When I began self-inquiry, “who am I?” became “what am I?” when it was realized that the sense of self wasn’t a person. Still without an answer, the question became “where am I?” Am I behind my eyes looking out at the universe and controlling this body? The next question was “am I?” Is this sense of awareness or consciousness that’s seemingly separate from the contents of awareness really me, or is it another thought? Is it even possible for awareness to be completely independent of the contents of awareness? If not, then can I even be awareness? Isn’t the sense of self as pure awareness just another arising in awareness? It appears that there are only arisings in awareness and no self to be found anywhere.
@natashashinde83692 күн бұрын
Brilliant
@williamcallahan52183 күн бұрын
“The perceived cannot perceive.” ~ Huang Po
@KaiWatson14 күн бұрын
The issue is that in vulnerable people that the lucidity of the experience can create, "I desperately need to have a critique of Freidrich Nietzsche read to me in a stern tone" complexes where people start to believe that, "I Am'ing the hell out of the thing" makes them a kind of modern Solomon-- combine this with modern popular culture presentations on numerology and Kabbalah and you've got a goddamned party on your hands. ...a mental illness party that is. Show up and grow up or waking up isn't that valuable. Subjectivity is a, "group project." There's a reason Jesus deputized His disciples, "preach this gospel."
@ObakuZenCenter18 күн бұрын
This aged so badly and it's frankly, for the most part gibberish.
@moesypittounikosАй бұрын
You are not Big Mind, you are a very naughty boy😅
@ObakuZenCenter18 күн бұрын
^ This.
@Rich-xq8dfАй бұрын
And u have it right more than most, which is the funny part. And lord, stop saying arising and all the orher non dual crowd pablum. This shit doesn't need a certain language. Just blatant truth.
@Rich-xq8dfАй бұрын
Inner Silence/stillness is what's left. Stop bullshitting peoole. That is impossible to have 24/7, even a little bit of it. Most people never taste it. Maybe on death bed. Stop having children. Thats the answer. Stop the nonsense!
@tutorialchief4 ай бұрын
thats what about biblical "not my will, your will" loosing the ego will from wrong self identification, god is spirit, everything else is objects, not worshipping them is commanded/said. christianity practiced as the bible really teaches it, is the hardest but also most effective way to "enlightenment", it rips you fully off from everything the wrong "I" wants
@TheTruthKiwi5 ай бұрын
What a load of bollocks.
@shawnosborn88878 ай бұрын
Much of this cannot be known. Nothing is left.
@spiritwarriorstudios8 ай бұрын
AHA!
@Papasix10 ай бұрын
Vedanta Advaita
@jjharvathh10 ай бұрын
around 8:30 where is says "that is not symbolic it is literal, you had a face before your parents were born"....that is where he goes off the deep end, diving into nonsense.
@newcruiser10 ай бұрын
Some religions say "I" is an illussion. Therefore there is no "I amness" or whatever. If you disolve the I or "ego" (not in the psychological sense) what is left?. Obviously not "you". That is when "you" o what is left "melt" with the ONE and become ONE. "I" is just a system to function in this world. IMHO.
@ObakuZenCenter18 күн бұрын
Nope.
@newcruiser17 күн бұрын
@@ObakuZenCenter who cares?
@yunhendricks86010 ай бұрын
This is beyond…amazing!
@rbizzle1811 ай бұрын
'YOU' are nothing. hopefully, this is the best news anyone will ever hear.
@Patvin00711 ай бұрын
I am beyond I am kzread.info/dash/bejne/mZues5iBg8vHaJs.htmlsi=E0kwwF2fitvh9Thr
@danielboomers11 ай бұрын
there is no one doing anything ...
@anadisattvasudeva631511 ай бұрын
how can he during the 30 years talking the same things)))) and making some topic videos )))) funny!!!
@mick681211 ай бұрын
Jidda Krishnamurti the only one who spoke the truth
@markrothery871911 ай бұрын
I have never heard this understanding portrayed in such a simple and beautiful way. A pure pleasure to listen to. Thank you
@DavidKolbSantosh11 ай бұрын
Am-ness is an object
@georgesonm177411 ай бұрын
Ok.. but what does it matter except provide a 'place of respite' from the worldly self to rest in once in a while.. but what other practical applications does this recognition have? I see none. There will still be the need to 'defend' the worldly self as that is where the necessity arose in the first place... Is there a change in perception that occurs with that recognition? Some new blueprint for action? I can see it making very little difference, I'm afraid
@rachelrrb111111 ай бұрын
I think the change is that you are slightly more detached from the material world and take everything a bit more relaxed if you are aware of this. It‘s probably like what is said about Zen: it‘s pretty much like before, but a few centimetres above the ground.
