Exactly, rely on your own rational thinking, and especially don’t trust people who say, “ I don’t understand this my self, or this can’t be understood “, while in the same time they are suggesting that what they say is correct. Don’t get fooled.
there's also a big illusion that happens when one is told by a "non-dualist" what THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS and then says, don't take it from me find out for yourself BY FOLLOWING my pointers to have an experience that once you have it will confirm what I'm saying is true. I.e. what I fell into, which was THE TRUTH IS NO SELF - here's a pointer to it - SELF-INQUIRY method to experience "NO SELF" for example - OH SHIT I'm experiencing what seems to be the non-existence of self, therefore the pre-given conclusion HAS TO BE TRUE because "I expereinced it that way" - which is actually a hard-to-see authoritarian self-confirming loop seeming to show that what is preached as UNQUESTIONABLE and ABSOLUTELY TRUE has become SELF-EVIDENTLY such. What IS EVIDENT is that it's possible to have the perspective, the experience that others have successfully pointed you to, but I now see that there are MORE THAN ONE WAY to interpret said experience after the fact / more than one VALID conclusion - maybe the authoritarian (I know the unquestionable absolute truth, and no alternate conclusion is valid) pointer outer's conclusion is true, but JUST BECAUSE I CAN EXPERIENCE it that way DOES NOT MAKE IT DE FACTO absolute truth. I've explored the closed loop, self-validating nature of "direct truth" pointers with a good friend Tim Freke, here, if you're curious! th-cam.com/play/PLQ565dQV7_hURY9TiEZsi_V9nDbBJGtO6.html&si=T6cBt6kXhTT3DvqC
I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I seem to know that that "old Zen saying" you mentioned, isn't from Zen at all but from the original Pali canon, specifically in the Bahiya Sutta - I've heard enough teachers quote it I guess, whithout actually having read it. Good to see a new video after a longish pause. :) I finished Turjman's book, and I think there's some good info there, but in the end, like this channel, it does seem to be overly fixated on the brain and neurological processes. I mean that's fine for a standard materialist, or even someone who is more scientifically oriented, like myself, but the typical non-duality teacher suggests that while the brain may offer some interesting correlations, it too is just an appearance and that EVERYTHING that we can conceptualize is just that, a thought, not reality, which is the immedieate present experiencing, constantly changing, yatta, yatta. I THINK what you are getting at here in the video - correct me if I'm wrong is basic warning to not get carried away with the traditional spiritual teaching of - just drop the me, practice boundless being (or whatever yoru preferred term is), and you will be at at peace, even more so you will be in great pleasure even? As a more "level-headed" type of "seaker" although I'm not sure I identify as one in the conventional way, I listen to teachers who are much less about doing this and becoming some Buddha who spends most of his day in cessation or other meditative states. Rather the teachers I listen to are all very aware of the idea that after you see through the self, have a shift in identity, etc., you can then discard the seaking and realize that the relative and the absolute are the same thing. That we get to experience the relative but take it for what it is - just appearances. It just means that we don't get caught up in the narratives and struggles because we know it's ultimately not happening for a small seperate self who needs to (or even ever could) have a "good" life, or be enlightened, etc. But it sounds like your main target is more the gurus who are trying to sell people on a perpetual state of oneness/nirvana/bliss/etc. without any need or desire to ever deal with the relative again, or as little as possible. Am I right? If so, that's great, but it seems like there's a lot of teachers out there, perhaps more recently than in the past (?) who emphasize "integration" and getting back to the real world and not having to deal the pretense of being an enlightened "person" because you see through that charade anyway, so it's pointless and inauthentic anyway. Let me know if I got your main message or if I'm totally off.
I wrote the paragraphs below only to discover I hadn't answered your question at all. Yes . . .I like how you've put it - relative and absolute are the same thing so no need to seek and no-one to seek. The only thing I'd disagree with is that my target is not the nirvana spouting gurus but the one's waxing lyrical about how 'their' me has dropped and as a result there is liberation and a seeing of nothingness and silence and appearance . . . when all that's happened is a tilt into the right hemisphere (and yes I was a part of that group). Below is a ramble that doesn't answer your question so feel free to read or not. There was a wait . . . I had an ear infection just as I was about to record and was 95% deaf for a while! Since it is the brain seeing non-duality then I would say there can’t be enough emphasis . . . or we’re back into superstition. The mind is like an interface . . . instead of zeros and ones on a computer we see a pretty symbol of an envelope that means emails. The mind is like those pretty symbols . . . but the symbols themselves have no reality to them. The brain creates a pretty symbol called self and a pretty symbol called non-duality . . . . . To say non-duality came first seems to just be man’s attempt to ‘know’ reality . . . . to say duality came first seems to also be man’s attempt to ‘know’ reality . . . . but we only view life through those prisms because that’s the only two views that the brain has. Nothing wrong or right with either view . . . . but it’s mammothly astonishing to find that non-duality, which has been deemed as a truth is only a view according to a brain. Both ‘appearance’ and ‘physicality’ are man’s view. Is it astonishing to ‘view’ from just the right hemisphere? Yes . . . but it’s not truth. And besides . . . no-one gets enlightened or sees more truth from a ‘dropped me’. The ‘me’ is an interface. Life is most likely an abundance of energy (with no consciousness) but no-one with either view could possibly point to ‘reality’ as either appearance or material and speak from a position of authority. Neither non-duality nor duality are ‘it’. There are no ‘me’s’ anywhere. No-one can find truth via non-duality or duality. That really throws everything out!!!! What a great unknowable mystery!!!!
@@nondualityfunSome wag once said that the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. It's incredible what the study of the brain can tell us about our mind and perception. It's so much that one could be forgiven for thinking that the brain actually causes the mind. But then of course, strictly logically, this is absurd. The brain is fully a figment of the mind. You just can't escape the mind and its productions. Maybe it's the case that the right hemisphere can see some relative truths that the left can't? McGilchrist would say we should prioritize those truths, in general, because of the more personal, biased focus of the left?
@@nondualityfun thanks for responding. I'm still at a point where most of this stuff is conceptual, but I do feel like after having read and listened to a lot, I have a reasonable conceptual understanding of the different "takes" on things. Most recent reading suggests that the whole "awakening" thing is really just what you are alluding to - realizing that the "self" or "me" is just a construct, a mechanism that doesn't represent what conventional society believes it does (an individual soul or what have you), and that after this awakening, it will still continue to do it's thing and make things happen in "your" life, but you see it much more clearly or what it is. You don't take it seriously and don't believe it is "you" but just another appearance that is happening that "you" are privvy to. So perhaps some people mean this when they talk about "dropping the me" while others, particularly those who haven't really seen through it, still think that they will simply be without this self/selfing mechanism after awakening. The following I wrote about someone that may have some vague relevance to some of the misunderstanding of all of this, but you're free to ignore it - I mainly wrote it because it's been swimming around in my head for a while and it was nice to actually get it out on the page (or div in this case): It's funny because I know this younger person who got very involved in this stuff and then started talking as if they were going through awakening. Recently they said that their "self had dissolved." I've had this suspicion all along that they have been BSing in order to be validated, but maybe part of them also believes their own BS. They also talk endlessly about themselves in every comment I've seen them make, and they have their own TH-cam channel where they talk endlessly about their daily experiences in life. So, something doesn't quite add up there. And for whatever reason it bugs me a bit, but I also feel bad for this person who I think is still kind of young and figuring out life but has attacherd themselves to a "tribe" of folks based on some charasmatic "teachers." The teachers themselves, from what I can see, are not trying to dellude people, they are just talking from their own experience and some of that is very "clear" - they are very level headed and are quick to warn people about the pitfalls of this stuff, and they don't put themselves out on a pedestal and don't even call themselves teachers. They also don't call them on their BS when they starts spouting it though, they just humor her. So I sometimes wonder whether they are secretly feeling like they know they are selling themselves and others a story, but I guess that would be rude to do, at least in public, and even in private I would assume could end up causing a lot of hurt feelings or worse. Anyway, this is all neither here nor there but it was nice to finally write about it, lol!
I asked Odeh if the ‘me’ comes from the left hemisphere and he said he did not know. He does say the brain's Default Mode Network (DMN), is a key player in generating the personal identity or ego/self/me. The DMN spans both hemispheres and involves regions in both hemispheres of the brain. The DMN orchestrates the construction of a narrative self-connecting past memories, future projections, and self-referential thoughts. Turjman argues that this sense of a stable "I" is essentially a mental construct produced by the brain's habitual neural patterns, particularly within the DMN. So, I don’t know? Maybe the code is not cracked just hacked. Maybe it's not so simple as left and right?
Hi Richard, yes Odeh Turjman's work does not cover the left right hemisphere but if you look at Dr Iain McGilchrist's work and Jill Bolte Taylor's work Whole Brain Living it's there you see how the two hemispheres perceive. What is interesting though about Turjman's work is that it is such a perfect mirror to Ramana or Tony Parson's loss of self . . . but through the neuroscientific framework. It's the bringing together of all these works that seem to crack the code . . . or hack the code. Turjman gives us the specific workings of a supposed self and that on its own provides an extraordinarily shattering (in a wonderful way) but on it's own it doesn't reveal how perfectly aligned the teachings of non-duality and the perception of the right hemisphere are. Turjman hasn't followed the science into the two hemispheres. I'm marrying up a few different links. It was just astonishing to stumble across them all in the space of a short time and that seemed to create a welcome schism somehow . . . It's interesting because I can relate to the lack of a narrator and seeing in terms of everything being an extraordinary appearance of energy appearing as form . . . . and yet can also really relate to that view possibly being just a mind view and seeing the gift and skill of the left hemisphere. At any rate there's been a shift where it's clear that The Nothing is not where any presenter speaks from . . . it's not the last word on truth . . . . and that seems freer. While on the one hand it's all true . . it's just not a truth. Have a look at Whole Brain Living (not for her recommendations or anything - I'm not advocating anyone follow her) but just to gain insight into the brain . . . as well as Dr Iain McGilchrist who is the one with the greatest and most recent body of knowledge about the hemispheres. If anything you see why people would resonate with non-duality . . . not because it is an Absolute truth that we need to find but just because it's part of how we naturally view things.
