It is amazing to me that Bernardo is basically describing the realizations of Advaita Vedanta but from a rational western viewpoint free if religiosity. Truth is truth.
This is blowing my mind- or, more precisely blowing up my ego- this information is merging with my experience within meditation, and I can see now how meditation could be construed as a skill to play at making the dissociation boundary more porous... Bernado is profoundly modernizing many aspects and insights of Buddhism. He is making it far more accessible to modern people and really is speaking to a Western cultural worldview. I have the deepest respect for this man's work and insights...
It sounds like what you refer to as pure subjectivity, can also be referred to as pure being. Meaning beingness which is not mixed in with any perception or any form. Pure subjectivity=pure being Meaning pure awareness since wherever there is being, there is awareness. In non-duality, we speak of Sahaja Samadhi which is pure being/knowingness in the absence as well as in the presence of perceptions. In ignorance, perceptions seem to take you away from your knowingness as pure being. In ignorance you are a limited personal entity.
Appreciate this series and your work in general, Bernardo. Could it be that Metacognition (being able to think about thinking) is something that a self/ an ego does? The self is a combination of the past, colouring the now with its past conditioning and from ‘the now’ creating visions of the ‘future’ (again with our conditioning, knowledge, thought -> therefore time). Like also the other K (Jiddu Krishnamurti) said, ‘truth is a pathless land’. As long as attachment/ identification with the self is there, we are already on a specific/individual path, on something known. Absolut truth has to be something not to be known, as knowledge is memory, thought, time etc.
Further I would like to add that in the moment we are for example angry, we actually/ in fact are anger. As soon as thought comes in, it creates the devision of me and the quality anger as something different, which creates conflict. This must be a programming that is useful to analyse, solve etc. The ‘brain/individual mind’ seems to record and use that data for comparison with and/or learning/preparation for similar situations coming.
Very interesting and enjoyable, analytical idealism makes sense to me intuitively and logically and im looking forward listen to all the videos in this course. A reaction i have to this video but also a general criticism of many thinkers describing reality is: if as is traditional the thinkers utilize other species of animals for various wants and then attempt to describe the consciousness of those other species i naturally recognize a conflict of interest in the thinkers ability to recognize the degree of self awareness and consciousness of other species without bias, simply because it would feel bad to 'see' a high level of self awareness in a species whilst actively behaving as if they weren't self aware, sort of like asking a slave owner if they think their slaves are as self aware as they are? It is a conflict of interest and it seems unlikely to get an unbiased reflection. Observing and reading studies on many other species i see high levels of self awareness and problem solving but not intellectual capacity but intellectual capacity is not the same thing as self awareness and problem solving i dont think.. I also find the commonly accepted description of the world as 'a blood bath' a bit Hobsian and out of date. As far as i know, listening to biologists and scientists, observing the natural world myself and living for a year with a mobile forager tribe in a rainforest, nature is generally more harmonious and peaceful than it is violent and belligerent. Ofcourse that doesn't make for good hollywood movies! Describing the natural world as a blood bath is reminiscent of the justifications of empires, and warrior societies, another generations out of date argument i had hoped; the world as we know it is not 'good' we must improve upon it and the necessary inevitable collateral damage is justified in the name of this 'progress', the basis for out of date ideologies; patriarchal, colonial, superior civilization/age of enlightenment stuff. I think if reflected upon it is a hidden assumption of an unproven theory of a hierarchy of consciousness, centuries of propaganda, the controlling of academia and the rewriting of history by powerful interests doesn't lend itself to a rational observation of other species and the natural world, it seems the commonly accepted assumptions about other species are very emotional and ideological, drawn indiscriminately from religious dogma, war mongering warrior masculinity myths and growth-driven industry and technology economic agendas. As far as i know a hierarchy of consciousness is unproven although ofcourse from our subjective view an understandable intuitive reaction, like all classism, 'our' group seems to know better than 'their' group. I'm not sure how a lack of a hierarchy of self awareness and consciousness in other species, speciesism maybe? alters these ideas if at all but it's worth considering. If there are differences i imagine based on my observation of the world that these differences are not hierarchical in form.
(......)...2. Time was not, for it lay asleep in the infinite bossom of duration. 3. Universal mind was not, for there were no celestial beings to contain it. (......) Quotes from stanza 1 From H.P.Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine.
