Who are we? What is 'this'? 'Why' is this? What is it like to be you?
In this series of dialogues we pair scientists studying consciousness with those of us who have broken through to a radically different experience of consciousness. Their task: to answer these four simple questions and find meeting points.
God made man in his image... "his" being the man. The image in the mirror or out of the window are not seperate... In the beginning, the word became flesh and dwelt in us... the us being the word (cause reason plan) flesh dwelt in the word, just as the word dwelt in the flesh... awareness of the image as oneness.
There's absolutely nothing new about what Newman says, except his own rewording of the essence of non-dual traditions, plus he adds a incorrect heterodoxography to falsely make it seem he differs from them.
Sounds right, although I'd have to look up that word. It's dishonest or self deluded bullshit to say that degrees of identification with ideas of self doesn't happen during normal functioning after recognition of no self, even for the most enlightened sages. The descriptions people like Jim give of themselves makes them sound like horrific p zombies. There's possibly some pathology there that I won't name.
@@eubique Exactly, or otherwise just trying to get a foot in the anti-guru-market. Better to have a bunch of deluded groupies than to have to do heavy lifting to earn a living. A third option is more sinister, but it's unmentionable. Notice his name and look up the anti-initiatic trend of modernity according to René Guénon.
spontaneous laughter at the ridiculous nature of the paradox is the most obvious appearance of one who is not there :). You know, I have a problem with some of the language Jim uses, it's a little clumsy or confusing. I appreciate that he is beyond caring, it's just that when he refers to his being as 'nobody' or 'no one' it comes across as silly or at worst mentally ill. I'd go so far as to suggest, 'dressing it up' a bit, maybe just have a slightly different choice of words for the phenomena so that it communicats the idea better rather than coming across as mental illness, lol. He's not wrong though I think it's interesting the the 'buddha' often referred to himself as the Tathāgata, meaning 'one who has thus gone', also 'one who has thus come'. I guess it's very similar language really, lol
40 years of seeking and still keeps seeking... At least she took responsibility. On the other hand, Jim doesn't seem to like talking about his none existent self or the appearance illusion. Nevertheless, good conversation indeed.
Newman is interesting because his seeming complete lack of any love and or compassion is palpable and yet he talks about “love” being the source energy. 😂
Indeed a practical talk, showing how the inner & outer can meet as one & that it takes time to figure out that inner is the self while the outer is the shadow. Richard thank you for sharing the wisdom how the self unfolded to you. Keep up the teachings we all must return home.❤❤❤
11:10 - 12:15 Jim goes on a non-dual which even confuses himself. How is Jim so happy to describe something which ‘can’t be known’ but he is okay to mention it. How does he know it so clearly if it can’t be known or even defined.
He was way out of her league. She really was unable to realize, understand or get what he was pointing at. She’s spent so much time in her books and writing that the living breathing subject she was seeking all her life was embodied right there in front of her and she just couldn’t recognize it.
Lovely. And I like how at the end Richard said he didn't know where he was going with it, which was a bit like being between the levels he was talking about in that moment ha!
Harding pointed out that from a visual point of view there’s not much evidence that we’re individuals. The same is true of our auditary experience, our physical sensations (who’s breathing? Who’s thoughts are these? Our direct experience seems to conflict with the feeling of “I’m me.,”
Fifty years ago I decided to steal a book to see what it felt like. And because it fit easily into my coat pocket I chose “On Having No Head.”. Great choice!
1:39:00 - finish Here Richard perfectly demonstrates he has never actually transcended the apparent division between subject and object, he just plays with various morphings of it.
1:11:28 - 1:12:00 This actually goes to show that to say „I am god“ is false as long as one uses „I“ for one’s limited pov, as in „I like pizza“. Otherwise why should there be _anything_ surprising or worth noting about everyone being _included_ in the limitless ? Isn‘t that trivial ? The only one who is justified in such a declaration is one whose limited pov has _actually_ and _effectively_ been obliterated and disidentified with to where not even the most protracted and severe torture would elicit in him the slightest fear or unhappiness. An ibn Arabi, a Nisargadatta Maharaj etc. To all others, such pronouncements just might be tested by Life itself to their own profound remorse … better to „repent“ uncoerced while one can.
