I had a feeling that science, philosophy and religion would find convergence in this age. I believe I am witnessing early steps in fruition of intuition! Thank you! Capital "I", capital "L"! More trialogue!
On the issue of convergence of science, philosophy and religion, your probably would find the book "The Inner Journey Home" by A.H. Almaas very interesting. Cheers!
my favorite philosopher hasn't gotten a word in yet and im still thoroughly enjoying! that puts into perspective how great this talk is haha, thank you for getting these two together again and Lelung has some great insights so far! definitely gonna subscribe and see what else you have
Amazing, amazing, amazing. This will be on replay for quite some time. Also great to actually see you Ivy and thank you for all the work you and your team do 🙏
There is no concept of Collective Mind in Buddhism, or it is perceived as a mistake of Eternalism. This is the main difference between Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta Views. The main difference is that in Buddhist View instead of being a part of Universal Mind, every single being is a separate Universe by themselves, that's what the Buddhist Teacher is talking about. And we can interact and see the world similarly just because of the common experience we went through and been born to, in this case the form of the Human world. To get a clear explanation you need to talk to a great Dzogchen Master who is not only theoretical Master but also a great Practitioner, as this exact concept is quite difficult to explain as it transcends our Conseptual Mind and is rather Experienced, not talked through.
The "LOVE" with the big L as mentioned, can be found in the book called "The Road Less Traveled" By M. Scot Peck. Love with the big L is often referred to "unconditional love." ⛩🍎⛩ This trialogue was extraordinary in beauty and meaning of this sublime interaction. ⛩🍎⛩
I have a feeling this would of been way better if we all spoke Tibetan..Bernard spoke of our limited vocabulary in regards to the different states and aspects of mind.
Very cool and interesting discussion ! One of the main things that struck me is the great leader Dalai Lama and all the other lamas are definitely trying to help humanity to be compassionate. Experienced the wisdom of this great leader Dalai Lama in India. Hopefully the joint power just like the spiders web there is no gap we are all interconnected and my genuine desire for a pandemic of loving compassion kindness and love be spread out in our world. And few powerful people will help us making this one earth one future and not one funeral ( war) family as recently India hosted G-7 one earth one future one family. Showing Indian cultures traditions and values. Thank you. Love and peace to all
Regarding reincarnation - Bernardo Kastrup seems to be more accurate. It's not the same person being reborn, but a new person or dissociation "picking up" experiences from a previous experience left in the larger consciousness. There are few reasons to say this is more accurate: 1. Buddhists too agree that there is "no self" or entity that remains by itself (to pass on). 2. There are numerous stories in scriptures about a person being a reincarnation of more than one personality together. This is only possible in BK's explanation where the new being just picks up bread crumbs left by previous beings that happen to co-locate when the new person is born. Example: Hanuman was said to have 3 aspects in him - Kesari, Vayu (wind God) & Shiva - all simultaneously.
1.47.18: LR: .."In Buddhism when your realization is in a similar or same level then you can read each others mind..." That seems really interesting! First time i heard about..
At a lower level you can go in resonance with people you have a close conversation with so that their feelings, thoughts etc. comes up in your mindstream/meditation
It's not interesting and not Buddhist specific. It happens all the time, we can understand people who are less intelligent than us more than those more intelligent, is one example. Really Rinpoche makes it all up as he goes along, he has very little knowledge but does have empowerments to use and manipulate people with.
I didn't understand Kastrup's criticism of George Berkeley: the basic structure of Berkeleyan idealism is the same as that of Kastrup: mind and Mind at Large (i.e, the mind of God). For Berkeley there is a 'world' outside of my consciousness in the sense that it is in the mind of God first and he is the one who causes all of its regularities and patterns.
It is clearly time for these talks need to bring the Baha'i Faith into the discussion. Everything I have heard Bernardo talk about (Idealism) is in alignment to Baha'i religion. Science and religion agree, equality of religions (progressive revelation), service etc etc. I would love to see a video where Baha'i is researched and presented in the discussion. Not because I want ev everyone to be a Baha'i, but because Baha'i is important in the study of the history and the evolution of religion. It is important.
While there are similarities with idealism in the Baha'i Faith, this does not necessarily imply the existence of a creator. The shared concepts of interconnectedness and unity can resonate with non-dual philosophies, despite the differing theological underpinnings. The Baha'i Faith is monotheistic and focuses on a singular God. This fundamental difference in beliefs might pose challenges in integrating discussions on the Baha'i Faith, due to the distinct starting points of each perspective.
The Universe is a storry created in consciousness and consciousness know what consciousness know, and it creates a storry in an iterating process, to find a coherent storry which as good as possible reflect, it self. That is the reason why every possible way of exploring the Universe will find facts and paterns that in the end will be the same, regardless of method of inquary. You can say that consciousness it self guide you to find the ”correct” answers. The Universe at large is basically a self fulfillig prophecy. Of cource what I’m written here is also in a way ’only’ as storry, but it is a storry which in my experience lead to happines and understanding on every level possible.
you know you CAN NOT trust your own brain , RIGHT ??? our brains make up delusions , illusions , hallucinations , biases , misconceptions ... 10.000+ of them , EVERY brain in the world so ... NO ... you definitely CAN NOT trust your own consciousness ...to be your guide ... , that's the most ridiculous thing i ever heard ... even your eyes can't be trusted , you are not seeing how the universe Actually is because you just see the light that shines ON the objects , not the object itself , ever there's ALWAYS distortion from the light going to to your eyes , you NEVER EVER see the real world like it is ... , and if you can't even trust your OWN EYES and the connections YOU THEN make in what you're seeing and have an ''explanation'' for , how are you ''trusting your own consciousness'' ... ? your consciousness doesn't even have access TO the actual reality , ONLY with evidence OF the real world that can confirm the object/problem in front of you on it's OWN , consciousness is a >> nothing
It seems to me that the Buddhist tradition of Yogācāra is compatible with Kastrup's idealism but earlier forms of Buddhism seem to assume that there is a physical substrate of some kind.
