วีดีโอ

1. You're very welcome. I don't know what your spiritual or philosophical background is, but trust that good reasoning is *a part* of the path. So, in any case, holds Advaita Vedanta. The last part is to dive in where reason cannot tread. 2. If you ask, "Who is frustrated, or more frustrated, or indeed less frustrated?," as Ramana Maharshi invites to do, then the answer will surely become clear to you. Find out "who?" and see what it's like.

Thank you for the kind, compassionate words. There may be, at least, two meeting places that bring us a touch closer together. One is Keating's centering prayer: centeringprayer.com/. Another may be the works of Raimon Panikkar: www.raimon-panikkar.org/english/laudatio.html. That "closer together" means "in dialogue," not "in conversion." Take care, Andrew

Religion was created by man, by the ego. God doesn’t make rules or judgment. God is love, love and happiness is one and the same….

A neat experiment is included at the end of the video. Maybe the last 2-odd minutes. It goes something like this: 1. Start with "the moment before you need more happiness." Savor that moment. Smell the air. Feel your breathing. Really taste whatever it is about that experience that's happy. 2. *Then* drop all the visualizations, all imagining and see what remains. Stay open with what remains. Give yourself up to it. This is a glimpse of true happiness.

You're quite welcome. Thank you for this kind reply. Really nice treatments of this metaphysical subject ("Being *is*.") can be found in Peter Kingsley's long book "Reality" or--very clearly so--in "The Ashtavakra Samhita." I discuss the latter text, in a succinct manner, here: pathwaystotao.substack.com/p/the-blessedness-of-self-knowledge.

On the one hand (you note), uniformity. On the other hand, hyperfragmentation. A Scylla and Charybdis... For me, then, the broader question turns on how "we moderns" can live in a time that's so stunningly incoherent. The book that really revealed this profound incoherence for me was Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" (1981).

You might find Paul Kingsnorth's story interesting, then. Here's one of his accounts: www.firstthings.com/article/2021/06/the-cross-and-the-machine.

@@secondaxialage thank you

Great comment! A few remarks: 1. When you ask, "What am I?“ just be silent. Of course, you might be simply conveying, in your comment above, what it wordlessly the case for you during meditation. For that reason, I may misunderstand your answer: "I am consciousness." And yet, if I'm not misreading your reply and so if that thought often arises during meditation, then just let it go and sink naturally into the silence of being. 2. "Is consciousness fundamental or has consciousness sprung from this self-replicating system of matter?” One could wade through a lot of absolute idealist philosophy and then one could vigorously go through trenchant critiques of materialism or physicalism--but such is not necessary! The direct path teaching of Advaita Vedanta cuts right through this question--and helpfully, elegantly so. a. See clearly that this question is _just a thought_. b. And now see that all thoughts are simply arisings. c. To what are all of these thoughts, including the one above, arising? To consciousness! d. Therefore, simply be conciousness wakefully! e. "But I have more doubts!" Then go through, gently and not mechanically, a-d above. 3. The answers to your questions will come experientially once you let vritti--or mental activity--naturally (not forcefully) come to a halt. With kindness, Andrew

Wow, that's a very kind comment. And it's also a testament--your comment, I mean--to the possibility of genuine civic discourse even in the digital age.

@@secondaxialage My pleasure! Yes I'm working on an EdD right now at a social justice themed university and I have been getting a little alarmed and depressed at how immature and generalizing the supposed "academic/intellectual" speech has become, with nobody even challenging this decline and watering down of how we present ideas, not to mention the inability for people to engage in debates with those of opposing views. Everyone just gets the deer-in-headlights blank stare, or they start panicking and hysterically shut down the conversation out of fear. I'm trying to keep a positive attitude and hoping more people start taking your approach in the way they speak and the level of intelligence to which they (hopefully) choose to arise.

@@OneSliceNation Well said. And agreed. Wishing you well with this project.

Thank You ! ! It is astonishing that not one point of the 95 was taken to heart and Luther’s sincere love & concern for the Church was viciously buried, persecuted and made anathema in a grievously revealing fascist reaction

Your proposals all sound reasonable to me. And yet, how feasible do you think it is for there to be a public policy that, at this point, requires 18-year-olds to "participate in public works like construction, farming or joining the military for 2 years"? It seems that there would need to be a pretty seismic change in public political philosophy *before* such a policy could 'make sense'.

​ @secondaxialage For now everyone is looking for the easy road, but the easy road only goes downhill. Once they get to the bottom, they will realize that there is only one way out of the mess they are in. Similar to the cycles of politics. After democracy, once everyone has voted for all the free handouts and their is nothing left, it takes a strong hand to guide people out of the mess. Sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom before you are willing to change your life. And sometimes it takes a tyrant to make you change. Personally, I spend too many years looking for shortcuts and the easy road. This is why I will raise my son to be better than I was and take responsibility and be of benefit to society. I may not be able to control public policy, but I sure can make a difference in my son's life. As the saying goes, "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times." I am preparing my son for the hard times to come.

