Episode 16
Reaction to The Non-Duality Show Episode 1 by Non Duality Fun
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 16
Reaction to The Non-Duality Show Episode 1 by Non Duality Fun
Recorded - mm/dd/yy
DESCRIPTION
The dialogue on non-duality takes center stage in this engaging episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, where hosts Ryan and Peter dissect Claire's unique comedic approach to serious spiritual concepts. The discussion ignites with Claire's assertion that enlightenment is a myth, a bold statement that rattles conventional views and serves as a springboard for deeper inquiry. Ryan and Peter navigate the philosophical waters of consciousness, identity, and the nature of reality, drawing connections to Buddhist teachings and the fundamental idea of emptiness. Their exchange weaves through the intricacies of non-duality, challenging listeners to reconsider the very essence of selfhood and the pursuit of enlightenment, which they argue may be an inherently flawed endeavor.
As the hosts unpack Claire's humor-laden insights, they explore how laughter can illuminate complex philosophical ideas, fostering a space for reflection and understanding. The podcast captures the essence of the non-dual experience, where the self is perceived as an illusion, and the reality of existence is painted as a tapestry of interconnectedness. Ryan and Peter emphasize that while the non-dual perspective invites a sense of liberation from the confines of self, it also necessitates engagement with compassion and emotional awareness. They articulate the importance of recognizing and addressing the conditioning that shapes our experiences, arguing that wisdom teachings alone cannot provide a complete understanding without the inclusion of emotional truths.
The conversation culminates in a rich examination of how individuals can apply these insights in their lives. Ryan and Peter advocate for a balanced approach that honors both wisdom and compassion, encouraging listeners to remain open to their emotional experiences while navigating the complexities of everyday interactions. By the episode's close, the hosts inspire a sense of curiosity and exploration, inviting listeners to reflect on their own journeys through the lens of non-duality. This episode stands as a testament to the power of dialogue in unpacking profound spiritual concepts, encouraging an integration of wisdom and compassion as essential components of the human experience.
Takeaways
- The discussion emphasizes the paradox of non-duality and the illusion of self, illustrating that consciousness may not exist in the way we perceive it.
- It is important to distinguish between wisdom teachings and compassion teachings in spiritual practices, as both play essential roles in navigating life.
- The humor used in the episode serves to highlight the absurdity of seeking enlightenment as an attainable state, rather than recognizing it as a process.
- The podcast explores how the experience of duality can coexist within a broader understanding of non-duality, suggesting that both perspectives are valid.
- Participants reflect on the challenges of integrating non-duality into everyday life without losing compassion for individual experiences, emphasizing the need for balance.
- The conversation raises awareness of how our judgments about experiences can contribute to suffering, urging listeners to approach teachings with openness and adaptability.
Episode Resources
- The Non-Duality Show Episode One - Non Duality Fun - Non Duality Fun
If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,
consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts.
Have a discussion topic idea or show feedback? Use the Suggestion Box link below!
Social Media:
License: Unless otherwise noted, all excerpts of copyright material not owned by ETH Studio are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of commentary, scholarship, research and teaching. Works are substantially transformed by means of personal insight and commentary as well as highlighting important corollaries to additional thoughts, theories and works to demonstrate alignments and consistencies.
Copyright 2025 Ears That Hear Media Corporation
Keywords: non-duality, enlightenment, consciousness, mindfulness, duality vs non-duality, spiritual awakening, compassion in Buddhism, wisdom teachings, humor in spirituality, neuroscience and consciousness, heart vs mind, awareness, existential philosophy, meditation practices, understanding suffering, self-awareness, existentialism, Buddhist teachings, personal growth, self-discovery
Transcript
Welcome back.
Speaker A:Views, interpretations and opinions expressed are not advice nor official positions presented on behalf of any organization or institution.
Speaker A:They are for informational and entertainment purposes only.
Speaker A:Now join Ryan and Peter for another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Ryan:Good morning and welcome, everybody.
Ryan:I'm Ryan.
Speaker A:I'm Peter.
Ryan:And we are back for another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Ryan:And today Peter brought a fun, interesting video produced by Non Duality Fun.
Ryan:And the video is called the Non Duality show, episode one.
Speaker A:And it is offered by Claire who describes herself.
Speaker A:Well, she describes this as a non duality stand up video.
Speaker A:And yeah, I guess I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker A:So it was offered to me by Clea.
Speaker A:She said, oh, here's a location for comedian.
Speaker A:I was like, what the heck?
Speaker A:So that's it then.
Ryan:We'll give it a shot and we will react to it and see what we get.
Claire:Welcome, welcome, welcome to the show.
Claire:Welcome, welcome, welcome to what might seem the totally bonkers non world of non duality.
Claire:And our very first episode of the no One Gets it because no One Is Here Non Duality Show.
Claire:When I first heard this idea that there was no such thing as enlightenment and consciousness, I did a tuple take.
Claire:Like, what the.
Claire:And then I got a little apprehensive.
Claire:My concerns were personal and worrying, not things I felt I could ask.
Claire:Like, well, with no conscious awareness, would I lose control over my bowels?
Claire:Would I go about farting in public with gay abandon and not notice?
Claire:What if I had no awareness of the need to pluck a stray hair out from my chin?
Claire:But then the plus side, if I don't have conscious awareness, would I no longer be aware that my husband is annoying?
Claire:And shouldn't I prepare myself if I'm going to lose awareness, like lose those extra pounds or quickly do those things on my bucket list first in readiness?
Claire:It turns out the ability to do those things or not is just what's happening.
Claire:And no one is married because there is no one.
Claire:And annoyance can still happen.
Claire:So now I want to introduce my two guests this evening.
Claire:Daryl the neuroscientist.
Claire:And by the looks of it, he has brought in a brain.
Ryan:Okay, that's funny.
Ryan:I think it is funny.
Ryan:Okay, the first thing that caught my ear was the no such thing as enlightenment comment.
Ryan:And I have never heard that specifically.
Ryan:Is that something.
Ryan:I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with it, but.
Speaker A:Oh, it's actually straight out of the Heart Sutra.
Ryan:Is it?
Speaker A:No attainment and nothing to attain.
Ryan:Okay, okay, Interesting.
Ryan:Which is also.
Ryan:So I find that interesting.
