Jim Newman and Sam Harris ‘Wrestling the Paradox’ (Excerpt)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2021
- An excerpt of a conversation between Sam Harris and Jim Newman called ‘Wrestling the Paradox’ from Sam’s Waking Up app. Subscribe to hear the conversation in full: app.wakingup.com/
A year ago hearing Jim Newman for the first time my muscles tensed up and I felt aggravated. Now, after listening to many other the past year, hearing Jim Newman my body completely relaxes. I listened on the train to work. My body "melted" and even the usual stops and delays didn't bother me at all.. the story of a train being delayed had no energetic value..
I feel very aggravated by his KNOWING that Sam doesn't get it... But "I'll" let "my" apparent judgement wait.
when I hear sam's voice I want to bash my head against a wall... aarrrgggh. 😅sweet
The message of nonduality has nothing to do with getting it since there is no you to get it. It's simply a radical dropping away of the illusory sense of self and the socially conditioned beliefs that are associated with a real separate individual. It is a loss and not about gaining anything as it related to a simple natural reality.
Agreed! That which does the "experiencing" of non-duality is a no thing. I really think Meister Eckhart's "grunt" is the best approximation of what this is like. YMMV but Eckhart's stuff really resonates with me coming from a Western Judeo-Christian background and milieu.
Yes! and it is TERRIFYING beyond description to the 'me'.
oh shut up
@@waiataaroha dunno why but this made me lol 😆
Thomas Metzinger says, that there is no self, but the brain is processing an self model. And this self model can't drop permanently. Without it you (the body) is totally lost. And this self model is the apparent 'I'.
OK, Andreas Müller would answer:'There is no brain.' :-)
"Truth is the end of knowledge and of mind. And that's freedom brah" - Frank Yang
Freedom for who? 😉
@@evedotcom For Brahman. For no-self. For God Himself/Herself. For Christ Within. For a collection of random quantum particles. Same same.
@@paulbernhard7186 God isn’t subject to bondage and doesn’t need to be freed.
@@mysticalgladness8798 could it not be said that in Jesus Christ, God subjected himself to persecution and subjugation and pain and death? Could it not be said that God is incarnate in every thing created and the whole incarnation groans in labor lains, still not yet having become free in some sense? This is the story. Kenosis. God willingly gives up his freedom to hide inside each of us under deep heavy layers of ego.
@@paulbernhard7186You're giving continuity to some kind of self in the name of no-self.
Beautiful!! Thanks, this makes me so happy.
Jim Newman with good sound. That's rare!
It’s only apparent sound.
Just found Jim but I already know this is spot on 😂🙏
🤣 facts
😂😂😂
😂
Excellent dialogue, but in his thirst for understanding, Sam seems hopelessly lost in neverending stream if concepts. Jim is just as free-flowing and clear as always. Thank you for sharing!
True. You gave too completely let go of any concepts, anything perceivable or conceivable. No intellect.,. You can't understand it.
So should they both have just sat there in silence? Instead of talking and growing as human beings? Would you prefer everybody say nothing and use no concepts? What a boring world that would be.
@@craigknepley6021 Boring is simply what is. Boredom is not the problem. The problem is me as an add on to boredom . No me no problem
I find JIm to be a nihilist clown in denial
Jim Newman is the perfect person for him to be talking to then, because the one thing Jim does that has value is destroying your concepts. After that though, his (non) teaching is nonsense
Seekers always name drop gurus
precisely.
I understand where Sam is coming from because I was in the same condition, I had an experience of no free will, that had a beginning and an end, and even though deep down I knew that this was always the case, it didn't feel that way and so I tried looking for it again even though I knew it was always the case. It is the looking for, that hides what can't be hidden. Even looking for it in the present moment obscures it. EVEN looking for it by not looking for it obscures it, this is why it is ALWAYS a suprise. It has to be. It's like a finger pointing at the moon except what's pointed to is the finger, the pointing and the moon 😂
greatly expressed
If it doesn't have a beginning or an end, you're probably just thinking about it constantly.
Sam: Dos your sister likes chees ? Jim ; I don't have a sister . Sam :Yes but if you had a sister , would she likes chees ?
Is that cheese or chess?
@@bjsmith5444 It's cheese or chess .
Sam wants to reduce everything to the intellect, and has many descriptions. A quote from Krishnamurti comes to mind: "The word is not the thing and description is not the described."
Sam just tries to talk about things non parsimoniously so that it’s more accessible to more people so more people can benefit from it
@@thejokesonlife3745 I agree.
The map is not the territory…the menu is not the food…
Yes
No, he explicitly does not.
However he recognizes that one can still talk about things without them "reducing" to anything.