@@chdao You state, "This is why I will raise my son to be better than I was and take responsibility and be of benefit to society." Are you, e.g., homeschooling your son, then?

@@secondaxialage Yes, homeschool is the only thing that makes sense to us. And you? Do you have kids?

@@chdao No, yet over the years the topic of homeschooling ("unschooling" [Illich]) has come up during philosophical conversations with conversation partners. One man, for instance, recently started homeschooling his young son--and soon daughter. I think he's going, at least to begin with, for a classical education.

That's actually true--but the truth is clear only, often, after many years of introspective investigation.

You're quite welcome. And thank you for this thoughtful reply. I'm not that familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology and practice. I did read Bernard Mcginn's introductory volume: "The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism." The philokalia, for instance, is mentioned therein and I found it wonderful. Years ago, my wife and I returned to our Christian roots, and we practiced, for a good while, Centering Prayer (which was developed by Thomas Keating). We found in Advaita Vedanta all that we were looking for: robust metaphysical doctrine, wonderful teachers like Gaudapada and Sri Atmananda, and clear practices. And so, that's where we landed. If you're interested, you can find a little bit on the practice side in this short video: th-cam.com/video/O20HTyZ-FNs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=592z67IuBbXOeumS.

"The Europeanised Jesus" sounds like a name of a 90s band. ;)

Popkin, in A History of Skepticism, shows that skepticism with regard to the criterion of truth has haunted the West since the Reformation. And look at the fallout in modern culture now! Dogmatists *assert* without being able to substantiate their claims while a skeptical attitude--a sense that the criterion by which the assertion is made is not itself justified or can, in any case, be met with doubts--likewise feels unsatisfactory. It's a quagmire for sure.

@@secondaxialage Truth? As with the laws of physics, search for that which has not and cannot change.

Not quite as grand or as wide-ranging as Taylor's epic account, but it could be considered one part of Taylor's broader, astonishing story.

You're very welcome.

@@secondaxialage The"me" being brain-damaged keeps forgetting we need objects for the consciousness to keep us from being in a permenant "as-if" sleep in the Parabrahman, so turyia to you!! Once again, thank you!

@@Lawrence.Bennett One "keeps forgetting." Yet you're that which knows the object, the thought labeled "forgetting" (nama). Be this knowing, turiya. 🙏

Love it! His 2 works are really great. Have you seen his aphorisms (or heard him recite them)? The first one is right out of Gaudapada: www.merrell-wolff.org/fmw/aphorisms.

@@secondaxialage I sat with him in '74 and '75 at the ashram.

@@kiplambel4052 Amazing! This really makes my day.

His theoretical expositions are great. "The Idea of the World" is, I think, his best book.

My wisdom is more divine than yours but thanks for playing.😂😂😂😂😂

1. "My hypothesis is it needs an observer, otherwise, there is no existence." This needn't just be a hypothesis; it's confirmed by meditation or--call them--introspective experiments. Case A: Try, for instance, to experience seeing-arising without *being aware* of seeing-arising. You'll discover that such is impossible. Hence, *being aware* of seeing-arising is a necessary condition for seeing-arising. Case B: Simply consider (in ordinary parlance) that the eyes may be open, and yet there may be the experience not of seeing but of deep daydreaming. Then witnessing consciousness is *aware of* daydreaming (imagining). This shows that any objective experience is *dependent upon* witnessing consciousness in order to appear. 2. Go further, now, than the hypothesis. Even the observer stand ultimately disappears or dissolves. If you listen to the last 2 minutes of this video (th-cam.com/video/crenFbrOiKg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5vJ5e9K28qhJo7GH), you'll find a thought experiment that's meant to mimic what Vedantins refer to as "deep sleep." It's worth trying as it starts to hint at "samadhi" or "nirvikalpa samadhi."

@@secondaxialage I have experienced samadhi If I didn’t mention in the above post… I was observing the observer, and I removed both. Nothing was left, and I was everything.,

This is just the right question. What a keen one. Here it is again: "I can see why consciousness is fundamental in its own right but I can't see why the deliverances to consciousness can't be sourced from fundamental beings in their own right - objective objects." Let me offer a short answer here; a longer answer here: pathwaystotao.substack.com/p/an-introduction-to-advaita-vedanta. 1. The Vedantic teaching unfolds in a series of steps. Each step is "sublated" by the next step as the understanding is refined via intellect and, above all, through meditation. 2. The starting point for this video essay is a misunderstanding thanks to physicalism (plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ ). In order to correct this misunderstanding, we start with a standard picture that no reasonable being would reject: there is a subject and there is an object. Then the question is: "What, in truth, is the subject, what the object?" 3. *It turns out* that witnessing consciousness is the subject, and the body, mind, and world are all objects (so understood). 4. We're now in a position to answer your question. At this stage, we then "go back" and examine objects. And what's discovered, in fact, is that objects are made only of consciousness. Here are sub-steps: (4a) Objects arise in consciousness. (4b) Objects are pervaded by consciousness. And (4c), in the final analysis, just as waves are only made of water, so objects (or arisings) are only made of consciousness. 5. Therefore, it's *experientially understood* that there is only consciousness, i.e., that all that exists is nothing but consciousness. This is the *absolute end* of suffering and, what is the same thing, the *absolute peace* that is none other than consciousness. Coda: Of course, all of these steps need to be understood experientially, and that cannot be conveyed in a TH-cam reply. The intellectual understanding can be conveyed (hence this reply), but not the experiential understanding. The former invites one to dive deep into meditation in order to realize the truth for oneself.

