This was always the dilemma I had with modern spiritual teachers (such as Rupert), whose knowledge and experience with awareness and inner peace I certainly respect and recognize. The absolute separation of body and mind and the absolute 'certainty' that consciousness is the universal basis of all that exists (where all that exists, the world, is only an illusion. As I prefer to say: not the world is an illusion, but our perceptions are an illusion. Plato has already stated this clearly.
5:58 “If you believe that consciousness is the only thing that really exists, you may be right. I don’t know, and no one else does either.” Beautiful. I’m always amazed at the hubris some people have to think they have this mystery all figured out. They can’t fathom that their belief is just another perspective and could be absolutely wrong. 10:04 “Skepticism is a valid approach to understanding the world, but credulity is not a valid approach to understanding the world.” Amen, brother.
I don't know if Robert is familiar with Bernardo Kastrup, but, he can and does explain, using scientific reasoning, that materialism is baloney and that consciousness and mind is primary.
Yea but I don't know if it is right to base our understanding of reality on mystical experiences. I have had experiences of oneness and love but I question myself when I try to paint whole of reality with the few experiences I had it seems like iam just forcing myself to make sense.
@@Tasmanaut I wouldn’t get hung up on words. There are no words that can come close to adequately describing the experience. It’s the transformative experience itself that’s beyond words that counts. I use oneness because in the west the most popular tradition is Christianity and Jesus said; “I and the father are one.” Just another way of saying that we are reality itself.
@@TrojansFirst you are right brother, I don't know why I wrote this comment, I shouldn't have. There was a need to be a smart-ass and correct you. I am sorry about this. You are 100% correct on all accounts, you've got it brother :)
How can there be different types of non-duality? How can there be a non-dual pendulum from one extreme to the next? How could there be a non-dual perspective, as if it’s one among other perspectives? How could there exist a credible person telling the world about his non-dual views and experiences at all? How could a non non-dual experience turn into a non-dual experience? How could there be an audience of non-dualist non-believers listening to a believer of non-duality? How could non-duality be a belief? How could non-duality arise where it previously was not apparent? How could there be a path towards non-duality? If non-duality is eternally present, why isn’t it apparent to all? Why is a practice needed? How can a practice bring forth something that’s non-dual by nature? To me, these are some of the hurdles someone seeking non-duality needs to confront in order to reach insights and stay true. Someone familiar with the koan system of inquiry within the zen tradition is also familiar with the approach and purpose of such questions. The fact that we have no or insufficient answers to such questions is not the problem. If we think we have a rock solid and final answer, then we should indeed consider our own convictions seriously. Really increase our efforts to seek out our blind spots that will reopen the treasure trove of questions yet again. As long as we think that non-duality and enlightenment is to have acquired a set of perfect and convincing answers, I believe we are still in a state of deep delusion. Can there really be any questions or answers in a non-dual reality at all? Can there really be a history of no non-duality and a non-dual future?
Those are good questions. One answer is that since nonduality is a philosophical belief or concept, not an experience, different people will have different definitions of the word. To claim that one knows what nonduality is or isn't seems entirely dualistic on the face of it.
@@RobertSaltzmanYes, I agree. As long as non-duality is just an idea or concept it can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But to me the notion of non-duality indicates that it is something that cannot really be a concept or even be given a name or description at all? To me it is something that dawns on the mind as reality itself when all conceptualizations have been dropped or abandoned. But that’s just my take on it. And since I’m not anywhere near a non-dual state, what do I know? Thank for the conversation. Take care my friend. ❤️
Nisargadatta actually goes beyond the concept of consciousness.. The title of one book is 'Prior to Consciousness' just for starters.. And if read correctly A Course In Miracles does the same even though most students miss that minor detail.
Robert, thank you for your insight. As an avid reader of Nisargadatta I was uncomfortably convicted by your perspective. I think the desire to “end suffering” is strong in me. I would like to imagine that this tendency could also be a source of suffering when held as an edict. I would imagine “the search for remedies” can become just another abstraction. Any thoughts? Thank you for sharing❤❤❤
I have spoken about this a lot, John. Since you are aware of my channel now, check out some of the earlier stuff. Briefly, suffering (psychologically) is the feeling that something needs to happen or that something needs to change. Be well.