Trying to judge a universal mind, based on human values, like blood bath in backyard, couldn't be anything but trying to put limitless in our limited mind. My cancer might seems too cruel and injustice to me, while it's a natural by-product of life evolution. A necessity when you have a wider spectrum. Considering Metacognition only for us, and not for universal mind, makes it limited, implying that we are a higher form of existence than universal mind.... I can't live with this conclusion, which I consider as a rationale of our limited mind and intrinsically narrow view.
we are turning around... Time begin at the BigBang event , but the BigBang canot hapen beaucause there was no space-time befor it hapen .... crazy , but very intuitive 👍👍👍
Yup, the very idea that a "planning" being would create a universe where ALL of its inhabitants MUST literally eat each other just to survive is absurd.
Whilst that is a fair point, isn't the deeper point of individuals like Spira and Kastrup really that there are no individuals in the truest sense. It's just the one thing interacting with itself.
@@franks435 yup, there is nowhere for your core I to even go ..... its already outside of spacetime itself which is just an artifact of our screen of perception. .... many me's, 1 I.
Does Bernardo have an novel testable predictions for his theory? If not, it seems rather useless. Maybe it might make some people feel better, but that seems to be it. It seems materialism has provided the bulk of our scientific knowledge. I don't see how Bernardo's theory can do better than materialism.
I think you are confused 😐 Materialism does not provide scientific knowledge neither does idealism. The practice of Science alone provides scientific knowledge. Science is the study of the BEHAVIOUR of nature. Materialism or idealism are not sciences they are philosophies they try to understand what nature IS. Materialism and idealism are monisms. materialism says ALL that exists is matter idealism says all that exists is mind/consciousness.
@@mrbwatson8081 So there is no difference. It is then just a naming convention. The planet of Jupiter is conscious in some way. There is no practical use for this. I'm already a nominalist, so it doesn't matter at all.
@@fabiano600 A philosophical hypothesis? Why not imagination? We are just imaginary and so is the planet Jupiter just a different kind of imagination? I'm already a nominalist, that's fine. It really makes no difference. There is no practical use for this.
Can we also say that the Big Bang is one among infinite Big Bangs? appears and disappears, appears and disappears infinitely. We don't really know, but this solves the time problem.
A field with potential experience - isn’t this the embryo in the womb of woman? My son asked “ HOW does a baby in womb DREAM? Maybe this is another way to describe the cock pit , but who is reading the DIALS? Is it the pure DIVINE MIND? “ DAR A LUZ?” Made iIN THE IMAGE - THE SPIRIT HOVERING OVER THE WATERS -knows when to break them! I love the WORD IMAGE. Is this CORE SUBJECTIVITY - POTENTIAL WITHOUT A STORY YET ?
No one has experienced this core subjectivity? It is strange that he does not know that all the Buddhas have experienced/realized this - including Siddhartha Gautama, who reported it at various times. There are mountains of literature on this in Buddhism and Hinduism (Absolute Being, Consciousness, Bliss - Sat, Chit, Ananda).
"Universal" consciousness doesn't appear to be necessary for existence to do what it does. Consciousness itself doesn't appear to need to be anything more than a local construct -- i.e., "local" to whatever planet it evolves / emerges on -- to do what it does. The stories of both religion and philosophy appear to be efforts to understand, explain, and even justify our own consciousness. I do NOT like to "demote" consciousness from some spooky, infinite, universal thing to something local, much more finite, and relatively mechanical. At the same time, if humans are ever going to understand consciousness, we'll need to see it as it really is instead of granting it all sorts of spooky properties that place it beyond understanding. There are several clues that consciousness is "just" a machine -- albeit perhaps the most amazing machine that has ever existed.
@@LukasOfTheLight I suspect that we've created the hard problem ourselves. We isolate "pure" consciousness from the body in order to study it. And then we try to solve the mystery of how humans subjectively experience reality ... when the way humans "feel" reality is through the very physicality of the body's nervous system to begin with. Folks studying consciousness seem to see it more as an isolated phenomenon rather than a system. Differentiation is one kind of information. Integration is another.
