecating. I don't know anything. And while I used to have a seemingly silent mind and pointed to love and awareness and enlightenment it was then mind-blowing to see the difference of no awareness. All is an equal appearance. The search was illusory. That's what these animations say.
The truth is within. Non Duality means ONE. Never two or more. Never an 'other' as in an expert/teacher/guru. 'I' is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Creator except through 'I'.
A tale of two dogs barking whilst chasing each other's tale.
Yes! Blowing raspberries under water! That’s what it comes down to! I almost added that at the end but it was already too long! Shakespeare put it better …. it’s all much ado about nothing! Emphasis on the nothing!
@@nondualityfun Meow.
Yawn
What a perversion, of forms, meanings, contexts 🎉. An ocd of thoughts with loose connections just to prove I am right u are wrong 😢
Right and wrong is not the intention. One non-duality says Consciousness is your true self. The other suggests consciousness is the illusion creating a false sense of separation. Without that sense of consciousness there is no authority. Who is right or wrong doesn’t really come into the equation. Comparison can be used to highlight the difference but that is all. On the radical side there are no winners. I don’t win. That is what is funny ….. all that supposed seeking and no-one can win. You can have winners in the traditional non-duality or a someone who has it right but no winners or anyone right on the radical. Just ‘what is’.
It’s a comedic rant pointing out the difference.
Remarkable.
I’m so confused now. Would it a good analogy to say this happening with nobody and no self is like a movie playing out from this point of view?
Yes. have a look at ua-cam.com/video/PRXGo9LfhqI/v-deo.html
Both non duality camps claim that this is unconditional love, while attacking each other’s understanding of this 😂😂😂.
What are the two camps ?
@@yoeyyoey8937 one with and other one without conciseness.
@@ccr7712 whats the difference though?
@@ccr7712 like what difference does it make if there is “consciousness” or not?
@@yoeyyoey8937 Rupert claims that the awareness/ consciousness/ the observer is ultimately the god. All there is is awareness being aware of it self - that’s what he claims. The radical non duality people claim that the awareness/ the observer is actually the cause of separation, that it is the “Me “ sense, and that it is illusory. For example, radical non duality supporters claim that there is just sound without anyone hearing the sound, there is just sensation without anyone feeling the sensation, there is just appearance of objects without anyone seeing it, etc.
Those two points of view are pretty much complete opposite. And then there is lots of people on UA-cam who don’t comprehend this correctly, and mix up both of those together 😂, and then there are others, who claim that they lost the sense of “ME “, but they didn’t, and talk from the viewpoint of “ME” about no me 😵💫, which then causes mass confusion among the radical non-duality crowd.
Your complaints against what Rupert says fall flat. You seem to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what he is saying. Every point you criticize is something he didn’t say. You throw up so many straw men, it’s hard to keep track!
I would be good for you to talk to him about these points. It sounds like you believe there are some essential points he just doesn’t grasp. It sounds like you are stuck on certain words and highly triggered to make this video, in which you criticize things someone didn’t say. Listen to Rupert again, or talk to him, or make another snarky video about how others just don’t get it as clearly as you do.
Oh I’m so sorry it came across that way! Although I’ve heard enough of what he says to point out the difference between non duality with consciousness rather than without. And I do say I’m sure he’s nice and I loved that style of non-duality. Sorry if the humour seemed snarky. I’m more laughing at my own seeking and pointing out the stark difference. My humour doesn’t suit everyone.
This that we all share can be expressed in infinite ways. There is so much room for all of it...all emotions, sensations, stillness, turmoil, resistance, acceptance....it's all a rich field of being and nothing/no one is right or wrong. Nothing needs to be, nor can be, omitted. It's all the beautiful experience/expression of our being. We are all alive within all of it. Denying any of it is the mistake that feels so painful...nothing needs to be excluded. We are ALL of it and there is no problem. Sharing this experience is what connects us and establishes the one immediate truth. We are all THIS one expression of everything and every point of view. There is no need to struggle to explain anything but struggling to get it is also fine...just not necessary.