@@nondualityfunHi Clare, the discussion about the brain’s hemispheres, particularly regarding how the left hemisphere produces the ego through its stream of thoughts, aligns well with various sources like Iain McGilchrist (The Master and His Emissary), Jill Bolte Taylor (My Stroke of Insight), Antonio Damasio (The Feeling of What Happens), and Mark Solms (The Hidden Spring). Eckhart Tolle also refers to the left hemisphere as the producer of the ego through its constant mental activity. The idea that the right hemisphere is "silent," as McGilchrist notes, points to a more integrated, present awareness, as opposed to the analytical, time-bound left hemisphere. Turjman's perspective suggests that the self/ego is a fluid construct, constantly created and dismantled by the brain based on context, contrasting with the more rigid non-dual stance of Parsons et al. who suggest a permanent "death of the self." Turjman talks of the discontinuous nature of the self, where the inner voice and the mirroring face fall away intermittently, this offers a more dynamic, neurological interpretation, which does not align with the "permanent death" described by Parsons or Ramana. Turjman says that the sense of self is a fluid and not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, that the brain constantly constructs and deconstructs the self, based on context. And that in his case now, his inner narrative is being constantly cut and uses the phrase ‘discontinuous’ to describe this new reality, however he goes on to say his 'me' returns and that when his ego is there its no different from anyone else’s ego. He says the ego/me must return to function in the world, again, not a view shared by Tony et al. The extent to which the ego returns, and the necessity of the ego for functioning in the world, as Turjman notes, presents a more flexible view compared to the absolute disappearance of the me/ego in radical non-duality. But as I think you touched on in your video, they do have businesses to run 😊. I can think of two or three that make their living from saying their ‘me’ has died and if you follow me yours might too? But it now seems more to be a fairly rare neurological event, in some cases, quite calamitous, akin to a stroke or it’s equal, perhaps a sweet lobotomy! Yet as likely to happen by accident than by attending meetings and retreats? I haven’t got the numbers 😊. And yes, at any rate there's been a shift here too, it's not the last word or any truth, and yes, it’s certainly freer having this clarity of perception albeit from an intellectual illumination, which will inevitably be added.
@@richardverney3439 Thanks for writing all that out. Very clear. And thanks for Damasio and Solms mention, I'll check them out. I think what you write about Turjman is true and highlights the possible differences between Turjman and Tony Parsons . . . it might be that even though Tony says the me is permanently gone . . . I admit I have assumed otherwise. ;) Tony on stage is different in a normal conversation . . . and while here there was a sense of a dropped me . . . it seemed over time that once you see everything as appearance there is not a return to being bothered if the me comes back or not . . . . the me wasn't really there as a 'thing' anyway. I would now describe it as the brain activity sliding right or left and no-one has a me. I may be wrong but I think Tony slides right and left as do all presenters. Slide left to do normal things but present from the right hemisphere view. I could be wrong. It's interesting that Turjman didn't seem to like it nor Suzanne Segal and yet others like it and go on to teach enlightenment. Before it happened to Ramana he was heavily influenced by a book on saints. And both Turjman and Ramana faced fear just as it occurred. There are some similarities. - actually I just reread one of your paragraphs - I don't think Tony says the ego necessarily goes . . . he has such a big personality! So it could just be a difference in semantics. Yes I think when it is like Turjman and possibly Tony it is rare. And maybe when it is brought on in spiritual circumstances it's from wrestling with a koan or the paradoxes of non-duality. What I like about Turjman's work is the precise description of what happens in the brain that creates the sense of a self. He certainly doesn't view everything as Appearance only. He is not the spiritual type! Definitely a shift has occurred here. It's freer . . . . and seeing everything as 'Appearance' isn't true seeing. A beautiful view that needn't be projected. And the projection is actually quite blinding. I think that's the difference now . . . . what had seemed liberating and a plunge into a silent mind is now seen as being blinkered by a mindset. Both extremes blind the full view. Thank you for all the conversations. It's been eventful!!
@@nondualityfunThanks for your thoughtful response! The comparison of Turjman and Parsons et al. is fascinating, especially around the idea of the "me" either vanishing or reappearing. I like your interpretation that Tony et al. might slide between the hemispheres, depending on the context. This aligns with McGilchrist’s assertion that we can move between left-hemisphere analytical thinking and right-hemisphere holistic perception. That sliding scale could very well explain how presenters like Tony et al. move between different modes of being, even if they don't explicitly acknowledge it. The idea that Turjman didn't "like" the loss of self is intriguing. From what I've seen, his experience was more about managing the consequences than disliking it per se. He admitted that "living with bliss is not easy." Suzanne Segal, similarly, described her loss of self as terrifying before it eventually became manageable. Maybe it's about how prepared someone is for that shift; for Turjman, it was more of a neuroscientific phenomenon, while for others like Parsons or Ramana, it was framed as spiritual liberation. Regarding semantics, I too think there’s often confusion about what “ego death” really means. When Tony et al. speak of the ego or the “me” permanently disappearing, it doesn't always seem like they're describing a nuanced process but more of an all-or-nothing shift. Yet, Turjman and I think Tony et al. say the personality traits remain and may be magnified as self-censorship is not there anymore. Perhaps, in practice, they still operate with some degree of self-awareness-just not the “me” as they previously knew. This could tie back into that sliding scale idea where the sense of self shifts, but never fully disappears for good. Perhaps they took a large shift to the right and can't quite come back as far left anymore? Your point about seeing everything as “Appearance” and how that view can become limiting resonates with me. It’s easy to romanticize the idea of non-duality, but as you mentioned, it can lead to a kind of blindness or over-identification with one mode of seeing. Turjman’s work grounds this perspective in something tangible-brain activity-which offers a much-needed counterbalance to the more abstract, spiritual interpretations of non-duality. The discussions around "Appearance" and "Truth" are ongoing, but I agree that the freedom comes not from one definitive answer, but from allowing multiple perspectives to coexist. It’s about letting go of the need for a final word on truth, which can ironically free us from feeling stuck in one particular view. Thanks again for the engaging conversation, it’s been eventful on my end too!
I think there is an awareness of both sides, but through training, the awareness has favoured one side more than the other. I think it requires retraining to be able to choose which side to use in the moment.
Great! It might be useful to add that when the right hemisphere speaks, it is actually always and only the left one that tries to describe the right one's view. The language area (Broca) is on the left, and it is the only one that speaks: whoever has damaged it is non-verbal
Yes I had to use artistic license . . . . no other way to convey it! But yes I could have added what you say about the left . . . . only so much I can add to each video . . . but yes . . . agreed!
Love your videos! Hope this gets traction. Have you talked to Emerson Non Duality? He has a sizeable reach, is sort of disrupting the scene/paradigm, and one could say he is very effective at helping people acknowledge the right hemisphere “view” and stop seeking. He’s also interested in scientific views, and mentions Turjman frequently. Just think you two ought to have a chat!
I am pretty sure I heard speakers like jim newman and tony parsons always say that there is no "Truth" and that's the experience of being an individual is also wholeness and nothing needs to happen.
I as well heard them say, that this can’t be understood, and that they don’t know anything , while in the same time claiming that this is wholeness and nothing needs to happen 😂. I am surprised that many people can’t see the contradiction in that 🤷🏼♂️. I am not saying that everything they say is nonsense, but many things they say are nonsense. They make lots of assumptions, but present them as facts.
They do also say that their words are coming from 'The nothing' and not a 'me' anymore as if The nothing' is the cornerstone of truth when it's really just coming from the right hemisphere. Hey . . I love the radical non-duality . . . all prior videos have been from that view . . . but I can't say there feels a need to defend non-duality as the last word on truth when it may not be. Who is there who feels a need to declare The Nothing as being true when it may not be correct? In the end there is still everything and nothing and unknowability . . . there is just the removal of a guru saying that what they say comes from The Nothing as if it equates to the voice of god.
@@nondualityfunradical nonduality may possibly just be another brainwashing technique like religions, spirituality, etc., and it may work for some and not for others, if you can convince your self and even experience undoubtedly that knowing is illusory, and that thoughts have no value whatsoever, then you may have peace, who knows 🤷🏼♂️.
@@nondualityfunhis latest video at 1 hour and 2 minutes mark he answers a question related to what you are saying, it would be interesting to hear your feedback on his response.
Everything is just as it is without any definitions, descriptions, stories, or anything in particular being identified and therefore no individuality and so everything as a whole or wholeness. Then we come along and identify something in particular, give it a definition, describe it, then make a story out of it, and experience that story as happening or real. Because the identification of anything in particular has no effect on that there is already everything regardless if anything is identified, the identification or impression of individuality has no reality, or is not really happening, or isn't real, and there is just everything as a whole or wholeness which is free from the need for anything to be identified and so absolute freedom (non-duality).
An emphatic yes . . . . and . . . . that's just the right hemisphere's view. While it's true that all definitions don't exist except in man's mind . . . . same with man's nonduality view. Man arrogantly thinks his view is right. First he projected a god in his likeness . . . then he projected his consciousness as a true divine source . . . and now he projects his right hemisphere's views as 'it'. So . . . the suggestion is . . . . . a delicious no landing . . . not even in non-duality.
Lovely video as always. Too bad you removed the most recent one, if only because I know how much time it takes to create this sort of thing. Is there any other way I can still see it? Regardless, I'm curious what software you use for your animations and was hoping you could tell me.
Yes I removed the earlier video. Not worth seeing. I'd woven politics and suffering into a rather provocative poke at non-duality by including what some seekers have said they'd like to see presenters go through to prove that nothing is happening. This was not seen as funny. I seem to have offended so many that quite a few unsubscribed . . especially since I also used swear words. I had too many highly triggering distractions . . . and I guess some saw the backstory as a political advert and not a woven theme . . . at any rate, it certainly wasn't seen as edgy comedy! It was way too challenging and replying had me mired in divisive politics. I use the Adobe suite and Final Cut Pro but I'm looking at Reallusion and possibly starting a whole new look to make the animations more action filled. That's even if I continue.
I've always found your animations and narration/voice enjoyable so I do hope one misstep(?) won't destroy your own joy in making these. Even if new videos were to be about something entirely different from non duality. Who knows, perhaps there's something else you'd love to make videos about but simply never considered doing. Ps personally I dislike Adobe as a company and as such don't want to use their products, but thanks for answering!
Thanks! I dislike Adobe too. I prefer programmes without subscriptions. I'm working on an animation that will include non-duality and some of the really interesting latest science on reality. So a few more videos yet!
haha....the background music when right hemisphere was speaking, that gave me a nice smile. I have a question - So what the brain (in the animation) was doing was question and answer back and forth, but the right hemisphere was pointing towards wholeness and that there is no me. Correct? Although it was for no individual because that is made up. Just appearance
Yes . . . . right hemisphere points to wholeness (or just happens to view in terms of wholeness) and there is no me. The 'me' is a simulation. The right hemisphere isn't actively pointing to wholeness as if there is a me to receive that pointing.
I am not religious. As a fundamental function, Creation has given us the freedom to experience, not to decide. Yes we can decide, but that is taking place as a thought in the mind later, after the experience. Experience of life is prior to decisions. Decisions are a by product of the limited data we have gathered. Nothing wrong with it. So If you could decide, wouldn't you naturally ask the question? Such as, which experience of life or perspective of life will result in my happiness? The understanding of Left brain, or right brain? It seems like an easy choice. Do I want to experience love, happiness, and bliss? Or do I choose this life to be materialistic objects or a rat race and them we die. Which would you choose for yourself? "We come into this life with nothing, and we leave with nothing, all you can take with you is your experience of life" Create a peaceful, loving and joyful experience, everyday.
