"Dying before we die." Non-duality meeting with Richard Sylvester.

For information about one to one sessions or to sign up for news of meetings, email [e-mail] or [e-mail]
To support Richard's channel donate here www.paypal.com...
Buy Richard's books here www.amazon.com...
or here www.amazon.co....
Richard has been giving talks on non-duality since 2005 and has written four books about it, including the much-loved little classic ‘I Hope You Die Soon’. His fifth book, ‘Confessions of a Seeker’ is about his many years as a spiritual seeker but it also includes chapters on free will, consciousness and religion. It is sometimes extremely funny (one reader laughed so much she had to stop reading it in public places) and sometimes profoundly serious.
www.richardsylv...
www.richardsylv...
Richard has a Meetup Page

[@yanakord1078]

The ending of the video is absolutely amazing 👏❤

[@kundaliniandnonduality]

Great stuff!

[@bette238]

Spoken with such profundity - thank you Richard ❤

[@MarinoTarot]

Much needed in times like these - thank you ♥

[@soulspiritself]

Interesting comment from a lady there regarding Informational Realism. New to me too but Wikipedia sums it up thus.
"In order to determine whether it is possible for a tree to exist outside of the mind, we need to be able to think of an unconceived tree. But as soon as we try to think about this tree, we have conceived it. So we have failed and there is no good reason to believe that trees exist outside of the mind."

[@birdwatching_u_back]

Could you link this webpage? I wasn’t able to find a Wikipedia page on informational realism. Thanks 🙏
At any rate, it basically sounds like Cartesian skeptecism but giving ontology to “information” and the act of “conceiving.” In this model, how is it known that a “mind” as such exists in the first place? Where does that ontology come from? What IS “conceiving”? Who does that? If anything, informational realism undermines itself-as there’s no objective way to delineate what objects are “within” and “outside of” the “mind”, that objects even exist in a way that can be challenged like this, or the very constructed opposition between mind and world to begin with. Notice how this very framework assumes the mind to be a particular kind of object to begin with, which by its own standards shouldn’t be possible. There just seems to be no reason to take informational realism seriously besides a philosophical semantic trick…doesn’t seem to be at all related to nonduality. Good to know that term exists though, I guess 🤷

[@robertjsmith]

words and concepts don't point to inherently real thing's

[@GurdeepSingh-ns1df]

So beautiful and wild expressions . When you say illusion, do you point towards the sense of being , the I , the Me being illusory and that's a very much concrete centre through which humans live and not other sentian beings like animals or birds, insects etc.
So sometimes I wonder about us seeking and striving for the falling away of sense " I" , the shift , the awakening being fascinating which is just obvious for these animals etc.
Also It's intriguing what the qualitative difference between an animal and a person with No being .
Please comment.

[@bette238]

"This is reassuring the unpopular" 😂😅😂