Can you sum up your conclusion in one clear statement? What is “your” final word? Yours truly, saved, born again, awakened, enlightened, realized, non existent, self, no self, meat suit. Radical or otherwise! Thanks from no one!
When Isaac Newton discovered there was no colour except what was created by the mind . . no-one went around trying to see in black and white to prove they were now seeing the truth and not an illusion. Discovering that no-one is separate from nature doesn’t require anyone to stop seeing separation to prove they are really seeing what is true.
Iain McGilchrist’s book the master and his emissary, took me a long time to read, because it seemed to raise issues with all of the psychology and philosophy I had read But this video is along the same lines. The right hemisphere basically is engaged directly in the world, and processes peripheral vision. The left hemisphere is more modelling, splitting, analysing The left is associated with reaching and getting, which is why the majority of people are right-handed . So for example, wandering along, the right hemisphere would spot an apple in peripheral vision on the tree, and then the left hemisphere will go into I want that mode having thought it saw it itself. In Mcgilchrist view there is a transfer of information so once the left hemisphere has analysed something, that information is fed back, so that it forms a new part of the basis of the rights operation. For example learning that a crabapple isn’t very nice, after which the excitement of spotting the Apple wouldn’t happen for one of those perhaps Mcgilchrist does suggest we need to spend more time in the right hemisphere because we spend way too much time in a scientific and analytic world This is probably where some of the wonder comes from situations of nature for example The sunrise, or special view. Because what’s outside is so stimulating it brings the fullness of awareness to a right hemisphere view. Fully there in the moment Once you have this divide you can just take living more in the left hemisphere as being what most people do, and that is in fact living in a model. So then the true self in traditions becomes bringing up the right hemisphere. And inhabiting the left there can be a weird sense of the possibility of enlightenment, et cetera The bit confusing me about this is if we have these two, and we can engage both, what is the origin or home of awareness or consciousness? Or does it just float around? I can see that there could still be an empty field so to speak. Poised to become aware of It could be filled by either type of activity. Engaged in the moment or analytical. Another bit I don’t understand is why I find Eckhart charming and enjoy listening to him, and I find Rupert Spira difficult It might relate to the idea of whether a person is well practised at awareness of, versus awareness analytically or awareness in an embodied manner. Spira has an exceptional left hemisphere model, but I think how it works is that he brings everything including the body and thoughts into ‘its all in here’ Oddly, that seems to me to have the complete wrong idea generated in the listener? Because it’s listen to the words listen to the words, see how the theory is right and makes sense Which I guess means it’s really hard to be a spiritual teacher! And someone suggested to me, go along with the one you get on with
I have so enjoyed reading everything you've just written. Thank you for writing it. Really great to read. I appreciate you reading McGilchrist's book and passing that on. Yes go with the one you resonate with or like listening to. I had to laugh when Tony parsons told me he spends his time watching videos of Osho. So there are all the non-dualists watching his videos and he's watching someone who he doesn't even think spoke the truth about non-duality but he just happens to really like.
I asked Odeh if the ‘me’ comes from the left hemisphere and he said he did not know. He does say the brain's Default Mode Network (DMN), is a key player in generating the personal identity or ego/self/me. The DMN spans both hemispheres and involves regions in both hemispheres of the brain. The DMN orchestrates the construction of a narrative self-connecting past memories, future projections, and self-referential thoughts. Turjman argues that this sense of a stable "I" is essentially a mental construct produced by the brain's habitual neural patterns, particularly within the DMN. So, I don’t know? Maybe the code is not cracked just hacked. Maybe it's not so simple as left and right?
Hi Richard, yes Odeh Turjman's work does not cover the left right hemisphere but if you look at Dr Iain McGilchrist's work and Jill Bolte Taylor's work Whole Brain Living it's there you see how the two hemispheres perceive. What is interesting though about Turjman's work is that it is such a perfect mirror to Ramana or Tony Parson's loss of self . . . but through the neuroscientific framework. It's the bringing together of all these works that seem to crack the code . . . or hack the code. Turjman gives us the specific workings of a supposed self and that on its own provides an extraordinarily shattering (in a wonderful way) but on it's own it doesn't reveal how perfectly aligned the teachings of non-duality and the perception of the right hemisphere are. Turjman hasn't followed the science into the two hemispheres. I'm marrying up a few different links. It was just astonishing to stumble across them all in the space of a short time and that seemed to create a welcome schism somehow . . . It's interesting because I can relate to the lack of a narrator and seeing in terms of everything being an extraordinary appearance of energy appearing as form . . . . and yet can also really relate to that view possibly being just a mind view and seeing the gift and skill of the left hemisphere. At any rate there's been a shift where it's clear that The Nothing is not where any presenter speaks from . . . it's not the last word on truth . . . . and that seems freer. While on the one hand it's all true . . it's just not a truth. Have a look at Whole Brain Living (not for her recommendations or anything - I'm not advocating anyone follow her) but just to gain insight into the brain . . . as well as Dr Iain McGilchrist who is the one with the greatest and most recent body of knowledge about the hemispheres. If anything you see why people would resonate with non-duality . . . not because it is an Absolute truth that we need to find but just because it's part of how we naturally view things.