Since feeling what you are saying here and in the last video I am more beffudled and directionless than ever. I sought the mainstream enlightenment understanding of such people as Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira etc. who all say that we have a true self that is pure consciousness, or some other similar thing. Then, I came across the radical nondual message and gave up the search since the seeker and the sought are both said to be illusory. But, of course, "I" still wanted to dissapear into the Nothing. I knew what the REAL unreal, non-truth TRUTH was. It was THAT which lied "beyond" conception. All else was illusory. But, as nondual speakers say, there's nothing wrong with having a "me," and there is no perspective that is better or worse than another, which is what you are saying here I think. So, when the body dies does a perspective, that is beyond the right and left hemisphere arise? Or could the perspective of one or the other carry on? Can the perspectives of both hemispheres be unified? Of course, they already are for the right hemisphere. I find that I am left without a North Star, even the one of radical nonduality. It's not that I feel no ground beneath. That would give at least a definite sense that THAT was IT, that that was reality, and there'd probably be an ease to surrender to being unable to hold onto anything. But most concepts feel as solid as ever, just none of them any longer convince me that they point to the truth. I feel like I'm in some landscape where I can't get any firm footing. Knowing the ultimate nature of reality has, since my late teens, been my deepest desire. I always had my direction set on the direction of The Truth. And now the compass is broken. Not broken. I can no longer feel or see that there is a Truth. All the compasses look and feel, well, neither true nor false. No stories, even the story of "no me" no longer carries the ring of truth. It's not a horrible place to be. Not emotionally troubling by any means. I just can't find any traction for action. No principles, or motives, or understanding of what is true provides any traction anymore. And yet they are all calling to me, enticing me, but whenever I decide to go with some motive, or principle, or truth it just slips through my grip, nothing solid to be found there. Even to say to myself, "just do it," "just act," "just do something," brings up, "but why?" Though I sense the answer is not "out there," and not complicated. And doesn't depend on any motives, principles, or truths. I sense what it is, but it is not something that I can put into words. Though that's not a principle, "to act without conception." It's just what is particularly so for me, in this moment. I feel like I need to get more into my left hemisphere. Or wake that side up more. Though even those statements fall like sand through my hands when I scrutinize them.
I had hoped that the original author would reply to you but since she has not thus far done so, I will come in and say something. I have already written quite a long Post above which expands on many of the themes in the video. You are 'befuddled and directionless' because you are still trying to use left brain thinking. You are looking for a route-map so that a separate self can find something else. You want to find something that is missing. It isn't and you don't have to. There is no 'you.' You do not 'have' a 'me'. Nor do you need to lose this and exchange it for a 'no me.' No one is writing this email. The email happens of course but no one is doing it. There is only what appears to be happening. There is life but no one 'has' it. This is very counter-intuitive and may well be shocking to you. Perhaps you are angry and want to argue? There really is no separation. There is not two. There is no such thing as 'consciousness', let alone so-called pure consciousness. No amount of chin-ups and trunk-curls will acquire this for you. Consciousness refers to the of 'knowing'. It is a VERB not a NOUN. Consciousness implies separation between a knower and the known, hence consciousness implies duality. Separation though, is the problem not the solution to the problem.
Lol! Have only just woken up (in Oz) and walked the dogs and haven't had time to answer . . . but yes your reply is it . . . also no need to land anywhere . . . neither duality nor non-duality. No me to get rid of . . . no promises of a dropped me nor a no-me status boorishly offering only right hemisphere views. NOWHERE for anyone to land . . . those capitals are meant joyously rather than emphatically.
Chris, I love what you've written . . . richly honest . . . . those whirrings of inner language . . . rich artistry . . . a slight ripple . . . . hearing the inner language but no hearer . . . and the ripples cease . . . and all that's left is unknowable life. Uncertainty has a bad reputation . . . but in the end certainty rings hollow for good reason.
@@nondualityfun I appreciate your words. What a great adventure this is! And isn't! Lol. Right now I am feeling such a relief that there is no Truth, no grand purpose to this all. And if there is Truth and a grand purpose for someone, or no one, then great! Or not great, if that really peaves someone! Lol. I can do what I want, for some reason, or none at all. And no goal or striving for relief. Though there it is. And what a contingent and transitory thing relief is. Nothing behind it! Unless one finds something behind it. Lol
Hi Clare, If person believes what’s being presented in this video is correct, then it may stop their spiritual seeking, because they will think that nonduality is just a waste of time, but it won’t stop their seeking in general 🤷, and their misery will continue. Your explanation is another illusory position of knowing, that you believe is correct, it’s not going to help you, or anyone else in terms of seeking. ( at least that how I see it, regarding to my understanding of how things are ) Can you explain why you suggest that seeking will stop all together ? Thanks.
There is a difference between seeking (even an omeba seeks sugar and avoids vinegar) and which is natural in the same way a tree seeks sunlight and humans who don't just seek but negotiate for a spiritual result (like believing a ritual, a spiritual exercise or a guru will remove the 'me' or the left hemisphere). Non-duality isn't a waste of time it is a natural view that all animals have (all animals have the right hemisphere). The only thing that is a waste is the negotiating. Man has the added intelligence that creates an illusory separate self that believes if it negotiates correctly it will become one with Oneness. The video would be better if I'd made that distinction even clearer. So it is the negotiating that can stop because already the brain views non-duality. Negotiating is the false promise. Also . . the video is just saying that while non-duality is a natural brain view, it is a view . . . . and not necessarily a truth about reality. Reality remains a mystery. Not only do we not have the instrument to 'know' reality we are not separate from reality. I hope that answers your question.
@@ccr7712 The brain automatically predicts something from the past, the body responds with a completely unique cascade of sensations, the brain then lazily labels that from the past . . . calls it something like sadness 'Oh I'm sad' . . the label seems to validate the experience. The brain predicts seeking will continue . . . the body responds with a unique cascade of sensations . . . labels it "I'm still seeking". It validates it's own false prediction. It's a very small loop that the brain follows. It's quite possible that that discovery alone can be a pattern interrupt. Admittedly my inner narrator is pretty silent . . . and seeking has stopped . . even with this new shock at the possibility that non-duality is just a view and not a truth at all . . . but the brain can still falsely predict things from the past . . . . that's just what it does . . . . even though its false. It's meant to be a shorthand so we don't see a doorknob and have to relearn what it is each time. Unfortunately the loop makes it seem like the mental realm of seeking means seeking is still happening. It's probably not seeking . . but it's job is to predict and it can only predict the past. This is why things can seem to be so stale even though life is quite extraordinary. The prediction you've written about seeking not stopping comes from past prediction . . . . it needn't go that way.
I was listening to Daniel Ingram and he said something along the lines of seeing no self and non duality is a different way of seeing the world and it just so happens to be an easier way to see the world/be in the world. As in it’s nicer not to have all the self identification with thought, emotions and trauma etc. They still happen, it’s just that the perspective on these things changes and it’s easier for the person. So probably still worth it. I think seeking will still happen, as understanding this intellectually is not the same as directly knowing it and won’t suffice. Even if it is just a right brain dominant way of seeing, it happens to reduce suffering, which is what most people are looking for anyway.
@@clairedot657 I agree, it’s possibly just brainwashing your self in to seeing, and experiencing everything like that, and it may feel better for some then being a person .
Thanks! Neuroscience really does uncover a few mysteries . . . like why humans even care about duality and non-duality . . . and why when some land heavily into non-duality are they seen as sacred and exceptional. At first I have to admit it sort of undid non-duality . . . but if anything I like it . . . there's no way to land on a throne . . . and it allows for balance.
@@nondualityfun I agree. I think the self developed to help humans survive, but the very separation it emphasizes makes us feel disconnected. So I can see where the drive to feel unity comes from. The neuroscience behind all this is truly fascinating. Shamil Chandaria has some really interesting videos in which he applies Karl Friston’s Bayesian Brain/free energy theory to explain how meditative states incline the brain towards the nondual perspective. The beginner’s mind approach emphasizing direct sensory experience over thought flattens the prior probabilities of what we expect to experience, resulting in seeing things from an expansive and fresh perspective (actually very similar to what happens on psychedelics). His explanation of the self as a modeling construct also closely matches what many neuroscientists currently theorize. I suppose my mind is a bit twisted, but I like the many paradoxes in Buddhism: form is emptiness and emptiness is form, Nirvana is samsara and samsara is Nirvana. Now we can add: absolute is relative and relative is absolute. It’s all just perspectives without one being superior to the other, but each one may be more appropriate for different contexts. As George Box said, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
From what I understand, you're saying that I'm just the brain. If so, I am definitely separated from other brains and other objects . Where is the nonduality? ( Is there a difference between what you're saying and the normal materialistic view?)
Separation and normal materialism is the view from the left hemisphere but that doesn’t mean it’s the actual truth, it’s just half a view. The self is a brain simulation. And no-one knows what reality is. Even the recent Nobel prize winners say there is no space-time as a foundation. One could say everything is the one energy but what that energy is, and even if it is an energy, is unknown and unknowable. When the right hemisphere dominates it seems like everything is one appearance but what that appearance is, is not known. It’s also said that the brain hides the truth of reality and it isn’t there to help you see a truth ….. and it’s creating an illusory you anyhow. The mind is only virtual with no reality to it. So this throws out the knower and anything known out. It throws separation out. Who knows what zero is? All is wonderfully unknown.
@@Dan-k5j1x Well the right doesn't say anything at all but it's view doesn't divide anything . . it sees in terms of wholeness . . . and that's why some presenters say there is no such thing as a brain because they are viewing from the right hemisphere. It's a wonderful wonderful view but to say that it's the sole truth and everyone needs to see solely from the right hemisphere to realise the truth . . . is probably not quite true because it's still a human view. Having said that . . neuroscience and physicists are seeing the possibilities of reality being not really a simulation but pretty close. When there is seeing from the right hemisphere it's clear the left hemisphere is seeing in terms of duality and a narrative and makes things up so it feels wonderful to see that so much we think is true isn't. But that doesn't necessarily make the right hemisphere's view a truth. It is just seeing wholeness.
You are right, The illusory sense of knowing is the problem, that perpetuates thinking and the misery. This is just another knowing / position. It’s not going to help anything 🤷🏼♂️.
@@ccr7712 The video points to unknowing (and it points the error of presenters knowing that what they are saying is THE truth). if anything the video throws out the possibility of knowing non-duality because 1. it's just a view and not a truth about reality and 2. there is no self to know and 3. there is no-one separate from 'what is' who could ever objectively know. That's a truckload of unknowing! And besides when the inner narrator stops there is no thinking . . . . there is beingness . . . and no-one to know . . . . but doesn't mean push away evidence about the brain or feel a need to defend non-duality as The Truth.
