A question I always wanted to ask non duality speakers is this: you have got a trillion years to be part of oneness, why not just enjoy an absolutely unique window on the world for 80 years or so instead of demonising it as a 'separate self' or something to be got rid of? Happy Christmas to you all.
Good point indeed, because infinity has no limits. You can easily multiply a trillion years a trillion times and still not be at the end. Is there any shred of evidence for the grandiose claim that the spirtual is everlasting?
@@rontijhaar1732 What could that evidence ever be I wonder? The future doesn't exist, the universe is always arising as a new-now, so we can never be sure where it is going. We can only make rational, reflective, open-minded best guesses.
@@TimFreke1 It seems you have no evidence and need no evidence. Still the claim is rather absolute. That's a very shaky epistemological basis to go by that sharply contrasts how you probably navigate traffic for instance. In traffic it's not safe to assume anything. Why should you use that approach on something as spectacular as eternal existence? That's pure speculation. Open mind, OK, but not so open that your brains fall out. Another point I have about your statement "we never can be sure where it is going". I would say that there are grades of confidentiality to predict events in the future. I can confidently predict that the earth will turn around its axis the coming 24 hours again. The difference between speculation and these kinds of predictions is evidence (in this case for specific laws of nature). In some cosmological models the future does exist, but indeed we humans are having a hard time trying to access it with our hard-gained models.
@ I first met Tony just as the book was released when he was still running a New Age magazine. I had just returned from India where I met Ramesh Balsekar who had a massive influence on me which I later came to revise Ive spoken alongside Tony and with him a few times at various conferences . It’s not about being attracted or repulsed by his philosophy, for me it’s simply about whether it is true or false. Is it a plausible understanding of the nature of reality or not? It is very simple to understand and that is the key to its popularity but I think it is very obviously false and therefore misleading. Then its denigration of the individual human life becomes a tragedy. I feel.
This is a great idea, to address questions from the most recent talk. Don't see it much online. Thanks alot Tim and Jessica. Will the podbook be on RUclips🤔. So we can comment / ask questions 🤔
The Empathy for The Eternal has been waiting to be felt. When The Empathy for The Eternal is felt, the timeless meaning of a simple love is understood.
The closest understanding I've come to yet regarding oneness is due to the fundamental condition of the universe, that at bottom and top, everything which exists are not but fields of energy. Fields don't end, they are a part of the finite and the infinite making us all part of one another. The same ocean, so to write. I shared the experience I had back in 1996 on your channel some months ago which gave me an understanding we are One, but seeing how has taken a long time to understand. There is always plenty to learn for any of us, but the depth of reality knows all within that oneness which I see as God, each of us on a mission to bring more understanding to the whole as we progress, ratcheting up as we go for both ourselves as individuals and the all that is. No wonder some NDE reports indicate they knew everything on the other side, but lost it coming back. As an individual we are more isolated from the whole due to many factors and can't fully access what the whole is, once back, we loose it due to being an individual which although part of the all that is, as a human, are limited in understanding, unable to hold it all (some though) in this form. The good news about it is due to this condition of a large degree of isolation, we can come up with new things as we live our lives doing what is possible, limited yet given the gift of creation to make unique realities, as unique as we each can be causing the whole to grow, the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts. As I see it now, that sum has a point where we become aware of all of the parts in a pinnacle of self-aware consciousness, some call it God. This is how I saw God to be during an unexpected visit to a void which contained a sun-intelligence-God which I understood to be composed of all sentient beings, in general the same as how the cells of our bodies make each of us. Fractals be fractals.
Imagine a perfectly still ocean. It is one thing but it is not "god". Individual waves form. These are made of ocean stuff but they have individual qualities and can relate to one another. Now imagine all these waves joined together to create a super tidal wave. Now this would be more godlike. It's still made of ocean stuff but it's a tidal wave in and of itself. Sorry I'm feeling poetic today😁.... Happy Christmas 🎄 🎁 .