They pour out arrogant words; all the evildoers are full of boasting. 5 They crush your people, Lord; they oppress your inheritance. 6 They slay the widow and the foreigner; they murder the fatherless. 7 They say, “The Lord does not see; the God of Jacob takes no notice.” 8 Take notice, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise? 9 Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see? 10 Does he who disciplines nations not punish? Does he who teaches mankind lack knowledge? 11 The Lord knows all human plans; he knows that they are futile. Psalm 94
"What do those experiences of universal consciousness feel like?" DMT, salvia divinorum and other substances might be able to provide the answer to that question.
According to Bernardo, brain 🧠 is an image of a process in universal consciousness. The process 🧠 is a process of disassociation The use of psychedelics have been proven to reduce brain activity. Soooo according to Bernardo if brain is a process of disassociation, and psychedelics reduce brain activity you will experience the opposite of disassociation:) you will no longer experience being a self a single unitary being you will experience being EVERYTHING:)
There is no time space dimension in core subjectivity. It's eternal. Pure iness is timeless. Then getting to mix it with physical theories on big bang 13.8b years ago.... seems unnecessary, and a confusion.
Bernardo, THANK YOU for this. If I may kindly suggest to you that you should refrain, as much as possible, from describing and defining attributes of what universal consciousness (God ) may be. You may consider and share what it might not be! God is surely way greater than what it created. It certainly can have meta-cognition. Panentheistic world view (in terms of analytic idealism/ non-materialistic) would be more appropriate here. And there are very plausible, logical explanations for the existence of evil and that does not necessarily make (a personal) God sadistic. There is free will and we humans are capable of bringing great suffering on to ourselves. On a second note, please make a video about subconscious and how it can be explained/defined in terms of analytical idealism, if you believe that it exists. Thanks in advance!
The free will argument is extremely weak as it does very little to justify the endless suffering caused by diseases, natural disasters, parasitic infections etc I should also refrain from suggesting to a philosopher what to refrain from saying...This kind of prohibition of free speech does not belong to philosophy, but rather in some religious institution with a specific holy book/dogma
@@Lalakis Nobody knows anything with certainty; philosopher (including Bernardo), king of the world, or the lay man! Everyone can make comments no matter how unacceptable or stupid it may seem to YOU. Many philosophers think that we can only talk about what God is NOT. Please read or do your homework before making comments. Libet's flawed experiments claiming that there is no free will were debunked! Just because you can't see or understand the big picture or the grand design, doesn't make suffering in the world unacceptable. As conscious, spiritual beings (implying eternal existence) having suffered for an extremely short period of time in the world may be negligible. Also, there is only ONE religion that all seemingly different ones stem from. I am proud to believe just as you are free to deny it my friend. This is not a place to argue for that. And, also my comment was addressed to Bernardo. Please keep your opinion to yourself! "Ego/self/mind, is the biggest curse of mankind" Please contemplate on your ego and don't let it loose as it pleases!
Refrain from describing and defining attributes of what universal consciousness is . god is surely way greater then what it created. :) You endow this universal consciousness with meta cognitive abilities, Bernardo would not agree with that simply because, human meta cognitive abilities are the product of millions of years evolution and environmental pressures. Bernardo would say The universal mind does not undergo environmental pressures because universal mind is all there is. Bernardo would say universal mind is INCAPABLE meta cognitive abilities.
@@mrbwatson8081 Are you for real? is this a Bernardo cult I am dealing with here? What gives you the right to talk on his behalf? I am sure he can read these comments and respond himself. God is, by necessity, omnipotent and omniscient. You are making the same mistake as Bernardo. Human cognition, intellect, logic even reason has LIMITATIONS. It's your ego that makes you believe that you can know that ultimate truth and makes you quickly jump into conclusions and turn yourself into God himself, therefore an idolater. As Kabir said "We are ever united and ever distinct with God" A lot of arguments and theories (if not most) are ending up in paradoxes which is the proof of our limitations in my opinion. You CANNOT rationalize God. When you reach a seeming limit, wait! be patient! keep studying/contemplating before making huge claims about a transcendent being beyond space-time and matter. We pretty much know NOTHING about ANYTHING! and yet you people are making HUGE, very CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS. How is that possible? :) "Ego/self/mind is the biggest curse of mankind" "There is no other world; I only know what I have EXPERIENCED. You must be hallucinating" "When you reach the door of the divine, drop your reason too before entering'" Bernardo is doing a great job structuring and defining a two thousand year idea. But going way above his head with claims about nature of God.