@@nondualityfun there is no possibility of knowing anything if everything is really the same thing, because you can’t step out of it to know it, but that it self is an understanding which can be incorrect as well, and there is no way of knowing that. I think that It would be nice, and honest, if you and all speakers would add in the beginning and on the end of the videos, that what you are saying is not the truth, but just a view, and may be possibly completely incorrect, or even the complete opposite. As well I don’t get why you named your video : The code of nonduality is cracked, but in the same time here you claim that it points to unknowing 🤷🏼♂️. The title of the video sounds like you are convinced that what you are saying is the truth. I am not trying to offend you, it just doesn’t make sense to me, but I may be wrong, who knows 🤷🏼♂️. Good luck 🍀
@@ccr7712 I like the point you've made and I had hoped that the video was addressing the point you've made . . that presenters are not presenting the truth because it turns out that it is mind based. And I even challenge presenters to recognise the possibility that they are only speaking from the right hemisphere. I named the video as such because I was wanting to convey where the whole notion of non-duality most likely comes from. It comes from one half of the brain . . . and not a truth from The Nothing or Divine Consciousness. All spirituality seems like there is a grain of truth because part of our brain resonates with it. That's what I mean by cracking the code . . . it's seeing that the source of non-duality most likely comes from the part of the brain that sees that way already . . . rather than non-duality being a truth we find because it exists as an Absolute truth. I'm not offended and really like honest questions and challenges because I'd like to be clear in the communications. I can't of course know truth . . . I don't think any brain can . . that's what I mean about unknowing. Thanks for querying further and I hope I've been a bit better at explaining it.
Is this non-duality fun or is this a view you can take comfort in? Ultimately, if you feel you've found an explanation, then you might as well truly drop all of this non-dual stuff. But you probably won't, because this isn't how things go, as non-dual is something that clarifies through investigation and deep shadow work naturally. It is the shadow itself wanting explanations and ideas of further "unknowing". Landing on the idea of brain hemispheres being "the" explanation is like baiting other seekers to a personal conclusion that gives you comfort - you'll even have skeptic minds on your team with such a scientific view. It's definitely in fun and all of innocence, but perhaps you could ask yourself what your intentions are with these videos, for your own sake. Just like with everything the human mind touches upon, more noise doesn't really help others, rather a lot of the noise is just a reflection of our "landing" and wanting to project that onto reality for others. It is fun to see where people seem to land and to look at what landing is. And you are right, that some non-dual speakers are themselves landing and usually fixating. What's the need?
Ha Ha! The answer might land me in hot water!! I would say a very hard landing on right hemisphere's views . . . . which turn out to be just right hemisphere's views. When really there is no-one . . . . no landing required . . . no need for the latter day non-duality saints movement with the obligatory introduction of "This is boundless energy" . . . and then waiting for all followers to land in right hemisphere's views as if that is freedom. No one is free . . . and fomo baiting everyone into thinking they must have a hard landing themselves kills the whole wonderment and artistry of life . . . which can only be unknowable. No one needs to force-fit themselves into a view. Neither of the two views can reveal anything except a view . . . wondrously unknowable!
Just to add to my comment below . . . . I personally like all the presenters . . . . including Jim . . . and there is wonder and beauty in the hard right position . . . it's the hard right position held by the radical group though that now seems to have crumbled . . . and led to a massively wonderful non landing . . . because even non-duality itself as THE answer isn't an answer at all.
@@nondualityfun The reason Mr. Newman is the only presenter I watch is because of his meeting introductions. They're often informative/interesting and he points out that he has nothing to offer that's going to help you. I stopped watching the question-and-answer section that follows a long time ago. He also gives good interviews.
I thought there is no such thing as a brain? It's made up. So what is all this right and left hems about? Oh no one knows because there is no one. Love these videos.
A very refreshing explanation! I might add that the "leaning" between the two views could also be described as a dance, e.g., something which can be practiced and refined in an artistic fashion. This can really blow the lid off of how meditation is commonly perceived as a practice of devotion to the right hemisphere, instead reformulating to mean something along the lines of, "meditation is the practice of acknowledging the function/significance of both dual and non-dual perspectives, the ability and degree of grace by which one can shift between them, the inquiry into the natural play of their interactions, and the integration of these insights into daily living." It really helps to give attention to both worldviews. In these non-duality "lateral lobotomies," as you've pointed out, these meetings are like dialectics without any synthesis. That is, there's oftentimes dialogue where a solution (dropped self) is proposed to a problem (seeking), and the two brainioids continue to ricochet without generating any novel ideas, making it actually more like a debate-sans the aggression. One question that lingered for me after this video is, "Is discerning between dual and non-dual views solely yet another function of the left hemisphere?" That kinda starts the whole chicken and egg thing again, so idk. Also, here's a curveball coming in from Taoism: "If dual and non-dual are likened to yin and yang, what experience would you ascribe to the circle (wuji) which contains them?" Anyway, just some food for thought in case you get this far reading! Thanks for uploading :)
I like the dance analogy! The discernment is most likely the left but the right will see it as a discernment appearing as part of everything . . . but that doesn't mean the discernment is bad . . . I think spiritual and non-duality communities have demonised the left when the left simply has a skill set of discernment, separation, survival etc. BTW the chicken and egg debate has been solved. The egg came first . . you'd have to google it as I've forgotten the evidence but it has been solved. As to the Tao . . . actually I don't have an answer but I like what you've written and I like the mention of the circle.
@@nondualityfun Thanks for the reply! Yeah, the whole "separation is bad" villification of the left hemisphere thing doesn't make much sense to me these days. A thought which came to me once helped me put separateness in a new light: "Jung couldn't have been Jung without Freud, but he had to be without Freud to become Jung." Another analogy would be how we need to first be dependent on our parents to raise us for us to become indendepent adults. This follows in biology too, where mitosis (separation) and conception (wholeness) are both essential processes in the creation of life. So both left and right hemisphere skillsets are codependent; the fission aspect of duality is codependent with the fusion aspect of non-duality. In our development, we need the non-dual stage first in order to gain data about the world, then begin to discern experience to make something of it for our own individuality, then learn to dance between the two over a course of a lifetime!
Lol! I never mind digs if they are funny . . . and that is a fun dig. Actually there isn't too much Turjman in this video . . . even though his description is pretty apt. So is the Taylor Bolte description and Iain McGilchrist. What they describe is just like a dropped me. It feels like a drop and there is 'just everything' and no instigator. It just means I wouldn't put it as a dropped me but a wondrous slide into the right hemisphere. And no authority to say they have the 'real knowing' on non-duality. I can't say I have a someone here who feels they need to defend non-duality . . . . just a 'wow' this predominant right hemisphere may not be The Answer.
Yes . . . inner chatter . . . air bubbles . . . . and there is nothing wrong with air bubbles . . . they are on automatic . . . sometimes there sometimes not.
@@nondualityfun thank you! I love your channel, please dont stop making videos! I also bought your book -I am happy, that it was available in Germany :)
Yes, interesting- thank you. This would seem plausible- though you either haven’t listened to, so haven’t wanted to incorporate some of the fairly detailed feedback offered since your last video. I’ll keep an open mind for now, and continue the search for the truth. Be aware that there’s also plenty of food for thought in ND circles following David Mcdonald’s vid- though that’s rather different to yours.
Just had a look at one of his videos. You know what? I did address some of the things similar to what David McDonald says . . . . but it must have ended up on the cutting room floor when I trimmed the video . . . but I will do a video addressing trauma and non-duality. If too much is included it becomes too much and I already receive lots of complaints about my videos being too long. Was there a different but specific point you wanted addressed?
@@nondualityfun thanks for the reply. Actually I was trying to gently refer to someone else - it was a feedback video on your last video. If you search for "Can Awakening Be Reduced to Brain Function?" you might be interested. Trying not to step on anyone's toes here :-)
I wonder if you ask any "awakened" guy to loan you some $$$, see if they'd immediately return to their "natural unenlightened" state or come up with something like "nobody asks for nothing, and nobody being asked to loan nothing either, just this" 😆
Can you sum up your conclusion in one clear statement? What is “your” final word? Yours truly, saved, born again, awakened, enlightened, realized, non existent, self, no self, meat suit. Radical or otherwise! Thanks from no one!
When Isaac Newton discovered there was no colour except what was created by the mind . . no-one went around trying to see in black and white to prove they were now seeing the truth and not an illusion. Discovering that no-one is separate from nature doesn’t require anyone to stop seeing separation to prove they are really seeing what is true.
@@nondualityfun It is really quite refreshing to come across someone who actually understands the mechanism of sight. When I try to explain it to others, it really confuses them. I never bought the idea of a spirit inhabiting the body even as I was baptized into two different major religions. I came to the same conclusion as Baruch Spinoza long before I found his “Ethics”. My message has always been to look in the mirror. There you are, the complete package. You cannot separate matter and spirit for they are actually the same thing expressing from different energy states. Consciousness is emergent as electromagnetic energy as is solid matter. They are two ends of the same stick. A ball is red. A ball is not an appearance in redness. Redness is not fundamental. Matter is conscious. Matter is not an appearance in consciousness. Consciousness is not primary. Duality is an artifact. There are only the stick and its two ends. The electromagnetic spectrum and its two ends. Space and matter are one and the same. They are simply two ends of the same stick. It is experienced through the perception mechanism we mistakenly call our soul. We are not a soul, we are the whole enchilada. Meat suit and all.
@@nondualityfunThanks for responding. My response back to you was deleted by the algorithm. Let’s just say I agree with Spinoza. Your response seems consistent with that as well. A ball is red. A ball is not an appearance in redness. Redness is not primary. I am conscious. I am not an appearance in consciousness. Consciousness is not primary.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
I think a better challenge question would be: don't trust anyone's opinion at all. Find out for yourself.
never beLIEve...for beLIEve has a"lie" right at the center.
Exactly, rely on your own rational thinking, and especially don’t trust people who say, “ I don’t understand this my self, or this can’t be understood “, while in the same time they are suggesting that what they say is correct. Don’t get fooled.
there's also a big illusion that happens when one is told by a "non-dualist" what THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS and then says, don't take it from me find out for yourself BY FOLLOWING my pointers to have an experience that once you have it will confirm what I'm saying is true. I.e. what I fell into, which was THE TRUTH IS NO SELF - here's a pointer to it - SELF-INQUIRY method to experience "NO SELF" for example - OH SHIT I'm experiencing what seems to be the non-existence of self, therefore the pre-given conclusion HAS TO BE TRUE because "I expereinced it that way" - which is actually a hard-to-see authoritarian self-confirming loop seeming to show that what is preached as UNQUESTIONABLE and ABSOLUTELY TRUE has become SELF-EVIDENTLY such. What IS EVIDENT is that it's possible to have the perspective, the experience that others have successfully pointed you to, but I now see that there are MORE THAN ONE WAY to interpret said experience after the fact / more than one VALID conclusion - maybe the authoritarian (I know the unquestionable absolute truth, and no alternate conclusion is valid) pointer outer's conclusion is true, but JUST BECAUSE I CAN EXPERIENCE it that way DOES NOT MAKE IT DE FACTO absolute truth. I've explored the closed loop, self-validating nature of "direct truth" pointers with a good friend Tim Freke, here, if you're curious!
th-cam.com/play/PLQ565dQV7_hURY9TiEZsi_V9nDbBJGtO6.html&si=T6cBt6kXhTT3DvqC
I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I seem to know that that "old Zen saying" you mentioned, isn't from Zen at all but from the original Pali canon, specifically in the Bahiya Sutta - I've heard enough teachers quote it I guess, whithout actually having read it.