How about Douglass Harding? Was he 'awakened'? He had this different take on coming to see what [you] are.
Oh yes! I read everything I could get my hands on that he wrote. What a wonderful approach he had! I like him so much I put him in Read This Faerie Tale and Die. He's in the trailer for the book too. You can see the trailer and pics if you scroll down here www.nonduality.fun/read-this-faerie-tale-and-die . His approach was slightly different but wonderful nevertheless. I don't really see people as awakened or not awakened. I see everyone as a part of the appearance of 'what is'. Some approaches point and some point in directions that while they seem good can keep the seeker seeking in that they dangle carrots. I don't think Douglas Harding dangled carrots. What he offered was so close to radical non-duality . . . and so novel.
I only listen to a small part of this but suspect that Rupert would agree with most of what you say, as would at the Adyashanti.
It took a while, but I think I finally get your point about how radical nonduality is different from Advaita. To sum up, both sides say the self is illusory, meaning that the belief in the thoughts claiming to be the self in control of the body is seen to be false. As nothing more than a collection of thoughts, the self can’t possibly *do* anything. It’s like seeing the nervous, sweaty little man furiously turning wheels and levers behind the curtain and dropping the belief that the big floating head is the real Wizard of Oz.
The difference is that radical nonduality doesn’t offer a replacement self, while the other side does. They say your *real* self is your awareness or consciousness, which is somehow not separate from the single universal consciousness in which oneness appears. So if you skip the step of dropping the self, you end up with a personal (as opposed to impersonal) self that now contains everything. Talk about an inflated ego!
LOL! Yes! And there is no-one who can drop the self because it's already not there. It's the dreamt sense of consciousness that divides everything . . . but it's only an illusory division.
@@nondualityfun “I” must be losing my sanity, as this is starting to make more sense. 😱🤯😉
@@hansenmarc LOL! Very happy to hear that sanity is being lost! Ah sanity . . . it's so over rated!
@@joolslorien3936 I’m curious to hear more. Could you share the title of a video or post where Rupert discusses how to disidentify with awareness/consciousness? I’ve seen videos of his where he says that the *separate* or *finite* self/ego/finite mind is illusory or an act of awareness/consciousness but he usually goes on to say that the *real* self is god/awareness/consciousness/love. For example, listen to his video: The Self in You is God’s Self, or The Pinnacle of Nondual Understanding, which he summarizes as: “Whosoever knows their self knows their Lord.”
To be clear, I have problems with the radical nondualist dogmatic and uncompromising adherence to the absolute perspective and rejection of the relative. Adherents are the first to admit that their message is useless. I’d add that it can be damaging. @thegloriousbothand has many videos on that topic. That said, while I appreciate Rupert’s poetic descriptions, I prefer Angelo Dilullo’s more practical approach of relying on direct experience. The self is nothing more than self-referential thoughts that say things like: I did or I should (not) do , etc. Other than as thoughts, there is no self in direct experience. In direct experience there is only conscious awareness of some combination of thoughts and sensations. Conscious awareness is at the base or ground level of all experience, but it has nothing to do with the illusory self, it just is. Associating it with anything like an impersonal self or god or love is another thought or belief, not a direct experience. Similarly, speculating that god/consciousness chose to veil its true nature from itself and the reasons why are more thoughts and beliefs and also not part of direct experience.
Personally, I think whether you call it oneness or capital-s-Self or god or infinite consciousness, the labels are all pointing to the same thing. I just think some approaches are more confusing and error-prone than others. To me, the most error-prone approaches are the ones that either say a) everyone’s already enlightened, so there’s nothing to do or b) you don’t exist, so there’s nothing you can do (and the decades this character spent doing practices were seen to be completely irrelevant to the apparent realization). Rich Doyle says that the idea that you don’t need to do anything to awaken is (to put it charitably) a retroactive illusion. While the idea that the self, being only a thought, can’t do anything is strictly true, in the relative sense it’s discouraging to individuals who don’t yet understand the illusory nature of the self. Even absent a self and free will, individuals can apparently do things that bring about realization. It would be much more useful to expose individuals to practices for realizing the nature of the illusory self rather than running the risk of ending the search prematurely, or worse, completely demoralizing and demotivating them, sometimes to catastrophic ends. The message that it’s hopeless because there’s nothing you can do can push someone who’s suffering and at the end of their psychological limit over the edge, and it has.
