Many a judicious interpretation and distinction here from Tom Das... You balk at exactly the right points, or rather, at the very points at which I balk... Thank you both!
The difference between hypothesis and theory - something we should all have learned when we were in high school. I can't believe these two spent so much time talking about it.
I am new to your channel Rick and I have randomly picked interviews to watch. But I find that you are the more evolved soul in each interview. Your questions ,insights, explanations.....simply amazing! I tune in more to hear what YOU have to say. 😊 Thank you so much for this service!
"Strand of Jewels: My Teacher's Essential Guidance on Dzogchen" by Khetsun Sangpo Rinpoche is a great resource for clarifying some of the subtle distinctions often missed by a more neo-Advaita approach.
Tom has a refreshing perspective to offer, very grounded, clearly a psychological shift has occurred, the value of which, cannot be underestimated. Tom did use the word 'enlightenment' to describe his experience (20:03) which is an impossibly loaded term, especially in the authentic Indian yogic tradition, far away from the guru industry, where enlightenment is understood as being a level of transcendent awareness way, way beyond the capacity of the brain and the conscious mind. Brain and mind are perceived as an infinitesimally small part of awareness. Even The Dalai Lama, who would certainly qualify as having an 'awakened' state, has categorically denied that he is enlightened. The extension of the peripheries of conscious experience (astral and causal realms) are present simultaneously, according to the yogic tradition, in the fully enlightened state. There is a current trend which dismisses this panoramic experience as either being irrelevant or untrue. Nonetheless, the profound extension of a constant simultaneous awareness of multi dimensions, has been described by the yogic tradition, for as long as it has existed. It is for this reason that the genuine Indian tradition is reluctant to describe a simple awakening as 'enlightenment'. Tom would not even come near to this particular definition. He has some extremely intelligent and helpful insights however, born most probably of a genuinely profound experience.
The discussion about Brahman after 1:53:00 reminds me of an earlier interview, maybe with James Swartz, but I can't find it anymore (maybe someone remembers?) I was thinking it could be connected with the difference between Brahman and Para Brahman.
The truth is that I love you. Ok… I love everybody. I love connecting. I love human to human contacts. And, yes, nature too. It doesn’t matter too much if you agree with me or not. It is enough that we are talking. (In my view,) What we are sharing is the Love and not ideas. Ideas are very secondary. It matters less to me whether you think there is free will or not, there is a self or not. I love that you are in my life, my thoughts, in my dreams, in my imaginations. I love your presence and that is more dear to me than any idea. I love you. And, that is my truth.
As humans grow, their hobbies, pastime and favorite entertainment choices change. Kids entertain themselves with toys. Teenagers and young humans entertain themselves with movies, music, fictions, sports, pride, inferiority complex, shoes, fashion and sex. As humans grow further, even movies, tv, "news" and sex lose charm and that is when many humans turn to something different - spirituality, enlightenment, nonduality. Many humans who turn to spirituality, enlightenment, nonduality before they are mature enough... end up using their gain in spirituality for sex and other toys. At least, that is how it seems to me. It is largely just a big entertainment. Seeking is just an excuse to keep the mind busy - pass time.
batgap viewers, Out of all the people Rick has interviewed, which ones do you truly feel have reached enlightenment, or have awakened, or have realized the self, or whatever conceptual term fits the idea of what it is that you are seeking?
Too bad Suzanne Seagall isn't still around to be interviewed on Batgap. Seems like just she and I had this same unique "loss of self" the interviewee hear speaks of as happening when he was 18 but as with Suzanne I too lost it at 19(however don't know what her age was when it occurred in her case in France) and it was sheer hell, an unquestionably traumatic experience. I later acquired yet another "self" but it too was only a product of a few years of therapy which of course just provided a "new but improved" self that got me "adjusted" to the so called "real world." But when I lost it again years later at a retreat, it was again a transient experience, pretty much like an LSD high but again rather unsettling for the few days it lasted.
Very mental man, a typical Indian intellectual. Anybody felt touched from the heart? I did not. Just a mishmash of neo-advaitan/hindu thinking with an admiration for Jesus.
I thought so too. Much of the discussion was at a "conceptual" level, which kind of left a feeling of "dryness" in the interview. But then I decided it was fine, because so many of his points are right on. We live in a different milieu, one in which science has a dominant voice, so these issues will come up. I also agree that one should take Vendantic claims to "ultimate reality", whatever this is, with a grain of salt. The Buddhist parable of the poison arrow, not worrying about the ultimate nature of things, but alleviating suffering seems to be more in the spirit of what he's saying, and more compatible with a pragmatic focus in our modern times.
I was thinking something similar but wasn't sure if it was very helpful to say it... :/ my take is that I wouldn't describe Tom as awake in the way I understand it. To me spiritual awakening means becoming aware of the ground of all levels of their relative experience. The hallmark of such an awakening would be 24/7 consciousness. Such a revelation requires a deep egoic death - coming directly in contact with death and passing through it and being reborn as presence. I've heard hundreds of people talk about their awakening but very few seem to have actually awakened in the way it means to me. Tom's disbelief in the possibility of realisation of the absolute is evidence to me that he hasn't realised it (obviously!!) so I'm a little confused why he is describing himself as enlightened. I guess the word means different things to different people. That can be very confusing, especially for people exploring spirituality for the first time. I suppose it isn't really a problem.
+Comment7400 ..9. just trying to save others some precious time ... Rick made great interviews with wonderful people, some touched me a lot - this guest did not. But maybe I am a bit allergic to Indian intellectuals, I lived there for many years and saw too many of them.
Rick’s belief system (in my view): 1. What is said in Vedas, Vedanta, Gita and ancient Indian texts is largely true. 2. What Sri Mahesh Yogi said is largely true. 3. There is life after death, there is soul, there is reincarnation. 4. I am person. I am a soul. I am on a journey. 5. You too are a person. You too are a soul. You too are on a journey. 6. Everyone is a person. Everyone has a soul. Everyone is on a journey. 7. On this journey, there are infinite steps. Everyone is on some step of the journey. No one is finished. 8. A stone might be on the step 10, the God might be at the step infinite, a person with mental illness might be at the step 100, a drug addict might be at the step 1,000, a normal person might be at the step 10,000, a meditator might be at the step 100,000, I, Rick the long time meditator and reader might be at the step 1,000,000. Someone like Adyashanti might be at the step 100,000,000. Someone like Ramana might be at state 10,000,000,000. Someone like Jesus might be at step 100,000,000,000. 9. There are miracles and there are people who perform miracles. The stories of Jesus miracle are of course, absolutely true. So, are the stories of Sai Baba miracles and Amma miracles. None of these are false. 10. There are infinite subtle realms, angels divine beings, divine guides and you can communicate with them. Is it possible that people who communicate with “angels” are possibly suffering from some mental issues? Of course, not. They just have special powers. 11. The above are my beliefs and I stick to them no matter what. 12. The above are my beliefs and I do my best to re-iterate them, reinforce them, propagate them, argue for them in every interview and every interaction.