It seems to me that "suffering" or not depends on definitions. I find that pain is certainly mandatory and I've had plenty from time to time and expect there will be more as I continue aging. But there's a whole other level of misery that comes from resisting reality or subconsciously arguing with it and that's what I would call suffering. I've been very ill and had pain AND suffered and I've been very ill and had pain and though I didn't like it, it was ok because it was what was real in the moment.
Non-duality is a brand name. People use it like a Coca-Cola sign on the door of a diner to attract consumers to their misunderstood, watered-down drivel. It's a career: teacher of non-duality. What a laugh.
@@RobertSaltzman indeed. And yet there's "something" there that can be pointed to though not really taught. I do think there are some legit people in that space, not in it as a career or for the money, but just putting it out there because they've recognized what separates pain from suffering, what relieves the angst of being lost in thoughts and therefore missing the moment to moment unfolding of life. The difficulty is for the rookie to separate the valuable bits from the mountain of trash.
What does the term 'tantric' actually mean? I understood it is an appreciation that things are NOT separate? Tantric therefore is saying that there is just a seeing that all there is, is What Is? Am I in agreement with you Robert then?
Perhaps not elimination of suffering but reduction in intensity and duration. Instead of “I am anger or I am frustrated,” the sense of anger or frustration arises. Treating it more like an object. Emotions are real but not correct. LOL. IMHO, most psychological suffering results from identifying with our illusionary Ego.
Carey, despite the claims of "spiritual" teachers, ego is not "illusionary." It is what is meant every time one utters words such as "I" or "me." That is about as real as it gets.
@@RobertSaltzman , it seems that Seeing, Hearing, and Thoughts arising requires no effort. No “me or I” doing it, no mini-me inside my head. Looking for the Seer or Thinker, I find No One, Robert. Still, I claim no Truth, except perhaps curiosity. Lol. Perhaps I am equating self and ego as synonyms. Also, I appreciate your videos, book, and commentary.
@@RobertSaltzman , (in response) back to the illusionary self/ego that has convinced the Mind that it is real. Every interaction, thought, memory is experienced in Consciousness. The sense of self or ego is another thought/ story arising from our minds, and presented in our consciousness. Awareness is aware of itself, not as a self but awareness. I’m not committed to this. Lol. Just trying to understand the dis-ease of the human condition.
Understood. For me, the words "experienced in Consciousness" are problematical. As I see it, "Consciousness," particularly with a capital "C" is not a "thing" like a container in which experience takes place. Experience is all that we have to go on and what you all calling consciousness IS experience. There is no separation. They are one and the same. What you are calling consciousness is nothing more than experiences of all kinds, which keep arising in different aspects unless you become unconscious, which means no experiences are arising. Without experiences, there iS no consciousness. Any split between experience and myself or between experience and consciousness is purely conceptual Awareness being aware of itself is a strange idea, as I see it. One may have that as a concept, but not in fact. Myself IS experience. No experience, no myself. Awareness is just another name for all that, in my view. Myself is one experience after another. What can possibly stand outside of all that being aware of that? If you say something does, how do you know that? In order to know that, you would have to be AWARE of it, so then you require awareness being aware of awareness being aware, and after that, it's turtles all the way down. I highly recommend you read Douglas Hofstadter's book, I Am a Strange Loop. If you can. let's have this conversation in the Depending On No-thing Facebook group where other minds can chime in.
This was always the dilemma I had with modern spiritual teachers (such as Rupert), whose knowledge and experience with awareness and inner peace I certainly respect and recognize. The absolute separation of body and mind and the absolute 'certainty' that consciousness is the universal basis of all that exists (where all that exists, the world, is only an illusion. As I prefer to say: not the world is an illusion, but our perceptions are an illusion. Plato has already stated this clearly.
5:58 “If you believe that consciousness is the only thing that really exists, you may be right. I don’t know, and no one else does either.”
Beautiful. I’m always amazed at the hubris some people have to think they have this mystery all figured out. They can’t fathom that their belief is just another perspective and could be absolutely wrong.
10:04 “Skepticism is a valid approach to understanding the world, but credulity is not a valid approach to understanding the world.” Amen, brother.