Good to see a new video after a longish pause. :) I finished Turjman's book, and I think there's some good info there, but in the end, like this channel, it does seem to be overly fixated on the brain and neurological processes. I mean that's fine for a standard materialist, or even someone who is more scientifically oriented, like myself, but the typical non-duality teacher suggests that while the brain may offer some interesting correlations, it too is just an appearance and that EVERYTHING that we can conceptualize is just that, a thought, not reality, which is the immedieate present experiencing, constantly changing, yatta, yatta.
I THINK what you are getting at here in the video - correct me if I'm wrong is basic warning to not get carried away with the traditional spiritual teaching of - just drop the me, practice boundless being (or whatever yoru preferred term is), and you will be at at peace, even more so you will be in great pleasure even? As a more "level-headed" type of "seaker" although I'm not sure I identify as one in the conventional way, I listen to teachers who are much less about doing this and becoming some Buddha who spends most of his day in cessation or other meditative states. Rather the teachers I listen to are all very aware of the idea that after you see through the self, have a shift in identity, etc., you can then discard the seaking and realize that the relative and the absolute are the same thing. That we get to experience the relative but take it for what it is - just appearances. It just means that we don't get caught up in the narratives and struggles because we know it's ultimately not happening for a small seperate self who needs to (or even ever could) have a "good" life, or be enlightened, etc.
But it sounds like your main target is more the gurus who are trying to sell people on a perpetual state of oneness/nirvana/bliss/etc. without any need or desire to ever deal with the relative again, or as little as possible. Am I right? If so, that's great, but it seems like there's a lot of teachers out there, perhaps more recently than in the past (?) who emphasize "integration" and getting back to the real world and not having to deal the pretense of being an enlightened "person" because you see through that charade anyway, so it's pointless and inauthentic anyway.
Let me know if I got your main message or if I'm totally off.
I wrote the paragraphs below only to discover I hadn't answered your question at all. Yes . . .I like how you've put it - relative and absolute are the same thing so no need to seek and no-one to seek. The only thing I'd disagree with is that my target is not the nirvana spouting gurus but the one's waxing lyrical about how 'their' me has dropped and as a result there is liberation and a seeing of nothingness and silence and appearance . . . when all that's happened is a tilt into the right hemisphere (and yes I was a part of that group). Below is a ramble that doesn't answer your question so feel free to read or not.
There was a wait . . . I had an ear infection just as I was about to record and was 95% deaf for a while!
Since it is the brain seeing non-duality then I would say there can’t be enough emphasis . . . or we’re back into superstition. The mind is like an interface . . . instead of zeros and ones on a computer we see a pretty symbol of an envelope that means emails. The mind is like those pretty symbols . . . but the symbols themselves have no reality to them. The brain creates a pretty symbol called self and a pretty symbol called non-duality . . . . .
To say non-duality came first seems to just be man’s attempt to ‘know’ reality . . . . to say duality came first seems to also be man’s attempt to ‘know’ reality . . . . but we only view life through those prisms because that’s the only two views that the brain has.
Nothing wrong or right with either view . . . . but it’s mammothly astonishing to find that non-duality, which has been deemed as a truth is only a view according to a brain. Both ‘appearance’ and ‘physicality’ are man’s view. Is it astonishing to ‘view’ from just the right hemisphere? Yes . . . but it’s not truth. And besides . . . no-one gets enlightened or sees more truth from a ‘dropped me’. The ‘me’ is an interface. Life is most likely an abundance of energy (with no consciousness) but no-one with either view could possibly point to ‘reality’ as either appearance or material and speak from a position of authority.
Neither non-duality nor duality are ‘it’. There are no ‘me’s’ anywhere. No-one can find truth via non-duality or duality. That really throws everything out!!!! What a great unknowable mystery!!!!
@@nondualityfunSome wag once said that the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.
It's incredible what the study of the brain can tell us about our mind and perception. It's so much that one could be forgiven for thinking that the brain actually causes the mind.
But then of course, strictly logically, this is absurd. The brain is fully a figment of the mind. You just can't escape the mind and its productions.
Maybe it's the case that the right hemisphere can see some relative truths that the left can't? McGilchrist would say we should prioritize those truths, in general, because of the more personal, biased focus of the left?
@@nondualityfun thanks for responding. I'm still at a point where most of this stuff is conceptual, but I do feel like after having read and listened to a lot, I have a reasonable conceptual understanding of the different "takes" on things. Most recent reading suggests that the whole "awakening" thing is really just what you are alluding to - realizing that the "self" or "me" is just a construct, a mechanism that doesn't represent what conventional society believes it does (an individual soul or what have you), and that after this awakening, it will still continue to do it's thing and make things happen in "your" life, but you see it much more clearly or what it is. You don't take it seriously and don't believe it is "you" but just another appearance that is happening that "you" are privvy to. So perhaps some people mean this when they talk about "dropping the me" while others, particularly those who haven't really seen through it, still think that they will simply be without this self/selfing mechanism after awakening.
The following I wrote about someone that may have some vague relevance to some of the misunderstanding of all of this, but you're free to ignore it - I mainly wrote it because it's been swimming around in my head for a while and it was nice to actually get it out on the page (or div in this case):
It's funny because I know this younger person who got very involved in this stuff and then started talking as if they were going through awakening. Recently they said that their "self had dissolved." I've had this suspicion all along that they have been BSing in order to be validated, but maybe part of them also believes their own BS. They also talk endlessly about themselves in every comment I've seen them make, and they have their own TH-cam channel where they talk endlessly about their daily experiences in life. So, something doesn't quite add up there. And for whatever reason it bugs me a bit, but I also feel bad for this person who I think is still kind of young and figuring out life but has attacherd themselves to a "tribe" of folks based on some charasmatic "teachers." The teachers themselves, from what I can see, are not trying to dellude people, they are just talking from their own experience and some of that is very "clear" - they are very level headed and are quick to warn people about the pitfalls of this stuff, and they don't put themselves out on a pedestal and don't even call themselves teachers. They also don't call them on their BS when they starts spouting it though, they just humor her. So I sometimes wonder whether they are secretly feeling like they know they are selling themselves and others a story, but I guess that would be rude to do, at least in public, and even in private I would assume could end up causing a lot of hurt feelings or worse. Anyway, this is all neither here nor there but it was nice to finally write about it, lol!
I asked Odeh if the ‘me’ comes from the left hemisphere and he said he did not know. He does say the brain's Default Mode Network (DMN), is a key player in generating the personal identity or ego/self/me. The DMN spans both hemispheres and involves regions in both hemispheres of the brain.
The DMN orchestrates the construction of a narrative self-connecting past memories, future projections, and self-referential thoughts. Turjman argues that this sense of a stable "I" is essentially a mental construct produced by the brain's habitual neural patterns, particularly within the DMN.
So, I don’t know? Maybe the code is not cracked just hacked.
Maybe it's not so simple as left and right?
Hi Richard, yes Odeh Turjman's work does not cover the left right hemisphere but if you look at Dr Iain McGilchrist's work and Jill Bolte Taylor's work Whole Brain Living it's there you see how the two hemispheres perceive. What is interesting though about Turjman's work is that it is such a perfect mirror to Ramana or Tony Parson's loss of self . . . but through the neuroscientific framework. It's the bringing together of all these works that seem to crack the code . . . or hack the code. Turjman gives us the specific workings of a supposed self and that on its own provides an extraordinarily shattering (in a wonderful way) but on it's own it doesn't reveal how perfectly aligned the teachings of non-duality and the perception of the right hemisphere are. Turjman hasn't followed the science into the two hemispheres. I'm marrying up a few different links. It was just astonishing to stumble across them all in the space of a short time and that seemed to create a welcome schism somehow . . . It's interesting because I can relate to the lack of a narrator and seeing in terms of everything being an extraordinary appearance of energy appearing as form . . . . and yet can also really relate to that view possibly being just a mind view and seeing the gift and skill of the left hemisphere. At any rate there's been a shift where it's clear that The Nothing is not where any presenter speaks from . . . it's not the last word on truth . . . . and that seems freer. While on the one hand it's all true . . it's just not a truth. Have a look at Whole Brain Living (not for her recommendations or anything - I'm not advocating anyone follow her) but just to gain insight into the brain . . . as well as Dr Iain McGilchrist who is the one with the greatest and most recent body of knowledge about the hemispheres. If anything you see why people would resonate with non-duality . . . not because it is an Absolute truth that we need to find but just because it's part of how we naturally view things.
@@nondualityfunHi Clare, the discussion about the brain’s hemispheres, particularly regarding how the left hemisphere produces the ego through its stream of thoughts, aligns well with various sources like Iain McGilchrist (The Master and His Emissary), Jill Bolte Taylor (My Stroke of Insight), Antonio Damasio (The Feeling of What Happens), and Mark Solms (The Hidden Spring). Eckhart Tolle also refers to the left hemisphere as the producer of the ego through its constant mental activity. The idea that the right hemisphere is "silent," as McGilchrist notes, points to a more integrated, present awareness, as opposed to the analytical, time-bound left hemisphere.
Turjman's perspective suggests that the self/ego is a fluid construct, constantly created and dismantled by the brain based on context, contrasting with the more rigid non-dual stance of Parsons et al. who suggest a permanent "death of the self." Turjman talks of the discontinuous nature of the self, where the inner voice and the mirroring face fall away intermittently, this offers a more dynamic, neurological interpretation, which does not align with the "permanent death" described by Parsons or Ramana.
Turjman says that the sense of self is a fluid and not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, that the brain constantly constructs and deconstructs the self, based on context. And that in his case now, his inner narrative is being constantly cut and uses the phrase ‘discontinuous’ to describe this new reality, however he goes on to say his 'me' returns and that when his ego is there its no different from anyone else’s ego. He says the ego/me must return to function in the world, again, not a view shared by Tony et al.
The extent to which the ego returns, and the necessity of the ego for functioning in the world, as Turjman notes, presents a more flexible view compared to the absolute disappearance of the me/ego in radical non-duality.
But as I think you touched on in your video, they do have businesses to run 😊. I can think of two or three that make their living from saying their ‘me’ has died and if you follow me yours might too?
