Thank you

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this phenomenal universe was created with the primal event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one's core identity). This is the very same peace which is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This 'resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness' can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one's life. Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (religion) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or else in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is often referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life. Fortunately, that is not the case - it is eminently possible to live one's life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined. Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure which enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture. Cont...

So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to become liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT? WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher. Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life - all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course. Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment, including other life forms. Most beneficially, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is, apart from illegitimate (non-monarchical) governance and feminism, arguably the foremost existential crisis. Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and HAPPINESS! “The cure for nescience is unerring knowledge”. “You are this universe and you are creating it at every moment, because, you see, it starts now. It didn't begin in the past - there IS no past.” ************* “Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”. ************* “A wise Rabbi once said 'If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you'. In other words, we are not separate.” ************* “Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way.” ************* “The meaning of life is life itself.” Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts, British-American Philosopher. (06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973). “What you seek is seeking you.” ************* “Don't you know yet? It is your light that lights the worlds.” ************* “Stop acting so small. You are the universe in ecstatic motion.” ************* “We are one. Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.” ************* “The lamps are different, but the light is the same.” Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī, Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic. (30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273). 🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱☮️😇☮️🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱 To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and complete spiritual precepts so far in human history, send me a private message or Email: SpiritualPsychotherapyServices@gmail.com with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟

I really love your philosophy masterclass audiobook‼️ I listen to it everyday. Also keep Richard lyddon as your narrator‼️ he’s really entertaining @markVernon

I have listened to this conversation twice and will surely listen to it again, because it is so enriching. Thank you so much for taking the trouble to index it.

You said it, Terpsichore. How true.

I only just discovered this today!

When I was in highschool decades ago, I used to wonder if I would see a major paradigm shift in my lifetime. Perhaps I am witnessing the beginnings before this alter heads back home.😀

At the end when Bernardo said “this has been a conversation not an interview” I couldn’t agree more!

What do you mean by a very (very) stormy life? Would you share any of that? (I'm just curious)

I found Mark through one of his discussions with Rupert Spira and subbed straight away. I find his discussions very insightful and stimulating, and immensely enjoyable! =)

You're awesome, thank you!

At 1:28:54 he is talking of israelis author but Eric Neumann is german

yes pure gold for the mind and soul here- these two should have recorded conversations weekly/monthly - just do it ;)

Did u catch Kastrup’s dialogues with Vervaeke? They were amazing, especially the first.

@@MattFRox It's one I haven't seen as yet, but will. I am definitely a fan. He has confirmed many of my intuitions and direction at 63.

@@thomassimmons1950 it’s on theories of everything with curt jaimangal (sp?)

@@Philosophe422 what is this “SOUL” of which you speak? 🤔

​@@ReverendDr.Thomas That's a great question! I am not sure I'll be able to satisfy you with my answer but I have an intuition that I'm not using the word flippantly here. Love is vast, so my attempts will be feeble! I feel that love is the divine life of all things; the momentum that causes growth. In the human sphere (and probably beyond it also), love is experienced as that which connects us to each other and draws us towards beauty and wholeness. In this case, I feel connected to Mark and Bernardo in a deeper-than-intellectual way. Having spoken to both men at length I have a sense that they are taking part in the life of the universe and working to tap into a greater life that can be shared with others. What might your response be to this? I'm open to other ideas and expressions.

​@@MourningTalkShow "love is experienced as that which connects us to each other and draws us towards beauty and wholeness". I'm not the person who asked you to define love, but I believe that's a nice way of putting it. And good thing you mentioned that you have spoken to both of them, because I have just discovered your channel now.

I’d like an interview with Kastrup and Lex Fridman. They are both experts in AI, still with some different perspectives and preferences for their people they have conversations.

I effusively second the suggestion of Bernardo and Rupert!

It has already happened Rupert and Bernardo

I’m crippled to also dialogue with academia as the hierarchy is apparent by the constant name dropping which acts as a distancing device.