I find it incredibly hypocritical that radical nondualists say things like there’s no cause and effect because time and space are an illusion. Then you go to their website and see a notice that they’re appearing in Amsterdam next weekend and the entrance fee will be collected at the door. It’s really quite funny to see how quickly they drop their uncompromising absolute perspective and adopt the relative when they’re off camera and money is involved. When pressed on the discrepancy, they use weasel words like I didn’t write that. Well who wrote it? No one did, obviously. It reminds me of the ghostly NOT ME character from the Family Circus comic strip. Who made a mess in the living room? NOT ME. 🤨
@@joolslorien3936 who would be seeing awareness as illusory?
And why, or indeed how, would one drop something that isn't there?
Part of the illusion is that there is something to do, because something needs to happen. This is the inescapable dilemma for the individual seeker.
The end of seeking seems to happen when it's recognised that there is no one living in separation in the first place. This is not a mental recognition by way of an understanding, it's the energetic collapse of anything that could be sensed as something that exists. There is just wholeness already. Home is never lost.
Thankyou for your videos and thank you for this one. I'm going to politely disagree. This is at present what I'm seeing:
Nonduality no Theism: Detachment that is impossible to actually pull off, and in the end itself does not exist.
Nonduality Theism: Acceptance that is not intended to be absolute just productive and meaningful.
The Intrinsic has to know what it is doing. What is being missed in my view is the complexity of Intrinsic mind. So complex that it is One with Diversity. It's the absolute "either or" that is very common in so many aspects of Human thinking and philosophy that becomes the beginning of the problem. It's the thought that distinctiveness cannot be One. But in Mind it can in my view and in Intrinsic Mind it most likely is. It's almost always the absolute "either or" that causes the paradox when there is no actual paradox. Consciousness is the answer.
i'm pretty sure this was created by AI.
✌😁
That’s believable. And if I’m wrong it doesn’t matter, that’s why so much is going to get replaced by AI it’s because there wasn’t much value there to begin with. Might as well have a machine do it
Based upon your lengthy and detailed explanation, it seems like you too must have traversed the territory Rupert Spira teaches. No shame in that. I respect where you are at, and accept that there are many paths to there or nowhere as the case may be. There is a core perennial understanding or enlightening which you obviously share with Zen and other traditions, including Rupert Spira. You are not in opposition (how can you be?) to Rupert or Swami Sarvapriyananda or Eckhart Tolle, etc., but what you call radical is just the other side of the apparent coin in a universe without currency.
There's something rather than nothing. That's all l had to notice.
I agree with Rupert. Seems obvious.
Isn't the confusion these conversations create the most obvious "pointer'......let it go and breathe. There is absolutely no need to dig around in/explore what doesn't need to be defined. It's the most harmful distraction from what is shining in plain view....our immediate presence. I've been immersed in this never ending discourse for way too long and gotten absolutely no where. The hole just keeps getting deeper. My advice to myself is enough already!!!! There is no need for this!
Hi Non Duality Fun, I'd love to hear what you have to say about J. Krishnamurti......
You know …. I love them all….. even if I disagree. I probably have more affiliation with the other Krishnamurti but I really like j krishnsmurti too.
WARNING : This video is another desperate attempt by Society and The Ego to insist on its false existence.
It's as Deep as a fingernail.
There is no such thing as '.society'. There is no such thing as the 'Ego.'
@marksmith1779 they aren't real...but they are creations of the Mind. They are " real" illusions.
@@larscincaid6348 Thinking is just what happens. No one does it. I know this is counter intuitive.
@Neil saying happens, no one does it. There is only what appears to be happening. There is not two. Non duality frustrates the seeker. There is no hope for the seeker.
@marksmith1779 reality is counterintuitive.
There are many layers. Trying to mash it all together gets messy.
Excellent video BTW
Cool!!
