It's impossible for consciousness (us) to use the scientific method to explain the most intimate of itself. Science explains form, It can hypothetically explain all observable forms, but not the observer itself. For that, consciousness needs to turn inward.
@@joajoajbI think Rupert makes it very clear that the distinction between consciousness itself and the mind is a concession to the need to talk about it. Without it, nothing at all could be said because consciousness has no objective qualities to talk about. It just is (and even that is too much said).
@@joajoajbRupert says the finite mind is limited, thus can't know or understand outside of its framework. Yet he describes consciousness or the unknown as "infinite". If his finite mind is limited, how does he describe what he calls the "infinite"? Calling it infinite implies that he knows about it, that it is infinite. They go on and on describing the unknown lol
@@philippecuenoud2949 yes, all these 'gurus' speak of infinite consciousness but if you look at them closely you see it's all the same regurgitated rubbish the human race has been fed for millennia, and all of them behave in very 'finite' manner -- AI could so easily do their job and charge way less money
💚💚💚🙏🙏🙏 From Syria " Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature . And that is because , in the last analysis , we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve ." ~ Max Planck " The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing ." ~ Erwin Schrodinger " The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an athiest , but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you ." ~ Werner Heisenberg " The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level ." ~ Wolfgang Pauli "
Nothing has ever or could ever exist outside of consciousness. If you are aware of any “thing” -thought/feeling/object then by definition it is taking place in consciousness and it can be studied as an object . But the thing that all things appear in cannot be studied as an object. It is permanently the subject. All you can do which isn’t really a “doing” is BE, and recognize that you are consciousness. And the more familiar you become with BEing and recognizing yourself as consciousness the more the nature of it will reveal itself.
I “know” all is but my separate self still wants to hold on. I did have a glimpse yesterday when I realized while I was listening that I was not listening. Listening was happening and there was nothing that was actually listening. I realized when I think I’m listening it’s just a thought that has nothing to do with listening. See clear as a bell!😅
Rupert is so precise in his explanations. His understanding of non duality is so thorough. Until mainstream science embraces the possibility that consciousness is fundamental, we will continue to hit a wall in our understanding of this existence. Thank you Rupert.
Strange. I tend to copy a link to almost every video of Rupert that I watch, always with the feeling that ‘Wow, this video says it all‘. Slowly my collection of links to video, where each video says it all, is getting out of control. Just amazing. I am more and more convinced that the words transmitted in each of his videos are just the carrier of the real message that is somewhere ‘between’ or ‘behind’ the words. So powerful, so healing. Thank you, Rupert.
I feel the same. Of course it has to do with the fact that words can only transport concepts, not reality itself. So everything Rupert says points to reality, but it can never fully endorse it. But when we listen to Ruperts words, we get an inner hunch of what is real - that reality of the universe that can not be found out there, but only within ourselves. It's like a training to look for reality at the right "place", and after a while we don't need Ruperts words anymore to go there.
@@joajoajb From what you write, it is very clear that you haven't understood what Rupert is saying, nor what nonduality means. There are several things you claim about Ruperts teachings that are simply wrong. If you want to attack that teaching, you would need to understand it first, to actually come up with valid arguments.
This thread of thoughts introduced by @joajoajb underneath my initial posting shows the dilemma that starts, as soon as we tackle this 'pathless path' by using mental concepts and words. The result: Long postings, confusion, headache. A good remedy against this headache: Re-listen Rupert's video. So clear, so 'loving-kindness-generating'. Some discussions should not be held, or only be held after spending one week under clear sky in remote mountains. Otherwise the only result is: Producing noise. Sorry about being so harsh, but now I have to deal with my headache. :)
🙏 In avoidance of growing my headache even further, I am out of this 'ping-pong' now. I have nothing in common with any 'christian lady' (conventionally speaking :). All the best to you @joajoajb.
@@joajoajb Thanks for your reply. Just for context, I also have always been one of those who felt deeply drawn to clarify the nature of reality. One of my initial thoughts, many decades ago, was "I can't stand the idea that I'm born into this world, and after some time will die without ever knowing what this all was about". Maybe you know this feeling. So I went down the scientific path, studying physics, quantum physics, relativity. Also computer Science and AI in search for what this "consciousness" is all about. While these fields gave me great insights, they could not answer the core question. So I kept searching, discovering philosophy, religion, and finally non-duality. Been exploring these now for about four decades, each day. So I can relate to your experience of having it all to shake off, finding the truth for yourself, and the effort and dedication that was involved in doing so. Where I think you're wrong, is when you say Rupert overlooks that consciousness can deceive itself. It is, in fact, one of the core teachings of Rupert, that exactly this is happening. Consciousness tricks itself into believing it is a finite mind, which at the same time is the mechanism of the manifestation of the physical world. Also the false idea of the "deity" that results from that is clarified by Rupert. There is no self-existing duality between deity and devil. There's only consciousness. I am having difficulties understanding where in this teaching you see any claims otherwise. When you say "The only one doing that to Itself is consciouness Alone" I think you are completely right, and this is absolutely in sync with Rupert's teachings. Of course I don't know everything that Rupert has ever said, but I've followed Rupert now for several years, read all of his books and have been to several of his retreats.