Hi Clare, If person believes what’s being presented in this video is correct, then it may stop their spiritual seeking, because they will think that nonduality is just a waste of time, but it won’t stop their seeking in general 🤷, and their misery will continue. Your explanation is another illusory position of knowing, that you believe is correct, it’s not going to help you, or anyone else in terms of seeking. ( at least that how I see it, regarding to my understanding of how things are ) Can you explain why you suggest that seeking will stop all together ? Thanks.
There is a difference between seeking (even an omeba seeks sugar and avoids vinegar) and which is natural in the same way a tree seeks sunlight and humans who don't just seek but negotiate for a spiritual result (like believing a ritual, a spiritual exercise or a guru will remove the 'me' or the left hemisphere). Non-duality isn't a waste of time it is a natural view that all animals have (all animals have the right hemisphere). The only thing that is a waste is the negotiating. Man has the added intelligence that creates an illusory separate self that believes if it negotiates correctly it will become one with Oneness. The video would be better if I'd made that distinction even clearer. So it is the negotiating that can stop because already the brain views non-duality. Negotiating is the false promise. Also . . the video is just saying that while non-duality is a natural brain view, it is a view . . . . and not necessarily a truth about reality. Reality remains a mystery. Not only do we not have the instrument to 'know' reality we are not separate from reality. I hope that answers your question.
@@ccr7712 The brain automatically predicts something from the past, the body responds with a completely unique cascade of sensations, the brain then lazily labels that from the past . . . calls it something like sadness 'Oh I'm sad' . . the label seems to validate the experience. The brain predicts seeking will continue . . . the body responds with a unique cascade of sensations . . . labels it "I'm still seeking". It validates it's own false prediction. It's a very small loop that the brain follows. It's quite possible that that discovery alone can be a pattern interrupt. Admittedly my inner narrator is pretty silent . . . and seeking has stopped . . even with this new shock at the possibility that non-duality is just a view and not a truth at all . . . but the brain can still falsely predict things from the past . . . . that's just what it does . . . . even though its false. It's meant to be a shorthand so we don't see a doorknob and have to relearn what it is each time. Unfortunately the loop makes it seem like the mental realm of seeking means seeking is still happening. It's probably not seeking . . but it's job is to predict and it can only predict the past. This is why things can seem to be so stale even though life is quite extraordinary. The prediction you've written about seeking not stopping comes from past prediction . . . . it needn't go that way.
I am pretty sure I heard speakers like jim newman and tony parsons always say that there is no "Truth" and that's the experience of being an individual is also wholeness and nothing needs to happen.
I as well heard them say, that this can’t be understood, and that they don’t know anything , while in the same time claiming that this is wholeness and nothing needs to happen 😂. I am surprised that many people can’t see the contradiction in that 🤷🏼♂️. I am not saying that everything they say is nonsense, but many things they say are nonsense.
They do also say that their words are coming from 'The nothing' and not a 'me' anymore as if The nothing' is the cornerstone of truth when it's really just coming from the right hemisphere. Hey . . I love the radical non-duality . . . all prior videos have been from that view . . . but I can't say there feels a need to defend non-duality as the last word on truth when it may not be. Who is there who feels a need to declare The Nothing as being true when it may not be correct? In the end there is still everything and nothing and unknowability . . . there is just the removal of a guru saying that what they say comes from The Nothing as if it equates to the voice of god.
@@nondualityfunradical nonduality may possibly just be another brainwashing technique like religions, spirituality, etc., and it may work for some and not for others, if you can convince your self and even experience undoubtedly that knowing is illusory, and that thoughts have no value whatsoever, then you may have peace, who knows 🤷🏼♂️.
@@nondualityfunhis latest video at 1 hour and 2 minutes mark he answers a question related to what you are saying, it would be interesting to hear your feedback on his response.
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)
Lol! I never mind digs if they are funny . . . and that is a fun dig. Actually there isn't too much Turjman in this video . . . even though his description is pretty apt. So is the Taylor Bolte description and Iain McGilchrist. What they describe is just like a dropped me. It feels like a drop and there is 'just everything' and no instigator. It just means I wouldn't put it as a dropped me but a wondrous slide into the right hemisphere. And no authority to say they have the 'real knowing' on non-duality. I can't say I have a someone here who feels they need to defend non-duality . . . . just a 'wow' this predominant right hemisphere may not be The Answer.