@DavidAKZ10 ай бұрын
Practising not being attached to sense objects helps :-)
@kerrydubord527311 ай бұрын
The subject of the meaning in all objects is awareness, the self same in everything is pure consciousness..... One without a second, of this whole body and mind is bliss..... The Upanishads.....
@OMEGALFA.11 ай бұрын
The problem with Wilber is that his endless and repetitive descriptions of reality are nothing other than more objectifying and objectification. In the end, Wilber is really only talking to himself out loud and has convinced a certain number of people into watching him do just that.
@tylerwatson80677 ай бұрын
but isn’t that what we’re all doing?
@jimrich419211 ай бұрын
For me, words & terms can mess things up lke: no me, no thing/everything, there's no "I", no you, not two...on & on with concepts, teachings, practices, etc.
@jimrich419211 ай бұрын
I've had 2 selves all along. The little , troubled one is usually here while the big, happy one only occasionally appears to save the little me when in trouble but doesn't stay here for very long. I want to know how to remain as the big happy me & eliminate or reduce the little, troubled me. Ken's pointer is PRECIOUS for me- big or little!
@jimrich419211 ай бұрын
At least as good as Tony Parsons & radical nonduality, Eckhart Tolle, Advaita, Ramana, Gangaji, Mooji, Sadona Method, L.U. & many others. Thanx Ken..❤
@jimrich419211 ай бұрын
Now i know why some mysterious force sent me here to sit in my car & miraculously find Ken's videos. God works in mysterious ways...THANK GOD! ❤
@TheTruthKiwi5 ай бұрын
Nah, it's the KZread algorithm mate. No magical entities from other dimensions needed or shown to be involved whatsoever. 😊
@PuppetMasterdaath14411 ай бұрын
I experienced this for over 2 weeks after saying mantra i love you to my gf over and over and i didn't identify with form was fearless etc. but now the things he says are just words I cant get to that state lol
@jmmanuelseale82311 ай бұрын
there is no such thing as cultivating spiritual i am ness
@jimrich419211 ай бұрын
In your OPINION!
@jmmanuel403011 ай бұрын
@@jimrich4192 opinions are useless. I have none..if u had asked y i said so..that might have been a better move..
@ObakuZenCenter18 күн бұрын
@@jimrich4192 In fact the comment is accurate. Wilber is a narcissist and is not realized.
@amanitamuscaria750011 ай бұрын
drg drysha vivika
@spiritwarriorstudios11 ай бұрын
Chase IT and you pass it by, Wait for IT and it never shows. What is IT?
@luciamarzi11 ай бұрын
Beautiful way to reach God realization 😍✨
@ColtraneTaylor Жыл бұрын
The Self is not God. And clearly this man operates on the mental level, he has not had the experiences which could lead to enlightenment. Also, this is very important. Read this: "A Critique of Ken Wilber" by Morten Tolboll.
@Magik1369 Жыл бұрын
There is the "I" or the Psychic Being, which is the person, the Soul evolving and reincarnating. This is the personal aspect of Self. Then there is the Spirit or Universal aspect (often called Self) which consists of Universal qualities..light, bliss, joy, love etc. To omit one or the other is to make the grave error of Self rejection. Am I a consultant? Yes. "I" developed these qualities and skills, I worked hard, I went to school, I use my intelligence, knowledge, and experience to do my work. I am very real and my work is meant to be. Am I my arm? or my leg? No...but they are parts of my body, which is the vehicle my Self is currently using to incarnate in this temporal reality. Just because consciousness can identify its own characteristics does not mean these characteristics do not exist. The characteristics exist inside the Soul and are part of the Soul. There is no freedom or liberation in being a non person. One must embrace one's humanity and all that one is and has done. Otherwise, one Self rejects.
@jmsjms296 Жыл бұрын
You brought me tears tonight. Thank you!