The knowing cannot know knowing it can only know that it knows. This knowing is the secret. The one problem with Ruperts approach is the overreliance on the word "consciousness" which people interpret in the objective sense or the standard definition of it. What he SHOULD say, is clarify that he is referring to that ineffable enigma we refer to with the word consciousness. The ineffable divine isnt consciousness, nor is it even the ineffable divine it is that mystery that knows all mysteries. And even that is too limited and objective a statement. But it points in the right direction. Science can only study objective phenomena. The irony is all scientists experience phenomena subjectively, including their experimental results and the objective valudations of other scientists are just experiences in that subjective hologram. So, belief in objectivity being the fundamental ground of being is a delusional assumption. The ground of being isn't subjective nor objective. It is the knowing itself which we think is subjective, and we only think it's subjective because we think there is a polar opposite we call the objective reality. Both subjectivity and objectivity are therefore ideas of the mind which is not what truly IS, it's just a thought about what is. And whatever that is, it is known only as knowing itself. And that knowing has three primary natures, the holy trinity basically: existence, consciousness, boundless "emptiness" but when we say emptiness we do not mean space. Space is just that part of emptiness that doesn't look as busy to us... but look closer and you see it's anything but less busy or empty!
The very nature of consciousness (or divine Mind) is to explore itself. This exploration takes a multitude of different forms and operates on many different levels. Human science is simply one of the various forms, on one of the various levels, that this self-exploration can (and clearly does) take. And so, there's no right or wrong, no true or false, because everything that appears in existence is already included within the universal consciousness of this singular, all encompassing divine Mind.
Anyone can study consciousness. The word means to be aware, so what are man aware of? Wars, torture, ect.. all that is contain in consciousness you can become, that's the world you are seeing. The real question is, what has time got to do with consciousness?
Will science ever prove the existence of love, be able to show love’s cause/origin and scientifically detect or “measure” it (with technology’s most advanced instruments) as if it were so many (shall we say) currents of electricity? If not, does that mean love doesn’t exist or is an illusion? I’m not referring to romantic love but even that cannot be found or explained with scientific instruments. We can measure love’s effects by observing the response in specific parts of the brain but that doesn’t explain it.) It’s not possible to explain “the ineffable” in scientific terms and never will be in this reality we experience as life.
There is one scientist who has the right approach: Dr Donald Hoffman, he meditated for 20 or more years and he speaks of the One he “knows” from experience. There are videos with Rupert and Donald
@@Leksa135 Because like Rupert says that through orange glasses you see orange snow, Stephen says that the world observed depends on kind of observer that observes it. There are differences in their thinking, ofcourse.
No it cannot, because it's intangible? Consciousness isn't a material thing, and so can't be observed or experimented on in a lab. An individual can only be conscious of their own consciousness. That's it. Consciousness is simply known by itself through experience only? First time I agree with Rupert ever.
@LifesInsight The brain isn't consciousness though. If it is which part of matter of the brain is consciousness? How can a lump of matter be conscious? Wouldn't the consciousness itself still be distinct from the matter. Next you will argue science can observe love. Observing brain states isn't observimg consciousness; it's just observing brain stimuli.
@LifesInsight Consciousness is obviously affected by the brain because our consciousness is somehow linked with a body, so each have effects on each other. However, consciousness is not the brain, and so science cannot observe it. The only thing that can observe your conscioisness is your consciousness. Observation of a brain is just observation of a lump of flesh, not consciousness itself. Same as brain stimuli is observation of brain stimuli, not consciousness itself. Science can't touch consciousness because it's exclusively God's domain. We cannot know what consciousness is or what it's comprised off. The only thing we can know is that it is aware and is capable of being aware of itself. From our perspective it just is a brute fact? I am conscious and that's all I can know about it.