But is the left one ever right? Its only telling fairtales and waking up from those lies is indeed liberation. The concept of no-me is misleading though.
I'm not sure that right or wrong about either one is in question . . . rather that the left sees in terms of separation and the right doesn't. Thinking one is awake is the error. No-one is awake just because the right hemisphere is dominating and the left just happens to be skilled at duality.
The question is, is this helpful for anyone trying to detach from thoughts and so bring balance to perception? It rather seems like a typical community wordplay… which is fine too, but its confusing for those, that need help.
I wonder if you ask any "awakened" guy to loan you some $$$, see if they'd immediately return to their "natural unenlightened" state or come up with something like "nobody asks for nothing, and nobody being asked to loan nothing either, just this" 😆
A very refreshing explanation! I might add that the "leaning" between the two views could also be described as a dance, e.g., something which can be practiced and refined in an artistic fashion. This can really blow the lid off of how meditation is commonly perceived as a practice of devotion to the right hemisphere, instead reformulating to mean something along the lines of, "meditation is the practice of acknowledging the function/significance of both dual and non-dual perspectives, the ability and degree of grace by which one can shift between them, the inquiry into the natural play of their interactions, and the integration of these insights into daily living." It really helps to give attention to both worldviews. In these non-duality "lateral lobotomies," as you've pointed out, these meetings are like dialectics without any synthesis. That is, there's oftentimes dialogue where a solution (dropped self) is proposed to a problem (seeking), and the two brainioids continue to ricochet without generating any novel ideas, making it actually more like a debate-sans the aggression. One question that lingered for me after this video is, "Is discerning between dual and non-dual views solely yet another function of the left hemisphere?" That kinda starts the whole chicken and egg thing again, so idk. Also, here's a curveball coming in from Taoism: "If dual and non-dual are likened to yin and yang, what experience would you ascribe to the circle (wuji) which contains them?" Anyway, just some food for thought in case you get this far reading! Thanks for uploading :)
I like the dance analogy! The discernment is most likely the left but the right will see it as a discernment appearing as part of everything . . . but that doesn't mean the discernment is bad . . . I think spiritual and non-duality communities have demonised the left when the left simply has a skill set of discernment, separation, survival etc. BTW the chicken and egg debate has been solved. The egg came first . . you'd have to google it as I've forgotten the evidence but it has been solved. As to the Tao . . . actually I don't have an answer but I like what you've written and I like the mention of the circle.
@@nondualityfun Thanks for the reply! Yeah, the whole "separation is bad" villification of the left hemisphere thing doesn't make much sense to me these days. A thought which came to me once helped me put separateness in a new light: "Jung couldn't have been Jung without Freud, but he had to be without Freud to become Jung." Another analogy would be how we need to first be dependent on our parents to raise us for us to become indendepent adults. This follows in biology too, where mitosis (separation) and conception (wholeness) are both essential processes in the creation of life. So both left and right hemisphere skillsets are codependent; the fission aspect of duality is codependent with the fusion aspect of non-duality. In our development, we need the non-dual stage first in order to gain data about the world, then begin to discern experience to make something of it for our own individuality, then learn to dance between the two over a course of a lifetime!
Hi @nondualityfun, I’m interested in your thoughts on the comment made by @dvdmon when you get the chance. Just to better help me understand things. Thanks 🙂 P.S. Also interested if there are some teachers who you feel are still worth listening to. Would Tony Parsons be one of them? Any others you’d suggest ?
Especially I wouldn’t trust speakers who say, “ I don’t understand this my self, or this can’t be understood, while in the same time suggesting that what they saying is correct.
Nonduality is a decentralized global community continuously self-correcting. Yes, there are two major levels that often get mixed up. One level claims there's someone to become one with something. The other level claims there's no one and nothing to become one with. There are levels within each and the mixing of them creates confusion and humor. Self-correction is always happening and since the community has no center, it can't be finished. We're stuck with nonduality.
You are right, The illusory sense of knowing is the problem, that perpetuates thinking and the misery. This is just another knowing / position. It’s not going to help anything 🤷🏼♂️.
@@ccr7712 The video points to unknowing (and it points the error of presenters knowing that what they are saying is THE truth). if anything the video throws out the possibility of knowing non-duality because 1. it's just a view and not a truth about reality and 2. there is no self to know and 3. there is no-one separate from 'what is' who could ever objectively know. That's a truckload of unknowing! And besides when the inner narrator stops there is no thinking . . . . there is beingness . . . and no-one to know . . . . but doesn't mean push away evidence about the brain or feel a need to defend non-duality as The Truth.