Ryan:That doesn't Buddhism specifically talk about enlightenment?
Ryan:And then it's kind of contradicting that.
Ryan:Is that what.
Speaker A:So the Heart Sutra is the teaching of emptiness.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:And which is like exactly that.
Speaker A:I mean, so.
Speaker A:Yeah, it's.
Speaker A:I don't know what else to say.
Speaker A:Yeah, I could say a lot.
Speaker A:So I don't know what else to.
Ryan:Sure.
Ryan:You know that.
Ryan:I just have.
Ryan:I personally have never heard that.
Ryan:And I found.
Ryan:I find it interesting or in a way conflicting, that enlightenment is, at least in my very casual understanding of Buddhism is spoken, is not necessarily taught, but I mean it's discussed as far as it is confusing.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:Because many of his disciples were enlightened.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And yet I'm not.
Speaker A:I'm not really clear on the difference between enlightenment and nirvana, because nirvana doesn't happen.
Speaker A:I mean.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Nirvana for the Buddha, as I understand it didn't happen until he died.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:So there's the con.
Speaker A:The terminology is confusing.
Speaker A:You know, for instance, there's this concept of the Bodhisattva, which is a fully enlightened being, but it's a being who is not enlightened until everybody else is enlightened.
Speaker A:It's like, well, are they enlightened or not?
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:It's very confusing.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:Of course, the Bodhisattva concept apparently didn't show up until 500 years after the Buddha himself.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:So it was a development of Buddhist thought.
Ryan:Interesting.
Speaker A:Into a concept or rather the word Bodhisattva existed and the concept existed, but not in the way that.
Speaker A:Yeah, I don't know which is the kind of Buddha contemporary concept of Bodhisattva and which is the.
Speaker A:The later concept of Bodhisattva, the so called Mahayana version.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:There's a lot of confusing stuff.
Speaker A:But anyway, that's fair.
Ryan:I mean, everything has its confusing.
Speaker A:It does sound familiar to me.
Ryan:Sure.
Speaker A:From this particular sutra about emptiness.
Ryan:Right.
Ryan:And is that speaking more of the ultimate reality there?
Ryan:The Buddhist perspective of ultimate reality is what she was talking about with not having any awareness.
Ryan:Is that what that is?
Speaker A:So I think in this non dual teaching that she's going to explore, it's kind of beyond that.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:So that's what's interesting about this person and the way she talks about reality because it's.
Speaker A:Well, we'll.
Ryan:Sure, we'll see.
Ryan:All right, interesting.
Ryan:Thank you.
Claire:And non dualist speaker Freddie, who has no message for us at all.
Claire:Okay, Darryl, you've brought in a brain.
Claire:Why have you brought in a brain?
Daryl:Well, Claire, I've been reading Eagleman's latest book, Livewire.
Freddie:David Eagleman, the neuroscientist.
Daryl:Yes.
Daryl:And in it, he talks about how the brain is made up of competing neurons.
Daryl:They are all fighting for real estate in the brain.
Claire:They're fighting?
Daryl:Yes.
Daryl:The neurons assigned to vision compete with neurons used for other senses.
Daryl:In the dark.
Daryl:We're not using visual real estate.
Daryl:And the neurons for the other senses will try to steal their territory.
Daryl:So the neurons in the visual cortex fight to keep their real estate by creating dreams.
Daryl:It's a case of use it or lose it.
Claire:So basically, our brains are battlefields.
Daryl:Yes, its territory wars between the neurons.
Claire:So when seekers are trying to quieten down the mind to find their true self as silence, they're actually provoking a turf war between neurons.
Daryl:That's my understanding of it.
Claire:So much for aiming for a silent mind.
Freddie:And neuroscientists haven't been able to find consciousness inside the brain, have they?
Daryl:That's right.
Freddie:Possibly because there isn't consciousness there at all.
Daryl:There are neurons firing, but we don't experience those firings as firings.
Daryl:Instead, there is a sense of an internal world.
Daryl:And since the brain can make the data across the senses seem out there, it can also make the firings seem like there is a self living in there, in an internal conscious world.
Daryl:But that internal world is smoke and mirrors or a fake projector projecting an illusory screen with an illusory you.
Daryl:This illusory self is two removes from the reality of a neuron firing.
Daryl:Here's Reginald, and he's looking for answers.
Freddie:I'm on my way to enlightenment.
Freddie:I have to search for my true seller.
Freddie:It's.
Speaker A:So I think we've talked about this idea before of awareness as the screen and the interface.
Ryan:Yes.
Speaker A:As the content of the movie where we're not actually seeing the screen.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:We're.
Speaker A:We're living in the movie, unaware that there is a screen, Right.
Speaker A:On which the movie is being projected and that the movie doesn't.
Speaker A:The content of the movie doesn't exist.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:But what's being shown here, the visual that's offered, is the person's brain, you know, with their skull lifted off, representing the neurons firing, and then a thought bubble coming up out of that brain of the projector, and then the projector projecting the movie.
Speaker A:And so what they're describing, that's what they said the movie is two removes from the neurons firing.
Speaker A:So I find this actually very confusing because they're saying the neurons are firing and creating the illusion of this movie, but this movie doesn't exist.
Speaker A:But then do the neurons exist?
Speaker A:Because the neurons are part of the movie.
Speaker A:So it's interesting in that I think.
Speaker A:I'm not sure.
Speaker A:I don't want to misattribute this to Rupert, but I don't think he really would disagree with the description of conditioned reality.
Speaker A:Doesn't exist.
Speaker A:It's an illusory movie on the screen of awareness.
Speaker A:And awareness is just the screen and has no characteristics itself.
Speaker A:And then what this is saying, what they just said explicitly was the firing neurons are creating an illusory screen with an illusory projector.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And that.
Speaker A:I think they're going to say, if they haven't already said it, they're going to say that consciousness doesn't exist.
Ryan:Right.
Ryan:I don't think they've said that yet.
Speaker A:All right, so let's.
Ryan:But that.
Speaker A:But just to give the visual.
Speaker A:Because.
Ryan:Right.
Ryan:And of course, I will link this so people can watch it.
Ryan:But a point of language, because we had the conversation before.
Ryan:And I just want to clarify.