Early Buddhist texts, particularly in Theravada tradition, remain neutral on the existence of a physical reality, concentrating instead on the path to enlightenment through understanding the impermanence, suffering, and not-self nature of phenomena. Their analysis aims at aiding the realization of not-self and achieving liberation, rather than establishing firm metaphysical assertions about reality's nature.
@@philosophybabble I certainly agree that the aim of Buddhism is awakening as opposed to metaphysics but I am not so sure about what you claim about the Pali canon and Abidhamma.
@@philosophybabble But conventional truth is only a useful linguistic fiction. Surely the Yogacara developed precisely because most early forms of Buddhism did accept a substrate?
@@bayreuth79 Mahayana Buddhism is a broad tradition that includes various philosophical schools, such as Yogacara, which is notably distinct within Mahayana for its emphasis. However, it's crucial to recognize that the Lelung lineage falls under the Madhyamaka school. A fundamental concept shared across Mahayana is "Pratītyasamutpāda" or interdependent origination. This notion is pivotal to Mahayana's interpretation of emptiness (Śūnyatā), underscoring the non-inherent nature of all phenomena.
At 2:15:00 a brief discussion about love is presented. Physics generally does not like to deal with such “realities”. After all, the “qualia of the Spirit” are not subject to material metrics or mathematics although reference is made to the absolute human necessity of compassion by the Rinpoche in the previous minutes. By contrast to the common avoidance, if not aversion to the themes of “spirit” and “manifestation (fruit) of the Spirit” (love, joy, peace…), I suggest that more useful answers to inquiries into physics (etc) will be found when the primacy of love as the foundation and as the sustaining force of existence and the cosmos is acknowledged and serious attempts to account for love, intention and compassion within physics begin. Love is, I suggest, the context that gives all inquiry coherence and sustainable meaning. Love is the substance of all and wilful no accounting for it is the root of all blindness and conflict.
I wonder if the dissociative theory and reincarnation has something to do with memory, rather than conscious souls floating in dissociative states. Also if you bring into focus the act of revelation, which in religious terms is considered the word of god. Is it possible that our memories can exist in an akashic field and we are able to tune into other memories as if they are our own. Giving the illusion of reincarnation of the soul but not really.
1:47, the lower level realisation cannot understand the higher level realisation. That's true in any situation, so he's adding nothing to this debate. His English is fine when he wants something, just bad when anything is asked of him. Even if it's simply to explain the Buddhist perspective, as it is here.
not necessarily, we know dissociation is a process which happens in nature. we don't know "matter turning into conscious experience" is a thing in nature, but we do know "mind creating multiple separated personalities" is a thing in nature from research on DID patients
In future discussions, it might be beneficial to address the issue of solipsism, which suggests the non-existence of the external world. Idealism appears as a superior philosophical standpoint. However, further exploration, especially in spirituality, reveals that this perspective maybe is contradicted by spiritual experiences like God realization. It also finds support in scientific concepts such as relational quantum mechanics. I believe there is an interest in exploring arguments against solipsism, drawing insights from philosophy, science, and spirituality. I hope to see this topic addressed
We have thoroughly discussed this topic previously and concluded that it does not align with Idealism. Moreover, misunderstanding Idealism could lead one towards solipsism, which we find unrelated to our discussions.
Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism developed more than 600 years and 1000 years respectively after Buddha. so they contain a lot of teachings which deviate from the original teaching of Buddha. Sad to see later practices deteriorate into superstition, relaxation of monks precepts, tantric, mantras etc. This greatly deviate from the cultivation of virtue, deep meditation and insight wisdom found in the original teachings. Cheers.
I’m hearing the limitations of language, the seemingly unavoidable taint of semantical reductionism, the attachment to ego (a named and conditioned ID) and the apparent necessity to objectify the self from “the rest”. I’m not complaining or criticising, just noticing that language and discussion is, in its form, not that which it tries to indicate. What IS is not the product of an assembled thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. At some point we may become, and, if that “become being” could be observed, it would be silent, there would be nothin g to say. I’m inclined to see these topics or themes (actually fragments) of thought as dependent and momentary excursions of the One like moments of manifestation by which It knows itself, not necessary to itself, provided it is “contented” in its lack of recognition (eg in worship).
I totally disagree with the conversation at the end that the self will cease/merge once we move over to the other side. In fact, if someone grows enough while here to become a firmly more loving and empathetic individual, their more loving self will “increase”with that love and empathy, not disappear. And with Carr agreeing with their self theory, then agreeing with Bernardo’s statement that we are not nouns but verbs, Carr proceeds to state that we are “verbing”. The latter actually points back to an “enlightened self” that is verbing.
This subject is an. eel..the more effort you put in to try to catch ir it is more slippery because the eel produces the saliva all through its body.. consciousness is an eel.. you know and see the eel..the trouble is we cannot see the consciousness not even feel..its allover yourself its all over in the world and spread in all over the universe. It may not appeal to our simple , very temporary life ,now here then not ...we are not even sure if the brains are doing the job of the consciousness.. Consciousness is a spark that part of light which is in turn is part of sound.. SOUND is the primordial creation and basis for all maaya..sound is maaya, very slippery and volatile and never ending in creation.. there is nothing here with out sound ..the universes are all creation of sound..when a child is born we do not see any light but we hear its cry.. I wonder if ever the west would be able to understand the cosmos.... .
