In a more recent video, th-cam.com/video/xUQ7SbPlsWc/w-d-xo.html (2023-10-28 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Understanding solipsism as taught by Bhagavan Ramana), Michael explained in more detail what he was trying to explain in the later part of this video about the extremely deep, subtle and nuanced teachings that Bhagavan Ramana gave us with regard to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda (the contention that perception alone is creation, or in other words that whatever we perceive or experience does not exist independent of our perception or experience of it) and ēka jīva vāda (the concomitant contention that there is only one jīva (soul), ego or experiencer, just as there is in a dream). While explaining this, Michael offered the following analytical set of premises and inferences for consideration: 1. We are the experiencer of all that we experience 2. As the experiencer, we always experience ourself as a person 3. As the experiencer, we perceive a world that is full of other people, who are just like the person we seem to be 4. Since we, the experiencer, always experience ourself as a person, every other person seems to us to be an experiencer, just like us 5. All the other people and their experiences are no less real than the person we seem to be 6. So long as we seem to be a person, we experience suffering, and every other person seems to us to experience suffering in the same way 7. So long as we are firmly convinced that this person whom we seem to be is what we actually are, then our suffering and the suffering of all other people will inevitably seem to us to be real 8. But are we this person? In other words, is this person what we actually are? 9. If this person is not what we actually are, our experience of ourself as ‘I am this person’ is an illusion, and hence unreal 10. Everything that we (as the experiencer) experience is based upon our experience of ourself as a person, because we experience things other than ourself only when we experience ourself as a person (namely in waking and in dream) 11. Therefore if our experience of ourself as ‘I am this person’ is an illusion, our experience of everything else must be equally illusory 12. If our experience of everything else is illusory, the person we seem to be and all the other people are a part of that illusion, and hence unreal 13. If the person we seem to be and all the other people are unreal, their suffering and everything else that they seem to experience must also be unreal 14. Therefore, since the appearance of multiple experiencers exists in the view of ourself as an experiencer who experiences itself as a person, if we are not this person, then the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is an illusion, and hence unreal 15. Since there can be no appearance without an experiencer of it, the root cause of the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is the experiencer of it, namely ourself 16. Therefore, before we can reliably judge the reality of the appearance of multiple experiencers, we first need to investigate and find out the reality of ourself, in whose view all those multiple experiencers seem to exist A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to or downloaded from Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podbean.com ): ramanahou.podbean.com/e/bernardo-kastrup-and-michael-james-analytic-idealism-and-ramana-maharshi-s-advaita and a more compressed audio copy in Opus format (which can be listened on the VLC media player and some other apps) can be downloaded from mediafire.com/file/o4d910kuf2u2gdt
Hi! I have also written this comment under a different comment by someone else here but I would love to have some feedback: I am also struggling with this understanding because it is so impractical here and now. For example: "Therefore, since the appearance of multiple experiencers exists in the view of ourself as an experiencer who experiences itself as a person, if we are not this person, then the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is an illusion, and hence unreal" - I mean this is very obvious to me as "the ultimate consequence" but what are we supposed to do with this understanding when we are living inside of the illusion right now? Thats like telling a patient with multiple personality disorder that his other personalities are not real people. He can understand it but what is he going to do about it? He's trapped inside of the illusion by his condition and in this illusion they sure feel like different people for him and act like different people even for others. I also get the feeling that it takes away any meaning from experience categorically. Meaning doesnt exist fundamentally as the "one" has no experience and without experience there cannot be any meaning. In other words: In the attempt to avoid suffering you step outside the box in order to apply the "ultimate logic" derived from what truly exists. Coming from that point the person and the ego is an illusion and therefore the suffering is not "real". But to be consistent one most then follow and apply this logic to anything experienced in this illusion (even the positive) which makes the whole of life kind of obsolete because it turns it into a mere distraction. I have to agree more with Bernado here on this point in the sense that he embraces the illusion and what the illusion has to offer us right now and the suffering that comes with it.
One of the most profound and indepth discussions on the subject - fortunate that such a discussion is available which otherwise would take 100s of hours of reading and deciphering of scientific and spiritual text - gratitude and thanks
Sri Ramana Teachings.. Michael James Thank you for your depth of understanding of suffering. Thank you Bernardo Kastrup as I wouldn't be able to hear/feel Sir Ramana Teaching repetitiously without your questioning Michael. At 80 I loved the story of the guru.. who kept questioning his devotees concern of his cancer and for coming death, of where was he going when afflicted with cancer?. After decades of taking care of the dying, listening to the conversation of the three of you has brought them closer to me in the unborn world. Again Thank You!!!
the moderator is such a kind and sweet person, she is so eloquent and humble in her presentation of her beginning and the ending statements. Thank you for this wonderful discussion.
Fascinating discussion; for me the most interesting part came when Bernardo asked MJ whether ‘a 2 month old baby has ego’ … and MJ responded something like “the ego is experiencing thru the baby’ … this was a reversal of the frame thru which I looked at the world; quite a profound shift imo
Michael started the conversation believing they had a core difference and is struggling to allow the natural (and necessary) alchemy of different terms and schemas to reveal the shared territory. Which is very difficult, especially for someone whose primary task seems to be the preservation and explication of one one man's system of thought. And, to be clear, I think Michael is doing such a valuable thing in preserving Ramana's system of distinctions.
This was a lively and deep conversation between two very knowledgeable gentlemen. Bernardo and Michael both showed grace and tolerance in their listening and I appreciate it greatly. What came off most clearly was why most folks can't accept either view: impracticality, mind twisting semantics and esoteric devotion. I actually think together they came close to a united compassionate system that might work and be usable. Having been trained in science and technology and also having lived in an Ashram studying Vendanta, I attempt to mingle modern and ancient philosophies together for good health and I found this discussion very rewarding. It is clear, though, that both these great thinker/practioners have difficulty getting there ideas clear and concise for the viewer when disagreements arise. Why don't "Who Am I?" Abstract Idealism conquer to the world? They just don't message well once the leader is gone and are near impossible to approach without deep, deep abandonment of day to day "normal" life. Definitely worth a try for those with a strong devotional constitution. Life loves to intervene on purity of mind and/or heart. Seeing both come together in a nonreligious way would be welcome. Thank you for the effort of the host to make this conversation happen!
Fascinating conversation. Having also listened to Bernardo and Swami Sarvapriyananda debate and although I believe Swami Ji had the same view as Michael James, Bernardo did not object to it as done in this debate. All three are precious gems of humanity and having the three together would allow for more congruence. Much thanks to the organizers. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Bernardo has an academic background and is in control of argumentation, in contrast to Michael, who is self-taught - and I think that difference makes the discussion slightly confrontational in some places. As far as I know, Swami Ji is also somewhat academically qualified - and that together with his superb knowledge brings conversations to another level.
If Alan Watts were alive today he probably would have enjoyed and maybe even taken part in this conversation. Alan started me on this "Zen & Idealism" journey around fifty years ago. It's good to see and indeed maybe profound to feel that we have all come full circle in our understanding of life and consciousness.
You and me both, brother. I avoided Watts for years because I wrongly associated him with hippie, new-age trendiness. When I finally listened to him, it absolutely changed my path.
I'm very sad that Bernardo felt compelled to distance himself and "his own path" so much from what he feared were consequences of what Michael was trying to say. He really, really needn't have been so combative.
If there are several people suffering in their dreams the best way to alleviate it is by waking them up . For that one had to awaken himself. That was Sri Ramanas simple teaching
Well i am glad that the conversation didn't end in a ' scrap' as i would have felt guilty about that 😳. Here's the thing if anyone has any doubts . As a child i longed to see and understand Christ . Disappointingly that didn't happen in any overt way . Slowly, slowly , over a twenty period ( without going to India ) I came to know more about Bhagavan , and when i read the story of Him being beaten on one thigh by a brigand and then He offered his other thigh my attention was really grabbed . So after more exposure I became convinced that Christ had led me to Bhagavan to say ' this is my face ' . So i see no difference between Bhagavan and Christ except in that Bhagavan has given me an understanding of the Truth at the Heart of Christianity that christian doctrine couldn't give me . ( Like michael i asked too many questions 😅) . Specifically I would say that what Bhagavan and Advaita have given me is an understanding that when Christ said ' Love others as thySelf He wasn't talking sentimentally or idealistically, but was stating the non dual Truth ' . Now regarding suffering, Advaita may superficially look cold but look at Bhagavan in practise . He was All Love . Although i love the detail of philosophy ( and Advaita was very strange to me at first ) I was always much more attracted to stories about Him . Bhagavan was always ' on ' as an Enlightened Being so all His activities seemed to have some Higher teaching associated with them . Many of His activities related to Love for animals which was lovely for me because 40 odd years ago christianity in general had a pretty low opinion of animals ( and the environment) . It was all here at humankind's disposal . So Advaita may seem cold on paper but is all Love in Reality . Now Michael J may correct me here but I recall Bhagavan saying somewhere that Sat Cit Ananda was more like a great Peace than Happiness . Going back to dreams and Bernardo talking about a sense of relief .If you have a vivid nightmare when you awake you have that great sense of relief . ' Oh yes it was just a dream ' . A Yogi once said to me that Enlightenment is like that but multiplied to many levels. ' Oh yes this was all a dream . Some laugh , some cry , some smile with deep contentment on experiencing this .' 🙏 To anyone who read this - thank you for your time . 🙏✝️☸️🕉️
What a treat it turned out to be and thanks for reading my comment and folliwing through with it . Well done for those involved in putting this together .🙏🕉️
Fantastic conversation thank you. I am a BIG fan of Bernardo for the reason he fully owns his views. Interesting to see his feathers get a little ruffled here, but I love him all the more for it. Both paths are 100% valid. Both paths lead to the same destination. How could it go any other way? 😂 No destination, no path. ❤🙏🏼
My own experience aligns exactly with what Michael James says. As I deepen my understanding of Advaita, I see compassion rising to levels I never thought possible in me. Every creature's pain and pleasure that I witness resonates with me. It is not comfortable but it is the price to pay. Dead animals on the road, hit by vehicles particularly cause great pain. The suffering of people in the Middle East and Ukraine and elsewhere actually invokes profound sadness. I did not feel this vulnerable in the past. So, I can vouch for what Michael asserts. Kastrup has a long way to go. Cannot understand what is difficult to grasp about the ego preceding the birth of persona. MJ made it clear that it is one's ego that recognizes that one is so-and-so. In that sense the ego precedes the self-identification of the person. While Kastrup's intellectual achievements are laudable, they remain just that. Mere mentation. I am glad that MJ gave no ground, sticking to his fundamentals....
I am also struggling with this understanding because it is so impractical here and now. For example: "Therefore, since the appearance of multiple experiencers exists in the view of ourself as an experiencer who experiences itself as a person, if we are not this person, then the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is an illusion, and hence unreal" - I mean this is very obvious to me as "the ultimate consequence" but what are we supposed to do with this understanding when we are living inside of the illusion right now? Thats like telling a patient with multiple personality disorder that his other personalities are not real people. He can understand it but what is he going to do about it? He's trapped inside of the illusion by his condition and in this illusion they sure feel like different people for him and act like different people even for others. I also get the feeling that it takes away any meaning from experience categorically. Meaning doesnt exist fundamentally as the "one" has no experience and without experience there cannot be any meaning. In other words: In the attempt to avoid suffering you step outside the box in order to apply the "ultimate logic" derived from what truly exists. Coming from that point the person and the ego is an illusion and therefore the suffering is not "real". But to be consistent one most then follow and apply this logic to anything experienced in this illusion (even the positive) which makes the whole of life kind of obsolete because it turns it into a mere distraction. I have to agree more with Bernado here on this point in the sense that he embraces the illusion and what the illusion has to offer us right now and the suffering that comes with it.
@@shauncy7friend, I'm also a huge BK fan but in some video's a guy posts what he takes to be a criticism of Bernardo's ideas. And the post gets many thumbs-up. But you can't do proper philosophy in shirt comments. Bernardo needs a solid hour to explain the idea the comment thinks it is debunking. The same applies to Michael James. Therefore, your post is not really good. I am tempted to write another long post, and then my post will be no good. I'm afraid this is the nature of posts😮
@@moesypittounikos ? I don't care about writing a "good" philosophy post here, we are not in school. I was expressing my thoughts and I'm looking for constructive comments because I sincerly do not know what to do with the understanding if I'm supposed to follow it in the way described above and throughout the video by MJ. Maybe there's other people who understand where I'm coming from who can help.
Sarah I'm so happy you put these two wonderful beings on the show. I love Michael j of course Bernardo is one of my favorites too😊. All three of you are special beings. So grateful to have you in my seemingly existence appearance😮. Much love and respect. Peace God bless ❤️🙏🙏
This is a fascinating discussion, but I would like to leave a comment here for the purposes of pushing it further. As far as I understood, the dividing line between Michael (and his representation of Bhagavan's teachings) and Bernardo is the question of whether suffering exists (i.e., suffering has reality) in circumstances where - according to Bernardo - the experience of suffering is itself the suffering, and once we acknowledge an experience of this nature we must automatically acknowledge the existence of suffering. As far as I understand the (in my view very compelling) answer to this is that once you dissolve the "experiencer" as the false ego, you realise that there is not even the experience of suffering. Therefore, to say that the experience of suffering is the suffering - which Bernardo repeated time and time again - is neither here nor there. If you realise your self, the experience of suffering _too_ becomes clear to have been illusory. At that point, you can no longer speak about the experience of suffering being itself the suffering - since in the light of the realised Self there is no more experience either! think in this sense there is serious danger not in Michael's, but in Bernardo's treatment of this issue, and his theory in fact could be rightfully viewed as turning the path of spiritual realisation upside down. Bernardo expressly proceeds on the basis that _experience_ is itself reality, which is, after all, not dissimilar at all to what empiricists or rationalists advocated. That is a deeply antispiritual route to take, and one could even say that it is the direct parody and inverted mockery of Bhagavan's teaching: effectively identifying reality with a "consciousness pool of experiences", as opposed to identifying reality WITH reality: what exists is what exists, and NOT what is being experienced, whether by dissociated subjectivities or by a pool of consciousness. "I am what I am".
