This one does it for me. I don't see a clearer, simpler way of illustrating what we are doing than an actor playing a role. It seems to be exactly what we are doing. Wow!!!!
He beautifully and insightfully gets at the essential reality of the concept of the oneness of humanity, of what it is; the reality that we are the waves of one ocean, the leaves of one tree.
consciousness arises from the compendium of processes occurring at a cortical level. Yet when great philosophers of the past questioned the I, they could only postulate there to be a witness observing an observer. We are not witnesses observing an observer. Who speaks to us & produces the words for which we see? It’s God. The words we speak to ourselves reign in accordance to His word. Who else will direct you through a life only you have experienced? Thine own words?
Create mental health to get rid of unruly housewives, people will flock and get "identified" by definitions that you create. I NOTICED THAT THE TWO IDENTIFIERS OF I ON TOP AND BOTTOM ARE NOT THERE ANYMORE. Romans 8:38-39
The imagined I is the thoughts, feelings and emotions created from experiences. The Higher self is the one aware of all those things because it is always there
Thanks for this comment!! This made it completely clear for me. The "I" in which no thoughts are involved is the Absolute Self!! So one can ask, "Am I referring to the "I" that others know, or am I referring to the alive "I" in me?"
‘Two birds of beautiful plumage, comrades, inseparable, born of the selfsame tree. One eats the bittersweet fruit of life. The other watches without eating.’ - The Upanishads The role we play in life as bodies walking the earth is subject to duality, pleasure and pain. Each role is consistent within itself, like King Lear. Yet is always merely a useful story. The physical body is made of impersonal and constantly changing elements. To be a person, you must identify with what is impermanent. It’s possible to step outside this role anytime and watch the whole show as awareness.
consciousness arises from the compendium of processes occurring at a cortical level. Yet when great philosophers of the past questioned the I, they could only postulate there to be a witness observing an observer. We are not witnesses observing an observer. Who speaks to us & produces the words for which we see? It’s God. The words we speak to ourselves reign in accordance to His word. Who else will direct you through a life only you have experienced? Thine own words?
If we remove all our thoughts all our concepts all our knowledge acquired through education all our ideologies all our memories and keep only and only in our present experience The only thing that will remain is the “I” feeling The sense of being or better said the consciousness of our existence. This consciousness of our own existence is the only one thing that is the same for all 7 million of us This is our irreducible Self with capital “S” that is shared with all of us That is what we are. And this recognition is the fountain of love and peace.
Saying "the imaginary separate self" is in my view the most apt designation of this because that particular self is a contrived entity and as such only arises as something imagined or conjured up. Eckhardt Tolle also used the expression the "phantom self" which is no different.
Yes, if I say just "I" or "I am" -- then the essential referent is eternal, infinite, non-phenomenal pure Awareness. But these words are used conventionally in a whole variety of ways that do not point (at least immediately and obviously) to Awareness. For instance: "I am hungry." Here, the "I" refers to a human body, which can feel hunger. Does Awareness *as such* ever feel hungry? Or: "I am confused." Here, the "I" refers to a human mind, which can be confused. Does Awareness *as such* ever experience confusion? Or: "I am sad." Here, the "I" refers to a human body-mind, which can experience emotions such as sadness, fear, anger, etc. Is Awareness *as such* ever sad, fearful or angry? Or even: "I have a dinged left rear taillight." Here, "I" refers to my car, which has a broken taillight. Does Awareness *as such* ever break its taillight? Just saying that in our day-to-day living, the word "I" is used in all kinds of different (and mostly functional) ways.
The part about the left rear tail light is interesting because in expressing something about oneself in that manner, it's as if one has conjured up this limited notion of oneself based purely on possession. Of course in the relative sense, we're forced to do this(as if you were talking to friends and had to express an accident involving your car).
Or he could have said it this way " My car has a ding on the rear tail light ." It's basically improper english saying it that way , thats all 😎 Namaste
There is a lot more to this fiction, this mass delusion, to unpack. Since the atom is empty space, there is never, in fact, a body or a mind to which anything can refer- except in belief. If we continue referring to bodies and minds, we will continue to hold these as actual, and as causes and effects. Language is our medium for communicating, so it is essential that we're not careless. We have to be vigilant in repeating what is true; vigilant in not rehearsing mere beliefs.
you don't have a broken taillight... the car has a broken tailight. a piece of paper and small green sheets of paper made it your car. of course, one could eat without declaring "i am hungry" & then there's declaration of "I AM CONFUSED" ... the awareness is closer to experiencing hunger than it is confusion. this would suggest that people really KNOW when they're actually hungry.
Be not deceived. You shall know them by their Fruit. The Fruit is Love, Peace, Joy, Kindness, Goodness, Compassion (Passion for All), Beauty, Creativity, Lucidity, Communication, Connection, Communion, with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life. They treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give to their dearest closest friend, without any sense of division or separation, and without any bias or prejudice. Moreover, they are Totally Free of fear, anxiety, sorrow, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice, in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Enlightenment does not take time. It is not of time. It is not the result of time or the things of time. It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet. It is not the result of any chemical. It is not the result of any process. There is no path to it. It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.
Gettin way too bogged down in language and metaphors in this one.. questioner needs to state his question clearly, and I’m not sure if he really has one?
The answer to the question of "who" is the I will always be unsatisfactory as it implies a nominalized personhood and would have to involve yet another I! A way more interesting and mind-bending question is WHAT is the "I" as in: "what" exactly is an (any) "I" if it is not a person?
@@TolaSeng Respectfully, Brahman, satchitananda, reality etc. are words being used to describe words, they don’t actually tell you what something is. And, that’s the point! Words can never adequately describe what anything is, especially something as vague and nebulous as “consciousness”, or, for lack of a better term, “that which is aware”. Asking the question “What Am I” is important, not because there is an answer, but precisely because there is NO answer possible. The realization of this unknowable and indescribable nature of what we are, puts our circumstances and perceptions into a grand context and vast perspective that elevates the mundane to the sacred and can turn our ordinary day to day lives into a profound spiritual experience :)
He wanted to stay in the analogy for the moment, that's why. Otherwise it is true, character role is the same in the analogy as the separate self in the "real world"
Ruby Badilla Thank you for this perfect explanation. I was given the direct experience of the sense of “I” being the last thing to go in the process of dissolution (the process of dying) in a lucid dream I was dreaming in my sleep at the exact same moment my mother was - unbeknownst time me - dying peacefully several miles away. I was woken by the phone call to let me know she had just passed. This was several years ago. The experience radically changed my understanding of i/I and i am deeply grateful for it. Many people comment on Rupert’s videos from a very narrow perspective so it is wonderful to read something from someone such as yourself who seems to know what s/he is talking about. Thank you.
Because the role is a way to describe our being's functioning in life; this is legitimate... The 'I' that we imagine ourselves to be, the little 'me' inside here, is not actually real, doesn't e x i s t in Reality... Roles kind of exist at the relative level, but just as a description
The questioner is caught up in the word I and he doesn’t understand that we can still say “I felt this.” or “I did that.” We live in the world of form where the “apparent self” still operates and does what it needs to do. However when you become aware of pure consciousness you understand that this “I” who does this or feels that, is only a limited I and is not the whole I. The I that exists and functions in the world of form is necessary for us to display our unique selves and try to align the inner self with the outer world of form. This is what creates an amazing, full, life experience in the “dream world”.However if we believe that “I” is all there is and we don’t understand that the mind/body is not who we really are, then we will suffer because we believe we are lacking something, when in fact we are complete already. Nothing the mind body can do will give us lasting or permanent serenity and joy. It’s only in understanding the I behind it ( pure conscious awareness) that we will have bliss. When we can operate in the world of form and know we are the “screen” or pure consciousness we are no longer on the pain pleasure roller coaster. We have a peace that has no end no matter what is happening in the world of form. We don’t mind what happens because we know whether it’s “tragedy” or “comedy” it’s “not real”, it’s only a play and we are characters who aren’t really being diminished or added to by what happens. The only thing that is real is what never changes and that is pure awareness behind everything or infinite consciousness.
To say our thoughts and feelings are not shared is to conclude that they arise in, and are located in, an individual body/mind, but this never exists. Everything is generated in and by the one false consciousness, and it is only belief that this sense testimony occurs within the apparent body/mind.