If you're fundamentally opposed to talking about something, it is probably out of insecurity and the fear that your awakening is just a house of cards.
The accessibility in which Sam speaks, and the uncompromising linguistics in which Jim speaks here is great to see. Non-dual speak can be helpful, but speaking purely from that perspective seemingly disregards the apparent struggle that most humans deal with in coming to terms with it. Why speak if there's nothing to say? If you're going to speak.. offer an olive branch 😄
Offer an olive branch to who?
I enjoy hearing these two especially for some reason. Even if we choose suffering it’s to love but I like to go back and forth.
What's being said here is that, you are not and you are not choosing. It's all just happening.
Suffering is love. Love can not be defined... has no opposite and is all encompassing.
Very nice talk, thank you Sam Jim
Wesley: "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." Vicini: "Wait till I get going!"
what about a perspectival madness?
Without a frame how do you work inside a space of infinite information?
are the frames automated?
they seem maleable by learning. is learning then not ego/individual/will driven?
There is no confusion. This is recognition.
When you take this idea in and realize it then it really hits you deep at your core because it just flips everything you thought you knew around, upside down and inside out.
matter creates consciousness consciousness creates matter
@@mikelisteral7863 I don't know .. I mean, it's just another theory.
@@RatBonez11 do you experience matter? or just color and feeling?
@mikelisteral7863 .... I simply experience ... Whatever thoughts come and go are temporary ... Whatever meaning, reasoning, purpose, explanation we give is merely the result of other people's thoughts.. and all thoughts are but results of the grand illusion ... If thinking you know what's going on gives you purpose or adds color to your life then okay, but the universe shall always elude us as the mystery of all mysteries
@@RatBonez11 the universe is a thought hypocrite
Ramana , of course, tailored his answers to suit the perceived intelligence/comfort level of the questioner. MahaGuru
Interesting possibility
Truth is simply unacceptable and that is what we learned here.
I could listen to these two all day.
Jim said something like "there is nowhere else". That's an interesting observation. It is always what happens, including "somewhere else" which isn't actually somewhere else and instead thoughts happening in the here and the now. A thought about somewhere else isn't actually somewhere else.
Also - "There is no out there, out there" - Bashar, and also Lynn Mctaggart, author of The Field.
I tried an experiment: Downtown I encountered 10 people in a row and said "Cease the search, you are already Enlightened" Then I noted their reactions and asked if anybody "got it". Not a single person gave mean intelligent response. Where did I go wrong?
I like coffee ice cream...in small tastes ...but i will eat a whole 1/2 pint of coffee ice cream Haagen dazs in one feasting
Why not....who cares
I have his perception that a lot of non-dual teachers are not fully awake 24/7 as they might lead you to believe. I might even think that it's also very possible that a lot of them could easily 'pretend' that they are a nobody and make a nice living out of it!! It's not as if you can prove them wrong, is it?
People like Jim and Tony Parsons say that the individual (or a sense of a self) senses a lack of something so then goes seeking for fulfilment. That 'sense of lack' is an emotion or contraction in the body. I'd agree with that. But if its good for one emotion, then it's good for them all. I would also say that a lot of other emotions like anger comes from a 'something' that thinks it's an individual or a self too, and when that sense of self or individual isn't getting its own way in life.....its gets angry. But when anger happens for non-dual teacher, it a different scenario. I heard Parsons once say that when anger arises in him..... it arises for nobody. I don't believe that bull. I believe that he fell back into believing that he was a self or individual and this sense of an individual didn't get his own way with a situation and then the emotion of anger got manifested. If there was no self or nobody....there would be no thing wanting to get it's 'own' way in 'anything' to trigger anger. Id imagine there would be just pure peace or a state of bliss imo and I don't see many people like that walking this planet.
I like that in thing like the 12th programme of AA that its more closer to reality. It reconizes that self centredness is the problem (not just with alcoholics) and when we are caught up in self, it leads to problems that manifests emotions like anger, self-pity, hurt ect. It then offers a way out that sense of self or self centredness. But it also reconizes that you can slip back right back into it again. I think Eckart Tolle teaches along the same lines too as with a few others. They reconizes that we can slip back into the mind or self at any time and that's ok because there is some sort of intelligence within us eventually spots this and initiates a response so that we can gently slip out of this sense of self again. I think this is more to the truth with us humans. Extreme non-duality on the other hand for me is a bit far fetched. But as I said, the beauty about extreme non-duality is that you can't question it or prove that the extreme non-dualist is bullshitting you.
@@ndnd2023 Are you claiming they aren't making money from this? Cause that would take a serious lack of critical thinking.