@@naimkocak wow your a nice person to speak too 🙃 you sound like you was born in Ancient Middle East 😅 you also contradict yourself :) you said “it’s your ego that makes you believe that you have ultimate truth” yet you claim to have ultimate truth :) I simply have learned enough about analytical idealism to tell you that under analytical idealism it’s impossible for universal consciousness to posses meta cognitive abilities because meta cognitive abilities rely on environmental pressures. Do not get upset at me for that sir. I don’t need to ask Muhammad himself if Muslims can’t eat pork I can just ask someone knowledgeable about Islam. Ok 👌. Also you create a dualism between god and creation. Analytical idealism is monistic only universal consciousness exists. Islam is dualist God and creation. That’s your ancient Middle East belief a creator god. You believe in a god created by human minds. That’s a fact. Bernardo is putting forward a very empirical logical simple highly explanatory understanding of reality. Your creator god is just a children’s story. Why would an all powerful omnipotent super everything being, need to create a garden Adam and Eve a talking snake 🐍😂come on :)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
It is amazing to me that Bernardo is basically describing the realizations of Advaita Vedanta but from a rational western viewpoint free if religiosity. Truth is truth.
Brahman, the Consciousness Principle has become the universes🙂
This is blowing my mind- or, more precisely blowing up my ego- this information is merging with my experience within meditation, and I can see now how meditation could be construed as a skill to play at making the dissociation boundary more porous... Bernado is profoundly modernizing many aspects and insights of Buddhism. He is making it far more accessible to modern people and really is speaking to a Western cultural worldview.
I have the deepest respect for this man's work and insights...
This was an absolutely amazing and wonderful snippet!!! ❤ 👍👍👍👍👍👍😀
Thanks for your work Bernardo! Very importan for human kind
The pure "I am" that is divested of all phenomena.
It sounds like what you refer to as pure subjectivity, can also be referred to as pure being. Meaning beingness which is not mixed in with any perception or any form.
Pure subjectivity=pure being
Meaning pure awareness since wherever there is being, there is awareness.
In non-duality, we speak of Sahaja Samadhi which is pure being/knowingness in the absence as well as in the presence of perceptions. In ignorance, perceptions seem to take you away from your knowingness as pure being. In ignorance you are a limited personal entity.
Exactly!! Our minds don't exist in a location, all locations exist in a mind. Time=thought measurements
Was the big bang the disassociation?
Appreciate this series and your work in general, Bernardo.
Could it be that Metacognition (being able to think about thinking) is something that a self/ an ego does?
The self is a combination of the past, colouring the now with its past conditioning and from ‘the now’ creating visions of the ‘future’ (again with our conditioning, knowledge, thought -> therefore time).
Like also the other K (Jiddu Krishnamurti) said, ‘truth is a pathless land’. As long as attachment/ identification with the self is there, we are already on a specific/individual path, on something known. Absolut truth has to be something not to be known, as knowledge is memory, thought, time etc.
Further I would like to add that in the moment we are for example angry, we actually/ in fact are anger. As soon as thought comes in, it creates the devision of me and the quality anger as something different, which creates conflict. This must be a programming that is useful to analyse, solve etc.
The ‘brain/individual mind’ seems to record and use that data for comparison with and/or learning/preparation for similar situations coming.
He would tell you that there is no ego/self! That there is only Consciousness.
Consciousness/nature is the doer!
I have a question, do you make any kind of difference between the particular I awareness and universal awareness?
Very interesting and enjoyable, analytical idealism makes sense to me intuitively and logically and im looking forward listen to all the videos in this course.
A reaction i have to this video but also a general criticism of many thinkers describing reality is: if as is traditional the thinkers utilize other species of animals for various wants and then attempt to describe the consciousness of those other species i naturally recognize a conflict of interest in the thinkers ability to recognize the degree of self awareness and consciousness of other species without bias, simply because it would feel bad to 'see' a high level of self awareness in a species whilst actively behaving as if they weren't self aware, sort of like asking a slave owner if they think their slaves are as self aware as they are? It is a conflict of interest and it seems unlikely to get an unbiased reflection.
Observing and reading studies on many other species i see high levels of self awareness and problem solving but not intellectual capacity but intellectual capacity is not the same thing as self awareness and problem solving i dont think..