@@davidpusztai584 To be fair, he did accept the localized anesthetic but rejected the general anesthetic, which would have been necessary for any other individual. But his behavior in other instances also proved that suffering is not capital ‘R’ Real such as when he allowed insects to gnaw on his legs for weeks on end as his body wasted away while he was absorbed in Samadhi in his younger years. Or when he stood still as bees attacked him for accidentally disturbing their hive when he was walking on the hill. Or when he invited a thief who had struck him violently on the leg with a rod to strike his other leg. Time and again, his behavior was meant to show us that if we don’t identify with the suffering or the one who suffers, there is no suffering. Yet his compassion was as boundless as the ocean. Jai Bhagavan! ❤
The conversation hit an impasse when BK sought MJ’s definition of ‘Ego’…BK repeatedly sought a clearer definition or explanation for how MJ was using the term, ego, from which Bk could then situate the relative personal experience of suffering. MJ stated he thought it best not to answer with a definition, but with a question (an inquiry), BK stated ‘yes, I understand it’s an illusion, but…’ and was not satisfied that his question of how the term ‘ego’ was being used by MJ, and so BK shifted towards questions about an ‘implied’ ‘experiencer of suffering’ to find MJ’s definition of Ego, and grew frustrated, and this impasse was not resolved…and what followed is what followed
I appreciated the conversation very much. Two observations: 1) BK spoke from his own lived path & journey, from Scientific disciplines looking into the ‘fundamental reality’ in matter, then, and now ‘idealism’; BJ teaches the life discovery of RM-this distinction imbues each one’s perspective & contributions. 2) The conversation hit an impasse when BK sought MJ’s definition of ‘Ego’…BK repeatedly sought a clearer definition or explanation for how MJ was using the term, ego, from which Bk could then situate the relative personal experience of suffering. MJ stated he thought it best not to answer with a definition, but with a question (an inquiry), BK stated ‘yes, I understand it’s an illusion, but…’ and was not satisfied that his question of how the term ‘ego’ was being used by MJ, and so BK shifted towards questions about an ‘implied’ ‘experiencer of suffering’ to find MJ’s definition of Ego, and grew frustrated, and this impasse was not resolved…and what followed is what followed… Another way to describe this is: a ‘householder’ (BK) discusses with a ‘transmitter’ (MJ) of what a ‘renunciate’ (RM) taught.
Spirituality can not be grasped through intellectual mind. Be kind and compassionate person and meditate😊 you will understand everything else spontaneously
Listening to this a second time I am even more surprised that Bernardo kept insisting that Michael was somehow at fault. He railed on and on about Michael supposedly not taking suffering seriously enough and then suddenly declared instead that suffering is insignificant and what he really cares about is meaning. Thereafter he seems combative just for the sake of remaining combative. Since my exposure to Bernardo's Analytic Idealism is what initially led me to Advaita Vedanta, I didn't expect his behaviour to be like this in this discussion. I think there must be something important revealed here about resistances in the Western Mind to Eastern philosophy, but I am not sure yet exactly what it is.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Yes! The resistance was very much there in Jung also, whom Bernardo follows so closely. My own slavish devotion to Jung had kept me needlessly on guard against certain aspects of Eastern philosophy until a couple of years ago. Now I don't know what I would be without Ramana Maharshi -- no doubt I would be even more prey to the mind games that seem to afflict Bernardo here. Thank goodness Ramana is an affront, as you say, to that!
Bernardo would never say that "suffering is insignificant." He accepts his own personal suffering, but obviously cares deeply about the suffering of others.
@@evilcitrus Well, I was referring to the "may be insignificant" around 2:55:00 -- it was kind of like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. I really don't know what he was trying to prove; it just seemed in the end that he really didn't understand what Michael was trying to say. I certainly didn't get the impression that Michael cared any less deeply about the suffering of others than Bernardo does.
@@stripedgazelle Ah I see what you're talking about. Just before that he says, "What if that's not what nature is at all? .. We are here to play our role in the grand scheme of nature.." The "may be insignificant" line is from the point of view of nature. He often talks about his Daimon and how it doesn't give a damn about his suffering. It seems to me that he is exploring the same concept at a larger scale here, that nature is doing it's own thing and doesn't care (or even know) about individual suffering. I agree that these two were not on the same page for much of the discussion. Bernardo really didn't like the idea that other people only _seem_ to be suffering and then off came the gloves.
@@evilcitrus Yes, that is what saddened me because it seems to me that in reality they *are* on the same page, so it made it difficult for me to watch Bernardo act as if there was some conflict. Bernardo even seemed a bit like a Lutheran dramatist (and Jesus did say he brought not peace but a sword!) I think that personally, although my background is much more like Bernardo's, on a feeling level I have lately become very weary of some peculiarly Western styles of conflict that we both have inherited. Honestly, Jung also could have learned much from Ramana Maharshi!
Hearing all this I feel the most urgent and unavoidable necessity to find the truth firstly in me/my internal structure. If one part cannot put himself in a position to make out what 's being said by the other part - argy-bargy surging back and forth easily becomes unrewarding. May understanding seep in later in time - by Bhagavan Arunachala's grace.😌
Around the 1hr mark is the ☺ friendliest and highest level philosophical chess match ever! This is the frontline of freethinking thought. A stage at the fringe of CX exploration. ⚡ What a privilege to be alive today to 🧠experience it. ❇ Thankyou. ❇ Although 1hr 30min 🥴 still processing. 🧑💻
I haven’t watched the entire video so maybe it was mentioned, but what would Bernardo say to the fact that the best way to end the suffering we see in a dream is to wake up. This world could well be a dream so to end the suffering we need to wake out of it in to our real eternal nature
Please someone who nows Rupert Spira send him this video! Because he is the only one who can bring clarity to this subjekt and i am sure he understands both. It would be very important to clarify this!
Rupert and Bernardo are in perfect alignment philosophically..i have watched a few debates here on youtube, where they agreed they are in perfect alignment, just their terminology differs. They are good friends and talked having met and dined together etc.
I believe Sarvapriyananda would not agree with BK’s assertion that the same consciousness ‘sees’ through both Michael and BK. Neither really exists, same as the world in general. BK asserts that the world is real, whether or not it is perceived.
I knew that for example wasps don't die when sting. Bees do, not wasps. Hornets are a kind of big wasps, they don't die when they sting someone. I've just checked it out in Wiki and yes, hornets don't die and they sting very painfully...
I wish BK should read the book " I AM THAT" coz his line of thinking and reasoning would be perfect for Nisargadatta Maharaj approach to his answers. Ramana Maharshi's answer is so subtle and can be understood by someone thats about to be ripened. Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind? Q: Our common world, in which we live. M: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature, the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes, is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is to ask you to stop dreaming. Q: Surely, wars and revolutions are not dreams. Sick mothers and starving children are not dreams. Wealth, ill-gotten and misused, is not a dream. M: What else? Q: A dream cannot be shared. M: Nor can the waking state. All the three states -- of waking, dreaming and sleeping -- are subjective, personal, intimate. They all happen to and are contained within the little bubble in consciousness, called 'I'. The real world lies beyond the self. Q: Self or no self, facts are real. M: Of course facts are real! I live among them. But you live with fancies, not with facts. Facts never clash, while your life and world are full of contradictions. Contradiction is the mark of the false; the real never contradicts itself.
The interesting thing is that Bernardo likes and quotes Nisargadatta quite often. You can even see the yellow book I am That behind Bernardos right shoulder! I value Michal very much but speaking in this conceptual manner about Advaita seemed not to be very fruitful 😅.Firsthand he is a real Ramana Bhakta, full of love to him in all duality, only than he is a Pundit of Ramanas advaita but not being like him or Nisargadatta fully realized. So his usage of words somehow where not so convincing for a deep thinking Bernardo, who anyhow really grasps what is real and seemingly real from intuitive insight. But the ego sequenz was too much for him and the usage of high conceptual words transzending everything. Ramana himself mostly avoided this discussions, telling the people first ask what you really are, and not to give conceptual answers. Although Ramana was the embodiment of compassion Paul Brunton never overcame Ramanas seemingly indifference/ equanimity ( Wurschtigkeit) or not having reacted like the mainstream reactions when they read in the newspaper in the Darshan Hall that 6 millions Jews where murdered !! In Bernardo’s life suffering has a big meaning also as stepping stone on his personal sadhana path (even Nisargadatta says pain/ suffering deepens and widens the aspirants conciousnessand ) never liked the Indian orthodox vedantic expression in books of overcoming suffering as goal for spiritual life. But who is doing a lifelong sadhana to overcome suffering?? All seekers are longing for fulfillment, god, peace, unity , love…, I think Sarvapryananda could have brought their "seemingly" different views on a more conciliatory level.....
For a brief (10-min) summary of Ēka-Jīva-Vāda (Metaphysical Solipsism) and its practical application by Michael James, please watch: vimeo.com/ramanahou/ms01 . For advertisement-free videos on teachings and songs related to Bhagavan Ramana, please visit vimeo.com/ramanahou and click 'showcases' on the bottom left. Each original work of Bhagavan Ramana has its own showcase with explanations of Michael James.
No teacher of Ramana’s teachings ever give a straight answer to this question. I’ve asked all… No response, just jibber jabber. Here’s the question once again…. Being that the one writing this (Ego/Jiva) perceives a world, how can Ek Jiva be true and the one writing this not be the only Jiva? The only one that is having an apparent experience? Ek Jiva would mean that Michael James is a character in my dream, devoid of any real internal content, and not actually living a life somewhere (not even on relative terms). If there is one dreamer, only that dreamer experiences anything at all. If Ek Jiva is correct, then how can it be otherwise? If not absolutely true, it is simply deception. No matter how you dress it up, it is solipsism.
What an amazing dialogue between great minds between western and eastern thoughts. Its amazing that western thought is starting to approximate eastern philosophy of thousands of years old. Unfortunately , the problem is intellectualization and when we bring morality into the discussion, it becomes what has happened with all the great do gooders of the world. They want to apply these seemingly good morals not knowing that therein lies the seeds of a Hitler, because they are doing good in what THEY see as right. When we see that all of this is an appearance, the truth comes out and the highest morality will definitely be found there automatically.
@@docwhammo I like how Michael James uses the word “seems”. That is the portal of being the most important component of the feedback loop. Christianity has roots of self-flagellation that has to be eradicated.
It's frustrating because Michael keeps presupposing that Bernardo does not understand what he is trying to explain. Bernardo completely understands everything that Michael is saying but he simply just doesn't agree with it. And because he doesn't agree with it, Michael could only postulate that Bernardo doesn't understand because if he understood, of course he would agree with him and that is hubris
Yep you have a good eye and you know how to call them. I have to say thank you. Sanity in a crazy world has definite value. The future is uncertain and the end is always near.
Eastern metaphysics and Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism share the foundational view that consciousness is primary, both approaches and emphases differ significantly. Eastern metaphysics embeds this understanding in a spiritual and ethical context, aiming for personal and spiritual enlightenment. In contrast, Kastrup's approach is more focused on developing a philosophical and scientifically viable model of reality based on the primacy of consciousness. In essence, while both Eastern metaphysics and Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism delve into the nature of consciousness and reality, they do so from different starting points, with different methodologies, and towards different ends. Understanding these distinctions helps to appreciate the unique contributions and insights each brings to the philosophical exploration of reality and consciousness.
Bernardo’s view on consciousness is very nuanced and well thought out, if you truly understand what he’s saying and why he’s using specific language you will understand why he has to specific about the definitions of some words like ego and subjectivity. Some people leaving comments about Bernardo seem very misguided. He has done a lot of introspection and is sharing his perspective, at least have respect for that.
i agree. this is my first time listening to BK but he seems sincere and intelligent. when we judge him we judge ourselves. Dakshinamurti's way of teaching is still the best. thank you to the host for making this happen. ❤
@@jonathansolero7 Riffing off the idea of reductionism, isn't advaita the ultimate in that? Reducing our humanity to the lowest common denominator, existence itself, as what we really are? Isn't that like taking a watch and saying it is really only metal, and not the technology? The gold analogy, that all the ornaments are just gold, ignoring the form? As if our finitude adds nothing and it's best to get rid of it. Our entire life is a left-over. His best disciple was a cow. Your entire life is not real and is best annihilated.