I believe a lot of those things, but not adamantly or absolutely. Any or all of them might be wrong. I regard all beliefs, scriptures, etc. accounts of people's experiences, etc., as hypotheses potentially worthy of investigation. Many thousands of people (millions?) have investigated them and experientially corroborated them, but in the spirit of the scientific method, which I respect, that doesn't make them "facts". Regarding being a person, a soul, etc., I regard that as provisionally true. Mithya - dependent reality. Not ultimately true. Ultimately, you were never born, nor did the universe ever manifest. It just appears to have done so. But if we acknowledge its existence at all, then it is full of all sorts of marvels and wonders and mysteries. God is one creative dude!
Dear Sri Rick Archer Ji: What a delight to hear from you! Nothing wrong with beliefs. Most of us have our own beliefs. Hindus do, Muslims do, Christians do, Jews do, Buddhists do, even scientists do. It is true that many times, we humans have fought wars because of our beliefs and have killed many fellow humans. It is also true that a lot of meat eating and animals killings happen simply because of what people believe about animals - Hindus believe cows are holy, many other religions believe animals have no souls. That said, almost all of us have beliefs whether we are conscious of them or not. Following are my beliefs, Sri Rick Archer Ji: - The belief ‘I am a body’, ‘I am person’, ‘I am a soul’ is the very core, very base illusion. The entire maya, the entire illusion and ignorance rests on that alone. Ego is based on the idea ‘I am this body’. Remove the illusion of ‘I am the body’ and the entire facade falls. - The entire nonduality (at least, the version that Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi taught) rests on the idea… ‘what is true in the Deep Dreamless Sleep’, that alone is truth.’ However, you seem so firmly attached to the ideas that are the opposite to the above two that any communication seems impossible :-) It is like a telling hard-core Christian that Jesus was an enlightened human being but, still a human being, only :-)
Ramana Maharshi ============== Bhagavan: Again, sleep is said to be ajnana [ignorance]. That is only in relation to the wrong jnana [knowledge] prevalent in the wakeful state. *The waking state is really ajnana [ignorance] and the sleep state is prajnana [full knowledge]*. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 314) Question: Sushupti [deep sleep] is often characterised as the state of ignorance. Bhagavan: *No, it is the pure state. There is full awareness in it and total ignorance in the waking state.* It is said to be ajnana [ignorance] only in relation to the false jnana prevalent in jagrat [the waking state]. Really speaking jagrat [the waking state] is ajnana [ignorance] and sushupti [the sleep state] prajnana [wisdom]. If sushupti is not the real state where does the intense peace come from to the sleeper? It is everybody’s experience that nothing in jagrat can compare with the bliss and well-being derived from deep sleep, when the mind and the senses are absent. What does it all mean? It means that bliss comes only from inside ourselves and that it is most intense when we are free from thoughts and perceptions, *which create the world and the body*, that is, when we are in our pure being, which is Brahman, the Self. In other words, the being alone is bliss and the mental superimpositions are ignorance and, therefore, the cause of misery. That is why samadhi is also described as sushupti in jagrat [sleep in the waking state]; the blissful pure being which prevails in deep sleep is experienced in jagrat, when the mind and the senses are fully alert but inactive. (Guru Ramana, pp. 112-13)
Bhagavan: You are the same person that is now awake. Is it not so? Question: Yes. Bhagavan: So there is a continuity in the sleep and the waking states. What is that continuity? It is only the state of pure being. There is a difference in the two states. What is that difference? *The incidents, namely, the body, the world and the objects appear in the waking state but they disappear in sleep.* Question: But I am not aware in my sleep. Bhagavan: True, there is no awareness of the body or of the world. But you must exist in your sleep in order to say now ‘I was not aware in my sleep’. Who says so now? It is the wakeful person. The sleeper cannot say so. That is to say, the individual who is now identifying the Self with the body says that such awareness did not exist in sleep. *Because you identify yourself with the body, you see the world around you and say that the waking state is filled with beautiful and interesting things.* The sleep state appears dull because you were not there as an individual, and therefore these things were not. But what is the fact? There is the continuity of being in all the three states, but no continuity of the individual and the objects.( Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 609)
The "continuity" is apparently the experience. However, if there were no continuity, truly no continuity in awareness, not the imagined one, how would awareness even notice? The time slice theory of consciousness, based on experimental evidence from neuroscience suggests a time lag of 400 milliseconds. Additionally, awareness without individual and objects are not definitive, because the body is still alive, cells still functioning, and one can go into an explanation about all the unconscious or subconscious physiological processing that is still going on, first suggested by Freud, but also present in contemporary neuroscience.
I live by these truths or “beliefs”: 1. I AM 2. Sat. (Existence). Chit. (Consciousness). Ananda. (Aliveness) Everything else is suspect. But, if we must “speculate”... 3. I know that ultimately, I don’t really know. 4. At best, what I "know" is just a calculated, reasoned, examined, investigated guess. It is just what my limited faulty senses, my limited faulty intelligence, limited faulty memory and my limited faulty intellect tells me. 5. My senses and my perceptions are so limited and faulty that even my “direct” knowledge of seeing the sun go around the earth and the rock being solid is found to be false by science. 6. Usually, it is not worth fighting for because my knowledge itself is a suspect. 7. Peace, love, kindness, compassion, forgiveness, gratitude and companionship and happiness is far more important than any knowledge that I even myself am not sure of - which is my all knowledge - except, I AM - SAT.CHIT.ANANDA.
In Love... there is no past and future. Love is Now. In attachment, there is past and future. There is "relating" which is without the past and the future... but, is there a "relationship" without the past and the future?
Love needs no ego... no sense of 'I am this body'. Relating too needs no ego... no sense of 'I am this body'. But, is there a relationship without 'ego'... without the sense of 'I am this body'?
Love is not dependent on the memory. Attachment is dependent on the memory and the projection. Is there a "relationship" without the memory and projection?
Love exists in the Deep Dreamless Sleep too... it is not "for" anyone... it is just the 'state of being'. But, is there a "relationship" in the Deep Dreamless Sleep?
if you are suffering , you are suffering and it could be worse too , teacher may give comfy medicine though both teacher (sage) and we are sitting in the same prison.