Newtons fallen human dashboard hierarchy knowledge of Good and evil equations says absolutely it is man made time lol Here and now is it but I personally I don't mind returning to the greater system at large after 80 years its just right or I think the relocation of the same once upon a time story's, same niave & arrogant faces gets old. By 50 your already recognizing so many argument & sentence structures the nuenced topic doesn't matter all you already know the orientation and direction. I think most just don't want to suffer or be in pain mostly . Want to stand only as an 80 year old statue for future posterity for the generations to come and don't want to monopolize life. The ashes to ashes and limbo we pass on to will be an enternal restoration.
I think if they described the terminology differences in mind and Mind and self and Self. Because they all are using them slightly differently. I found the interview of Bernardo Kastrup and swami sarvapriyananda was much more clear and helpful. Link here- th-cam.com/video/BG31Oz0VWmI/w-d-xo.html
@@truthlivingetc88, Texts, logic, and maths. Matter makes matter while hosting the stream of creation called Citta-Vithi. Everything is just Citta-Vithi.
The first half of your statement contradicts the second half. Saying that everything is citta-vrtti (thought forms) is an explicitly idealist statement. Saying that matter hosts citta-vrtti is a materialist statement. They contradict each other.
While I agree w/ Bernardo on virtually 90% of what he says, I have to respectfully disagree with him on his views of dissociation. I think he (at least insofar as what I can tell from his discussions and debates) has missed something rather obvious. We know from our own empirical observations and studies that patients of DID (dissociative identity disorder) can have a variety of alters, and there's only *one* way in which those alters have ever been known to engage with one another - in dreams. Mental worlds that allow them to bypass the constraints of physical reality in which only a single alter can have control of the body at one time. Bernardo's entire perspective on dissociation presupposes (without justification, IMHO) that we *are* in fundamental reality and that it's merely a matter of representation that separates us from the universal ground of being. I disagree with this entirely. I don't think our own studies of DID support this outcome, not to mention the innumerable reports of things like near-death experiences and psychedelic experiences that tell all manner of account of people claiming they've traveled to other worlds and met a myriad of strange and even incomprehensible entities (Terrence McKenna's "self-transforming machine elves" being some of the most bizarre). And to try and explain all of this from Bernardo's present model would seem, IMO, to require far less parsimonious and implausible propositions rather than the simple and elegant answer that, yes, we are living in a mental construction (a dream, in other words) of the universal mind and that it's not the only one. In other words, our true dissociative state does reside in fundamental reality, but physical death itself can no more bring an end to the dissociation than waking up from a dream does. In all likelihood it has next to no substantive impact on it at all.
Also, one other thing I forgot to mention (but which deserves its own comment, IMHO) is one other area of significant disagreement w/ Bernardo. I don't think metabolism, as universal as it seems to be for conscious entities, is the marker for dissociation. There is *one* other thing that ranks up w/ metabolism as a likely (perhaps even more so) candidate, and it's DMT. DMT is a naturally occurring psychedelic in humans, plants & animals that, for unknown reasons, bypasses the blood-brain barrier to impact you directly. And although the scientific study on it is comparatively small, at least at present there doesn't seem to be any obvious addictive effect. Most significantly of all however, what studies there are have shown that the effects of a DMT trip strongly resemble those of a near-death experience (traveling to another world, meeting entities, etc, etc.) This, to me, seems quite significant. I would therefore argue that, although there's much we don't understand about it, DMT seems to make a stronger case than metabolism, both for its comparative universality and for its more immediate and direct impacts on dissociation and mentality in general.
There are multiple ways to access altered states of consciousness without using DMT. Practices such as meditation, breath-work, ecstatic dance, and even certain types of intense physical exercise can induce profound shifts in awareness and perception. These methods have been used for centuries across various cultures and traditions as pathways to altered states, offering individuals a means to explore the depths of consciousness and spirituality without the use of psychedelic substances like DMT.
@@philosophybabble I don't disagree that there are other methods - and despite my proposal, I didn't mean that as an endorsement of using DMT (although I would clarify that I'm not reflexively against it either). I only say that insofar as we're concerned w/ exploring the nature of consciousness, it should be kept as an available option, albeit one that should be approached cautiously and w/ the apprpriate care. With that said however, I am serious when I say that there's good reason to think of DMT as the marker for dissociation and not metabolism. I think Bernardo (not entirely unjustly, to be fair) basically sought out the one thing he saw that *could* be so universal as to be the likely candidate and basically went with it w/o doing more research.
@@philosophybabble To be clear, I didn't mean my comment as an endorsement of DMT (although I'm not reflexively against it) - however I do think its effects are worthy of serious consideration (particularly their striking similarity with near-death experiences) and it should be kept as an option on the table insofar as we're being careful and have all the proper precautions in place. Rick Strausman's DMT studies in the late 80s to early 90s are a good example of what I'm talking about. That said, I am quite serious when I raise DMT up as a more likely candidate for a marker of dissociation than mere metabolism. Its clear effects on the mind and the many striking accounts people have conveyed shouldn't strike so much fear in us that we simply brush it away w/o trying to more fully understand what we're dealing with here.
@philosophybabble To be clear, I didn't mean my comment as an endorsement of DMT (although I'm not reflexively against it) - however I do think its effects are worthy of serious consideration (particularly their striking similarity with near-death experiences) and it should be kept as an option on the table insofar as we're being careful and have all the proper precautions in place. Rick Strausman's DMT studies in the late 80s to early 90s are a good example of what I'm talking about. That said, I am quite serious when I raise DMT up as a more likely candidate for a marker of dissociation than mere metabolism. Its clear effects on the mind and the many striking accounts people have conveyed shouldn't strike so much fear in us that we simply brush it away w/o trying to more fully understand what we're dealing with here.