I agree that the experience of oneness should be discussed - I always have. Intuitively the experience of oneness is knowable and perhaps one day we may find ideas and words to explain it better. How did I experience oneness? It was without doubt for me an intuitive experience, that which precedes thought and words, and it was later I began to carefully colour/describe it with words and ideas from my life's personal experiences as most people do. For a long time I told nobody as it took so long to digest. It is obviously beyond comprehension of thoughts and words but we can try our best to discuss it. I have several books of people who have clearly experienced oneness but many of them describe it in many different ways - ways that make sense to them - Obviously some times this can affirm beliefs in particular kinds of Gods which is perhaps not always the best thing but it points in the right direction. So in summary I agree it should be discussed and more so the better.
Hi Tim. I have a question. Is the unividual an enlightened person? If so is enlightenment just an emergent process of the universe? From my understanding, enlightenment or awakening is the natural state that is always there, unchanging, it has no evolution to it, so what do you mean by unividual?
@@conradambrossi738 the concept of enlightenment you mentioned is central to Indian religion and became popular in the west during my lifetime - to the point where it is taken for granted often. I now reject it completely. There are states we could call awakening that are at the leading edge of our evolution but the idea of some ultimate enlightenment as returning to some pre-existing state is embedded within a outdated philosophy we need to move beyond I suggest.
So another way of saying Truth, beauty and the good are related to evolution, which looks like a process, but this process is emergent and the emergence leads to possibilities and opportunities? So are we parts of God growing up?🙏♥️☯️🤯
Truth, beauty & goodness - I believe there is goodness as in good & bad or positive and negative. I think necessity can blur the lines between the two but ultimately life strives towards that which is good. Obviously this is heavily debatable. The animal kingdom strives towards balance in most cases but obviously through necessity to survive it can appear the opposite at times. Humanity is best placed to live a good balanced life but unfortunately it often fails to do so. The natural condition of humans and I guess other livings animals is to find a state of being that feels good rather than bad. Beauty is very subjective and often preprogrammed through social conditioning. Clearly many people see beauty in aspects of life that many other people wouldn't. If we were to set the limits on beauty, which our society often tries to do, then most of us would be ugly physically speaking so I am very weary of asthetics/beauty. With regards to the truth I subscribe to the idea of truth been the order in the universe , the same as which science subscribes too, but I also subscribe to the idea of the good been the truth that we seek as it is the good with which we strive positively rather than the negative which negates and destroys. Happy Xmas to you all
I would like to ask you, Tim, what the difference is between your new concept and the concepts of Ken Wilber for example. Is your concept really new or is it also an eclectic one. Aside from that I can't imagine that truth, our real self or our essential being has not been self-aware from the start or in the first place. Do I miss something?
@ quick answers to big questions - Ken Wilber has been a great influence and I have a conversation with him in my ‘what is life?’ podcast series. All ideas are a development of previous ideas and that’s true of mine as well of course. Ken has a process of involution before the evolution of the universe and I don’t think this makes any sense. I prefer to see everything within the one evolutionary process. And finally - I don’t think you have a ‘real self.’.I think you really are the evolving individual you experience yourself to be right now. this is a big change from my previous Books.
Do you agree with this Tim......................"It can be easy to have an idea of “finality” or completeness, crossing some line into resolution or everything somehow falling into place, into some resolved whole. A big part of the learning curve in the later stages of unfoldment is seeing through and letting go of these fantasies of finality and relaxling into the true nature of actuality, which is its infinity, its openhandednes, unresolvability, ambiguity, bottomlessness, etc. The ambiguity that you’ve always felt has in fact been true all along- there is no final condition beyond this, no “wrapping up” or pulling together into some neat package. Reality is an unresolved/unresolvable paradoxical infinity that presents as an ongoing flow of contradictory implications, perspectives or dimensions of possible ways it “might be”, none of which are any more (or less) accurate than any other- It itself is mystery, infinity, an unanswered question. This lack of finality IS the true finality; this endlessness is the actual end. Coming to see the self-verifying truth of this is the final realization. So relaxing into this unresolvability, letting go of these fantasies of completion is the final maturity."