@LifesInsight You don't know that consciousness is due to the brain, rather you only know it's affected by the brain. Even if I grant you that you still can't observe the conscoiousness itself that the brain is supposedly creating. You can observe the matter of the brain and the stimuli, but not the actual experience you suppose is the emergent property. The brain in this instant would still be creating an immaterial reality called consciousness, and immaterial things can not be observed. The experience itself isn't material, even if it's an emergent property of a material brain? It cannot be observed or seen as a material thing, even if one argues it's created by the brain. Arguing this way makes no difference. Science hasn't the slightest clue as to what consciousness is, and I'm very confident it never will? In the same way as science cannot observe love or the laws of logic. We are simply conscious of these things. It seems consciousness can know more things of real value and purpose than science itself. Science can't know love, but consciousness can.
Beautiful and brilliant - 🙏 Rupert . How long will science keep pursuing the objects in its exploration for truth - this method of pursuit could never reach the state of consciousness that as you explain and make your followers experience - it seems so futile and so apparently flawed in its approach - how long will science break down the whole into objects and keep piecing the parts together to make the whole - it's such a flawed approach - for which the world awards Nobel prizes and being taught in universities across the world - how much more could we be collectively wrong in this
Science divides the hard and easy problem of Consciousness. Yet they are both about the mind. The easy part is about how the mind works, the hard part about its limitations. The mind discriminates and thus science using it, tries to discriminate between conscious and non-conscious. However there is no such thing as non-conscious, since everything excists within consciousness. The mind cant fathom that it/ the world is only there when observed. That which creates the perception cannot go beyond that what it perceives. Its the classic catch 22 of the mind. It can only divide, it cant unify..
Consciousness is fleeting. You can lose consciousness. Consciousness is only a precursor for awareness. Consciousness is a non physical and therefore cannot store any knowledge information nor delete nor prompt anything to explore anything and therefore that alone means consciousness cannot explore consciousness nor can consciousness be the science of consciousness to obtain knowledge of any kind, because that is what science is, " knowledge of any kind". Consciousness requires the physical brain to be a faculty and the physical brain requires a physical source to form the intelligent species physical body and brain. A physical brain cannot form a physical body nor vice versa and definitely consciousness cannot form anything physical let alone the intelligent species physical body and brain. So that physical source that formed the intelligent species, implemented a consciousness tool just for the simple reason for the physical source to be aware of its surrounds and evolve. The mind, the faculty for consciousness, and the physical brain, the faculty of the mind. So at some point, consciousness does go through the mind. The physical source within imprinted knowledge prompts all and everything it enlightens the physical brain to study for its purpose of evolving like it has been doing for aeons. A phenomenon means, a fact or situation that is OBSERVED to exist or happen, and so the mind perceives, ie becomes conscious of the phenomenon.Any objectiveness to that phenomenon is to late because the fact or situation has already occurred and observed. So the mind is limited to the physical brain and the physical brain is limited to the physical source within. Hello! Im thinking this Teacher is bamboozling his subjects. The subject really got nothing. To even bring up " can science explain the nature of consciousness" is irrelevant.
To really make the point that you can lose consciousness, you would need to be aware of the you, while not being conscious. See the problem? You can never lose consciousness. How would you be sure "you" is still there when not being conscious? Of course, if you identify "you" with the body, then you would be right. But that's not the point of view we're talking about here. With "you", or from your own perspective from within "I", we mean that which is aware of itself. Or in other words, the raw sense of being. Maybe to clarify a bit further, in general speech "awareness" (which Rupert uses synonymous with consciousness) can have two different meanings. A computer that has been programmed to move around its environment, using cameras and other sensors, could be said to be "aware" of its surroundings. This is what you described above, and as you said it's a tool to get around and do intelligent stuff. But for this behaviour, the notion of an "inner experience" of what you are aware of is not necessary. The second meaning of "awareness", and that is what Rupert is referring to, is the inner experience of qualities. Like there's a difference between the data "some object is red" and the actual inner experience of the color red. Why would that evolve? And how could it ever? We could just be biological machines moving around and doing our stuff without any inner experience, and it would make zero difference for evolution. But this is not what's happening. Who is the one having the inner experience? It can't be the body, since our experience shows clearly that it's exactly the other way round. Not the body is having experience, but experience is knowing the body. Your point of view is that of a materialist (not that anything is wrong with that) who does not recognize that in your own awareness there is something that is not material in nature, but still is there (now that is a problem).