@@secondaxialage I can't thank you enough for taking the time to give such a thorough answer to my question. I'll definitely go through the long answer you linked to. I agree with the general thrust of the explanation you give despite my brief encounters with meditation. I'd like to take it further a bit by adding a few more considerations. My first encounter with similar ideas was with the philosopher George Berkley's criticism of the distinction between secondary and primary properties in empiricism. After a lengthy struggle with him, I was convinced that there was something suspicious about the 'objectivity' of objects. Nonetheless, I couldn't quite let it go. In part 4 of your answer, you put forth several facts about our experience of objects. There may still be room for reality independent of consciousness in this picture. We agree on step (4b) that consciousness pervades objects as they arise. I'd continue the ideas this way. The consistency of such objects is a mark of their structured nature - one that seems independent of ourselves as witness consciousness. These objects appear to us, yes, but they retain their being and identity in a way seemingly independent of our whim or anything we can identify as part of ourselves. Doesn't this smell of objective behaviour? A kind of persistence that is independent of us. This apple I presently hold will endure as it is in experience regardless of how long I look at it. Here is a question that might clarify what I mean. Why does consciousness pervade these things so faithfully and with such costly diligence? I'd expect to see a freedom of form on the thesis that consciousness is fundamental but the content of experience is remarkably rigidly structured. I can't help but posit that this is because other beings, just as fundamental, structure and condition consciousness. I tried my best to put this into words so forgive me if it's still a bit obscure. I am eagerly looking forward to your answer when you can offer it.

​@@gofaonepaul You're asking just the right questions. 1. You'll find an answer to your excellent question if you go through the experiments in Greg Goode's The Direct Path: A User Guide. Goode wrote his Ph.D. dissertation, in fact, on Berkeley. 2. For now, here's a reply (#2-9) that's in line with Goode's: "These objects appear to us, yes, but they retain their being and identity in a way seemingly independent of our whim or anything we can identify as part of ourselves. Doesn't this smell of objective behaviour? A kind of persistence that is independent of us." It does "smell" of objectivity--*but* it's not there. Let's see: 3. Put an object--a rock, an orange, etc.--in your hand. Close your eyes, and pay attention only to touching. That is, set aside seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, thinking, and feeling. Now, what if, following Goode's lead, we were to drop the label "object" and substitute the label "arising"? Henceforth, we won't use the label "object," only the provisional (clearer) label "arising." 4. What is your direct experience? It's only a sensation: a tingling or warm or dull (etc.) sensation. Does that sensation tell you, on its own, that it's a physical object? No, it doesn't. Do you find (consider too, e.g., Hume) that there's, in your direct experience of this sensation, a cause of this sensation? No, you don't. You just find the sensation. Do you find, in your direct experience of sensation, that there's a hand feeling or doing the touching? No. Again, just the tingling sensation. Be, as Rupert Spira says, like a newborn infant. Go back through #4 until this is clear. 5. Go further. Do you actually discover *a continuously present* sensation here? No. It comes and goes, rises and falls. Look closely. See that the sensation is tingling--rising and falling--and, as such, is not continuously present. 6. For all these reasons, there can't be "an object" outside of experience, and this experience is, in fact, just sensing-arising. And this sensing-arising isn't continuously present (it doesn't perdure); it's intermittent. 7. Now, what is THAT which is continuously present while sensing-arising is occurring *and* when sensing-arising is absent? Witnessing consciousness! Witnessing consciousness is continuously present! 8. But--here's the surprise--YOU are witnessing consciousness. So, *you*--not some imaginary object--are continuously present throughout all experience, i.e., throughout all arisings. You're like a single line that runs through all temporary arisings. 9. Therefore: BE witnessing consciousness *knowingly*.

Great question; really good. Here's an attempt at a short answer: Yes, this is apophatic. BUT the apophatic and the cataphatic ultimately point to what's beyond conception but not beyond "knowing" or "direct experiencing." The first negates conception to point beyond while the second affirms--and must also point beyond verbal affirmation. Why does this matter? Because it *experientially reveals* the self-evidence of the Source. This *experiential understanding* shows that atheism, ultimately, is not and cannot be true.

No

@TCZ17090 To clarify, I'm saying anyone who says they know and practice the right way, more authentic way, or with more reverence, and that what they do is what God wants hasn't died to themselves. Read the comment section of any TLM channel on TH-cam talking about Pope Francis and tell me how many excommunicated souls you can count through Latae Sententiae. Looking forward to your response.