I also find the commonly accepted description of the world as 'a blood bath' a bit Hobsian and out of date. As far as i know, listening to biologists and scientists, observing the natural world myself and living for a year with a mobile forager tribe in a rainforest, nature is generally more harmonious and peaceful than it is violent and belligerent. Ofcourse that doesn't make for good hollywood movies!
Describing the natural world as a blood bath is reminiscent of the justifications of empires, and warrior societies, another generations out of date argument i had hoped; the world as we know it is not 'good' we must improve upon it and the necessary inevitable collateral damage is justified in the name of this 'progress', the basis for out of date ideologies; patriarchal, colonial, superior civilization/age of enlightenment stuff.
I think if reflected upon it is a hidden assumption of an unproven theory of a hierarchy of consciousness, centuries of propaganda, the controlling of academia and the rewriting of history by powerful interests doesn't lend itself to a rational observation of other species and the natural world, it seems the commonly accepted assumptions about other species are very emotional and ideological, drawn indiscriminately from religious dogma, war mongering warrior masculinity myths and growth-driven industry and technology economic agendas.
As far as i know a hierarchy of consciousness is unproven although ofcourse from our subjective view an understandable intuitive reaction, like all classism, 'our' group seems to know better than 'their' group.
I'm not sure how a lack of a hierarchy of self awareness and consciousness in other species, speciesism maybe? alters these ideas if at all but it's worth considering. If there are differences i imagine based on my observation of the world that these differences are not hierarchical in form.
"Quantum fluctuations" - Once I hear this, I'm all-in!!!!1
The scientific method known as the Big Ban or topological fragmentation.
(......)...2. Time was not, for it lay asleep in the infinite bossom of duration. 3. Universal mind was not, for there were no celestial beings to contain it. (......) Quotes from stanza 1 From H.P.Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine.
core subjectivity: I am what I am.
I am the subjectivity of subjectivity itself complete and not lacking. And then there is RUclips : ) viola!
*5:48* Tempation to equate god to consciousness
To me, the natural God makes sense
Also what is the exact connection between metacognition and dissociation?
Trying to judge a universal mind, based on human values, like blood bath in backyard, couldn't be anything but trying to put limitless in our limited mind.
My cancer might seems too cruel and injustice to me, while it's a natural by-product of life evolution. A necessity when you have a wider spectrum.
Considering Metacognition only for us, and not for universal mind, makes it limited, implying that we are a higher form of existence than universal mind.... I can't live with this conclusion, which I consider as a rationale of our limited mind and intrinsically narrow view.
I wish you the best my friend! 🙏
If I may ask: which stage and which type of cancer ?
Boss man !
Vedanta! ❤
we are turning around... Time begin at the BigBang event , but the BigBang canot hapen beaucause there was no space-time befor it hapen .... crazy , but very intuitive 👍👍👍
Yup, the very idea that a "planning" being would create a universe where ALL of its inhabitants MUST literally eat each other just to survive is absurd.
great point
Whilst that is a fair point, isn't the deeper point of individuals like Spira and Kastrup really that there are no individuals in the truest sense. It's just the one thing interacting with itself.
Not necessarily. Any absurdity is a product of how one understands being.
Such an idea becomes a lot less absurd if death is just a transition rather than a finality.
@@franks435 yup, there is nowhere for your core I to even go ..... its already outside of spacetime itself which is just an artifact of our screen of perception. .... many me's, 1 I.
*13:45*
*15:37*
*16:11*
*14:34*
*11:29* what about the bigbang?
BK is the Best 👍👍👍
Does Bernardo have an novel testable predictions for his theory? If not, it seems rather useless. Maybe it might make some people feel better, but that seems to be it. It seems materialism has provided the bulk of our scientific knowledge. I don't see how Bernardo's theory can do better than materialism.
I think you are confused 😐 Materialism does not provide scientific knowledge neither does idealism. The practice of Science alone provides scientific knowledge. Science is the study of the BEHAVIOUR of nature. Materialism or idealism are not sciences they are philosophies they try to understand what nature IS. Materialism and idealism are monisms. materialism says ALL that exists is matter idealism says all that exists is mind/consciousness.
What he defends is not a scientific theory, if it were, it would be testable. He defends a philosophical hypothesis
@@mrbwatson8081 So there is no difference. It is then just a naming convention. The planet of Jupiter is conscious in some way. There is no practical use for this. I'm already a nominalist, so it doesn't matter at all.