@@nondualityfun there is no possibility of knowing anything if everything is really the same thing, because you can’t step out of it to know it, but that it self is an understanding which can be incorrect as well, and there is no way of knowing that. I think that It would be nice, and honest, if you and all speakers would add in the beginning and on the end of the videos, that what you are saying is not the truth, but just a view, and may be possibly completely incorrect, or even the complete opposite. As well I don’t get why you named your video : The code of nonduality is cracked, but in the same time here you claim that it points to unknowing 🤷🏼♂️. The title of the video sounds like you are convinced that what you are saying is the truth. I am not trying to offend you, it just doesn’t make sense to me, but I may be wrong, who knows 🤷🏼♂️. Good luck 🍀
@@ccr7712 I like the point you've made and I had hoped that the video was addressing the point you've made . . that presenters are not presenting the truth because it turns out that it is mind based. And I even challenge presenters to recognise the possibility that they are only speaking from the right hemisphere. I named the video as such because I was wanting to convey where the whole notion of non-duality most likely comes from. It comes from one half of the brain . . . and not a truth from The Nothing or Divine Consciousness. All spirituality seems like there is a grain of truth because part of our brain resonates with it. That's what I mean by cracking the code . . . it's seeing that the source of non-duality most likely comes from the part of the brain that sees that way already . . . rather than non-duality being a truth we find because it exists as an Absolute truth. I'm not offended and really like honest questions and challenges because I'd like to be clear in the communications. I can't of course know truth . . . I don't think any brain can . . that's what I mean about unknowing. Thanks for querying further and I hope I've been a bit better at explaining it.
Is this non-duality fun or is this a view you can take comfort in? Ultimately, if you feel you've found an explanation, then you might as well truly drop all of this non-dual stuff. But you probably won't, because this isn't how things go, as non-dual is something that clarifies through investigation and deep shadow work naturally. It is the shadow itself wanting explanations and ideas of further "unknowing". Landing on the idea of brain hemispheres being "the" explanation is like baiting other seekers to a personal conclusion that gives you comfort - you'll even have skeptic minds on your team with such a scientific view. It's definitely in fun and all of innocence, but perhaps you could ask yourself what your intentions are with these videos, for your own sake. Just like with everything the human mind touches upon, more noise doesn't really help others, rather a lot of the noise is just a reflection of our "landing" and wanting to project that onto reality for others. It is fun to see where people seem to land and to look at what landing is. And you are right, that some non-dual speakers are themselves landing and usually fixating. What's the need?
I thought there is no such thing as a brain? It's made up. So what is all this right and left hems about? Oh no one knows because there is no one. Love these videos.
Since feeling what you are saying here and in the last video I am more beffudled and directionless than ever. I sought the mainstream enlightenment understanding of such people as Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira etc. who all say that we have a true self that is pure consciousness, or some other similar thing. Then, I came across the radical nondual message and gave up the search since the seeker and the sought are both said to be illusory. But, of course, "I" still wanted to dissapear into the Nothing. I knew what the REAL unreal, non-truth TRUTH was. It was THAT which lied "beyond" conception. All else was illusory. But, as nondual speakers say, there's nothing wrong with having a "me," and there is no perspective that is better or worse than another, which is what you are saying here I think. So, when the body dies does a perspective, that is beyond the right and left hemisphere arise? Or could the perspective of one or the other carry on? Can the perspectives of both hemispheres be unified? Of course, they already are for the right hemisphere. I find that I am left without a North Star, even the one of radical nonduality. It's not that I feel no ground beneath. That would give at least a definite sense that THAT was IT, that that was reality, and there'd probably be an ease to surrender to being unable to hold onto anything. But most concepts feel as solid as ever, just none of them any longer convince me that they point to the truth. I feel like I'm in some landscape where I can't get any firm footing. Knowing the ultimate nature of reality has, since my late teens, been my deepest desire. I always had my direction set on the direction of The Truth. And now the compass is broken. Not broken. I can no longer feel or see that there is a Truth. All the compasses look and feel, well, neither true nor false. No stories, even the story of "no me" no longer carries the ring of truth. It's not a horrible place to be. Not emotionally troubling by any means. I just can't find any traction for action. No principles, or motives, or understanding of what is true provides any traction anymore. And yet they are all calling to me, enticing me, but whenever I decide to go with some motive, or principle, or truth it just slips through my grip, nothing solid to be found there. Even to say to myself, "just do it," "just act," "just do something," brings up, "but why?" Though I sense the answer is not "out there," and not complicated. And doesn't depend on any motives, principles, or truths. I sense what it is, but it is not something that I can put into words. Though that's not a principle, "to act without conception." It's just what is particularly so for me, in this moment. I feel like I need to get more into my left hemisphere. Or wake that side up more. Though even those statements fall like sand through my hands when I scrutinize them.