Van Life is a Psy OP hahaaa.... I agree with u, tho I don't think they make that much money- Tony was already quite wealthy, Jim possibly too... Nevertheless, I was big on the nondual for a long time and now Sam's "applied nonduality" seems to be helpful, with his meditations and practical discussions on normal life
@@DiogenesNephew
My guy. They don't say they're just in an infinite state of mental emotional pleasure. They're just saying nothing is happening to or for an identity made up if thoughts or feelings. Your ego is flaring up over this and it's causing a little drama
definitely it is easy to see that on subtle or not so subtle level Jim Newman is defending a position and probably not even aware of it . sam tries to get through to him but it is like speaking to any member of a fundamentalist movement or cult. I am not by the way saying that Jim Newman doesn't have any insight . as with discussing with any fundamentalist there is no point it gets nowhere .....
Finally comments are allowed so I don’t want to miss the opportunity to write a comment. Let me see if I succeed in making a question or answer.
It seems if there is memory then there is an individual. And If the individual is asking questions then forget it, no answer will work for the individual.
And Jim had said it many times that he has nothing for an individual. Nothing Jim can add to make an individual un happen or loose its memory. He goes a step further and says that the apparent individual can stay as is with its memory because he is really not happening. Jim’s response is for no one. Apparently that’s the way it goes like it or not.
Now the question is why then the apparent individual goes to Jim to ask questions? Oh, I got the answer to the question I was going to make. And the answer is that it apparently happens that way, there is no reason for that.
LOVE THIS SHIT
simple intuitive presence. If there is a practice, it is recognizing the rising thought is the condition, the object, the Maya. Pure recognition, when applied consistently provides broadness in the space, peace, presence, and waking state. Discussions, contemplation, and complex/uncomplex descriptors provide the mind with its source of distractions. Even the silence, for some, is an experience...or whatever your mind labeled this very moment. namaste Ananta
Jim would say that is a story.
Which advaita teacher are they speaking about in the beginning of their talk
search for papaji satsang on youtube
My understanding with this hardcore non-dualism where there is no person is that this is a 'phase' ( that some people unfortunately get stuck in). The process is something like this 1. I exist 2. No I don't exist 3. Ah but I do exist. Living with the fusion/ paradox of 2 and 3 is where enlightenment is. Being stuck on 2 is a false summit.
well buddha it self mention non dual meditation as one of the most powerful meditation of all, but recommended not to get stuck there.
This understanding reinforces the apparent feeling that you exist
@@dimitrigraur8345 and the opposite reinforces the misunderstanding that you don't exist.
Thank you v much. What an overload of talk tho for such a simple topic. “You can make that decision” sums up our biggest hurdle. Not a human being exists. Maybe Sam owns, claims, that load of words. Idk.
But thank you for an easy non contextual vid. 💕💕💕 chaos believing its mouth sounds are his.
Your mouth sounds are unclear, uninformative, and unhelpful. Try silence.
@@craigknepley6021 Silence speaking
I totaly agree,Sam Harris tries to grasp this simple thing as a concept and there's no way to grasp this.It's like asking some one if his sister likes chees and his answer is'I don't have a sister'
@@hermansohier7643
Then why did Jim come on the podcast if he's unable to say anything about it?
Dzogchen masters have practiced the view for a long time and they're able to point it out in others, there's no reason fundamentally why you can't or why you have to adopt some affectations.
@@MrCmon113 the fact is that no one is talking about this , you might aswell listen to parrots ,it makes no difference .That's the point of this non teaching , there's no one talking and no one listening .
I've listened to a few interviews with Jim Newman, and no one seems to ask him how someone in their Appearance can operate in normal society, practically? What do you tell your children, your spouse, your boss, you need to make money to support your family pay your bills? A child isn't going to understand that they're nothing, just an Appearance. A wife isn't going to be to happy when you tell her love isn't real and neither is she. Friends, family, bosses, will be confused, and say, "What does this mean, what do we do now, do you still care about us?" Removing empathy, compassion, love, passion, interest, attraction, caring etc, isn't going to fly very well with most people who aren't on the Advaita level.
"It's just simply what is, arising as whatever function that seems to be happening, without context." ~Jim
That's about all there is to say about it.
That's why most non dual teachers on youtube are single with no kids who make a living through their teachings , you dont see these folks talking at a prison or in the hood , most live a comfortable life not in survival mode.
Why should he talk about this stuff outside of RUclips? It is not needed. Everything happens as it has "always" done. "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment , chop wood, carry water"
@@najroen I think people want to know ,if it is ,the person's lived experience , there many videos of teachers talking about " no self" but few videos were that same teacher is explaining that concept to a person who was raped.
It's one thing to have an experience, it's another thing to make sense of it , before one jumps onto the enlightenment bandwagon.