A conscious awareness is a note of vibration in the fullness of Creator’s eternal voice In this world this awareness has an identity named “I”. The identity functions through the physical laws and creates “mind”: the place where I observe the physical world through sensory inputs. In the mind, I develop a set of guidelines and rules that have helped me successfully navigate the physical life. It is informed by interactions and culture, family, friends, and society. I call that “ego” self. It is impulses and habits and thoughtless reactions, and often is at least partially stuck in childhood. It is selfish, and mainly concerned with biological survival and success, but it can extend concern to family and friends. It is shaped with ideologies and ideas and will feel attacked if the ideas are challenged. Ego establishes patterns of behavior: What to do when I feel threatened, how to act in sadness, how to manipulate my environment to meet goals, and frequently what the goals even are...to be successful means being rich, or having a certain car, or being attractive, or being famous, or being respected. Ego drives the physical/material life unless the conscious awareness of I steps in and becomes the active agent. But it is not automatic: you can, in your mind, say, “I choose not to measure my success by wealth, but by happiness,” and ego will still inject a shot of jealousy or envy of the dream home that your friend just bought. You have to examine ego and understand what is driving it. Why does it cause envy, why does it fear failure, etc...You have to face those formative experiences and rewrite them. Example: I am angry because my dog ignores me when I call. Anger is an expression of fear. I fear being disrespected, and I fear that my disobedient dog could be injured, and I fear not having control. The only valid fear is over the risk of injury to the dog...this is fixed by investing my time in training the dog better. The disrespect I trace back to my childhood when everyone laughed at me...I address this by understanding that it did not actually harm me, and that I could have joined in the laughter, but since I was hurt, I forgive. The fear of not having control is a biggie...I understand that I have no control over anything except my own reactions to life and I forgive myself for thinking I should have more control. You can think of ego like a program on a computer...it can be rewritten to align with consciousness awareness...throw out the old code that is the baggage of life. My new code is: Love. Express love through respecting free will, being kind, forgiving self and others, not passing judgements, refusing to bend to fear, elevating truth, and trusting in love to guide me. I am training my ego to adopt this new operating program.
In its own way, it’s wonderful what your doing, following the path of love. But there is an even simpler path, the path from where love itself arises. That is self-abidance. Abide in the Self, as Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta have said. That is all that needs to be done, nothing else. All these tendencies in us fall away as we become absorbed in the Self, without our striving for to cultivate loving qualities. They radiate from the Self alone. I have noticed the pure equanimity appearing in my body and mind as I rest my attention only here, in the I Am. It takes effort in the beginning, and usually can only be done in meditation, but continue. Continue. Keep trying, again and again, back into the Self. With time, take this fixation in the Self into your everyday life. There is only peace left. Rupert Spira has wonderful pointers and meditations in finding the Self, by relaxing our attention, falling back into the source of ourselves. I highly recommend them, as well as looking at the teachings of the above two. But above all else, simply abide as the Self. This Self is the gift the Beloved has left, a trace of the Divine, within our very hearts. Go there, and never return.
if love & friendship is a shared experience of being, then what is hate, jealousy or anything similar? "I" usually feel disconnected when I'm around such things.
Some people are just not good at understanding metaphors. A metaphor is NOT a model. It is a way to understand without rationalizing it. So if you start projecting the metaphor on all kinds of things, as if it were a model, you get lost. This questioner seems to be lost. If you don't get out the metaphor that the separate self is just a role and not a real self, and that this role-self doesn't really exist, better move on and find another way to understand 😊
This is what happens when we involve the mind instead of stilling it in authentic emptiness lol. I've been telling everyone about Drukama it's the tradition I ended up in. Check it out! Be well!
No, by our shared being he means our shared consciousness. One, timeless and infinite pure awareness that we all are essentially. The Universe is a temporary colouring of that awareness. Temporary finite play of the infinite awareness.
No, language is essential for correct understanding! Using dualistic terms ad nauseam, reinforces the very concepts that must be rejected. Don't "trust" the ego to "understand". Try simply referring to the "belief" in a separate self. It's only a couple of extra words. Reinforce the metaphysical facts with correct terms. It is actually disconcerting to repeatedly hear these references to a separate self. Again, language is essential for clearly communicating, especially with something like this. The "ego" grasps at every possible belief it can to hold onto to its fictional selfhood. It is only belief that is being addressed. What else could possibly be being taught? There is no person/entity. There is a subtle belief here that there is somehow an actual human self that merely has to translate the shorthand term into what it knows is really correct. No such self exists. It is, in fact, just a "program" that runs, not a self.
I have a simple question I am awareness which was the mind and body but when we have intense pain in body at that time to be a watcher becomes impossible and we identify with body and want pain to disappear what is the solution whyit happen s Dr Bhavesh
This is a good question and I’m sure Rupert has addressed it. Sorry I can’t direct you to one of his videos. He had an interesting talk on depression however where he points out the pathway from the statement ‘I am depressed ‘ to the question who is depressed? The self inquiry leads the ‘patient’ to the place of realisation that there is no one there to be depressed. I imagine with pain it is a similar pathway. I also presume that this would take a very serious attempt, because as you say pain can be a giant distraction.
Theres no solution, because a solution is coming from the mind trying to escape, which is the very “problem” in the first place. Who wants the pain to disappear? Fall in love with it, it is your reality. In this surrender and acceptance the Absolute will permeate through your being. And if you cannot accept, then watch that process of non-acceptance, try and understand how it furthers your suffering. “There is no need to struggle to be free, the absence of struggle is in itself freedom”
Recognize over and over that the atom is empty space, nor is there a mind or self in this nonexistent body. There is no organized matter. There's no matter at all. Simply being a witness won't free you from the pain, and it can exacerbate it, because it is where you put your focus. No sensation or perception is actually arising in this nonexistent body. Know that you are Awareness, in which there is no pain or suffering. It is essential to know the unreality of matter and so called material conditions, and also to stop identification with this unreal sense of self. The body never exists, nor does a mind or walled-off consciousness. It is always just a delusive sense that claims pain. It is never legitimate. Any pain or so called disease is never located. It never has a medium, a body, mind, or thing.
What does "I" refer to? Is there someone or something seeing through these eyes? Is there someone or something typing these words or is the typing just happening spontaneously?
The I we refer to (me) is a construct. "I" was born in such and such a year, "I" went to school, "I" learned this or that etc. That is the I you consider to be YOU.. Beyond that is awareness the "thing" that observes the story of "I". It, though, is not the "I". It (apparently) always was (there is no was there is only now), is, and will be (will be is also a misnomer..there is only now). So there is only the awareness that always is. I find language gets in the way a lot of the time. But try stating with (in meditation) the "I" you know and then try to move "back" to the observer of the "I".
Behind the scenery of Life, the Stuff-side, and the consciousness, is the Very Same 'I', We are all the very same 'I'. The 'I' is Eternal, it have always been Here and Now, the 'I' is the Only real 'Steady Point', behind the Motion-Ocean, which is pure motion. So, We are the Very Same 'I', the reason why We dont feel or see this, is because, We all have our very own eternal consciousness. The 'I' is identical with Eternity, and the Living behind the Being. Even that the 'I' is of immaterial nature, have never been seen, it has the most objective status in existence.
One cannot understand with philosophy,only by direct experience ,philosophy comes from mind ,from thinking ,which is going on here in this discussion, truth is beyond thinking ,beyond the thought of I. You cannot know the taste of honey unless you have some,and when you do, you cannot explain the experience to someone else ,no matter how many metaphors you use all you end up with is a headache... Mind is just a bundle of thoughts,you cannot be at peace unless you have peace of mind, no thoughts ,no you ,no I , there is no I......I is ego....... and that peace may come about spontaneously, known as Peak experience or through deep meditation or Grace ,as it says in the Bible."The peace that passes all understanding." "A taste of honey tasting much sweeter than wine." Mind will never understand it, because there is no mind! be of no mind then you will know there's no you , no I to know anything ! you may have great worldly knowledge,even a degree, but that has nothing to do with the reality of Being .Did Jesus ,Krishna, Buddha have a degree ? no, but they knew the eternal truth of Being..all your worldly knowledge dies with the body so there's no need to be proud of that.....
The answer I always get when I post such a comment is that it's out of ignorance, believing we are separate selves. My problem with that answer is, why does it continue if it doesn't change for the better?