Among gurus, my favorite is Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi! Only thing is he is too direct and too quick. He stops mind almost immediately and leaves no room for seeking. At times, it is no fun! Sometimes, you want to take the long winding road and arrive very slowly :-) Consider some of what he says (all paraphrased): - Ego is the idea ‘I am the body’. - All that is needed for the realization is letting go of the ego (the idea… ‘I am the body’). - Realization implies two selves, one realizes another but, in truth, there is only one self. - Give up me and mine… there is no need to give up anything else. - Be the Meditator, there is no need to meditate. - Hold on to the thinker, see who the thinker is and the thoughts would disappear! - Don’t worry about the thoughts… hold on to the thinker! - Even to perceive a ‘God’, you must be there first; therefore, you are prior to ‘God’. - Can there be an universe without the perceiver? You must be there to perceive the universe. You are prior to the universe. - There is not a moment when you are not. - See who the seer is. Seer alone is the truth.
Interesting and nuanced man. The interview approached an issue but shied away from it, I think. I am referring to the statement that one can realize one is non-personal and at one with the cosmic intelligence. Yet, when asked how come he can only move his own body-mind, one says that he as little-I cannot do what the cosmic power can do. My caveat is that you can't have it both ways, by which I mean that if one is the cosmic intelligence, which is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, then one does have those powers, period. That is, you cannot say you are Brahman, then say one is just a little creature. Let me be clearer. If one's essence is omniscience, it strains credulity how one can say one has realized this, and at the same time say that, well, as little-me I don't have access to those powers. But, you just said you are the Brahman, not the little me. If you are the little-me and more, as some say, then where is the omniscience and omnipotence? Why should it not be manifested? If one is the power that blows the leaves and makes it rain and makes the Earth spin, then why can't you, as Brahman now, demonstrate this? I also am not entirely satisfied with the non-doer argument for the following reason. It always seems that one is not just a passive instrument, that one can indeed make choices, even whether to follow one's inclinations like a faithful puppet, or to question all of one's given inclinations. When one engages in thinking about oneself, it is indeed difficult to come to the position that one is entirely being lived by life. It is not that easy to dismiss our voluntary will, to think or not to think. I don't know how one would make a moral decision in the mode of total passivity. I am afraid that most of what one does is done in accordance with the pleasure principle, which is selfish, and to give up prematurely on one's responsibilities risks sacrificing our very humanity. The devil made me do it; life made me do it; I was just following orders. Wouldn't a man object to this philosophy? Is it really the case that one is as powerless over oneself as one is over anything occurring outside oneself? I am recalling Dostoyevsky, where one of his characters declares that 2 plus 2 is five, in defiance of the world order, that it is man's essence to overcome nature, to exert his will, his intelligence, his honed ideas. It's somewhat jarring how guys who say they are practically at one with the Absolute, have so little new to say of real interest; one would think that abiding in infinite awareness and infinite intelligence would have some edifying effect, that there would be something more to say. Does he know what happens after death? Does he know the nature of God, whether it is impersonal or personal? If he does not, then how to explain this ignorance, given that he is really the great intelligence of all universes? How does he know, this fellow, that he is experiencing the ultimate anyhow, as he asked the interviewer? How does he know he isn't closer to the frog than he would like to think? If someone were to throttle him by the neck and suffocate him, would he respond by saying it's no big deal, since he is mostly the big I anyway? The body's nature is to survive. If he follows that inclination, isn't that identifying with the body, as opposed to the higher Self, however he calls it, and accepting it without a struggle? To the Brahman, or life essence, death of a particular body-mind should be no big deal, and he's not the body-mind anyhow. Anyway, an interesting and articulate man who has had some sort of glimpses, no doubt. I just can't get at his teaching, "seeing the way things actually are," which needs more clarity, at least for me. Is it really that simple to extinguish the sense of one's doership?
My caveat is that you can't have it both ways, by which I mean that if one is the cosmic intelligence, which is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, then one does have those powers, period. - Why do you think Cosmic intelligence is omnipotent? Does this universe with all its child rapes, torture and Hitlers and Donald Trumps look to as the something that is created by something "omnipotent"? If yes, how so?
Let me be clearer. If one's essence is omniscience, it strains credulity how one can say one has realized this, and at the same time say that, well, as little-me I don't have access to those powers. - what about the ONE who supposedly has “powers”? Why do cats eat their cubs? Why child rape? Why childhood mental illness? Why cancer? Why mosquitoes? Why kids born without limbs? Why so much suffering? What kind of “great” intelligence is that?
If one is the power that blows the leaves and makes it rain and makes the Earth spin, then why can't you, as Brahman now, demonstrate this? - Is it the same "power" that makes dogs chase and kill innocent squirrels for no reason whatsoever?
TOA: I guess I will answer all your posts here, because it's all the same issue, namely the problem of evil. If God is good, as He is in the Judeo-Christian heritage, then why is there evil? Must there not be another force, counterpoised, of darkness? If so, then God is not omnipotent, but may still be good. These questions remain problematic and have never been resolved. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, as Voltaire argued; a world where no evil exists is just not possible. Or you can deny evil as a positive term and not explain it; just say it is the absence of good. The Hindus would probably say that all the apparent evil is a lesson for the soul to achieve liberation. Being God's entertainment never appealed much to me, which is another option.
In the RELATIVE sense, yes, there is a "self" or "person" or even "doer" who would be endowed with responsibility and volition. Even Karma operates. But in the ABSOLUTE sense, as Nisargadatta stated, no birth, no death, no person(no doer), it's all an illusion. So from the perspective of the ABSOLUTE, it wouldn't even matter what YOU believe, because you're not a separate being anyway.
Regarding there being no 'doer' .... easy explanation. Because there's just one thing happening, there is no individual that can make things happen separately and cut off from everything else. Every breath, every movement, a cosmic event! The Totality is moving in such a way that these words are ending up on the screen. The flapping of a butterfly's wings in Africa is contributing to this moment, as is everything else. There are no isolated events perpetrated by a separate individual. It's impossible. Simple.
This is just an explanation I use to loosen the hold that someone might have on there being an individual separate self. It's not a full teaching about it by any means ... just a way to put a crack in the idea of a separate self. Nice interview!
Rick.., you point out at around 1.33 that one could see "how people behave who think they got the ultimate teaching.. they might blow up buses"..or put in another way: "You know them by their fruits" (christian saying).. that to me is a total contradiction to what Tom says... Are there really distinct people who blow up buses? This is a real litmus test. Yes, all is ONE doing it all (raising hands, making birds fly), but with the exception of people who blow up buses. That's different, something other??
(Almost) All humans want experiences… preferably, good experience! But, any experience is better than… no experience! And, that is the “truth” of the human existence! (In my view,) That is also the truth of the entire existence… because, the humans are nothing but an expression of the entire existence! But, if you don’t like this view, if this view doesn’t appeal to you… I am willingly to quickly change it. Because, my love for you is much stronger than my love of any idea of “truth”!
