Nonduality Explained in four Ways: What, exactly, is not-two?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2023
- 1. Nonduality of God & self
2. Nonduality of self & other
3. Nonduality of subject & object
4. Nonduality of emptiness & form / spirit & matter / Shiva & Shakti
~~~~~~~
Study Online
Explore over 1000 hours of Classical Tantra teachings on Tantra Illuminated Online, including guided meditations, retreats, Sanskrit and mantra recitation practices, and asana classes ► www.tantrailluminated.org/sub...
~~~~~~~
Practise & Learn in Community
Deepen your practice by joining Christopher at workshops and retreats, available both in-person and online ► www.tantrailluminated.org/cal...
~~~~~~~
Read Christopher’s Books
Discover the newly released 'Near Enemies of the Truth' ► amzn.to/4aeoj4L
Alongside the foundational 'Tantra Illuminated' ► amzn.to/3TDawzg
And 'The Recognition Sutras' ► amzn.to/43ipfmw
~~~~~~~
Stay Connected
Sign up for our newsletter to be the first to hear about upcoming events, pilgrimages, and newly released courses ► www.tantrailluminated.org/soc...
~~~~~~~
Explore the Blog
Over 150 free articles offering comprehensive translations and insightful explanations of Tantrik scriptures and teachings ► hareesh.org/blogpage
Engage with a global community passionate about non-duality, the nature of reality, and liberation at ► www.tantrailluminated.org/
#yoga #nonduality #awakening #natureofreality #sanskrit #consciousness #awareness #meditation #guidedmeditation #tantra #tantrasadhana #classicaltantra #liberation
"Each snowflake is unique, but they are all made of water." Such a poignant metaphor! 🙏
Well said, Chris: ‘Self is not identity’. In fact, when identity drops away, like a dead leaf falling off a tree, we then are in direct cognition of eternal living light of Self, in singularity, renewing itself within itself, feeling complete, in ineffable peace and if I may add, quoting from the Ashtavakra Gita, ‘the Self has no attributes’. I like your emphasis on knowing in direct experience. We each must see for ourselves, since it is beyond realm of dualistic thought. It is fantastic that you speak about this in simple language, as a validation for all who seek to imbibe the truth.
Thank you for explaining with “pockets” of groups with examples. I am grateful of your teaching here on non-duality, a new concept I came across 2 years ago for my childhood PTSD but never understood it. I still still I do not understand anything but you your explanation has definitely planted some seeds in my head. Thank you.
Thank you, Christopher.
Excellent depiction and explanation of the non dual teaching! Thank you!
I just feel really lucky with access to this information and teachers such as these to have arrived, though only recently, after numerous weekends of sincere study, at nondual understanding. A little fine tuning and we are home free! Done forever with the shackles of separation, the jangling agony of the ride on the Ego's lugubrious merrygoround and all the negative affect that it entails ... 🙏
Always fascinated when I listen to your thinking on these fundamental issues. Thank you for this 🙏🏼✨
Thank you.
There is a good deal of confusion about the nonduality of good vs evil. In Taoism we say that human perception of good and evil are relative in the sense that they are socially conditioned and since true good is the Natural, meaning the natural patterns of the Tao which always look for impersonal good which is a non personal benevolence, then being one with the Tao means you will ideally act in an unselfconscious benevolent manner. However social ideas of good and evil are usually group bound meaning what is good for our tribe after arbitrary decisions made by some power group and don't originate in Tao.
Ch'an/Zen was greatly influenced by Tao and doesn't emphasize compassion and right behaviour that much either. In fact they ask you to get rid of concepts of good and evil, likes and dislikes, and social constructs of any kind.
Great! The third one is really becoming evident for me, especially with sound, during my open sitting practice. Thank you for the teaching 💫🤝
❤❤❤
You formulate the unspeakable very well 🙏🏼
🙏🌻💕always a pleasure to hear you
you've reminded me - a fave pic of me at age 10 sitting on the back steps of my G'parent's house with a book ... and i can get inside my skin THEN and see she is still me LOL
thankyou
🙏❤
Thank you, enlightening, all good stuff.
Thanks for the video
Thank you again for your teachings. ❤️ The concep of Good and awereness been the same thinc it have a clear représentation in western philosophy with the great Spinosa.
Wonderful teaching, thank you Hareesh
beautifully simple clear teaching. Thank you
Your every thought is a trance...a spell...brought upon Awareness...which is peace Itself.
In Pure Awareness there is no diversity whatsoever...
When you see something "else" you are actually seeing the light of PURE AWARENESS (wearing a mask)..
❤
Aum and prem Chris. Ty especially for correct pronunciation of advaita. Looking forward to reading your latest book. 🙏🏽💖🦋
Fundamentals / constants / pure / untainted ones are: Being, awareness, presence. Are the feelings before concepts and ideas
Core self might be being/awareness, sure. But Most-Self sure isn't. I think that Most-Self is what we should be aiming for. That said, I get why it's huge to realize the always-already aware aspect of our being.
how do you define "Most-Self"?
the "experience" of "being"...is the egoic center. the illusion. the trap.
there is absolutely no escape from the trap.
