Making Sense of Non-Duality

Brush away all the voodoo, and non-duality is easy to understand.
Patreon Channel: / martinbutler
The books: "A Minority Interest" and "Corporeal Fantasy" can be found on Amazon.
Website: martingbutler....

[@awakeenlighten2298]

I've been away for some time Martin, but it is so good to see your videos again!

[@mralexander99]

So Clear and Beautifully put. Takes all the confusion surrounding ”non-duality” and opens it up to understand ie consciousness == experience and they are not two separate things.

[@rohanquinby3188]

Still struggling with the illusion of self. This helps a great deal.

[@oliverbengtsson9198]

What does "the illusion of the self" mean?

[@rohanquinby3188]

@@oliverbengtsson9198 It is a direct reference to material that Butler covers in this video. Maybe take the time to watch it.

[@bhante1345]

​@@oliverbengtsson9198 ​we construct a concept of who we are throughout life. "I am a leader, I am a good person, I am dumb, I am smart, I am this, I am that." While the construction of this character we play seems plausible given our life experience and our patterns of behaviour, or at the very least the person we project ourselves to be in this world, at the end of the day we are merely just another animal surviving in the world crying out for water, food and someone to mate with. Our bodies are beautiful and our ambitions are broad, yet we are confined to our sense faculties that are nothing more than an antenna that filter the external world around us. Living in a time of plenty as we do now, we have the luxury of believing we can be anything we want to be. Take away the clean water, nutritious food and shelter that we require so we may live to the end of the day and you will find that the self, the character, the concept of who we think we are, who we pretend to be quickly dissolves. Also, Tik Tok is a Chinese weapon used to destroy the minds of our youth, your government despise you and Taylor Swift really isn't that big of a deal. Oh, and Epstein did not kill himself.

[@zbigniewmaleszak1310]

Its very simple yet complicated because we are conditioned in a certain way

[@ootenyafoo6935]

no experience equals no consciousness - something to look forward to.

[@Mindwise-vo5lo]

Great video Mr. Butler!

[@zbigniewmaleszak1310]

Thank you for this even though I knew it already from my studies of Buddhism, Advaita and meditation. I didn’t know that phenomenology dealt with non duality as well. Its refreshing.

[@MindfulGrowthAcadmey]

In reality there is no ‘experience’ as you say. There are no nouns, only verbs. There is only ‘experiencing’ experiencing itself.

[@michamichalak6200]

If you equate consciousness with experience then cats, dogs etc, have consciousness, because they definitely experience some phenomena.

[@mralexander99]

Yes, But Does a Dog Have “Buddha Nature”?………”Mu”?

[@zbigniewmaleszak1310]

Are you saying cats are not conscious? Of course they are . They perceive and feel a lot

[@clivespendlove5993]

I'm struggling to understand even your refreshingly 'no nonsense' explanation of non-duality. Please can you answer: if the universe was completely inanimate, would that make any difference to its existence or non-existence? I mean, surely a rock in space doesn't need anyone or anything to experience it in order for it to exist?

[@at-last]

For the issue of lack there is with that an xyz [something some process some perceivable orientation alignment or not ] by author claimant agents. For The xyz of what would seem to be: what is already. Yet another same time requiring a suturing back into the signifier chain the term/condition of the linguistic as it relates to perceiver perceiving experience felt sense thinking at the edge focusing experience ... Ref: What is already is by noticing terms and conditions. A 1. bio 2. animal 3. linguistic that has a language [3] rite of passage added to the [1, 2] and For The grasping of a weld meld existence of 1 thru 3 and vice versa zig zag cross cross interactions whereby there is with that a claim claimant mechanism that can be questioned by the questioner and negated to arrive at remainders, gaps, lacks etc that are, are not graspable yet perhaps groped by implication carry forwards.

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

ah philosophy, the pouring of the empty into the void....

[@deborahbutler]

And this relates or contributes to this video in what way?

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

I was not aware I was under any obligation, used to be called free speech@@deborahbutler

[@MartinButlers]

You are such a lovely man Steve.

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

you probably know Martin that it's a quote, not a ripost, I agree with everything you said. But that's by the by ;)@@MartinButlers

[@myscat]

I disagree, consciousness isn't just experience but nothingness, experience is also nothingness. We are already dead, there is nothing left to die. Calling consciousness experience is very misleading, because even though all of those terms are interchangeable nothingness is still the best word to describe, because it also describe the absence of rules and the simplicity of existence. This absence of rules is what makes all those interpretations of the the same thing. Now, even though you provide arguments for non-dualism in terms of consciousness/experience, you keep dualism between consciousness/no consciousness or experience/no experience there. Thus you haven't got rid of dualism, just transformed it in another form. And the primary dualism is the dualism of yes/no, and not of consciousness vs. experience. This primary dualism I believe is the question that should have been answered instead. My response to this dualism is to just deny it, being a construct of our brain. The function of our brain is to divide in yes/no. Beyond our brain, there is no such thing as yes or no, there is the Void, which is all the same as existence of everything, nothingness, consciousness, etc. It is really easy to fall in a trap of exists/doesn't exist. Now how exactly the Void is becoming two is unknown, and these are questions that can't be easily answered. Just like how these two later branch into the whole pattern of existence. The closest answer we have is mathematics, I believe, which however doesn't operate directly on experience which is the content. And it is unclear what this mathematics would even be like.

