Letting go of "I, Me, Mine": Gary Weber 

WHY DID THEY DO THAT????

Its to shock your posterior cingulate cortex into inactivity !

'For the love of God' ? What's that?

Just in case you were lost in thoughts...

Oh please … it was just badly designed.

Agree. He was one of the first I encountered around 6y ago and still find him very valuable. Legit, honest and pragmatic

I agree... it made me very tense. Why such a contrast?

Thank you for sharing!

Nice. Something new. Good. I got bored.

Nature/Spirit never intended humans to live without an "I" which is the Soul or Self. Non dual is solipsism. It is one realization among infinite realizations. The problem comes when neophytes experience Unity and interpret it as the whole Truth. The integral path is the only true and complete path.

@@Magik1369 I would say he is well experienced if not an expert in this path, and we need to clarify what we mean by the "I". I would not hehehe say that you need or that the "I" was intended since we don't know that. Now I will say that in relation to the Frank Self that if you were to get rid of that kind of self as its defined that you would not be worse off in you well being, and your daily functioning, if not even better. This sense can come back in certain situations if it's manner of solving a problem is more efficient, id guess.

There is nothing to do means that you can’t prescribe or meditate or practice your way out of it, a mental shift is no form of doing but rather of inner realization. When the weight of the “I” is directly experienced and recognized by the person, their life begins to naturally shift and the naturally move away from those patterns. It is like when you see a delicious cake in front of you, and just as you prepare to dig in, the chef lets you know that the special ingredient is rat poison. Now you will not eat the cake, not because you have meditated or practiced your way away from consumption, but because you know the truth about the consequences of indulging.

I’ve also found Michael A. Singer to be very helpful. Good luck on your path

😂

I doubt they understand your sarcasm here.

You and this man are in a dream do you understand why there is no "I, my, me" There is only one I that dreamed it all up. Love, sensations, emotions, colors ect. exist to fool you that this dream is real. Just like you are in a night dream wierd things happens and you don't thing omg that is imposible.

@@sonikwro As Gary points out there absolutely must be an "I" when using language, because that's how it's structured. While there might be only one "I" in an ultimate sense, that doesn't mean there aren't things ("individuated units of consciousness", in Tom Campbell's terminology) which can legitimately call themselves an "I", and which _must_ do so when using verbal language to communicate with each other. Even Krishna in the Baghavad Gita uses the word "I" (translated into English, of course). Everything is a dream, and all dreams are real.

@@halfacanuck Yes, The One 'I' dreamed it all up. Just like in night dream all worlds and creatures are the dreamer itself. There is no one in this universe but The I. Yours identification make it harder for The I but that is OK. The I loves you and lets you be as you are and thats why you suffer. Until you let go yourself identification and awake from illusion of yours I. Any questions?

@@sonikwro Who are you calling "you", if I can't legitimately use the word "I"? How do you know I identify with anything in particular? What do you mean "makes it harder"? Why/how does the "one I" love me if I don't really exist? Why/how would the "one I" let me be myself if there is no "myself" distinct from it? How do you know I suffer? Are you saying Krishna was incorrect and suffering in an illusion because he used the words "I" and "you" when talking to Arjuna?

@@sonikwro To put it another way: you seem to be implying that it's possible for a relationship (of love and tolerance) to exist between me and the "one I"; but a relationship requires three things: the two which are related, and the relation. You can't in one breath insist there's only one thing, then in the next breath tell me it can have a relationship with other things. Even to say "the one" with any meaning requires that there be another which isn't the one against which to contrast it, otherwise it cannot be delineated and identified; and to say there is the-one and not-the-one is to say there are _three_ things, those being the-one, not-the-one, and both together. Three, in fact, is the smallest possible natural number. Not one, not two, but three. Perhaps you're one of those people who've missed the point entirely and mangle their language in order to avoid using the word "I", which is a mere word game because it's impossible to remove the subject from a subject-verb-object language, just as it's impossible to remove the ball from a basketball game. It's there by definition. The point is to eliminate the automatic "I thoughts" from one's experience, and thinking in terms of a "one I" (even though, as I said above, that can't really exist concretely but is just a concept) can help achieve that. But it shouldn't be mistaken for reality itself. It's a conceptual tool which can be abandoned once the mind settles into what Gary calls the "sweet stillness". I suggest it might be worth asking yourself whether your unsolicited lecturing of people on RU-vid might be a distraction from that goal. The point is to silence your own mind, not "fix" other people's ideas.

And please remove the music altogether. It adds nothing.

Right?! Freaked my bird out

The more I look into the teachings of Jesus with mindfulness I see the teachings so much more meaningful.

"You know, sir, unless we keep our house in order, meditation and other things have no value. Right? If my house, which is me, is not in complete order, without any conflict, what is the point of meditation? It is another escape, another illusion. But when my house is in order, completely, without any shadow in my house, then meditation is something entirely different. But we think by meditating, god knows what, then your house will be in order. See how deceptive we are." Jiddu Krishnamurti

In essence, he’s speaking on the experience of full loss of the ‘I’ that can suffer, or at least make a story out of suffering. Suffering can arise then, but in a full now-moment, as is any moment.

Correct! Pure Advaita Vedanta à la Ramana Maharshi

And what was the source of the Upanishad? It all comes from no-self, the infinite being, Atman. How is your tribal national identity relevant to a discussion of beimg that is prior to identity?

Agreed! Gary Weber has such important information to impart - the loud and cheesy segue music sounds so amateurish.

Indeed at the death of ‘I’ ‘you’ wll merge into timeless eternity. Luckily I’ve had that ‘experience’ happen naturally several times while being ‘alive’ as well. It could therefore help to drop the context of what is being meant by death exactly.