I doubt it will continue much longer for our species if we do not evolve. But if we consider how long the universe (well this universe anyways) has existed then a few thousand years of human evolution is a drop in the bucket in the long expanse of time, if we allow ourselves the convention of dimensional thought ;)
It requires one to take step back into the space of The self to understand. The experiential universe is an expression of the divine, a manifestation or becoming of the divine, it is emptiness manifesting into being. The Self is happy being itself, it does not need to do or be anything other than what it is, which is Divine. However, the being of itself is also the ability express itself, this expression is what we experience as the universe. It's like a dance, the dance consists of the dance and the state of rest, the reason you dance is because it allows you to express yourself which from your perspective is seen as expression of your fun and happiness, however from someone else's perspective whom is limited by their own self they may see it as cool, or dull, or dumb. They cannot be you, feel your happiness or joy, this is why you cannot truly understand the universe without understanding or realizing the self. While you dance you are always the same person but are only expressing different dance moves, you can always stop dancing and you'll be back in your original state. The becoming of the world or universe from the perspective of the Ego looks like pain and struggle, because it is seen from a limited perspective, another perspective other than the divine. The limited self experience's the struggle of becoming something because it''s limited to the moment of experience, it cannot experience what it will eventually become, or the totally of what it truly is. I like to use the lotus flower as an example. Before the flower can open up and bloom it has to break from it's seed and sprout, then it has to make it's way through the muck of the mud and and water to the surface where it can eventually bloom into the flower. This is the being or the experience of the Lotus flower. If it's experience was any other way it wouldn't be the flower. The flower is it's own unique expression of the divine. Humanity is the same, the world seems horrible, it is only a stage in the process of becoming something more beautiful. However because of being limited to time and space, we cannot see what we will become only that we are in the process of becoming, we are the sprouted seed making its way through the muck of the pond. The evil and wickedness of the world is a necessary process of becoming, it's the part of the story of the play of humanity, the expression of humanity.
Apsara Interesting. The buddha said that consciousness is just one of the five aggregates and that consciousness is not the self. I guess one would have to pick which he sticks through experience itself. So far, buddhism makes more sense to me, but I reapect other choices.
@@poikkiki I agree with Buddha's idea that the consciousness is not the self. However, when conveying this to people they don't really understand, as they are use to the idea that consciousness is the totality or The self. I see consciousness as coming out of awareness when there are objects. Consciousness is what allows for duality. Awareness is the closes to the self, it's the window to The self. All the words we use to Describe The self such as Divinity, God, The Self, Consciousness, awareness are like the warmth of the sun. It gives you an idea, and point towards the direction of the sun, however it does not reveal the truth. You have to be the Sun to know what the sun truly is. This is why coming to Self-realization or Enlightenment is more important than trying to understand these things intellectually as the mind will always try to form and conceptualize something that is beyond its conceptualization.
I would argue that I or Me are always a thought, and when they do not show up, then there is no me or I, therefore, I disagree with what Rupert said that, "I am always me". There is always awareness, but that´s not in the same way me, which is a thought. That is why we are not consciousness or God. We are thoughts of God. Our awareness of I or any other thought is the experience of ourselves as subjects but God is the cause of that. So it is not the I-thought that is aware of I, but God or awareness that is aware of I-thought and everything else. God is aware of anything I think I am aware of. You cannot be aware of anything while at the same time not having any thoughts whatsoever, so being aware of awareness is the end of ourselves and where God is present. we experience being aware of awareness but is not ourselves, so is the same as saying, we experience God but we are not God. If I is infinite awareness then that awareness should have accordingly a perfect reflection of itself but that is not the case with our I-thought, therefore I or we are not infinite awareness. Yet, God has a perfect reflection of himself, which is called the Logos, or exact image of God, or the fullness of God, He is the mind of God, the knowledge of God, and who became human who we call Jesus.
@@JannikBoRasmussen as I said, there is no experience of I when there are no thoughts. When is only awareness there is no I. The end of thought is the end of I. God is always. Now, you may say you did experience having no thoughts, but that's only a retrospective thought. God makes you know the end of yourself in retrospective. Is like God made you aware of your death by giving you life again. Also, although when we are no aware of ourselves like when asleep, we still exist, but not to ourselves, but to God. Is He who sustains us and makes us aware of ourselves as we are more God-like creatures than other creatures and forms of life.
@@usr909 if you cannot have any truth "outside" the I how can you deny that there is no truth or God apart from what the I can know? My I says that your idea that is a mere ilusion and that there is no truth outside my I is false. Also RS affirms the eternal presence of what he calls awareness and not a mere fabrication.
@@usr909 there is exactly a clear contradiction in what you said, first you said there is no truth beyond the I but you go on to affirm there is something beyond the I.
@@usr909 yes but you said that there are no truths beyond it, and then affirmed that the the truth of quantum entropy is beyond it. Is that not a truth fabricated by your own I instead as there is nothing we can know beyond our I? It is a simple and clear contradiction. And again, if you cannot know what is beyond I how can you know that there is no god beyond? Remember the example of Plato? Until you clear up this inconsistency in your thinking I cannot enter into a talk about God with you.
There one less complicated way to sort out which is which and where You come into play. We all believe that god is one allmighty entity who sits on a cloud nine somewhere outside of everything. And we pray to him and report back to be judged. That belief alone is a wrap, a celophane of ignorance. If you were to see that a physical body contains a brain associated to a more ethereal body of intelligence that we call mind which is a pictureque potrayal of experiences known thanks to consciousness, you realize that consciousness is on top of your entire being. Consciousness is god. It is god that is at the front lines of life, looking at experiences, looking at suffering or bliss, looking at a person (you, me, him, her) and nothing gets by that consciousness. God lives a life first hand and is in the midst of everything. Taking the punches, hearing the mind's prayers, accusations, pleas, complaints etc. Nothing can exist apart from consciousness. And consciousness is all one. It is not you. Not me. It experiences all of that. Ultimately, our lives are a reality because of that which is aware. Only consciousness (god) is that actual reality. That is why god is also called the Father. God (the crown of being, consciousness) is that which experiences everything every given moment. After you come to realize god, you turn around and learn of order, principles and laws of universes as much as you can. That is what you can do to improve the experience of god.. and of course your own
@knowing knowing Every act, thought, sensing, conceptualizing, imaging, remembering, Believing, observing of observing in real-time, is GOD. Thats the magnificent of it. I am leaving this comment and it sticks to comment section here is GOD's substance. You and me we are made from god's very own being, the nothingness-all-consciousness. Nothing is substance of all. Nothing is aware, alive. Because of nothing we have everything. Everything and nothing are not complementary opposites, they are one. Nothing knows itself because there is nowhere where nothing doesn't penetrate. in truth, god is nowhere, because he is everwhere and cant go somewhere because somewhere is it, so God is forever trapped by being everywhere. God is not some cloud nine. He is here but to contact it here, you would have to do it by contemplative, meditative means to realize, god is not hiding somewhere, its right in front of you, your very own self is god, but because you are so busy with wanting this and that, submerged within whatever you pleasure or looking for god in the sky, you forgot GOD who is in front of you the whole time and cant realize it because you have no time for contemplation or mediation.
There is no I, no self, when someone tells you, stay with the I, he give you a method and then, our minds become so confused! There is no center! Don't follow anybody
This is what is also described in Bhagavat-Gita, Chapter 9 verses 4 and 5. But I presume another layer between infinite conscious and the ego of our biological nature. This would have to be referred to as the individual soul. The Bhagavat-Gita speaks of the 'Super soul' (Paramatma) and the 'Individual soul'. Our ego that we consider to be who we are, is a concept of our biological brain. If an individual soul is present, I can imagine there is a weighting factor, or a judgement, after our biological incarnation. Maybe God wants to preserve limited incarnations that proved to be more or less succesful. I can also imagine that the criteria for succesfulness are very different from the ego's criteria on this. I would like to know what you think about this. (individual soul described in Bhagavat- Gita, Chapter 13 verse 28)
To insist that the brain is the seat of Intelligence.... or that it is anything at all ...when the atom is empty space, is to cherish an imaginary idol. Divine Mind is the only Mind, the only Intelligence, the only Being.