I had hoped that the original author would reply to you but since she has not thus far done so, I will come in and say something. I have already written quite a long Post above which expands on many of the themes in the video. You are 'befuddled and directionless' because you are still trying to use left brain thinking. You are looking for a route-map so that a separate self can find something else. You want to find something that is missing. It isn't and you don't have to. There is no 'you.' You do not 'have' a 'me'. Nor do you need to lose this and exchange it for a 'no me.' No one is writing this email. The email happens of course but no one is doing it. There is only what appears to be happening. There is life but no one 'has' it. This is very counter-intuitive and may well be shocking to you. Perhaps you are angry and want to argue? There really is no separation. There is not two. There is no such thing as 'consciousness', let alone so-called pure consciousness. No amount of chin-ups and trunk-curls will acquire this for you. Consciousness refers to the of 'knowing'. It is a VERB not a NOUN. Consciousness implies separation between a knower and the known, hence consciousness implies duality. Separation though, is the problem not the solution to the problem.
Lol! Have only just woken up (in Oz) and walked the dogs and haven't had time to answer . . . but yes your reply is it . . . also no need to land anywhere . . . neither duality nor non-duality. No me to get rid of . . . no promises of a dropped me nor a no-me status boorishly offering only right hemisphere views. NOWHERE for anyone to land . . . those capitals are meant joyously rather than emphatically.
Chris, I love what you've written . . . richly honest . . . . those whirrings of inner language . . . rich artistry . . . a slight ripple . . . . hearing the inner language but no hearer . . . and the ripples cease . . . and all that's left is unknowable life. Uncertainty has a bad reputation . . . but in the end certainty rings hollow for good reason.
@@nondualityfun I appreciate your words. What a great adventure this is! And isn't! Lol. Right now I am feeling such a relief that there is no Truth, no grand purpose to this all. And if there is Truth and a grand purpose for someone, or no one, then great! Or not great, if that really peaves someone! Lol. I can do what I want, for some reason, or none at all. And no goal or striving for relief. Though there it is. And what a contingent and transitory thing relief is. Nothing behind it! Unless one finds something behind it. Lol
Yes . . . . and in some ways still but now no camp . . . no landing . . . . no projecting it as a truth . . . nothing is needed. So in some ways more empty.
Great! It might be useful to add that when the right hemisphere speaks, it is actually always and only the left one that tries to describe the right one's view. The language area (Broca) is on the left, and it is the only one that speaks: whoever has damaged it is non-verbal
Yes I had to use artistic license . . . . no other way to convey it! But yes I could have added what you say about the left . . . . only so much I can add to each video . . . but yes . . . agreed!
All Spiritual Seeking is a rejection of 'what is in favour or "something else." The Spiritual person says. I am not happy. Something needs to happen. I need to find something else. I need to get a better experience. I need to find what I am looking for. The answer from non-duality is - No you don't and it doesn't. What is longed for is obscured by the act of Seeking. It is already this. It is already here and you are it. Nothing needs to happen for this to be what is happening already; its already happening. This, is not trying to become something else. This is as it is. It does not depend on you. it does not even need you; you are it! Guided by the left side of the brain, we furiously read books and go on retreats and listen to Guru's and undertake so-called practices, all in the vain hope of finding something else. No one has a self or another self or a true self or a no self or a non self. Someone cannot find no one. The self cannot find its own absence. No one is on a journey to get to a different destination or to find something that is missing; how could there be something missing from all there is? The contracted energy in the body creates the impression that there is a 'me' in the body. That is where the sense of self comes from. We learn to say 'I AM' and with that comes 'I KNOW.' Later the assurance with which we have learned to say 'I KNOW' becomes a problem. Life is unsatisfactory. Our left brain kicks in and we say 'I NEED TO KNOW'. Thus, I need to know that I have free-will and choice; meaning and purpose? I need to know what it is all about? I need to know why I am here and where I am going? There is no end to the 'NEED TO KNOW' that is why some turn to religion using their left brains to divide and separate in a vain attempt to find something else. They seek the comfort of religion and Spirituality. They declare that worldliness is a curse and that only by finding other-worldliness will they ever be happy. Spirituality is always based on some kind of separation. Awareness is separation. Consciousness is separation. Mindfulness is separation. Monasticism is separation. Meditation is separation. Rites and rituals are separation. Faith is separation. Separation is the basis of apparent duality. The Way it Is is not waiting for you to be virtuous or to be mindful or to be aware. There is no separation. There is not two. There is only everything and that is no thing or nothing. This is the relative absolute. It is empty fullness. It is what is and what isn't. A separate self can never find something else. It can never find the way it is because that is no thing or nothing. There is no self. and there is no separate absolute. There is only all there is. There is nothing appearing as everything for nobody. The human condition, man's existential angst is not caused by attachment, it is caused by separation. Poor me! Alas, why do I suffer? What does it all mean? Is it all a cosmic joke? Is there a God? Blah, blah, blah.... The body is just an appearance, like any other appearance such as the sky and the grass and the birds and the bees. It does not possess ethereal consciousness - there is no such thing. There is only what appears to be happening. There is only all there is, which is to say everything and nothing. Nothing appearing as everything for nobody. It is hopeless for the Spiritual Seeker. There is no hope. It is meaningless. Give it up lefties.