Ryan:When you were saying awareness, you mean consciousness, like the equivalent of what I know.
Ryan:Well, and I'm only saying that because when I hear awareness, I think a specific thing.
Ryan:And so the screen is the backdrop of consciousness, which could be equated to awareness.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And I think a difficulty for us, grounded in Hoffman and thinking of Hoffman's schema of conscious agents as ultimate reality or big C, consciousness as alternate reality.
Speaker A:There's a.
Speaker A:There's a break in usage of the word consciousness here.
Speaker A:And so we just see how they use it, how they use consciousness or awareness in the video.
Ryan:But I do agree with you as far as the contradiction, I guess, in trying to equate neurons firing as part of the higher process of creating the illusion.
Ryan:I think that the idea that the neurons and the materialism, the materialistic biology, is part of what is.
Ryan:What creates the projection.
Ryan:But I don't think it's part of the screen.
Speaker A:Well, it seems.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Again, I think it's.
Speaker A:I.
Speaker A:I might be conflating it with the interface theory of perception.
Speaker A:Like, it's confusing in that.
Speaker A:But where.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But Hoffman says neurons don't actually exist.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:And I think she said that, too, though.
Ryan:I mean.
Speaker A:But this is a neurobiologist.
Ryan:All right.
Speaker A:Presenting.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:This is how our experience works.
Speaker A:So our neurons are real, but our experience is not real.
Speaker A:I don't.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Ryan:Is that part of the.
Speaker A:We'll see.
Speaker A:We'll see where they go.
Ryan:Yeah.
Daryl:Later.
Daryl:Across.
Daryl:The senses seem out there.
Daryl:It can Also make the firings seem like there is a self living in there, in an internal conscious world.
Daryl:But that internal world is smoke and mirrors or a fake projector projecting an illusory screen with an illusory you.
Daryl:This illusory self is two removes from the reality of a neuron firing.
Daryl:Here's Reginald and he's looking for answers.
Freddie:I'm on my way to enlightenment.
Freddie:I have to search for my true self.
Freddie:It's deep within me somewhere.
Claire:Oh, we've all done that one, right?
Claire:And then it's so easy to think that consciousness is then who you are.
Freddie:Wow.
Freddie:I'm not Reginald.
Freddie:My true self is this awareness in which my thoughts arise.
Freddie:This is the awareness beneath the thoughts everyone talks about.
Freddie:I am the consciousness that is the foundation of everything.
Freddie:I am pure awareness itself.
Freddie:I am one with God.
Freddie:This is my true self.
Freddie:I have found enlightenment.
Claire:So being told to search for pure consciousness as our true self is exactly like a reanimated character on a screen looking for a screen that also isn't real.
Claire:So much for enlightenment.
Daryl:Yes, neither the screen nor the self exist.
Daryl:And that character on the screen can't see the firings nor see the screen, and is itself not actually there.
Freddie:But I feel so real.
Freddie:I feel like I'm a conscious being.
Freddie:It feels like I live in time and space and everything is happening to me.
Freddie:Oh no.
Freddie:It's only me who sees things in terms of duality.
Freddie:This is terrible.
Freddie:I'm made up of smoke and mirrors.
Freddie:Oh, wow.
Ryan:That's a.
Ryan:I'm finding it a little conflicting in the message.
Ryan:It's funny, but.
Ryan:And of course, you know, I'm going to try and apply logic to something.
Ryan:That's illogical, but it sounds like what they're saying, at least in this point, which is a neuroscientist and Claire, is that consciousness doesn't exist.
Ryan:Awareness doesn't exist.
Speaker A:But duality.
Ryan:But duality exists or not exists.
Ryan:But.
Ryan:Ah, it was just one of the last things.
Ryan:Let me rewind it.
Claire:So being told to search for pure consciousness as our true self is exactly like reanimated character on a screen looking for a screen that also isn't real.
Claire:So much for enlightenment.
Daryl:Yes, neither the screen nor the self exist.
Daryl:And that character on the screen can't see the firings nor see the screen and is itself not actually there.
Speaker A:Can you?
Speaker A:So pause.
Freddie:But I feel.
Speaker A:So they're saying the firings exist.
Ryan:The neurobiologist is right.
Speaker A:The neurobiologist.
Speaker A:Like it's very strange because the neurobiologist is saying my brain exists, but I don't exist.
Speaker A:It's really.
Speaker A:I mean that's what I'm hearing.
Ryan:Yeah.
Ryan:Well, yeah.
Ryan:And if nothing exists, but we're experiencing what is experiencing and how.
Ryan:How does anything happen if nothing is.
Speaker A:I mean, why do you even think that there are neurons firing?
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Except that, I mean it's.
Speaker A:I don't know if tautology is the right word, but it seems like a weirdly circular or self contradictory argument.
Ryan:Right.
Ryan:I think that's.
Ryan:That's what I'm.
Speaker A:Well, we know that neurons fire because we've done these studies using our senses and our instruments that don't exist.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:To realize that there's a non existent.
Speaker A:That the firing of neurons produces the.
Ryan:Illusion of reality to be experienced by nothing.
Ryan:That to me is what is really hard to kind of grasp onto.
Ryan:And I'm not going to pretend like I have some ultimate knowledge, but that there has to be something, otherwise nothing would exist.
Speaker A:So I think this is a genuine neurobiological position.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:So I'm curious to look it up.
Speaker A:I haven't even looked at the notes on the video.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Ryan:I mean they mention an author.
Ryan:I don't know if that is a real author.
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker A:That's what I mean.
Ryan:Yeah.
Ryan:This is about where I was at.
Daryl:Nor the self exist.
Daryl:And that character on the screen can't see the firings nor see the screen and is itself not actually there.
Freddie:But I feel so real.
Freddie:I feel like I'm a conscious being.
Freddie:It feels like I live in time and space and everything is happening to me.
Freddie:Oh no.
Freddie:It's only me who sees things in terms of duality.
Freddie:This is terrible.
Ryan:It's only me who sees things in terms of duality.
Ryan:But duality, non duality still infers something exists.
Ryan:Like the underlying theme of the message here is that nothing exists, exists.
Ryan:There is no ultimate reality.
Ryan:Consciousness doesn't actually exist.
Ryan:It's an illusion.
Ryan:But when we're talking about conflict of non duality and duality, that infers logically that something has to be something.