@citizenenak2 жыл бұрын
Seeing yourself/ourself ultimately is akin to experiencing nothing. It's a contradiction.
@jasonroberts22492 жыл бұрын
This is just basic Advaita Vedanta. Neti neti.
@psy-boparadox34162 жыл бұрын
Well KW, I'm a big Mac!
@alankuntz64943 жыл бұрын
Hey where is that Turiya video?
@yashshah59033 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for uploading this
@afterthesmash3 жыл бұрын
When it comes to pinning time onto the dissection table, I prefer Julian Barbour's _Does Time Exist?_ In Barbour's philosophy, the ego-less world of iamness also lacks "ago".
@maximilianhubner48513 жыл бұрын
its 2020. Nothing has changed. I am
@originalmikestinson3 жыл бұрын
Namaste
@ribeirojorge50644 жыл бұрын
I Love this Man...but I Prefer to Say... I am a Subject and a Object...!!!
@TheRaNetwork4 жыл бұрын
If it cant be identified as a thing then it must be nothing. So, maybe there is no "absolute subjectivity" at all in the sense Ken speaks of, but rather the absolute subjectivity is the very objectification of things, for that is the only place where somethingness can be identified to exist. The first person perspective then would be infinitely reducible but never escapable from what it identifies with. To believe there is something without identification underlying all identifiable objects is to believe in a noumenal reality underlying a phenomenal reality. Rather than to believe in a self that is infinitely hard to find by removal of an infinite array of objects, and rather to believe in a noumenal reality that somehow transforms into phenomenal reality by way of crossing the noumenal-phenomenal gap, it is easier to dismiss the notion of noumenon and the "pure subject" altogether. It requires faith to believe in such things since there is no other way to surpass the infinite reduction. The use of faith is unscientific. Reality would be better understood as a mind with a first person perspective of things, identifiable as all things but to different degrees of relevancy, where the most relevant things are regarded as belonging to "self" and the less relevant things are regarded as "other". This is a relativistic solipsistic schema, nonetheless. The spectrum can still exist but with no ultimate transcendence. There is no absolute objective reality, everything is subjective and transcendence is relative.
@TheRaNetwork4 жыл бұрын
Can the subject be equated with the noumenon?
@QED_4 жыл бұрын
@Reese Archer: I don't think so -- they're two different systems of thought. "Noumenon" and "phenomenon" are both considered to be a kind of object . . . in which the latter is the limit of what can be known about the former. "Noumenon" is considered the unknown (and unknowable) ultimate reality of which known "phenomenon" is a subset. But here in this video . . . Subject is neither an object . . . nor the known . . . nor the unknown. It is, instead, the Knower of whatever is known . . . If you're maybe asking about the conceivable relationship between the two systems: the Subject described here could be considered to be a Knower that (can) transcend the (illusionary) limits of the Phenomenal and have access to additional knowledge of the Noumenal . . .
@TheRaNetwork4 жыл бұрын
@@QED_ the noumenon is the thing in itself, without the phenomenal descriptors. If you could strip away the illusory phenomena, you will have direct access to the noumenon. But you would be one with everything and yet have no phenomenal knowledge of it. Could this be the state of "self" transcendental meditation aims to achieve? Is it the noumenon that is the knower? Or, is transcendence forever to be trapped in an infinite reduction of phenomenon, never to access the full noumenon? Or, is the self even beyond the noumenon?
Пікірлер
When I began self-inquiry, “who am I?” became “what am I?” when it was realized that the sense of self wasn’t a person. Still without an answer, the question became “where am I?” Am I behind my eyes looking out at the universe and controlling this body? The next question was “am I?” Is this sense of awareness or consciousness that’s seemingly separate from the contents of awareness really me, or is it another thought? Is it even possible for awareness to be completely independent of the contents of awareness? If not, then can I even be awareness? Isn’t the sense of self as pure awareness just another arising in awareness? It appears that there are only arisings in awareness and no self to be found anywhere.
Brilliant
“The perceived cannot perceive.” ~ Huang Po
The issue is that in vulnerable people that the lucidity of the experience can create, "I desperately need to have a critique of Freidrich Nietzsche read to me in a stern tone" complexes where people start to believe that, "I Am'ing the hell out of the thing" makes them a kind of modern Solomon-- combine this with modern popular culture presentations on numerology and Kabbalah and you've got a goddamned party on your hands. ...a mental illness party that is. Show up and grow up or waking up isn't that valuable. Subjectivity is a, "group project." There's a reason Jesus deputized His disciples, "preach this gospel."