@@sandycarter5300 You are right and I speak from biology as a concept. Creation is a mystical performance where it is possible to experience concepts, isn't it?
I'm trying to quit smoking. In this thought process of self inquiry and the no-self, who is having the cravings? I hope Rupert can reply. My body is experiencing very odd sensations after depriving it of a substance it is used to having. Then is it the body that is living the withdrawal symptoms. This is my method of quitting. Because I established that there can be no person addicted.. but in saying that I cannot undermine the physical sensations. Plz explain Rupert, plz. Thank you
Because when someone gives you almost everything for free, he still needs to charge some money somewhere in order to be able to keep doing what he does. Rupert is very, very generous with his free teachings. Paying for the full seminars is an extra option for people who want to support him. Take care ;)
To put food on the table and a roof over the head. He's in the UK with a family to feed and support. If he started doing it for less or free he'd be putting his family through the grind. Just curious ,how much does he charge really ?
You will probably love the tradition I ended up in it's called Drukama. Through advancing in esoteric instruction we build the Sambhogakaya body and liberate out of reincarnation.
Nobody has ever changed their physical appearance, or voice or the way they walk etc. no matter what they did do. It’s all just talk. Only in silence when not active does one not express the dna determined structure and it’s dynamic.
Sorry, there's no DNA. There's no matter. The atom is empty space. Period. End of story. We're in a type of virtual reality arising from the one belief in objectivity that posits countless reference points and a seeming world. What we supposedly see and experience is data or thought, not matter or materiality. Everything is consciousness only.
@@sandycarter5300 you are believing in a theory that has been sadly misunderstood in these times . You are referring to "the midle way" aka non-duality and unfortunately fake gurus have misunderstood the meaning of non-duality for a few generations now and it has created a ridiculous epistemology of "it's all fake all of you are me" kind of spiritual suicide. The real meaning was that you must drop all concepts and beliefs. If you say "god is" "this" or "that " you are wrong because no concept can be made about life or god and all you are doing if you try is you are just giving your opinion because you cant put life or god into words because its something that we all have to personally experience . That's the original meaning of non-duality. But if you truly feel like it's all a computer simulation then remember that even computer programs are stored on physical hardware. 😉
I’m sorry, but I don’t find this funny - ‘that is because English is a superior language’... this betrays some of the short-sightedness, if I may say so in all respect due, of your position Mr. Spira. It may well be that other languages are able to say or express with more clarity what English (my native and beloved language) struggles with, or even tends to miss. Perhaps there are other languages more suited to expressing spirituality. For example, even Shakespeare could express Hamlet’s father as no more than a ‘ghost’. What is a ghost but a casting of that which is spiritual into material, visible, form.? Of course Shakespeare may have been speaking to his audience rather than expressing his truest experience, but that in itself says a lot.
You are right, some languages such as sanskrit are very descriptive of spirituality and estoricism, some languages are very poetic such as Greek, Persian, Arabic due to sheer amount of poetry. Some languages are great Literature such as Tamil, English, French, Russian. Some languages are more practical than others. Some languages are more musical than others. Some languages are highly logical such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean which make math easier. Language is how people communicate and understand each other 90% and 10% intuition and body language. Intuition doesnt help with communication of practical most of time neither body language does. Language structured based on different survival environment and culture developed after adaptation. Desert people, have so much vocab for desert than for forest, and forest have less than Sea and so forth.
I guess what he meant was that, for him, English was the superior vehicle for conveying what he intended. I found it unfortunate that an interest in the other person and where they were coming from was lacking, instead a kind of British imperialism seemed to be tearing its ugly head. No one is perfect, least of all me, but I would like more responsibility and attention to others amongst those who set out to teach us.
I live in Italy and don’t like, nor properly appreciate the language yet due to a natural inbred prejudice and sense of superiority for my mother tongue (English). As it happens though, amongst the European languages I am familiar with, I find German to be better for conveying spiritual reality because of the mutability of its parts. It is much easier to respectably coin new words in German by combining the current ones in different ways. There is more to it than that I think (Rudolf Steiner speaks well on this in, for example, The Karma of Untruthfullness. I can’t claim experience of German in relation to that but can confirm some of what he says there in relation to English and Italian.)
@@jonathantownsend3724 German is much better philosophical language, Kant's critique of pure reason is absolutely extraordinary. Germans produce scientific literature more than all Europeans, English Empricists, French and Russians others were good at following up with German grand philosopical works. Hindu Sanskrit is very good language for describing esoteric spiritual meanings. Arabic and Hebrew and Chinese not at all. Persian is one sweet language poetic, indo-european with half of its vocab is arabic with so much esoteric vivid description by Rumi, still doesn't match sanskrit. For you as indo-european speaker, to understand spirituality better focus on German, Sanskrit better. Germans produced so much ontological, Epistemological and metaphysical literature... Kant, shopenhauer, heidegger, Marx, Jaspers..etc
Poor analogy to use, not really clarifying. We are not simply playing a character in a play, unless it is a mad character, since we forget that we are acting. Dualism is not the enemy, it is simply a dimensional perspective that Source chose to use to discover new experiences.
WHat's Rupert's take on the election?... I wonder. Sure, he wouldn't have voted for Mr Johnson!? S'bad for progressives, it would seem. But it is all unfolding as it should? Well, that's our climate buggered for sure...
Got to 6:13 and thought, "bullshit". Just because you're adept at switching narratives and contexts in the guise of intellectual adroitness doesn't make you right. In fact it doesn't make you even almost right. This emperor isn't wearing any clothes! 😠
the patience Rupert shows to all questioners is so beautiful
..nothing he's trying to do..
This one does it for me. I don't see a clearer, simpler way of illustrating what we are doing than an actor playing a role. It seems to be exactly what we are doing. Wow!!!!
He beautifully and insightfully gets at the essential reality of the concept of the oneness of humanity, of what it is; the reality that we are the waves of one ocean, the leaves of one tree.
I love that beautiful quote from the Baha’i Writings 🙏🏼
12.15 onwards are absolute Vedanta teachings ...the highest spiritual finding is said here. Thanks 🙏 to you Dear Man
There is something that is aware of experience! Whatever you are, you are a miracle.
daniel ferreira I have a feeling the whole universe is a miracle.
consciousness arises from the compendium of processes occurring at a cortical level. Yet when great philosophers of the past questioned the I, they could only postulate there to be a witness observing an observer. We are not witnesses observing an observer. Who speaks to us & produces the words for which we see? It’s God. The words we speak to ourselves reign in accordance to His word. Who else will direct you through a life only you have experienced? Thine own words?
Are you saying you and other people aren't aware?
Create mental health to get rid of unruly housewives, people will flock and get "identified" by definitions that you create. I NOTICED THAT THE TWO IDENTIFIERS OF I ON TOP AND BOTTOM ARE NOT THERE ANYMORE. Romans 8:38-39
The imagined I is the thoughts, feelings and emotions created from experiences. The Higher self is the one aware of all those things because it is always there
Thanks for this comment!! This made it completely clear for me. The "I" in which no thoughts are involved is the Absolute Self!! So one can ask, "Am I referring to the "I" that others know, or am I referring to the alive "I" in me?"
An Imaginary I creating an Imaginary World is no Creation at all
@10:58 The “I” in each of us is God’s presence”.
'the ordinary sense of being which each of us feel when we say I' is the most important part
‘Two birds of beautiful plumage, comrades, inseparable, born of the selfsame tree. One eats the bittersweet fruit of life. The other watches without eating.’ - The Upanishads
The role we play in life as bodies walking the earth is subject to duality, pleasure and pain. Each role is consistent within itself, like King Lear. Yet is always merely a useful story.
The physical body is made of impersonal and constantly changing elements. To be a person, you must identify with what is impermanent.
It’s possible to step outside this role anytime and watch the whole show as awareness.
Yes it is possible. Through the eyes of God.
consciousness arises from the compendium of processes occurring at a cortical level. Yet when great philosophers of the past questioned the I, they could only postulate there to be a witness observing an observer. We are not witnesses observing an observer. Who speaks to us & produces the words for which we see? It’s God. The words we speak to ourselves reign in accordance to His word. Who else will direct you through a life only you have experienced? Thine own words?
true life is found in the nameless, contentless, shapeless...