Ryan:If you're non dual, something has to be non dual.
Ryan:Otherwise there just is nothing.
Ryan:And that's.
Ryan:I think where I'm.
Speaker A:That's what I'm getting from.
Speaker A:That's what I'm getting from this is that that's actually the position.
Speaker A:Is that.
Speaker A:That what they're.
Ryan:So is this mocking the scientific position?
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker A:But, but Claire's.
Speaker A:What Claire seems to say is that reality is actually emptiness and that there is nothing in that emptiness at all.
Speaker A:And there's nothing.
Speaker A:It's very nihilistic.
Speaker A:It's like.
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker A:That's it.
Speaker A:It's like there is simply nothing.
Speaker A:There's only this illusion of something happening.
Ryan:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker A:But I don't know that it is really nihilistic any more than.
Speaker A:Well, all right, so the Buddhist teaching of nothingness is a teaching of interrelatedness.
Speaker A:It's not a teaching of non existence.
Speaker A:It's a teaching of there's no separate self.
Speaker A:Not that there is no self.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:But that we are.
Speaker A:We all exist as interrelated phenomenon.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And that.
Speaker A:That's the reality.
Speaker A:Yeah, but the.
Speaker A:The non reality is that you are a separate entity.
Ryan:Correct.
Speaker A:And I am a separate entity.
Speaker A:And that we exist or can exist without everything else around us.
Speaker A:Right, that.
Ryan:And that makes sense to me like that.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But the way they seem to.
Speaker A:And again, I've watched a couple of these, so I don't want to pull in too much that is not presented right here, but that's what you're getting from it seems to be consistent with other stuff she says in other videos.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Yeah, let's see how I'm made up.
Freddie:Of smoke and mirrors.
Freddie:Oh, fuck.
Speaker A:Wow.
Claire:That's the dilemma right there.
Claire:The illusory self can only see itself as a real and separate conscious being.
Claire:And it's not real.
Claire:And consciousness as a screen isn't real.
Claire:And it's only when that whole energetic setup seemingly crumbles that it's somehow obvious.
Claire:There's always only wholeness appearing as everything.
Freddie:Yes.
Freddie:That's why there's no message for anyone.
Freddie:Because there is just this as wholeness appearing as it is, with no one really separate who's having an actual conscious experience.
Ryan:That to me is sums up what I interpret.
Ryan:That is what we were talking about.
Ryan:There's a wholeness of everything.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:Not a separateness.
Ryan:There's no unique independence of anything.
Ryan:But that's very different from that wholeness not existing.
Speaker A:Yeah, I'll comment later.
Ryan:Okay.
Freddie:It's made up of smoke and mirrors.
Freddie:But it's also impossible for that illusory you appearing on the screen to call off the search.
Freddie:It can't cease to appear just because it's been told it isn't real.
Freddie:Whether it appears or doesn't appear, it the same wholeness.
Freddie:This here is wholeness appearing as puppets with no one pulling the strings and no one inside who's real.
Claire:You know, the sense of having a self is a bit like the reflection in a puddle, isn't it there's no actual reflection in the puddle.
Claire:And when the reflection disappears, it's not as if wholeness knows or cares.
Claire:It doesn't have an illusory sense of awareness.
Freddie:That's why it's funny that enlightenment has been portrayed as a you who becomes one with wholeness.
Freddie:How could a reflection in the puddle become one with anything?
Freddie:It's impossible.
Claire:Lovely.
Claire:Well, what can I say?
Claire:Thank you, Freddie.
Claire:Thank you, Daryl, for not being here.
Claire:And thank you, audience.
Claire:See you next episode.
Speaker A:Okay, so what they're poking at at the end there is that enlightenment has been portrayed as something joining, like unity, joining of this duality, joining with non duality.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And it's interesting because.
Speaker A:But that's the way I experience it.
Speaker A:And that's.
Speaker A:This is what I was going to say is that what they're pointing to is that there is no duality.
Speaker A:And my experience of non duality is that the non duality can actually see the duality and encompass the duality.
Speaker A:It doesn't deny the existence of the duality.
Speaker A:It says, oh, this apparent duality exists within this totality which they described.
Speaker A:And it is part of the totality.
Speaker A:It's not non existent.
Speaker A:And yet what this video seems to keep on saying is it's non existent because it's illusory.
Speaker A:And the way I experience it, if I go into a non dual space, I can see how the duality is illusory, but I don't see that the non duality, that the duality doesn't exist.
Speaker A:It's like that's a real experience.
Speaker A:It's real in the sense that it's an experience.
Speaker A:It's an experience and it's experience that everyone has.
Speaker A:And my non dual perception has an appreciation of that and has a, has an acceptance of that and also has an appreciation of the paradox of duality and non duality like coexisting.
Speaker A:And so for me, that's the experience of.
Speaker A:It's expressed as becoming one.
Speaker A:It's expressed as.
Speaker A:Because of this experience of duality, ex of non duality encompassing and accepting the duality.
Speaker A:Now there's a unity.
Speaker A:There's no exclusion.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Ryan:I think what they may be poking at in this, in the way I'm going to frame it kind of seems semantics that duality doesn't unite with non duality.
Ryan:It falls away.
Speaker A:It stops being the center and the perceived self.
Ryan:Right.
Ryan:And the experience is still there as long as we're.
Speaker A:Yeah, I, I think what they're poking at is the cultural description of enlightenment Right.
Speaker A:Of oh, I will become one.
Speaker A:I.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:I will become one with everything.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And then I will be happy because I am one with everything.
Speaker A:And it's like, no, at that point you won't exist.
Speaker A:Like, you won't have that concern of I.
Speaker A:I want to join.
Ryan:Yes.
Speaker A:So, so which we've kind of talked about before, like that these descriptions of enlightenment are just kind of pictures of a thing that is not the thing.
Ryan:Yes.
Ryan:Yeah.
Ryan:And it, I mean it does go to the whole pointer to the moon kind of thing.
Ryan:And also the necessity for teaching and teachers, those who may want to lead others who are not other to a recognition of something, that the idea of I becoming something is more tangible in that early stage than nothing exists.
Ryan:And you know what I mean?
