Worlds are colliding! I’m a fan of Kastrup and Wallis, it’s great to hear them in dialogue.

Thank you all. Great talk, knowldege and profound insights.

@adventuresinawareness

Ай бұрын

Our pleasure!

I’m quaking with bliss 🎉watching this channel

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Amazing! ♥️

I'm always amazed when I listen to an explanation this form of Eastern philosophy how much it reminds me of the Neoplatonism of Plotinus' Enneads. I'm sure that by the 3rd century AD more was travelling along the silk roads than silk!

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Almost certainly

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

Indeed. Neoplatonism might have influenced Tantra, distantly.

SO TRUE!! ॐ ❤ 🙏 1.25.56 :BK:....we never teach anything to anyone and nobody ever teaches anything to us,what actually happens is, that people naturally evolve to a certain place in the palace of mind ,to a certain comprehension of what's going on but if they don't have the language to tell themselves, what it is that they already understand, they will overtly stick to their previous position..........The role we can play ,we can give people that language that they can use to tell themselves what they already know and then they realize that they know...

Wow...5mins in and I am loving it Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪 ❤️

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Welcome Belfast!❤️

@margueriteoreilly2168

4 ай бұрын

@adventuresinawareness I wasn't expecting these conversations..... pretty cool.I love Anthropology mixed with my Research into the Cells. I didn't start in Science...I had to do it through passion. As my son was Serverly Autistic in 2019 Danger to himself and others. Through Passion...I found out the Golden Ratio Of my sons Protocol... Everything I am going through lots of data from the past This brings us back to the 19050s To prove Morden Day Illness and diseases can be prevented. I am the last Michondria daughter of Mt Family. My father was the last GateKeeper of Clongtigora Fairy Ring.....Tuathdannn da dun So why is this Quest in Life so Important Anthropology is the Game of Life. Something is going on World Which is bigger than all of us I am grateful for your Research And the will ....Shear Will To get things done Happy Awaken 2024 Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪

Immediately subscribed after your own first 15 min. Thanks for this awesome content! 👽

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Awesome! Thank you!

Regarding your final comments... For sure, I have certainly been aware of this ! Having had an 'opening' some years ago I have spent a long time reading, watching, listening with the specific intention to speak about my experiences and make sense of what I perceive and 'understand'. Thank you AWESOME conversation.

all i can say is that how quietly amazed I am both my chickens have finally come home to roost, been waiting for this synchronicity for a very long time very very grateful!!!!

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Ha that's so cool!

I am amazed by this conversation.It resonates with the teachings of Ramakrisha and Swami Vivekananda

@janwag6856

Ай бұрын

Yep! It’s wonderful !

Thank you! ❤🙏

@adventuresinawareness

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment! 🙏

This video is amazing.

how did i miss this

Wow, the other day I was thinking about these two meeting!

YES.. MORE PLEASE

Definitely tuning in later ...have some paper work to catch up on....inspiration for new year Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪 ❤️ 😎 Flying with the Collective Intelligence

Great discussion between two of my favourite thinkers. Fascinating to think that a thousand year old spiritual tradition, and modern science can reach the same conclusions. Looking forward to hearing more discussions between Christopher and Bernardo.

I am very happy to have bumped into this conversation. CW's explanation of the experience of oneness with the Mind at Large is uncannily similar to the experience the physicist Federico Faggin had. Both have indirectly confirmed that BK's deductions are spot on and he only needs to have a similar experience unaided by psychedelics. I found the discussion on 'free will' quite illuminating, especially with the understanding that there is ONLY one field of subjectivity, with the plethora of 'objects' passing on as excitations of the one field!

@adventuresinawareness

3 ай бұрын

Thanks! 🙏🙏

I'd synthesize what is *will* by saying that *there's something it is like to be nothing.* The state of "absolute rest" is a very nice pointer to unravel the mind, but it's purely hypothetical, that state never happens. You can meditate on it, but once you get to that "void", then you feel how it suddenly and spontaneously is turned into a boundless, infinite, pulsating, living force that goes all the way up from a fundamental self-knowing to the upper layers of mind, and you can feel how that living force spreads throughout everything, giving birth to every single atom in you body and the entire universe along with your thoughts, sensations, emotions and beyond.

❤❤❤

Great combo!

Awesome regional history and background information!! ❤

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Yes really useful context Glad you enjoyed it!