@@TimFreke1 wonderfully pointless and meaningless; so in what way do you consider Tony Parsons and his gang of marauders to be 'wrong' then? (you did say that back there somewhere i think)
@@TimFreke1 I have listened to that video; as well as the 2 Guy Smiths, and some of the interaction between you and the Lady; am I wrong in thinking that the term 'self-negating nonduality' points directly at Tony Parsons and/or others who say exactly the same things?
No hablo ingles pero comparto su entendimiento del gnosticismo cristiano ,quiero preguntarle algo si llega a leer mi comentario. a escuchado alguna vez de la experiencia mistica de neville goddard, titulada LA PROMESA DE DIOS AL HOMBRE, esta aca en RUclips? O bueno si conoce a este autor llamado neville goddard? .
Just one last comment to clarify - it’s been going round in my mind - Your worldview is a naturalistic one without any supernatural elements and it’s not quite monoistic yet it is one process but not one substance? You also agree that the atheist views regarding religion and spirituality after the scientific revolution are correct but you do believe there are real experiences to be had These are statements you made in the video which seem to imply an atheist perspective. Even Dawkins didn’t go that far he said that the spiritual community is still left with Deism - Where god created the universe but does not get involved with it Considering there is no supernatural and a communion of souls emerges which we call god and also considering the aforementioned I cannot see that it’s not anything but an atheist naturalist view I suppose many taoists/daoists and some strands of Buddhism and Hinduism are atheists when it comes to deities. Your God is like a communion of souls that has arisen out of nothing/ground of being in a naturalist universe where there is no supernatural. Is that still God? I guess it depends on what you call God? By the way the atheists were not right about everything after the scientific revolution. There is a hell of a lot science does not know and may never know which leaves many worldviews still possible including pantheism etc
The separate energy encourages amazing complications. It says "How can I have my cake and eat it." I'm oneness but also ME!!! Wohoo!!! Love Tim but he is lost.
The only problem I see with the evolutionary spirituality if there was no God at the beginning is how did the universe come to be. Clearly there is a very sophisticated universe that science is continually discovering which relies on very specific constants to exist and evolve. The only other explanations we have for the universes existence is chance or that it's always been there which fails to answer the question and are more like full stops on enquiry - they are also mostly atheist views. The ground of being has a lot to answer for but yet remains a mystery as it has no qualities yet it expresses information which it would seem indicates it has intelligence or it anticipates there will be intelligence. The ground of being is too like another full stop on enquiry because if it has no qualities/properties we can know nothing about it and it has no perceivable will/intent as God is not at the beginning. The ground of being is a mystery of grand proportions???????
This sounds like a somatic idea....close to empathy and therefore nothing to do with non duality as a mind state. There is nothing but expression of being states here in the most vague of terms, like much of somatic awareness is expressed. Compare that to Krishnamurti and Bohm describing singularity of mind....and the significance of that. This is not non duality, like most of the poor information of shallow somatic perspectives on social media. That is easy, but useless as nothing can be done with it, there is no genuine insight, no Self insight just a shift in quality of sensory interpretation akin to empathy extended to others. It's why the punks used to say ..." scratch a hippie, find a fascist", or Wilber referring to the mean green meme. All somatic shallowness without inner awareness on level of mind.
A question I always wanted to ask non duality speakers is this: you have got a trillion years to be part of oneness, why not just enjoy an absolutely unique window on the world for 80 years or so instead of demonising it as a 'separate self' or something to be got rid of? Happy Christmas to you all.
@@Chingfordassociates 😂👍❤️
Good point indeed, because infinity has no limits. You can easily multiply a trillion years a trillion times and still not be at the end. Is there any shred of evidence for the grandiose claim that the spirtual is everlasting?
@@rontijhaar1732 What could that evidence ever be I wonder? The future doesn't exist, the universe is always arising as a new-now, so we can never be sure where it is going. We can only make rational, reflective, open-minded best guesses.