I don't know if Robert is familiar with Bernardo Kastrup, but, he can and does explain, using scientific reasoning, that materialism is baloney and that consciousness and mind is primary.
I have read Kastrup. He believes what he believes. The arguments came later. The results of reasoning are not facts but opinions backed up by logic.
When you are in that oneness state it feels so real that the everyday reality feels like a dream by comparison.
Yea but I don't know if it is right to base our understanding of reality on mystical experiences. I have had experiences of oneness and love but I question myself when I try to paint whole of reality with the few experiences I had it seems like iam just forcing myself to make sense.
@@viktorvaughn1079 yet you believe all the other crap your mind tells you everyday
it is not oneness, oneness implies a number. It is an experience of non-separation. If you want a number, it is more like 0 or infiniteness.
@@Tasmanaut I wouldn’t get hung up on words. There are no words that can come close to adequately describing the experience. It’s the transformative experience itself that’s beyond words that counts. I use oneness because in the west the most popular tradition is Christianity and Jesus said; “I and the father are one.” Just another way of saying that we are reality itself.
@@TrojansFirst you are right brother, I don't know why I wrote this comment, I shouldn't have. There was a need to be a smart-ass and correct you. I am sorry about this.
You are 100% correct on all accounts, you've got it brother :)
The more I get into the whole matter, I realize that ANY concept is a misconcept.
It's like Brian said: everybody has to find out for himself (or herself).
How can there be different types of non-duality? How can there be a non-dual pendulum from one extreme to the next? How could there be a non-dual perspective, as if it’s one among other perspectives? How could there exist a credible person telling the world about his non-dual views and experiences at all? How could a non non-dual experience turn into a non-dual experience? How could there be an audience of non-dualist non-believers listening to a believer of non-duality? How could non-duality be a belief? How could non-duality arise where it previously was not apparent? How could there be a path towards non-duality? If non-duality is eternally present, why isn’t it apparent to all? Why is a practice needed? How can a practice bring forth something that’s non-dual by nature?
To me, these are some of the hurdles someone seeking non-duality needs to confront in order to reach insights and stay true. Someone familiar with the koan system of inquiry within the zen tradition is also familiar with the approach and purpose of such questions. The fact that we have no or insufficient answers to such questions is not the problem. If we think we have a rock solid and final answer, then we should indeed consider our own convictions seriously. Really increase our efforts to seek out our blind spots that will reopen the treasure trove of questions yet again. As long as we think that non-duality and enlightenment is to have acquired a set of perfect and convincing answers, I believe we are still in a state of deep delusion. Can there really be any questions or answers in a non-dual reality at all? Can there really be a history of no non-duality and a non-dual future?
Those are good questions. One answer is that since nonduality is a philosophical belief or concept, not an experience, different people will have different definitions of the word. To claim that one knows what nonduality is or isn't seems entirely dualistic on the face of it.
@@RobertSaltzmanYes, I agree. As long as non-duality is just an idea or concept it can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But to me the notion of non-duality indicates that it is something that cannot really be a concept or even be given a name or description at all? To me it is something that dawns on the mind as reality itself when all conceptualizations have been dropped or abandoned. But that’s just my take on it. And since I’m not anywhere near a non-dual state, what do I know?
Thank for the conversation. Take care my friend. ❤️
Nisargadatta actually goes beyond the concept of consciousness.. The title of one book is 'Prior to Consciousness' just for starters.. And if read correctly A Course In Miracles does the same even though most students miss that minor detail.
you cant get beyond consciousness. or else its unconscious haha
@@mikelisteral7863consciousness is an illusion?
@user-yo2ki7vu7d Perhaps the ego is not to be transcended but simply relinquished as the nothing that it is (?)
Robert, thank you for your insight. As an avid reader of Nisargadatta I was uncomfortably convicted by your perspective. I think the desire to “end suffering” is strong in me. I would like to imagine that this tendency could also be a source of suffering when held as an edict. I would imagine “the search for remedies” can become just another abstraction. Any thoughts? Thank you for sharing❤❤❤
I have spoken about this a lot, John. Since you are aware of my channel now, check out some of the earlier stuff. Briefly, suffering (psychologically) is the feeling that something needs to happen or that something needs to change.