@@valuemastery Your paragraph (1) You can only be aware of the "you' once the physical source that initially formed to then form the intelligent species physical body and brain. That physical source within will enlighten the physical brain of its PRESENCE which is the REAL YOU. So, someone can hit you on the head and you lose consciousness, but your physical source PRESENCE within is still in iteration function mode. Quote: " we mean that which is aware of itself", that within will never be aware of itself because it is completely seperate to your physical body and brain because that physical source was formed from fusing elements formulae having a symbiotic relationship with biology. ( the real DUALITY)( there is no non duality). That formulae to form is just that, it is an imprinted formulae to form for its purpose, in this case, the intelligent species. Consciousness is non physical and does not have a formulae to form anything physical and the physical brain cannot form the physical body nor vice versa, which means a physical source is required to form the intelligent species physical body and brain and implement non physical tools of operatus for the physical source PRESENCE awareness of its surrounds for the purpose of survival and evolving. (2) AI and computers can never be aware because they are not operating from their own iteration function nor did they derive from a source, more so a physical source of fused elements formulae and biology. AI and Computors are rendered useless because they can be switched off. Where if the physical brain lost consciousness, that physical source PRESENCE is still in operating mode and eventually wake the physical brain. (3) quote; " why would it evolve". That physical source within formed to form the intelligent species. That physical source within is passed on via reproduction since its inception at an epoch either on earth or from out in the Universe. That physical source required a biological host. Understand that and you will understand the missing link and then you will understand " why it would evolve". More so, after evolving, that physical source deletes information thats not required ie do you really want to know if you came from a primate. The Physical source itself does not evolve because no need to because its already formulated perfect for its purpose, if it wasn't , it wouldn't form in the first place. The physical source is doing all the prompting which is experiencing for the physical brain. Unfortunately all Teachers and Guru's are only parroting each other and offer confusion because they do not have clue how that physical source within derived and imprinted with knowledge. (4) quote; " now that is the problem". No problem. No physical source means no Awareness. Awareness requires a physical source faculty. No fusing elements formulae having a symbiotic relationship with biology means no awareness. Awareness is only a tool implemented by the physical source. The ego is the tool for send a receive messages from that physical source presence to the physical brain. Of course, quote:" in your own awareness there is something that is not material in nature but still there", because its just non physical tools implemented to/and using material physical things to pass messages.
@@chiptowers1 This is only true when you believe that reality is physical, and consciousness rises from physicality. However, I don't believe this to be true. I think there is only awareness, and its reality is independent from a body. So when you read my comment with that in mind, it may make more sense.
@@valuemastery One can believe anything they want to believe and make that belief to be true to fit. Consciousness is the state of being aware of and responsive to ones surroundings. Consciousness is a precursor to Awareness. ie conscious of something, store it, to beware of it next time. The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain. What would (quote: I think there is only awareness) AWARENESS be relaying its awareness of something to be aware of when if there was only awareness to relay to and that something to be aware of would never affect awareness anyway nor ever. There is no point for awareness to be aware, it cant do anything about whats its aware of if there was only awareness. Awareness is not even a sensor. Yes I have read your comment with only awareness in mind and it does not fit. especially going by, " the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world". Awareness and the mind are non physical and require the facility of the physical brain.
@@chiptowers1 Well, then we have radically different world views, and according definitions of conciousness, awareness and mind. No wonder we don't understand each other. But no problem.
So much bla bla bla... there is nothing to study... consciousness is nothing more of being a witness of an experience... witness... NOTHING more has NOTHING to do with thoughts or knowledge but with silence...
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's impossible for consciousness (us) to use the scientific method to explain the most intimate of itself. Science explains form, It can hypothetically explain all observable forms, but not the observer itself. For that, consciousness needs to turn inward.
You just wrote exactly the same comment I wanted to write. Congratulations!!
@@mindfulkayaker7737Proof of shared consciousness :)
@@joajoajbI think Rupert makes it very clear that the distinction between consciousness itself and the mind is a concession to the need to talk about it. Without it, nothing at all could be said because consciousness has no objective qualities to talk about. It just is (and even that is too much said).
@@joajoajbRupert says the finite mind is limited, thus can't know or understand outside of its framework. Yet he describes consciousness or the unknown as "infinite". If his finite mind is limited, how does he describe what he calls the "infinite"? Calling it infinite implies that he knows about it, that it is infinite. They go on and on describing the unknown lol
@@ashvojNope.He always opens up his retreats by saying that anything he will say is not absolutely true.
I think rupert will become very famous in a couple of decades. He is just way ahead of his time.
He'll be soon replaced by Artificial Intelligence: a Random Rupert Spira generator must be as easy to program as for Deepak Choprah.
@@philippecuenoud2949 yes, all these 'gurus' speak of infinite consciousness but if you look at them closely you see it's all the same regurgitated rubbish the human race has been fed for millennia, and all of them behave in very 'finite' manner -- AI could so easily do their job and charge way less money
@@philippecuenoud2949 This is probably the last thing AI could recreate
@@watchvideo7225 A set of card with selected sentences suffices, you draw them at random and it gives you Rupert Spira.