@@TimFreke1 It seems you have no evidence and need no evidence. Still the claim is rather absolute. That's a very shaky epistemological basis to go by that sharply contrasts how you probably navigate traffic for instance. In traffic it's not safe to assume anything. Why should you use that approach on something as spectacular as eternal existence? That's pure speculation. Open mind, OK, but not so open that your brains fall out.
Another point I have about your statement "we never can be sure where it is going". I would say that there are grades of confidentiality to predict events in the future. I can confidently predict that the earth will turn around its axis the coming 24 hours again. The difference between speculation and these kinds of predictions is evidence (in this case for specific laws of nature).
In some cosmological models the future does exist, but indeed we humans are having a hard time trying to access it with our hard-gained models.
@ I first met Tony just as the book was released when he was still running a New Age magazine. I had just returned from India where I met Ramesh Balsekar who had a massive influence on me which I later came to revise
Ive spoken alongside Tony and with him a few times at various conferences .
It’s not about being attracted or repulsed by his philosophy, for me it’s simply about whether it is true or false. Is it a plausible understanding of the nature of reality or not? It is very simple to understand and that is the key to its popularity but I think it is very obviously false and therefore misleading. Then its denigration of the individual human life becomes a tragedy. I feel.
Thats me done - Have a great xmas you two
@@shaunbanana911 you too
This is a great idea, to address questions from the most recent talk. Don't see it much online. Thanks alot Tim and Jessica. Will the podbook be on RUclips🤔. So we can comment / ask questions 🤔
@@Clive-oo yep. Free on RUclips.
@TimFreke1 that's great, appreciate that 🙏
The Empathy for The Eternal has been waiting to be felt. When The Empathy for The Eternal is felt, the timeless meaning of a simple love is understood.
The closest understanding I've come to yet regarding oneness is due to the fundamental condition of the universe, that at bottom and top, everything which exists are not but fields of energy. Fields don't end, they are a part of the finite and the infinite making us all part of one another. The same ocean, so to write. I shared the experience I had back in 1996 on your channel some months ago which gave me an understanding we are One, but seeing how has taken a long time to understand. There is always plenty to learn for any of us, but the depth of reality knows all within that oneness which I see as God, each of us on a mission to bring more understanding to the whole as we progress, ratcheting up as we go for both ourselves as individuals and the all that is.
No wonder some NDE reports indicate they knew everything on the other side, but lost it coming back. As an individual we are more isolated from the whole due to many factors and can't fully access what the whole is, once back, we loose it due to being an individual which although part of the all that is, as a human, are limited in understanding, unable to hold it all (some though) in this form. The good news about it is due to this condition of a large degree of isolation, we can come up with new things as we live our lives doing what is possible, limited yet given the gift of creation to make unique realities, as unique as we each can be causing the whole to grow, the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts. As I see it now, that sum has a point where we become aware of all of the parts in a pinnacle of self-aware consciousness, some call it God. This is how I saw God to be during an unexpected visit to a void which contained a sun-intelligence-God which I understood to be composed of all sentient beings, in general the same as how the cells of our bodies make each of us. Fractals be fractals.
Imagine a perfectly still ocean. It is one thing but it is not "god". Individual waves form. These are made of ocean stuff but they have individual qualities and can relate to one another. Now imagine all these waves joined together to create a super tidal wave. Now this would be more godlike. It's still made of ocean stuff but it's a tidal wave in and of itself. Sorry I'm feeling poetic today😁.... Happy Christmas 🎄 🎁 .
I agree that the experience of oneness should be discussed - I always have.
Intuitively the experience of oneness is knowable and perhaps one day we may find ideas and words to explain it better.
How did I experience oneness? It was without doubt for me an intuitive experience, that which precedes thought and words, and it was later I began to carefully colour/describe it with words and ideas from my life's personal experiences as most people do. For a long time I told nobody as it took so long to digest. It is obviously beyond comprehension of thoughts and words but we can try our best to discuss it. I have several books of people who have clearly experienced oneness but many of them describe it in many different ways - ways that make sense to them - Obviously some times this can affirm beliefs in particular kinds of Gods which is perhaps not always the best thing but it points in the right direction.