The majority of philosophers and monks are men. I think a channel like this, run by a woman (from what I can tell based on the introductions), would love to have female philosophers and monks on. Can you recommend a few?
@@cashglobe There are many.But you should know that part of the reason philosophers and monks have historically been dominated by the male gender is because women and girls were not allowed to read the texts or attend the schools . This is true today as you must undoubtedly be aware. So the historical texts we use are male-centered. But there have always been women who bucked the trend; Hildegard of Bingen and St. Theresa of Avila. Hildegard taught herself to read in spite of prohibition and total lack of support. She wrote highly innovative music, studied biology, and saw the universe as a divine womb. In the Eastern tradition of Vajrayana Buddhism, there was Machig Labron, while today we have Lama Tsultrim Allione and Pema Chodrun. We don't need a separate separate channel for women and men. This is antithetical to the oneness of all things - as Bernardo so eloquently expresses. But we do need to give the divine feminine, Mother of the Universe, her due respect. And we need to allow women's voices the same respect. The explanation of big R reality cannot NOT include the voice and perspective of women - of ALL beings in truth. It is what we ARE. Women are there, speaking, thinking, investigating, writing. Just notice.
Is it just me or the Buddhist didn't say anything clearly? He seems confused and yet to figure it out. Sometimes it gives the impression that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
He shared a wealth of insights; our challenge lies in the limited vocabulary available to fully encapsulate the topic. Buddhism is far more complex than it may initially appear to many.
Psychic experience can greatly guide to inexpressible love that isn’t felt in a physical life . Also psychic experience might be in service to assisting someone to do or not to do something . Should be a an openness to not u derstanding … yet
@@philosophybabble And yet they all say the same things, word for word. If its so complex they'd all have a unique perspective. Instead we only hear one script. In this video he suddenly mentions 5 elements, much like the Netflix documentary, it's not really a difficult concept.
@@davidchou1675 You're not wrong, but essentially, the Rinpoche doesn't know much, what he does know he can't express, and has no inkling of what he doesn't know. No logical thought from him, ever. Babbling is the right word. Which works when he's preaching unchallenged on his soap box, but fails in any sort of real debate or interaction.
To me, Bernardo sticks too rigidly to the neuroscience view of an afterlife without seemingly realizing it, even while he rightly bashes their view about consciousness solely being the result of brain activity. In other words, the western neuroscience view is that once the body dies, we die, yet to say we lose ourselves, our “self”, is basically akin to the Western science view of “dying”. And with respect to Bernardo, who is given so many gems to our world, I was struck by the fact that he admitted that he didn’t understand empathy for a period of his life, and is only recently trying to grab it’s meaning and role in his life. To not have had a natural feel for empathy, can potentially explain his rigid views about the loss of self on the other side.
Additionally, in the current lifetime space I am living right now, I am hugely fortunate to have met the love of my life (definitely felt like I was “re-meeting” the love of my life). And 25 years later, when his body died, his self and my current self continued a relationship, aka transdimensionally. And during this transdimensional relationship we’ve had, I also took the time to face the dark night of my soul, to face the things that I avoided facing my entire adulthood. It hasn’t been easy, but I’ve always been proactive, and I’m now the better for facing it. The latter means that my “self“ is now a higher and better self, filled with even more love and compassion for people around me. This change in me reminds me of the change that people who’ve had an NDE have had.
Dear Bernard, could you, please, try to stay focused on the camera and the viewers, and at least reduce this huge number of movements in all directions and at the same time the entire arsenal of movements. It is impossible for the viewers to concentrate on your speech because it remains completely in the background.
If it's that much of a problem for you, just listen and don't watch the screen. Open, honest body language doesn't affect everyone's capability of listening.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
I had a feeling that science, philosophy and religion would find convergence in this age. I believe I am witnessing early steps in fruition of intuition! Thank you! Capital "I", capital "L"! More trialogue!
On the issue of convergence of science, philosophy and religion, your probably would find the book "The Inner Journey Home" by A.H. Almaas very interesting. Cheers!
Thank you all again for this discussion. With reverence and appreciation.
🙏❤️🌍🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
Thank you too!
I feel so conforted by knowing that such an intellectual giant as Bernard is participating in these debates
Beautiful conversations ❤ Wonderful insights and wisdom
my favorite philosopher hasn't gotten a word in yet and im still thoroughly enjoying! that puts into perspective how great this talk is haha, thank you for getting these two together again and Lelung has some great insights so far! definitely gonna subscribe and see what else you have
Very interesting conversation.Thanks for uploading.
Bernardo is brilliant as usual..
Glad you enjoyed it
Amazing, amazing, amazing. This will be on replay for quite some time. Also great to actually see you Ivy and thank you for all the work you and your team do 🙏
Our pleasure!
There is no concept of Collective Mind in Buddhism, or it is perceived as a mistake of Eternalism. This is the main difference between Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta Views. The main difference is that in Buddhist View instead of being a part of Universal Mind, every single being is a separate Universe by themselves, that's what the Buddhist Teacher is talking about. And we can interact and see the world similarly just because of the common experience we went through and been born to, in this case the form of the Human world. To get a clear explanation you need to talk to a great Dzogchen Master who is not only theoretical Master but also a great Practitioner, as this exact concept is quite difficult to explain as it transcends our Conseptual Mind and is rather Experienced, not talked through.