Thank you Rupert. 🥰
Very profound and yet so simple to understand ! Thanks to master Rupert !
💚💚💚🙏🙏🙏 From Syria
" Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature . And that is because , in the last analysis , we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve ."
~ Max Planck
" The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing ." ~ Erwin Schrodinger
" The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an athiest , but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you ."
~ Werner Heisenberg
" The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level ."
~ Wolfgang Pauli
"
Nothing has ever or could ever exist outside of consciousness. If you are aware of any “thing” -thought/feeling/object then by definition it is taking place in consciousness and it can be studied as an object . But the thing that all things appear in cannot be studied as an object. It is permanently the subject. All you can do which isn’t really a “doing” is BE, and recognize that you are consciousness. And the more familiar you become with BEing and recognizing yourself as consciousness the more the nature of it will reveal itself.
I “know” all is but my separate self still wants to hold on. I did have a glimpse yesterday when I realized while I was listening that I was not listening. Listening was happening and there was nothing that was actually listening. I realized when I think I’m listening it’s just a thought that has nothing to do with listening. See clear as a bell!😅
At best, "studying" consciousness may give you correlates. But never causes. Correlates may still be a worthwhile pursuit.
NO!
Thank you so much Rupert , I have no words to express the gratitude and devotion I feel when I hear you ❤❤🥰
Bless me to wake up to BEING 🙏🙏
So well explained. 🙏🏻
The human body is like a video-game controller. You can't explore the INFINITE game universe, but you can keep improving by PLAYING THE GAME.
Rupert is so precise in his explanations. His understanding of non duality is so thorough. Until mainstream science embraces the possibility that consciousness is fundamental, we will continue to hit a wall in our understanding of this existence. Thank you Rupert.
ঈশ্বর মঙ্গলময় 🎉❤🎉❤🎉❤🎉
আত্মিক
আত্মা
পবিত্র আত্মা 🎉❤
Great scientist 👏 ever
HE is the biggest scientist 👏 ever.
Strange. I tend to copy a link to almost every video of Rupert that I watch, always with the feeling that ‘Wow, this video says it all‘. Slowly my collection of links to video, where each video says it all, is getting out of control. Just amazing. I am more and more convinced that the words transmitted in each of his videos are just the carrier of the real message that is somewhere ‘between’ or ‘behind’ the words. So powerful, so healing. Thank you, Rupert.
I feel the same. Of course it has to do with the fact that words can only transport concepts, not reality itself. So everything Rupert says points to reality, but it can never fully endorse it. But when we listen to Ruperts words, we get an inner hunch of what is real - that reality of the universe that can not be found out there, but only within ourselves. It's like a training to look for reality at the right "place", and after a while we don't need Ruperts words anymore to go there.
@@joajoajb From what you write, it is very clear that you haven't understood what Rupert is saying, nor what nonduality means. There are several things you claim about Ruperts teachings that are simply wrong. If you want to attack that teaching, you would need to understand it first, to actually come up with valid arguments.
This thread of thoughts introduced by @joajoajb underneath my initial posting shows the dilemma that starts, as soon as we tackle this 'pathless path' by using mental concepts and words. The result: Long postings, confusion, headache. A good remedy against this headache: Re-listen Rupert's video. So clear, so 'loving-kindness-generating'. Some discussions should not be held, or only be held after spending one week under clear sky in remote mountains. Otherwise the only result is: Producing noise. Sorry about being so harsh, but now I have to deal with my headache. :)
🙏 In avoidance of growing my headache even further, I am out of this 'ping-pong' now. I have nothing in common with any 'christian lady' (conventionally speaking :). All the best to you @joajoajb.
@@joajoajb Thanks for your reply. Just for context, I also have always been one of those who felt deeply drawn to clarify the nature of reality. One of my initial thoughts, many decades ago, was "I can't stand the idea that I'm born into this world, and after some time will die without ever knowing what this all was about". Maybe you know this feeling. So I went down the scientific path, studying physics, quantum physics, relativity. Also computer Science and AI in search for what this "consciousness" is all about. While these fields gave me great insights, they could not answer the core question. So I kept searching, discovering philosophy, religion, and finally non-duality. Been exploring these now for about four decades, each day.
So I can relate to your experience of having it all to shake off, finding the truth for yourself, and the effort and dedication that was involved in doing so.