So in summary I agree it should be discussed and more so the better.
You can only understand The Eternal, when your Timeless Empathy, for The Eternal is felt. Not before.
Hi Tim. I have a question. Is the unividual an enlightened person? If so is enlightenment just an emergent process of the universe? From my understanding, enlightenment or awakening is the natural state that is always there, unchanging, it has no evolution to it, so what do you mean by unividual?
@@conradambrossi738 the concept of enlightenment you mentioned is central to Indian religion and became popular in the west during my lifetime - to the point where it is taken for granted often. I now reject it completely.
There are states we could call awakening that are at the leading edge of our evolution but the idea of some ultimate enlightenment as returning to some pre-existing state is embedded within a outdated philosophy we need to move beyond I suggest.
So another way of saying Truth, beauty and the good are related to evolution, which looks like a process, but this process is emergent and the emergence leads to possibilities and opportunities? So are we parts of God growing up?🙏♥️☯️🤯
Empathy for The Eternal doesn't require any words or explanation or discussion.
Truth, beauty & goodness - I believe there is goodness as in good & bad or positive and negative. I think necessity can blur the lines between the two but ultimately life strives towards that which is good. Obviously this is heavily debatable. The animal kingdom strives towards balance in most cases but obviously through necessity to survive it can appear the opposite at times. Humanity is best placed to live a good balanced life but unfortunately it often fails to do so. The natural condition of humans and I guess other livings animals is to find a state of being that feels good rather than bad. Beauty is very subjective and often preprogrammed through social conditioning. Clearly many people see beauty in aspects of life that many other people wouldn't. If we were to set the limits on beauty, which our society often tries to do, then most of us would be ugly physically speaking so I am very weary of asthetics/beauty. With regards to the truth I subscribe to the idea of truth been the order in the universe , the same as which science subscribes too, but I also subscribe to the idea of the good been the truth that we seek as it is the good with which we strive positively rather than the negative which negates and destroys.
Happy Xmas to you all
I would like to ask you, Tim, what the difference is between your new concept and the concepts of Ken Wilber for example. Is your concept really new or is it also an eclectic one. Aside from that I can't imagine that truth, our real self or our essential being has not been self-aware from the start or in the first place. Do I miss something?
@ quick answers to big questions -
Ken Wilber has been a great influence and I have a conversation with him in my ‘what is life?’ podcast series.
All ideas are a development of previous ideas and that’s true of mine as well of course.
Ken has a process of involution before the evolution of the universe and I don’t think this makes any sense. I prefer to see everything within the one evolutionary process.
And finally - I don’t think you have a ‘real self.’.I think you really are the evolving individual you experience yourself to be right now. this is a big change from my previous Books.
@TimFreke1 Thank you very much for your quick and detailed answer, Tim. I'm looking forward to read your last books and your next one.
Do you agree with this Tim......................"It can be easy to have an idea of “finality” or completeness, crossing some line into resolution or everything somehow falling into place, into some resolved whole.
A big part of the learning curve in the later stages of unfoldment is seeing through and letting go of these fantasies of finality and relaxling into the true nature of actuality, which is its infinity, its openhandednes, unresolvability, ambiguity, bottomlessness, etc.
The ambiguity that you’ve always felt has in fact been true all along- there is no final condition beyond this, no “wrapping up” or pulling together into some neat package. Reality is an unresolved/unresolvable paradoxical infinity that presents as an ongoing flow of contradictory implications, perspectives or dimensions of possible ways it “might be”, none of which are any more (or less) accurate than any other-
It itself is mystery, infinity, an unanswered question. This lack of finality IS the true finality; this endlessness is the actual end. Coming to see the self-verifying truth of this is the final realization.
So relaxing into this unresolvability, letting go of these fantasies of completion is the final maturity."
There is one line I liked so much I put it in 2 of my books ....
'The bad news is there is no arriving. But the good news is there is no arriving!'
