The Code of Non Duality is Cracked 

never beLIEve...for beLIEve has a"lie" right at the center.

Especially I wouldn’t trust speakers who say, “ I don’t understand this my self / it can’t be understood. Suggesting that they know that 🤷.

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.

A delicious no landing?

@@MsCankersore Freefall? Is that a better word?

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!

no I don't think so, perhaps easier access through his neural pathway meditation training. But he's defo a left brainer.

Yeah, he doesn't really do anything for me either (not that it matters)

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!

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.

@@nondualityfun I was talking about the mental seeking which won’t stop because of this knowledge. Thanks for the answer, but I don’t get it 🤷🏼‍♂️.

@@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 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.

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.

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!

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

@@nondualityfun 😃

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

@@nondualityfun Tim Freke has some interesting things to say on this.

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.

He's as stuck as they get.

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 :)

Looking that up now as I hadn't heard of those terms Rangtong/Shentong . . . so far in my reading . . really interesting.Thanks!

Caution: Everything is a perspective. 🎉 Wanting to know will appear as knowing.

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 :-)

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.

@@nondualityfunhave cake and eat it

I like that word! Uniduality!