@Meditation409

4 ай бұрын

Thank you!! I appreciate. 😃❤️

Thanks Bernardo. I am fascinated by your interpretation and dive into the historical philosophical books, especially by Jung. I am reading them as well and I'm a convert to analytical idealism. I heard about it and just knew it was correct. I purchased a book of yours on Audible - Science Ideated. I loved the content but the guy who read it seemed underwhelmed. How about I read the next one? I am sitting here laughing at myself because Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do. It's not about me (with a huge smile on my face).

Absolutely Bernardo you have hit the nail on the head. Thank you!!!!!!🙃🙏🎶🎶

🙏🙏🙏

So so good

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Thank you!!♥️

This was such an illuminating conversation. I couldn't help thinking of Heraclitus and Parmenides the whole "time," if I can use that expression. Heraclitus's ideas always seemed obviously true to me, but now I'm more and more convinced that Parmenides got it right. I used to think he was nuts. The metaphor of the radio station's underlying frequency, with modulations to the frequency superimposed by a particular radio program, was extremely helpful. And now I understand the reason for the drone that underlies Indian music. Many thanks.

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Great comment! Thanks Very interesting parallels

@germank7924

4 ай бұрын

I won't allow time. But the Greeks would allow thyme

Thanks for uploading! Extremely interesting!

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the encouragement! 🙏

Samadhi is an experience of alert awakeness. It has no content but you don’t experience any lack of qualities or attributes. There is no sense of lack in deep meditation 🧘‍♂️ to me it’s being at one with the universal mind but being aware of a vast realm of potentially almost womb like space of unmanifested possibilities. In this space all sense of personal identity dissolves- but you merged with the unbounded substrate of existence 🙏

I see free will as more of a marriage. Between what we make of the story we tell ourselves about the will at large and the will at large in itself. The more we see, or allow ourselves to see, the better narrator we become. it's a form of free will. And isn't it the basic message of successful gurus and more. Look at all the different views (view -points) there are, so the narrator part is real. Also I think decisions about the possibility of two centres of consciousness in one mind have to address Iain McGilchrist's left-right brain findings. My balance improves so much by shutting one eye when I'm on the treadmill, it's the difference between having to hold on or not. My whole demeanor changes, go figure.

Excellent description/explanation of nondual Shiava tantra by C. Wallis. Very appreciative, I was not familiar with it.❤

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Yes me neither Seems very helpful

3:15 This omnipresent omniscient non depleting energy is static. This coexists with matter that is in continuous change.

3:15 The direct realisation can be easily explained and integrated with daily living and be in order😊😊

13:21 Existence of everything is connected because of being in the field as explained by Rupert Sheldrake😊

what a pleasant surprise to find this talk in my recommendations! CW is one of my teachers and it’s really interesting to get a modern perspective from Bernardo.

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Yeah it's a great juxtaposition !

I would love to hear what Bernardo would think about Walter Russell's work.

OK now😊

I was reminded of BlackHoles when they were speaking of Mind-at-Large in that nothing escapes or apparently exists at all outside of some event horizon. Also chaotic bifurcation into new whirlpools of disassociation is an ongoing evolutionary force.

Brilliant conversation. ❤

@adventuresinawareness

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

The answer to the "why there is something rather than nothing" is that because there is Will. Now, the question is: why there is Will rather than nothing :)

I have got a question for B.Kastrup and, maybe, if you find it worthwhile, for the March interview? I know Kastrup respects E. Swedenborg, and I know, by reading Swedenborg, that he believes that, beyond this dissociation, the individual consciousness will ‘take with it’ the love experienced in the dissociated state. So if we agree on what it is the core of Swedenborg’s ideas, we could say that there will still be a ‘whirlpool’ after this biological dissociated state. By definition if each keeps the unique love experienced in biological life, the whirlpool cannot entirely cease to ‘make a ripple’ in consciousness at large.

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Good question! Will you be joining the March series? Anyone joining can submit questions and also ask them yourself if you join the meeting live Hope that helps!

3:15 Every sentient being is unique seperate and a life atom whose structure I have explained .

Nice to know I am not the only one with 3 million tabs open.

RE: the last couple minutes. English DOES have a second person plural, ya’ll. Brought to you courtesy of the American South. Embrace it! And be grateful you can avoid the American Northeast’s “you’uns”. You’re welcome.

Hi from Brazil and thank very much for this wonderful interview! I am a psychiatrist and love Bernardo’s ideas and how he careful and precisely explains his idealism!!

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Welcome! Thanks for dropping in!