The "LOVE" with the big L as mentioned, can be found in the book called "The Road Less Traveled" By M. Scot Peck.
Love with the big L is often referred to "unconditional love." ⛩🍎⛩
This trialogue was extraordinary in beauty and meaning of this sublime interaction.
⛩🍎⛩
Thank you for this discussion.
Will love to see Bernardo and Sam Harris conversation
We'd be intrigued to see BK engage in a spirited debate with Harris, though, regrettably, it seems unlikely that Harris will take up the challenge.
Why?
I have a feeling this would of been way better if we all spoke Tibetan..Bernard spoke of our limited vocabulary in regards to the different states and aspects of mind.
Explore the contributions and translations of Prof. Jay Garfield, including his work on Nagarjuna's "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā."
Very cool and interesting discussion ! One of the main things that struck me is the great leader Dalai Lama and all the other lamas are definitely trying to help humanity to be compassionate. Experienced the wisdom of this great leader Dalai Lama in India. Hopefully the joint power just like the spiders web there is no gap we are all interconnected and my genuine desire for a pandemic of loving compassion kindness and love be spread out in our world. And few powerful people will help us making this one earth one future and not one funeral ( war) family as recently India hosted G-7 one earth one future one family. Showing Indian cultures traditions and values. Thank you. Love and peace to all
Regarding reincarnation - Bernardo Kastrup seems to be more accurate. It's not the same person being reborn, but a new person or dissociation "picking up" experiences from a previous experience left in the larger consciousness. There are few reasons to say this is more accurate:
1. Buddhists too agree that there is "no self" or entity that remains by itself (to pass on).
2. There are numerous stories in scriptures about a person being a reincarnation of more than one personality together. This is only possible in BK's explanation where the new being just picks up bread crumbs left by previous beings that happen to co-locate when the new person is born.
Example: Hanuman was said to have 3 aspects in him - Kesari, Vayu (wind God) & Shiva - all simultaneously.
Buddha taught against eternalism, the belief in an eternal, unchanging soul or essence in individuals.
1.47.18: LR: .."In Buddhism when your realization is in a similar or same level then you can read each others mind..."
That seems really interesting! First time i heard about..
At a lower level you can go in resonance with people you have a close conversation with so that their feelings, thoughts etc. comes up in your mindstream/meditation
It's not interesting and not Buddhist specific. It happens all the time, we can understand people who are less intelligent than us more than those more intelligent, is one example. Really Rinpoche makes it all up as he goes along, he has very little knowledge but does have empowerments to use and manipulate people with.
@@yoya4766can’t wait to see your channel!
@@thobraa haha, is that all you can come up with?
@@yoya4766 don’t be lazy! I believe in you. You can do it!
Carr and kastrup should come back with Swami Sarvapriyananda. Who would have an answer to all Carrs same questions in fluent English
Thank you for that suggestion! :)
I didn't understand Kastrup's criticism of George Berkeley: the basic structure of Berkeleyan idealism is the same as that of Kastrup: mind and Mind at Large (i.e, the mind of God). For Berkeley there is a 'world' outside of my consciousness in the sense that it is in the mind of God first and he is the one who causes all of its regularities and patterns.
That was excellent! Thanks to all
Glad you enjoyed it!
It is clearly time for these talks need to bring the Baha'i Faith into the discussion. Everything I have heard Bernardo talk about (Idealism) is in alignment to Baha'i religion. Science and religion agree, equality of religions (progressive revelation), service etc etc. I would love to see a video where Baha'i is researched and presented in the discussion. Not because I want ev everyone to be a Baha'i, but because Baha'i is important in the study of the history and the evolution of religion. It is important.
While there are similarities with idealism in the Baha'i Faith, this does not necessarily imply the existence of a creator. The shared concepts of interconnectedness and unity can resonate with non-dual philosophies, despite the differing theological underpinnings.
The Baha'i Faith is monotheistic and focuses on a singular God. This fundamental difference in beliefs might pose challenges in integrating discussions on the Baha'i Faith, due to the distinct starting points of each perspective.
Bernardo listens for most of this podcast. He’s a gangster. ❤
The creator of separation is Citta, and it exists everywhere. Thank you.
Great, thanks x p.s. Has Bernardo had a talk with physicist/electrical engineer Dan Winter yet?... - come on!...
44:00. Bernardo speaks. ❤
We listen intently❤
He actually starts speaking at
25:07
The Universe is a storry created in consciousness and consciousness know what consciousness know, and it creates a storry in an iterating process, to find a coherent storry which as good as possible reflect, it self. That is the reason why every possible way of exploring the Universe will find facts and paterns that in the end will be the same, regardless of method of inquary. You can say that consciousness it self guide you to find the ”correct” answers. The Universe at large is basically a self fulfillig prophecy. Of cource what I’m written here is also in a way ’only’ as storry, but it is a storry which in my experience lead to happines and understanding on every level possible.
you know you CAN NOT trust your own brain , RIGHT ???
our brains make up delusions , illusions , hallucinations , biases , misconceptions ... 10.000+ of them , EVERY brain in the world
so ... NO ... you definitely CAN NOT trust your own consciousness ...to be your guide ... , that's the most ridiculous thing i ever heard ...
even your eyes can't be trusted , you are not seeing how the universe Actually is because you just see the light that shines ON the objects , not the object itself , ever
there's ALWAYS distortion from the light going to to your eyes , you NEVER EVER see the real world like it is ... ,
and if you can't even trust your OWN EYES and the connections YOU THEN make in what you're seeing and have an ''explanation'' for ,
how are you ''trusting your own consciousness'' ... ?
your consciousness doesn't even have access TO the actual reality , ONLY with evidence OF the real world that can confirm the object/problem in front of you
on it's OWN , consciousness is a >> nothing
@@johncarter1150 nice answer😃
Always appreciate BK’s rigor
It seems to me that the Buddhist tradition of Yogācāra is compatible with Kastrup's idealism but earlier forms of Buddhism seem to assume that there is a physical substrate of some kind.