If we remove all our thoughts all our concepts all our knowledge acquired through education all our ideologies all our memories and keep only and only in our present experience The only thing that will remain is the “I” feeling The sense of being or better said the consciousness of our existence. This consciousness of our own existence is the only one thing that is the same for all 7 million of us This is our irreducible Self with capital “S” that is shared with all of us That is what we are. And this recognition is the fountain of love and peace.
"Love is an experience of our shared being." That makes so much sense to me.
So beautifully put into words! Thank you...clear as pure water:)
All localizations of consciousness (i.e. "minds") are essentially characters in a divine play.
Explained beautifully
rupert as pointed and sharp as always...good one
Saying "the imaginary separate self" is in my view the most apt designation of this because that particular self is a contrived entity and as such only arises as something imagined or conjured up. Eckhardt Tolle also used the expression the "phantom self" which is no different.
The questioner is becoming bogged down in concepts! It’s much simpler than he’s making it.
Yes, if I say just "I" or "I am" -- then the essential referent is eternal, infinite, non-phenomenal pure Awareness.
But these words are used conventionally in a whole variety of ways that do not point (at least immediately and obviously) to Awareness.
For instance: "I am hungry." Here, the "I" refers to a human body, which can feel hunger. Does Awareness *as such* ever feel hungry?
Or: "I am confused." Here, the "I" refers to a human mind, which can be confused. Does Awareness *as such* ever experience confusion?
Or: "I am sad." Here, the "I" refers to a human body-mind, which can experience emotions such as sadness, fear, anger, etc. Is Awareness *as such* ever sad, fearful or angry?
Or even: "I have a dinged left rear taillight." Here, "I" refers to my car, which has a broken taillight. Does Awareness *as such* ever break its taillight?
Just saying that in our day-to-day living, the word "I" is used in all kinds of different (and mostly functional) ways.
The part about the left rear tail light is interesting because in expressing something about oneself in that manner, it's as if one has conjured up this limited notion of oneself based purely on possession. Of course in the relative sense, we're forced to do this(as if you were talking to friends and had to express an accident involving your car).
Or he could have said it this way " My car has a ding on the rear tail light ."
It's basically improper english saying it that way , thats all 😎
Namaste
There is a lot more to this fiction, this mass delusion, to unpack. Since the atom is empty space, there is never, in fact, a body or a mind to which anything can refer- except in belief. If we continue referring to bodies and minds, we will continue to hold these as actual, and as causes and effects. Language is our medium for communicating, so it is essential that we're not careless. We have to be vigilant in repeating what is true; vigilant in not rehearsing mere beliefs.
you don't have a broken taillight... the car has a broken tailight. a piece of paper and small green sheets of paper made it your car. of course, one could eat without declaring "i am hungry" & then there's declaration of "I AM CONFUSED" ... the awareness is closer to experiencing hunger than it is confusion. this would suggest that people really KNOW when they're actually hungry.
I agree, the way “I” is referred can be confusing. Instead of “I” as consciousness, we can refer our true nature as “Eye” of consciousness 🙏
To simplify the confusion of “I” as our true nature, we can say that our true nature is the “Eye” of consciousness 🙏
“ Succeeding to learn, there is no failure, failing to celebrate, there is no success.”
( Vian Den Groot, Tao of Lao-Tzu, 2019 )
Be not deceived. You shall know them by their Fruit. The Fruit is Love, Peace, Joy, Kindness, Goodness, Compassion (Passion for All), Beauty, Creativity, Lucidity, Communication, Connection, Communion, with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life.
They treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give to their dearest closest friend, without any sense of division or separation, and without any bias or prejudice.
Moreover, they are Totally Free of fear, anxiety, sorrow, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice, in daily life, once and for all, now forever.
Enlightenment does not take time.
It is not of time.
It is not the result of time or the things of time.
It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet.
It is not the result of any chemical.
It is not the result of any process.
There is no path to it.
It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.
Michael Epstein nice 👍
❤ly
Gettin way too bogged down in language and metaphors in this one.. questioner needs to state his question clearly, and I’m not sure if he really has one?
There is a fictitious I to understand who I really am I, without this experience, I would be a pure consciousness robot..
The answer to the question of "who" is the I will always be unsatisfactory as it implies a nominalized personhood and would have to involve yet another I! A way more interesting and mind-bending question is WHAT is the "I" as in: "what" exactly is an (any) "I" if it is not a person?
Consciousness
Tola Seng Nice! And what exactly is that?
@@beonthebrightside reality itself. Existence itself. Braham: sat, chit, ananda. The only thing there is, there is no other (nonduality)
@@TolaSeng Respectfully, Brahman, satchitananda, reality etc. are words being used to describe words, they don’t actually tell you what something is. And, that’s the point! Words can never adequately describe what anything is, especially something as vague and nebulous as “consciousness”, or, for lack of a better term, “that which is aware”. Asking the question “What Am I” is important, not because there is an answer, but precisely because there is NO answer possible. The realization of this unknowable and indescribable nature of what we are, puts our circumstances and perceptions into a grand context and vast perspective that elevates the mundane to the sacred and can turn our ordinary day to day lives into a profound spiritual experience :)
@@beonthebrightside ah gotcha. Yes, fully agreed. Well said.
Wow i never heard that one and it makes so much sense. Who i am in the play of life ? I am the one that's not appearing in it.
why not call the separate self; the character role
He wanted to stay in the analogy for the moment, that's why. Otherwise it is true, character role is the same in the analogy as the separate self in the "real world"
Ruby Badilla Thank you for this perfect explanation. I was given the direct experience of the sense of “I” being the last thing to go in the process of dissolution (the process of dying) in a lucid dream I was dreaming in my sleep at the exact same moment my mother was - unbeknownst time me - dying peacefully several miles away. I was woken by the phone call to let me know she had just passed. This was several years ago. The experience radically changed my understanding of i/I and i am deeply grateful for it. Many people comment on Rupert’s videos from a very narrow perspective so it is wonderful to read something from someone such as yourself who seems to know what s/he is talking about. Thank you.
Because the role is a way to describe our being's functioning in life; this is legitimate...
The 'I' that we imagine ourselves to be, the little 'me' inside here, is not actually real, doesn't e x i s t in Reality... Roles kind of exist at the relative level, but just as a description
@Ruby Badilla Thanks, I liked the explanation
@Ruby Badilla Wow ! ! ! Thank you ! !
God bless ! ! !
The questioner is caught up in the word I and he doesn’t understand that we can still say “I felt this.” or “I did that.” We live in the world of form where the “apparent self” still operates and does what it needs to do. However when you become aware of pure consciousness you understand that this “I” who does this or feels that, is only a limited I and is not the whole I. The I that exists and functions in the world of form is necessary for us to display our unique selves and try to align the inner self with the outer world of form. This is what creates an amazing, full, life experience in the “dream world”.However if we believe that “I” is all there is and we don’t understand that the mind/body is not who we really are, then we will suffer because we believe we are lacking something, when in fact we are complete already. Nothing the mind body can do will give us lasting or permanent serenity and joy. It’s only in understanding the I behind it ( pure conscious awareness) that we will have bliss. When we can operate in the world of form and know we are the “screen” or pure consciousness we are no longer on the pain pleasure roller coaster. We have a peace that has no end no matter what is happening in the world of form. We don’t mind what happens because we know whether it’s “tragedy” or “comedy” it’s “not real”, it’s only a play and we are characters who aren’t really being diminished or added to by what happens. The only thing that is real is what never changes and that is pure awareness behind everything or infinite consciousness.
Apparently separate self (temperoray limitations of consciousness REAL SELF).
To say our thoughts and feelings are not shared is to conclude that they arise in, and are located in, an individual body/mind, but this never exists. Everything is generated in and by the one false consciousness, and it is only belief that this sense testimony occurs within the apparent body/mind.
A conscious awareness is a note of vibration in the fullness of Creator’s eternal voice
In this world this awareness has an identity named “I”.
The identity functions through the physical laws and creates “mind”: the place where I observe the physical world through sensory inputs.
In the mind, I develop a set of guidelines and rules that have helped me successfully navigate the physical life. It is informed by interactions and culture, family, friends, and society. I call that “ego” self. It is impulses and habits and thoughtless reactions, and often is at least partially stuck in childhood. It is selfish, and mainly concerned with biological survival and success, but it can extend concern to family and friends. It is shaped with ideologies and ideas and will feel attacked if the ideas are challenged.