Wow what an example of talking past each other. It was very humble of 2 very well versed gurus to demonstrate an understanding that words are semantics, but not go the further step and to come to a shared meaning in their use (not keeping their own historical use of them). The "illusion/seeming of suffering" doesn't have to be stuck on as whether it is "real". If the root of suffering is that the ROOT is an illusion, then that gets addressed and not the forms (or "reality"!) of suffering. For those who come to that, they are able to weave between the forms of compassion that are appropriate. To allow someone to suffer, to have a bottom, to learn from experience - knowing that will minimize suffering in the long run - is wise compassion. If relieving another of immediate sufferring because the solution demonstrates to that other an error in the basis of suffering, then that would be offered. And is Consciousness "really" having a lived inner experience in another person? They boh agreed it is my/one Concsiousness. To believe it is too "real" in them, as in seperately so, IS the root of suffering, necsessitating competition between those "real" inner points of view. To grant them "a" reality, like a body's 2 eyes have a unique vantage point, does not entail them having to insist on their own - or the other's - "i"ness. In fact, if one were to wake up to its own delusion of such, it would want to be available to inspiring the other to wake up from its. It couldn't "proove" it, wouldn't coddle the false "i"ness", it couldn't ignore suffering from that delusion, it certainly couldn't attack it into acting how an awakened understanding would act. A lot of patient seeing of truth and sharing it when and where appropriate, would be "happiness" in and of itself, knowing that truth was coming into its own (in time) from all its vantage points, not having to disagree about anything anymore
Much appreciation to both BK and MJ. I see Michael's description of what happens to the ego when it turns its attention inward and dis-identifies with the world of separate things as compatible with Bernardo's view of a dissociated identity (ego) awakening to the unity of consciousness . Regarding the views on suffering, both realise that another's suffering - or the appearance of suffering, which Michael agreed is suffering - is isomorphic to one's own suffering i.e. compassion = passion with or together. The question of ego/dissociated identity arising first, makes sense given relations precede relata (refer McGilchrist) yet it's obvious that Bernardo finds such a notion illogical. However, from my perspective, all potential for 'something' to manifest in physical reality grows out of a relationship between a real potential and an imagined possibility within the manifest world. There's more I could say but this is enough for now.
Thank you my friends, learned much from the debate but not in the common sense meaning. I learned what G.K. Chesterton meant about Angel's flying because they take themselves lightly. Neither of these teachings are going to allow you to fly, or transcend either suffering or the lack of meaning until you stop holding on to them. They are holding both of you down. They are both relatively true, but YOU ARE THE TRUTH. Just fly like Angels.
“Well Bob, I think the illusion of Bernardo’s cat dying midway through this discussion really threw him off. And, as a result… Michael James’ seemingly-so-self won by a unanimous decision.” “Yeah, you know Mike, those illusory punches thrown by James really knocked Kastrup off his ground of being. But over all this fight was a real dream to experience. Really excited my ego…or was it our ego?” “I don’t know, Bob. I really just don’t know.” “I know, Mike, me either.”
This video should be titled as: "Eastern vs Western spirituality". Finally we have got to hear the contradiction in the Western and Eastern attitude towards life being expressed explicitly through deeply embodied thinkers, instead of talking around it and trying to get to an agreement due to respect which did happen when Bernardo and other Eastern minds having conversations.
I just want to remind Sri Ramana Maharishi's Ulladhu Narpadhu Verse 3 here (translated by Michael) "What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘[No, it is] an unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving [all thought about] the world and investigating [or knowing] oneself, [thereby] putting an end to [all disputes about] one and two [non-duality and duality], that state in which ‘I’ [ego] has [thereby] perished is agreeable to all."
It's right, these guys not going to reach anywhere. He is totally fake and people are loving it. People dodnt want to do enquiry which is hard btw, they wanted easier alternative like bernardo. Only Bhagwan grace will help this people
Bernardo is ego and an experiencer whose highest understanding is relief. May his relief perpetuate the sounds in his mind until the silence is revealed . Very interesting exchange .🙏
Thank you great interview, very informative, lm BERNARDO fun ,materialism is baloney, consciousness is fundamental, we actually live in a cosmic hologram, reality is not as it seems, but still a big mystery of ours existence.
This is the first instance in which I’ve seen Bernardo completely fail to understand what’s being said to him. What happened here is that Bernardo thought he was hearing the argument that he is accused of making and so he postured hard against it. He is arguing with his own projection of Michael rather than hearing deeply what Michael is actually saying. 3 hours passed and Bernardo never was able to understand because he categorized Michael’s argument as solipsism, which is a western philosophy. Here is my understanding of what Michael is saying: “Ego” is the process or activity of identification. The isness of satcitananda is absolutely stillness, timeless reality. The arising of the first thought “I” is the seed of all existence/appearance. By detaching from all identification we let go of all individuality (identification) and return to what we really are. Therein is the only true place, the place of real peace, compassion, and happiness. Bernardo has created a wonderful intellectual argument but he has not had the courage to relinquish his individual Identity, which is the core illusion of the single “I”
This lines up with my “gut” feeling that creation and annihilation are instantaneous, constant, and always here/now. It must be that way as the power (Shakti) of the unchanging, unborn Brahman. Edited for spelling
Bernardo is the future. His thoughts are so coherent and simple. We have to give him a bigger plattform, this guy is a genius. So humble but extremely intelligent. I wish him the best
What a conversation…profound snd fruitful in all aspect. If I am permitted to add a remark, I simple add that it seems that Bernardo fails to see that the ego must exist before the body… otherwise who incarnates?
While listening to the Dutchman and the English man propound the unification theory in their respective cognizance, it is quite evident that shri.Michael James lives what he propounded...Dutchman is still learning
Nonviolence and compassion are the central tenets of Indian philosophies, whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism. Let's take Jainism as an example. Jains practice extreme detachment and are known for being some of the most compassionate and peaceful people you can ever find.Just watch the video of sam harris comparing jainism with sematic religions like islam. So both theoretically and practically, James's points are valid, unlike Bernardo, who suspects that being a detacher means being non-compassionate to others. It is quite the opposite, actually. When Bernardo quoted Jesus 3 times, it became quite obvious to me that the reason behind Bernard's misunderstanding lies in a very fundamental difference between the profound and subtle nature of Indian philosophy and the superficial and abstract nature of Semitic religions. When Michale talked about suffering he is only talking about it from an absolute reality standpoint. "
And by the way, Ananda doesn't mean Happiness. It means deep peace, contentment. If Happiness was (+) and Sorrow was (-), then Ananda is something Neutral; No polarity!
When Bernardo is watching Michael enjoy the scent of a beautiful flower and Bernardo suddenly turns away to look at an airplaine. Michael no longer exists as the form of perception that Bernardo generated. But Michael continues to smell the flower as Bernardo now generates the image of an airplane in the sky. Yes, the world arises via perception. But, no, Michael doesn't stop smelling the flower when Bernardo stops generating the image of Michael smelling the flower. Michael generated the appearance of scent and beauty until he turned to smile and accept the cup of tea he is now generating via perception.
thanks for this convo, great to be on the edge, I would like to comment that Bernardo has a very rudimentary path, and it's expected from a Western mind. The idea that Bernardo believes this gives people license to be evil is incorrect. They don't have agency. Individuals might think they're in control, but they aren't. Also yes lol Indeed, bringing up "ajata" is contradictory, you're addressing the appearance, and being challenged by none other than your own Maya.
It's great that Bernardo is now talking to experts in Advaita. Swami, Rupert, Michael..! Through these discussions, I feel that nondualism is really finding a "common front in the meeting of East and West" and having enough change energy to change the world. The fact that Bernardo's "dissociation" explanation came as a surprise to Michael (and which he wanted to put aside - and whose deep meaning he did not seemingly understand) was a surprise - and I would love to hear more about it. However, I think "dissociation theory" is very much in line with the fact that one consciousness divides/forgets itself/others. Next time, if there is a discussion, I hope there is less "seems to be" argumentation, because it feels like an argumentation error and is also annoying :)
I really loved this debate, the sometimes awkwardness and back-and-forth point-pounding. It's this willingness to flesh-ideas-out, contrast ideas, debate and challenge, where we really get-at truth and understanding. Actually, I think Michael and Bernardo were closer than their arguments appeared to set them apart. Thank you both for defending your ideas, and allowing us to get a clearer understanding of pain-and-suffering, along/w the metaphysical wisdom that we "manufacture this reality of materiality, with all its duality and un-fulfillment"--per Michael James, whereas Bernardo contends that "suffering is its own reward", and one person's suffering is the suffering of one consciousness, thus propelling us forward. We are Bleessed to have such space to exchange ideas, and it is respect for different viewpoints that brings us closer together. The truth is, that unless we are Enlightened, we really don't know 100%, that which we're unenlightened about...rather, it's a "belief". It does take "faith", to believe 100% in Bhagavan's Totality...but to live life well, we all must walk in Faith. I'm inclined to believe Bhagavan and his teaching that we arise as ego out of deep sleep, which is akin to a Samadhi of sorts,where we are free of our body, mind,thoughts and personality. Honestly, I've never met a truly happy person living-out life outwardly in the flesh...shades of dualistic happiness, yes, much like the start of a beautiful new day, only until it progresses to its different levels--nightfall, evening, and then a giving-up of the outward lived life. At the same time, I've never felt any deep ecstatic state in mediation, rather just a bhakti-like love and reverence to be alive, uninjured, well-fed and loved. Blessings to All and thank you both, moderator too, for hosting such a wonderful debate.
i understand everything that both are saying but it really comes down to that last question ... why does ego rise ? ... and of course there is no answer to this question , there is only surrender
When we ask, “why?” we are assuming causality. I don’t believe there is any reason for the arising ego….It is merely the nature of the substratum to manifest
I can pretty much anticipate how this will come down. The west has been on a slow attempt over thousands of years to catch up with Indian philosophy. All the modern scientific competence in the world doesn't really compete with the depth and simplicity of Ramana's teachings which are a distillation of the basic principles of ancient Indian philosophy of Advaita. Michael James is the best modern resource for understanding Ramana's teachings and consequently understanding the nature of reality.
Bernardo seems to expose the solipsistic reasoning of Michael’s…my understanding as a layperson is that Bernardo is calling the Dreaming Mind of Nature as impersonal and Michael is calling the Dreaming Mind of Nature as personal hence the solipsism on Michael’s part… i would love for the Dreaming Mind of Nature to be personal (if it is benevolent) but I don’t think there is anyway to “prove” this.
Michael James explaining the difference between tristy shisty and shisty shisty is about to give me an aneurism in my frontal lobe. The hardest part of the lesson, for me, was sorting the two words out.
When robbers hit bhagwan, he offered them to hit the other leg too. One can always argue that he was providing more incentive and encouragement for people such as robbers to hurt other people thereby acting as an example of a soft target for everyone to emulate as standard practice. Referring to the hornet's story. Duality, dear friends, duality. 😊 When you are Bhagwan, there is no other.
In the one tradition they say: "The one who will know itself (via metacognition) as the One and so know that there is no 'other' is the One, as 'other' (that is to say that which in being born in a physical form is able to learn to see itself at first as separate by identifying with the form of the body and yet can also learn to realize the Unity of Reality). "This apparent other is the One who is no other than the One who is other which is no other". To understand something of what these words can mean from the point of view of the totality of reality requires a lifetime of walking the path of love based in wisdom (which in reality love and wisdom are not separate), service based in love and wisdom and compassion based in love and wisdom under the influences or awakening and transformation of the knowing substance which can come to know itself even while appearing as embodied in a physical form. (This is simply what we call the apparent of a baby.) This influence with only the very, very rare exceptions requires contact with the "real" which requires except for the few very rare ones, a real one one who has walked the path before them. It is fine for us to use words such as these I have used here in this comment or the words "When you are Bhagwan there is no other." But all these words are all pointing way beyond words. And to borrow a phrase unless we are keenly aware of this fact, we are mainly just pouring from the "empty into the void or the words reportably of Jesus who says it is like giving a stone to the hungry instead of real bread. The question is can we take the words and go beyond the words? This same tradition says "The language of God or the God realized one is silence and words are only a poor translation." So what does it mean (and how do I see it manifesting in my behavior and presence or not) to be the reality of love and wisdom that are not separate and so be able to take action that "harms less and heals more" in all circumstances? Perhaps we can only little by little come to approximate something like this. Everything inwardly received with a 'thank you' is blessed. May we all farewell on the way.
@@fineasfrog A simple weaver can well understand where a person of words can well comprehend not. It's taken ages since posted anything online. Don't even have an online presence and this is my first TH-cam comment ever. Just walked into the puja room, picked up a book on Anamalai Swami randomly where the very chapter is about delusion and "I am the body" experience and how the delusion or Maya persists as long as the "body" or ego persists. Suffering is a byproduct of Maya. Previous life times I care not to know. Accidentally chanced on the samadhi place of Anamalai Swami last year. While sitting down in front of the samadhi, two flowers perched on top of the samadhi fell down in front. Was alone in the space. Cannot explain that. It would be interesting if scientists invented instruments to measure devotion, suffering and compassion, and enlightenment. When this body was around 5 years old, slipped in a mountain river and in the throes of drowning, instantly fell into a trance like state where there was no body but more like a dream like state, but equally as lucid as the waking state. Around the teenage years, out of the blue, my ever quiet father said to me, this morning I woke up and started inquiring who is this I that has this body and all the phenomenon that it experiences. Truly, it's taken a lifetime for all the jig-saw puzzle to fall into place. There is no doubts and only certainty. When Michael speaks about Bhagwan, without any prompting intuitvely know it comes from the timeless truth that is ever alive within. No hypothesis, postulations, axioms, conjectures needed for the self within. Oftentimes, we ask why do "God" have to be born amidst us. The very existence of Bhagwan that such being lives and the presence of Arunachala gives this ego that persists that truth is within. Seeking without is like losing a ring in the house and searching for it under the street lamp, as the outer eye can only see things visible under that light. Have found Bhagwan and that's good enough. Bhagwan himself cared least about what the world thought.