Early Buddhist texts, particularly in Theravada tradition, remain neutral on the existence of a physical reality, concentrating instead on the path to enlightenment through understanding the impermanence, suffering, and not-self nature of phenomena. Their analysis aims at aiding the realization of not-self and achieving liberation, rather than establishing firm metaphysical assertions about reality's nature.
Buddhism acknowledges both conventional and ultimate truths, without denying the validity of conventional reality.
@@philosophybabble I certainly agree that the aim of Buddhism is awakening as opposed to metaphysics but I am not so sure about what you claim about the Pali canon and Abidhamma.
@@philosophybabble But conventional truth is only a useful linguistic fiction. Surely the Yogacara developed precisely because most early forms of Buddhism did accept a substrate?
@@bayreuth79 Mahayana Buddhism is a broad tradition that includes various philosophical schools, such as Yogacara, which is notably distinct within Mahayana for its emphasis. However, it's crucial to recognize that the Lelung lineage falls under the Madhyamaka school. A fundamental concept shared across Mahayana is "Pratītyasamutpāda" or interdependent origination. This notion is pivotal to Mahayana's interpretation of emptiness (Śūnyatā), underscoring the non-inherent nature of all phenomena.
At 2:15:00 a brief discussion about love is presented. Physics generally does not like to deal with such “realities”. After all, the “qualia of the Spirit” are not subject to material metrics or mathematics although reference is made to the absolute human necessity of compassion by the Rinpoche in the previous minutes. By contrast to the common avoidance, if not aversion to the themes of “spirit” and “manifestation (fruit) of the Spirit” (love, joy, peace…), I suggest that more useful answers to inquiries into physics (etc) will be found when the primacy of love as the foundation and as the sustaining force of existence and the cosmos is acknowledged and serious
attempts to account for love, intention and compassion within physics begin. Love is, I suggest, the context that gives all inquiry coherence and sustainable meaning. Love is the substance of all and wilful no accounting for it is the root of all blindness and conflict.
They might want to include Christopher Bache in this discussion. He would add lot.
No burn no die we should be reborn sooner or later. 🤸♂️👭🤼♂️
Gotta love the glitch… how the bit at 22:33 was repeated at 23:20 😂
We find the time loops quite amusing! Prof Carr and Ivy shares the same sentiment! Shall we fix it?
@@philosophybabble😊 I reckon these kinds of things tend to take care of themselves…
@@otherism Memorable ☺
I wonder if the dissociative theory and reincarnation has something to do with memory, rather than conscious souls floating in dissociative states.
Also if you bring into focus the act of revelation, which in religious terms is considered the word of god.
Is it possible that our memories can exist in an akashic field and we are able to tune into other memories as if they are our own. Giving the illusion of reincarnation of the soul but not really.
1:47, the lower level realisation cannot understand the higher level realisation.
That's true in any situation, so he's adding nothing to this debate. His English is fine when he wants something, just bad when anything is asked of him. Even if it's simply to explain the Buddhist perspective, as it is here.
Still, isn't the hard problem of consciousness similar to the "hard problem of dissociation" in some way?
not necessarily, we know dissociation is a process which happens in nature.
we don't know "matter turning into conscious experience" is a thing in nature, but we do know "mind creating multiple separated personalities" is a thing in nature from research on DID patients
In future discussions, it might be beneficial to address the issue of solipsism, which suggests the non-existence of the external world. Idealism appears as a superior philosophical standpoint. However, further exploration, especially in spirituality, reveals that this perspective maybe is contradicted by spiritual experiences like God realization. It also finds support in scientific concepts such as relational quantum mechanics. I believe there is an interest in exploring arguments against solipsism, drawing insights from philosophy, science, and spirituality. I hope to see this topic addressed
We have thoroughly discussed this topic previously and concluded that it does not align with Idealism. Moreover, misunderstanding Idealism could lead one towards solipsism, which we find unrelated to our discussions.
💖💖💖💖
Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism developed more than 600 years and 1000 years respectively after Buddha. so they contain a lot of teachings which deviate from the original teaching of Buddha. Sad to see later practices deteriorate into superstition, relaxation of monks precepts, tantric, mantras etc. This greatly deviate from the cultivation of virtue, deep meditation and insight wisdom found in the original teachings. Cheers.
I’m hearing the limitations of language, the seemingly unavoidable taint of semantical reductionism, the attachment to ego (a named and conditioned ID) and the apparent necessity to objectify the self from “the rest”. I’m not complaining or criticising, just noticing that language and discussion is, in its form, not that which it tries to indicate. What IS is not the product of an assembled thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. At some point we may become, and, if that “become being” could be observed, it would be silent, there would be nothin
g to say. I’m inclined to see these topics or themes (actually fragments) of thought as dependent and momentary excursions of the One like moments of manifestation by which It knows itself, not necessary to itself, provided it is “contented” in its lack of recognition (eg in worship).
I totally disagree with the conversation at the end that the self will cease/merge once we move over to the other side. In fact, if someone grows enough while here to become a firmly more loving and empathetic individual, their more loving self will “increase”with that love and empathy, not disappear.
And with Carr agreeing with their self theory, then agreeing with Bernardo’s statement that we are not nouns but verbs, Carr proceeds to state that we are “verbing”. The latter actually points back to an “enlightened self” that is verbing.