It is not known. Nobody knows, so nothing wrong with models. And there is no "conciousness" as something existing apart from everything else. It is teaching model as well. Go and try experiencing conciousness without something for it to be concious of. Not possible. Awareness and the object of awareness are the same "thing".

@@domostroy33 What's immediately known by everyone is the existence of awareness. What's not known by anyone is whether so-called "matter" exists independent of awareness (let alone that it _generates_ awareness!). Of course, one can't use an epistemological argument to make ontological claims, but imo it's rather odd for a nonduality teacher (i.e., Gary) to be a materialist. It's a model I (and many teachers) consider spiritually limiting.

@@halfacanuck I don't find awareness to be prior in my experience. It's a good sounding model, but do you actually experience such a thing as "awareness prior" to anything? It is always without exception aware of SOMETHING. Again, awareness and what awareness is aware of, are one. You cannot split them apart. There is "awaring" going on continuously. Anything else is going one step too far, a model, a theory, not found in actual experience.

@@domostroy33 I didn't say awareness is "prior". I have no opinion on whether awareness can exist without an object of awareness because the fact that two things only occur together doesn't mean they're the same thing (i.e., simultaneity doesn't necessarily mean identity); and nor am I inclined to suppose that I've experienced everything that can be experienced, nor every "mode of existence", so to speak.

@@domostroy33 Don't you exist without thoughts and perceptions?

Yeah in previous discussions/interviews he would never share which posture it was, afraid that people would obsess over it.

Each individual (what’s left after the personality has been dissolved) has a different role to play in the grand scheme of things. He may not be meant to present wholeness/totality/oneness/tantrum. Each individual is a unique teacher who teaches something to the student that is ready to hear what the teacher has to say. (And the message comes from the higher self/ over soul/) The all is mind, everything is mental 🙏

Then you simply havent studied his work enough.

@@ordinaryguy815 That’s entirely possible. I’m not drawn to Gary Weber.

Yes.

@some dude They don't want us to be enlightened and empathetic?

@@squamoza "They" are just afraid of change, methinks

They want us to remain slaves to consumerism because they are yet slaves to their "egoic" minds as well. They believe their happiness (peace of mind) is dependent upon maintaining and gaining ever more status, power, and material wealth, and thus, they believe they need us to continue running in the "hamster wheel" to feed their "needs". That is why the consumtption of alcohol, sugar, caffeine, technology, and anti-depressants is so highly encouraged. People in power want us to remain cogs on the gears of the society that churns out what they think they need for well-being. In short, they are sleepwalking zombies who think enlightenment is a religious fantasy and thus another tool of deception and subjugation. P.S. The girl in your avatar is beautiful.

Not everywhere 😎

What God are you speaking of? Aren't "you" anthropomorphizing "I Am" into something like an egoic identity?

Curious on your perspective here: are we humans outside of God or inside? Is God above / seperate from us humans or are we a part of God? Your wording just made me think that you believe we are seperate.

@@Mandy-rl9vc 👍💯

The you here is the Science & Non-duality channel. Just like confusing mind and brain hehe

Chimpanzees aren't monkeys, they are primates

Why not? Why should they suffer both physical hunger and the mind's worrying and anxiety about it? Worry and anxiety depletes the energy and capacity for creative thought. The more hungry people worry about their hunger, the less likely they are to come up with a solution that can help them solve their lack of food.

Interesting! In my experience the dropping of my I for a few months was what ended me up in a situation with money. That no self-referential thought meant no confidence issues, no fear, no shame, etc, so It got damn easy to function more healthily, which resulted in help, job and food

Thought stops frequently when you are in the flow of an activity. However, when thought returns, it claims to have been there, experiencing the activity. Thought is just a narrator, and is often late to the party.

in your experience*

@@brushstroke3733 thought is what maintains the brain. where the water is, where the sustenance is, where the safety is, etc. ego is the narrator. ego comes and goes. the ego is thought. so is blue sky and solid ground and bright light. thought is identification. thought is always present however sometimes the ego is late to the party.

@@-a-l-t- Thought maintains the brain? Huh? Does an ant need thought to drink water and eat food? Yes, there are useful, non-egoic (non-identifying/claiming) thoughts, like how many minutes should I cook this burger, but there is certainly space between thoughts. You may have a different definition of thinking, but for me, simply experiencing sensations (visual, auditory, etc.) does not always involve thinking. Often, there is no thought, just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, without any conceptualizing occurring about that.

@@brushstroke3733 all knowledge is conceptual. all. all sensories are thought. they have been and continue to have identification with values. the symbols are interpreted. this is all thought. the ego claims thought.

Yes yes. More concepts please. MOOOORE

@@Mandy-rl9vc Cosmic Agency chanel. we are talking with the 7D Pleiadians aka Archangels. And I am one too

Who exactly? This youtube channel (/company), Gary Weber, all people who studied the functioning of the default network & published papers on it, fMRI technology, all people with or without I’s, humans in general?

You're wrong. If you watch the video he gives credit to Ramana Maharshi, quotes the Bhagavad Gita, and claims this is ancient knowledge.

@@michaeldevlin6147 Upanishads and bhagwat geeta is actually the same thing. Thanks for giving the credits. Ramana Mahrasi is the genious

@@ashokpandey8748 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachala Ramanaya! 🙏

Is India separate from the rest of the cosmos, or is that just duality? Who cares what you think the source is? Isn't the source Atman, and isn't Atman all things, everywhere? Does your Indian identity really mean that much to you?

@@brushstroke3733 I'm not from India but we should give credit to those scientists/scholars who discovered these truths. Atman is only for the people whose ego has completely dissolved. For others atman is just a myth. For others Duality is reality. as long as we live in duality, there will be identication. as long as we have body we have to live in duality, there is no any other option. so country exists as long as we are alive, we cannot avoid that reality.