I don't see an irreconcilable conflict between these two approaches in regards to the problem of morality. 1. From one side, acknowledging the suffering of others (hold by Bernardo) and 2. Questioning the suffering of others and even of oneself (hold by Michael) The first approach starts from the dualistic assumption that there is an "I" and there are "others", and from that goes into the path of compassion, that ultimately is the felt recognition that the "I" is the same as "other", or that there is not "I" different from "other". This is the same as the dissolution of the ego, as non-existent. As Bernardo (and Schopenhauer) suggested, this is central in the teaching of Christ (and we can even say the same for Buddha). The second approach questions the assumption of the duality between the "I" and the "others", and even questions the reality of suffering. This enquiry leads to the recognition that the ego is non-existence, and so there is no distinction between the "I" and the "others". As can be seen, this approach has the same end result than the first one. There are only different methods to reach the same "goal": the dissolution of the illusory identity, or ego/self. Moreover, that dissolution is also the dissolution of the illusory suffering, because there are no "I" or subject that is suffering: there is only experience without a subject experiencing it. The second approach seems to be cold and even insensible for most western people, primarily because of our Christian upbringing and conditioning. But both paths are equally valid and compatible. We cannot regard one as superior than the other.
It seems to me that Bernardo is trying to conceptualize reality, which I believe can't be done because it is beyond all concepts. Also, I think that words can't convey the actual state of being, and as long as we use our five senses as instruments of perceiving the world around us, we will be limited in understanding. There is a need to be lost, to lose everything that makes us a person to really understand and be what Ramana was talking about. Although he always says that silence is the actual teaching.
Very interesting. Each quest begins with a question. “Who am I?“ was Ramana’s. An internal inquiry. As he followed his inquiry to its experiential end, he reached the ultimate reality of oneness, complete connectedness and all encompassing compassion. Jesus began with the question “What do you seek?” It began with the purpose of helping others find the truth. He reached the same place- compassion, Love and oneness. Bernardo also is driven by his purpose in Nature’s larger scheme. Right now his method is intellectual. The intellect is like a scalpel. It cuts, slices and divides. It does not integrate. At some stage, he will go beyond the intellect and use the wisdom of his mind, which integrates emotion. He will then reach the same place. All disagreements are during the journey. The destination is the same. “There are no others “, as Ramana observed!😊
As much as I like such conversations, especially when Bernardo is involved, it appears that speech is the limitation. Speech is impure by design. As soon as you come close to the Thing that is indescribable, which is pure, there should be silence only. On a certain level „Knowledge is bondage“. (The Shiva Sūtra 1/2).
Bernardo Kastrup is actually mistaken about hornets -unlike honeybees, hornets do not die after stinging but can sting repeatedly. Their stingers are designed to be easily removed, and stay intact when withdrawn from the victim
Yes, shame about that. But as someone who recently disturbed a wasp's nest accidentally and ran away with just 3 stings, I can resonate with the story to this extent: deliberately allowing over 100 stings is just plain stupid. I reckon the tale is apocryphal.
the story of the stings seems to have been verified, at least since it is told repeatedly by Michael James I believe it must be true as far as he would have heard it from a reliable source; important to keep in mind Sri Bhagavan’s actions cannot be judged by us
I love both the speakers. But I felt this session was wasted. I don't know why James felt the need to preach Bernardo. There was so much they could have discussed, like does the idea of Karma etc makes sense in the Analytical Idealism framework, if yes why & how, and many more such. What James brings to the table is already present in a ton of Upanishadic lore, but they are cryptic & in a mystical language, at least for the morden people. What we need is someone who can tell us what these ancient metaphors mean in a contemporary analytical language. And that's exactly the value that Bernardo brings to the table. He should have been leveraged & engaged well and it would have been a treat to listen.❤️ I wish the host had stepped in & moderated after 1 hour by which time the discussion was just going in circles. Anyway, maybe next time!
Michael isn’t “preaching,“ he has his way of explaining that’s the result of patiently answering the same few questions hundreds of times over the years
I have not gone far in this discussion, but I wonder why MJ does not understand BK's contention that what is, does not change despite the illusions of change! If the analogy of water and waves is scrutinized, one sees that the substance of water does not change despite the existence of waves or whirlpools appearing on the surface. MJ seems engrossed in his understanding of the teachings of Bhagavan. I find it perplexing, that he insists on the existence of ego as the experiencer and also says the ego does not exist in sleep. That is doublespeak. What experiences what happens in deep sleep to come to the conclusion of, "I slept like a baby", if it is the ego that experiences? He is pegged to dogma without going beyond dogma, and seems not ready to accept an idea that he has not known yet. This discussion could have been meaningful, if BK were in discussion with the Bhagavan. MJ is bringing in the limitations of his mind into the discussion.
I agree very much with your perception there indeed and was very disappointed in MJ till about 70% of the talk but then in the last 30% something Switchs and the dialogue shifts to highlight the differing standpoint on reality of the manifest beings experience. Its painful but worth it
My Physical Existence tells me that I am Nothing. My Metaphysical Existence tells me that I Am Everything. My Spiritual Existence tells me that I am Another You! The symbol that I contemplate to enjoy my Existence is the following: 0️⃣➕♾️=1️⃣ Got It?
Around the 13:00 mark Bernard started talking about how he saw the crucifix, of Jesus, a human, and how it relates to all of us: "we are all nailed to the cross of limitation, seeming separation, space/time". Ramana Maharshi said: "The body is the Cross. Jesus, the son of man, is the ego or ‘I am-the-body’ idea [i.e. "limitation / separation"]. When he is crucified, he is resurrected as the Glorious Self - Jesus, the Son of God! - “Give up this life if thou wouldst live”. [from the book 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi'] Funny how it makes more sense when you remove centuries of theology :)
I think he did understood that since he said he followed Micheal's logic. It just so contrdicts to his thinking which is the Western attude towards spirituality or more concretely, life, that he refuses to go there. And as someone who is fimiliar with both school of thoughts, I for now choose Beenardo's side.
@@stevenpham6734Its an exposition from the point of view of complete dissolution of self, of course it would make very little sense from the self limited petspective
Bernardo isn't quite there yet, but he's earnest. Humility will help him a great deal. Sometimes one can be too bright for one's britches. Bernardo seems convinced he is Bernardo and that Michael is Michael. There is no getting through that without Bernardo directly inquiring (direct looking/seeing) into the actual nature of Self/Awareness and the "I" or "me." Mere intellectualizing won't do it, because Self/Awareness precedes mind/thought, which is, itself, only Awareness appearing as thought, like a mirage or a "snake in a rope." Michael very patiently persisted with his surgically-precise language as usual, but Bernardo was unable to grasp the simple pointers and seemed to grow impatient and frustrated because he's trying to understand That which transcends understanding and to "know" That which can only be "known" by actually "being" It. His biggest obstacle is going to be dropping his belief that this can be gotten intellectually. Once he drops his need to wrap his head around every bit of it, the light bulb will go off and he'll have his "aha" moment, which will be nice to see. Seeing that Self/Being is always "here and aware" isn't rocket science. It doesn't require an advanced degree in engineering or a high IQ or even the intellect at all - as it is simply the clear, direct, obvious, and intuitive recognition of ever-present and indisputable FACT. Are you here? Yes. Are you aware? Yes. Good. Stop there. Sit with it. Dwell upon it. You Are That. It's amazing how some of the world's smartest people can't seem to grasp the ONLY basic, simple, verifiable, and obvious fact - namely, the fact of one's own "being aware and present" as the only true FACT there is. The Maya is truly thick!
What do you mean 'Bernardo isn't quite there yet'? Where are you? Or anyone here? As Michael pointed out here more times than I can recall, at the root of it all is the dreamer, not an individual. In fact this was a bone of contention between the two for much of the latter part of the discussion. So where is Bernardo meant to get to? Where is Michael now that is so elevated? What was Sri Ramana Maharshi other than a tiger in human form reminding you of what you've chosen to forget? The one dreamer, who has taken on a body from which to perceive its creation, is the only one that can sink back into itself. Sinking back into the self, rather than trying to figure out who is where on the path, is the only thing worth pursuing. As long as we're all here, we're at the same level as Bernardo, Michael, and even Sri Ramana for that matter - appearances on a surface.
spot-on. I can identify with Bernardo very much here, because I have been Bernardo. But he will get there. Earnest effort will bear Bhagavan’s grace eventually.
@@vicvinegar6787 You: "What do you mean 'Bernardo isn't quite there yet'?" Not "there" in recognizing that Bernardo and Michael are illusory. You: "Where are you? Or anyone here?" The recognition is here that the "me" is illusory, not real, as is the case with "you," "Bernardo," or "Michael." All arisings in, of, and as Consciousness/Awareness. You: "So where is Bernardo meant to get to?" To the eventual understanding or realization that "we" all get to which is that the personal, limited, egoic sense of "I" or "me" is not real/lasting, but is merely Pure Awareness itself appearing as a separate ego-individual apart from Awareness, which is never the case. You: "Where is Michael now that is so elevated?" "Michael" isn't "elevated." The Consciousness expressing in, through, and as the character that is "Michael" clearly recognizes that "Michael" and "Bernardo" are illusory, not real. You: "What was Sri Ramana Maharshi other than a tiger in human form reminding you of what you've chosen to forget?" He was/is THAT. Pure Awareness, Reality, the Absolute, appearing as Guru, as "Tiger." You: "The one dreamer, who has taken on a body from which to perceive its creation, is the only one that can sink back into itself." Has it ever risen? Or has it merely appeared to? Has the rope ever been a snake? Or has it merely appeared to have been a snake? How can the non-existent 'snake' sink back into the 'rope'? How can the son of the barren woman ever sink back into the barren woman? You: "As long as we're all here, we're at the same level as Bernardo, Michael, and even Sri Ramana for that matter - appearances on a surface." Not the same level of understanding or recognition, else you're saying that Bernardo, Michael, and Sri Ramana body-mind characters were all at the same relative level of spiritual understanding or Self-recognition, which is not the case, relatively speaking (from the position of body-mind identity). The "Bernardo" character does not yet see things at the same level as the "Michael" character does. Consciousness expressing as "Michael" has a clearer understanding/recognition of the illusory nature of the "Michael" character. All is Self or Atman, however, the expressions are not all at the same level of understanding at the relative level of body-mind identification.
@@highlyreg Absolutely. Earnestness is the KEY ingredient. Nothing can stop one who is earnest. Nothing. If you one has it then, in essence, they have already "won" the "game." If one doesn't have it, one won't "win" their realization/freedom until they do. It's the one quality all should strive to cultivate. One should long for Self-realization/Truth like a desperate, drowning man longs for air. And YES x 1000%, it is Atma-Kripa (self-effort/earnestness) that draws Bhagavan-Kripa! Thank you for stating that most important fact.
@@charlieord4143 I stopped watching around 2:37:30 because Bernardo seemed increasingly impatient and disrespectful towards Michael. Despite Michael's clear and thoughtful responses, Bernardo appeared to misunderstand him and even seemed to be accusing him of lacking a compassionate outlook as if Michael's view was aligned with some kind of heartless solipsism. This tone shift made me lose interest in the conversation. If things improved later on, please let me know the timestamp where the tone changed. I value respectful dialogue, even when there are disagreements. Edit: Clarified "solipsism" sentence and fixed timestamp.
In a more recent video, th-cam.com/video/xUQ7SbPlsWc/w-d-xo.html (2023-10-28 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Understanding solipsism as taught by Bhagavan Ramana), Michael explained in more detail what he was trying to explain in the later part of this video about the extremely deep, subtle and nuanced teachings that Bhagavan Ramana gave us with regard to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda (the contention that perception alone is creation, or in other words that whatever we perceive or experience does not exist independent of our perception or experience of it) and ēka jīva vāda (the concomitant contention that there is only one jīva (soul), ego or experiencer, just as there is in a dream). While explaining this, Michael offered the following analytical set of premises and inferences for consideration:
1. We are the experiencer of all that we experience
2. As the experiencer, we always experience ourself as a person
3. As the experiencer, we perceive a world that is full of other people, who are just like the person we seem to be
4. Since we, the experiencer, always experience ourself as a person, every other person seems to us to be an experiencer, just like us
5. All the other people and their experiences are no less real than the person we seem to be
6. So long as we seem to be a person, we experience suffering, and every other person seems to us to experience suffering in the same way
7. So long as we are firmly convinced that this person whom we seem to be is what we actually are, then our suffering and the suffering of all other people will inevitably seem to us to be real
8. But are we this person? In other words, is this person what we actually are?
9. If this person is not what we actually are, our experience of ourself as ‘I am this person’ is an illusion, and hence unreal
10. Everything that we (as the experiencer) experience is based upon our experience of ourself as a person, because we experience things other than ourself only when we experience ourself as a person (namely in waking and in dream)
11. Therefore if our experience of ourself as ‘I am this person’ is an illusion, our experience of everything else must be equally illusory
12. If our experience of everything else is illusory, the person we seem to be and all the other people are a part of that illusion, and hence unreal
13. If the person we seem to be and all the other people are unreal, their suffering and everything else that they seem to experience must also be unreal
14. Therefore, since the appearance of multiple experiencers exists in the view of ourself as an experiencer who experiences itself as a person, if we are not this person, then the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is an illusion, and hence unreal
15. Since there can be no appearance without an experiencer of it, the root cause of the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is the experiencer of it, namely ourself
16. Therefore, before we can reliably judge the reality of the appearance of multiple experiencers, we first need to investigate and find out the reality of ourself, in whose view all those multiple experiencers seem to exist
A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to or downloaded from Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podbean.com ): ramanahou.podbean.com/e/bernardo-kastrup-and-michael-james-analytic-idealism-and-ramana-maharshi-s-advaita and a more compressed audio copy in Opus format (which can be listened on the VLC media player and some other apps) can be downloaded from mediafire.com/file/o4d910kuf2u2gdt
😊😊😊
Hi! I have also written this comment under a different comment by someone else here but I would love to have some feedback:
I am also struggling with this understanding because it is so impractical here and now. For example: "Therefore, since the appearance of multiple experiencers exists in the view of ourself as an experiencer who experiences itself as a person, if we are not this person, then the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is an illusion, and hence unreal" - I mean this is very obvious to me as "the ultimate consequence" but what are we supposed to do with this understanding when we are living inside of the illusion right now? Thats like telling a patient with multiple personality disorder that his other personalities are not real people. He can understand it but what is he going to do about it? He's trapped inside of the illusion by his condition and in this illusion they sure feel like different people for him and act like different people even for others.