@@injoyinmyself2018 yes, but the people doesn't seem to be listening to the words being said. It is not a teaching and there is no person. If there is no person there isn't anyone to choose, how and what to say. But I guess that also goes for the ones getting triggered by the message, so never mind🤣 🤷🏼♂️
@@najroen what do you mean by no person?
The way Jim expresses makes no sense to me at all, because it's kind of a conversation that is pointless to have because the other person doesn't try to meet halfway in using a language that can come to an understanding. In short, Jim "sees" it but doesn't know how to express it. OTOH, Sam is very good with this even though neither of them can actually get there. But they can get close. The key is to get close, because we can never get there by discussion. "There" is nondual and conversation is dual. The point is to get as close as one can be.
There is no one, no key, and no point.
Yeah, I totally agree. I can appreciate that Jim doesn't agree with the terms and/or definitions that Sam is using... but I guess I'm not enlightened enough to understand what he's trying to say at all. Doesn't like the way Sam is putting it, but unwilling or unable to "put it" in any way at all. The conversation just seems pointless, and the frustration seems pretty palpable on both of their parts.
@@kafkaten He's saying there is no one to be enlightened. He has put it several other ways. In fact, watch his multitude of videos. Sam just doesn't understand non-duality.
@@CJ0101 it seems that newman doesnt know the Self/ATman/I principle so i would say he might not know what non-duality really is either..
@@chitrapolansky Nobody 'knows' what non-duality is.
I’m late to comment here but Jim admitted to getting angry at bad drivers! That is the definition of identifying with a self and illusory reality. What could he possibly be mad about if it’s all nothing and just arising? He then back tracked when Sam dug into that statement and said he didn’t have “the thing” Sam described. But Sam just quoted what he said. I think Jim is performing an enlightenment he had and may come and go but it’s a performance. He revealed it when he said he experiences anger. What is angry? About what? There is only nothing arising about nothing to nothing. 😂😂😂
You hit the nail on the head. And why would he feel the need to appear on multiple social media platforms and create websites to share nothing about nothing to no one.
Where to find Punduji teachings?
search papaji satsang on youtube
Poonjaji
I'm surprised that Jim didn't say that wisp of confusion or the cloud is 'it' too
Nice!
Who did Sam mention at the start, Pundiji?
H._W._L._Poonja
Jim’s perspective seems to me to be true from the ultimate horizon, and rather obvious in a sense, yet his failure to engage with the relative horizon creates a duality that undermines his “message”.
The relative-ultimate way of putting things is a useful way of talking in teaching and/or conversational contexts or can be used as a way of deconstructing phenomena but that is still within the domain of teaching/seeking which as these speakers like Jim Newman have made clear is not what they are doing. They are using certain lingo that reflects impersonality and ungraspability.
Consciousness is a way of perceiving... not the abstract... it never happened
All very well, but Jim talks as if he discovered something new! Aeons before the Taitreeya Upanishad said "Wherefrom words return along with the mind as unapproachable, know that to be Brahman, your true Self"
How can No-thing being everything, be something new or old? ;-)
Yes … he even thinks he has a better teaching than his own Guru Papaji. Lol
@@Sethan777 no-thing is the opposite of something, not synonymous or antonym for "everything".
Get your facts right. There is not even "everything".
@Antar Lamm You got it
@@xxxxxx71999 Wish you a beautiful day 🌞🕊🎈
Sam begins speaking like Jim then calls out the posse of inquiry to determine if nothing looked like happening.
ahah exactly, seems like Sam just borrows the vocabulary but tries to use it to 'understand'
I heard Sam say that there seems to be an apparent difference between recognizing and not recognizing. But that Punjaji said if you recognize for one second you'll be different the rest of your life...and Sam disagrees because he has seen people vacillate.
To explain that I feel that maybe they didn't really recognize.
Ok, then no one did.
Sam wants achievement
Jim has demolished knowing
And words refer only to themselves.
Also Sam wants to know non achievement and Jim knows a thing or 2 about his solipsistic outlook
You guys are self-righteous fake gurus. Save the preaching for someone who will pay you for it.
He reminds me of UG Krishnamurti i think he got some style of his in his teaching i wonder if they ever spoke
yeah they seem to both try to be as uncompromising as possible
💜
This is the problem with trying to talk about something that can't possibly be understood by human logic/reasoning/concepts/language. It simply isn't sufficient to making sense of what existence is. We call that a paradox for a reason.