❤🙏🏼
absolutely wrong. double wrong. I'm concerned for your well-being, if you think this.
@@christopherwallis751
there is not a scenario where there is a "knower" separate from what is "known". there is only the "experience" of the illusional ego. ever
🙏🏼❤️
what there is to "know" is the "ego". the self. the illusion. the trap.
@@-a-l-t- the first sentence is correct, but the rest is not. There is a kind of knowing that is non-mental, non-conceptual, and non-egoic. Of course this kind of knowing is virtually impossible to put into words. But it is real. Indeed it is the most real.
@@christopherwallis751
if its "known", its not what is.
what is "real" can not be "known".
🙏🏼❤️
@@-a-l-t- then we are just using the verb know in two different ways here.
Interesting! -Aapo
Nice house, btw Hareesh
Looks very Portuguese
Thank you Chris Hareesh I really appreciate your talks. I come to nonduality from a zen lineage but I also appreciate your lineage. Just one question on the first not two Self and God. When go to my direct experience I am being awareness always and at the same time I am experiencing the body mind and world through my human senses. As I see it I am not separate from God but I am always experiencing a localised perspective. I wake up from my identification as a separate body-mind into another dream - call it God’s dream if you like. But I am still located in this body- mind. Do you agree? 12:22
I agree with everything except the last sentence. We are not located 'in' this body-mind, we merely perceive with its lenses.
p.s. Having awakened from the dream of individuality into God's dream, it's also possible to subsequently wake up from God's dream, which is awakening to the Infinite or Absolute Potential. This is rather more rare.
Yes I agree we are not located “in” this body-mind. Thank you.
Just one p.s. I would add a 5th duality - the duality of duality and non-duality. In zen we talk about getting “stuck” or “attached”’to non-duality 😊
@@andrewtootell7510 indeed, Abhinava addresses this one as well
@@christopherwallis751 Chris also I want to add what amazing books and teachings you offer through your online work and acknowledge all the work you have put into it. All the translations such important work to bring to maintain this ancient tradition and make available to us lay practitioners. Deep Bows,
Andrew Sono
To be are not to be ❤🙏❤
Is the Self the source of all creation ? Even material creation? Like the planet Jupiter or gigantic supernovas.
yes, if by Self you mean universal transindividual unparticularized consciousness.
@@christopherwallis751 Yes I mean the universal Self. But is it actually felt to be the Creator of everything in samadhi? If it is the source of everything then by knowing it "I" will know everything there is, since by entirely knowing the cause, you entirely know its effects, so I will be omniscient, not in a general, but also in a particular sense i.e. I will know every detail in creation. So if this is the case, why won't enlightened gurus demonstrate this type of omniscience ? Please don't think that this is a gotcha question, I am geniunly enquiring, namaste 🙏
@@Sol_Invictus77 your logic is sound. the tradition says that full awakeness does indeed entail omniscience, but not in a mental way. the thinking mind cannot encompass omniscience. rather it manifests as the felt sense "ah, now I get it, everything makes sense! everything in the whole universe fits together perfectly, and there's not a hair out of place anywhere." -- this is of course a mere approximation, and a feeble one, because it can't be said in words. the Pattern of the Whole is sensed in its immense perfection.
Why make it so difficult? Everyone is you in a sleep dream. Everything within the dream is you. It’s the same exact thing when we are “awake”. I never understand why there is a need to explain things with all these terms. Vagueness. Ect. You get what you expect in life just like in a dream. Whether good or bad. That is what I’m trying to master and get better at. What we call manifestation of attraction is simply creating experiences we expect. That’s why we marry someone exactly like one of our parents. Because that is all we know and our expectations come to fruition. Our childhood programming is a very very big deal because that is how our expectations are created. It takes work to reprogram and change our expectations. That is why we heal our trauma. That is why we mediate and that’s why we try to stay in the present moment. So we aren’t pulling from the past to create negative present. The idea “anything can happen” is helpful. If you can believe it you can achieve it. True. If you can dream it you can achieve it, true.
@@Mitziroczen what a odd comment! After all, so many things happen in life contrary to all our expectations. And we also get pretty solid evidence that we can believe something and still not be able to achieve it.
Also, feel free to criticize the video, but it's certainly not vague. It is precisely describing the four main versions of nonduality.
I think it's the similar feeling of being in the womb of your mother.
That's why pre civilization people described it with the mother figurines.
Pranam there is one translation n commentary by Swami laxmana Joo..do u think it's more condensed or diff interpreted....regards....(vatulnath Sutra)
Translation of what?
@@christopherwallis751 vatulnathsutra
I wanted to post it on ur vatulnath vedio...by mistake posted here
@@siddharthshah8228 the translation to which you refer is good, though it certainly offers a different interpretation from that we see in the original Sanskrit commentary on the sutras.
Thank you, going over the four topics of non-duality was helpful. The eclectic approach borrowing from various traditions is somewhat confusing though. Also you seem to take a rather academic position, talking about what the various traditions say about non-duality. It would have been more helpful if you had just talked about non-duality itself. I sense a certain discomfort, as if you lack the authority to speak on the topic itself and so you take a somewhat external point of view, one of duality if you will.
