2022-09-03, 10:38 PM
Has anyone here explored Tim Freke's unividualism?
It's expressed partially in this discussion that addresses the extremely serious pitfalls of contemporary non-dual teachings.
I'm watching this after listening to the excellent interview between Jessica Eve (in the video above with Tim Freke) and Rick Archer on BATGAP published this week here on the harmful effects of Neo-Advaita and how to recover from them:
There are all kinds of ancient non-dual traditions and it's best not to put them all in the same pot. But obviously there's a lot of serious problems (moral, psychological, metaphysical) with the nihilism of the Neo-Advaitans (nothing exists), and arguably with some of the ancient philosophies as well like Advaita Vedanta (unless the "transaction level" is very much emphasized as equally important).
It doesn't make sense to me to dissolve individuality and plurality into an impersonal oneness. Source didn't create so that the goal is to deny the reality and value of creation. The attraction for me in exploring so-called non-dual teachings in the first place is the desire for feeling the connection between everything. The perspective that makes sense to me is one that sees and loves the creation as a unified expression of Source, but one that is to be lived and appreciated precisely in its extraordinary and rich plurality (informed by a sense of the underlying unity). So it's unity (in relationship) rather than "oneness".
"The glorious both...and..." as Rich Archer says.
Tim Freke's unidualism or unividualism I think is a potentially appealing approach. What's missing for me that it doesn't take the paranormal and survival data/experiences and is very much based, so far as I can tell, exclusively on human earthly life.
It's expressed partially in this discussion that addresses the extremely serious pitfalls of contemporary non-dual teachings.
I'm watching this after listening to the excellent interview between Jessica Eve (in the video above with Tim Freke) and Rick Archer on BATGAP published this week here on the harmful effects of Neo-Advaita and how to recover from them:
There are all kinds of ancient non-dual traditions and it's best not to put them all in the same pot. But obviously there's a lot of serious problems (moral, psychological, metaphysical) with the nihilism of the Neo-Advaitans (nothing exists), and arguably with some of the ancient philosophies as well like Advaita Vedanta (unless the "transaction level" is very much emphasized as equally important).
It doesn't make sense to me to dissolve individuality and plurality into an impersonal oneness. Source didn't create so that the goal is to deny the reality and value of creation. The attraction for me in exploring so-called non-dual teachings in the first place is the desire for feeling the connection between everything. The perspective that makes sense to me is one that sees and loves the creation as a unified expression of Source, but one that is to be lived and appreciated precisely in its extraordinary and rich plurality (informed by a sense of the underlying unity). So it's unity (in relationship) rather than "oneness".
"The glorious both...and..." as Rich Archer says.
Tim Freke's unidualism or unividualism I think is a potentially appealing approach. What's missing for me that it doesn't take the paranormal and survival data/experiences and is very much based, so far as I can tell, exclusively on human earthly life.