@@fabiano600 A philosophical hypothesis? Why not imagination? We are just imaginary and so is the planet Jupiter just a different kind of imagination? I'm already a nominalist, that's fine. It really makes no difference. There is no practical use for this.
@@gabrielteo3636 Practicality is a matter of opinion
Can we also say that the Big Bang is one among infinite Big Bangs? appears and disappears, appears and disappears infinitely. We don't really know, but this solves the time problem.
Why isn’t it called the TINY SEED - instead of the BIG BANG?
Singularity - A TINY black hole - dar a luz!
A field with potential experience - isn’t this the embryo in the womb of woman?
My son asked “ HOW does a baby in womb DREAM?
Maybe this is another way to describe the cock pit , but who is reading the DIALS?
Is it the pure DIVINE MIND? “ DAR A LUZ?”
Made iIN THE IMAGE - THE SPIRIT HOVERING OVER THE WATERS -knows when to break them!
I love the WORD IMAGE. Is this CORE SUBJECTIVITY - POTENTIAL WITHOUT A STORY YET ?
No one has experienced this core subjectivity? It is strange that he does not know that all the Buddhas have experienced/realized this - including Siddhartha Gautama, who reported it at various times. There are mountains of literature on this in Buddhism and Hinduism (Absolute Being, Consciousness, Bliss - Sat, Chit, Ananda).
We are not the authors of universal consciousness. That's like saying the cog is the creator of the machine it exists within; it's absurd.
"Universal" consciousness doesn't appear to be necessary for existence to do what it does. Consciousness itself doesn't appear to need to be anything more than a local construct -- i.e., "local" to whatever planet it evolves / emerges on -- to do what it does.
The stories of both religion and philosophy appear to be efforts to understand, explain, and even justify our own consciousness.
I do NOT like to "demote" consciousness from some spooky, infinite, universal thing to something local, much more finite, and relatively mechanical. At the same time, if humans are ever going to understand consciousness, we'll need to see it as it really is instead of granting it all sorts of spooky properties that place it beyond understanding.
There are several clues that consciousness is "just" a machine -- albeit perhaps the most amazing machine that has ever existed.
And what of the Hard Problem?
@@LukasOfTheLight I suspect that we've created the hard problem ourselves. We isolate "pure" consciousness from the body in order to study it. And then we try to solve the mystery of how humans subjectively experience reality ... when the way humans "feel" reality is through the very physicality of the body's nervous system to begin with. Folks studying consciousness seem to see it more as an isolated phenomenon rather than a system. Differentiation is one kind of information. Integration is another.
They pour out arrogant words;
all the evildoers are full of boasting.
5 They crush your people, Lord;
they oppress your inheritance.
6 They slay the widow and the foreigner;
they murder the fatherless.
7 They say, “The Lord does not see;
the God of Jacob takes no notice.”
8 Take notice, you senseless ones among the people;
you fools, when will you become wise?
9 Does he who fashioned the ear not hear?
Does he who formed the eye not see?
10 Does he who disciplines nations not punish?
Does he who teaches mankind lack knowledge?
11 The Lord knows all human plans;
he knows that they are futile. Psalm 94
What an extremely long-winded big worded explanation of a very simple concept.
Philosophers 😅
@Boulanger In the absence of all field excitations lies the subjective consciousness
"What do those experiences of universal consciousness feel like?" DMT, salvia divinorum and other substances might be able to provide the answer to that question.
It is not a experience, it appears as experiencing.
@@Sethan777 His words, not mine.
According to Bernardo, brain 🧠 is an image of a process in universal consciousness. The process 🧠 is a process of disassociation The use of psychedelics have been proven to reduce brain activity. Soooo according to Bernardo if brain is a process of disassociation, and psychedelics reduce brain activity you will experience the opposite of disassociation:) you will no longer experience being a self a single unitary being you will experience being EVERYTHING:)
There is no time space dimension in core subjectivity. It's eternal. Pure iness is timeless.
Then getting to mix it with physical theories on big bang 13.8b years ago.... seems unnecessary, and a confusion.
Where are those 'meters' lying around? Where are those minutes?