Human behavior experts say Jim exhibits numerous times behaviors that he is uneasy and has inner feelings that when trying to explain" this " he doesn't feel comfortable with the vacillation of being a "self" experiencing illusion and the "nothing " he claims to explain from the "self" he claims is illusory. Pure sophistry. There are some people in the world who have never seen or been through tough living.
Hahaha 😂brilliant !!! That's what a separate self does, it NEEDS... to be... heard, understood, seen, powerful, etc etc The appearance Jim , doesn't need... the longing is fulfilled.
So we all pack up and go home? You either get struck by nonexistent lightning or you don’t? This may be true but being told we are abjectly helpless is pretty depressing. 🤷🏻♂️😕🙏
Karl is the person in the world I would mist like to spend time with. He is the embodiment of the 'yes, and' type of being that McGilcrist describes rather than the "yes, but".
No further questions your honour! Great conversation and lovely to see how two seemingly different perspectives can actually have so much in common 🧐 ❤
This was a beautifuly balanced conversation. As it developed I felt an flowering as if that flower being xreated was answering the 'enveloped' questions
sorry for all my typos...what I meant to say was it was a beautifully balanced conversation that created a 'flower' from the answering of these questions.
I think there's definetly a process going on before anyone can have their 'moment' of waking up - a line. Before and after that line.. Jim did lots of meditation himself. I think it's unhelpful to assume you can just be however you are right now and expect anything to happen. I believe inner work is most often necessary before you can have nondual awareness. Possibly a few rare brains might wake up spontaneously, but that's very rare indeed.
I don’t want to be a wet blanket, but I thought I’d leave this comment here. The headless way caused me to dissociate for years. In 2021, when I was a desperate spiritual seeker, I came across Richard Lang’s “experiments” in Sam Harris’s Waking Up app. I became obsessed with them, because they seemed to “so easily get you enlightened”…that was the promise, anyway. I thought that if I could “see that I had no head” 100% of the time, I’d be *seeing the world as it really was,* or something along those lines. In actuality, I dissociated, depersonalized, and probably became diagnosably psychotic. The whole “two sides of you” thing…it’s directly dualistic, and using that formula, I sort of trained myself to “see myself from the first person perspective instead of the third person.” In other words, I taught myself to live solipsistically, and it was absolutely isolating and truly, truly awful. You have to actively keep up the act of doing it, too; it’s exhausting. Every second, you have to actively practice “seeing you have no head,” despite the fact that they claim it’s “simply what you are.” (If it was what you already were, why would you need to “discover” it? Or even “remember” it?) If someone claims to teach you “how to see nonduality,” they’re almost certainly being very, very, very dualistic…dividing everything into the “dual” and the “nondual.” The “first and third person perspectives.” I’m not attacking Richard, here. He seems like a very sweet and earnest man, as I think Harding was. And the headless way is an interesting exercise…once or twice I had some very, very vivid experiences using its technique. But they were just that…interesting experiences. There’s no higher truth in them, nothing to carry around with you, nothing to apply. The moment you get invested in trying to “see you’re headless” as a means of coping with things in your life, become enlightened, etc., you’re setting yourself up to really, really harm yourself psychologically and socially. In his interview with Sam on the podcast, Richard even directly states that he once had a huge public panic attack, which he tried and failed to overcome by “coming back to his true nature and recognizing he didn’t have a head.” Even here-and not to project, I don’t know what he’s experiencing-he seems very spaced out. The body isn’t naturally meant to relate to others that way. You have to actively teach it to, actively make everything feel that way. There is no magical substance, no mystical screen of pure awareness, in the “space where your head is.” You can train yourself to live as though there is, as though it’s “what you really are,” but actively trying to apply that as some kind of pure Truth or Reality only interferes with your ability to intuit sensory relationships. The body naturally knows how to visually sense things a lot better when you’re not actively feeding every perception through the filter of “my true nature.” “Experiencing things with the purity of no filter” is still a filter. Anyway, just be safe out there, guys. Love you 💙 Edit: Watched a little more, and Dr. Bhat seems wonderful! Very engaging speaker :)