Absolutely on point introduction it felt

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Hi all I need help understanding there being no time from a practical pov. I get Donald Hoffman’s assertion that it’s a headset along with space. I understand that distance between past , present, and future can be reduced to being non existent (Its akin to me saying , “the future is..NOW! And NOW! And etc, etc.” But then why do we and other living things grow, age and die? Are we dead and alive at the same time in this infinite present ? Before coming to Bernardo’s Analytical Idealism pov I was briefly playing with the notion that God is Time and we are all in its Flow. Now need to relearn and toss that notion.

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

Well, you don't actually experience growing and aging. You just have, here in this present moment, images & thoughts which you call memories, on the basis of which the narrative of time passing (growing and aging etc.), seems convincing. And we shouldn't bin that narrative, it's a perfectly useful one. But we can't verify its veracity, since all we ever have is phenomena appearing in the present moment in such a way as to make the narrative seem plausible, especially if it's the one that's assumed a priori. By the way, FWIW, in Classical Tantra the supreme Goddess Kālī is called "She Who Devours Time".

👍👍Hi. Great! thanks for this. Yes! One can see it this way, like tuning into the frequencies across a radio receiver, tuning into a none broadcasting frequency is like being aware of that which allows all frequencies... received as emptiness... which is after all just another option of frequency to engage with, it's not a miracle, it's just another option. People get hooked onto what is supposed to be the right frequency, rather than seeing all frequencies as the experiencable whole.

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

I like that idea very much... thanks 🙏

Bernado's presentism is not justified fully within his metaphysical framework. Even if the past memories exist as mere aspects of present experience, our present experiences and actions are always already determined/constrained by past experiences that have crystallized into certain configurations/structures of information. We don't even have to experience these memories for them to have causal efficacy in the present. The realist account of temporality would stress that structures are pre-experiential, in the sense that we don't have immediate awareness of our own memories and experiences from childhood which are instantiated in the present mode of filtering our experience.

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

That's a perfectly valid interpretive model (I use it myself), but it's not verifiable. We can only say that phenomena appear (now) in such a way as to suggest such a conceptual model to us.

@lokayatavishwam9594

4 ай бұрын

@@christopherwallis751I appreciate your work, sir. Thank you for the comment. I'm however skeptical of the way epistemic relativism is conflated with ontological relativism under many idealist schools of thought. Scientific practices presuppose a certain realistic account of its objects of investigation. So, going beyond appearances (in the present) and postulating structures (of past configurations) in order to deduce facts about the world, is core to scientific enterprise. I can't say that the Newtonian physics is only real insofar as I can understand or perceive it now. No, it describes a world (albeit incompletely) with structures that endures over time and its dynamics that is independent of perceptions and phenomenal experiences..

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

@@lokayatavishwam9594 that's a perfectly legitimate perspective. I would just gently suggest that it reifies conceptual models of reality beyond the point that direct observation warrants. It's not epistemic relativism that I espouse, but rather a strong kind of skepticism about the degree to which conceptual models can be seen as ontologically 'true'. Lastly, with the Newtonian comment, you seem to be conflating idealism with solipsism, a misunderstanding that Bernardo has addressed at some length already.

@lokayatavishwam9594

4 ай бұрын

@@christopherwallis751 Interesting. I'm just unable to understand how direct observation wouldn't warrant a view of time as ontologically real. Every conscious organism, I believe, has some direct awareness of the flow of time. That's why they prepare for the future in many ways. Of course you could say it's just some kind of internal modelling and consequent responses going on in their experienced present. But the modelling itself presupposes a real structure, from which the conceptual foundation is derived and revised. If you start from the premise that there is only the eternal now, you're discounting quite a big part of what our direct experience tells us about the world and the pre-existing conditions for such an experience to be possible and necessary.

its impressive the hours put into being wrong

Soooo similar to Lurianic Kabbalah!!

No sound!

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Sound is working for me - are other videos working for you?

This seems like a vacous language game. "Nothing moves since we are also moving with time.". You dont need a Cartesian ego to have presentist intuitions. My reasoning is about having an open future for free will.

One conciousness 😂

Eggs is eggs.