It is all about the experience… (and, relationships… which is another experience)... ...be it Meditation, enlightenment… be it a three year old playing with sand… be it a 16 years old chasing girls or be it 21 years old woman chasing Rock Stars! Or, be it alcohol, marijuana, tea, coffee or other legal or illegal drugs… o be it movies, drama, music, sports or sex… in the end, it is all about “experience” :-) The desire for the life after death is the desire for “continued experience”. The desire for heaven… is about the continued experience. The desire for re-incarnation… is about the continued experience. The believe in eternal “life”… is the hope of continued experience. Do you agree with it? Because, if you don’t… if another view makes you happier, I am willing to do it. Your happiness, pleasure matters far more to me than the idea of “truth” :-) My love for you is far stronger than my love of the idea of “truth” :-)
I “believe” this entire show (this universe, Big Bang, you, me, birth, death and sex) is for the entertainment and entertainment only. The ONE is entertaining itself with itself. This is a show of the ONE, by the ONE and for the ONE. If it needs to forget its reality for the entertainment to take place… it does so (momentarily)... just as you forget yourself when dreaming or watching a movie (momentarily)! Another way of saying same thing… that is a leela, a play, a pretend game… ultimately, no loss, no gain! Another way of saying the same thing… it is all for Love, by Love and because of Love! Love is the root of the Universe! Love is the content of the Universe! Love is the cause of the Universe! Another way of saying the same thing… it is because of the Love of creation and play that the creation happened and that the creation is sustained! Love it is!
What about cats eating their cubs, childhood diseases and all the intense suffering and shit? - Dear JazzSnare, in my view, that is the part of the act gone wrong. What is "your" explanation for it?
I am not interested in all the books you have read nor your intellectual understanding of whatever you understand Enlightenment to be. This interview is just more information and ego performance. Live it, breathe it, say it, feel it, enjoy it, express it, let me see it living, alive fresh, new, in communication. That teaches us more than any metaphor, scripture, blah, blah,blah. Sorry, but it is sad to see these interviews diluting the essential.
Turiya for Sri Rick Archer Ji ====================== Question: What is the meaning of being in sleepless sleep? Bhagavan: It is the jnani’s state. In sleep our ego is submerged and the sense organs are not active. The jnani’s ego has been killed and he does not indulge in any sense activities of his own accord or with the notion that he is the doer. So, he is in sleep. At the same time he is not unconscious as in sleep but fully awake in the Self; so his state is sleepless. This sleepless sleep, wakeful sleep, or whatever it may be called, is the turiya [fourth] state of the Self, on which as the screen all the three avasthas, the waking, dream and sleep, pass, leaving the screen unaffected. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 21st November, 1945)
Other authorities define turiya as the fouth, which is literally what it means, and turiyatita as the 5th - in which the Self remains awake to itSelf throughout waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, which is what Ramana is describing here. It's a matter of how we agree to define the terms.
+Rick Archer I was fascinated to hear about scientific studies that show physiological differences in the fourth state. I'd love to find out more, have you interviewed any of the scientists who investigate this? Or do you have any links to the papers? Also, do you know if the 5th state also has a unique physiological signature? Thanks Rick! :)
www.drfredtravis.com/ is a good place to start. He's TM-specific, but there are also researchers studying Buddhist practices, etc. And yes, the 5th state does appear to have a unique physiological signature - especially as seen in EEG. It makes sense to me that these "higher" states would be as unique physiologically as they are subjectively. We're not talking about minor modifications of belief or perception, but an entirely different way of functioning.
Question: Does a jnani have dreams? Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, he does dream, but he knows it to be a dream, in the same way as he knows the waking state to be a dream. You may call them dream number one and dream number two. The jnani being established in the fourth state-Turiya, the supreme reality- he detachedly witnesses the three other states, waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep, as pictures superimposed on it. For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, the state of wakeful sleep, which is beyond those three states, is named Turiya (the fourth). But since that Turiya alone exists and since the seeming three states do not exist, know for certain that turiya is itself turiyatitta (that which transcends the fourth).
+Rick Archer Thanks Rick. I agree it would make sense that the physiology should corroborate the subjective experience. As the 5th state is the 4th combined with the previous 3, does it override those signatures? I imagine in a 5th state person the waking, dream and sleep states would all look similar to a non-awakened person, but with some alteration running through each due to the inclusion of the 4th state. A kind of physiological representation of the full-circle awakening principle of returning to the same everyday humanity but with it being totally different. A fascinating topic!
At 55 min you discuss the number one biggest mistake in the non-dual movement. The belief that one has arrived and is complete because they have an Awakening. Nice job playing devils advocate Rick in pursuing that the self realizes the self when you are usually on the other side of that conversation trying to determine how this paradox of self and no self is perceived by the interviewee. The popular habit in non-dual perception of denying form or its pertinence is very frustrating to me. This gulf between the non-dual and the so called mystics or metaphysical is illusory in my experience and the truth lies where the inclusion of both perspectives is not only accepted in it's paradox but equally valued.
Dear Rick, Can you let go of bringing up your indian sayings and beliefs in each and every interview? It's like you don't believe in them and need constant validation.
I think you misunderstand Rick's intention in doing so. It's purely illustrative so as to point out something and nothing more. Not a clinging need for a belief system as you seem to suggest.
It is Rick's style to share pertinent dialog from his well read background. It serves to add perspective for those who may not understand or who also know the reference. It doesn't arise from some form of insecurity. Perhaps you just don't like his style of interviewing. I find that it adds credibility to peoples experience through sharing commonality. It also gives me an opportunity to go and find the reference myself for further study. I would consider it a lost resource if he stopped. Thankfully I don't believe he will.
Many a judicious interpretation and distinction here from Tom Das... You balk at exactly the right points, or rather, at the very points at which I balk... Thank you both!
The difference between hypothesis and theory - something we should all have learned when we were in high school. I can't believe these two spent so much time talking about it.
Some excellent points I found helpful. Thanks
A fine interview with a well-reasoned gentleman!
I am new to your channel Rick and I have randomly picked interviews to watch. But I find that you are the more evolved soul in each interview. Your questions ,insights, explanations.....simply amazing! I tune in more to hear what YOU have to say. 😊 Thank you so much for this service!
Rick that was amazing. Thanks for interviewing an intelligent person who thinks critically not some woo-woo believing one.
"Strand of Jewels: My Teacher's Essential Guidance on Dzogchen" by Khetsun Sangpo Rinpoche is a great resource for clarifying some of the subtle distinctions often missed by a more neo-Advaita approach.