Where I think you're wrong, is when you say Rupert overlooks that consciousness can deceive itself. It is, in fact, one of the core teachings of Rupert, that exactly this is happening. Consciousness tricks itself into believing it is a finite mind, which at the same time is the mechanism of the manifestation of the physical world. Also the false idea of the "deity" that results from that is clarified by Rupert. There is no self-existing duality between deity and devil. There's only consciousness. I am having difficulties understanding where in this teaching you see any claims otherwise. When you say "The only one doing that to Itself is consciouness Alone" I think you are completely right, and this is absolutely in sync with Rupert's teachings. Of course I don't know everything that Rupert has ever said, but I've followed Rupert now for several years, read all of his books and have been to several of his retreats.
Precise and insightful as usual
Consciousness = waking presence= knowing being = I am.
Consciousness can only be studied by awareness. Consciousness arises and dissolves into awareness.
The knowing cannot know knowing it can only know that it knows.
This knowing is the secret.
The one problem with Ruperts approach is the overreliance on the word "consciousness" which people interpret in the objective sense or the standard definition of it.
What he SHOULD say, is clarify that he is referring to that ineffable enigma we refer to with the word consciousness.
The ineffable divine isnt consciousness, nor is it even the ineffable divine it is that mystery that knows all mysteries. And even that is too limited and objective a statement.
But it points in the right direction.
Science can only study objective phenomena. The irony is all scientists experience phenomena subjectively, including their experimental results and the objective valudations of other scientists are just experiences in that subjective hologram.
So, belief in objectivity being the fundamental ground of being is a delusional assumption.
The ground of being isn't subjective nor objective. It is the knowing itself which we think is subjective, and we only think it's subjective because we think there is a polar opposite we call the objective reality.
Both subjectivity and objectivity are therefore ideas of the mind which is not what truly IS, it's just a thought about what is. And whatever that is, it is known only as knowing itself. And that knowing has three primary natures, the holy trinity basically: existence, consciousness, boundless "emptiness" but when we say emptiness we do not mean space. Space is just that part of emptiness that doesn't look as busy to us... but look closer and you see it's anything but less busy or empty!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The very nature of consciousness (or divine Mind) is to explore itself. This exploration takes a multitude of different forms and operates on many different levels. Human science is simply one of the various forms, on one of the various levels, that this self-exploration can (and clearly does) take. And so, there's no right or wrong, no true or false, because everything that appears in existence is already included within the universal consciousness of this singular, all encompassing divine Mind.
❤
Anyone can study consciousness. The word means to be aware, so what are man aware of? Wars, torture, ect.. all that is contain in consciousness you can become, that's the world you are seeing.
The real question is, what has time got to do with consciousness?
❤ it is all Spira
It's needless to explain or prove consciousness. There you are.
Being asks the question and Being answers the question. Being is the one and only indubitable fact of life.
Will science ever prove the existence of love, be able to show love’s cause/origin and scientifically detect or “measure” it (with technology’s most advanced instruments) as if it were so many (shall we say) currents of electricity? If not, does that mean love doesn’t exist or is an illusion? I’m not referring to romantic love but even that cannot be found or explained with scientific instruments. We can measure love’s effects by observing the response in specific parts of the brain but that doesn’t explain it.) It’s not possible to explain “the ineffable” in scientific terms and never will be in this reality we experience as life.
There is one scientist who has the right approach: Dr Donald Hoffman, he meditated for 20 or more years and he speaks of the One he “knows” from experience. There are videos with Rupert and Donald
There are some people in scientific community with whom Rupert could find a common language. Stephen Wolfram and Barnardo Kastrup for example.
Rupert and Bernardo are friends already 😊 they have done some interesting podcast together.
@@lindalangdon9406 I have to look it up :)
Or Roger Penrose.
Why Wolfram?
@@Leksa135 Because like Rupert says that through orange glasses you see orange snow, Stephen says that the world observed depends on kind of observer that observes it. There are differences in their thinking, ofcourse.
The study of consciousness is the study of the universe. Ayam atman Brahman.
I wonder if Rupert has ever found Dr David Hawkins😊he has a great bit on mussel testing💪
Who us David Hawkins?🙄
روبيرت دائما رائع . شكرا على الترجمة
وين في ترجمة؟
There is no science. Consciousness is sciencebeing itself.
No it cannot, because it's intangible? Consciousness isn't a material thing, and so can't be observed or experimented on in a lab. An individual can only be conscious of their own consciousness. That's it. Consciousness is simply known by itself through experience only? First time I agree with Rupert ever.