Yes . . . inner chatter . . . air bubbles . . . . and there is nothing wrong with air bubbles . . . they are on automatic . . . sometimes there sometimes not.
@@nondualityfun thank you! I love your channel, please dont stop making videos! I also bought your book -I am happy, that it was available in Germany :)
I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I seem to know that that "old Zen saying" you mentioned, isn't from Zen at all but from the original Pali canon, specifically in the Bahiya Sutta - I've heard enough teachers quote it I guess, whithout actually having read it. Good to see a new video after a longish pause. :) I finished Turjman's book, and I think there's some good info there, but in the end, like this channel, it does seem to be overly fixated on the brain and neurological processes. I mean that's fine for a standard materialist, or even someone who is more scientifically oriented, like myself, but the typical non-duality teacher suggests that while the brain may offer some interesting correlations, it too is just an appearance and that EVERYTHING that we can conceptualize is just that, a thought, not reality, which is the immedieate present experiencing, constantly changing, yatta, yatta. I THINK what you are getting at here in the video - correct me if I'm wrong is basic warning to not get carried away with the traditional spiritual teaching of - just drop the me, practice boundless being (or whatever yoru preferred term is), and you will be at at peace, even more so you will be in great pleasure even? As a more "level-headed" type of "seaker" although I'm not sure I identify as one in the conventional way, I listen to teachers who are much less about doing this and becoming some Buddha who spends most of his day in cessation or other meditative states. Rather the teachers I listen to are all very aware of the idea that after you see through the self, have a shift in identity, etc., you can then discard the seaking and realize that the relative and the absolute are the same thing. That we get to experience the relative but take it for what it is - just appearances. It just means that we don't get caught up in the narratives and struggles because we know it's ultimately not happening for a small seperate self who needs to (or even ever could) have a "good" life, or be enlightened, etc. But it sounds like your main target is more the gurus who are trying to sell people on a perpetual state of oneness/nirvana/bliss/etc. without any need or desire to ever deal with the relative again, or as little as possible. Am I right? If so, that's great, but it seems like there's a lot of teachers out there, perhaps more recently than in the past (?) who emphasize "integration" and getting back to the real world and not having to deal the pretense of being an enlightened "person" because you see through that charade anyway, so it's pointless and inauthentic anyway. Let me know if I got your main message or if I'm totally off.
I wrote the paragraphs below only to discover I hadn't answered your question at all. Yes . . .I like how you've put it - relative and absolute are the same thing so no need to seek and no-one to seek. The only thing I'd disagree with is that my target is not the nirvana spouting gurus but the one's waxing lyrical about how 'their' me has dropped and as a result there is liberation and a seeing of nothingness and silence and appearance . . . when all that's happened is a tilt into the right hemisphere (and yes I was a part of that group). Below is a ramble that doesn't answer your question so feel free to read or not. There was a wait . . . I had an ear infection just as I was about to record and was 95% deaf for a while! Since it is the brain seeing non-duality then I would say there can’t be enough emphasis . . . or we’re back into superstition. The mind is like an interface . . . instead of zeros and ones on a computer we see a pretty symbol of an envelope that means emails. The mind is like those pretty symbols . . . but the symbols themselves have no reality to them. The brain creates a pretty symbol called self and a pretty symbol called non-duality . . . . . To say non-duality came first seems to just be man’s attempt to ‘know’ reality . . . . to say duality came first seems to also be man’s attempt to ‘know’ reality . . . . but we only view life through those prisms because that’s the only two views that the brain has. Nothing wrong or right with either view . . . . but it’s mammothly astonishing to find that non-duality, which has been deemed as a truth is only a view according to a brain. Both ‘appearance’ and ‘physicality’ are man’s view. Is it astonishing to ‘view’ from just the right hemisphere? Yes . . . but it’s not truth. And besides . . . no-one gets enlightened or sees more truth from a ‘dropped me’. The ‘me’ is an interface. Life is most likely an abundance of energy (with no consciousness) but no-one with either view could possibly point to ‘reality’ as either appearance or material and speak from a position of authority. Neither non-duality nor duality are ‘it’. There are no ‘me’s’ anywhere. No-one can find truth via non-duality or duality. That really throws everything out!!!! What a great unknowable mystery!!!!