I also get the feeling that it takes away any meaning from experience categorically. Meaning doesnt exist fundamentally as the "one" has no experience and without experience there cannot be any meaning. In other words: In the attempt to avoid suffering you step outside the box in order to apply the "ultimate logic" derived from what truly exists. Coming from that point the person and the ego is an illusion and therefore the suffering is not "real". But to be consistent one most then follow and apply this logic to anything experienced in this illusion (even the positive) which makes the whole of life kind of obsolete because it turns it into a mere distraction.
I have to agree more with Bernado here on this point in the sense that he embraces the illusion and what the illusion has to offer us right now and the suffering that comes with it.
Bernardo needs more experience as he annoyingly said he doesn't care about what is ultimate
@@OfficialGOD the "ultimate" in this sense has no experience, no feeling, no meaning. What is there to care about in the face of it and why ?
that's not the point and not in that sense. around 2.40h he doesn't care about the absolute truth or he cares about the illusion.
One of the most profound and indepth discussions on the subject - fortunate that such a discussion is available which otherwise would take 100s of hours of reading and deciphering of scientific and spiritual text - gratitude and thanks
Sri Ramana Teachings.. Michael James Thank you for your depth of understanding of suffering. Thank you Bernardo Kastrup as I wouldn't be able to hear/feel Sir Ramana Teaching repetitiously without your questioning Michael. At 80 I loved the story of the guru.. who kept questioning his devotees concern of his cancer and for coming death, of where was he going when afflicted with cancer?. After decades of taking care of the dying, listening to the conversation of the three of you has brought them closer to me in the unborn world. Again Thank You!!!
the moderator is such a kind and sweet person, she is so eloquent and humble in her presentation of her beginning and the ending statements. Thank you for this wonderful discussion.
Fantastic exposition by Dr Kastrup, I was blown away,. Thank you!
yea im hyped to see his view and wording of it
Fascinating discussion; for me the most interesting part came when Bernardo asked MJ whether ‘a 2 month old baby has ego’ … and MJ responded something like “the ego is experiencing thru the baby’ … this was a reversal of the frame thru which I looked at the world; quite a profound shift imo
Kind of funny to think of the ego hiding and masking itself as an "innocent" baby
Michael started the conversation believing they had a core difference and is struggling to allow the natural (and necessary) alchemy of different terms and schemas to reveal the shared territory. Which is very difficult, especially for someone whose primary task seems to be the preservation and explication of one one man's system of thought. And, to be clear, I think Michael is doing such a valuable thing in preserving Ramana's system of distinctions.
Nicely put!
@@beniscatus4917 Thanks!
This was a lively and deep conversation between two very knowledgeable gentlemen. Bernardo and Michael both showed grace and tolerance in their listening and I appreciate it greatly. What came off most clearly was why most folks can't accept either view: impracticality, mind twisting semantics and esoteric devotion. I actually think together they came close to a united compassionate system that might work and be usable. Having been trained in science and technology and also having lived in an Ashram studying Vendanta, I attempt to mingle modern and ancient philosophies together for good health and I found this discussion very rewarding. It is clear, though, that both these great thinker/practioners have difficulty getting there ideas clear and concise for the viewer when disagreements arise. Why don't "Who Am I?" Abstract Idealism conquer to the world? They just don't message well once the leader is gone and are near impossible to approach without deep, deep abandonment of day to day "normal" life. Definitely worth a try for those with a strong devotional constitution. Life loves to intervene on purity of mind and/or heart. Seeing both come together in a nonreligious way would be welcome. Thank you for the effort of the host to make this conversation happen!
Fascinating conversation. Having also listened to Bernardo and Swami Sarvapriyananda debate and although I believe Swami Ji had the same view as Michael James, Bernardo did not object to it as done in this debate. All three are precious gems of humanity and having the three together would allow for more congruence. Much thanks to the organizers. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏
There's a James and Sarvapriyananda debate
Bernardo has an academic background and is in control of argumentation, in contrast to Michael, who is self-taught - and I think that difference makes the discussion slightly confrontational in some places. As far as I know, Swami Ji is also somewhat academically qualified - and that together with his superb knowledge brings conversations to another level.
@@michaelmcclure3383 have you seen Bernardo talk with Swami Sarvapriyananda?
🎯
If Alan Watts were alive today he probably would have enjoyed and maybe
even taken part in this conversation. Alan started me on this "Zen & Idealism" journey
around fifty years ago. It's good to see and indeed maybe profound to feel that we
have all come full circle in our understanding of life and consciousness.
Alan Watts is the best expounder of Eastern religions, eloquent and humorous. I also learned English from his lectures :)
You and me both, brother. I avoided Watts for years because I wrongly associated him with hippie, new-age trendiness. When I finally listened to him, it absolutely changed my path.
I always say that I was brought up in this teaching while sitting on the lap of Alan Watts; he was my teacher, albeit we have never met.
I'm very sad that Bernardo felt compelled to distance himself and "his own path" so much from what he feared were consequences of what Michael was trying to say. He really, really needn't have been so combative.
If there are several people suffering in their dreams the best way to alleviate it is by waking them up . For that one had to awaken himself. That was Sri Ramanas simple teaching
MJ always delivers unadulterated teachings of Ramana Maharshi.
Well i am glad that the conversation didn't end in a ' scrap' as i would have felt guilty about that 😳.
Here's the thing if anyone has any doubts . As a child i longed to see and understand Christ . Disappointingly that didn't happen in any overt way . Slowly, slowly , over a twenty period ( without going to India ) I came to know more about Bhagavan , and when i read the story of Him being beaten on one thigh by a brigand and then He offered his other thigh my attention was really grabbed . So after more exposure I became convinced that Christ had led me to Bhagavan to say ' this is my face ' . So i see no difference between Bhagavan and Christ except in that Bhagavan has given me an understanding of the Truth at the Heart of Christianity that christian doctrine couldn't give me . ( Like michael i asked too many questions 😅) .
Specifically I would say that what Bhagavan and Advaita have given me is an understanding that when Christ said ' Love others as thySelf He wasn't talking sentimentally or idealistically, but was stating the non dual Truth ' .
Now regarding suffering, Advaita may superficially look cold but look at Bhagavan in practise . He was All Love . Although i love the detail of philosophy ( and Advaita was very strange to me at first ) I was always much more attracted to stories about Him . Bhagavan was always ' on ' as an Enlightened Being so all His activities seemed to have some Higher teaching associated with them . Many of His activities related to Love for animals which was lovely for me because 40 odd years ago christianity in general had a pretty low opinion of animals ( and the environment) . It was all here at humankind's disposal . So Advaita may seem cold on paper but is all Love in Reality .
Now Michael J may correct me here but I recall Bhagavan saying somewhere that Sat Cit Ananda was more like a great Peace than Happiness .
Going back to dreams and Bernardo talking about a sense of relief .If you have a vivid nightmare when you awake you have that great sense of relief . ' Oh yes it was just a dream ' . A Yogi once said to me that Enlightenment is like that but multiplied to many levels. ' Oh yes this was all a dream . Some laugh , some cry , some smile with deep contentment on experiencing this .' 🙏
To anyone who read this - thank you for your time . 🙏✝️☸️🕉️
Namo Ramanaya ♥️🙏🕉️
About Christ you might be interested in reading "The Gospel According To Spiritism" by Allan Kardec.
What a treat it turned out to be and thanks for reading my comment and folliwing through with it . Well done for those involved in putting this together .🙏🕉️
🙏
Very interesting discussion. Thank you!
Thank you for this talk. Great encounter with the Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta wisdom of Sri Ramana Maharashi and Bernardo Kastrup analytic idealism.
Fantastic conversation thank you. I am a BIG fan of Bernardo for the reason he fully owns his views. Interesting to see his feathers get a little ruffled here, but I love him all the more for it. Both paths are 100% valid. Both paths lead to the same destination. How could it go any other way? 😂 No destination, no path. ❤🙏🏼
My own experience aligns exactly with what Michael James says. As I deepen my understanding of Advaita, I see compassion rising to levels I never thought possible in me. Every creature's pain and pleasure that I witness resonates with me. It is not comfortable but it is the price to pay. Dead animals on the road, hit by vehicles particularly cause great pain. The suffering of people in the Middle East and Ukraine and elsewhere actually invokes profound sadness. I did not feel this vulnerable in the past. So, I can vouch for what Michael asserts. Kastrup has a long way to go. Cannot understand what is difficult to grasp about the ego preceding the birth of persona. MJ made it clear that it is one's ego that recognizes that one is so-and-so. In that sense the ego precedes the self-identification of the person. While Kastrup's intellectual achievements are laudable, they remain just that. Mere mentation. I am glad that MJ gave no ground, sticking to his fundamentals....
I am also struggling with this understanding because it is so impractical here and now. For example: "Therefore, since the appearance of multiple experiencers exists in the view of ourself as an experiencer who experiences itself as a person, if we are not this person, then the entire appearance of multiple experiencers is an illusion, and hence unreal" - I mean this is very obvious to me as "the ultimate consequence" but what are we supposed to do with this understanding when we are living inside of the illusion right now? Thats like telling a patient with multiple personality disorder that his other personalities are not real people. He can understand it but what is he going to do about it? He's trapped inside of the illusion by his condition and in this illusion they sure feel like different people for him and act like different people even for others.
I also get the feeling that it takes away any meaning from experience categorically. Meaning doesnt exist fundamentally as the "one" has no experience and without experience there cannot be any meaning. In other words: In the attempt to avoid suffering you step outside the box in order to apply the "ultimate logic" derived from what truly exists. Coming from that point the person and the ego is an illusion and therefore the suffering is not "real". But to be consistent one most then follow and apply this logic to anything experienced in this illusion (even the positive) which makes the whole of life kind of obsolete because it turns it into a mere distraction.
I have to agree more with Bernado here on this point in the sense that he embraces the illusion and what the illusion has to offer us right now and the suffering that comes with it.
@@shauncy7 See Michael's follow-up video on "solipsism." I think you will find it helpful.
@@shauncy7 like Bernardo said, abstraction upon abstraction
@@shauncy7friend, I'm also a huge BK fan but in some video's a guy posts what he takes to be a criticism of Bernardo's ideas. And the post gets many thumbs-up. But you can't do proper philosophy in shirt comments. Bernardo needs a solid hour to explain the idea the comment thinks it is debunking. The same applies to Michael James. Therefore, your post is not really good. I am tempted to write another long post, and then my post will be no good. I'm afraid this is the nature of posts😮
@@moesypittounikos ? I don't care about writing a "good" philosophy post here, we are not in school. I was expressing my thoughts and I'm looking for constructive comments because I sincerly do not know what to do with the understanding if I'm supposed to follow it in the way described above and throughout the video by MJ. Maybe there's other people who understand where I'm coming from who can help.
Sarah I'm so happy you put these two wonderful beings on the show. I love Michael j of course Bernardo is one of my favorites too😊. All three of you are special beings. So grateful to have you in my seemingly existence appearance😮. Much love and respect. Peace God bless ❤️🙏🙏
Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏
Sandra
This is a fascinating discussion, but I would like to leave a comment here for the purposes of pushing it further. As far as I understood, the dividing line between Michael (and his representation of Bhagavan's teachings) and Bernardo is the question of whether suffering exists (i.e., suffering has reality) in circumstances where - according to Bernardo - the experience of suffering is itself the suffering, and once we acknowledge an experience of this nature we must automatically acknowledge the existence of suffering. As far as I understand the (in my view very compelling) answer to this is that once you dissolve the "experiencer" as the false ego, you realise that there is not even the experience of suffering. Therefore, to say that the experience of suffering is the suffering - which Bernardo repeated time and time again - is neither here nor there. If you realise your self, the experience of suffering _too_ becomes clear to have been illusory. At that point, you can no longer speak about the experience of suffering being itself the suffering - since in the light of the realised Self there is no more experience either! think in this sense there is serious danger not in Michael's, but in Bernardo's treatment of this issue, and his theory in fact could be rightfully viewed as turning the path of spiritual realisation upside down. Bernardo expressly proceeds on the basis that _experience_ is itself reality, which is, after all, not dissimilar at all to what empiricists or rationalists advocated. That is a deeply antispiritual route to take, and one could even say that it is the direct parody and inverted mockery of Bhagavan's teaching: effectively identifying reality with a "consciousness pool of experiences", as opposed to identifying reality WITH reality: what exists is what exists, and NOT what is being experienced, whether by dissociated subjectivities or by a pool of consciousness. "I am what I am".
Right, so if I cutoff a leg of someone like Bhagavan, he would not suffer? Phuh
@@Михаил-д6х1з He refused anasthetics even when he underwent surgery.
You summarised it to a dot!
@@davidpusztai584 To be fair, he did accept the localized anesthetic but rejected the general anesthetic, which would have been necessary for any other individual.
But his behavior in other instances also proved that suffering is not capital ‘R’ Real such as when he allowed insects to gnaw on his legs for weeks on end as his body wasted away while he was absorbed in Samadhi in his younger years. Or when he stood still as bees attacked him for accidentally disturbing their hive when he was walking on the hill. Or when he invited a thief who had struck him violently on the leg with a rod to strike his other leg.
Time and again, his behavior was meant to show us that if we don’t identify with the suffering or the one who suffers, there is no suffering. Yet his compassion was as boundless as the ocean.
Jai Bhagavan! ❤
The conversation hit an impasse when BK sought MJ’s definition of ‘Ego’…BK repeatedly sought a clearer definition or explanation for how MJ was using the term, ego, from which Bk could then situate the relative personal experience of suffering.