@LifesInsight The brain isn't consciousness though. If it is which part of matter of the brain is consciousness? How can a lump of matter be conscious? Wouldn't the consciousness itself still be distinct from the matter. Next you will argue science can observe love. Observing brain states isn't observimg consciousness; it's just observing brain stimuli.
@LifesInsight Consciousness is obviously affected by the brain because our consciousness is somehow linked with a body, so each have effects on each other. However, consciousness is not the brain, and so science cannot observe it. The only thing that can observe your conscioisness is your consciousness. Observation of a brain is just observation of a lump of flesh, not consciousness itself. Same as brain stimuli is observation of brain stimuli, not consciousness itself. Science can't touch consciousness because it's exclusively God's domain. We cannot know what consciousness is or what it's comprised off. The only thing we can know is that it is aware and is capable of being aware of itself. From our perspective it just is a brute fact? I am conscious and that's all I can know about it.
@LifesInsight You don't know that consciousness is due to the brain, rather you only know it's affected by the brain. Even if I grant you that you still can't observe the conscoiousness itself that the brain is supposedly creating. You can observe the matter of the brain and the stimuli, but not the actual experience you suppose is the emergent property. The brain in this instant would still be creating an immaterial reality called consciousness, and immaterial things can not be observed. The experience itself isn't material, even if it's an emergent property of a material brain? It cannot be observed or seen as a material thing, even if one argues it's created by the brain. Arguing this way makes no difference. Science hasn't the slightest clue as to what consciousness is, and I'm very confident it never will? In the same way as science cannot observe love or the laws of logic. We are simply conscious of these things. It seems consciousness can know more things of real value and purpose than science itself. Science can't know love, but consciousness can.
💟🙏⭕💓⭕🙏💟
as Mr Spock once logic doesn't explain everything
Science and consciousness in the same sentence???? Seriously???
That is the point. There is no point😂
Beautiful and brilliant - 🙏 Rupert . How long will science keep pursuing the objects in its exploration for truth - this method of pursuit could never reach the state of consciousness that as you explain and make your followers experience - it seems so futile and so apparently flawed in its approach - how long will science break down the whole into objects and keep piecing the parts together to make the whole - it's such a flawed approach - for which the world awards Nobel prizes and being taught in universities across the world - how much more could we be collectively wrong in this
Science divides the hard and easy problem of Consciousness. Yet they are both about the mind. The easy part is about how the mind works, the hard part about its limitations.
The mind discriminates and thus science using it, tries to discriminate between conscious and non-conscious. However there is no such thing as non-conscious, since everything excists within consciousness.
The mind cant fathom that it/ the world is only there when observed. That which creates the perception cannot go beyond that what it perceives.
Its the classic catch 22 of the mind.
It can only divide, it cant unify..
Consciousness is fleeting. You can lose consciousness. Consciousness is only a precursor for awareness. Consciousness is a non physical and therefore cannot store any knowledge information nor delete nor prompt anything to explore anything and therefore that alone means consciousness cannot explore consciousness nor can consciousness be the science of consciousness to obtain knowledge of any kind, because that is what science is, " knowledge of any kind".
Consciousness requires the physical brain to be a faculty and the physical brain requires a physical source to form the intelligent species physical body and brain.
A physical brain cannot form a physical body nor vice versa and definitely consciousness cannot form anything physical let alone the intelligent species physical body and brain.
So that physical source that formed the intelligent species, implemented a consciousness tool just for the simple reason for the physical source to be aware of its surrounds and evolve.
The mind, the faculty for consciousness, and the physical brain, the faculty of the mind. So at some point, consciousness does go through the mind.
The physical source within imprinted knowledge prompts all and everything it enlightens the physical brain to study for its purpose of evolving like it has been doing for aeons.
A phenomenon means, a fact or situation that is OBSERVED to exist or happen, and so the mind perceives, ie becomes conscious of the phenomenon.Any objectiveness to that phenomenon is to late because the fact or situation has already occurred and observed.
So the mind is limited to the physical brain and the physical brain is limited to the physical source within. Hello!
Im thinking this Teacher is bamboozling his subjects. The subject really got nothing. To even bring up " can science explain the nature of consciousness" is irrelevant.
To really make the point that you can lose consciousness, you would need to be aware of the you, while not being conscious. See the problem? You can never lose consciousness. How would you be sure "you" is still there when not being conscious? Of course, if you identify "you" with the body, then you would be right. But that's not the point of view we're talking about here. With "you", or from your own perspective from within "I", we mean that which is aware of itself. Or in other words, the raw sense of being.