Ego establishes patterns of behavior: What to do when I feel threatened, how to act in sadness, how to manipulate my environment to meet goals, and frequently what the goals even are...to be successful means being rich, or having a certain car, or being attractive, or being famous, or being respected. Ego drives the physical/material life unless the conscious awareness of I steps in and becomes the active agent.
But it is not automatic: you can, in your mind, say, “I choose not to measure my success by wealth, but by happiness,” and ego will still inject a shot of jealousy or envy of the dream home that your friend just bought.
You have to examine ego and understand what is driving it. Why does it cause envy, why does it fear failure, etc...You have to face those formative experiences and rewrite them. Example: I am angry because my dog ignores me when I call. Anger is an expression of fear. I fear being disrespected, and I fear that my disobedient dog could be injured, and I fear not having control. The only valid fear is over the risk of injury to the dog...this is fixed by investing my time in training the dog better. The disrespect I trace back to my childhood when everyone laughed at me...I address this by understanding that it did not actually harm me, and that I could have joined in the laughter, but since I was hurt, I forgive. The fear of not having control is a biggie...I understand that I have no control over anything except my own reactions to life and I forgive myself for thinking I should have more control.
You can think of ego like a program on a computer...it can be rewritten to align with consciousness awareness...throw out the old code that is the baggage of life.
My new code is: Love. Express love through respecting free will, being kind, forgiving self and others, not passing judgements, refusing to bend to fear, elevating truth, and trusting in love to guide me.
I am training my ego to adopt this new operating program.
And who is the I doing the training?
In its own way, it’s wonderful what your doing, following the path of love. But there is an even simpler path, the path from where love itself arises. That is self-abidance.
Abide in the Self, as Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta have said. That is all that needs to be done, nothing else.
All these tendencies in us fall away as we become absorbed in the Self, without our striving for to cultivate loving qualities. They radiate from the Self alone.
I have noticed the pure equanimity appearing in my body and mind as I rest my attention only here, in the I Am. It takes effort in the beginning, and usually can only be done in meditation, but continue. Continue. Keep trying, again and again, back into the Self. With time, take this fixation in the Self into your everyday life. There is only peace left.
Rupert Spira has wonderful pointers and meditations in finding the Self, by relaxing our attention, falling back into the source of ourselves. I highly recommend them, as well as looking at the teachings of the above two.
But above all else, simply abide as the Self. This Self is the gift the Beloved has left, a trace of the Divine, within our very hearts.
Go there, and never return.
In the investigation of the self, would the question be less confusing if it were 'What am I?' Rather than 'Who am I'?
At the last breathe of life no one knows what happens, rest is a mental concept
where can I find this John smith, King lear retelling?
if love & friendship is a shared experience of being, then what is hate, jealousy or anything similar? "I" usually feel disconnected when I'm around such things.
The separate self and the I , who speaking explaining the I and separate self .
"I" is a fiction of the mind. There is no "I". Such personalization is a fiction in thought.
Yet neither ever stops
Thoughts can stop and with it the "I".
Eric Putkonen check out Jim Newman’s RUclips videos.
Difficult to put in words.
"I" is referring to our sense of existence. The fiction is the belief that we are a transient sequence of events, memories, beliefs, perceptions etc.
Because there wasn't already enough people regurgitating a concept that they haven't ever experienced .
Some people are just not good at understanding metaphors. A metaphor is NOT a model. It is a way to understand without rationalizing it. So if you start projecting the metaphor on all kinds of things, as if it were a model, you get lost. This questioner seems to be lost.
If you don't get out the metaphor that the separate self is just a role and not a real self, and that this role-self doesn't really exist, better move on and find another way to understand 😊
This is what happens when we involve the mind instead of stilling it in authentic emptiness lol. I've been telling everyone about Drukama it's the tradition I ended up in. Check it out! Be well!
If there wasn't language, what would thoughts consist of? Or would thoughts exist at all?
When he says our shared being, did he meant the universe? Is this universe this being he talked about?
Michael G. No
Rupert Elverson ok...No...thanks
No, by our shared being he means our shared consciousness. One, timeless and infinite pure awareness that we all are essentially. The Universe is a temporary colouring of that awareness. Temporary finite play of the infinite awareness.
Aldan Adrovic That helps much better. Thank you Aldan.
@@michaelg.8935 You're welcome Michael, thank you. I'm glad it helped
Don't understand how the shared being only displays itself in minds. Why isn't it just randomly across everything?
No, language is essential for correct understanding! Using dualistic terms ad nauseam, reinforces the very concepts that must be rejected. Don't "trust" the ego to "understand".
Try simply referring to the "belief" in a separate self. It's only a couple of extra words. Reinforce the metaphysical facts with correct terms. It is actually disconcerting to repeatedly hear these references to a separate self. Again, language is essential for clearly communicating, especially with something like this. The "ego" grasps at every possible belief it can to hold onto to its fictional selfhood. It is only belief that is being addressed. What else could possibly be being taught? There is no person/entity. There is a subtle belief here that there is somehow an actual human self that merely has to translate the shorthand term into
what it knows is really correct. No such self exists. It is, in fact, just a "program" that runs, not a self.
I have a simple question I am awareness which was the mind and body but when we have intense pain in body at that time to be a watcher becomes impossible and we identify with body and want pain to disappear what is the solution whyit happen s Dr Bhavesh
This is a good question and I’m sure Rupert has addressed it. Sorry I can’t direct you to one of his videos. He had an interesting talk on depression however where he points out the pathway from the statement ‘I am depressed ‘ to the question who is depressed? The self inquiry leads the ‘patient’ to the place of realisation that there is no one there to be depressed. I imagine with pain it is a similar pathway. I also presume that this would take a very serious attempt, because as you say pain can be a giant distraction.
You shall find the answer in the following link.
ruclips.net/video/Y3yFV7F5pls/видео.html
Theres no solution, because a solution is coming from the mind trying to escape, which is the very “problem” in the first place.
Who wants the pain to disappear? Fall in love with it, it is your reality. In this surrender and acceptance the Absolute will permeate through your being. And if you cannot accept, then watch that process of non-acceptance, try and understand how it furthers your suffering.
“There is no need to struggle to be free, the absence of struggle is in itself freedom”
@@arifzainal8694 Equanimous : ) Thank you : )
Recognize over and over that the atom is empty space, nor is there a mind or self in this nonexistent body. There is no organized matter. There's no matter at all. Simply being a witness won't free you from the pain, and it can exacerbate it, because it is where you put your focus. No sensation or perception is actually arising in this nonexistent body. Know that you are Awareness, in which there is no pain or suffering. It is essential to know the unreality of matter and so called material conditions, and also to stop identification with this unreal sense of self. The body never exists, nor does a mind or walled-off consciousness. It is always just a delusive sense that claims pain. It is never legitimate. Any pain or so called disease is never located. It never has a medium, a body, mind, or thing.
What does "I" refer to? Is there someone or something seeing through these eyes? Is there someone or something typing these words or is the typing just happening spontaneously?
The I we refer to (me) is a construct. "I" was born in such and such a year, "I" went to school, "I" learned this or that etc. That is the I you consider to be YOU.. Beyond that is awareness the "thing" that observes the story of "I". It, though, is not the "I". It (apparently) always was (there is no was there is only now), is, and will be (will be is also a misnomer..there is only now). So there is only the awareness that always is. I find language gets in the way a lot of the time. But try stating with (in meditation) the "I" you know and then try to move "back" to the observer of the "I".
🤔😊👉beginning the spirituality 👉🌞
If we can never know what reality is and consciousness is fundamental, isn't thinking about it a waste of our time on earth?
Behind the scenery of Life, the Stuff-side, and the consciousness, is the Very Same 'I', We are all the very same 'I'.
The 'I' is Eternal, it have always been Here and Now, the 'I' is the Only real 'Steady Point', behind the Motion-Ocean, which is pure motion.
So, We are the Very Same 'I', the reason why We dont feel or see this, is because, We all have our very own eternal consciousness.
The 'I' is identical with Eternity, and the Living behind the Being. Even that the 'I' is of immaterial nature, have never been seen, it has the most objective status in existence.