Non dual industrial complex
Serious question, can you stop being I? Do you have this center of existence where experience starts from? Thrs no separate individual but thrs an underlying reality in which all of appearance appears.
You can’t stop being I , because you are the I . You don’t have this center of existence, because you are that center. But that center / I , is an illusory experience, because everything is one, the same energy, with no separate thing located in it.
@@ccr7712 exactly u can't stop being that, most teachings are saying the same thing but in thr own way. It's hilarious people like this lady and Ug is so hell bent on proving others wrong. It's like saying all of humans that existed before is wrong only what I am saying is right, sounds like too much Ego to me.
@@Iam590 I don’t think that she claims that you can stop being that. She is saying that that experience of being I, being the center is just illusory/ psychosomatic misunderstanding, and it can just stop happening .
@@ccr7712 this I agree 👍
Who wants to convince who about what? 😅 (…silence, not knowing at all, don’t care, bye)
Can see that having self belief as a thing in the first place and using a no self method such as 'Who am I' could be just that- a self belief owning a method. However if 'you' don't believe in a self thing in the first place using a method such as noticing the impermanence of thought arising through the backdrop helps to stop exaggerating and fixating. We live in social world that tends to stencil us in with false belief whether we like it or not. For practical purpose, wouldn't totally dismiss the local vicinity in interacting with the social, and do have an area of transient interaction/being , and sometimes it is necessary to set imaginary boundaries, and do use pronouns less people eat us for not being sentient LOL.
"Radical nonduality" is simply mental gymnastics, that takes no self-awareness at all. For God's Sake (literally!) nonduality is an EXPERIENCE, not just a clever idea that someone like Tony Parson's or Jim Newman can spout! Look to find it instead in the living Presence of people like Rupert, or Eastern spiritual masters, and compare it to this person, who can't even show her face as she glibly chatters on! It is true, all words, even those of the masters, are meaningless babble, symbols of symbols, compared to the true Oneness that ultimately manifests in infinite love and peace, and can only be experienced by one who has totally forgiven and released their attachment to the illusion of a separate self. Perhaps these people have forgotten that such a person has often spent their entire lifetime in meditation and self-enquiry to reach this state of awareness. This is true spirituality we are talking about here, folks, not some online sophistry. Don't try to analyze what Rupert is saying, but instead sit back and FEEL it. Then you might come to some kind of an understanding. Arguing about the IDEA of nonduality necessarily ALWAYS leads to contradictions. It HAS to. That is why all genuine teachers of Oneness will end with the advocation of Silence
Oh dear me! Yes I've been there and taught all that. And yes a lifetime in meditation and feeling and all that. And it was glorious! But no . . . when it hits it hits . . . and yes I do show my face in some videos . . looks exactly the same as the animation. And maybe it seems like sophistry .. . but it isn't. And when it's seen (by no-one) all the tomfoolery of a someone with awareness finding themselves as awareness and all that spiritual hierarchy . . . when all along it is just what is present . . . not as awareness . . . . just 'what is', it is so simple. This video was a comedic rant . . . all this non-duality is very funny when it hits. I apologise if it hit in such a way to antagonise. No need to educate. Just enjoy whatever it is you've found. I loved it when I was in it. Adored all that awareness stuff. But this non-duality doesn't include anyone. No need to be so annoyed that I say there is no such thing as silence . . . . what a thing to ask a human to find so they can then feel themselves as spiritual. It's simpler .. . much much simpler. No-one to find anything . . . . . it's beautiful. Sorry that that beauty was missed . . . but not everything fits into one video . . . and this was a comedy video. All the best to you . . enjoy your infinite peace and state of silence if that is what you say you have.
Spira is completely clueless about non-duality, and much more that he endlessly prattles on about!
There is only ONE non-dual Reality, saying that there are two means that you are completely lost in the dualist delusion!
It all comes down to suffering caused by uncontrolled useless thinking. Any technique which allows you to control your thoughts is valid. Eckhart Tolle and others do say some useful things but they seem to need to extrapolate this to some kind of absolute truth. In other words they just take it too far.