Not correct in at least two ways. First, there is no distinction between what the traditions say about non-duality and "talking about non-duality itself" as you say, because no one can possibly get closer to the subject (using words) than these traditions already have. Secondly, no discomfort here, and no externality. I do have direct experience of what I'm speaking about, which is covered in another video. Lastly, I *was* trained as an academic, which affects my discourse, but that doesn't warrant the assumptions you seem to be making. Just sayin'.
@@christopherwallis751 The academy does tend to promote a theory of Truth as correctness, which essentially consists in a match between a representing subject and an object being represented. In other words, a structured duality. There is an alternative tradition, that of Truth as disclosure or revelation, where that which is talked about manifests itself directly and immanently in the discourse that reveals it. There are moments of this second mode in your talk, and it certainly fills the content of what you say, but it does get mixed with a dualistic approach to Truth implicit in the acts of enunciation, in the form of the discourse, and as your response also hints (Truth is somewhere there, in the tradition, in those sages who spoke, in the safety of texts, etc, anywhere but in the peril of the here and now). In fact traditions and texts are dead sediments until a living spirit animates them through an immanent disclosure of their truth. I believe the root of the correctness fallacy (which certainly has its place in the sciences and in everyday discourse) is a deep clinging /grasping at the Cartesian subject of thought, a clinging that the academy encourages and thrives on, something none of us westerners are strangers to.
in the "what is nonduality?" video I attempt exactly what you're talking about here. check it out.
and this: "traditions and texts are dead sediments until a living spirit animates them through an immanent disclosure of their truth" is absolutely true, of course.
So do eastern cultures even have words that connect to concepts of our understanding of right and wrong? Beneficial and unbeneficial are the words used most in translations. The words right and wrong seem often carry the flavors of self-righteousness and shame, of an either inflated sense of esteem or self-depreciation, as used in the modern day English language. Or maybe that’s more reflective of my mind’s conditioning of the English language in modern day culture?
How can all reality be all one, when you as an individual came to that discovery?
The discovery itself would be impossible if, in fact, reality was just one.
I'm not an individual. And neither are you.
@@christopherwallis751 So why do you have a name?
@@dan-arebjrngrnvik3513 I don't. And neither do you. The name is just a convenience, a verbal handle. Look up the parable of King Milinda, Nāgasena, and the chariot to understand this better.
Very philosophical! Difficult to understand. But ok.
Have another listen.
At 13:11, as you said "But.. what about that which looks *through* your eyes?" I was like ohhhhh... and then at 14:01 "that which is looking through these eyes is that which is looking through *all* the eyes,"
something softly... *'clicked' *
It was so... subtle, but like.. I got it. I feel like I really, actually got it. I kept watching the video in this state of subtle... wonder....? Like.. I was seeing the One who was looking through you... hearing the One who was speaking through you. And now as I type this comment I can't shake the feeling that something has "shifted" deep inside. The locus of "my" identity, I suppose. It feels somehow ancient and totally fresh. Now I understand why you so frequently say in your videos things like: "it's hard to put into words". No kidding!!
Thank you "Hareesh", so, so much, for your tireless efforts and the way you exquisitely and precisely speak on these teachings. Thank you for clarifying your bodymind so that it can be an effective and concise vessel for Being/Awareness/Presence.
Namaste, truly. 🥲🙏
There is no duality. Only unity. Only Love. Only our Father in Heaven. Anyone choosing not to be part of that, will simply be no more, described in the Bible as the second death.
If there is no duality, then you (and I) are the Father and this is heaven.
@@christopherwallis751 There is only the illusion of duality in this illusory world. Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven is within you. So you are correct, the spirit of the Father in Heaven is within us all, and that is the only thing that is real and Eternal in this world.
Who’s having the direct experience if there is not two? No being an ahole, just trying to understand.
Personhood (sense of self) is not needed to have an experience. So there is no question of 'who'. Surprising, perhaps, but true.
@@christopherwallis751 Thanks for the reply.
Of course, when there is no 'me', one does not 'have' an experience. But there is still experience, that is to say, still contents of consciousness.
Talking about non dualism in this world is useless as everything is made for duality : frontiers politics religions and so on
Therefore it sounds rather like an entertainment
until you experience it for yourself -- that changes everything. literally everything.
there is no constant feeling of being, that’s just another conceptual belief along with the rest of your other conceptualism. Be careful why you preach as it will certainly affect all those that read it.
@@mythbuster.2408 why don't you try looking again. It's not a belief.
@@christopherwallis751 the Hindus would say, neti neti, “not this nor that”. Buddhists would say mu, meaning, “no, not, nothing and not-nothing”. Are you referring to any specific moment of anything? Which moment might that be?
@@mythbuster.2408 I was inviting you to look again at whether or not there is a constant feeling of being.
@@christopherwallis751no, I don’t sense a constant feeling, however it’s been perceived that all perceptions are new, different and change. Which “feeling” are you speaking of?
@@mythbuster.2408 well it's not actually a feeling per se, More like a sense of your innate being-ness. Being (which is constant) apprehending itself.