Maybe to clarify a bit further, in general speech "awareness" (which Rupert uses synonymous with consciousness) can have two different meanings. A computer that has been programmed to move around its environment, using cameras and other sensors, could be said to be "aware" of its surroundings. This is what you described above, and as you said it's a tool to get around and do intelligent stuff. But for this behaviour, the notion of an "inner experience" of what you are aware of is not necessary.
The second meaning of "awareness", and that is what Rupert is referring to, is the inner experience of qualities. Like there's a difference between the data "some object is red" and the actual inner experience of the color red. Why would that evolve? And how could it ever? We could just be biological machines moving around and doing our stuff without any inner experience, and it would make zero difference for evolution. But this is not what's happening. Who is the one having the inner experience? It can't be the body, since our experience shows clearly that it's exactly the other way round. Not the body is having experience, but experience is knowing the body.
Your point of view is that of a materialist (not that anything is wrong with that) who does not recognize that in your own awareness there is something that is not material in nature, but still is there (now that is a problem).
@@valuemastery Your paragraph (1) You can only be aware of the "you' once the physical source that initially formed to then form the intelligent species physical body and brain. That physical source within will enlighten the physical brain of its PRESENCE which is the REAL YOU. So, someone can hit you on the head and you lose consciousness, but your physical source PRESENCE within is still in iteration function mode. Quote: " we mean that which is aware of itself", that within will never be aware of itself because it is completely seperate to your physical body and brain because that physical source was formed from fusing elements formulae having a symbiotic relationship with biology. ( the real DUALITY)( there is no non duality). That formulae to form is just that, it is an imprinted formulae to form for its purpose, in this case, the intelligent species.
Consciousness is non physical and does not have a formulae to form anything physical and the physical brain cannot form the physical body nor vice versa, which means a physical source is required to form the intelligent species physical body and brain and implement non physical tools of operatus for the physical source PRESENCE awareness of its surrounds for the purpose of survival and evolving.
(2) AI and computers can never be aware because they are not operating from their own iteration function nor did they derive from a source, more so a physical source of fused elements formulae and biology. AI and Computors are rendered useless because they can be switched off. Where if the physical brain lost consciousness, that physical source PRESENCE is still in operating mode and eventually wake the physical brain.
(3) quote; " why would it evolve". That physical source within formed to form the intelligent species. That physical source within is passed on via reproduction since its inception at an epoch either on earth or from out in the Universe. That physical source required a biological host. Understand that and you will understand the missing link and then you will understand " why it would evolve". More so, after evolving, that physical source deletes information thats not required ie do you really want to know if you came from a primate. The Physical source itself does not evolve because no need to because its already formulated perfect for its purpose, if it wasn't , it wouldn't form in the first place. The physical source is doing all the prompting which is experiencing for the physical brain. Unfortunately all Teachers and Guru's are only parroting each other and offer confusion because they do not have clue how that physical source within derived and imprinted with knowledge.
(4) quote; " now that is the problem".
No problem. No physical source means no Awareness. Awareness requires a physical source faculty. No fusing elements formulae having a symbiotic relationship with biology means no awareness. Awareness is only a tool implemented by the physical source. The ego is the tool for send a receive messages from that physical source presence to the physical brain. Of course, quote:" in your own awareness there is something that is not material in nature but still there", because its just non physical tools implemented to/and using material physical things to pass messages.
@@chiptowers1 This is only true when you believe that reality is physical, and consciousness rises from physicality. However, I don't believe this to be true. I think there is only awareness, and its reality is independent from a body. So when you read my comment with that in mind, it may make more sense.
@@valuemastery One can believe anything they want to believe and make that belief to be true to fit.
Consciousness is the state of being aware of and responsive to ones surroundings.
Consciousness is a precursor to Awareness. ie conscious of something, store it, to beware of it next time.
The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.
What would (quote: I think there is only awareness) AWARENESS be relaying its awareness of something to be aware of when if there was only awareness to relay to and that something to be aware of would never affect awareness anyway nor ever.
There is no point for awareness to be aware, it cant do anything about whats its aware of if there was only awareness. Awareness is not even a sensor.
Yes I have read your comment with only awareness in mind and it does not fit. especially going by, " the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world". Awareness and the mind are non physical and require the facility of the physical brain.
@@chiptowers1 Well, then we have radically different world views, and according definitions of conciousness, awareness and mind. No wonder we don't understand each other. But no problem.
So much bla bla bla... there is nothing to study... consciousness is nothing more of being a witness of an experience... witness... NOTHING more has NOTHING to do with thoughts or knowledge but with silence...
Sometimes, we need to ask Who is there while someone is witnessing the witness.
Can science explain the nature of dumbness?
Science is also conscious, how can conscious study conscious? 😅