2 Non Dualities
The one you talk about is better than the other one he talks about
😕😒☹️😞😡😔🥺 (frown emojis 😅)
Personally, I don’t resonate much with Rupert’s words or Tony’s/Yours (or I apologize if you got your ideas from somewhere else)
I’m a big fan this Shankara quote:
“
Brahman is Real
The world is Illusion
Brahman Is the World
“
To me, this sums up the absurdity of the kind of dichotomy that you present in your video between your/Tony/Anna/Jim/Etc.’s view & Rupert’s, imo
The difference between what you/Tony/Jim/Anna say & Rupert or anyone else, are only superficial imo
________
I love the creativity and playfulness you put into your videos!
I just hope we can move past repeating what retired, rich type A personality males (who loves Trump and voted for Brexit, as he said in his “not satsangs”)
This is like the old qualified no duality vs non duality debate except with no wisdom
In effect Radical Non Dualists are saying "All the Dzogchen Masters are wrong and we are right. All the Zen Masters are wrong and we are right. All the Advaita Vedanta Masters were wrong and we are right. The Buddha was wrong. The Christ Was wrong. Lao Tzu was wrong. Hafiz was wrong. Rumi was wrong. But we are right. We are the first and only ones in history to understand that nothing exists and everything that appears to exist including consciousness/awareness is just nothing appearing as that."
Forget the fact that the traditional Non dualists named above have all been saying exactly that all along, just in more sophisticated language (too sophisticated for you, clearly) we are the first ones to truly "get it."
Forget the fact that every realized being is only a realized being because they have realized that nothing exists and everything that appears to exist including a separate self and the witness and consciousness is just an appearance of that nothing and has simply taught this realization in stages which met the student where they were at, hence initially and temporarily identifying the true self as "awareness" or "consciousness" or "the witness" we are the only ones who "really" recognized this.
What this level of arrogance - to dismiss every realized being in history as not "getting it" as clearly as the Radical Non Dualists imagine they "get it" - speaks to, is a total collapse back into a level of thought identification so deep that their ideological possession by the ideology of "Radical Non Dualism" is so complete as to be pathological.
They are so thought identified they cannot see how thought identified they are. They are so possessed by the ideology of Radical Non Duality that they cannot even see that it is an ideology. They have conflated the menu with the meal so hard that they are trying to eat the menu.
Radical Non Dualists are the perfect example of what Jung pointed out..."People don't have ideas, ideas have people"
tl;dr The apparent you has done nothing more that disappear up the apparent you's apparent asshole and you are not fooling anyapparentbody who is not hopelessly insecure and desperate to be seen as right.
All words and concepts ABOUT Non Duality are bullshit.
Non duality is a realization, not an idea.
No amount of clever ideas and words can convince anyone who lives outside your skull that you have the first clue about Non Dual realization. All you clever words, constant promotion of your ideology and your desperate need to be right, just expose you as having NOT realized the Non Dual nature of reality. and to be, in fact, all talk and no trousers. Sigh.
Yes! That is what is shocking!!!!! That all the teachings that asked you to find your true self as consciousness sent you up your own backside for years on a futile search!!! And here is the miraculous AS THE APPEARANCE . . . AS THIS . . . even as an apparent argument via text! Look . . . take me out of the equation (because who cares?and clearly you don't like my style of humour) We won't meet and who cares who is right or wrong? Subtract me and you out of the argument . . . and all there is as 'what is' is the argument. That's the miracle. With the subtraction there is no person who needs to find something. No person who is either right or wrong. That's what's being pointed at. There can't be arrogance or ownership of this. I can't declare I'm right. That's the point. The videos are pointing to my futile search and how in the end you have nothing to show for it. There is no advantage in the radical non-duality. I don't win. I lose. You have winners in the traditional Non-Duality and only losers in the radical. It is funny. This is only meant to be a funny take on non-duality. It's comedy and presented as comedy. (Maybe not your sort of comedy . . . and it won't be to everyone's taste.)
@@nondualityfun "Yes! That is what is shocking!!!!! That all the teachings that asked you to find your true self as consciousness sent you up your own backside for years on a futile search!!!"