MJ stated he thought it best not to answer with a definition, but with a question (an inquiry), BK stated ‘yes, I understand it’s an illusion, but…’ and was not satisfied that his question of how the term ‘ego’ was being used by MJ, and so BK shifted towards questions about an ‘implied’ ‘experiencer of suffering’ to find MJ’s definition of Ego, and grew frustrated, and this impasse was not resolved…and what followed is what followed
I appreciated the conversation very much.
Two observations:
1) BK spoke from his own lived path & journey, from Scientific disciplines looking into the ‘fundamental reality’ in matter, then, and now ‘idealism’; BJ teaches the life discovery of RM-this distinction imbues each one’s perspective & contributions.
2) The conversation hit an impasse when BK sought MJ’s definition of ‘Ego’…BK repeatedly sought a clearer definition or explanation for how MJ was using the term, ego, from which Bk could then situate the relative personal experience of suffering.
MJ stated he thought it best not to answer with a definition, but with a question (an inquiry), BK stated ‘yes, I understand it’s an illusion, but…’ and was not satisfied that his question of how the term ‘ego’ was being used by MJ, and so BK shifted towards questions about an ‘implied’ ‘experiencer of suffering’ to find MJ’s definition of Ego, and grew frustrated, and this impasse was not resolved…and what followed is what followed…
Another way to describe this is: a ‘householder’ (BK) discusses with a ‘transmitter’ (MJ) of what a ‘renunciate’ (RM) taught.
Wow!!
A meeting of two minds I am delighted to see!
😌🙏❤️
Spirituality can not be grasped through intellectual mind. Be kind and compassionate person and meditate😊 you will understand everything else spontaneously
We the devotees of Sri Ramana Maharishi, should send Mr. Kastrup a good picture of Sri Ramana so he can get the darshan. Om
As you get more degrees from universities it gets as difficult to turn with in.😢
You need grace from God.
Listening to this a second time I am even more surprised that Bernardo kept insisting that Michael was somehow at fault. He railed on and on about Michael supposedly not taking suffering seriously enough and then suddenly declared instead that suffering is insignificant and what he really cares about is meaning. Thereafter he seems combative just for the sake of remaining combative. Since my exposure to Bernardo's Analytic Idealism is what initially led me to Advaita Vedanta, I didn't expect his behaviour to be like this in this discussion. I think there must be something important revealed here about resistances in the Western Mind to Eastern philosophy, but I am not sure yet exactly what it is.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Yes! The resistance was very much there in Jung also, whom Bernardo follows so closely. My own slavish devotion to Jung had kept me needlessly on guard against certain aspects of Eastern philosophy until a couple of years ago. Now I don't know what I would be without Ramana Maharshi -- no doubt I would be even more prey to the mind games that seem to afflict Bernardo here. Thank goodness Ramana is an affront, as you say, to that!
Bernardo would never say that "suffering is insignificant." He accepts his own personal suffering, but obviously cares deeply about the suffering of others.
@@evilcitrus Well, I was referring to the "may be insignificant" around 2:55:00 -- it was kind of like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. I really don't know what he was trying to prove; it just seemed in the end that he really didn't understand what Michael was trying to say. I certainly didn't get the impression that Michael cared any less deeply about the suffering of others than Bernardo does.
@@stripedgazelle Ah I see what you're talking about. Just before that he says, "What if that's not what nature is at all? .. We are here to play our role in the grand scheme of nature.."
The "may be insignificant" line is from the point of view of nature. He often talks about his Daimon and how it doesn't give a damn about his suffering. It seems to me that he is exploring the same concept at a larger scale here, that nature is doing it's own thing and doesn't care (or even know) about individual suffering.
I agree that these two were not on the same page for much of the discussion. Bernardo really didn't like the idea that other people only _seem_ to be suffering and then off came the gloves.
@@evilcitrus Yes, that is what saddened me because it seems to me that in reality they *are* on the same page, so it made it difficult for me to watch Bernardo act as if there was some conflict. Bernardo even seemed a bit like a Lutheran dramatist (and Jesus did say he brought not peace but a sword!) I think that personally, although my background is much more like Bernardo's, on a feeling level I have lately become very weary of some peculiarly Western styles of conflict that we both have inherited. Honestly, Jung also could have learned much from Ramana Maharshi!
Hearing all this I feel the most urgent and unavoidable necessity to find the truth firstly in me/my internal structure. If one part cannot put himself in a position to make out what 's being said by the other part -
argy-bargy surging back and forth easily becomes unrewarding. May understanding seep in later in time - by Bhagavan Arunachala's grace.😌
This is a delightful apparent interaction.
Around the 1hr mark is the ☺ friendliest and highest level philosophical chess match ever! This is the frontline of freethinking thought. A stage at the fringe of CX exploration. ⚡ What a privilege to be alive today to 🧠experience it. ❇ Thankyou. ❇ Although 1hr 30min 🥴 still processing. 🧑💻
I haven’t watched the entire video so maybe it was mentioned, but what would Bernardo say to the fact that the best way to end the suffering we see in a dream is to wake up. This world could well be a dream so to end the suffering we need to wake out of it in to our real eternal nature
Please someone who nows Rupert Spira send him this video! Because he is the only one who can bring clarity to this subjekt and i am sure he understands both. It would be very important to clarify this!
Rupert and Bernardo are in perfect alignment philosophically..i have watched a few debates here on youtube, where they agreed they are in perfect alignment, just their terminology differs. They are good friends and talked having met and dined together etc.
I believe Sarvapriyananda would not agree with BK’s assertion that the same consciousness ‘sees’ through both Michael and BK. Neither really exists, same as the world in general. BK asserts that the world is real, whether or not it is perceived.
I knew that for example wasps don't die when sting. Bees do, not wasps. Hornets are a kind of big wasps, they don't die when they sting someone. I've just checked it out in Wiki and yes, hornets don't die and they sting very painfully...
Absolute treat ❤ love u both🎉
wow wow wow - thank you for bringing these bodisattvas together
I wish BK should read the book " I AM THAT" coz his line of thinking and reasoning would be perfect for Nisargadatta Maharaj approach to his answers. Ramana Maharshi's answer is so subtle and can be understood by someone thats about to be ripened.
Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?
Q: Our common world, in which we live.
M: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature, the sea and the land, plants and
animals. They are not the problem, nor the endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power.
Do not be misled by my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not
here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes, is definitely not my
world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you tell me about it. It is your private dream
world and my only reaction to it is to ask you to stop dreaming.
Q: Surely, wars and revolutions are not dreams. Sick mothers and starving children are not
dreams. Wealth, ill-gotten and misused, is not a dream.
M: What else?
Q: A dream cannot be shared.
M: Nor can the waking state. All the three states -- of waking, dreaming and sleeping -- are
subjective, personal, intimate. They all happen to and are contained within the little bubble in
consciousness, called 'I'. The real world lies beyond the self.
Q: Self or no self, facts are real.
M: Of course facts are real! I live among them. But you live with fancies, not with facts. Facts never
clash, while your life and world are full of contradictions. Contradiction is the mark of the false; the
real never contradicts itself.
The interesting thing is that Bernardo likes and quotes Nisargadatta quite often. You can even see the yellow book I am That behind Bernardos right shoulder! I value Michal very much but speaking in this conceptual manner about Advaita seemed not to be very fruitful 😅.Firsthand he is a real Ramana Bhakta, full of love to him in all duality, only than he is a Pundit of Ramanas advaita but not being like him or Nisargadatta fully realized. So his usage of words somehow where not so convincing for a deep thinking Bernardo, who anyhow really grasps what is real and seemingly real from intuitive insight. But the ego sequenz was too much for him and the usage of high conceptual words transzending everything. Ramana himself mostly avoided this discussions, telling the people first ask what you really are, and not to give conceptual answers. Although Ramana was the embodiment of compassion Paul Brunton never overcame Ramanas seemingly indifference/ equanimity ( Wurschtigkeit) or not having reacted like the mainstream reactions when they read in the newspaper in the Darshan Hall that 6 millions Jews where murdered !!
In Bernardo’s life suffering has a big meaning also as stepping stone on his personal sadhana path (even Nisargadatta says pain/ suffering deepens and widens the aspirants conciousnessand ) never liked the Indian orthodox vedantic expression in books of overcoming suffering as goal for spiritual life. But who is doing a lifelong sadhana to overcome suffering?? All seekers are longing for fulfillment, god, peace, unity , love…,
I think Sarvapryananda could have brought their "seemingly" different views on a more conciliatory level.....
@allgamestotal6773 look on the bookshelf behind Bernado, i am that is clearly visible.
For a brief (10-min) summary of Ēka-Jīva-Vāda (Metaphysical Solipsism) and its practical application by Michael James, please watch: vimeo.com/ramanahou/ms01 . For advertisement-free videos on teachings and songs related to Bhagavan Ramana, please visit vimeo.com/ramanahou and click 'showcases' on the bottom left. Each original work of Bhagavan Ramana has its own showcase with explanations of Michael James.
❤Eka jiva vada is an absurd theory that even a 7-year-old child could understand has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
No teacher of Ramana’s teachings ever give a straight answer to this question. I’ve asked all… No response, just jibber jabber. Here’s the question once again….
Being that the one writing this (Ego/Jiva) perceives a world, how can Ek Jiva be true and the one writing this not be the only Jiva? The only one that is having an apparent experience?
Ek Jiva would mean that Michael James is a character in my dream, devoid of any real internal content, and not actually living a life somewhere (not even on relative terms).
If there is one dreamer, only that dreamer experiences anything at all.
If Ek Jiva is correct, then how can it be otherwise?
If not absolutely true, it is simply deception. No matter how you dress it up, it is solipsism.
I loved this! 3 cheers for these 3! 😊
Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏
What an amazing dialogue between great minds between western and eastern thoughts. Its amazing that western thought is starting to approximate eastern philosophy of thousands of years old. Unfortunately , the problem is intellectualization and when we bring morality into the discussion, it becomes what has happened with all the great do gooders of the world. They want to apply these seemingly good morals not knowing that therein lies the seeds of a Hitler, because they are doing good in what THEY see as right. When we see that all of this is an appearance, the truth comes out and the highest morality will definitely be found there automatically.
Thank you… great commentary!!!
@royrox80 @patriciaching6392
Exactly. The characteristics of nonduality are in fact Love, Compassion and Peace.
@@docwhammo I like how Michael James uses the word “seems”. That is the portal of being the most important component of the feedback loop. Christianity has roots of self-flagellation that has to be eradicated.
@@docwhammoMichael communicates very well if you are ready for it.
So with Bernado . Thank you so much 🙏💜
It's frustrating because Michael keeps presupposing that Bernardo does not understand what he is trying to explain. Bernardo completely understands everything that Michael is saying but he simply just doesn't agree with it. And because he doesn't agree with it, Michael could only postulate that Bernardo doesn't understand because if he understood, of course he would agree with him and that is hubris
Yep you have a good eye and you know how to call them. I have to say thank you. Sanity in a crazy world has definite value. The future is uncertain and the end is always near.
Finished the podcast now. I’m so happy this podcast ended in good spirits even though there were some strong disagreements along the way. ❤️
Eastern metaphysics and Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism share the foundational view that consciousness is primary, both approaches and emphases differ significantly. Eastern metaphysics embeds this understanding in a spiritual and ethical context, aiming for personal and spiritual enlightenment. In contrast, Kastrup's approach is more focused on developing a philosophical and scientifically viable model of reality based on the primacy of consciousness.
In essence, while both Eastern metaphysics and Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism delve into the nature of consciousness and reality, they do so from different starting points, with different methodologies, and towards different ends. Understanding these distinctions helps to appreciate the unique contributions and insights each brings to the philosophical exploration of reality and consciousness.
Bernardo’s view on consciousness is very nuanced and well thought out, if you truly understand what he’s saying and why he’s using specific language you will understand why he has to specific about the definitions of some words like ego and subjectivity.
Some people leaving comments about Bernardo seem very misguided. He has done a lot of introspection and is sharing his perspective, at least have respect for that.
i agree. this is my first time listening to BK but he seems sincere and intelligent. when we judge him we judge ourselves. Dakshinamurti's way of teaching is still the best. thank you to the host for making this happen. ❤
Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏
@@sandraderksen Namo Ramanaya 🥹 🤲🏼♥️👣
It’s the cleanest reduction model of consciousness analytically speaking. But again, the practice is what makes you understand
@@jonathansolero7 Riffing off the idea of reductionism, isn't advaita the ultimate in that? Reducing our humanity to the lowest common denominator, existence itself, as what we really are? Isn't that like taking a watch and saying it is really only metal, and not the technology? The gold analogy, that all the ornaments are just gold, ignoring the form? As if our finitude adds nothing and it's best to get rid of it. Our entire life is a left-over. His best disciple was a cow. Your entire life is not real and is best annihilated.
Wow what an example of talking past each other. It was very humble of 2 very well versed gurus to demonstrate an understanding that words are semantics, but not go the further step and to come to a shared meaning in their use (not keeping their own historical use of them). The "illusion/seeming of suffering" doesn't have to be stuck on as whether it is "real". If the root of suffering is that the ROOT is an illusion, then that gets addressed and not the forms (or "reality"!) of suffering. For those who come to that, they are able to weave between the forms of compassion that are appropriate. To allow someone to suffer, to have a bottom, to learn from experience - knowing that will minimize suffering in the long run - is wise compassion. If relieving another of immediate sufferring because the solution demonstrates to that other an error in the basis of suffering, then that would be offered.