Ryan:Like, this version of the teaching of reality is going to be much harder for a majority of those who don't exist to grasp.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:You know, and so this is, this, this touches to me in part in this ongoing metaphor that I have of peeling back the onion where.
Ryan:And it goes to the purpose of multiple teachings that you've broached before that where people are in various aspects of the illusory experience, need different ways of hearing a certain message in different depths.
Ryan:Some people aren't ready to hear something as abstract as what this video is portraying.
Ryan:And so it's, it's not, it's not wrong.
Ryan:Well, nothing's wrong anyways.
Ryan:But it's, it's not an incorrect thing to give somebody a more superficial understanding of things before you dig deeper.
Speaker A:Well, I think that this really goes to something that I've been working on with Cleo, which is understanding the relationship of compassion teaching and wisdom teaching.
Speaker A:And that wisdom teaching by itself, ultimate reality is what it is.
Speaker A:But knowing what ultimate reality is by itself doesn't solve your problem experientially because unless you are fully extinguished, which is nirvana, or have ultimate enlightenment, unless that pertains, you are experiencing conditioning.
Speaker A:And this is why I keep on going.
Speaker A:It's like if you're having a conversation, then you're experiencing conditioning because you're participating in this dual reality by speaking, by experiencing, by using your body, you're participating in this.
Speaker A:And if you're participating in, then there's the potential for suffering from participating in individuality and conditioning.
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker A:Now, if you're very accomplished in non dual experience, you may, I think, be feel very separated from the illusory duality.
Speaker A:But I think that's only.
Speaker A:You're only feeling that way.
Speaker A:And eventually the conditioning comes back and this is something that Jeffrey has said is like, nobody is absolutely free of their conditioning.
Speaker A:Like it always.
Speaker A:There's always a circumstance somewhere way, way down the line where something comes up that you just, you just didn't get rid of that conditioning.
Speaker A:And then it surprises you.
Speaker A:And so this is what concerns me about this kind of teaching because it points away from kind of dealing with duality and conditioning.
Speaker A:And then what that leaves you is thinking that you don't have to deal with it and that everyone can just be enlightened and then.
Speaker A:And nothing's real anyway, which you can experience temporarily.
Speaker A:You can hold that position temporarily.
Speaker A:And then eventually you run into something.
Speaker A:You run into conventional reality.
Speaker A:And conventional reality is going to make you suffer if you don't relate to it wisely.
Speaker A:Because now it seems like your understanding of ultimate reality is violated.
Speaker A:You know what I mean?
Ryan:I think so, yeah.
Speaker A:So, and this is what I'm noticing in myself is I keep unfalling into rationalism.
Speaker A:It's, it's really, it is, it's a, it's a rational kind of wisdom.
Speaker A:So rational wisdom teaching, or kind of using wisdom teaching to construct a rational argument which then is ignoring the reality of conditioned existence and therefore generates conflict, particularly with people who are not keyed into non duality.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:And you try to interact with people because you're not a hermit and you're not on the cushion and you're actually dealing with your family and you're trying to operate from a position of non, of non duality.
Speaker A:And it generates conflict even though, like, you're being very at peace, you're being very, I don't know what, enlightened or whatever, because I'm.
Speaker A:Look, I'm, I'm talking to you from this understanding that, you know, this is just empty and, and, and it's not helpful.
Speaker A:And if it's not helpful and if it's not useful, then why do it?
Speaker A:In fact, why teach it?
Speaker A:Well, no, why do it at all?
Speaker A:Why even have the position?
Speaker A:Because what it does is if you're, if you're in that position because, well, this is the most peaceful position for me to have, you quickly have your peace disturbed.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So I want to be in non duality because it's peaceful and it's like, I'm relieved of my suffering.
Speaker A:But if you make the mistake of trying to use that to interact with conventional reality, then you will lose your peace because there's an inherent conflict that can only be addressed by this other experience of compassion.
Speaker A:Because wisdom is.
Speaker A:And a wisdom Orientation doesn't have compassion with it.
Speaker A:Ultimate reality or full non dual experience does have compassion with it.
Speaker A:Does that make sense?
Ryan:Because the love and compassion is part of the whole.
Ryan:Is that what you're suggesting?
Speaker A:I mean, when I am in a deep non dual experience, I have a lot of compassion.
Speaker A:But if I try to interact with people and deal with daily life purely from a non dual position, I find that there's conflict and then that conflict pulls me out of that experience of non duality.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:And I find myself being pulled hard into conditioning, into my conditioning.
Speaker A:So there is that paradox of trying to avoid conditioning by being completely in non duality and trying to bring non duality to say, well, nothing really exists and we're all, you know, I can just talk about this rationally without any emotionality because that's all conditioning.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:So let's just, let's just be rational.
Ryan:I think I agree with you, at least in part is number one.
Ryan:So I think where I may disagree or push is the idea that, or the assertion that you can't bring that bringing non dual experience or coming from a place of non dual experience into conventional life automatically or you know, I think there's a place for that experience to be had in conventional reality, in conventional interactions that will not necessarily pull that person out of peace.
Ryan:But I agree it's not necessarily helpful to the interaction.
Ryan:And I can see how maybe pressing the teaching solely from a wisdom standpoint isn't necessarily useful for managing the experience of conventional reality.
Speaker A:So let me clarify a couple of things.
Speaker A:So first of all, I'm also talking about my own experience.
Speaker A:Your mileage may vary, of course.
Speaker A:And then second, the context is my own conditioning around rationality.
Speaker A:So my affinity is more for wisdom teaching.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Compassion teach is quite new to me.
Speaker A:In fact, I would say the experience of compassion itself is quite new to me.
Speaker A:I mean, I've had it in the past, but I never really recognized it or valued it or appreciated it.
Speaker A:And now I'm finding much more balance.
Speaker A:But my bias is towards a wisdom orientation and kind of like using the brain, using the mind, using the rational approach and the wisdom teachings and non duality in a lot of ways appeal very much to that rational mind.
Speaker A:Even though it's, it's kind of an irrational teaching, but that's kind of appealing to the rational mind.
Speaker A:So this, this, this video is like kind of presenting a puzzle and the rational mind is like, oh, let me try to figure it out.
Speaker A:There's, there's an appeal to that.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:And so what I'm saying is, in my experience that pulls me away from heart practice.