Bernardo, THANK YOU for this. If I may kindly suggest to you that you should refrain, as much as possible, from describing and defining attributes of what universal consciousness (God ) may be. You may consider and share what it might not be! God is surely way greater than what it created. It certainly can have meta-cognition. Panentheistic world view (in terms of analytic idealism/ non-materialistic) would be more appropriate here. And there are very plausible, logical explanations for the existence of evil and that does not necessarily make (a personal) God sadistic. There is free will and we humans are capable of bringing great suffering on to ourselves.
On a second note, please make a video about subconscious and how it can be explained/defined in terms of analytical idealism, if you believe that it exists. Thanks in advance!
The free will argument is extremely weak as it does very little to justify the endless suffering caused by diseases, natural disasters, parasitic infections etc I should also refrain from suggesting to a philosopher what to refrain from saying...This kind of prohibition of free speech does not belong to philosophy, but rather in some religious institution with a specific holy book/dogma
@@Lalakis Nobody knows anything with certainty; philosopher (including Bernardo), king of the world, or the lay man! Everyone can make comments no matter how unacceptable or stupid it may seem to YOU. Many philosophers think that we can only talk about what God is NOT. Please read or do your homework before making comments. Libet's flawed experiments claiming that there is no free will were debunked! Just because you can't see or understand the big picture or the grand design, doesn't make suffering in the world unacceptable. As conscious, spiritual beings (implying eternal existence) having suffered for an extremely short period of time in the world may be negligible.
Also, there is only ONE religion that all seemingly different ones stem from. I am proud to believe just as you are free to deny it my friend. This is not a place to argue for that. And, also my comment was addressed to Bernardo. Please keep your opinion to yourself! "Ego/self/mind, is the biggest curse of mankind" Please contemplate on your ego and don't let it loose as it pleases!
Refrain from describing and defining attributes of what universal consciousness is . god is surely way greater then what it created. :) You endow this universal consciousness with meta cognitive abilities, Bernardo would not agree with that simply because, human meta cognitive abilities are the product of millions of years evolution and environmental pressures. Bernardo would say The universal mind does not undergo environmental pressures because universal mind is all there is. Bernardo would say universal mind is INCAPABLE meta cognitive abilities.
@@mrbwatson8081 Are you for real? is this a Bernardo cult I am dealing with here? What gives you the right to talk on his behalf? I am sure he can read these comments and respond himself.
God is, by necessity, omnipotent and omniscient. You are making the same mistake as Bernardo. Human cognition, intellect, logic even reason has LIMITATIONS. It's your ego that makes you believe that you can know that ultimate truth and makes you quickly jump into conclusions and turn yourself into God himself, therefore an idolater. As Kabir said "We are ever united and ever distinct with God" A lot of arguments and theories (if not most) are ending up in paradoxes which is the proof of our limitations in my opinion. You CANNOT rationalize God. When you reach a seeming limit, wait! be patient! keep studying/contemplating before making huge claims about a transcendent being beyond space-time and matter. We pretty much know NOTHING about ANYTHING! and yet you people are making HUGE, very CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS. How is that possible? :)
"Ego/self/mind is the biggest curse of mankind"
"There is no other world; I only know what I have EXPERIENCED. You must be hallucinating"
"When you reach the door of the divine, drop your reason too before entering'"
Bernardo is doing a great job structuring and defining a two thousand year idea. But going way above his head with claims about nature of God.
@@naimkocak wow your a nice person to speak too 🙃 you sound like you was born in Ancient Middle East 😅 you also contradict yourself :) you said “it’s your ego that makes you believe that you have ultimate truth” yet you claim to have ultimate truth :) I simply have learned enough about analytical idealism to tell you that under analytical idealism it’s impossible for universal consciousness to posses meta cognitive abilities because meta cognitive abilities rely on environmental pressures. Do not get upset at me for that sir. I don’t need to ask Muhammad himself if Muslims can’t eat pork I can just ask someone knowledgeable about Islam. Ok 👌. Also you create a dualism between god and creation. Analytical idealism is monistic only universal consciousness exists. Islam is dualist God and creation. That’s your ancient Middle East belief a creator god. You believe in a god created by human minds. That’s a fact. Bernardo is putting forward a very empirical logical simple highly explanatory understanding of reality. Your creator god is just a children’s story. Why would an all powerful omnipotent super everything being, need to create a garden Adam and Eve a talking snake 🐍😂come on :)