Tom has a refreshing perspective to offer, very grounded, clearly a psychological shift has occurred, the value of which, cannot be underestimated. Tom did use the word 'enlightenment' to describe his experience (20:03) which is an impossibly loaded term, especially in the authentic Indian yogic tradition, far away from the guru industry, where enlightenment is understood as being a level of transcendent awareness way, way beyond the capacity of the brain and the conscious mind. Brain and mind are perceived as an infinitesimally small part of awareness. Even The Dalai Lama, who would certainly qualify as having an 'awakened' state, has categorically denied that he is enlightened.
The extension of the peripheries of conscious experience (astral and causal realms) are present simultaneously, according to the yogic tradition, in the fully enlightened state. There is a current trend which dismisses this panoramic experience as either being irrelevant or untrue. Nonetheless, the profound extension of a constant simultaneous awareness of multi dimensions, has been described by the yogic tradition, for as long as it has existed. It is for this reason that the genuine Indian tradition is reluctant to describe a simple awakening as 'enlightenment'.
Tom would not even come near to this particular definition. He has some extremely intelligent and helpful insights however, born most probably of a genuinely profound experience.
The discussion about Brahman after 1:53:00 reminds me of an earlier interview, maybe with James Swartz, but I can't find it anymore (maybe someone remembers?) I was thinking it could be connected with the difference between Brahman and Para Brahman.
Found it. The interview with Nirgun John 15:30 He literally says the same ''Brahman is a concept''
John Lennon said "God is a concept ... by which we measure our pain." (But Batgap did not yet exist to chronicle this observation.)
The truth is that I love you.
Ok… I love everybody.
I love connecting.
I love human to human contacts. And, yes, nature too.
It doesn’t matter too much if you agree with me or not. It is enough that we are talking. (In my view,) What we are sharing is the Love and not ideas. Ideas are very secondary.
It matters less to me whether you think there is free will or not, there is a self or not. I love that you are in my life, my thoughts, in my dreams, in my imaginations. I love your presence and that is more dear to me than any idea.
I love you.
And, that is my truth.
Enlightenment, nonduality, spirituality, "truth" are just excuses so that we can relate to each other, talk to each other.
As humans grow, their hobbies, pastime and favorite entertainment choices change.
Kids entertain themselves with toys.
Teenagers and young humans entertain themselves with movies, music, fictions, sports, pride, inferiority complex, shoes, fashion and sex.
As humans grow further, even movies, tv, "news" and sex lose charm and that is when many humans turn to something different - spirituality, enlightenment, nonduality.
Many humans who turn to spirituality, enlightenment, nonduality before they are mature enough... end up using their gain in spirituality for sex and other toys.
At least, that is how it seems to me.
It is largely just a big entertainment.
Seeking is just an excuse to keep the mind busy - pass time.
I like Tom's teasing at 1:16:00
And Rick missed it.
batgap viewers,
Out of all the people Rick has interviewed, which ones do you truly feel have reached enlightenment, or have awakened, or have realized the self, or whatever conceptual term fits the idea of what it is that you are seeking?
Too bad Suzanne Seagall isn't still around to be interviewed on Batgap. Seems like just she and I had this same unique "loss of self" the interviewee hear speaks of as happening when he was 18 but as with Suzanne I too lost it at 19(however don't know what her age was when it occurred in her case in France) and it was sheer hell, an unquestionably traumatic experience. I later acquired yet another "self" but it too was only a product of a few years of therapy which of course just provided a "new but improved" self that got me "adjusted" to the so called "real world." But when I lost it again years later at a retreat, it was again a transient experience, pretty much like an LSD high but again rather unsettling for the few days it lasted.
Very mental man, a typical Indian intellectual. Anybody felt touched from the heart? I did not. Just a mishmash of neo-advaitan/hindu thinking with an admiration for Jesus.
I don't have a problem with any of it or anything about him.
I thought so too. Much of the discussion was at a "conceptual" level, which kind of left a feeling of "dryness" in the interview. But then I decided it was fine, because so many of his points are right on. We live in a different milieu, one in which science has a dominant voice, so these issues will come up. I also agree that one should take Vendantic claims to "ultimate reality", whatever this is, with a grain of salt. The Buddhist parable of the poison arrow, not worrying about the ultimate nature of things, but alleviating suffering seems to be more in the spirit of what he's saying, and more compatible with a pragmatic focus in our modern times.
Lol, why you bashing every video buddy!!!
I was thinking something similar but wasn't sure if it was very helpful to say it... :/ my take is that I wouldn't describe Tom as awake in the way I understand it. To me spiritual awakening means becoming aware of the ground of all levels of their relative experience. The hallmark of such an awakening would be 24/7 consciousness. Such a revelation requires a deep egoic death - coming directly in contact with death and passing through it and being reborn as presence.
I've heard hundreds of people talk about their awakening but very few seem to have actually awakened in the way it means to me. Tom's disbelief in the possibility of realisation of the absolute is evidence to me that he hasn't realised it (obviously!!) so I'm a little confused why he is describing himself as enlightened. I guess the word means different things to different people. That can be very confusing, especially for people exploring spirituality for the first time. I suppose it isn't really a problem.
+Comment7400 ..9. just trying to save others some precious time ... Rick made great interviews with wonderful people, some touched me a lot - this guest did not. But maybe I am a bit allergic to Indian intellectuals, I lived there for many years and saw too many of them.
Got caught in my head listening to this one. Red Pat
Rick’s belief system (in my view):
1. What is said in Vedas, Vedanta, Gita and ancient Indian texts is largely true.
2. What Sri Mahesh Yogi said is largely true.
3. There is life after death, there is soul, there is reincarnation.
4. I am person. I am a soul. I am on a journey.
5. You too are a person. You too are a soul. You too are on a journey.
6. Everyone is a person. Everyone has a soul. Everyone is on a journey.
7. On this journey, there are infinite steps. Everyone is on some step of the journey. No one is finished.
8. A stone might be on the step 10, the God might be at the step infinite, a person with mental illness might be at the step 100, a drug addict might be at the step 1,000, a normal person might be at the step 10,000, a meditator might be at the step 100,000, I, Rick the long time meditator and reader might be at the step 1,000,000. Someone like Adyashanti might be at the step 100,000,000. Someone like Ramana might be at state 10,000,000,000. Someone like Jesus might be at step 100,000,000,000.
9. There are miracles and there are people who perform miracles. The stories of Jesus miracle are of course, absolutely true. So, are the stories of Sai Baba miracles and Amma miracles. None of these are false.
10. There are infinite subtle realms, angels divine beings, divine guides and you can communicate with them. Is it possible that people who communicate with “angels” are possibly suffering from some mental issues? Of course, not. They just have special powers.