It's consciousness in the sense of conscious awareness. There is an awareness of the unknowable all. What appears to be happening is happening within awareness/consciousness. Consciousness stands alone without an individual that is conscious. The interpretation and perception by the brain or the apparent character is always limited since it can't all be perceived or understood. This explains why certain characters have differing views. That doesn't mean one view is more correct than another. There are differing views through awareness that are all limited. One view may be aware of what another view is not aware of and visa versa. One view may be aware of consciousness and another view may be aware of unconditional love and another view may be aware of conscious unconditional love.
9:40 Jim became momentarily opaque leading up to this, and I still somewhat dislike his linguistic choices, but suddenly the concept snapped into comprehension. Which is that to think of experience as some discrete object that can be examined by the experiencer is to believe an illusion. Like a 3D object observed on a screen that can be turned and seen from closer and further away belies the fact that what is actually being viewed is just a flat projection which *suggests* a 3D object in space; we buy into this illusion of closeness and farness and angle relative to the object so that we might imagine to navigate it. But in fact it is the same as the projection, as is all the space around it. There is no distinction between experience and experiencer, because we are not merely situated in an immersive projection of experience but are in fact part of the same projection that is the experience. The experiencer is applying this conceit that is they are discrete from the experience, but that is just more experience. There is no turning or distancing ourselves from it, there is only it, and ourselves and it are the same.
... which, seems like one of these observations so profound that it circles back to being fairly mundane. I'm sure to really internalize this is to radically alter the experience.
Jim is either #1 A fake #2 being trolly and obtuse #3 doesn't understand what he is (blank) that he cant make a simple understandable sentence. #4 he is trying to describe what by default is undescribable.
some things are underivable for they are base premises.
such things consitute for example color
other things are not even a premise for derivation.
Non-duality is neither the sum of calculations, nor the metric.
It is the collapse of such things as calculations and metrics as real, a collapse it is already absurd to expect reason for.
The collapse either occurs here now or it does not.
It is simple, it contains no content.
@@Julian-we6qg Wow. That's completely not profound. It's like you've said literally nothing of value in any sense.
@@DiogenesNephew You believe you can describe something (I call it an object/referant) as valueless because you did not get the value required for it to be of value.
But then you have resigned the very potential of you describing it as an object, and you yourself contributed nothing of value in relation to it as an object.
For there to be "value" in the object here referenced, as stated in the original comment, you have to first see it, the thing with this partiular object is that it is disjunctive to all possible references, it will not matter to it whether you find it profound.
It is possible to imagine such a state in which processes of thought do not inhere, a state in which self has no ground.
A subjective sense of value, not owing to the object itself, can be reached, given some disjunctive analysis.
You are unknowingly and in a roundabout way correct in that there is nothing of value to the object itself, which is reached by any subject who is yet to see it. To these it is a dogmatic pipedream (to these there is no object itsef), though that (the dogma) may be precisely what aids them to at last finding the object.
@@Julian-we6qg Believe me, I understand perfectly. The problem is that just because you can imagine such a state doesn't make it so. And given that one could never derive such a state, one has no reason to pay any heed to the possibility. This would be the case whether or not the idea were true.
Nothing is completely "undescriable" otherwise you wouldn't even be thinking or talking about it.
No me in Jim. A lot of me in Sam
Because non-self means talking in the third person and forgetting biographical information...
You're precisely what goes wrong with introducing people with zero mindfulness to non-duality.
The story Sam tells around 30min... This is what I wonder sometimes is what might be occurring with non-dual persons
Sam doesn’t seem to understand….
That which does not exist
Cannot be negated.
what are you talking about then?
@@salem2554 He's talking of 'me'.
Well this listener is not. You appear to be confused only because you are holding onto a sense of separation
"Unconditional love" is a cute phrase, but I prefer Unconditionality or Unconditionalness because I find the term "love" way too complicated & also limited.
I prefer not to speak at all, as I find doing so would limit my message. Even saying this is an exercise in pure retardation.
dzogchen doesn't say/do what Sam describes. first recognition and then stabilising.
I’m mesmerized by Jim and his message. I’m drawn to sit in his non-dual frame. Every time I sit down to hear him out I can’t help but ask him, “How do you know?” to his claims. He simultaneously says there is no knowing and speaks from a place of knowledge. Did he have a non-dual experience? Was that not information?
Can anyone who doesn’t know like Jim doesn’t speak to this?
@@MxCock I will. Thank you!
I find Fred Davis is great too.
@@stephenvankleeck4801 or Rupert Spira
From the outside it seems to you like there's an entity called Jim that picks, chooses and knows what's going to be said but the words dont come from any sense of knowing. Someone asks a question and words are then said. The idea that there's someone in the skull that chooses and knows what's being said, is the illusion.
He constantly says he doesn't know and can't know and that there is no one to know and no message to be known. What claims is he making exactly? How can it be much clearer than that?