@@nondualityfunSome wag once said that the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. It's incredible what the study of the brain can tell us about our mind and perception. It's so much that one could be forgiven for thinking that the brain actually causes the mind. But then of course, strictly logically, this is absurd. The brain is fully a figment of the mind. You just can't escape the mind and its productions. Maybe it's the case that the right hemisphere can see some relative truths that the left can't? McGilchrist would say we should prioritize those truths, in general, because of the more personal, biased focus of the left?
@@nondualityfun thanks for responding. I'm still at a point where most of this stuff is conceptual, but I do feel like after having read and listened to a lot, I have a reasonable conceptual understanding of the different "takes" on things. Most recent reading suggests that the whole "awakening" thing is really just what you are alluding to - realizing that the "self" or "me" is just a construct, a mechanism that doesn't represent what conventional society believes it does (an individual soul or what have you), and that after this awakening, it will still continue to do it's thing and make things happen in "your" life, but you see it much more clearly or what it is. You don't take it seriously and don't believe it is "you" but just another appearance that is happening that "you" are privvy to. So perhaps some people mean this when they talk about "dropping the me" while others, particularly those who haven't really seen through it, still think that they will simply be without this self/selfing mechanism after awakening. The following I wrote about someone that may have some vague relevance to some of the misunderstanding of all of this, but you're free to ignore it - I mainly wrote it because it's been swimming around in my head for a while and it was nice to actually get it out on the page (or div in this case): It's funny because I know this younger person who got very involved in this stuff and then started talking as if they were going through awakening. Recently they said that their "self had dissolved." I've had this suspicion all along that they have been BSing in order to be validated, but maybe part of them also believes their own BS. They also talk endlessly about themselves in every comment I've seen them make, and they have their own RU-vid channel where they talk endlessly about their daily experiences in life. So, something doesn't quite add up there. And for whatever reason it bugs me a bit, but I also feel bad for this person who I think is still kind of young and figuring out life but has attacherd themselves to a "tribe" of folks based on some charasmatic "teachers." The teachers themselves, from what I can see, are not trying to dellude people, they are just talking from their own experience and some of that is very "clear" - they are very level headed and are quick to warn people about the pitfalls of this stuff, and they don't put themselves out on a pedestal and don't even call themselves teachers. They also don't call them on their BS when they starts spouting it though, they just humor her. So I sometimes wonder whether they are secretly feeling like they know they are selling themselves and others a story, but I guess that would be rude to do, at least in public, and even in private I would assume could end up causing a lot of hurt feelings or worse. Anyway, this is all neither here nor there but it was nice to finally write about it, lol!
Ha Ha! The answer might land me in hot water!! I would say a very hard landing on right hemisphere's views . . . . which turn out to be just right hemisphere's views. When really there is no-one . . . . no landing required . . . no need for the latter day non-duality saints movement with the obligatory introduction of "This is boundless energy" . . . and then waiting for all followers to land in right hemisphere's views as if that is freedom. No one is free . . . and fomo baiting everyone into thinking they must have a hard landing themselves kills the whole wonderment and artistry of life . . . which can only be unknowable. No one needs to force-fit themselves into a view. Neither of the two views can reveal anything except a view . . . wondrously unknowable!
Just to add to my comment below . . . . I personally like all the presenters . . . . including Jim . . . and there is wonder and beauty in the hard right position . . . it's the hard right position held by the radical group though that now seems to have crumbled . . . and led to a massively wonderful non landing . . . because even non-duality itself as THE answer isn't an answer at all.
@@nondualityfun The reason Mr. Newman is the only presenter I watch is because of his meeting introductions. They're often informative/interesting and he points out that he has nothing to offer that's going to help you. I stopped watching the question-and-answer section that follows a long time ago. He also gives good interviews.
Yes, interesting- thank you. This would seem plausible- though you either haven’t listened to, so haven’t wanted to incorporate some of the fairly detailed feedback offered since your last video. I’ll keep an open mind for now, and continue the search for the truth. Be aware that there’s also plenty of food for thought in ND circles following David Mcdonald’s vid- though that’s rather different to yours.
Just had a look at one of his videos. You know what? I did address some of the things similar to what David McDonald says . . . . but it must have ended up on the cutting room floor when I trimmed the video . . . but I will do a video addressing trauma and non-duality. If too much is included it becomes too much and I already receive lots of complaints about my videos being too long. Was there a different but specific point you wanted addressed?