3:15 No randomness is there in existence other than the wayward behaviour of homo sapiens on this planet, 🙏🙏🙏

there is one correction here. The sentence in Shankar's Advaita is 'Brahm Satya, Jagat Mithya', the word 'Mithya' is not illusion. it is not what is in real that appears to you. so, all foreign who read Sanskrit with direct translation to English makes such error which takes whole discussion to other level. One has to be an Indian at least to study these words. because in Sanskrit every name is selected according to its property for a given subject or object. only Elephant has 72 names. For example People create huge misconceptions about 'Indra' , thinking that is a king of devlok. but in vedas 'Indra' means great, powerful. so, we need to do 'Dhyan', 'Dharna' and 'Samadhi' to reach to that highest level of pragna which these sages had and then only we can grasp the meaning of a word or sentence for a given context.

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

thanks for this comment - I didn't understand the sentence "it is not what is in real that appears to you." - could you explain? Is there a better translation for 'Mithya'?

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

From the Sanskrit dictionary: मिथ्या mithyā -1 Falsity, unreality. -2 Illusion, error. -3 Inversion. -4 Perversion.

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

(V.S. Apte's dictionary, the gold standard)

Fascinating. Only 15 mins in and getting clarity. There's something about lifebuoys that language throws to us. Why the need to enumerate being as 1 being. Isn't it that anything that be's, be now. How many now's are there?

You said that the world arises. Arises from what? That from which it arises must be the source of that which arose. If it arose it must pass. What was prior to the arising and post the passing? If the world arises, it is transitory and illusion is transitory whereas Reality is the unchanging Awareness. Perhaps "unsubstantial" and "unfulfilling" are better words to describe the world of thoughts and sensations. 🙏

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for your comment. It exemplifies the advaita perspective really well. It seems to me the question determines the answer - The question, "arises from what?" presupposes something different from the question "arises in what?" or "as what?" Waves arise out of water, but water is not their "source." It is their substance - they are not two.

@Nonconceptuality

4 ай бұрын

@adventuresinawareness "Water" is somehow distinct from "wave" because they have different words. This distinction must be included in a model/definition of Reality. If waves require substance, then they are, by definition, unsubstantial. I am suggesting that we both agree to replace the word "illusion" with "unsubstantial". Wave is necessarily water and water is not necessarily wave. This distinction is recognized by Advaita Vedanta whereas you are trying to sweep this distinction under the mat, or hide it in semantics.

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

@@Nonconceptuality Thanks for contributing your comment. I haven't fully understood you when you say 'if waves require substance then they are unsubstantial' My understanding is that a wave does require a substance, since it is only ever the movement of a substance It doesn't matter what the substance is, whether water or some other substance, but for there to be movement, there must be something that is being moved. I didn't intend to sweep the distinction between wave and water under a mat - only to point out that in my understanding, it wouldn't make sense to speak of water being the "source" of waves, since the word implies waves are a separate 'thing' that could exist independently from its source. (Like the source of light in the night sky can exist even though the stars that are their source are long gone) Water obviously doesn't waves. Waves obviously need water. So I agree the words do refer to different aspects of reality

@Nonconceptuality

4 ай бұрын

@adventuresinawareness Okay, then what could possibly be "a different aspect of reality."? A different aspect of reality is an illusion, an appearance. Take an actor appearing as a character in a play. My model says the character isn't real while acknowledging the appearance of the character. I understand your model to say that the character is as real as the actor. Is this accurate?

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

@@Nonconceptuality thanks for your response 🙏🙏 I should say first of all, what I'm expressing isn't my model, (this is Amir typing, not Hareesh or Bernardo, I'm not claiming to be an authority or to have completely understood either of them, I'm just happy to engage with, and curate these conversations) But here is my current understanding of what I think Christopher is pointing to: an illusion is something that appears to be there, but on closer inspection, isn't what it seemed to be. For example, a rope that looks like a snake. I would agree that when you see a rope that looks like a snake, the snake is an illusion. It isn't real. It was a mistake to think there was a snake there. If you see a play and the person 'looks like' the character, the character is also an illusion. It would be a mistake to think the actor really is the character. If I see a wave in the water, I think the wave is "real" in the sense its really happening - it is a 'real' behaviour of the water. It isn't an illusion. It isn't a mistake to say 'that water is waving.' Any particular wave is temporary. And each wave does depend on the water, so any particular wave is not as fundamental as water. But given that water has a natural tendency to move - to wave - then waves are a real 'expression' of water. It's not that water which is 'still' is more real that water that is waving. Still or moving, water is just water. And stillness or movement are 'aspects' or 'movements' of water that are not separate from water. Again, I want to stress, I'm expressing my present understanding of this perspective, but am not an authority on it or claiming to have completely understood it. I appreciate the dialogue. 🙏🙏