OMG. Shared being!
e e cummings one of the great poets of all time always used the small i
One cannot understand with philosophy,only by direct experience ,philosophy comes from mind ,from thinking ,which is going on here in this discussion, truth is beyond thinking ,beyond the thought of I.
You cannot know the taste of honey unless you have some,and when you do, you cannot explain the experience to someone else ,no matter how many metaphors you use all you end up with is a headache...
Mind is just a bundle of thoughts,you cannot be at peace unless you have peace of mind, no thoughts ,no you ,no I , there is no I......I is ego....... and that peace may come about spontaneously, known as Peak experience or through deep meditation or Grace ,as it says in the Bible."The peace that passes all understanding." "A taste of honey tasting much sweeter than wine."
Mind will never understand it, because there is no mind! be of no mind then you will know there's no you , no I to know anything ! you may have great worldly knowledge,even a degree, but that has nothing to do with the reality of Being .Did Jesus ,Krishna, Buddha have a degree ? no, but they knew the eternal truth of Being..all your worldly knowledge dies with the body so there's no need to be proud of that.....
In other words “I” am, AM.
At last, I think I get it.
brilliant
Rupert, what are your favorite J.S. Bach compositions?
He used to play violin partita excerpts during retreats
So basically awareness has sex with itself, tortures itself and kills itself in multiple ways. If that is god's presence, it is kind of wicked.
The answer I always get when I post such a comment is that it's out of ignorance, believing we are separate selves. My problem with that answer is, why does it continue if it doesn't change for the better?
I doubt it will continue much longer for our species if we do not evolve. But if we consider how long the universe (well this universe anyways) has existed then a few thousand years of human evolution is a drop in the bucket in the long expanse of time, if we allow ourselves the convention of dimensional thought ;)
It requires one to take step back into the space of The self to understand. The experiential universe is an expression of the divine, a manifestation or becoming of the divine, it is emptiness manifesting into being. The Self is happy being itself, it does not need to do or be anything other than what it is, which is Divine. However, the being of itself is also the ability express itself, this expression is what we experience as the universe. It's like a dance, the dance consists of the dance and the state of rest, the reason you dance is because it allows you to express yourself which from your perspective is seen as expression of your fun and happiness, however from someone else's perspective whom is limited by their own self they may see it as cool, or dull, or dumb. They cannot be you, feel your happiness or joy, this is why you cannot truly understand the universe without understanding or realizing the self. While you dance you are always the same person but are only expressing different dance moves, you can always stop dancing and you'll be back in your original state. The becoming of the world or universe from the perspective of the Ego looks like pain and struggle, because it is seen from a limited perspective, another perspective other than the divine. The limited self experience's the struggle of becoming something because it''s limited to the moment of experience, it cannot experience what it will eventually become, or the totally of what it truly is. I like to use the lotus flower as an example. Before the flower can open up and bloom it has to break from it's seed and sprout, then it has to make it's way through the muck of the mud and and water to the surface where it can eventually bloom into the flower. This is the being or the experience of the Lotus flower. If it's experience was any other way it wouldn't be the flower. The flower is it's own unique expression of the divine. Humanity is the same, the world seems horrible, it is only a stage in the process of becoming something more beautiful. However because of being limited to time and space, we cannot see what we will become only that we are in the process of becoming, we are the sprouted seed making its way through the muck of the pond. The evil and wickedness of the world is a necessary process of becoming, it's the part of the story of the play of humanity, the expression of humanity.
Apsara Interesting. The buddha said that consciousness is just one of the five aggregates and that consciousness is not the self. I guess one would have to pick which he sticks through experience itself. So far, buddhism makes more sense to me, but I reapect other choices.
@@poikkiki I agree with Buddha's idea that the consciousness is not the self. However, when conveying this to people they don't really understand, as they are use to the idea that consciousness is the totality or The self. I see consciousness as coming out of awareness when there are objects. Consciousness is what allows for duality. Awareness is the closes to the self, it's the window to The self. All the words we use to Describe The self such as Divinity, God, The Self, Consciousness, awareness are like the warmth of the sun. It gives you an idea, and point towards the direction of the sun, however it does not reveal the truth. You have to be the Sun to know what the sun truly is. This is why coming to Self-realization or Enlightenment is more important than trying to understand these things intellectually as the mind will always try to form and conceptualize something that is beyond its conceptualization.
All attempt thru words....., actions, illustrations or whatever it may be, do not seem to give fraction of an inch of the " ? "
Does awareness and consciousness are the same in Rupert’s dictionary? Cuz I see him switching between the two as they are both the same!
Consciousness and awareness are the same for Rupert
@@wilma8326 ruclips.net/video/Dw44V15xgPo/видео.html
What Is Consciousness? - All Questions Answered
Do one thing every day that scares you.
like getting up??
BOO!
I would argue that I or Me are always a thought, and when they do not show up, then there is no me or I, therefore, I disagree with what Rupert said that, "I am always me". There is always awareness, but that´s not in the same way me, which is a thought. That is why we are not consciousness or God. We are thoughts of God. Our awareness of I or any other thought is the experience of ourselves as subjects but God is the cause of that. So it is not the I-thought that is aware of I, but God or awareness that is aware of I-thought and everything else. God is aware of anything I think I am aware of. You cannot be aware of anything while at the same time not having any thoughts whatsoever, so being aware of awareness is the end of ourselves and where God is present. we experience being aware of awareness but is not ourselves, so is the same as saying, we experience God but we are not God. If I is infinite awareness then that awareness should have accordingly a perfect reflection of itself but that is not the case with our I-thought, therefore I or we are not infinite awareness. Yet, God has a perfect reflection of himself, which is called the Logos, or exact image of God, or the fullness of God, He is the mind of God, the knowledge of God, and who became human who we call Jesus.
So how would you explain that I can have the experience of not having any thoughts, if I or Me is always a thought?
@@JannikBoRasmussen as I said, there is no experience of I when there are no thoughts. When is only awareness there is no I. The end of thought is the end of I. God is always. Now, you may say you did experience having no thoughts, but that's only a retrospective thought. God makes you know the end of yourself in retrospective. Is like God made you aware of your death by giving you life again. Also, although when we are no aware of ourselves like when asleep, we still exist, but not to ourselves, but to God. Is He who sustains us and makes us aware of ourselves as we are more God-like creatures than other creatures and forms of life.
@@usr909 if you cannot have any truth "outside" the I how can you deny that there is no truth or God apart from what the I can know? My I says that your idea that is a mere ilusion and that there is no truth outside my I is false. Also RS affirms the eternal presence of what he calls awareness and not a mere fabrication.
@@usr909 there is exactly a clear contradiction in what you said, first you said there is no truth beyond the I but you go on to affirm there is something beyond the I.
@@usr909 yes but you said that there are no truths beyond it, and then affirmed that the the truth of quantum entropy is beyond it. Is that not a truth fabricated by your own I instead as there is nothing we can know beyond our I? It is a simple and clear contradiction. And again, if you cannot know what is beyond I how can you know that there is no god beyond? Remember the example of Plato? Until you clear up this inconsistency in your thinking I cannot enter into a talk about God with you.
Thank you, amazing
There one less complicated way to sort out which is which and where You come into play. We all believe that god is one allmighty entity who sits on a cloud nine somewhere outside of everything. And we pray to him and report back to be judged. That belief alone is a wrap, a celophane of ignorance. If you were to see that a physical body contains a brain associated to a more ethereal body of intelligence that we call mind which is a pictureque potrayal of experiences known thanks to consciousness, you realize that consciousness is on top of your entire being. Consciousness is god. It is god that is at the front lines of life, looking at experiences, looking at suffering or bliss, looking at a person (you, me, him, her) and nothing gets by that consciousness. God lives a life first hand and is in the midst of everything. Taking the punches, hearing the mind's prayers, accusations, pleas, complaints etc. Nothing can exist apart from consciousness. And consciousness is all one. It is not you. Not me. It experiences all of that. Ultimately, our lives are a reality because of that which is aware. Only consciousness (god) is that actual reality. That is why god is also called the Father. God (the crown of being, consciousness) is that which experiences everything every given moment. After you come to realize god, you turn around and learn of order, principles and laws of universes as much as you can. That is what you can do to improve the experience of god.. and of course your own
@knowing knowing Every act, thought, sensing, conceptualizing, imaging, remembering, Believing, observing of observing in real-time, is GOD. Thats the magnificent of it. I am leaving this comment and it sticks to comment section here is GOD's substance. You and me we are made from god's very own being, the nothingness-all-consciousness. Nothing is substance of all. Nothing is aware, alive. Because of nothing we have everything. Everything and nothing are not complementary opposites, they are one. Nothing knows itself because there is nowhere where nothing doesn't penetrate. in truth, god is nowhere, because he is everwhere and cant go somewhere because somewhere is it, so God is forever trapped by being everywhere. God is not some cloud nine. He is here but to contact it here, you would have to do it by contemplative, meditative means to realize, god is not hiding somewhere, its right in front of you, your very own self is god, but because you are so busy with wanting this and that, submerged within whatever you pleasure or looking for god in the sky, you forgot GOD who is in front of you the whole time and cant realize it because you have no time for contemplation or mediation.
the problem is never in the words
There is no I, no self, when someone tells you, stay with the I, he give you a method and then, our minds become so confused! There is no center! Don't follow anybody
Mind is only an appearance without any substance, or just nothing appearing as something to no one.
