#Brahman

[@NondualityChannel]

This week, with your help, this channel reached the 5,000 Subscribers Milestone! 🏆 Please help continue to spread the word and share videos with people. Thank you for your support! 💗 www.youtube.com/@NondualityChannel 💗

[@felixgonzalez6466]

Always killing 🔪 it. I always get further deeper understanding from u. Thank you 🙏 my teacher .

[@smg83550]

Thinking yourself a part is setting yourself apart. Thank you Eric 🙏

[@lanle5820]

Thanks for ur clear teaching

[@mikelisteral7863]

god is dreaming he is a separate person

[@lanle5820]

Pls all forms ‘happy , sufferings..’ are not other than Brahman . But at death door..only the positive forms are welcome; so how to bypass the karmic emergency imminent negative forms ‘ sufferings..’.Thanks for ur answers

[@NondualityChannel]

"But at death door..only the positive forms are welcome." - not so. There is nothing personal either.

[@ralf.starke]

I have seen the truth of this for myself. I, as consciousness, am everything which exists.

[@mikelisteral7863]

what is everything? colors sounds feelings? ive never experienced anything else

[@ralf.starke]

@@mikelisteral7863 everything is everything. It's the whole universe, everything which exists.

[@TheBhannah]

It’s a beautiful space !

[@wisefool8915]

Great video

[@pilargarcia6724]

Qué bueno!!! Me ha gustado muchísimo!!! Muchísimas gracias!!!🩵🙏😃

[@lanle5820]

Pls if Brahman is without attribute or quality, so what are the benefits to ‘return’ to Him though we are always Him? Thanks for ur answers

[@NondualityChannel]

There is no return to Him. The "me" that would return or do something to merge is an illusion and does not exist. Realizing what has always been the case and seeing what is as it really is...this results in the cessation of suffering.

[@lanle5820]

Pls as Brahman is without attribute or quality, how is He ? Happy ? Peaceful ? Suffering ? ...?

[@NondualityChannel]

Qualities and attributes are regarding form. You can have a gold necklace, gold ring, gold spoon, etc. None of these forms are other than gold, but gold transcends these forms. You can melt down the spoon and turn it into a knife, but the gold has not changed...only the form and its characteristics, attributes, and qualities. Likewise, Brahman transcends attributes and qualities, but forms exhibit attributes and qualities. Forms are happy, peaceful, suffering, etc. But the forms are not other than Brahman.

[@lanle5820]

Pls the forms ‘happy , suffering...’ are not other than Brahman but I reject negative forms ‘ suffering ...’ so the positive forms are only welcome but not scary Brahman with his negative forms! It’s so difficult to bypass them thru the previous bad karma quickly at death door ; thanks for ur answers

[@lanle5820]

Brahman is Whole ; So is He always peaceful or always suffering ? Or always on and off ?

[@NondualityChannel]

Brahman is without attribute or quality.

[@lanle5820]

Pls if Brahman is without attribute or quality, what are the benefits to ‘ return ‘ to Him ( though we are always Brahman ). Thanks for ur answers

[@NondualityChannel]

@@lanle5820 There is no return to Him. The "me" that would return or do something to merge is an illusion and does not exist. Realizing what has always been the case and seeing what is as it really is...this results in the cessation of suffering.

[@lanle5820]

Pls Brahman is Whole , no separation at all; so Brahman is always peaceful or on and off , happy and suffering ? If the parts suffer, Brahman as the whole suffers?if the parts are sometimes happy , then Brahman is sometimes happy ; thanks for ur answers

[@NondualityChannel]

There is variation...and among body-minds ignorance and misunderstanding vary. Brahman is said to be without qualities for exactly this reason...some body-minds are happy and others suffer but it is all Brahman.

[@lanle5820]

Pls why Brahman is dreaming he is a separate person attacked by negative circumstances rather than happy ones though everything, bad, good karma.. forms are him ?

[@NondualityChannel]

"attacked by negative circumstances" - not so. Suffering arises due to the misunderstandings, concepts, beliefs, and assumptions within the body-mind.

[@mikebell4435]

Thank you for the video. Eric, as you say, there are no separate individuals. But for even the enlightened, why would it feel like when brushing your teeth that it feels like your teeth you are brushing and not another person's teeth that you are brushing? I persume it feels like your teeth, please correct if it's not the case.

[@NondualityChannel]

When you are dreaming at night, if you dreamed about going to bed and others are there...only the body whose teeth are being brushed would experience the teeth being brushed...and the dream character would not experience another character's teeth being brushed. But all characters in the dream are one...it is all one dream...arising in one Consciousness. The point of view due to the senses create the illusion of a localized existence...just like in a dream.