[@nimim.markomikkila1673]

Butler don´t really understand the Indian term atman in the Advaita Vedanta-meaning of the word.

[@bhante1345]

Did you like your own comment? Be honest, we won't judge.

[@MrHobbes08]

​@@bhante1345 this statement could also apply to the goofy new agers responsible for the pop understanding

[@HigherInfluence]

What you’re missing here is the possibility of higher bodies, or finer bodies. These bodies can exist in a person and at the same time are not part of the physical body. They become the seat of a persons consciousness ruling over the physical body and all of the lower functions.

[@ghostgate82]

We can’t escape duality. God created permanent duality when He decided to enter the Tzimtzum. Sure, we can exist on either side (inside the Kingdom, or outside), but that doesn’t negate the fact that there is still polarity. If water exists, then so too must a vessel.

[@MrHobbes08]

How much of this is just prose stemming from our obsession with pairs?

[@ghostgate82]

@@MrHobbes08 I think the word you’re looking for is poles, not pairs. It’s not an obsession either, it’s recognition.

[@MrHobbes08]

@@ghostgate82 the vessel and the water line is a pair, not a pole. We're animals with thumbs that bend in such a way that allows a greater manipulation of our environment and a pattern recognition fine tuned to the point where we see patterns that aren't really there in the chaos. Polarity is a thing that does exist, but we often extend that pattern to things that don't quite fit the pattern. I got ontological pluralist bias here, so we will naturally disagree somewhere in this pile. Could you expound on this Tzimtzum bit? From the handful of cliffnotes it seems like the dynamic there is more about the finite and the infinite, which does come off more like a pole than a pair.

[@ghostgate82]

@@MrHobbes08 Fractals prove reality behaves the same on every scale, so one scale isn’t going to be vastly different in concept to another, because every scale is affects by the same laws. This is why tree branches, blood vessels, and river beds all share the same pattern. We don’t live in chaos, we live in order, but sometimes the order looks like chaos from our zoomed in vantage point.

[@MrHobbes08]

@@ghostgate82 scale does bring a whole different set of problems though from an engineering perspective, and a poli sci one.That's when we get to see how well our extrapolations hold up.

[@TheGiantMidget]

Here's what stumps me when thinking about this. When we say consciousness and the feeling of self is generated by the brain, why is it that it is only this particular brain and body that i experience consciousness through? Out of all the incalculable number of human bodies that have ever existed what is so different about this one that it is only after this one came into existence that i started to have a conscious experience? Clearly the mere existence of a human brain is not enough for me to appear as a subject, i even have a sibling who came from the same two parents and yet i still wasn't here so what is so special about the particilar combination of atoms that is my brain and body that only now i am experiencing? There's something we're missing here

[@josefk332]

Your post puts me in mind of the teleportation paradox. It’s a thought experiment that considers what would happen to “you” if a device was capable of precisely copying the molecular structure of your brain (say, as part of a teleportation device like in Star Trek). On ghe first attmept it works fine and “you” appear at the destination with all your memories and personality intact. However on the second attempt an error occurs and instead of creating one of you, it instead creates two or more copies of you. In which body would “you” and “your” consciousness reside? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox

[@Dontwannaknow44]

That’s only if you entertain the idea that there is a brain. (Look up Donald Hoffman about “having no brain”.) The brain serves as a reactor and converter than it does a creator. Like an antenna picking up signals. The signals, in this instance, would be the stimuli. It’s a mechanical movement essentially. Check out Ug krishimaurti if want a better insight

[@TheGiantMidget]

@@josefk332 it makes me wonder if there is something beyond the physical because it's just so bizarre to imagine that there's anything special about your physical body

[@francisdec1615]

@@TheGiantMidget The thing is: you feel that you are "special". But so does everyone else.

[@TheGiantMidget]

@@francisdec1615 i'm not saying i am special i'm saying what is so particular about the existence of this body that it is the one that my subjective experience takes place in as opposed to all the other ones that have existed since life began?

[@gmlgml780]

Yeah. And now you think you made sense of non-duality ? You were talking about some lunatic ideas. Some theory. Making sense ? Muhahahahahaha.

[@gmlgml780]

@@ciararespect4296 _"... None of it MAKES sense as we are just anthropomorphic ..."_ Yeah. Deep.

[@gmlgml780]

@@deborahbutler _"... Interesting to see all that hate out ..."_ Yeah. H@te would be forcing into silence. H@te would be putting into j@il. H@te would be a broken b@ne. H@te would be burning at the stake. Those would be h@te. Opposition, sarcasm, personality and even meanness is not h@te. Words are not h@te, you little rainbow pony unicorn f@rt. _"... I hope you feel better inside, now you have ejected it ..."_ Yeah. I won't feel better in a universe like this. There are only two kinds of the happy people in a world like this. The blind and the cr@el. And I am unfortunately none of them. But that's not the topic here, why do you bring it up, unicorn f@rt ?

[@gmlgml780]

@@deborahbutler The answer is shown only when you list the comments on "newest first" order. (You can switch it right next to the number of the comments.)

[@gmlgml780]

@@ciararespect4296 _"... not deep particularly . Just factual ..."_ Yeah. You're right. Not deep. Just riding on words. Insignificant bllks.