Jim Newman is really good.

[Wilhelm44]

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

My experience suggests otherwise.  I've seen situations where people behave in not very nice ways because they do not think morality exists.  

Those people sound more like nihilistic hedonists. Of course there is still Goodness with a capital G.

 

[Mellowmarsh]

18 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Do you have like a website or a youtube channel where you teach this stuff.

You seem to have gone quite far with radical nonduality.

 

 

No, I have no website or YouTube channel. I naturally grasped the idea of nonduality from a very young age. I remember being about 6/7 years old, being overwhelmed by a thought that just kept whirling round and round which was  (how am I even existing right now) and from that moment, the answer came immediately, which was (I must have always existed)

 That moment of self introspection actually made sense to me, it spontaneously dawned on me that if I’m here now, then I must have always been here. I instinctively sensed I was some eternal presence, and that this eternal presence was likened to a blank unwritten canvas, that was here to paint its own unique image of itself, that it called me. 

From my personal perspective according to my own unique understanding, the word nonduality simply means that all words are a fiction believed to be real. Words to me are likened to the paint I apply to my blank canvas, and that the picture was constantly changing from one moment to the next and there was this unchanging witnessing of all that was changing.

Feeling eternal, I instinctively understood that the paint had beginnings and endings, but the canvas behind the paint was unchanging.

The paint was the word, the word was the thought. And these thoughts were everything and everywhere at once, and yet they had no specific solid foundation that could be located to a specific area that I could tangibly touch it as a solid object. It soon became clear to me that the words that were thoughts were eternal too, because they were arising and falling upon the eternal blank canvas that was this eternal presence observing.

So then I thought, there’s no author or painter that can be located or attributed a single separate individual, because I had already sensed I was eternal presence, and that any separate author would have to be in the thought that was everywhere and everything all at once inseparable from the eternal presence. So I was able to instantly see through the illusion of a separate author owning the painting and the canvas, rather, the painting and the canvas had existed forever as one indivisible dreamscape without beginning nor end.

Thats why I like the quote: “ I am the consummate artist, I draw upon my imagination.”

 

Thats why I like the quote below by UGKrishnamurti.
 

The words: “ My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody. “ 

Edited 8 hours ago by Mellowmarsh

[Mellowmarsh]

[Wilhelm44]

3 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No, I have no website or YouTube channel. I naturally grasped the idea of nonduality from a very young age. I remember being about 6/7 years old, being overwhelmed by a thought that just kept whirling round and round which was  (how am I even existing right now) and from that moment, the answer came immediately, which was (I must have always existed)

 That moment of self introspection actually made sense to me, it spontaneously dawned on me that if I’m here now, then I must have always been here. I instinctively sensed I was some eternal presence, and that this eternal presence was likened to a blank unwritten canvas, that was here to paint its own unique image of itself, that it called me. 

From my personal perspective according to my own unique understanding, the word nonduality simply means that all words are a fiction believed to be real. Words to me are likened to the paint I apply to my blank canvas, and that the picture was constantly changing from one moment to the next and there was this unchanging witnessing of all that was changing.

Feeling eternal, I instinctively understood that the paint had beginnings and endings, but the canvas behind the paint was unchanging.

The paint was the word, the word was the thought. And these thoughts were everything and everywhere at once, and yet they had no specific solid foundation that could be located to a specific area that I could tangibly touch it as a solid object. It soon became clear to me that the words that were thoughts were eternal too, because they were arising and falling upon the eternal blank canvas that was this eternal presence observing.

So then I thought, there’s no author or painter that can be located or attributed a single separate individual, because I had already sensed I was eternal presence, and that any separate author would have to be in the thought that was everywhere and everything all at once inseparable from the eternal presence. So I was able to instantly see through the illusion of a separate author owning the painting and the canvas, rather, the painting and the canvas had existed forever as one indivisible dreamscape without beginning nor end.

Thats why I like the quote: “ I am the consummate artist, I draw upon my imagination.”

 

Thats why I like the quote below by UGKrishnamurti.
 

The words: “ My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody. “ 

Wow, this is beautiful, thank you so much for sharing.

[Wilhelm44]

3 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I am curious, how do you relate to, or view, imagination ?

(It's not something I've heard Jim speak of.)

Edited 4 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Someone here]

Jim Newman’s message is one of the most radical..simple and beautiful perspectives on spiritual realization that I’ve encountered. Its power lies precisely in its simplicity. Though it’s not really his own thing..there are a lot of spiritual teachers who have been communicating the same message.

When Leo says things like, “You are not awake because of X ..Y or Z ” that framework doesn’t really apply to what Jim is pointing toward. Jim’s message is that the fundamental misunderstanding is the assumption that there is a separate “you” who is not awake and who could eventually become awake.  From this perspective..awakening is not the achievement of an individual. Rather..it is the collapse of the illusion that there ever was an individual seeker in the first place. It is the seeing through of the apparent self and the recognition of the utter futility and even absurdity of seeking awakening as a future state that an illusory identity could attain.  Jim’s message stands in direct contrast to Leo’s. In my opinion it is the more radical and accurate perspective.

It also offers no promises of future attainmentt like God consciousness or omniscience . It only  promises “what is “ which is already the case..that the freedom we long for has never been absent. What changes is not reality itself but the context in which it is experienced. Reality is not a portal to god and love..but reality is god and love ..not after a hundred trips and a million meditations retreats ..but right here and right now .

 

[Mellowmarsh]

8 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I am curious, how do you relate to, or view, imagination ?

(It's not something I've heard Jim speak of.)

Imagine / the image of I is synonymous with the sense of I or me

 

The I ‘s only existence is within the dream of separation, in this conception known. Yet the known know nothing , and that’s why knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

Jim speaks of a nothing being everything, which is all that’s happening all at once as a totality, and part of the all that’s happening is an imagined I who’s only existence is within the dream, hence there’s nothing being everything including the sense of a separate I or me. In other words the sense of I is an image, the image of I  within the imageless.

 

Or something like that..lol 

[Mellowmarsh]

22 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Jim Newman’s message is one of the most radical..simple and beautiful perspectives on spiritual realization that I’ve encountered. Its power lies precisely in its simplicity. Though it’s not really his own thing..there are a lot of spiritual teachers who have been communicating the same message.

When Leo says things like, “You are not awake because of X ..Y or Z ” that framework doesn’t really apply to what Jim is pointing toward. Jim’s message is that the fundamental misunderstanding is the assumption that there is a separate “you” who is not awake and who could eventually become awake.  From this perspective..awakening is not the achievement of an individual. Rather..it is the collapse of the illusion that there ever was an individual seeker in the first place. It is the seeing through of the apparent self and the recognition of the utter futility and even absurdity of seeking awakening as a future state that an illusory identity could attain.  Jim’s message stands in direct contrast to Leo’s. In my opinion it is the more radical and accurate perspective.

It also offers no promises of future attainmentt like God consciousness or omniscience . It only  promises “what is “ which is already the case..that the freedom we long for has never been absent. What changes is not reality itself but the context in which it is experienced. Reality is not a portal to god and love..but reality is god and love ..not after a hundred trips and a million meditations retreats ..but right here and right now .

 

Well put. 

[Mellowmarsh]

43 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Wow, this is beautiful, thank you so much for sharing.

Thank you for reading. 🥹