Noun (Action) and Verb (Agent) We can't separate them, in other word, Agent and Action are interdependent and co-arising!
This subject is an. eel..the more effort you put in to try to catch ir it is more slippery because the eel produces the saliva all through its body.. consciousness is an eel.. you know and see the eel..the trouble is we cannot see the consciousness not even feel..its allover yourself its all over in the world and spread in all over the universe. It may not appeal to our simple , very temporary life ,now here then not ...we are not even sure if the brains are doing the job of the consciousness..
Consciousness is a spark that part of light which is in turn is part of sound..
SOUND is the primordial creation and basis for all maaya..sound is maaya, very slippery and volatile and never ending in creation.. there is nothing here with out sound ..the universes are all creation of sound..when a child is born we do not see any light but we hear its cry..
I wonder if ever the west would be able to understand the cosmos....
.
Nobody really knows anything
Im not a human be im a human being
Newtons fallen human dashboard hierarchy knowledge of Good and evil equations says absolutely it is man made time lol
Here and now is it but I personally I don't mind returning to the greater system at large after 80 years its just right or I think the relocation of the same once upon a time story's, same niave & arrogant faces gets old. By 50 your already recognizing so many argument & sentence structures the nuenced topic doesn't matter all you already know the orientation and direction.
I think most just don't want to suffer or be in pain mostly . Want to stand only as an 80 year old statue for future posterity for the generations to come and don't want to monopolize life.
The ashes to ashes and limbo we pass on to will be an enternal restoration.
I think if they described the terminology differences in mind and Mind and self and Self. Because they all are using them slightly differently.
I found the interview of Bernardo Kastrup and swami sarvapriyananda was much more clear and helpful.
Link here-
th-cam.com/video/BG31Oz0VWmI/w-d-xo.html
This video came out on “maha siva ratri”
Idealism is not a Theravada Buddhist fundamental.
Does your opinion/evidence come from a Buddhist text ? Experience ? Both ? Something else ?
@@truthlivingetc88, Texts, logic, and maths. Matter makes matter while hosting the stream of creation called Citta-Vithi. Everything is just Citta-Vithi.
The first half of your statement contradicts the second half.
Saying that everything is citta-vrtti (thought forms) is an explicitly idealist statement.
Saying that matter hosts citta-vrtti is a materialist statement.
They contradict each other.
Mahayana Buddhism differs significantly from Theravada Buddhism. It's important to grasp the distinctions between the two.
@@philosophybabble, yes. Exactly.
first
While I agree w/ Bernardo on virtually 90% of what he says, I have to respectfully disagree with him on his views of dissociation. I think he (at least insofar as what I can tell from his discussions and debates) has missed something rather obvious.
We know from our own empirical observations and studies that patients of DID (dissociative identity disorder) can have a variety of alters, and there's only *one* way in which those alters have ever been known to engage with one another - in dreams. Mental worlds that allow them to bypass the constraints of physical reality in which only a single alter can have control of the body at one time.
Bernardo's entire perspective on dissociation presupposes (without justification, IMHO) that we *are* in fundamental reality and that it's merely a matter of representation that separates us from the universal ground of being. I disagree with this entirely. I don't think our own studies of DID support this outcome, not to mention the innumerable reports of things like near-death experiences and psychedelic experiences that tell all manner of account of people claiming they've traveled to other worlds and met a myriad of strange and even incomprehensible entities (Terrence McKenna's "self-transforming machine elves" being some of the most bizarre). And to try and explain all of this from Bernardo's present model would seem, IMO, to require far less parsimonious and implausible propositions rather than the simple and elegant answer that, yes, we are living in a mental construction (a dream, in other words) of the universal mind and that it's not the only one.
In other words, our true dissociative state does reside in fundamental reality, but physical death itself can no more bring an end to the dissociation than waking up from a dream does. In all likelihood it has next to no substantive impact on it at all.
Also, one other thing I forgot to mention (but which deserves its own comment, IMHO) is one other area of significant disagreement w/ Bernardo. I don't think metabolism, as universal as it seems to be for conscious entities, is the marker for dissociation. There is *one* other thing that ranks up w/ metabolism as a likely (perhaps even more so) candidate, and it's DMT.
DMT is a naturally occurring psychedelic in humans, plants & animals that, for unknown reasons, bypasses the blood-brain barrier to impact you directly. And although the scientific study on it is comparatively small, at least at present there doesn't seem to be any obvious addictive effect. Most significantly of all however, what studies there are have shown that the effects of a DMT trip strongly resemble those of a near-death experience (traveling to another world, meeting entities, etc, etc.) This, to me, seems quite significant.
I would therefore argue that, although there's much we don't understand about it, DMT seems to make a stronger case than metabolism, both for its comparative universality and for its more immediate and direct impacts on dissociation and mentality in general.
There are multiple ways to access altered states of consciousness without using DMT. Practices such as meditation, breath-work, ecstatic dance, and even certain types of intense physical exercise can induce profound shifts in awareness and perception. These methods have been used for centuries across various cultures and traditions as pathways to altered states, offering individuals a means to explore the depths of consciousness and spirituality without the use of psychedelic substances like DMT.
@@philosophybabble I don't disagree that there are other methods - and despite my proposal, I didn't mean that as an endorsement of using DMT (although I would clarify that I'm not reflexively against it either). I only say that insofar as we're concerned w/ exploring the nature of consciousness, it should be kept as an available option, albeit one that should be approached cautiously and w/ the apprpriate care.