This aged so badly and it's frankly, for the most part gibberish.
You are not Big Mind, you are a very naughty boy😅
^ This.
And u have it right more than most, which is the funny part. And lord, stop saying arising and all the orher non dual crowd pablum. This shit doesn't need a certain language. Just blatant truth.
Inner Silence/stillness is what's left. Stop bullshitting peoole. That is impossible to have 24/7, even a little bit of it. Most people never taste it. Maybe on death bed. Stop having children. Thats the answer. Stop the nonsense!
thats what about biblical "not my will, your will" loosing the ego will from wrong self identification, god is spirit, everything else is objects, not worshipping them is commanded/said. christianity practiced as the bible really teaches it, is the hardest but also most effective way to "enlightenment", it rips you fully off from everything the wrong "I" wants
What a load of bollocks.
Much of this cannot be known. Nothing is left.
AHA!
Vedanta Advaita
around 8:30 where is says "that is not symbolic it is literal, you had a face before your parents were born"....that is where he goes off the deep end, diving into nonsense.
Some religions say "I" is an illussion. Therefore there is no "I amness" or whatever. If you disolve the I or "ego" (not in the psychological sense) what is left?. Obviously not "you". That is when "you" o what is left "melt" with the ONE and become ONE. "I" is just a system to function in this world. IMHO.
Nope.
@@ObakuZenCenter who cares?
This is beyond…amazing!
'YOU' are nothing. hopefully, this is the best news anyone will ever hear.
I am beyond I am kzread.info/dash/bejne/mZues5iBg8vHaJs.htmlsi=E0kwwF2fitvh9Thr
there is no one doing anything ...
how can he during the 30 years talking the same things)))) and making some topic videos )))) funny!!!
Jidda Krishnamurti the only one who spoke the truth
I have never heard this understanding portrayed in such a simple and beautiful way. A pure pleasure to listen to. Thank you
Am-ness is an object
Ok.. but what does it matter except provide a 'place of respite' from the worldly self to rest in once in a while.. but what other practical applications does this recognition have? I see none. There will still be the need to 'defend' the worldly self as that is where the necessity arose in the first place... Is there a change in perception that occurs with that recognition? Some new blueprint for action? I can see it making very little difference, I'm afraid
I think the change is that you are slightly more detached from the material world and take everything a bit more relaxed if you are aware of this. It‘s probably like what is said about Zen: it‘s pretty much like before, but a few centimetres above the ground.
Practising not being attached to sense objects helps :-)
The subject of the meaning in all objects is awareness, the self same in everything is pure consciousness..... One without a second, of this whole body and mind is bliss..... The Upanishads.....
The problem with Wilber is that his endless and repetitive descriptions of reality are nothing other than more objectifying and objectification. In the end, Wilber is really only talking to himself out loud and has convinced a certain number of people into watching him do just that.
but isn’t that what we’re all doing?
For me, words & terms can mess things up lke: no me, no thing/everything, there's no "I", no you, not two...on & on with concepts, teachings, practices, etc.
I've had 2 selves all along. The little , troubled one is usually here while the big, happy one only occasionally appears to save the little me when in trouble but doesn't stay here for very long. I want to know how to remain as the big happy me & eliminate or reduce the little, troubled me. Ken's pointer is PRECIOUS for me- big or little!
At least as good as Tony Parsons & radical nonduality, Eckhart Tolle, Advaita, Ramana, Gangaji, Mooji, Sadona Method, L.U. & many others. Thanx Ken..❤
Now i know why some mysterious force sent me here to sit in my car & miraculously find Ken's videos. God works in mysterious ways...THANK GOD! ❤
Nah, it's the KZread algorithm mate. No magical entities from other dimensions needed or shown to be involved whatsoever. 😊
I experienced this for over 2 weeks after saying mantra i love you to my gf over and over and i didn't identify with form was fearless etc. but now the things he says are just words I cant get to that state lol
there is no such thing as cultivating spiritual i am ness
In your OPINION!