And is Consciousness "really" having a lived inner experience in another person? They boh agreed it is my/one Concsiousness. To believe it is too "real" in them, as in seperately so, IS the root of suffering, necsessitating competition between those "real" inner points of view. To grant them "a" reality, like a body's 2 eyes have a unique vantage point, does not entail them having to insist on their own - or the other's - "i"ness. In fact, if one were to wake up to its own delusion of such, it would want to be available to inspiring the other to wake up from its. It couldn't "proove" it, wouldn't coddle the false "i"ness", it couldn't ignore suffering from that delusion, it certainly couldn't attack it into acting how an awakened understanding would act. A lot of patient seeing of truth and sharing it when and where appropriate, would be "happiness" in and of itself, knowing that truth was coming into its own (in time) from all its vantage points, not having to disagree about anything anymore
Much appreciation to both BK and MJ. I see Michael's description of what happens to the ego when it turns its attention inward and dis-identifies with the world of separate things as compatible with Bernardo's view of a dissociated identity (ego) awakening to the unity of consciousness . Regarding the views on suffering, both realise that another's suffering - or the appearance of suffering, which Michael agreed is suffering - is isomorphic to one's own suffering i.e. compassion = passion with or together. The question of ego/dissociated identity arising first, makes sense given relations precede relata (refer McGilchrist) yet it's obvious that Bernardo finds such a notion illogical. However, from my perspective, all potential for 'something' to manifest in physical reality grows out of a relationship between a real potential and an imagined possibility within the manifest world. There's more I could say but this is enough for now.
Thank you both!
Been waiting for this meeting for so long.. ❤❤❤
This was fascinating on so many levels. I'm glad it become respectfully contentious for the reasons that it did. Very productive.
Thank you my friends, learned much from the debate but not in the common sense meaning. I learned what G.K. Chesterton meant about Angel's flying because they take themselves lightly. Neither of these teachings are going to allow you to fly, or transcend either suffering or the lack of meaning until you stop holding on to them. They are holding both of you down. They are both relatively true, but YOU ARE THE TRUTH. Just fly like Angels.
Bernardo Kastrup, thank you so much for sharing you patience, time and genuine insight. The best is yet to come.
“Well Bob, I think the illusion of Bernardo’s cat dying midway through this discussion really threw him off.
And, as a result…
Michael James’ seemingly-so-self won by a unanimous decision.”
“Yeah, you know Mike, those illusory punches thrown by James really knocked Kastrup off his ground of being.
But over all this fight was a real dream to experience. Really excited my ego…or was it our ego?”
“I don’t know, Bob. I really just don’t know.”
“I know, Mike, me either.”
They don't happen to be Mike and Bob from the Twin Peaks ?
i just imagined that Ramana Maharshi heard these two Gentlemen discussing,
he would stand up and went for a walk!
Couldn't help being blown away by Dr. Kastrup!
Mark my word. Ramana Maharishi and Ramkrishna Paramahamsa are two Avatars whose love will spread like a thunder storm! ❤
It's been 100 years or so.
🙏 namo Ramanaya 🪷Jai Sri Ramakrishna Bhagavan Ki Jai
Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Ramana 😊🌺🙏
@@jazzsnaresir just have patience. You will see it happening.
That was and is the best interwie of Bernardo! Keep unfold yourself Bernardo!
This video should be titled as: "Eastern vs Western spirituality".
Finally we have got to hear the contradiction in the Western and Eastern attitude towards life being expressed explicitly through deeply embodied thinkers, instead of talking around it and trying to get to an agreement due to respect which did happen when Bernardo and other Eastern minds having conversations.
100% in agreement
I just want to remind Sri Ramana Maharishi's Ulladhu Narpadhu Verse 3 here (translated by Michael)
"What is the use of disputing: ‘The world is real’, ‘[No, it is] an unreal appearance’; ‘The world is sentient’, ‘It is not’; ‘The world is happiness’, ‘It is not’? Leaving [all thought about] the world and investigating [or knowing] oneself, [thereby] putting an end to [all disputes about] one and two [non-duality and duality], that state in which ‘I’ [ego] has [thereby] perished is agreeable to all."
It's right, these guys not going to reach anywhere. He is totally fake and people are loving it. People dodnt want to do enquiry which is hard btw, they wanted easier alternative like bernardo. Only Bhagwan grace will help this people
Bernardo is ego and an experiencer whose highest understanding is relief. May his relief perpetuate the sounds in his mind until the silence is revealed . Very interesting exchange .🙏
Thank you great interview, very informative, lm BERNARDO fun ,materialism is baloney, consciousness is fundamental, we actually live in a cosmic hologram, reality is not as it seems, but still a big mystery of ours existence.
This is the first instance in which I’ve seen Bernardo completely fail to understand what’s being said to him. What happened here is that Bernardo thought he was hearing the argument that he is accused of making and so he postured hard against it. He is arguing with his own projection of Michael rather than hearing deeply what Michael is actually saying. 3 hours passed and Bernardo never was able to understand because he categorized Michael’s argument as solipsism, which is a western philosophy. Here is my understanding of what Michael is saying:
“Ego” is the process or activity of identification. The isness of satcitananda is absolutely stillness, timeless reality. The arising of the first thought “I” is the seed of all existence/appearance. By detaching from all identification we let go of all individuality (identification) and return to what we really are. Therein is the only true place, the place of real peace, compassion, and happiness. Bernardo has created a wonderful intellectual argument but he has not had the courage to relinquish his individual
Identity, which is the core illusion of the single “I”
Thank you.
Bernardo is a real gem for western culture.
This lines up with my “gut” feeling that creation and annihilation are instantaneous, constant, and always here/now. It must be that way as the power (Shakti) of the unchanging, unborn Brahman.
Edited for spelling
Bernardo is the future. His thoughts are so coherent and simple. We have to give him a bigger plattform, this guy is a genius. So humble but extremely intelligent. I wish him the best
Michael thank you, Bernardo thank you, Thank You.
Very interesting discussion
Great!
What a conversation…profound snd fruitful in all aspect. If I am permitted to add a remark, I simple add that it seems that Bernardo fails to see that the ego must exist before the body… otherwise who incarnates?
this is one of my fave discussions. Ever.
While listening to the Dutchman and the English man propound the unification theory in their respective cognizance, it is quite evident that shri.Michael James lives what he propounded...Dutchman is still learning
Nonviolence and compassion are the central tenets of Indian philosophies, whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism. Let's take Jainism as an example. Jains practice extreme detachment and are known for being some of the most compassionate and peaceful people you can ever find.Just watch the video of sam harris comparing jainism with sematic religions like islam. So both theoretically and practically, James's points are valid, unlike Bernardo, who suspects that being a detacher means being non-compassionate to others. It is quite the opposite, actually. When Bernardo quoted Jesus 3 times, it became quite obvious to me that the reason behind Bernard's misunderstanding lies in a very fundamental difference between the profound and subtle nature of Indian philosophy and the superficial and abstract nature of Semitic religions. When Michale talked about suffering he is only talking about it from an absolute reality standpoint. "
But by the end of the video I agree to a great extent with what you say Bernardo
And by the way, Ananda doesn't mean Happiness. It means deep peace, contentment.
If Happiness was (+) and Sorrow was (-), then Ananda is something Neutral; No polarity!
Exactly. It is fulfillment.
When Bernardo is watching Michael enjoy the scent of a beautiful flower and Bernardo suddenly turns away to look at an airplaine. Michael no longer exists as the form of perception that Bernardo generated. But Michael continues to smell the flower as Bernardo now generates the image of an airplane in the sky.
Yes, the world arises via perception. But, no, Michael doesn't stop smelling the flower when Bernardo stops generating the image of Michael smelling the flower. Michael generated the appearance of scent and beauty until he turned to smile and accept the cup of tea he is now generating via perception.
thanks for this convo, great to be on the edge, I would like to comment that Bernardo has a very rudimentary path, and it's expected from a Western mind. The idea that Bernardo believes this gives people license to be evil is incorrect. They don't have agency. Individuals might think they're in control, but they aren't. Also yes lol Indeed, bringing up "ajata" is contradictory, you're addressing the appearance, and being challenged by none other than your own Maya.
It's great that Bernardo is now talking to experts in Advaita. Swami, Rupert, Michael..! Through these discussions, I feel that nondualism is really finding a "common front in the meeting of East and West" and having enough change energy to change the world.
The fact that Bernardo's "dissociation" explanation came as a surprise to Michael (and which he wanted to put aside - and whose deep meaning he did not seemingly understand) was a surprise - and I would love to hear more about it. However, I think "dissociation theory" is very much in line with the fact that one consciousness divides/forgets itself/others.
Next time, if there is a discussion, I hope there is less "seems to be" argumentation, because it feels like an argumentation error and is also annoying :)
I really loved this debate, the sometimes awkwardness and back-and-forth point-pounding. It's this willingness to flesh-ideas-out, contrast ideas, debate and challenge, where we really get-at truth and understanding.
Actually, I think Michael and Bernardo were closer than their arguments appeared to set them apart. Thank you both for defending your ideas, and allowing us to get a clearer understanding of pain-and-suffering, along/w the metaphysical wisdom that we "manufacture this reality of materiality, with all its duality and un-fulfillment"--per Michael James, whereas Bernardo contends that "suffering is its own reward", and one person's suffering is the suffering of one consciousness, thus propelling us forward.
We are Bleessed to have such space to exchange ideas, and it is respect for different viewpoints that brings us closer together. The truth is, that unless we are Enlightened, we really don't know 100%, that which we're unenlightened about...rather, it's a "belief". It does take "faith", to believe 100% in Bhagavan's Totality...but to live life well, we all must walk in Faith.
I'm inclined to believe Bhagavan and his teaching that we arise as ego out of deep sleep, which is akin to a Samadhi of sorts,where we are free of our body, mind,thoughts and personality. Honestly, I've never met a truly happy person living-out life outwardly in the flesh...shades of dualistic happiness, yes, much like the start of a beautiful new day, only until it progresses to its different levels--nightfall, evening, and then a giving-up of the outward lived life.
At the same time, I've never felt any deep ecstatic state in mediation, rather just a bhakti-like love and reverence to be alive, uninjured, well-fed and loved.
Blessings to All and thank you both, moderator too, for hosting such a wonderful debate.
Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏
i understand everything that both are saying but it really comes down to that last question ... why does ego rise ? ... and of course there is no answer to this question , there is only surrender
When we ask, “why?” we are assuming causality. I don’t believe there is any reason for the arising ego….It is merely the nature of the substratum to manifest
But I do believe that from the perspective of ego, we have no choice but to surrender 🙏
@@michaelmcclure3383This is the ultimate fear yes. Of annihilation in a sense.
I can pretty much anticipate how this will come down. The west has been on a slow attempt over thousands of years to catch up with Indian philosophy. All the modern scientific competence in the world doesn't really compete with the depth and simplicity of Ramana's teachings which are a distillation of the basic principles of ancient Indian philosophy of Advaita. Michael James is the best modern resource for understanding Ramana's teachings and consequently understanding the nature of reality.
Seemingly.
Bernardo seems to expose the solipsistic reasoning of Michael’s…my understanding as a layperson is that Bernardo is calling the Dreaming Mind of Nature as impersonal and Michael is calling the Dreaming Mind of Nature as personal hence the solipsism on Michael’s part… i would love for the Dreaming Mind of Nature to be personal (if it is benevolent) but I don’t think there is anyway to “prove” this.
Short Q&A videos from this channel can be watched on youtube.com/@sriramanateachingsqa
Kimberly went back and forth
Loved it
Michael James explaining the difference between tristy shisty and shisty shisty is about to give me an aneurism in my frontal lobe. The hardest part of the lesson, for me, was sorting the two words out.
When robbers hit bhagwan, he offered them to hit the other leg too. One can always argue that he was providing more incentive and encouragement for people such as robbers to hurt other people thereby acting as an example of a soft target for everyone to emulate as standard practice. Referring to the hornet's story. Duality, dear friends, duality. 😊 When you are Bhagwan, there is no other.
In the one tradition they say: "The one who will know itself (via metacognition) as the One and so know that there is no 'other' is the One, as 'other' (that is to say that which in being born in a physical form is able to learn to see itself at first as separate by identifying with the form of the body and yet can also learn to realize the Unity of Reality). "This apparent other is the One who is no other than the One who is other which is no other". To understand something of what these words can mean from the point of view of the totality of reality requires a lifetime of walking the path of love based in wisdom (which in reality love and wisdom are not separate), service based in love and wisdom and compassion based in love and wisdom under the influences or awakening and transformation of the knowing substance which can come to know itself even while appearing as embodied in a physical form. (This is simply what we call the apparent of a baby.) This influence with only the very, very rare exceptions requires contact with the "real" which requires except for the few very rare ones, a real one one who has walked the path before them. It is fine for us to use words such as these I have used here in this comment or the words "When you are Bhagwan there is no other." But all these words are all pointing way beyond words. And to borrow a phrase unless we are keenly aware of this fact, we are mainly just pouring from the "empty into the void or the words reportably of Jesus who says it is like giving a stone to the hungry instead of real bread. The question is can we take the words and go beyond the words? This same tradition says "The language of God or the God realized one is silence and words are only a poor translation." So what does it mean (and how do I see it manifesting in my behavior and presence or not) to be the reality of love and wisdom that are not separate and so be able to take action that "harms less and heals more" in all circumstances? Perhaps we can only little by little come to approximate something like this. Everything inwardly received with a 'thank you' is blessed. May we all farewell on the way.