But it now seems more to be a fairly rare neurological event, in some cases, quite calamitous, akin to a stroke or it’s equal, perhaps a sweet lobotomy! Yet as likely to happen by accident than by attending meetings and retreats? I haven’t got the numbers 😊.
And yes, at any rate there's been a shift here too, it's not the last word or any truth, and yes, it’s certainly freer having this clarity of perception albeit from an intellectual illumination, which will inevitably be added.
@@richardverney3439 Thanks for writing all that out. Very clear. And thanks for Damasio and Solms mention, I'll check them out. I think what you write about Turjman is true and highlights the possible differences between Turjman and Tony Parsons . . . it might be that even though Tony says the me is permanently gone . . . I admit I have assumed otherwise. ;) Tony on stage is different in a normal conversation . . . and while here there was a sense of a dropped me . . . it seemed over time that once you see everything as appearance there is not a return to being bothered if the me comes back or not . . . . the me wasn't really there as a 'thing' anyway. I would now describe it as the brain activity sliding right or left and no-one has a me. I may be wrong but I think Tony slides right and left as do all presenters. Slide left to do normal things but present from the right hemisphere view. I could be wrong. It's interesting that Turjman didn't seem to like it nor Suzanne Segal and yet others like it and go on to teach enlightenment. Before it happened to Ramana he was heavily influenced by a book on saints. And both Turjman and Ramana faced fear just as it occurred. There are some similarities. - actually I just reread one of your paragraphs - I don't think Tony says the ego necessarily goes . . . he has such a big personality! So it could just be a difference in semantics.
Yes I think when it is like Turjman and possibly Tony it is rare. And maybe when it is brought on in spiritual circumstances it's from wrestling with a koan or the paradoxes of non-duality. What I like about Turjman's work is the precise description of what happens in the brain that creates the sense of a self. He certainly doesn't view everything as Appearance only. He is not the spiritual type!
Definitely a shift has occurred here. It's freer . . . . and seeing everything as 'Appearance' isn't true seeing. A beautiful view that needn't be projected. And the projection is actually quite blinding. I think that's the difference now . . . . what had seemed liberating and a plunge into a silent mind is now seen as being blinkered by a mindset. Both extremes blind the full view.
Thank you for all the conversations. It's been eventful!!
@@nondualityfunThanks for your thoughtful response! The comparison of Turjman and Parsons et al. is fascinating, especially around the idea of the "me" either vanishing or reappearing. I like your interpretation that Tony et al. might slide between the hemispheres, depending on the context.
This aligns with McGilchrist’s assertion that we can move between left-hemisphere analytical thinking and right-hemisphere holistic perception. That sliding scale could very well explain how presenters like Tony et al. move between different modes of being, even if they don't explicitly acknowledge it.
The idea that Turjman didn't "like" the loss of self is intriguing. From what I've seen, his experience was more about managing the consequences than disliking it per se. He admitted that "living with bliss is not easy." Suzanne Segal, similarly, described her loss of self as terrifying before it eventually became manageable. Maybe it's about how prepared someone is for that shift; for Turjman, it was more of a neuroscientific phenomenon, while for others like Parsons or Ramana, it was framed as spiritual liberation.
Regarding semantics, I too think there’s often confusion about what “ego death” really means. When Tony et al. speak of the ego or the “me” permanently disappearing, it doesn't always seem like they're describing a nuanced process but more of an all-or-nothing shift. Yet, Turjman and I think Tony et al. say the personality traits remain and may be magnified as self-censorship is not there anymore. Perhaps, in practice, they still operate with some degree of self-awareness-just not the “me” as they previously knew.
This could tie back into that sliding scale idea where the sense of self shifts, but never fully disappears for good. Perhaps they took a large shift to the right and can't quite come back as far left anymore?
Your point about seeing everything as “Appearance” and how that view can become limiting resonates with me. It’s easy to romanticize the idea of non-duality, but as you mentioned, it can lead to a kind of blindness or over-identification with one mode of seeing. Turjman’s work grounds this perspective in something tangible-brain activity-which offers a much-needed counterbalance to the more abstract, spiritual interpretations of non-duality. The discussions around "Appearance" and "Truth" are ongoing, but I agree that the freedom comes not from one definitive answer, but from allowing multiple perspectives to coexist. It’s about letting go of the need for a final word on truth, which can ironically free us from feeling stuck in one particular view. Thanks again for the engaging conversation, it’s been eventful on my end too!
I think there is an awareness of both sides, but through training, the awareness has favoured one side more than the other. I think it requires retraining to be able to choose which side to use in the moment.
Freedom from seeking... and appreciation of what is... both/and.
Great! It might be useful to add that when the right hemisphere speaks, it is actually always and only the left one that tries to describe the right one's view. The language area (Broca) is on the left, and it is the only one that speaks: whoever has damaged it is non-verbal
Yes I had to use artistic license . . . . no other way to convey it! But yes I could have added what you say about the left . . . . only so much I can add to each video . . . but yes . . . agreed!
A new video. What a wonderful surprise this Sunday!
Love your videos! Hope this gets traction. Have you talked to Emerson Non Duality? He has a sizeable reach, is sort of disrupting the scene/paradigm, and one could say he is very effective at helping people acknowledge the right hemisphere “view” and stop seeking. He’s also interested in scientific views, and mentions Turjman frequently. Just think you two ought to have a chat!
I am pretty sure I heard speakers like jim newman and tony parsons always say that there is no "Truth" and that's the experience of being an individual is also wholeness and nothing needs to happen.
I as well heard them say, that this can’t be understood, and that they don’t know anything , while in the same time claiming that this is wholeness and nothing needs to happen 😂. I am surprised that many people can’t see the contradiction in that 🤷🏼♂️. I am not saying that everything they say is nonsense, but many things they say are nonsense. They make lots of assumptions, but present them as facts.
They do also say that their words are coming from 'The nothing' and not a 'me' anymore as if The nothing' is the cornerstone of truth when it's really just coming from the right hemisphere. Hey . . I love the radical non-duality . . . all prior videos have been from that view . . . but I can't say there feels a need to defend non-duality as the last word on truth when it may not be. Who is there who feels a need to declare The Nothing as being true when it may not be correct? In the end there is still everything and nothing and unknowability . . . there is just the removal of a guru saying that what they say comes from The Nothing as if it equates to the voice of god.
@@nondualityfunradical nonduality may possibly just be another brainwashing technique like religions, spirituality, etc., and it may work for some and not for others, if you can convince your self and even experience undoubtedly that knowing is illusory, and that thoughts have no value whatsoever, then you may have peace, who knows 🤷🏼♂️.
@@nondualityfunhis latest video at 1 hour and 2 minutes mark he answers a question related to what you are saying, it would be interesting to hear your feedback on his response.
Everything is just as it is without any definitions, descriptions, stories, or anything in particular being identified and therefore no individuality and so everything as a whole or wholeness. Then we come along and identify something in particular, give it a definition, describe it, then make a story out of it, and experience that story as happening or real.
Because the identification of anything in particular has no effect on that there is already everything regardless if anything is identified, the identification or impression of individuality has no reality, or is not really happening, or isn't real, and there is just everything as a whole or wholeness which is free from the need for anything to be identified and so absolute freedom (non-duality).
An emphatic yes . . . . and . . . . that's just the right hemisphere's view. While it's true that all definitions don't exist except in man's mind . . . . same with man's nonduality view. Man arrogantly thinks his view is right. First he projected a god in his likeness . . . then he projected his consciousness as a true divine source . . . and now he projects his right hemisphere's views as 'it'. So . . . the suggestion is . . . . . a delicious no landing . . . not even in non-duality.
A delicious no landing?
@@MsCankersore Freefall? Is that a better word?
@@nondualityfun already taken 😆
Lovely video as always. Too bad you removed the most recent one, if only because I know how much time it takes to create this sort of thing. Is there any other way I can still see it? Regardless, I'm curious what software you use for your animations and was hoping you could tell me.
Yes I removed the earlier video. Not worth seeing. I'd woven politics and suffering into a rather provocative poke at non-duality by including what some seekers have said they'd like to see presenters go through to prove that nothing is happening. This was not seen as funny. I seem to have offended so many that quite a few unsubscribed . . especially since I also used swear words. I had too many highly triggering distractions . . . and I guess some saw the backstory as a political advert and not a woven theme . . . at any rate, it certainly wasn't seen as edgy comedy! It was way too challenging and replying had me mired in divisive politics. I use the Adobe suite and Final Cut Pro but I'm looking at Reallusion and possibly starting a whole new look to make the animations more action filled. That's even if I continue.
I've always found your animations and narration/voice enjoyable so I do hope one misstep(?) won't destroy your own joy in making these. Even if new videos were to be about something entirely different from non duality. Who knows, perhaps there's something else you'd love to make videos about but simply never considered doing. Ps personally I dislike Adobe as a company and as such don't want to use their products, but thanks for answering!
Thanks! I dislike Adobe too. I prefer programmes without subscriptions. I'm working on an animation that will include non-duality and some of the really interesting latest science on reality. So a few more videos yet!
haha....the background music when right hemisphere was speaking, that gave me a nice smile. I have a question - So what the brain (in the animation) was doing was question and answer back and forth, but the right hemisphere was pointing towards wholeness and that there is no me. Correct? Although it was for no individual because that is made up. Just appearance
Yes . . . . right hemisphere points to wholeness (or just happens to view in terms of wholeness) and there is no me. The 'me' is a simulation. The right hemisphere isn't actively pointing to wholeness as if there is a me to receive that pointing.
So Rupert Spira has only half of his brain working. I have always thought it sounded like that.
no I don't think so, perhaps easier access through his neural pathway meditation training. But he's defo a left brainer.
Yeah, he doesn't really do anything for me either (not that it matters)
I am not religious. As a fundamental function, Creation has given us the freedom to experience, not to decide. Yes we can decide, but that is taking place as a thought in the mind later, after the experience. Experience of life is prior to decisions. Decisions are a by product of the limited data we have gathered. Nothing wrong with it. So If you could decide, wouldn't you naturally ask the question? Such as, which experience of life or perspective of life will result in my happiness? The understanding of Left brain, or right brain? It seems like an easy choice. Do I want to experience love, happiness, and bliss? Or do I choose this life to be materialistic objects or a rat race and them we die. Which would you choose for yourself?
"We come into this life with nothing, and we leave with nothing, all you can take with you is your experience of life" Create a peaceful, loving and joyful experience, everyday.
Since feeling what you are saying here and in the last video I am more beffudled and directionless than ever. I sought the mainstream enlightenment understanding of such people as Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira etc. who all say that we have a true self that is pure consciousness, or some other similar thing. Then, I came across the radical nondual message and gave up the search since the seeker and the sought are both said to be illusory. But, of course, "I" still wanted to dissapear into the Nothing. I knew what the REAL unreal, non-truth TRUTH was. It was THAT which lied "beyond" conception. All else was illusory. But, as nondual speakers say, there's nothing wrong with having a "me," and there is no perspective that is better or worse than another, which is what you are saying here I think.