@@jimrich4192 opinions are useless. I have none..if u had asked y i said so..that might have been a better move..
@@jimrich4192 In fact the comment is accurate. Wilber is a narcissist and is not realized.
drg drysha vivika
Chase IT and you pass it by, Wait for IT and it never shows. What is IT?
Beautiful way to reach God realization 😍✨
The Self is not God. And clearly this man operates on the mental level, he has not had the experiences which could lead to enlightenment. Also, this is very important. Read this: "A Critique of Ken Wilber" by Morten Tolboll.
There is the "I" or the Psychic Being, which is the person, the Soul evolving and reincarnating. This is the personal aspect of Self. Then there is the Spirit or Universal aspect (often called Self) which consists of Universal qualities..light, bliss, joy, love etc. To omit one or the other is to make the grave error of Self rejection. Am I a consultant? Yes. "I" developed these qualities and skills, I worked hard, I went to school, I use my intelligence, knowledge, and experience to do my work. I am very real and my work is meant to be. Am I my arm? or my leg? No...but they are parts of my body, which is the vehicle my Self is currently using to incarnate in this temporal reality. Just because consciousness can identify its own characteristics does not mean these characteristics do not exist. The characteristics exist inside the Soul and are part of the Soul. There is no freedom or liberation in being a non person. One must embrace one's humanity and all that one is and has done. Otherwise, one Self rejects.
You brought me tears tonight. Thank you!
Seeing yourself/ourself ultimately is akin to experiencing nothing. It's a contradiction.
This is just basic Advaita Vedanta. Neti neti.
Well KW, I'm a big Mac!
Hey where is that Turiya video?
Thank you so much for uploading this
When it comes to pinning time onto the dissection table, I prefer Julian Barbour's _Does Time Exist?_ In Barbour's philosophy, the ego-less world of iamness also lacks "ago".
its 2020. Nothing has changed. I am
Namaste
I Love this Man...but I Prefer to Say... I am a Subject and a Object...!!!
If it cant be identified as a thing then it must be nothing. So, maybe there is no "absolute subjectivity" at all in the sense Ken speaks of, but rather the absolute subjectivity is the very objectification of things, for that is the only place where somethingness can be identified to exist. The first person perspective then would be infinitely reducible but never escapable from what it identifies with. To believe there is something without identification underlying all identifiable objects is to believe in a noumenal reality underlying a phenomenal reality. Rather than to believe in a self that is infinitely hard to find by removal of an infinite array of objects, and rather to believe in a noumenal reality that somehow transforms into phenomenal reality by way of crossing the noumenal-phenomenal gap, it is easier to dismiss the notion of noumenon and the "pure subject" altogether. It requires faith to believe in such things since there is no other way to surpass the infinite reduction. The use of faith is unscientific. Reality would be better understood as a mind with a first person perspective of things, identifiable as all things but to different degrees of relevancy, where the most relevant things are regarded as belonging to "self" and the less relevant things are regarded as "other". This is a relativistic solipsistic schema, nonetheless. The spectrum can still exist but with no ultimate transcendence. There is no absolute objective reality, everything is subjective and transcendence is relative.
Can the subject be equated with the noumenon?
@Reese Archer: I don't think so -- they're two different systems of thought. "Noumenon" and "phenomenon" are both considered to be a kind of object . . . in which the latter is the limit of what can be known about the former. "Noumenon" is considered the unknown (and unknowable) ultimate reality of which known "phenomenon" is a subset. But here in this video . . . Subject is neither an object . . . nor the known . . . nor the unknown. It is, instead, the Knower of whatever is known . . . If you're maybe asking about the conceivable relationship between the two systems: the Subject described here could be considered to be a Knower that (can) transcend the (illusionary) limits of the Phenomenal and have access to additional knowledge of the Noumenal . . .
@@QED_ the noumenon is the thing in itself, without the phenomenal descriptors. If you could strip away the illusory phenomena, you will have direct access to the noumenon. But you would be one with everything and yet have no phenomenal knowledge of it. Could this be the state of "self" transcendental meditation aims to achieve? Is it the noumenon that is the knower? Or, is transcendence forever to be trapped in an infinite reduction of phenomenon, never to access the full noumenon? Or, is the self even beyond the noumenon?
Soooooo helpful!