Speaker A:It pulls me away from the compassionate aspect of non duality.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And it, it gives a bias, it gives a preference to.
Speaker A:Again, this is kind of paradoxical, the conceptual aspect of non duality.
Speaker A:And this is not to say that I'm trying to teach someone about it or I'm trying to talk about it.
Speaker A:It's just I'm orienting myself in my interaction to, you know what, to be fair, maybe it doesn't even have much to do with wisdom teaching or non duality.
Speaker A:Maybe it's just me being, trying to be rational in an interaction and neglecting how I'm actually feeling and what my condition needs are.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Which you can, I think, really only appreciate from a heart space, from a compassion orientation because then you recognize the role of conditioning in yourself and you recognize that, oh, you are actually suffering from your conditioning or from the conditions that are around you.
Speaker A:It's very difficult.
Speaker A:I would propose that it's impossible to recognize suffering and have compassion from a pure wisdom perspective.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:Yeah, okay, so I, I guess, I guess just to be explicit, I'm, I'm specifically in my mind thinking about very difficult interaction I had over the weekend where I was trying to be really reasonable and it totally set things off.
Speaker A:And I think that the reality is that by trying to be completely reasonable, I was covering my own emotional attachment to the issue.
Speaker A:And I think this is something that happens very, very often.
Speaker A:I think it's something that happens amongst people very commonly, not all the time.
Speaker A:And because not everyone has that kind of bias and orientation, like some people come from much more of a heart space and much more about their feelings and they're not interested in dealing with facts, they're really just dealing with how things are making them feel.
Speaker A:And they don't care about the words you're saying, they only care about their feelings about the words you're saying.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:So that's not my trap.
Speaker A:That's not a trap that I fall into.
Speaker A:I fall into the other side of it.
Speaker A:And then of course, because my partner intends the other way, there's this huge conflict.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:Which to put it in really prosaic terms and like management training terms, this goes to like style under stress.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It's like, how do you tend.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Ryan:How do you work style stress.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Like when, when you're really pushed, where do you, what, what version of things do you tend to rely on?
Speaker A:You know, what kind of style do you try to use to resolve problems like I'm just going to, I'm just going to stop dealing with emotion.
Speaker A:I'm just going to be completely rational and that's how I'm going to deal with my, you know, any conflict which is not, not effective at all if the other person isn't on board with that.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:If I did it with you, it would be more effective.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Because you have the similar orientation.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:So anyway, I don't know whether it was a digression or an elaboration, but I guess that's just what's been on my mind.
Speaker A:But I think this video kind of highlighted that for me because it seems so strange.
Speaker A:The, the content seems so strange.
Speaker A:And, and I think what I noticed from the content is that aside from the humor and the humor I think automatically implies a kind of sympathy, implies a kind of heart understanding that there's, there's a problem here.
Speaker A:I mean that's what humor is.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But yet the content is very, very devoid of compassion.
Speaker A:The words that are used are completely devoid of any kind of compassion or sympathy.
Speaker A:It's only the humor and the laughing about it that kind of give you an idea that.
Speaker A:Oh, they understand.
Speaker A:They understand how difficult this is.
Ryan:Right?
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:So that's why.
Speaker A:That's what I was taking away from.
Speaker A:But it was interesting to have you to talk about it with you because having watched it previously, I really did not know how to interact with this content.
Ryan:I, yeah, I agree that.
Ryan:Well, I guess part of it is what is the purpose, what is the objective of this content?
Ryan:And I don't know exactly what it is.
Ryan:Obviously humor is intended to be part of it and I think that is to take a, like to be able to laugh at ourselves kind of thing.
Ryan:And for that I think it maybe met its objective at least for the niche market of people who may understand kind of the broader sense of non duality.
Ryan:But I agree that it's not really practical like it, it's not really practical for conventional interactions and having.
Ryan:Whether whether they would say compassion exists or not.
Ryan:I think we probably agree and disagree at the same point, which is that compassion is part of the whole.
Ryan:But the separateness of compassion is not actually real but the experience that we're in.
Ryan:And this is I think an important orientation that you, I mean this is, this is in part what has been discussed from the beginning of our project here where you're, your orientation object objective is sourced in reducing suffering in the conventional conditioned experience where and I guess to some extent so is Buddhism.
Ryan:Right?
Ryan:Is that fair to say?
Speaker A:Yeah, I mean, that's.
Speaker A:That's.
Speaker A:I mean, that's basically where I get it from.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:I have that orientation because of my.
Ryan:Interaction with Buddhism, but it was also because of what you were seeking.
Ryan:You know, the.
Ryan:And so not everybody will come to sort of the bigger questions from that orientation, and some may not care, you know, like, this is off putting or unhelpful to somebody else.
Ryan:Well, they're not real anyway.
Ryan:And that is a perspective somebody could take.
Ryan:And I would agree that in the ultimate sense of things, there is nothing wrong with.
Ryan:With that perspective, but from a skill level, a skillfulness of interacting in conventional conditioned reality and with a.
Ryan:I guess this is where my orientation comes in.
Ryan:The desire to not be counterproductive to the other essences that are around me.
Ryan:But that's neither right or wrong either.
Speaker A:You know, So I kind of wanted.
Speaker A:Yeah, you were kind of.
Speaker A:I was responding in a certain way because you were.
Speaker A:I think you were naming or what evoked in me was a sense of different kinds of seekers.
Speaker A:Like, people are seeking different things and they're all.
Speaker A:Okay, I think.
Speaker A:I think.
Speaker A:Oh, what.
Speaker A:So what you had asked is, what's the.
Speaker A:What's the purpose of the content?
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And I think, you know, for me, well, the purpose was to help me gain insight in the way that I gained insight by interacting with this and sharing it with you.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:But I don't think that that's inherent to the content.
Ryan:Right, right.
Speaker A:And I think that's the whole point, is that the viewer always has to recognize their role in the experience.
Ryan:Yes.
Speaker A:And so, I mean, I started with it saying pretty much the attitude of, I don't agree with this.
Speaker A:This is a problem.
Speaker A:And it became like, oh, now I understand how I see things better.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:And I think that the.
Speaker A:The hazard is for someone to come into content like this and then either saying, oh, this is true.