So, when the body dies does a perspective, that is beyond the right and left hemisphere arise? Or could the perspective of one or the other carry on? Can the perspectives of both hemispheres be unified? Of course, they already are for the right hemisphere.
I find that I am left without a North Star, even the one of radical nonduality. It's not that I feel no ground beneath. That would give at least a definite sense that THAT was IT, that that was reality, and there'd probably be an ease to surrender to being unable to hold onto anything.
But most concepts feel as solid as ever, just none of them any longer convince me that they point to the truth. I feel like I'm in some landscape where I can't get any firm footing.
Knowing the ultimate nature of reality has, since my late teens, been my deepest desire. I always had my direction set on the direction of The Truth. And now the compass is broken. Not broken. I can no longer feel or see that there is a Truth. All the compasses look and feel, well, neither true nor false.
No stories, even the story of "no me" no longer carries the ring of truth.
It's not a horrible place to be. Not emotionally troubling by any means. I just can't find any traction for action. No principles, or motives, or understanding of what is true provides any traction anymore. And yet they are all calling to me, enticing me, but whenever I decide to go with some motive, or principle, or truth it just slips through my grip, nothing solid to be found there.
Even to say to myself, "just do it," "just act," "just do something," brings up, "but why?"
Though I sense the answer is not "out there," and not complicated. And doesn't depend on any motives, principles, or truths.
I sense what it is, but it is not something that I can put into words. Though that's not a principle, "to act without conception." It's just what is particularly so for me, in this moment.
I feel like I need to get more into my left hemisphere. Or wake that side up more. Though even those statements fall like sand through my hands when I scrutinize them.
I had hoped that the original author would reply to you but since she has not thus far done so, I will come in and say something. I have already written quite a long Post above which expands on many of the themes in the video. You are 'befuddled and directionless' because you are still trying to use left brain thinking. You are looking for a route-map so that a separate self can find something else. You want to find something that is missing. It isn't and you don't have to. There is no 'you.' You do not 'have' a 'me'. Nor do you need to lose this and exchange it for a 'no me.' No one is writing this email. The email happens of course but no one is doing it. There is only what appears to be happening. There is life but no one 'has' it. This is very counter-intuitive and may well be shocking to you. Perhaps you are angry and want to argue? There really is no separation. There is not two. There is no such thing as 'consciousness', let alone so-called pure consciousness. No amount of chin-ups and trunk-curls will acquire this for you. Consciousness refers to the of 'knowing'. It is a VERB not a NOUN. Consciousness implies separation between a knower and the known, hence consciousness implies duality. Separation though, is the problem not the solution to the problem.
Lol! Have only just woken up (in Oz) and walked the dogs and haven't had time to answer . . . but yes your reply is it . . . also no need to land anywhere . . . neither duality nor non-duality. No me to get rid of . . . no promises of a dropped me nor a no-me status boorishly offering only right hemisphere views. NOWHERE for anyone to land . . . those capitals are meant joyously rather than emphatically.
Chris, I love what you've written . . . richly honest . . . . those whirrings of inner language . . . rich artistry . . . a slight ripple . . . . hearing the inner language but no hearer . . . and the ripples cease . . . and all that's left is unknowable life. Uncertainty has a bad reputation . . . but in the end certainty rings hollow for good reason.
@@nondualityfun I appreciate your words. What a great adventure this is! And isn't! Lol. Right now I am feeling such a relief that there is no Truth, no grand purpose to this all. And if there is Truth and a grand purpose for someone, or no one, then great! Or not great, if that really peaves someone! Lol. I can do what I want, for some reason, or none at all. And no goal or striving for relief. Though there it is. And what a contingent and transitory thing relief is. Nothing behind it! Unless one finds something behind it. Lol
@@nondualityfun 😃
Both sides can meet through experience
Hi Clare, If person believes what’s being presented in this video is correct, then it may stop their spiritual seeking, because they will think that nonduality is just a waste of time, but it won’t stop their seeking in general 🤷, and their misery will continue. Your explanation is another illusory position of knowing, that you believe is correct, it’s not going to help you, or anyone else in terms of seeking. ( at least that how I see it, regarding to my understanding of how things are ) Can you explain why you suggest that seeking will stop all together ? Thanks.
There is a difference between seeking (even an omeba seeks sugar and avoids vinegar) and which is natural in the same way a tree seeks sunlight and humans who don't just seek but negotiate for a spiritual result (like believing a ritual, a spiritual exercise or a guru will remove the 'me' or the left hemisphere). Non-duality isn't a waste of time it is a natural view that all animals have (all animals have the right hemisphere). The only thing that is a waste is the negotiating. Man has the added intelligence that creates an illusory separate self that believes if it negotiates correctly it will become one with Oneness. The video would be better if I'd made that distinction even clearer. So it is the negotiating that can stop because already the brain views non-duality. Negotiating is the false promise. Also . . the video is just saying that while non-duality is a natural brain view, it is a view . . . . and not necessarily a truth about reality. Reality remains a mystery. Not only do we not have the instrument to 'know' reality we are not separate from reality. I hope that answers your question.
@@nondualityfun I was talking about the mental seeking which won’t stop because of this knowledge. Thanks for the answer, but I don’t get it 🤷🏼♂️.
@@ccr7712 The brain automatically predicts something from the past, the body responds with a completely unique cascade of sensations, the brain then lazily labels that from the past . . . calls it something like sadness 'Oh I'm sad' . . the label seems to validate the experience. The brain predicts seeking will continue . . . the body responds with a unique cascade of sensations . . . labels it "I'm still seeking". It validates it's own false prediction. It's a very small loop that the brain follows. It's quite possible that that discovery alone can be a pattern interrupt. Admittedly my inner narrator is pretty silent . . . and seeking has stopped . . even with this new shock at the possibility that non-duality is just a view and not a truth at all . . . but the brain can still falsely predict things from the past . . . . that's just what it does . . . . even though its false. It's meant to be a shorthand so we don't see a doorknob and have to relearn what it is each time. Unfortunately the loop makes it seem like the mental realm of seeking means seeking is still happening. It's probably not seeking . . but it's job is to predict and it can only predict the past. This is why things can seem to be so stale even though life is quite extraordinary. The prediction you've written about seeking not stopping comes from past prediction . . . . it needn't go that way.
I was listening to Daniel Ingram and he said something along the lines of seeing no self and non duality is a different way of seeing the world and it just so happens to be an easier way to see the world/be in the world. As in it’s nicer not to have all the self identification with thought, emotions and trauma etc. They still happen, it’s just that the perspective on these things changes and it’s easier for the person.
So probably still worth it.
I think seeking will still happen, as understanding this intellectually is not the same as directly knowing it and won’t suffice.
Even if it is just a right brain dominant way of seeing, it happens to reduce suffering, which is what most people are looking for anyway.
@@clairedot657 I agree, it’s possibly just brainwashing your self in to seeing, and experiencing everything like that, and it may feel better for some then being a person .
You absolutely nailed this! Very nice summaries.
Thanks! Neuroscience really does uncover a few mysteries . . . like why humans even care about duality and non-duality . . . and why when some land heavily into non-duality are they seen as sacred and exceptional. At first I have to admit it sort of undid non-duality . . . but if anything I like it . . . there's no way to land on a throne . . . and it allows for balance.
@@nondualityfun I agree. I think the self developed to help humans survive, but the very separation it emphasizes makes us feel disconnected. So I can see where the drive to feel unity comes from. The neuroscience behind all this is truly fascinating. Shamil Chandaria has some really interesting videos in which he applies Karl Friston’s Bayesian Brain/free energy theory to explain how meditative states incline the brain towards the nondual perspective. The beginner’s mind approach emphasizing direct sensory experience over thought flattens the prior probabilities of what we expect to experience, resulting in seeing things from an expansive and fresh perspective (actually very similar to what happens on psychedelics). His explanation of the self as a modeling construct also closely matches what many neuroscientists currently theorize.
I suppose my mind is a bit twisted, but I like the many paradoxes in Buddhism: form is emptiness and emptiness is form, Nirvana is samsara and samsara is Nirvana. Now we can add: absolute is relative and relative is absolute. It’s all just perspectives without one being superior to the other, but each one may be more appropriate for different contexts. As George Box said, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
From what I understand, you're saying that I'm just the brain. If so, I am definitely separated from other brains and other objects . Where is the nonduality? ( Is there a difference between what you're saying and the normal materialistic view?)
Separation and normal materialism is the view from the left hemisphere but that doesn’t mean it’s the actual truth, it’s just half a view. The self is a brain simulation. And no-one knows what reality is. Even the recent Nobel prize winners say there is no space-time as a foundation. One could say everything is the one energy but what that energy is, and even if it is an energy, is unknown and unknowable. When the right hemisphere dominates it seems like everything is one appearance but what that appearance is, is not known. It’s also said that the brain hides the truth of reality and it isn’t there to help you see a truth ….. and it’s creating an illusory you anyhow. The mind is only virtual with no reality to it. So this throws out the knower and anything known out. It throws separation out. Who knows what zero is? All is wonderfully unknown.
@nondualityfun is the right side of the brain says there is no brain?
@@Dan-k5j1x Well the right doesn't say anything at all but it's view doesn't divide anything . . it sees in terms of wholeness . . . and that's why some presenters say there is no such thing as a brain because they are viewing from the right hemisphere. It's a wonderful wonderful view but to say that it's the sole truth and everyone needs to see solely from the right hemisphere to realise the truth . . . is probably not quite true because it's still a human view. Having said that . . neuroscience and physicists are seeing the possibilities of reality being not really a simulation but pretty close. When there is seeing from the right hemisphere it's clear the left hemisphere is seeing in terms of duality and a narrative and makes things up so it feels wonderful to see that so much we think is true isn't. But that doesn't necessarily make the right hemisphere's view a truth. It is just seeing wholeness.
Conceptualizing what already is or isn’t, paradoxity concept, or something like that
Thinking to know is not the end of seeking.
You are right, The illusory sense of knowing is the problem, that perpetuates thinking and the misery. This is just another knowing / position. It’s not going to help anything 🤷🏼♂️.
@@ccr7712 The video points to unknowing (and it points the error of presenters knowing that what they are saying is THE truth). if anything the video throws out the possibility of knowing non-duality because 1. it's just a view and not a truth about reality and 2. there is no self to know and 3. there is no-one separate from 'what is' who could ever objectively know. That's a truckload of unknowing! And besides when the inner narrator stops there is no thinking . . . . there is beingness . . . and no-one to know . . . . but doesn't mean push away evidence about the brain or feel a need to defend non-duality as The Truth.
@@nondualityfun there is no possibility of knowing anything if everything is really the same thing, because you can’t step out of it to know it, but that it self is an understanding which can be incorrect as well, and there is no way of knowing that.