11. The above are my beliefs and I stick to them no matter what.
12. The above are my beliefs and I do my best to re-iterate them, reinforce them, propagate them, argue for them in every interview and every interaction.
I believe a lot of those things, but not adamantly or absolutely. Any or all of them might be wrong. I regard all beliefs, scriptures, etc. accounts of people's experiences, etc., as hypotheses potentially worthy of investigation. Many thousands of people (millions?) have investigated them and experientially corroborated them, but in the spirit of the scientific method, which I respect, that doesn't make them "facts".
Regarding being a person, a soul, etc., I regard that as provisionally true. Mithya - dependent reality. Not ultimately true. Ultimately, you were never born, nor did the universe ever manifest. It just appears to have done so. But if we acknowledge its existence at all, then it is full of all sorts of marvels and wonders and mysteries. God is one creative dude!
Dear Sri Rick Archer Ji:
What a delight to hear from you!
Nothing wrong with beliefs. Most of us have our own beliefs. Hindus do, Muslims do, Christians do, Jews do, Buddhists do, even scientists do. It is true that many times, we humans have fought wars because of our beliefs and have killed many fellow humans. It is also true that a lot of meat eating and animals killings happen simply because of what people believe about animals - Hindus believe cows are holy, many other religions believe animals have no souls.
That said, almost all of us have beliefs whether we are conscious of them or not.
Following are my beliefs, Sri Rick Archer Ji:
- The belief ‘I am a body’, ‘I am person’, ‘I am a soul’ is the very core, very base illusion. The entire maya, the entire illusion and ignorance rests on that alone.
Ego is based on the idea ‘I am this body’.
Remove the illusion of ‘I am the body’ and the entire facade falls.
- The entire nonduality (at least, the version that Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi taught) rests on the idea… ‘what is true in the Deep Dreamless Sleep’, that alone is truth.’
However, you seem so firmly attached to the ideas that are the opposite to the above two that any communication seems impossible :-) It is like a telling hard-core Christian that Jesus was an enlightened human being but, still a human being, only :-)
Ramana Maharshi
==============
Bhagavan: Again, sleep is said to be ajnana [ignorance]. That is only in relation to the wrong jnana [knowledge] prevalent in the wakeful state. *The waking state is really ajnana [ignorance] and the sleep state is prajnana [full knowledge]*. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 314)
Question: Sushupti [deep sleep] is often characterised as the state of ignorance.
Bhagavan: *No, it is the pure state. There is full awareness in it and total ignorance in the waking state.* It is said to be ajnana [ignorance] only in relation to the false jnana prevalent in jagrat [the waking state]. Really speaking jagrat [the waking state] is ajnana [ignorance] and sushupti [the sleep state] prajnana [wisdom].
If sushupti is not the real state where does the intense peace come from to the sleeper? It is everybody’s experience that nothing in jagrat can compare with the bliss and well-being derived from deep sleep, when the mind and the senses are absent. What does it all mean? It means that bliss comes only from inside ourselves and that it is most intense when we are free from thoughts and perceptions, *which create the world and the body*, that is, when we are in our pure being, which is Brahman, the Self.
In other words, the being alone is bliss and the mental superimpositions are ignorance and, therefore, the cause of misery. That is why samadhi is also described as sushupti in jagrat [sleep in the waking state]; the blissful pure being which prevails in deep sleep is experienced in jagrat, when the mind and the senses are fully alert but inactive. (Guru Ramana, pp. 112-13)
Bhagavan: You are the same person that is now awake. Is it not so?
Question: Yes.
Bhagavan: So there is a continuity in the sleep and the waking states. What is that continuity? It is only the state of pure being.
There is a difference in the two states. What is that difference? *The incidents, namely, the body, the world and the objects appear in the waking state but they disappear in sleep.*
Question: But I am not aware in my sleep.
Bhagavan: True, there is no awareness of the body or of the world. But you must exist in your sleep in order to say now ‘I was not aware in my sleep’. Who says so now? It is the wakeful person. The sleeper cannot say so. That is to say, the individual who is now identifying the Self with the body says that such awareness did not exist in sleep.
*Because you identify yourself with the body, you see the world around you and say that the waking state is filled with beautiful and interesting things.* The sleep state appears dull because you were not there as an individual, and therefore these things were not. But what is the fact? There is the continuity of being in all the three states, but no continuity of the individual and the objects.( Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 609)
The "continuity" is apparently the experience. However, if there were no continuity, truly no continuity in awareness, not the imagined one, how would awareness even notice? The time slice theory of consciousness, based on experimental evidence from neuroscience suggests a time lag of 400 milliseconds. Additionally, awareness without individual and objects are not definitive, because the body is still alive, cells still functioning, and one can go into an explanation about all the unconscious or subconscious physiological processing that is still going on, first suggested by Freud, but also present in contemporary neuroscience.
I live by these truths or “beliefs”:
1. I AM
2. Sat. (Existence). Chit. (Consciousness). Ananda. (Aliveness)
Everything else is suspect. But, if we must “speculate”...
3. I know that ultimately, I don’t really know.
4. At best, what I "know" is just a calculated, reasoned, examined, investigated guess. It is just what my limited faulty senses, my limited faulty intelligence, limited faulty memory and my limited faulty intellect tells me.
5. My senses and my perceptions are so limited and faulty that even my “direct” knowledge of seeing the sun go around the earth and the rock being solid is found to be false by science.
6. Usually, it is not worth fighting for because my knowledge itself is a suspect.
7. Peace, love, kindness, compassion, forgiveness, gratitude and companionship and happiness is far more important than any knowledge that I even myself am not sure of - which is my all knowledge - except, I AM - SAT.CHIT.ANANDA.
What is the difference between the Love and the Attachment?
In my view, the difference between the love and the attachment is... Relationship! Is there any relationship without attachment?
In Love... there is no past and future. Love is Now. In attachment, there is past and future. There is "relating" which is without the past and the future... but, is there a "relationship" without the past and the future?
Love needs no ego... no sense of 'I am this body'. Relating too needs no ego... no sense of 'I am this body'. But, is there a relationship without 'ego'... without the sense of 'I am this body'?
Love is not dependent on the memory. Attachment is dependent on the memory and the projection. Is there a "relationship" without the memory and projection?
Love exists in the Deep Dreamless Sleep too... it is not "for" anyone... it is just the 'state of being'. But, is there a "relationship" in the Deep Dreamless Sleep?
if you are suffering , you are suffering and it could be worse too , teacher may give comfy medicine though both teacher (sage) and we are sitting in the same prison.