@@sereneintegral It is part of the "scientific method" that insists on providing external references to validate your "opinion" (aka, hypotheses, question, discussion, conclusion, references). It's like saying, "I think this, and so does that person, and because we're in agreement, it is so."

@@jcinaz that is not correct. I studied philosophy, and have my own dislikes about modern philosophy. But saying that "I agree with so and so, and therefore is right" is the main method is not only wrong, but almost infantile. Do you really believe that? I mean there are no authoritative philosophical thinkers, nor theories. By definition actually. B/c that would have entailed "axioms" or "first truths" if you like. The moment a under-diciplin of philosophy have "first truths" established, that discipline would step up to be a regular science thatxl could be empirically testet etc. Philosophy is a speculative subject, where one essentially are trying to establish those first truths. Hence why it consists of several largely unrelated subjects like moral philosophy, philosophy of language, philosophy of science/epistemology etc. Qotes in academia has more to do with not plagiarising. One is told, not only in philosophy, to reference statements and theories that has been laid out previously. But also, but I'm sure you disagree her, some people are actually inspired by previous thinkers. And use theories established by those to try to develop them further. Or save them from criticisms. And many other things. One would be just laughed at if one tried to say something is true b/c someone else said so. Also, if there no better reason to study and refer to previous thinkers: why does it irritate you that you can't follow thinkers? You can by your own statement only do so to make such statements as you did in your comment. Including watching Bernardo. What I did when I started, was to research references I didn't allready know. And a first I knew nothing. Its hard work, but that is what philosophy is.

@@HansenFT I never said it was wrong. It is how things are done in Science. I oversimplified the process on purpose. The point was to allay the concerns of another commenter that tossing names around seems inauthentic. I know the value of citing references, and I know the value of referring to the works of others. I didn't think it was necessary to go into detail. So I repeat, the act of tossing names around is like saying, "He said so, I say so, therefor it is true." By citing the works of others that are in line with your own, the conclusion is inferred. What makes it so is when a majority of "those in the know" also say so (peer review). And as has been clearly shown, they are sometimes all wrong. The world isn't flat. The focus of research is to keep digging, ask the hard questions, and keep an open mind. And try not to judge others for their opinion.

LOL, your comment resonated with me a lot.

Humble, brilliant, honest, kind.... Loved!

Briefly, though really there's no briefly, John V isn't an objective idealist or theist (yet?) and also senses that Bernardo's appeal to disassociation doesn't quite do the work it needs to. It's very much worth listening to their conversation though as they carefully tease much out.

@@PlatosPodcasts Thank you! I thought the theist thing might be one sticking point. I will listen to TOE with Kastrup & VVK again for the dissociative alter things, plus others. This conversation was so damn great!!!

Completeness is the ultimate space for creativity.

Hmmmm. How is this choice?

@@KassJuanebe In a way, it wasn’t so much a choice as it was having a say in what was available to me. Our choices are really simple. We choose how we want to react/respond to our experiences. Aside from that, stuff happens. What we do now leads to what happens next. So really, the only “choice” we have is in choosing our feelings. And that includes how we “label” our physical experiences (the electro-chemical reactions that occur in the body). Good and bad are choices. Reality just IS.

@@jcinaz Ok. I will mull!

To think to know as a self-consciousness will pertain to the continuity and development of that focus for life experience and participation or service. Symbolic representations posit an image of self and reality both at once. But taking an image in vain - as vanity of a private mind or creation sets the focus in the 'self' as the doer, which seems a freedom, but reveals a burden in death and taxes! Thus the yielding of imaged self to unselfconscious being arising from a wholeness beyond our current self-control or knowledge, reveals that what we thought to know, was what we have to release to re restored to a knowledge prior to 'doer & done by'. Attempts to bring this into image and concept are the habit of self-seeking. But knowledge in a direct sense is of the nature of love that has no need but to extend or share itself.

He actually did let on in the conversation that while publicly he speaks of “mind at large”, privately (with his girlfriend) he refers to it as God.