This is what is also described in Bhagavat-Gita, Chapter 9 verses 4 and 5.
But I presume another layer between infinite conscious and the ego of our biological nature.
This would have to be referred to as the individual soul. The Bhagavat-Gita speaks of the 'Super soul' (Paramatma) and the 'Individual soul'.
Our ego that we consider to be who we are, is a concept of our biological brain. If an individual soul is present, I can imagine there is a weighting factor, or a judgement, after our biological incarnation. Maybe God wants to preserve limited incarnations that proved to be more or less succesful. I can also imagine that the criteria for succesfulness are very different from the ego's criteria on this. I would like to know what you think about this. (individual soul described in Bhagavat- Gita, Chapter 13 verse 28)
Sorry, there's no biology. The atom is forever empty space. It is all just belief, not matter.
To insist that the brain is the seat of Intelligence.... or that it is anything at all ...when the atom is empty space, is to cherish an imaginary idol. Divine Mind is the only Mind, the only Intelligence, the only Being.
@@sandycarter5300 You are right and I speak from biology as a concept.
Creation is a mystical performance where it is possible to experience concepts, isn't it?
I'm trying to quit smoking. In this thought process of self inquiry and the no-self, who is having the cravings? I hope Rupert can reply. My body is experiencing very odd sensations after depriving it of a substance it is used to having. Then is it the body that is living the withdrawal symptoms. This is my method of quitting. Because I established that there can be no person addicted.. but in saying that I cannot undermine the physical sensations. Plz explain Rupert, plz. Thank you
Why does he charge so exorbitantly for online live streaming seminars though?
Its just £1.5
Because when someone gives you almost everything for free, he still needs to charge some money somewhere in order to be able to keep doing what he does. Rupert is very, very generous with his free teachings. Paying for the full seminars is an extra option for people who want to support him. Take care ;)
Who asks the question?
To put food on the table and a roof over the head. He's in the UK with a family to feed and support. If he started doing it for less or free he'd be putting his family through the grind. Just curious ,how much does he charge really ?
@@nannenon Mate,you can't oversimplify everything with that that catch-all question lol
Bon seeks the ‘rainbow body’
You will probably love the tradition I ended up in it's called Drukama. Through advancing in esoteric instruction we build the Sambhogakaya body and liberate out of reincarnation.
when comes to ,, who is the I,, tibetan meditation masters says that on enlightened level ,, I,, resemble aware space.
Nobody has ever changed their physical appearance, or voice or the way they walk etc. no matter what they did do.
It’s all just talk. Only in silence when not active does one not express the dna determined structure and it’s dynamic.
I've completely changed my physical body before
Bong Gnostic I meant on the dna level not haircut level.
Sorry, there's no DNA. There's no matter. The atom is empty space. Period. End of story. We're in a type of virtual reality arising from the one belief in objectivity that posits countless reference points and a seeming world. What we supposedly see and experience is data or thought, not matter or materiality. Everything is consciousness only.
Sandy carter Then who wrote this message?
@@sandycarter5300 you are believing in a theory that has been sadly misunderstood in these times . You are referring to "the midle way" aka non-duality and unfortunately fake gurus have misunderstood the meaning of non-duality for a few generations now and it has created a ridiculous epistemology of "it's all fake all of you are me" kind of spiritual suicide. The real meaning was that you must drop all concepts and beliefs. If you say "god is" "this" or "that " you are wrong because no concept can be made about life or god and all you are doing if you try is you are just giving your opinion because you cant put life or god into words because its something that we all have to personally experience . That's the original meaning of non-duality. But if you truly feel like it's all a computer simulation then remember that even computer programs are stored on physical hardware. 😉
👋🙏
I = identity function
I’m sorry, but I don’t find this funny - ‘that is because English is a superior language’... this betrays some of the short-sightedness, if I may say so in all respect due, of your position Mr. Spira. It may well be that other languages are able to say or express with more clarity what English (my native and beloved language) struggles with, or even tends to miss. Perhaps there are other languages more suited to expressing spirituality. For example, even Shakespeare could express Hamlet’s father as no more than a ‘ghost’. What is a ghost but a casting of that which is spiritual into material, visible, form.? Of course Shakespeare may have been speaking to his audience rather than expressing his truest experience, but that in itself says a lot.
You are right, some languages such as sanskrit are very descriptive of spirituality and estoricism, some languages are very poetic such as Greek, Persian, Arabic due to sheer amount of poetry. Some languages are great Literature such as Tamil, English, French, Russian. Some languages are more practical than others. Some languages are more musical than others. Some languages are highly logical such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean which make math easier. Language is how people communicate and understand each other 90% and 10% intuition and body language. Intuition doesnt help with communication of practical most of time neither body language does. Language structured based on different survival environment and culture developed after adaptation. Desert people, have so much vocab for desert than for forest, and forest have less than Sea and so forth.
I guess what he meant was that, for him, English was the superior vehicle for conveying what he intended.
I found it unfortunate that an interest in the other person and where they were coming from was lacking, instead a kind of British imperialism seemed to be tearing its ugly head. No one is perfect, least of all me, but I would like more responsibility and attention to others amongst those who set out to teach us.
I live in Italy and don’t like, nor properly appreciate the language yet due to a natural inbred prejudice and sense of superiority for my mother tongue (English). As it happens though, amongst the European languages I am familiar with, I find German to be better for conveying spiritual reality because of the mutability of its parts. It is much easier to respectably coin new words in German by combining the current ones in different ways. There is more to it than that I think (Rudolf Steiner speaks well on this in, for example, The Karma of Untruthfullness. I can’t claim experience of German in relation to that but can confirm some of what he says there in relation to English and Italian.)
@@jonathantownsend3724 German is much better philosophical language, Kant's critique of pure reason is absolutely extraordinary. Germans produce scientific literature more than all Europeans, English Empricists, French and Russians others were good at following up with German grand philosopical works. Hindu Sanskrit is very good language for describing esoteric spiritual meanings. Arabic and Hebrew and Chinese not at all. Persian is one sweet language poetic, indo-european with half of its vocab is arabic with so much esoteric vivid description by Rumi, still doesn't match sanskrit. For you as indo-european speaker, to understand spirituality better focus on German, Sanskrit better. Germans produced so much ontological, Epistemological and metaphysical literature... Kant, shopenhauer, heidegger, Marx, Jaspers..etc
Who is the "I"?
That's the wrong question.
That's why nobody comes up with the "right answer."
I prefer U.G Krishnamurti explanation.
Poor analogy to use, not really clarifying. We are not simply playing a character in a play, unless it is a mad character, since we forget that we are acting. Dualism is not the enemy, it is simply a dimensional perspective that Source chose to use to discover new experiences.
🤙🤙🤙🤙
,,who,, or ,,what,, is the ,, I,,? - Buddha
means,: no- I.
i
WHat's Rupert's take on the election?... I wonder. Sure, he wouldn't have voted for Mr Johnson!?
S'bad for progressives, it would seem. But it is all unfolding as it should? Well, that's our climate buggered for sure...
Got to 6:13 and thought, "bullshit". Just because you're adept at switching narratives and contexts in the guise of intellectual adroitness doesn't make you right. In fact it doesn't make you even almost right.
This emperor isn't wearing any clothes! 😠