Among gurus, my favorite is Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi! Only thing is he is too direct and too quick. He stops mind almost immediately and leaves no room for seeking. At times, it is no fun! Sometimes, you want to take the long winding road and arrive very slowly :-)
Consider some of what he says (all paraphrased):
- Ego is the idea ‘I am the body’.
- All that is needed for the realization is letting go of the ego (the idea… ‘I am the body’).
- Realization implies two selves, one realizes another but, in truth, there is only one self.
- Give up me and mine… there is no need to give up anything else.
- Be the Meditator, there is no need to meditate.
- Hold on to the thinker, see who the thinker is and the thoughts would disappear!
- Don’t worry about the thoughts… hold on to the thinker!
- Even to perceive a ‘God’, you must be there first; therefore, you are prior to ‘God’.
- Can there be an universe without the perceiver? You must be there to perceive the universe. You are prior to the universe.
- There is not a moment when you are not.
- See who the seer is. Seer alone is the truth.
A mirror reflects enlightenment at older age. When I look at it, I say, " Thank god I'm not this body."
Interesting and nuanced man. The interview approached an issue but shied away from it, I think. I am referring to the statement that one can realize one is non-personal and at one with the cosmic intelligence. Yet, when asked how come he can only move his own body-mind, one says that he as little-I cannot do what the cosmic power can do. My caveat is that you can't have it both ways, by which I mean that if one is the cosmic intelligence, which is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, then one does have those powers, period. That is, you cannot say you are Brahman, then say one is just a little creature. Let me be clearer. If one's essence is omniscience, it strains credulity how one can say one has realized this, and at the same time say that, well, as little-me I don't have access to those powers. But, you just said you are the Brahman, not the little me. If you are the little-me and more, as some say, then where is the omniscience and omnipotence? Why should it not be manifested? If one is the power that blows the leaves and makes it rain and makes the Earth spin, then why can't you, as Brahman now, demonstrate this?
I also am not entirely satisfied with the non-doer argument for the following reason. It always seems that one is not just a passive instrument, that one can indeed make choices, even whether to follow one's inclinations like a faithful puppet, or to question all of one's given inclinations. When one engages in thinking about oneself, it is indeed difficult to come to the position that one is entirely being lived by life. It is not that easy to dismiss our voluntary will, to think or not to think. I don't know how one would make a moral decision in the mode of total passivity. I am afraid that most of what one does is done in accordance with the pleasure principle, which is selfish, and to give up prematurely on one's responsibilities risks sacrificing our very humanity. The devil made me do it; life made me do it; I was just following orders. Wouldn't a man object to this philosophy?
Is it really the case that one is as powerless over oneself as one is over anything occurring outside oneself? I am recalling Dostoyevsky, where one of his characters declares that 2 plus 2 is five, in defiance of the world order, that it is man's essence to overcome nature, to exert his will, his intelligence, his honed ideas.
It's somewhat jarring how guys who say they are practically at one with the Absolute, have so little new to say of real interest; one would think that abiding in infinite awareness and infinite intelligence would have some edifying effect, that there would be something more to say. Does he know what happens after death? Does he know the nature of God, whether it is impersonal or personal? If he does not, then how to explain this ignorance, given that he is really the great intelligence of all universes? How does he know, this fellow, that he is experiencing the ultimate anyhow, as he asked the interviewer? How does he know he isn't closer to the frog than he would like to think? If someone were to throttle him by the neck and suffocate him, would he respond by saying it's no big deal, since he is mostly the big I anyway? The body's nature is to survive. If he follows that inclination, isn't that identifying with the body, as opposed to the higher Self, however he calls it, and accepting it without a struggle? To the Brahman, or life essence, death of a particular body-mind should be no big deal, and he's not the body-mind anyhow.
Anyway, an interesting and articulate man who has had some sort of glimpses, no doubt. I just can't get at his teaching, "seeing the way things actually are," which needs more clarity, at least for me. Is it really that simple to extinguish the sense of one's doership?
My caveat is that you can't have it both ways, by which I mean that if one is the cosmic intelligence, which is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, then one does have those powers, period. - Why do you think Cosmic intelligence is omnipotent?
Does this universe with all its child rapes, torture and Hitlers and Donald Trumps look to as the something that is created by something "omnipotent"?
If yes, how so?
Let me be clearer. If one's essence is omniscience, it strains credulity how one can say one has realized this, and at the same time say that, well, as little-me I don't have access to those powers.
- what about the ONE who supposedly has “powers”?
Why do cats eat their cubs?
Why child rape?
Why childhood mental illness?
Why cancer?
Why mosquitoes?
Why kids born without limbs?
Why so much suffering?
What kind of “great” intelligence is that?
If one is the power that blows the leaves and makes it rain and makes the Earth spin, then why can't you, as Brahman now, demonstrate this?
- Is it the same "power" that makes dogs chase and kill innocent squirrels for no reason whatsoever?
TOA: I guess I will answer all your posts here, because it's all the same issue, namely the problem of evil. If God is good, as He is in the Judeo-Christian heritage, then why is there evil? Must there not be another force, counterpoised, of darkness? If so, then God is not omnipotent, but may still be good. These questions remain problematic and have never been resolved. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, as Voltaire argued; a world where no evil exists is just not possible. Or you can deny evil as a positive term and not explain it; just say it is the absence of good. The Hindus would probably say that all the apparent evil is a lesson for the soul to achieve liberation. Being God's entertainment never appealed much to me, which is another option.
In the RELATIVE sense, yes, there is a "self" or "person" or even "doer" who would be endowed with responsibility and volition. Even Karma operates. But in the ABSOLUTE sense, as Nisargadatta stated, no birth, no death, no person(no doer), it's all an illusion. So from the perspective of the ABSOLUTE, it wouldn't even matter what YOU believe, because you're not a separate being anyway.
Regarding there being no 'doer' .... easy explanation. Because there's just one thing happening, there is no individual that can make things happen separately and cut off from everything else. Every breath, every movement, a cosmic event! The Totality is moving in such a way that these words are ending up on the screen. The flapping of a butterfly's wings in Africa is contributing to this moment, as is everything else. There are no isolated events perpetrated by a separate individual. It's impossible. Simple.
This is just an explanation I use to loosen the hold that someone might have on there being an individual separate self. It's not a full teaching about it by any means ... just a way to put a crack in the idea of a separate self. Nice interview!
Well put! All verbal/written teachings are just a 'crack', a way in
Rick.., you point out at around 1.33 that one could see "how people behave who think they got the ultimate teaching.. they might blow up buses"..or put in another way: "You know them by their fruits" (christian saying).. that to me is a total contradiction to what Tom says... Are there really distinct people who blow up buses? This is a real litmus test. Yes, all is ONE doing it all (raising hands, making birds fly), but with the exception of people who blow up buses. That's different, something other??