Be well.
Enjoy Robert’s perspective. I’m not able to “get” non duality except in a poetic sense.
the only thnig that exists is consciousness which is non dual
It seems to me that "suffering" or not depends on definitions. I find that pain is certainly mandatory and I've had plenty from time to time and expect there will be more as I continue aging. But there's a whole other level of misery that comes from resisting reality or subconsciously arguing with it and that's what I would call suffering. I've been very ill and had pain AND suffered and I've been very ill and had pain and though I didn't like it, it was ok because it was what was real in the moment.
Yes. If you define suffering that way, there can be pain without suffering.
@@RobertSaltzman I do agree that there's loads of b.s. in the non-dual arena.
Non-duality is a brand name. People use it like a Coca-Cola sign on the door of a diner to attract consumers to their misunderstood, watered-down drivel. It's a career: teacher of non-duality. What a laugh.
@@RobertSaltzman indeed. And yet there's "something" there that can be pointed to though not really taught. I do think there are some legit people in that space, not in it as a career or for the money, but just putting it out there because they've recognized what separates pain from suffering, what relieves the angst of being lost in thoughts and therefore missing the moment to moment unfolding of life.
The difficulty is for the rookie to separate the valuable bits from the mountain of trash.
I'm curious about your opinion of Intelligent Design.
There is no evidence for it and a mountain of evidence for evolution by natural selection.
intelligence doesnt exist. only eternal patterns eternally changing
@@RobertSaltzman evolution just means gradual change.
but gradual change of what and by what?
there is no evidence for matter
@@mikelisteral7863 Nonsensical.
@@eskede4733 relative to what? your brainwashing?
What does the term 'tantric' actually mean? I understood it is an appreciation that things are NOT separate? Tantric therefore is saying that there is just a seeing that all there is, is What Is? Am I in agreement with you Robert then?
Perhaps not elimination of suffering but reduction in intensity and duration. Instead of “I am anger or I am frustrated,” the sense of anger or frustration arises. Treating it more like an object. Emotions are real but not correct. LOL. IMHO, most psychological suffering results from identifying with our illusionary Ego.
Carey, despite the claims of "spiritual" teachers, ego is not "illusionary." It is what is meant every time one utters words such as "I" or "me." That is about as real as it gets.
@@RobertSaltzman , it seems that Seeing, Hearing, and Thoughts arising requires no effort. No “me or I” doing it, no mini-me inside my head. Looking for the Seer or Thinker, I find No One, Robert. Still, I claim no Truth, except perhaps curiosity. Lol. Perhaps I am equating self and ego as synonyms. Also, I appreciate your videos, book, and commentary.
Who is it that wants to reduce suffering?
@@RobertSaltzman , (in response) back to the illusionary self/ego that has convinced the Mind that it is real. Every interaction, thought, memory is experienced in Consciousness. The sense of self or ego is another thought/ story arising from our minds, and presented in our consciousness. Awareness is aware of itself, not as a self but awareness. I’m not committed to this. Lol. Just trying to understand the dis-ease of the human condition.
Understood.
For me, the words "experienced in Consciousness" are problematical. As I see it, "Consciousness," particularly with a capital "C" is not a "thing" like a container in which experience takes place. Experience is all that we have to go on and what you all calling consciousness IS experience. There is no separation. They are one and the same.
What you are calling consciousness is nothing more than experiences of all kinds, which keep arising in different aspects unless you become unconscious, which means no experiences are arising.
Without experiences, there iS no consciousness. Any split between experience and myself or between experience and consciousness is purely conceptual
Awareness being aware of itself is a strange idea, as I see it. One may have that as a concept, but not in fact. Myself IS experience. No experience, no myself. Awareness is just another name for all that, in my view.
Myself is one experience after another. What can possibly stand outside of all that being aware of that? If you say something does, how do you know that? In order to know that, you would have to be AWARE of it, so then you require awareness being aware of awareness being aware, and after that, it's turtles all the way down.
I highly recommend you read Douglas Hofstadter's book, I Am a Strange Loop.
If you can. let's have this conversation in the Depending On No-thing Facebook group where other minds can chime in.