Speaker A:Oh, this is what I should be doing, and trying to do it even when they're not equipped or interacting with it and saying, God, this is so wrong.
Speaker A:This is terrible.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And it's like, no, it's just not for you.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:You're not finding it helpful in the way you're interacting with it right now.
Speaker A:It doesn't mean that it's terrible and wrong.
Speaker A:It means it's not helpful to you, so move on.
Speaker A:But I think that distinction is a very big problem for, basically, I think people generating more suffering for themselves and others by the way they interact with their experience and saying, you know, this is terrible and wrong, and Now I have to start reacting against it because it's so wrong and my experience of it is so bad.
Speaker A:And now I have to go and generate more conflict.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Rather than either.
Speaker A:Oh, well, let me work at.
Speaker A:With this until I understand what it means for me and how it.
Speaker A:Like, what is the teaching that I can find in this from my experience of it.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:Or, oh, I'm not interacting with this productively right now, so I'm just going to walk away from it.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:And it's fine.
Speaker A:Like, it's just not for me, you know?
Speaker A:And what I.
Speaker A:And I think what that really means is it's not for you right now because the conditions are not right.
Ryan:Yep.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Ryan:Well.
Ryan:And even second time around, in a different audience, in a different discussion, you were able to pull a nugget of wisdom out of it, whether it was intended that way or not.
Speaker A:Because I introduced different conditions.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:I changed the conditions.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Now, I didn't do that intentionally.
Speaker A:I was like, this is annoying.
Speaker A:Let me show you.
Speaker A:Let me see what you think of this.
Speaker A:Because I think it's weird and.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:But it had the consequence of changing the conditions, enabling me to actually get something out of it.
Ryan:Yeah, yeah.
Ryan:I'm inclined to just reiterate the same kind of bang in the drum that I always do about judgment and how our determination, our choices to highlight something as right or wrong is a strong input and condition for suffering.
Ryan:You know, I don't know.
Ryan:That's just what came to mind.
Ryan:I was resistant to say it, but that was.
Speaker A:No, I think that's an interesting point because that was actually a source of conflict for me that I was referencing before.
Speaker A:And I kind of want to.
Speaker A:I mean, it's very funny because the specific orientation you'll recognize from quality work.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And so, yeah, it's a funny thing because I think, for me, specifically.
Speaker A:All right.
Speaker A:To get really explicit and specific about it.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:A kitchen is utilitarian space.
Speaker A:And like, pots and pans are tools.
Speaker A:They're utilitarian purposes.
Ryan:Okay.
Speaker A:Their.
Speaker A:Their reason for existing is utilitarian.
Speaker A:And so to me, it fits into this quality, quality question of optimization.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And there's not really any question about it.
Speaker A:Now, this is obviously my, you know, very strong bias, but I find it really weird that I get strong opposition to kind of that proposition.
Speaker A:It's like, well, the purpose of emptying the dishwasher isn't to get stuff out of the dishwasher.
Speaker A:The purpose of clearing the table isn't for the table to be empty.
Speaker A:It's like it's to get the stuff back to where it can then be used and continue to be useful.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And this, so this is the conversation that I was having that really generated a lot of.
Ryan:So what's the counter narrative to that?
Ryan:Because I can see one and I'm curious if I, if why don't you just give it.
Speaker A:Because.
Ryan:Well, I mean, there can be an aesthetic purpose to clearing the table.
Ryan:I mean, probably less so emptying the dishwasher, but sure.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:But if you're talking about cleaning the house or tidying up.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like the practice of just shoveling stuff somewhere else so that the table is clear is not useful.
Ryan:Yes.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:Yes.
Speaker A:So unless you're going to make the clear statement of yes, I have no interest whatsoever in utility.
Speaker A:Utility, it's purely aesthetic so that I don't have to see stuff on the table.
Speaker A:Unless you're going to take that position, which is a very strong position, then you should be concerned about.
Speaker A:It wasn't a position that was offered.
Speaker A:So, so you're making, that's why like I wanted you to raise the issue.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:Of.
Speaker A:Okay, what's, what's the air quotes?
Speaker A:Reasonable.
Ryan:Sure.
Speaker A:Like opposition to it.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:If it's.
Speaker A:Well, I'm not, I'm not interested in the utility of it.
Speaker A:I just, this is making me emotionally uncomfortable.
Speaker A:I just want it cleared, which I think, I think actually is the proposition that was in the conflict.
Speaker A:Don't tell me that I have to be utilitarian about it because I just want to be comfortable and I'm going to keep on trying to do this so that I can be comfortable.
Speaker A:And that's where the conflict is.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Because for me it's like I'd rather have be messy and not put the effort into it than to put the effort into it and have not.
Speaker A:Not be utilitarian.
Ryan:Sure.
Ryan:Yeah.
Ryan:That's very quality esque of you too.
Ryan:I can appreciate that.
Speaker A:And so, and so I, so having.
Speaker A:So now I appreciate kind of like, oh, okay, so there really are two valid sides and they're, they're, they're equally valid.
Speaker A:They're just different value sets.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Like I value the comfort of not having an eyesore and I don't care about utility.
Speaker A:And it's like, well, I can't stand seeing the effort put into a thing with no utility.
Speaker A:Now if you told me, and here's the problem, I think this is where for me the conflict comes is, well, you're not telling me that this is choice.
Speaker A:Like if you're telling me I'm just making art.
Speaker A:I'm not going to have any problem with that.
Speaker A:Oh, it's art.
Speaker A:It's not supposed to have a utility.
Speaker A:It's supposed to make me feel a certain way or make you feel or make someone feel a certain way.
Speaker A:It doesn't have to make me feel that way.
Speaker A:It makes someone feel that way.
Speaker A:It's valid art.
Speaker A:Someone feels the way that someone wanted to help them feel.
Speaker A:It's valid.
Speaker A:It doesn't matter how disgusting it seems to me or whatever, or useless or doesn't matter what I think of it.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:The inability to make that statement is what creates the problem for me.
Speaker A:Because I'm trying to be really explicit.
Speaker A:I'm not trying.
Speaker A:I am, in fact, being really explicit.
Speaker A:These words are coming out of my mouth.
Speaker A:You know, the lids always go with the pots because they're essentially a unit.
Speaker A:They're manufactured together.
Speaker A:They have no purpose for existence separate from each other.