(Almost) All humans want experiences… preferably, good experience! But, any experience is better than… no experience! And, that is the “truth” of the human existence!
(In my view,) That is also the truth of the entire existence… because, the humans are nothing but an expression of the entire existence! But, if you don’t like this view, if this view doesn’t appeal to you… I am willingly to quickly change it. Because, my love for you is much stronger than my love of any idea of “truth”!
It is all about the experience… (and, relationships… which is another experience)... ...be it Meditation, enlightenment… be it a three year old playing with sand… be it a 16 years old chasing girls or be it 21 years old woman chasing Rock Stars! Or, be it alcohol, marijuana, tea, coffee or other legal or illegal drugs… o be it movies, drama, music, sports or sex… in the end, it is all about “experience” :-)
The desire for the life after death is the desire for “continued experience”.
The desire for heaven… is about the continued experience.
The desire for re-incarnation… is about the continued experience.
The believe in eternal “life”… is the hope of continued experience.
Do you agree with it?
Because, if you don’t… if another view makes you happier, I am willing to do it. Your happiness, pleasure matters far more to me than the idea of “truth” :-) My love for you is far stronger than my love of the idea of “truth” :-)
I “believe” this entire show (this universe, Big Bang, you, me, birth, death and sex) is for the entertainment and entertainment only. The ONE is entertaining itself with itself. This is a show of the ONE, by the ONE and for the ONE. If it needs to forget its reality for the entertainment to take place… it does so (momentarily)... just as you forget yourself when dreaming or watching a movie (momentarily)!
Another way of saying same thing… that is a leela, a play, a pretend game… ultimately, no loss, no gain!
Another way of saying the same thing… it is all for Love, by Love and because of Love!
Love is the root of the Universe!
Love is the content of the Universe!
Love is the cause of the Universe!
Another way of saying the same thing… it is because of the Love of creation and play that the creation happened and that the creation is sustained!
Love it is!
What about cats eating their cubs, childhood diseases and all the intense suffering and shit?
Dear jazzsnare:
Peace, love, wisdom, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, understanding and gratitude to you! All the best! Thanks for your reply!
What about cats eating their cubs, childhood diseases and all the intense suffering and shit? - Dear JazzSnare, in my view, that is the part of the act gone wrong. What is "your" explanation for it?
I am not interested in all the books you have read nor your intellectual understanding of whatever you understand Enlightenment to be. This interview is just more information and ego performance. Live it, breathe it, say it, feel it, enjoy it, express it, let me see it living, alive fresh, new, in communication. That teaches us more than any metaphor, scripture, blah, blah,blah. Sorry, but it is sad to see these interviews diluting the essential.
that's because of Rick's questions I reckon
Turiya for Sri Rick Archer Ji
======================
Question: What is the meaning of being in sleepless sleep?
Bhagavan: It is the jnani’s state. In sleep our ego is submerged and the sense organs are not active. The jnani’s ego has been killed and he does not indulge in any sense activities of his own accord or with the notion that he is the doer. So, he is in sleep. At the same time he is not unconscious as in sleep but fully awake in the Self; so his state is sleepless. This sleepless sleep, wakeful sleep, or whatever it may be called, is the turiya [fourth] state of the Self, on which as the screen all the three avasthas, the waking, dream and sleep, pass, leaving the screen unaffected. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 21st November, 1945)
Other authorities define turiya as the fouth, which is literally what it means, and turiyatita as the 5th - in which the Self remains awake to itSelf throughout waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, which is what Ramana is describing here. It's a matter of how we agree to define the terms.
+Rick Archer I was fascinated to hear about scientific studies that show physiological differences in the fourth state. I'd love to find out more, have you interviewed any of the scientists who investigate this? Or do you have any links to the papers? Also, do you know if the 5th state also has a unique physiological signature? Thanks Rick! :)
www.drfredtravis.com/ is a good place to start. He's TM-specific, but there are also researchers studying Buddhist practices, etc. And yes, the 5th state does appear to have a unique physiological signature - especially as seen in EEG. It makes sense to me that these "higher" states would be as unique physiologically as they are subjectively. We're not talking about minor modifications of belief or perception, but an entirely different way of functioning.
Question: Does a jnani have dreams?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, he does dream, but he knows it to be a dream, in the same way as he knows the waking state to be a dream. You may call them dream number one and dream number two. The jnani being established in the fourth state-Turiya, the supreme reality- he detachedly witnesses the three other states, waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep, as pictures superimposed on it.
For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, the state of wakeful sleep, which is beyond those three states, is named Turiya (the fourth). But since that Turiya alone exists and since the seeming three states do not exist, know for certain that turiya is itself turiyatitta (that which transcends the fourth).
+Rick Archer Thanks Rick. I agree it would make sense that the physiology should corroborate the subjective experience. As the 5th state is the 4th combined with the previous 3, does it override those signatures? I imagine in a 5th state person the waking, dream and sleep states would all look similar to a non-awakened person, but with some alteration running through each due to the inclusion of the 4th state. A kind of physiological representation of the full-circle awakening principle of returning to the same everyday humanity but with it being totally different. A fascinating topic!
Two minds chatting....
Enlightenment is entertainment ... Misspelled.
At 55 min you discuss the number one biggest mistake in the non-dual movement. The belief that one has arrived and is complete because they have an Awakening.
Nice job playing devils advocate Rick in pursuing that the self realizes the self when you are usually on the other side of that conversation trying to determine how this paradox of self and no self is perceived by the interviewee.
The popular habit in non-dual perception of denying form or its pertinence is very frustrating to me. This gulf between the non-dual and the so called mystics or metaphysical is illusory in my experience and the truth lies where the inclusion of both perspectives is not only accepted in it's paradox but equally valued.
Dear Rick,
Can you let go of bringing up your indian sayings and beliefs in each and every interview? It's like you don't believe in them and need constant validation.
I think you misunderstand Rick's intention in doing so. It's purely illustrative so as to point out something and nothing more. Not a clinging need for a belief system as you seem to suggest.
It is Rick's style to share pertinent dialog from his well read background. It serves to add perspective for those who may not understand or who also know the reference. It doesn't arise from some form of insecurity. Perhaps you just don't like his style of interviewing. I find that it adds credibility to peoples experience through sharing commonality. It also gives me an opportunity to go and find the reference myself for further study. I would consider it a lost resource if he stopped. Thankfully I don't believe he will.
I do admit though that my repertoire is limited. I use the same quotes too often. I wish I had more at my fingertips.
science is a meaningless cover for selfish middle class fraud
Yawn........zzzzzz
Go sleep on it then.