[@mikebell4435]

@@NondualityChannel Thank you very much for your reply Eric, you are so helpful with your time and replies. This does make sense 😘

[@MajorCulturalDivide]

But in the dream analogy, Eric, the guy on my computer screen, has no reality at all. Eric is completely imagined and cannot even experience his teeth being brushed. But I'm pretty sure you can experience brushing your teeth.

[@mikebell4435]

@@MajorCulturalDivide Good point. I think Eric said that 'your' body/mind has the 5 senses to experience the brushing of the teeth more so than the guy on the computer. Does that make sense? I'm sure Eric will mention something if this not properly explained.

[@NondualityChannel]

@@MajorCulturalDivide How do you know? You don't experience what he experiences in the dream...that is your assumption. How do you know that he does not experience brushing his teeth as well in a dream? Perhaps your reality in the dream is no more than his. A solipcist and a "brain in a box fan"...could claim he or she is the only one in existence and you and everyone else are imagined. You only have your own point-of-view as proof of existence. It is easy to claim others are imagined (don't feel/experience like me) and it really can not be disproven...as everything can be explained away as part of my imagination. My point is that I say every dream character in the dream could be aware of their own experience and have their own point of view. Consciousness can play all the roles simultaneously...while making each's conscious awareness (tied to the body and senses) only aware of its own senses and experience.

[@acehilm.]

RAM RAM RAM 🙏

[@PRPlathXavier]

Things are already confusing enough without the word Consciousness being used with multiple meanings and adding to the confusion. Regrettable choice of words in this case probably driven by the need to believe that something of "me" (consciousness) will remain even when the body dissolves into dust. Time to grow up, nothing of that illusion will remain.

[@NondualityChannel]

This is just using the classic references to the absolute in Advaita Vedanta - Brahman and Consciousness. Furthermore, there is no "me".

[@PRPlathXavier]

@@NondualityChannel I know, but from my part this use of the word "Consciousness" can only receive absolute disapproval, and to bring more clarity then confusion I will always challenge its use whenever I came across it. The fact that it was used in classical writings doesn't makes it the best approach.

[@Dmc805]

TKY

[@mrozdoba]

Interesting. What you say/write usually resonates deeply with me, yet on this occasion somewhat less so. If you are the whole & I am the whole, we are equivalent, but at least in some sense we are not; there are things you know/imagine that I do not & likewise with the roles reversed; there is a difference of perspective. Reality does not require belief (attachment to idea), merely the absence of disbelief. My* experience of reality is that I am a part of the whole, which incorporates an image of the whole; my conscious experience of reality is of this image, which itself is a living unfolding structure that emerges from the mental processing of bodily sensations constrained by expectation, which can give the impression one is the whole when there is lack of awareness of the nature of conscious experience as projection. This can occur after the disidentification as the illusory independent doer, as awareness expands to encompass the entirety of the mental model of reality. That said, the part of the whole that I am is not separate, as in disconnected, from any other part. The whole appears to be intimately connected. Waves are a commonly employed metaphor; two adjacent wave peaks are distinct, but also not separate, each an expression of the whole that is the ocean. This contradicts neither the notion that all is Brahman, nor that Brahman is indivisible. One must recognise that the word 'part' is being used to convey the notion of distinctiveness in the absence of the notion of separability, in much the same way that each of my two living hands are distinctive parts of the whole that is my living body but are not separable. Limitations of existing language & hangovers from conditioning can make this seem confusing. The reality is perhaps simpler than it appears; its experience less so, when the experiencer is a complex of distortions, particularly in the presence of clinging to those distortions. *To pre-empt further confusion & word games, I use 'my' as a label to refer to the collective that is this body & that which is of this body, though it is noteworthy that this is actually pointing to a transient pattern that exists in reality much like an eddy might exist for a while within the currents flowing within the ocean. There is no implied claim to doership or independent existence. To that, I would add: whilst the distinct images of reality are to a degree personal, a product of each life path through this one indivisible reality, awareness would seem to be fundamental, reflected in the universality of the laws that describe the unfolding/enfolding of that which is, out of & back into the potential of that which can be. I is impersonal awareness in the context of personal consciousness. At least this is the impression I currently experience. Since the process that formed/forms it is perfectly imperfect (I am fallible), involving a limited view (ignorance) & much remaining conditioning, mistakes are inevitable. Thus I offer the above narrative merely for consideration by any who might find some part that resonates with their own experience. Thank you for engaging on these matters with the wider community.

