Wilhelm44

Radical nonduality 2.0

5 posts in this topic

Most of the original radical nonduality speakers (Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, Tim Cliss etc) will say: there is no you, mind is illusion etc, and then they just leave it at that. This brick wall approach is helpful for some, but I can see that many people are just left frustrated. (I have literally seen some of the online meetings getting zoom bombed lol.)

Emerson has found a way to practically demonstrate that mind is illusion.

(See minute 6 to around minute 11 as an example)

Language is the veil that is lifted in seeing through the illusion of the sense of a separate me.

I like to call this radical nonduality 2.0 not because the original message has changed. It's simply an evolution in the way that it is being transmitted.

(The revolutionary thing about this, is that Emerson has found a way to make nonduality accessible for people who have literally no spiritual background.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Boom! 💥 

Pretty cool stuff, he tells a story where a cab driver asked what he did, so they started chatting about his youtube channel etc, dude 'got it' right there. He's found a way to make this accessible even to normies🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now apply the same to solipsism: "characters", "me', "others", "experiences", "no experiences", is language. What do you have without language? This.

The moment you start talking about other people and their experiences or lack thereof (which is what people tend to do with solipsism), you are in language. If you want to simply be grounded in just "this", no such language arises.


Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ²

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Now apply the same to solipsism: "characters", "me', "others", "experiences", "no experiences", is language. What do you have without language? This.

The moment you start talking about other people and their experiences or lack thereof (which is what people tend to do with solipsism), you are in language. If you want to simply be grounded in just "this", no such language arises.

Exactly. I'll just shut up now😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now