It's the ones between Matt S and John Vervaeke I had in mind. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z7h_aMmf283TZIE.html

@@PlatosPodcasts Ohh okay, yes I saw that one. Was just wondering if I missed something :D But thanks

@@PlatosPodcasts, are you a THEIST? If so, what are your reasons for BELIEF in God?

It would be interesting to hear those two talk, though I suspect there may be less difference between them than may seem at first because I think Bernardo tends to talk in public mostly from a scientific point of view, as that's the perspective he seeks to shift, and so puts teleology behind phenomenology - reversing the order in theological considerations of idealism.

@@PlatosPodcasts Are you sure? Kastrup seems to be keen to ascribe godhood to the general mind (in this video he said that it is unconstrained because there is nothing else) Hart would insist that if this ontology is true, God would still be an entity that the general mind is preceded by and contingent on.

The meaning you give is the meaning you have first accepted. I like A Course in Miracles distinction between Projections of a split (dissociated) mind and the Extension of wholeness, that is the true creative. If a 'private reality' is 'shared' by a process of mutually reinforced masking definitions, it is accepted in place of, or as an overlay on reality. Such a mind can develop from assigning levels of reality such as to hold some facets more real and thus discard others. At some point the bubble pops, or perhaps expands to a greater embrace of individuated expression. So Mind IS projection by nature, not as a separate doer. Mind of God Creates by extensions that never leave the Mind that gives and receives as one. hence the idea of 'internal unfoldment of qualities' without reference to an external or Otherness. Our mind has learned or been trained to learn to project thoughts for Getting, such as envy, and for Getting Rid Of as in denial, distancing and masking to a control narrative set over inner conflicts that are then cast out AS IF to Other. Because when we use another for fantasy gratification we forfeit our recognition of the life we share.

Culturally Jewish, I came to understand that a major point of Christianity was to say YES WE CAN SEE THE FACE OF GOD.

@@KassJuanebe and on that he other hand, I am, you are, we are the “face of God.”

Evil is noise (as in signal to noise).

The error is in seeking to manufacture or mask as innocence or indeed any of the virtues. Innocence of being is within who we were created in the image of. But having a stake in a realm of private thinking set in guilt and fear, masked in self-justifictions, we could only seek it externally from a sense of innocence and love lost. Guilt and lack driven discomfort is a masking overlay to the energy or motivation of life, that generates ever more complex defences masking as 'solutions'.

And I want to add that life includes suffering, and it must be suffered through when it occurs, as that is part of the dynamism which is life. It is on the other side of suffering that life renews itsel. Suffering is caused by dedication to a dynamic system of life. Buddhists are right when they say one can detach to avoid suffering, but going all in on that idea would make one not part of the celebration either. We have a hard time understanding God's being so content with the dynamism of life that He just can't help himself from expressing it in celebration, but that is our fallenness speaking I think, which is always guarding our selves from taking risks.

Prior agreements if we can call them that allow very specific experiences to be shared across time and space. If we fight against our 'agreements' we may have a conflicted, fearful or demonic experience. Bashar as a personality structure is a permission slip to bring in such perspectives as indeed he does. Synchronicity is the term often used. My sense of the Reintegrative is the unifying embrace of all polarities. When another speaks the words right our of your heart, this embrace is felt. There is no need to know more than what we need to know when we need to know it, such that giving or receiving such a gift, is indeed given to share in, and not a basis for transference or buying into it!

Why are you telling us that you didn't pay attention in science class, John? We didn't ask and we don't need to know. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 Where do you get the idea that I didn't pay attention in science class? Your comment is as inept as they get; it is an unfounded accusation. This whole comment thing is about sharing thoughts whether they are asked for or not. Have a nice day.

@@jcinaz From all the bullshit that you are constantly dropping. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 I am communicating, sir. You are smearing bullshit. And this should end this discussion if you are wise. Continuing with your attacks will only disclose a lack of self-esteem on your part by attempting to pull another down below your level.

@@jcinaz Communicating is good, but please use your front and not your rear opening. ;-)

The church fathers did not create the old testament!🙃