It struck me that non-duality bares ressemblance to presuppositional apologetics. In the latter case it is futile to doubt God’s existence because thinking (doubting) is something that is God-given, so the doubt in itself proves God. In the case of non-duality it is futile to ask yourself whether non-duality is true because “you” don’t exist and “truth” doesn’t exist. Two similar attempts to choke the very question itself and thinking in general.
(I can’t remember where I read this quote but it came to my mind when writing: “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about”.)
There's only this one thing that's happening. So there couldn't be a seperate you who is going to hold this happening in its hand and say oh I get it. How could you?? That's why it's an unknowing. When someone says they understand they understand that they're isn't a them who could understand as even that understanding would be this happening appearing as understanding. It's totally unknowable.
I have woken up and realised myself and ilife was a dream BUT FORGET WHY THE UNIVERSE DREAMS AND WHYIT IS NEVER ANSWERED BY ANYONE INCLUDING JIM NEWMAN????
Nobody "gets" glimpses, the body isn't a point of view from which to know an external world.
Of course mind ‘overlooks ‘ nonduality . It arises to make distinctions - that is fundamental nature of mind . It always misses. It is always missing this . And ‘wrestling’ as it were … with itself never any peace . May as well try to wrestle with peace … abstract it so it can be put like one more object in the mental storehouse . Hopeless. Seashells and pebbles on a windowsill are not a trip to the beach.
Reality is not paradox.
Love Jim Newman. It's not that I "get it" or like, sometimes people adopt his language and parade it around like they've "got it" when they haven't, and I don't want to be that. But of course, Jim always says _no one_ gets this. So someone can adopt that lingo and parrot it around and if someone tries to call them out for just parroting Jim Newman and not having "realized" authentically, they can just parrot him even more by saying, "Of course! _No one gets this!_ "
🤣
It seems that Sam is trying to tie Jim down as false because he still has human appearance so he can’t be what Sam thinks Jim is saying. Jim is saying that the identity of Jim is gone, that there is no identification with what is in the form of what appears to be really Jim. The identity too , is what is.
Wow thank u it just is and l don't know what it is so empty. The confusion is the knowing or wanting to know. When it's in not knowing it just is!
There is nothing to alight on. Only alluded to or away from.
This was really plunging me into a meditative state and then I got totally distracted by how much lower one of Sam’s eyes sits than the other…. Fascinating
Dude, that's nothing. Look up a picture of Shannen Doherty.
I think there's a reason you noticed that. In the meditative state you saw Sam's face as what it looks like (one eye lower), not what it represents in your story (Sam).
(You forgot it was sam, basically)
That's my guess anyway
I don’t get it, because it’s nothing to get.
no-one to get it
Wow sounds like you really get it! But also not of course ;)
You wrote that comment purely to fellate yourself. You can go on to be lost in thought 24/7 now, because your teachers tell you there's nothing to do and you're already enlightened.
here are some words for the reality...God, Atman, Self, Suprmeme Energy, I principle. its not that mysterious and there are a many teachings that are straightforwardly saying what is...
You seem to miss that neither of those words actually reflect reality. They are only silly concepts you are thinking of.
@@Doors_of_janua these concepts sound silly to someone whos ignorant of the reality of what the words mean and point to..that you are Supreme Energy is only a concept until you actually realize it..
@@chitrapolansky These concepts only sound interesting to those that still are in a great relationship with their mind and the mental. You don't even see where I am pointing at. you have not realized all these concepts are as valuable as poo shit dick and ass. wake up.
@@Doors_of_janua ya we should all listen to the mo-on that you are.
Consciousness uses the body and the mind to have an experience.
Knowing is not enough as it is experience which it desires through us.
So much of this nondual/spiritual/philosophical stuff seems like only HEAD GAMES. Lots and lots of words, concepts, OPINIONS and ideas cast in an ever-complicated swirling vortex of intellectual stunts, gimmicks and WORD GAMES. Ramana often warned his followers about getting too intellectual and MENTAL about what seems to be a simple "happening". Teaching vs. Pointing seems to be the most confusing issue for most Seekers. Doing vs. Non doing is the next most confusing point.
Osho died in 1990,
so soon after I would think.
Sam is holding onto Dzogchen like concepts of the ground as real. That is only real to the one which makes that distinction which owned by no self
I would love to see an exchange between Jim and Rupert Spira
I have a feeling it would be like any other conversation between Jim and a seeker.
@@everest001 LoL!
Nothing needs to change
in order to Be.
Newman kinda looks like UG Krishnamurti here.I don't know.
@@scumfck2062 I was talking about facial resemblance,in the picture .