I think that It would be nice, and honest, if you and all speakers would add in the beginning and on the end of the videos, that what you are saying is not the truth, but just a view, and may be possibly completely incorrect, or even the complete opposite. As well I don’t get why you named your video : The code of nonduality is cracked, but in the same time here you claim that it points to unknowing 🤷🏼♂️. The title of the video sounds like you are convinced that what you are saying is the truth.
I am not trying to offend you, it just doesn’t make sense to me, but I may be wrong, who knows 🤷🏼♂️. Good luck 🍀
@@ccr7712 I like the point you've made and I had hoped that the video was addressing the point you've made . . that presenters are not presenting the truth because it turns out that it is mind based. And I even challenge presenters to recognise the possibility that they are only speaking from the right hemisphere. I named the video as such because I was wanting to convey where the whole notion of non-duality most likely comes from. It comes from one half of the brain . . . and not a truth from The Nothing or Divine Consciousness. All spirituality seems like there is a grain of truth because part of our brain resonates with it. That's what I mean by cracking the code . . . it's seeing that the source of non-duality most likely comes from the part of the brain that sees that way already . . . rather than non-duality being a truth we find because it exists as an Absolute truth.
I'm not offended and really like honest questions and challenges because I'd like to be clear in the communications. I can't of course know truth . . . I don't think any brain can . . that's what I mean about unknowing. Thanks for querying further and I hope I've been a bit better at explaining it.
Is this non-duality fun or is this a view you can take comfort in?
Ultimately, if you feel you've found an explanation, then you might as well truly drop all of this non-dual stuff. But you probably won't, because this isn't how things go, as non-dual is something that clarifies through investigation and deep shadow work naturally. It is the shadow itself wanting explanations and ideas of further "unknowing". Landing on the idea of brain hemispheres being "the" explanation is like baiting other seekers to a personal conclusion that gives you comfort - you'll even have skeptic minds on your team with such a scientific view. It's definitely in fun and all of innocence, but perhaps you could ask yourself what your intentions are with these videos, for your own sake. Just like with everything the human mind touches upon, more noise doesn't really help others, rather a lot of the noise is just a reflection of our "landing" and wanting to project that onto reality for others. It is fun to see where people seem to land and to look at what landing is. And you are right, that some non-dual speakers are themselves landing and usually fixating. What's the need?
Best one yet. I wonder what you think of Jim Newman?
Ha Ha! The answer might land me in hot water!! I would say a very hard landing on right hemisphere's views . . . . which turn out to be just right hemisphere's views. When really there is no-one . . . . no landing required . . . no need for the latter day non-duality saints movement with the obligatory introduction of "This is boundless energy" . . . and then waiting for all followers to land in right hemisphere's views as if that is freedom. No one is free . . . and fomo baiting everyone into thinking they must have a hard landing themselves kills the whole wonderment and artistry of life . . . which can only be unknowable. No one needs to force-fit themselves into a view. Neither of the two views can reveal anything except a view . . . wondrously unknowable!
@@nondualityfun Tim Freke has some interesting things to say on this.
Just to add to my comment below . . . . I personally like all the presenters . . . . including Jim . . . and there is wonder and beauty in the hard right position . . . it's the hard right position held by the radical group though that now seems to have crumbled . . . and led to a massively wonderful non landing . . . because even non-duality itself as THE answer isn't an answer at all.
@@nondualityfun The reason Mr. Newman is the only presenter I watch is because of his meeting introductions. They're often informative/interesting and he points out that he has nothing to offer that's going to help you. I stopped watching the question-and-answer section that follows a long time ago. He also gives good interviews.
He's as stuck as they get.
I thought there is no such thing as a brain? It's made up. So what is all this right and left hems about? Oh no one knows because there is no one. Love these videos.
I think the brain exists as a processing center for what is presented & associated with language, and it accepts all content as “self.”
Both And, not Either Or. The Two Truths Debate: Rangtong/Shentong (diddle-ay po!). You're welcome!!
Looking that up now as I hadn't heard of those terms Rangtong/Shentong . . . so far in my reading . . really interesting.Thanks!
Interesting perspective.
A very refreshing explanation! I might add that the "leaning" between the two views could also be described as a dance, e.g., something which can be practiced and refined in an artistic fashion. This can really blow the lid off of how meditation is commonly perceived as a practice of devotion to the right hemisphere, instead reformulating to mean something along the lines of, "meditation is the practice of acknowledging the function/significance of both dual and non-dual perspectives, the ability and degree of grace by which one can shift between them, the inquiry into the natural play of their interactions, and the integration of these insights into daily living."
It really helps to give attention to both worldviews. In these non-duality "lateral lobotomies," as you've pointed out, these meetings are like dialectics without any synthesis. That is, there's oftentimes dialogue where a solution (dropped self) is proposed to a problem (seeking), and the two brainioids continue to ricochet without generating any novel ideas, making it actually more like a debate-sans the aggression.
One question that lingered for me after this video is, "Is discerning between dual and non-dual views solely yet another function of the left hemisphere?" That kinda starts the whole chicken and egg thing again, so idk.
Also, here's a curveball coming in from Taoism: "If dual and non-dual are likened to yin and yang, what experience would you ascribe to the circle (wuji) which contains them?" Anyway, just some food for thought in case you get this far reading! Thanks for uploading :)
I like the dance analogy! The discernment is most likely the left but the right will see it as a discernment appearing as part of everything . . . but that doesn't mean the discernment is bad . . . I think spiritual and non-duality communities have demonised the left when the left simply has a skill set of discernment, separation, survival etc. BTW the chicken and egg debate has been solved. The egg came first . . you'd have to google it as I've forgotten the evidence but it has been solved. As to the Tao . . . actually I don't have an answer but I like what you've written and I like the mention of the circle.
@@nondualityfun Thanks for the reply! Yeah, the whole "separation is bad" villification of the left hemisphere thing doesn't make much sense to me these days.
A thought which came to me once helped me put separateness in a new light: "Jung couldn't have been Jung without Freud, but he had to be without Freud to become Jung." Another analogy would be how we need to first be dependent on our parents to raise us for us to become indendepent adults. This follows in biology too, where mitosis (separation) and conception (wholeness) are both essential processes in the creation of life. So both left and right hemisphere skillsets are codependent; the fission aspect of duality is codependent with the fusion aspect of non-duality. In our development, we need the non-dual stage first in order to gain data about the world, then begin to discern experience to make something of it for our own individuality, then learn to dance between the two over a course of a lifetime!
Oh Clare, you've been reading Odah again haven't you?
Lol! I never mind digs if they are funny . . . and that is a fun dig. Actually there isn't too much Turjman in this video . . . even though his description is pretty apt. So is the Taylor Bolte description and Iain McGilchrist. What they describe is just like a dropped me. It feels like a drop and there is 'just everything' and no instigator. It just means I wouldn't put it as a dropped me but a wondrous slide into the right hemisphere. And no authority to say they have the 'real knowing' on non-duality. I can't say I have a someone here who feels they need to defend non-duality . . . . just a 'wow' this predominant right hemisphere may not be The Answer.
@@nondualityfun Thank you for the reply. I realize I needed to put a winking emoji at the end of my question. ;-Don
I agree . . . I think 🤔
Simply wonderful❤
Thoughts still say, that there has something to happen. But that are just thoughts, right?…
Yes . . . inner chatter . . . air bubbles . . . . and there is nothing wrong with air bubbles . . . they are on automatic . . . sometimes there sometimes not.
@@nondualityfun thank you! I love your channel, please dont stop making videos! I also bought your book -I am happy, that it was available in Germany :)
Who's that girl ?
After you realize your true nature as Brahman, you enter the world of non-pooality where you no longer give a shit.
LOL!!!
Yes, interesting- thank you. This would seem plausible- though you either haven’t listened to, so haven’t wanted to incorporate some of the fairly detailed feedback offered since your last video. I’ll keep an open mind for now, and continue the search for the truth. Be aware that there’s also plenty of food for thought in ND circles following David Mcdonald’s vid- though that’s rather different to yours.
Caution: Everything is a perspective. 🎉 Wanting to know will appear as knowing.
Just had a look at one of his videos. You know what? I did address some of the things similar to what David McDonald says . . . . but it must have ended up on the cutting room floor when I trimmed the video . . . but I will do a video addressing trauma and non-duality. If too much is included it becomes too much and I already receive lots of complaints about my videos being too long. Was there a different but specific point you wanted addressed?
@@nondualityfun thanks for the reply. Actually I was trying to gently refer to someone else - it was a feedback video on your last video. If you search for "Can Awakening Be Reduced to Brain Function?" you might be interested. Trying not to step on anyone's toes here :-)
Yay uniduality!
I like that word! Uniduality!
How can anything do what it's already not doing?
Always a delight, Clare.
I wonder if you ask any "awakened" guy to loan you some $$$, see if they'd immediately return to their "natural unenlightened" state or come up with something like "nobody asks for nothing, and nobody being asked to loan nothing either, just this" 😆
Perfect… for nobody! 😁☯
😊♾☮🕉
Can you sum up your conclusion in one clear statement? What is “your” final word? Yours truly, saved, born again, awakened, enlightened, realized, non existent, self, no self, meat suit. Radical or otherwise! Thanks from no one!
When Isaac Newton discovered there was no colour except what was created by the mind . . no-one went around trying to see in black and white to prove they were now seeing the truth and not an illusion. Discovering that no-one is separate from nature doesn’t require anyone to stop seeing separation to prove they are really seeing what is true.
@@nondualityfun It is really quite refreshing to come across someone who actually understands the mechanism of sight. When I try to explain it to others, it really confuses them. I never bought the idea of a spirit inhabiting the body even as I was baptized into two different major religions. I came to the same conclusion as Baruch Spinoza long before I found his “Ethics”. My message has always been to look in the mirror. There you are, the complete package. You cannot separate matter and spirit for they are actually the same thing expressing from different energy states. Consciousness is emergent as electromagnetic energy as is solid matter. They are two ends of the same stick. A ball is red. A ball is not an appearance in redness. Redness is not fundamental. Matter is conscious. Matter is not an appearance in consciousness. Consciousness is not primary. Duality is an artifact. There are only the stick and its two ends. The electromagnetic spectrum and its two ends. Space and matter are one and the same. They are simply two ends of the same stick. It is experienced through the perception mechanism we mistakenly call our soul. We are not a soul, we are the whole enchilada. Meat suit and all.
@@nondualityfunThanks for responding. My response back to you was deleted by the algorithm. Let’s just say I agree with Spinoza. Your response seems consistent with that as well. A ball is red. A ball is not an appearance in redness. Redness is not primary. I am conscious. I am not an appearance in consciousness. Consciousness is not primary.
Cool content, but WAY too much reliance on goofy and annoying sound effects.
Had Jesus known non-duality he could have saved his life