This is more self justifying, rationalizing nonsense. Dzogchen, Zen, Advaita Vedanta DID NOT "send you up your own backside for years on a futile search"
These teachings have pointed literally thousands to realization of the Non Dual nature of reality.
Only those who failed to disidentify from their thoughts/mind through a lack of right practice, disappeared up there own backsides. In other words you and your fellow Radical Non Dualists.
All the thousands of words you spout are nothing but your rationalizations and justifications for your failure to realize the non dual nature of reality through the traditional pathways that have returned thousands of others to reality.
You failed and like bad workmen you blame the tools, instead of taking responsibility for your failure.
And to protect your thought identified being from the pain of this irresponsibility you make up a ridiculous ideology that posits that YOUR version of Non Duality is different (ie superior) to the old version of Non Duality that you failed at.
So you even fail to see the irony that you pathological inability to acknowledge your own failure has forced you to dualize Non duality by ideologizing TWO TYPES of NON TWONESS lol!
You can't make this up. A 4 year old could see how full of shit you are haha
It's all childish kintergarten level avoidance projection and blame and the more you seek to justify your obvious psychological shell game the sillier you look.
The fact that you are continuing to attept to defend the indefensible, has inspired me to make a reaction video to your reaction video, so that the wider community can see just how childishly self justifying this whole "Radical Non Duality" ideology really is.
Radical non-duality is skipping to the end of the process. If you look at the 10 fetters, you don't really come to the nothingness until over halfway through. Check out simply always awake on YT if you're really want to understand the whole process better. In the end both are right, one just skips to the end and says there's no work here to do.
Bit of an odd response. The video she’s responding to, ua-cam.com/video/iqIglK1zvtc/v-deo.html, is focused on spiritual bypassing and the importance of meeting the seeker where they are in the moment. The response doesn’t address these things.
Could be she’s right about the criticisms against ancient traditions (I don’t know them well enough) but the nonduality she refers to is different from Rupert Spira’s and different from any modern teacher I’ve seen.
Yes, I was only asked to comment on the part where Rupert was speaking about the radicals. Not the rest of the video. But it’s interesting you talk of spiritual bypassing and meeting the seeker where they are at. No seekers and nothing spiritual. Thats another big difference. No one separate already. The only illusion is seeing separation where there is none. There is nothing spiritual for an illusory person to attain.
@@nondualityfun Fair point! Good that you listen to your viewers.
It seems to me that these non-radical teachers also do not believe in seekers or the spiritual. One of them even says "I see no people that are asleep" and actively avoids "spiritual" language. Yet they are willing to concede those points in order to meet me where I am. I still believe in separation, so they speak to those beliefs. "Give the intellect a cookie", as they say - and it works: I notice that when the intellect and ego are satisfied, they allow the awake parts of me some space to emerge, and those beliefs in separation slowly start to fade.
The destination is likely the same (there is no destination), merely along a different path (which also turns out to be an illusion). Meanwhile, my life is already better and I'm happier, I feel more awake, aware, and empathetic with myself and others - even if I still believe in the illusion of separation and a spiritual path. That is the value of empathy.
Nice...but brevity is the soul of wit
Excellent video! Not sure why you keep saying that there is no help for the seeker though... Even if there is no real 'me' to seek anything, why can't the 'me' that exists in the appearance find solace in the recognition that 'my' existence as well as all of 'my' problems are illusory? Isn't all (apparently existing) suffering the result of taking the false 'I' seriously, even if there is no true self to be found anywhere?
Indeed, there could be potential calming effect of acknowledging that all these problems are actually illusory, based only on the working of thoughts 😇
She's Nice ☺️❤
Peut être que Rupert fait juste ce qu'il à faire, peut être que ça semble se produit ainsi,qui sait où ne sait pas 🤣
❤
I have never come across such a wordy bunch as non-dualists, no matter what the denomination.
Rupert says there is no separation. He uses the word Awareness you use the word this. What's the difference? This is all there is or Awareness is all there is same thing. Either way if any of us really believed these things we say, we wouldn't spend so much time thinking about it. Lots of thinking going on here!