Speaker A:It's just the way it is.
Speaker A:And yet it's like, no, it doesn't matter as long as they're off the table.
Speaker A:So, I mean, so it's weird because.
Speaker A:So I was thinking about this conversation.
Speaker A:I was thinking, oh, I don't want to talk about this.
Speaker A:Because I'm like, talking about, like, especially now that we're.
Speaker A:No, My wife's becoming business partner.
Speaker A:It's like, well, I don't want to talk about my partner without her permission.
Speaker A:Permission about this thing.
Speaker A:But I.
Speaker A:I think this is not at all criticism of.
Speaker A:Of her.
Ryan:No.
Ryan:It's just a difference of.
Speaker A:Although I have to say, I don't.
Speaker A:I can't rely on her acceptance of that.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:So I don't know what we're gonna do with this content in the end.
Ryan:That's fine.
Ryan:I'll send it to you and you can tell me what to keep in knob.
Speaker A:I mean, this would be interesting.
Speaker A:I'm really curious to have her actually hear this conversation in this different context and say, okay, now do I have it right?
Speaker A:Like, now am I being kind of non threatening about it?
Speaker A:Because I think.
Speaker A:I think that's what happens is that when we have these different perspectives and we can't be explicit about them and the other person doesn't recognize, then it becomes judgment.
Speaker A:And so I'm not appreciating.
Speaker A:Oh, okay.
Speaker A:You just have this aesthetic need to clear the table, and the other part doesn't matter because honestly, it does not matter.
Speaker A:I can see that.
Speaker A:But if you don't tell me that I can't see it And I'm telling you that I have this utilitarian approach and you're not explaining to me the alternative.
Speaker A:Now I just feel kind of denied, you know, just, just opposed and like, what's the opposition?
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:So to me, that there's that missing piece of being.
Ryan:Do you really think in the moment that would have swayed your.
Ryan:I mean, it's not going to change your position at all.
Ryan:You're still going to think that time should be spent in a way that meets the utilitarian need.
Speaker A:No, but I still see, I see the validity, sure.
Speaker A:Like I said, like, I see the validity of art for art's sake.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And so if it's presented to me as that and not as a utilitarian thing, but honestly, I mean, I was in a very blind spot where I was seeing it only as utilitarian thing.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:But to be fair, I was also being quite explicit.
Speaker A:Here's the utilitarian issue.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:And in that context, there is no other answer.
Speaker A:And if there is another answer, then you've got to provide the other context.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:And to just say, well, you're just attacking me.
Speaker A:Because that's of course where the interaction goes.
Speaker A:Well, now I'm unhappy because you're attacking me.
Speaker A:Like, I'm not attacking you.
Speaker A:Well, I'm denying, I'm denying this other context that's not being offered to me.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:That's what's happening, I think.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:Which then feels like an attack, which then puts somebody in.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:A different frame of mind to not be able to offer the counter argument, so to speak.
Speaker A:And I did get there eventually.
Ryan:Did you?
Speaker A:I kind of, I kind of said, okay, so I see what I'm doing.
Speaker A:I'm.
Speaker A:I'm not appreciating the feelings around this.
Speaker A:And if I ignore.
Speaker A:I don't remember exactly what I said.
Speaker A:I got myself to a space of, okay, in the big picture, it doesn't really matter.
Speaker A:But it didn't solve the problem.
Speaker A:And there's two aspects of it, I think.
Speaker A:So going back to non duality.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:It just doesn't matter.
Speaker A:Right, Right.
Speaker A:But if you're agreeing to operate in conventional reality, then there's a problem to be solved.
Ryan:Sure.
Speaker A:And there's.
Speaker A:There is a resolution to the problem.
Speaker A:It's not like an unsolvable problem.
Speaker A:It's a question of getting all the information out.
Speaker A:And now we're going back to again.
Speaker A:Prosaic management training.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:The pool of shared meaning.
Speaker A:It's very frustrating that I can't pull this shit out in real time.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It's like it takes me so long to.
Speaker A:Oh, yeah, I should have been trying to get the pool shared meaning.
Speaker A:Oh, yeah.
Speaker A:Okay.
Ryan:Well, yeah, I mean, it's.
Ryan:It's in the moment.
Ryan:And there.
Ryan:I mean, it sounds like there is still an emotional component to you, to.
Speaker A:Your experience, and that the problem is that I was taking this rational approach, which was neglecting my own emotional experience.
Speaker A:And because I was neglecting my emotional experience, I was also neglecting her emotional experience.
Speaker A:And I think that is what really created the conflict was the sense that I'm saying emotions are important.
Ryan:Right.
Speaker A:Which is an attack on a value set.
Ryan:Yep.
Speaker A:For someone who.
Speaker A:Who's emotional experience or.
Ryan:And it's also a blinder for your own experience.
Speaker A:Right.
Ryan:Yeah.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So.
Ryan:Well, that was an interesting video and definitely spawned some interesting context, and we'll see how much of that latter part stays in.
Ryan:But I think the end of the.
Ryan:I think the ultimate conclusion of that narrative is an important piece.
Ryan:And recognizing that.
Ryan:Well, I think ultimately your point about recognizing the importance and value of the compassion and the wisdom teachings and that they are both part of the same thing, that it is not counter to wisdom teaching to embody compassion teaching and the importance of the skillfulness in interacting with those around us to offer the wisdom and the compassion teaching is obviously.
Ryan:I think wisdom teaching is also important.
Ryan:It can't just be compassion teaching either.
Ryan:Right.
Ryan:There needs to be a balance, and finding that balance is important.
Ryan:But I appreciate you bringing this.
Ryan:Any final words?
Speaker A:No, no.
Speaker A:Thanks for.
Speaker A:Thanks for the therapy session.
Ryan:All right, we'll talk to you guys next time.
Ryan:Thanks.
Speaker A:Welcome back.
Speaker A:Views, interpretations and opinions expressed are not advice nor official positions presented on behalf of any organization or institution.
Speaker A:They are for informational and entertainment purposes only.
Speaker A:Now join Ryan and Peter for another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Ryan:Hold on, let me do the right one.
Speaker A:Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Speaker A:Join us next time as we continue the discussion.
Speaker A:Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube and visit www.eth-studio.com for more information and content.