It's deeply fascinating, but perhaps doesnt graduate beyond deepity. We seem incapable of falsifying such hypotheses. In my book it makes them no more practical than any other mystical claim. If I'm a node in a universal mind, a brain in a vat, a hologram, an avatar or any such thing, in the sense that the experience I have is one constrained by physicality (simulated or brute matter) makes not a stich of difference when, say, I suffer. You can blind with science of philosophy (or illuminate alternatively) but you can't remove the illusion of soteriological consideration, as the pain of being is acutely felt (qualia?) If it's technically 'real' or otherwise. I'd like to hear these ideas promulgated whilst burning at the stake or even having the thumb screws tightended on your imaginary substrate. I love this stuff as thought sport but the term sophistry haunts me when I try to get to bedrock.

I find Bernard’s position unsatisfactory for explaining how determinate, finite beings emerge out of undifferentiated formless consciousness. Also to say that reality is fundamentally consciousness is just as arbitrary and reductionistic as saying it is fundamentally physical. It really just seems like sloppy thinking

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

The difference between saying everything is consciousness is that we know consciousness directly, whereas physical things are only a concept based on perceptions known by consciousness

@Eudaemoniac

4 ай бұрын

@@adventuresinawarenessThen the concept of consciousness would have to be abstracted from itself. That seems like a vicious circle or just a form of question begging. Kastrup believes in a “subjective experiential field”. The physicalist believes in objective, physical quantum fields. The disagreement is nothing but a dispute over arbitrary worlds. This is what happens when scientists attempt to do metaphysics

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

@@Eudaemoniac says this while directly experiencing a subjective experiential field, haha ;) But srsly, read Bernardo's books to get the full argument, it's well thought-out.

@Eudaemoniac

4 ай бұрын

@@christopherwallis751 To describe something as a field is to objectify it and treat it in a quasi-physical sense. Tantric philosophy seems much more metaphysically sophisticated. Closer to Hegel’s idea of absolute spirit becoming its own object only in order to recognize its own identity like an image reflected in a mirror.

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

@@Eudaemoniac correct! 'field' is just a figure of speech. and, it's indeed a pity that Hegel had no access to Tantric philosophy. there are some startling parallels.

Bernardo, everything is mental, so is evolution mental too? Evolution is a purely physicalist theory, why do you use in your ideas about dissociation? It seems you pick and choose the science which makes your analytical idealism a logical whole.

You keep using the words: "project" and "appearance", but your model doesn't provide an expression of this state. Obviously an appearance/projection isn't real. Your model lacks the robustness to include/describe the state of Reality plus the appearance. As a result, you try to place the appearance on the same level as the reality. I see how this subtle insuffiency turns into Neo-Advaita "nonduality".

@RobinFaichney

4 ай бұрын

I see how you cling to duality... 😁 An appearance can be real if it is not fictional, in this case it is a real appearance. The meaning of "real" is context dependent.

@Nonconceptuality

4 ай бұрын

@@RobinFaichney An appearance is exactly not real.

@RobinFaichney

4 ай бұрын

@@Nonconceptuality So you say that a non-fictional appearance is not a real appearance?

@Nonconceptuality

4 ай бұрын

​@RobinFaichney "Real appearance" is an oxymoron. An appearance is experienced, and at the time of experience it appears to exist. All appearances arise and pass, so when it passes, and it always does, it no longer exists. The Reality is that which experiences the arising and passing of appearances.

@RobinFaichney

4 ай бұрын

@@Nonconceptuality I find your unreasoned and unevidenced statements unconvincing but I'm sure it's mutual. Have a good one.

I would appreciate it if this guy would shut his mouth and let Dr Kastrup speak a bit

@adventuresinawareness

4 ай бұрын

I'm a fan of Bernardo too! Christopher was invited to share a summary of the tradition he studies so that they could have a meaningful dialogue, so he's only doing what he was asked. Bernardo stayed for an extra two hours after this for extended q&a, as he almost always does at these events!

@rafdominguez7627

4 ай бұрын

yup! we all have a long way to go in terms of accepting what is being offered in the particular way it is being offered@@adventuresinawareness

Don’t listen this dude about Advaita Vedanta. He does understand it. He said bullshit.

@christopherwallis751

4 ай бұрын

Hellooo, I can hear you, you know. ;) FYI, I was speaking about the classical / premodern formulation of Advaita Vedānta, not the version gurus today teach. And of course my comments were a simplification, but they were accurate enough.