@@fineasfrog A simple weaver can well understand where a person of words can well comprehend not. It's taken ages since posted anything online. Don't even have an online presence and this is my first TH-cam comment ever. Just walked into the puja room, picked up a book on Anamalai Swami randomly where the very chapter is about delusion and "I am the body" experience and how the delusion or Maya persists as long as the "body" or ego persists. Suffering is a byproduct of Maya. Previous life times I care not to know. Accidentally chanced on the samadhi place of Anamalai Swami last year. While sitting down in front of the samadhi, two flowers perched on top of the samadhi fell down in front. Was alone in the space. Cannot explain that. It would be interesting if scientists invented instruments to measure devotion, suffering and compassion, and enlightenment. When this body was around 5 years old, slipped in a mountain river and in the throes of drowning, instantly fell into a trance like state where there was no body but more like a dream like state, but equally as lucid as the waking state. Around the teenage years, out of the blue, my ever quiet father said to me, this morning I woke up and started inquiring who is this I that has this body and all the phenomenon that it experiences. Truly, it's taken a lifetime for all the jig-saw puzzle to fall into place. There is no doubts and only certainty. When Michael speaks about Bhagwan, without any prompting intuitvely know it comes from the timeless truth that is ever alive within. No hypothesis, postulations, axioms, conjectures needed for the self within. Oftentimes, we ask why do "God" have to be born amidst us. The very existence of Bhagwan that such being lives and the presence of Arunachala gives this ego that persists that truth is within. Seeking without is like losing a ring in the house and searching for it under the street lamp, as the outer eye can only see things visible under that light. Have found Bhagwan and that's good enough. Bhagwan himself cared least about what the world thought.
Michael James is far more smarter than Bernardo! It's very clear when you see how the limitations that Bernado put on himself limit his views
I don't see an irreconcilable conflict between these two approaches in regards to the problem of morality.
1. From one side, acknowledging the suffering of others (hold by Bernardo) and
2. Questioning the suffering of others and even of oneself (hold by Michael)
The first approach starts from the dualistic assumption that there is an "I" and there are "others", and from that goes into the path of compassion, that ultimately is the felt recognition that the "I" is the same as "other", or that there is not "I" different from "other". This is the same as the dissolution of the ego, as non-existent. As Bernardo (and Schopenhauer) suggested, this is central in the teaching of Christ (and we can even say the same for Buddha).
The second approach questions the assumption of the duality between the "I" and the "others", and even questions the reality of suffering. This enquiry leads to the recognition that the ego is non-existence, and so there is no distinction between the "I" and the "others". As can be seen, this approach has the same end result than the first one. There are only different methods to reach the same "goal": the dissolution of the illusory identity, or ego/self. Moreover, that dissolution is also the dissolution of the illusory suffering, because there are no "I" or subject that is suffering: there is only experience without a subject experiencing it.
The second approach seems to be cold and even insensible for most western people, primarily because of our Christian upbringing and conditioning.
But both paths are equally valid and compatible. We cannot regard one as superior than the other.
I find Michael actually deep diving instead of abstracting but words can be misleading sometimes for intellectual minds
It seems to me that Bernardo is trying to conceptualize reality, which I believe can't be done because it is beyond all concepts. Also, I think that words can't convey the actual state of being, and as long as we use our five senses as instruments of perceiving the world around us, we will be limited in understanding. There is a need to be lost, to lose everything that makes us a person to really understand and be what Ramana was talking about. Although he always says that silence is the actual teaching.
Bernardo is a voice. Let understanding unfold step by step. We not doing it for ourselfs but for for others who struggling with avīdya.
Bernardo seems to have a strong ego.
Very interesting. Each quest begins with a question.
“Who am I?“ was Ramana’s. An internal inquiry. As he followed his inquiry to its experiential end, he reached the ultimate reality of oneness, complete connectedness and all encompassing compassion.
Jesus began with the question “What do you seek?” It began with the purpose of helping others find the truth. He reached the same place- compassion, Love and oneness. Bernardo also is driven by his purpose in Nature’s larger scheme.
Right now his method is intellectual. The intellect is like a scalpel. It cuts, slices and divides. It does not integrate. At some stage, he will go beyond the intellect and use the wisdom of his mind, which integrates emotion. He will then reach the same place.
All disagreements are during the journey. The destination is the same. “There are no others “, as Ramana observed!😊
As much as I like such conversations, especially when Bernardo is involved, it appears that speech is the limitation. Speech is impure by design. As soon as you come close to the Thing that is indescribable, which is pure, there should be silence only. On a certain level „Knowledge is bondage“. (The Shiva Sūtra 1/2).
Suffering is the ripple. Ego is the lake.
Bernardo Kastrup is actually mistaken about hornets -unlike honeybees, hornets do not die after stinging but can sting repeatedly. Their stingers are designed to be easily removed, and stay intact when withdrawn from the victim
Yes, shame about that. But as someone who recently disturbed a wasp's nest accidentally and ran away with just 3 stings, I can resonate with the story to this extent: deliberately allowing over 100 stings is just plain stupid. I reckon the tale is apocryphal.
the story of the stings seems to have been verified, at least since it is told repeatedly by Michael James I believe it must be true as far as he would have heard it from a reliable source; important to keep in mind Sri Bhagavan’s actions cannot be judged by us
I love both the speakers. But I felt this session was wasted. I don't know why James felt the need to preach Bernardo. There was so much they could have discussed, like does the idea of Karma etc makes sense in the Analytical Idealism framework, if yes why & how, and many more such.
What James brings to the table is already present in a ton of Upanishadic lore, but they are cryptic & in a mystical language, at least for the morden people. What we need is someone who can tell us what these ancient metaphors mean in a contemporary analytical language. And that's exactly the value that Bernardo brings to the table. He should have been leveraged & engaged well and it would have been a treat to listen.❤️
I wish the host had stepped in & moderated after 1 hour by which time the discussion was just going in circles. Anyway, maybe next time!
Very well said, I felt the same
Michael isn’t “preaching,“ he has his way of explaining that’s the result of patiently answering the same few questions hundreds of times over the years
I have not gone far in this discussion, but I wonder why MJ does not understand BK's contention that what is, does not change despite the illusions of change! If the analogy of water and waves is scrutinized, one sees that the substance of water does not change despite the existence of waves or whirlpools appearing on the surface.
MJ seems engrossed in his understanding of the teachings of Bhagavan. I find it perplexing, that he insists on the existence of ego as the experiencer and also says the ego does not exist in sleep. That is doublespeak. What experiences what happens in deep sleep to come to the conclusion of, "I slept like a baby", if it is the ego that experiences? He is pegged to dogma without going beyond dogma, and seems not ready to accept an idea that he has not known yet.
This discussion could have been meaningful, if BK were in discussion with the Bhagavan. MJ is bringing in the limitations of his mind into the discussion.
I agree very much with your perception there indeed and was very disappointed in MJ till about 70% of the talk but then in the last 30% something
Switchs and the dialogue shifts to highlight the differing standpoint on reality of the manifest beings experience. Its painful but worth it
Salutes . No words
My Physical Existence tells me that I am Nothing.
My Metaphysical Existence tells me that I Am Everything.
My Spiritual Existence tells me that I am Another You!
The symbol that I contemplate to enjoy my Existence is the following:
0️⃣➕♾️=1️⃣
Got It?
I AM ♾️
@@nancyg3590 I am Nothing, Everything, One, Another You. 🥳🥳🥳
If you know who you are there will be no discussion.The discussion is because you don't know what really exist.How can we understand formless.
Around the 13:00 mark Bernard started talking about how he saw the crucifix, of Jesus, a human, and how it relates to all of us: "we are all nailed to the cross of limitation, seeming separation, space/time". Ramana Maharshi said: "The body is the Cross. Jesus, the son of man, is the ego or ‘I am-the-body’ idea [i.e. "limitation / separation"]. When he is crucified, he is resurrected as the Glorious Self - Jesus, the Son of God! - “Give up this life if thou wouldst live”. [from the book 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi']
Funny how it makes more sense when you remove centuries of theology :)
I love this type of discussion but it needed a moderator to keep the conversation moving forward and the tone collaborative 😊
I was waiting for Bk to realize that the “seeming to exist” was not just in regard to “others” but to Michael too. Not solipsism, but everything.
that took me months. even wrote directly sounds absurd. thus always forget and separate so far.
I think he did understood that since he said he followed Micheal's logic. It just so contrdicts to his thinking which is the Western attude towards spirituality or more concretely, life, that he refuses to go there.
And as someone who is fimiliar with both school of thoughts, I for now choose Beenardo's side.
@@stevenpham6734Its an exposition from the point of view of complete dissolution of self, of course it would make very little sense from the self limited petspective
Bernardo isn't quite there yet, but he's earnest. Humility will help him a great deal. Sometimes one can be too bright for one's britches.
Bernardo seems convinced he is Bernardo and that Michael is Michael. There is no getting through that without Bernardo directly inquiring (direct looking/seeing) into the actual nature of Self/Awareness and the "I" or "me." Mere intellectualizing won't do it, because Self/Awareness precedes mind/thought, which is, itself, only Awareness appearing as thought, like a mirage or a "snake in a rope."
Michael very patiently persisted with his surgically-precise language as usual, but Bernardo was unable to grasp the simple pointers and seemed to grow impatient and frustrated because he's trying to understand That which transcends understanding and to "know" That which can only be "known" by actually "being" It.
His biggest obstacle is going to be dropping his belief that this can be gotten intellectually. Once he drops his need to wrap his head around every bit of it, the light bulb will go off and he'll have his "aha" moment, which will be nice to see.
Seeing that Self/Being is always "here and aware" isn't rocket science. It doesn't require an advanced degree in engineering or a high IQ or even the intellect at all - as it is simply the clear, direct, obvious, and intuitive recognition of ever-present and indisputable FACT. Are you here? Yes. Are you aware? Yes. Good. Stop there. Sit with it. Dwell upon it. You Are That.
It's amazing how some of the world's smartest people can't seem to grasp the ONLY basic, simple, verifiable, and obvious fact - namely, the fact of one's own "being aware and present" as the only true FACT there is. The Maya is truly thick!
What do you mean 'Bernardo isn't quite there yet'? Where are you? Or anyone here? As Michael pointed out here more times than I can recall, at the root of it all is the dreamer, not an individual. In fact this was a bone of contention between the two for much of the latter part of the discussion. So where is Bernardo meant to get to? Where is Michael now that is so elevated? What was Sri Ramana Maharshi other than a tiger in human form reminding you of what you've chosen to forget?
The one dreamer, who has taken on a body from which to perceive its creation, is the only one that can sink back into itself. Sinking back into the self, rather than trying to figure out who is where on the path, is the only thing worth pursuing.
As long as we're all here, we're at the same level as Bernardo, Michael, and even Sri Ramana for that matter - appearances on a surface.
spot-on. I can identify with Bernardo very much here, because I have been Bernardo. But he will get there. Earnest effort will bear Bhagavan’s grace eventually.
@@vicvinegar6787 You: "What do you mean 'Bernardo isn't quite there yet'?"
Not "there" in recognizing that Bernardo and Michael are illusory.
You: "Where are you? Or anyone here?"
The recognition is here that the "me" is illusory, not real, as is the case with "you," "Bernardo," or "Michael." All arisings in, of, and as Consciousness/Awareness.
You: "So where is Bernardo meant to get to?"
To the eventual understanding or realization that "we" all get to which is that the personal, limited, egoic sense of "I" or "me" is not real/lasting, but is merely Pure Awareness itself appearing as a separate ego-individual apart from Awareness, which is never the case.
You: "Where is Michael now that is so elevated?"
"Michael" isn't "elevated." The Consciousness expressing in, through, and as the character that is "Michael" clearly recognizes that "Michael" and "Bernardo" are illusory, not real.
You: "What was Sri Ramana Maharshi other than a tiger in human form reminding you of what you've chosen to forget?"
He was/is THAT. Pure Awareness, Reality, the Absolute, appearing as Guru, as "Tiger."
You: "The one dreamer, who has taken on a body from which to perceive its creation, is the only one that can sink back into itself."
Has it ever risen? Or has it merely appeared to? Has the rope ever been a snake? Or has it merely appeared to have been a snake? How can the non-existent 'snake' sink back into the 'rope'? How can the son of the barren woman ever sink back into the barren woman?
You: "As long as we're all here, we're at the same level as Bernardo, Michael, and even Sri Ramana for that matter - appearances on a surface."
Not the same level of understanding or recognition, else you're saying that Bernardo, Michael, and Sri Ramana body-mind characters were all at the same relative level of spiritual understanding or Self-recognition, which is not the case, relatively speaking (from the position of body-mind identity).
The "Bernardo" character does not yet see things at the same level as the "Michael" character does. Consciousness expressing as "Michael" has a clearer understanding/recognition of the illusory nature of the "Michael" character.
All is Self or Atman, however, the expressions are not all at the same level of understanding at the relative level of body-mind identification.
@@highlyreg Absolutely. Earnestness is the KEY ingredient. Nothing can stop one who is earnest. Nothing. If you one has it then, in essence, they have already "won" the "game." If one doesn't have it, one won't "win" their realization/freedom until they do. It's the one quality all should strive to cultivate. One should long for Self-realization/Truth like a desperate, drowning man longs for air.
And YES x 1000%, it is Atma-Kripa (self-effort/earnestness) that draws Bhagavan-Kripa! Thank you for stating that most important fact.
@@charlieord4143 I stopped watching around 2:37:30 because Bernardo seemed increasingly impatient and disrespectful towards Michael. Despite Michael's clear and thoughtful responses, Bernardo appeared to misunderstand him and even seemed to be accusing him of lacking a compassionate outlook as if Michael's view was aligned with some kind of heartless solipsism. This tone shift made me lose interest in the conversation. If things improved later on, please let me know the timestamp where the tone changed. I value respectful dialogue, even when there are disagreements.
Edit: Clarified "solipsism" sentence and fixed timestamp.