@@TimFreke1 wonderfully pointless and meaningless; so in what way do you consider Tony Parsons and his gang of marauders to be 'wrong' then? (you did say that back there somewhere i think)
@ listen to my discussion with Richard Sylvester who is massively influenced byTony Parsons
@@TimFreke1 I have listened to that video; as well as the 2 Guy Smiths, and some of the interaction between you and the Lady; am I wrong in thinking that the term 'self-negating nonduality' points directly at Tony Parsons and/or others who say exactly the same things?
@ yes 👍
No hablo ingles pero comparto su entendimiento del gnosticismo cristiano ,quiero preguntarle algo si llega a leer mi comentario. a escuchado alguna vez de la experiencia mistica de neville goddard, titulada LA PROMESA DE DIOS AL HOMBRE, esta aca en RUclips? O bueno si conoce a este autor llamado neville goddard? .
Any Empathy for The Eternal?
@@JohnAtkinson-v5z apologies John, but I have no idea what you mean by ‘eternal’ or ‘empathy’ in this particular sentence?
@TimFreke1 Attention for the perishable. Attention for the Eternal. Where is it we place all our attention?
Just one last comment to clarify - it’s been going round in my mind - Your worldview is a naturalistic one without any supernatural elements and it’s not quite monoistic yet it is one process but not one substance?
You also agree that the atheist views regarding religion and spirituality after the scientific revolution are correct but you do believe there are real experiences to be had
These are statements you made in the video which seem to imply an atheist perspective. Even Dawkins didn’t go that far he said that the spiritual community is still left with Deism - Where god created the universe but does not get involved with it
Considering there is no supernatural and a communion of souls emerges which we call god and also considering the aforementioned I cannot see that it’s not anything but an atheist naturalist view
I suppose many taoists/daoists and some strands of Buddhism and Hinduism are atheists when it comes to deities. Your God is like a communion of souls that has arisen out of nothing/ground of being in a naturalist universe where there is no supernatural. Is that still God? I guess it depends on what you call God?
By the way the atheists were not right about everything after the scientific revolution. There is a hell of a lot science does not know and may never know which leaves many worldviews still possible including pantheism etc
The separate energy encourages amazing complications. It says "How can I have my cake and eat it." I'm oneness but also ME!!! Wohoo!!! Love Tim but he is lost.
@@ST-ge4hh who said that?
And you’re not? Good for you fella, maybe you could do some videos to gloat about how found you are!
Coward
@@TimFreke1 Exactly, that's' where you start to go into complicated explanations.
@ 😀 is it really complicated to simply say you are talking with me? Children learn that very early on.
There's not much point to a cake you can't eat!
Minds talk
@@gmpwxc484 yes - and write comments 😀
The only problem I see with the evolutionary spirituality if there was no God at the beginning is how did the universe come to be. Clearly there is a very sophisticated universe that science is continually discovering which relies on very specific constants to exist and evolve. The only other explanations we have for the universes existence is chance or that it's always been there which fails to answer the question and are more like full stops on enquiry - they are also mostly atheist views. The ground of being has a lot to answer for but yet remains a mystery as it has no qualities yet it expresses information which it would seem indicates it has intelligence or it anticipates there will be intelligence. The ground of being is too like another full stop on enquiry because if it has no qualities/properties we can know nothing about it and it has no perceivable will/intent as God is not at the beginning. The ground of being is a mystery of grand proportions???????
@@shaunbanana911 the point is we have to work at getting to god, not just mull about waiting for him to find us again!
This sounds like a somatic idea....close to empathy and therefore nothing to do with non duality as a mind state. There is nothing but expression of being states here in the most vague of terms, like much of somatic awareness is expressed. Compare that to Krishnamurti and Bohm describing singularity of mind....and the significance of that. This is not non duality, like most of the poor information of shallow somatic perspectives on social media. That is easy, but useless as nothing can be done with it, there is no genuine insight, no Self insight just a shift in quality of sensory interpretation akin to empathy extended to others. It's why the punks used to say ..." scratch a hippie, find a fascist", or Wilber referring to the mean green meme. All somatic shallowness without inner awareness on level of mind.