@@nondualityfun thanks for the reply. Actually I was trying to gently refer to someone else - it was a feedback video on your last video. If you search for "Can Awakening Be Reduced to Brain Function?" you might be interested. Trying not to step on anyone's toes here :-)
Everything is just as it is without any definitions, descriptions, stories, or anything in particular being identified and therefore no individuality and so everything as a whole or wholeness. Then we come along and identify something in particular, give it a definition, describe it, then make a story out of it, and experience that story as happening or real. Because the identification of anything in particular has no effect on that there is already everything regardless if anything is identified, the identification or impression of individuality has no reality, or is not really happening, or isn't real, and there is just everything as a whole or wholeness which is free from the need for anything to be identified and so absolute freedom (non-duality).
An emphatic yes . . . . and . . . . that's just the right hemisphere's view. While it's true that all definitions don't exist except in man's mind . . . . same with man's nonduality view. Man arrogantly thinks his view is right. First he projected a god in his likeness . . . then he projected his consciousness as a true divine source . . . and now he projects his right hemisphere's views as 'it'. So . . . the suggestion is . . . . . a delicious no landing . . . not even in non-duality.
haha....the background music when right hemisphere was speaking, that gave me a nice smile. I have a question - So what the brain (in the animation) was doing was question and answer back and forth, but the right hemisphere was pointing towards wholeness and that there is no me. Correct? Although it was for no individual because that is made up. Just appearance
Yes . . . . right hemisphere points to wholeness (or just happens to view in terms of wholeness) and there is no me. The 'me' is a simulation. The right hemisphere isn't actively pointing to wholeness as if there is a me to receive that pointing.
This seems to have taken me back to where my seeking first started approximately 13 years ago 😮. I didn’t understand it then but the pieces seem to have finally fallen into place after watching this video. Thank you Clare
With all respect, the "mistake" of the separate self to land and grasp to concepts becomes harder to see the deeper this goes because as we see more unity in separation, the mind wants to land in the obviousness of correlation. Correlation, however, is always akin to orobouros, chicken and egg. There is nothing to solve, only temporarily. Keep going. ❤
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. 😅
Well to be honest I don't know the term singularity . . . . so I guess ignorance is the answer as to why. I just looked it up and google says "While duality presents contrasting hues and contradictions, the singularity calls us to transcend these dualities and embrace the symphony of celestial unity." If you have a better definition please share it because I have a problem with that definition. Why would a singularity call anyone to transcend duality? . . . that would infer that the singularity sees in terms of duality. I would have said Non-duality is saying singularity is already the case. Although . . . . if the brain can only "see" in terms of duality and non-duality (or singularity if you prefer) it's possible that reality itself may not even be either of those . . . . it's just the only two ways a human brain that is simulating a mind can see . . . period. Reality is unknown and unknowable. One could even say, what reality?
I'd suggest Sapolsky's discussions on lack of freewill based on biology, neuroscience, anthropology, etc. It negates the "me" with 100% science. No "spirituality" in the common sense of it. Realizing non duality isn't a lateral lobotomy, it's putting the left brain in its place. The left brain still works, it just doesn't dominate with its lies. You can build a house with it, do math, etc. so it's *not* a lobotomy, as that would render those functions unavailable. The teachings that "there's no brain, no this, no that" is just pointing to the fact that those things are concepts and not direct experience. They're trying to expose a crack in the constant projection of concepts onto experience as more real than the experience itself. Donald Hoffman, another scientist does an excellent job of discussing the scientific perspective, underpinning such understanding with facts, from biology to quantum physics. Look him up discussing "reality" as illusion. The brain is functioning naturally but some natural functions are experientially dysfunctional. A viper's venom in your veins is "functioning naturally" as it kills you, but you probably want to get medical assistance. The dominance of conceptual thought is just such a dysfunction of a system functioning naturally. 100% of human insanity, cruelty, deep suffering, etc. is on account of this dysfunction. If "neighbor" is directly seen as "self", there's no need for morality or ethics... You seem to be approaching it as if it's a recipe, technology, or "problem" to be "figured out." Those brain scans likely don't indicate that people have changed their brains. They indicate how the use of the brain has changed. If you gave my guitar to a pro who kept it for a few years and I got a 2nd one like it over that time, it would look totally different. The pro plays more, holds it differently, plays in different positions, etc. so the wear on the instrument will look different from the one I'd played over that time. Will you say "whoah!, the pro plays better because his guitar looks different in these ways from the rank beginner who lent it to him!"? No. Usage changed the instruments differently. It's like Einstein's brain not being all that spectacular compared to the average one. It's the usage, not the tool.