[@Rang_Birangi_Jokes]

Sir is it normal to feel odd about everything, after diminishing the me?😂

[@NondualityChannel]

It only feels odd to a "me".

[@ashutoshgadgil1237]

Instead of using expressions like indivisible or non sepration or whole. Would it not be simpler to say that non duality is absence of duality?

[@NondualityChannel]

Duality never existed in the first place...nonduality is all there is...and when I say this some people confuse relative and conceptual dualities like right/left, light/dark, etc. and say look there is duality. The term duality is thus misunderstood...what is really being pointed to is the absence of separation or otherness. I find this points more directly without misunderstanding.

[@ashutoshgadgil1237]

​@@NondualityChannelThanks for the clarity.

[@mikelisteral7863]

gold molded into the shape of a car. what is real? the gold is pretending to be a car, its tricking you, its just gold

[@mikebell4435]

Hi again Eric. How come lot's of other non duality speakers say that there is no one to be enlightened. Or enlightenment is all there is? Thanks.

[@NondualityChannel]

There is no one...no "me" that is enlightened. Enlightenment is a shattering of the illusion of "me" and of "some one". "No one to be enlightened" is just a pointer to this. "Enlightenment is all there is" is incorrect...before enlightenment there is chronic suffering in life...after enlightenment suffering ceases to arise. Sometimes I find it is a mix up in words. Nonduality is all there is. Nonduality has always been the case. This is true, but the realizing of nonduality that ends suffering is not all there is.

[@mikebell4435]

@@NondualityChannel Thanks Eric. Just out of interest, how come you say that you are enlightened if no one gets enlightened? Thanks.

[@NondualityChannel]

@@mikebell4435 "I" is the typical convention of speech but this "I" is referring to the body-mind. Enlightenment happened to this body-mind and so no longer suffers...as opposed to another body-mind that is still suffering and seeking enlightenment. Enlightenment is not something to identify with...it is not for a "me".

[@mikebell4435]

@@NondualityChannel Thank you for the clarification 👍

[@lanle5820]

Pls returning to Brahman to have eternal peace ; Why Brahman plays such an horrible scary arrogant life game to all ? Because Brahman is boring and makes himself Himself suffer? Thanks for ur answer

[@NondualityChannel]

You are not a victim...and there is no returning to that which you already are.

[@Marco-wq7nn]

What you say is not entirely true. Consiousness is one, but mind has many expressions. I know nothing of the content of your mind, so i am not the actuality of it. How can it be. I am the totality as consiousness, but shining as a part of expression of it in mind. It would be very busy i am all expressions of mind.

[@NondualityChannel]

You are not the body or mind...you are Consciousness which is playing all body-minds simultaneously...each from its own point of view. You don't know the content of the minds of other characters in a dream, and yet you are the entirety of the dream the entire time. And knowing it is all a dream and thereby all you...this knowing does not make it any busier.

[@Marco-wq7nn]

That you are the entirity of the dream misses the point of the content of different minds. The idea that you cannot know if there are other minds is incorrect, as you can see in the way the expression of other minds are organised. It must have a locus of unity in attention, so there must be a subject that looks at that, only the subject is one, minds are many. You are not in that sense the actuality of other minds, only there is access to the information of other minds that is there, but normally out of reach. Any other standpoint leads directly to solipsism or eka jiva vada. Then everything is as expression of only your own mind and other minds would only be illusion of expression without content, and only your inner thoughts would be real. Somebody telling you that they are thinking of something would be in that sense a lie, being played by the cosmos. You would be more real then all other body and minds, which easily leads to a form of spiritual narcissism. The fact that you are not body and mind is also incorrect, so are also that, nothing is excluded. @@NondualityChannel

[@NondualityChannel]

@@Marco-wq7nn The varied content of different minds does not matter in regards to what you really are. Just like whether this body has a big nose or small nose does not matter to what you really are. What I am talking about is not solipsism...as even that "me" is as much a fiction as everyone else. Consciousness alone exists and there is no other. There is no "me" in it...which is but a thought (i.e. I-thought).

[@Marco-wq7nn]

The sense of me is not related to solipsism, the idea of me has to do with a limitation. Individuality with preferences still remains, but not as a center of action. The varied content of different minds is very much related to what you are. You might be everything that you percieve, but not all that is there is being perceived as actuality by you, even if there is no actual separation between it. If you say that you are also the content of somebody else his mind then something is not correct. However you can say that the beingness in which both minds appear is one. It has to do with the correct level of looking at it. The problem with current nonduality is the stretch they make with reducing everything to consiousness or nirguna Brahman, this not correct, that is why vishistha advaita is a valuable correction to that. @@NondualityChannel