With that said however, I am serious when I say that there's good reason to think of DMT as the marker for dissociation and not metabolism. I think Bernardo (not entirely unjustly, to be fair) basically sought out the one thing he saw that *could* be so universal as to be the likely candidate and basically went with it w/o doing more research.
@@philosophybabble To be clear, I didn't mean my comment as an endorsement of DMT (although I'm not reflexively against it) - however I do think its effects are worthy of serious consideration (particularly their striking similarity with near-death experiences) and it should be kept as an option on the table insofar as we're being careful and have all the proper precautions in place. Rick Strausman's DMT studies in the late 80s to early 90s are a good example of what I'm talking about.
That said, I am quite serious when I raise DMT up as a more likely candidate for a marker of dissociation than mere metabolism. Its clear effects on the mind and the many striking accounts people have conveyed shouldn't strike so much fear in us that we simply brush it away w/o trying to more fully understand what we're dealing with here.
@philosophybabble To be clear, I didn't mean my comment as an endorsement of DMT (although I'm not reflexively against it) - however I do think its effects are worthy of serious consideration (particularly their striking similarity with near-death experiences) and it should be kept as an option on the table insofar as we're being careful and have all the proper precautions in place. Rick Strausman's DMT studies in the late 80s to early 90s are a good example of what I'm talking about.
That said, I am quite serious when I raise DMT up as a more likely candidate for a marker of dissociation than mere metabolism. Its clear effects on the mind and the many striking accounts people have conveyed shouldn't strike so much fear in us that we simply brush it away w/o trying to more fully understand what we're dealing with here.
🙏🙏🙏🇳🇵☸️🕉️
Why are there no women who participate in these discussions?
Their filters and society's filters don't perceive the deep wisdom women posses. At least not yet. The time is coming.
The majority of philosophers and monks are men. I think a channel like this, run by a woman (from what I can tell based on the introductions), would love to have female philosophers and monks on. Can you recommend a few?
@@cashglobe There are many.But you should know that part of the reason philosophers and monks have historically been dominated by the male gender is because women and girls were not allowed to read the texts or attend the schools . This is true today as you must undoubtedly be aware. So the historical texts we use are male-centered. But there have always been women who bucked the trend; Hildegard of Bingen and St. Theresa of Avila. Hildegard taught herself to read in spite of prohibition and total lack of support. She wrote highly innovative music, studied biology, and saw the universe as a divine womb. In the Eastern tradition of Vajrayana Buddhism, there was Machig Labron, while today we have Lama Tsultrim Allione and Pema Chodrun. We don't need a separate separate channel for women and men. This is antithetical to the oneness of all things - as Bernardo so eloquently expresses. But we do need to give the divine feminine, Mother of the Universe, her due respect. And we need to allow women's voices the same respect. The explanation of big R reality cannot NOT include the voice and perspective of women - of ALL beings in truth. It is what we ARE. Women are there, speaking, thinking, investigating, writing. Just notice.
Because they only have half of mind according to Islam
Christ is returning. Praise Jah!
Christ is a title, not a name. Sleep well
Is it just me or the Buddhist didn't say anything clearly? He seems confused and yet to figure it out. Sometimes it gives the impression that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
He shared a wealth of insights; our challenge lies in the limited vocabulary available to fully encapsulate the topic. Buddhism is far more complex than it may initially appear to many.
Our vocabulary can't explain it, we don't have the words to describe these states
Psychic experience can greatly guide to inexpressible love that isn’t felt in a physical life . Also psychic experience might be in service to assisting someone to do or not to do something . Should be a an openness to not u derstanding … yet
@@philosophybabble And yet they all say the same things, word for word. If its so complex they'd all have a unique perspective. Instead we only hear one script. In this video he suddenly mentions 5 elements, much like the Netflix documentary, it's not really a difficult concept.
@@davidchou1675 You're not wrong, but essentially, the Rinpoche doesn't know much, what he does know he can't express, and has no inkling of what he doesn't know. No logical thought from him, ever. Babbling is the right word. Which works when he's preaching unchallenged on his soap box, but fails in any sort of real debate or interaction.
Bernardo sticks too rigidity to his model when it comes to a possible afterlife.
To me, Bernardo sticks too rigidly to the neuroscience view of an afterlife without seemingly realizing it, even while he rightly bashes their view about consciousness solely being the result of brain activity.
In other words, the western neuroscience view is that once the body dies, we die, yet to say we lose ourselves, our “self”, is basically akin to the Western science view of “dying”.
And with respect to Bernardo, who is given so many gems to our world, I was struck by the fact that he admitted that he didn’t understand empathy for a period of his life, and is only recently trying to grab it’s meaning and role in his life. To not have had a natural feel for empathy, can potentially explain his rigid views about the loss of self on the other side.
Additionally, in the current lifetime space I am living right now, I am hugely fortunate to have met the love of my life (definitely felt like I was “re-meeting” the love of my life).
And 25 years later, when his body died, his self and my current self continued a relationship, aka transdimensionally. And during this transdimensional relationship we’ve had, I also took the time to face the dark night of my soul, to face the things that I avoided facing my entire adulthood. It hasn’t been easy, but I’ve always been proactive, and I’m now the better for facing it. The latter means that my “self“ is now a higher and better self, filled with even more love and compassion for people around me. This change in me reminds me of the change that people who’ve had an NDE have had.
Rinpoche is the only one who knows anything about anything.
Dear Bernard, could you, please, try to stay focused on the camera and the viewers, and at least reduce this huge number of movements in all directions and at the same time the entire arsenal of movements. It is impossible for the viewers to concentrate on your speech because it remains completely in the background.
If it's that much of a problem for you, just listen and don't watch the screen. Open, honest body language doesn't affect everyone's capability of listening.