The difference is that awareness creates separation. Awareness needs something separate to be aware of. So it’s an odd thing to saw awareness equals no separation. Also it’s humancentric. It places man at the centre of everything in the same way religion does. The radical nonduality points to the illusion of separation that is already the way it is. With there being no separation already, there is no need to go on a search. The search is founded on an illusion. Hope that clarifies things!
This is philosophy, not spirituality.
And it’s just in poor taste and tacky… really an animated cartoon people stopped using ten years ago? I think it was McKenna who said that if all else fails, if something is being presented as profound or world-changing, if it looks ugly then you can know for sure it’s not authentic.
@@erawanpencil why is that though? Do you know where I can listen to that?
Not even that because she is using a bunch of fallacies
@@yoeyyoey8937 Correct, bad philosophy.
non duality is a concept not a philosophy.
Consciousness is not awareness. Consciousness arises in awareness or silence. All the great sages say stop searching. Or what you’re looking for is where you’re looking from. I suggest listening to Nisargadatta to get the full. They’re not saying clean it up. They’re saying you’re already the true Self but you don’t realize it. Just thought I’d add this as your video is somewhat.
Thanks . . . however Nisargadatta (who I love reading and even liked a few others who met with Nisargadatta) said there is no such thing as consciousness. It's the most wondrous paradigm shift. It is so gorgeously unknowable and for no-one. Suddenly there is no hallucinated containment for anything. There is just 'what is'. Admittedly this video is my poorest . . . but no matter.
Rupert is full of knowing. He is full of fluff.
The same old story that goes on in organized religion since at least 2000 years: I am right! My view and perspective is more close to the truth etc. And to hide behind a cartoon figure is kind of irritating…..
Calling it radical non duality is a misnomer, if duality is an illusion so is non duality
Well it's called radical because it is completely different from 'a you in time' who needs to or even could wake up. But yes you're right, there is no duality nor non-duality. The brain 'sees' only in terms of duality because it predicts (hallucinates) itself as an actual being who is separate so there is no actual duality . . . but then there is also no actual non-duality because there is nothing.
What I don't understand is then why are "You" making these videos???? You should explain it, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself.
I do appreciate you making these videos though. 😅
rupert only sometimes tells the truth cos he needs people to pay his bills...
I think what’s funnest about this is how wrong it is. Rupert is wrong. What this video says is wrong. Comparing the two is wrong. On the same token, Rupert is right. What this video says is right. Comparing the two is right.
Any attempt to say what THIS is, is by the nature of the device (concepts), wrong. But also right, because even right and wrong are yet more concepts of the mind.
Why make a video to say Rupert is wrong, when the video itself acknowledges there’s no point in any non-dual message, and no-one to hear it?
But maybe that’s also the joke of the video, to amuse no-one, for no reason other than the reason no-one gave it.
Even to say the author’s ego structure took umbrage with Rupert said is funny, because that would make the ego into a thing, which it isn’t, because it doesn’t exist. Other than to appear to exist to take umbrage. 🤣
Oh how strange this life is, and wonderful all at the same time ☺️❤️
LOL! Yes and yes and yes! Jokes within jokes within jokes . . . for no-one.
What is your definition of a "self" and what is your definition of "existence"? Before you're certain and very clear on those concepts, everything else is basically gibberish.
There are a number of answers to what the self is. Here in these videos it refers to that sense of awareness that is owned by a person, or the sense of being present as consciousness. The sense of existence comes about from the sense of self, believing itself as real and so therefore everything else must be real or exist too. From a sense of self arises a sense of existence. Without self, no witness . . . . everything unknown . . . the word existence wouldn't apply. These videos point to the illusion of separation created by a sense of consciousness. It is only an illusory separation. Only from the perception of a conscious self does that separation seem to exist. I hope that answers your question.
Not everyone is able to understand truth, it's not their time yet, this is quite apparent from most of the comments here. .. maybe in your next life.
There isn’t even a thing called radical non duality lol, Rupert spira is also just a spiritual dream. There is nothing to say really