@@Bminor7547 Oh ..nice..get it
Jim ignores the obvious, which is that for this unified experience to happen, many webs of neural circuits need to join and unify. So the supposed unity that "already exists" for him only does so in principle. The end of the individual happens when the factors that made it arise (which are very simple and known to developmental psychology) are eroded during that neural integration.
Also, Jim strips his style of communication of any of the tenets that make communication useful and if asked why he bothers he'll just say he's not there. Great. Sorted, no different than listening to the wind blowing.
❤😂😂😂 love Jim
To answer God is messaging prior to resting. The message is GOC. Only Absolute IS, all else is illusion.
Demanding resolution
As 'really quite compulsory'
Confounded by the luxury
Of centre-conscious
Purgatory
I think he'd better think it o'er again!
This entire process has to basically recognize THAT there isn't a seperation from someone, something, somewhere ect ect ect so on and so fourth. The operation of manifold cognitive functions ie: your pure human body, is really and truly used to postulate that there is nothing, no one, nowhere ect ect. The mear fact you ( atoms vibrating in a way that organizes themselves into a being [you] of solid, liquid and gas ) IS cognitively conjuring up thoughts and denying and defying the definition of the terms and creating concepts that have no way of being true enough to be worthy of attention makes this whole thing a form of physiological disease state.
He wants to be an enlightened person. Not the observance of a person wanting to be enlightened.
Happening
Creates the need
For context.
This stuff cannot be discussed orally. Kudos for trying. But spend 30 minutes reading Arianne Conty's deep essay "If you Could Naught Yourself for an Instant: Meister Eckhart and the Mystical Unconscious". The written word has a far better chance of imparting wisdom on the matter.
Arianne Conty:
Eckhart’s understanding of istikeit or is-ness reverses the Cartesian conception of subjectivity that the modern world has come to take for granted, one in which it is the human subject’s thinking ‘I’ that dictates being over and beyond all relationality to others, what de Libera calls ‘the fiction of the me’.46 For Eckhart, thinking of God necessarily entails being separate from God, and hence bereft of being, since all thinking betrays human individuation and hence separation from the being of God. One can become a subject only by realizing that one’s thinking and one’s being cannot be coterminous, for there where one is thinking, one is not. Rather than testifying to what sets the human soul apart, the ‘I’ comes to mean the end of all subjective separateness as constructed by thought and language, and the internalization of alterity as union with God.47 The soul becomes ‘I’ then, only when it has given up all thinking, all distinction, everything that differentiates ‘Conrad’ from ‘Henry’. As de Libera points out, ‘I’ means nothing other than what Eckhart calls ‘the naked purity of the being of God that he is in himself’.48 To reach this ‘naked purity’ the soul must sacrifice or ‘escape’ from the notion of identity as something constructed by thinking and convert to what de Libera calls ‘a transpersonal interiority of being’.49 Eckhart writes: You ought to sink down [entsinken] out of all your your-ness [dînesheit], and flow into his his-ness [istikeit], and your ‘yours’ and his ‘his’ ought to become one ‘mine’, so completely that you with him perceive forever his uncreated is-ness, and his nothingness, for which there is no name [ungewordene istikeit unde sîeungenanten nihtheit].50 Just as the soul’s purest prayer begs God to be free of God, the soul finds God only bylosing God,whenitnolongerknowswhatithasfound.Unionisthusperhapsnot the best term to explain Eckhart’s goal, for union implies the uniting of two who become one. There is no coincidentia oppositorum, for there is nothing to unite. For Eckhart, the unity of being is unknown to the thinking self, and where the self is thinking, there God is not. Once it has fled itself as cogito, as volo, the
soul’s identity resides where the thinking ego cannot go, in an alterity marked by unknowing. Yet, just as Yeats told us in his poem The Winding Stair, ‘I’m looking for the face I had before the world was made’, so Eckhart indicates our provenance from something foreign to us as ego cogito. Our rational ego identity depends upon language that itself testifies to creation and the manifestation of plurality and duality that it entails. Only once it has fled itself as cogito, can the human soul find itself in an originary Being that lacks nothing, for it is a plenary nothingness. Thus, for Eckhart, the soul must recognize its truth as residing where the ego cannot go, in an alterity marked by unknowing. In the ‘innermost soul’ all will and all knowledge have ‘flowed out’, and all that is left is a void, a void that is inhabited by an alterity that cannot be known by the ego. Think therefore I am not Eckhart’s vision is, in this sense, not so far removed from that of psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan when he seeks to undermine the modern autonomous subject by analyzing the untenability of its supposed source in Descartes. According to Lacan, Descartes’ cogito ergo sum does not reach its intended goal of rational autonomy, because the fact that he is certain, that is, that he has a clear and distinct idea that he is doubting and therefore that he is a thinking thing, has a cause exterior to his thought. Because Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God,51 and God is the cause of this idea and thus exterior to this thinking, Descartes is placed in the position of not being able to differentiate God from the malin genie, for both can manipulate the real. According to this reading, Descartes’ other is neither clear nor distinct, and though he cannot think it, it necessarily thinks him. Descartes is unwittingly saying, as Jean Luc Marion has also pointed out, that only an unknown other can think for him, and thus that he does not think (‘je ne pense pas’).
The 21:00 - 22:00 mark will change your life
Agreed.
What I don't understand is why is Jim Newman having this conservation ? Why spread that message if it doesn't benefit anyone ? As someone pointed out in the comments it makes no difference whether one gets it or doesn't. He could as well keep it to himself. Or is it how he's making a living ? But why would he even try to keep himself alive, if there is no Jim anyway ?
Jim doesn’t spread a message. He isn’t making a living. Making a living is what happens though. This is the case for every’one’, the apparent difference is that most believe/experience that ‘I’ am making ‘my’ life/living happen. That’s the dream.
@Nieck de Weerd
I wrote my comment in ordinary English, using words as ordinary people use them every day. I think anyone with a basic knowledge of English can understand the sentence "What does Jim Newman do for a living ?"
That was my question. I don't care whether "Jim Newman" or "do" are an illusion or not. When I go to the bakery and say "Could you please give me a loaf of white bread" I don't get the answer "there is no me and there is no bread and nobody's giving anything"
So don't pretend you're an idiot.
@@sm1th3r33ns alright, I imagine making a living by speaking about this happens, but I’m not sure.
🤯🤗🙏🙌👏
In Sam's Waking Up book, he made really good criticisms of people like Newman. But I notice since then Sam Harris has abandoned something in his endless search for an enlightened being. Maybe this is the search for divinity we all crave, deep down somewhere
Jim I get it it’s like a flickering of fireflys
Being neither here nor there, fish man phantom (Pharisees), sees me here and you there claiming what was true - Not you there’s.
understanding & concepts are fine, but they’re not necessary as far as This is concerned
Sam Harris is inebriated by his own personal story and will never get it as long as he tries to intellectualize "it".
Exactly! He is drink as all hell😂👌
If you think non-duality means forgetting biographical information, you really don't know what it's about.
What Sam fails to see, is. Nothing changes, but everything is different....
Apparantly!
There isn't anyone there who "fails to see" anything. There isn't anything he needs to innerstand. This entire discourse is pointless and doesn't need to happen, it's just happening. 🙏🏻🤔
What visionsofsilver fails to see is. His comment is self contradictory as he tries to *change* what Sam is trying to convey by making his comment.
Also learn to spell, it's "apparently" not "apparantly".
@@oneconsc3333 Then why are you wasting your time watching this video? Just so that you could make this pointless nonsensical comment? Do you also act like a clown on your day to day life?
No, he doesn't fail to see that at all. You're just hiding behind a wall of verbiage, because your apparent awakening is as unstable as it gets.
Sam..... knows too much. This is a good lesson.
He will not be a fool. He cannot be honest. Truly honest.
This is one of the great lessons.
The path of awakening looks like this: Listen to Sam until Jim makes sense. ;)
Sam says come on everyone around the world knows what water is so of course anyone could get the ocean.
24:52 Getting increasingly suspicious of Jim here. Can something truly be indescribable and inconceivable if it can be given shape by coloring in its negative space? That seems doubtful.
Sam wants authorizeable liberation.
Who would there be to 'need to know'?
Authorizable liberation? You’re saying you can’t even know if you know or not and that’s truly knowing ? Cmon guy
If your awakening is stable, you're not so reluctant to talk about it.
Still waiting for Jim to say something about "non-duality".
Radical non-selfism is not non-duality. In Advaita (which is where these neo "non-duality" teachings come from - like it or not) there is a Self... but there's no individual.
If there's still suffering arising, even "for no one" (which Jim has repeatedly admitted) that's not non-duality. If that's the case you've missed the ultimate point of the teaching.
Pain does not equate with suffering. While pain can arise and be noticed, suffering is the attitude of the person about the pain. In Jim there is no attitude about anything. There's just is-ness.
The entire conversation is Sam insisting on him having something. :D
Sam is still a dreamer.
@@microcontroller7142 but who could make a difference, the dream will never end, thinking somewhere could arrive somewhere or something is finally solved or came to an end is just the next dream :-)
@@Anorectic.Bumblebee This is all story for fun . We love fun . There is no Jim in the dream , but Sam is still with us.