The New Science of Consciousness, Rupert Spira
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The experience of ‘being aware’, which knows itself in each one of us as the knowledge ‘I am’, is intimately one with all experience and yet, at the same time, free of the limitations of any particular experience. It is the exclusive entanglement of our Self - the experience of ‘being aware’ or ‘aware being’ - with a collection of limited thoughts and feelings that is responsible for the loss of this intimacy and freedom. All that is necessary for their recovery is to clearly see the qualities that are always and already present in our Self.
Artist and Non-duality Teacher Rupert Spira has been deeply interested in the nature of Reality from an early age. For twenty years he studied the teachings of Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Rumi, Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta and Robert Adams, until he met his teacher, Francis Lucille, twelve years ago. Francis introduced Rupert to the teaching of Jean Klein, Parmenides, Wei Wu Wei and Atmananda Krishnamenon and, more importantly, directly indicated to him the true nature of experience. He is author of The Transparency of Things and Presence, Volumes I and II (The Art of Peace and Happiness and The Intimacy of All Experience.
in ancient times, we would call this man a Saint. To love this man and feel his vibes would be enough to stir your own sense of the Infinite Presence. There is a definite teaching without words. Rupert is introducing you to your True Self. This is the greatest experience you can have. Cherish it
Paraphrasing something Rupert said when asked a question about whether he ever struggles. He said something to the effect of “I am not perfect. I won’t be perfect until, at least, 50 years after I am dead. It takes 50 years for the spiritual world to strip you of your personality.” I don’t think it serves Rupert’s purpose to be seen as a saint. He is trying to teach us that awakening is available to us all. We are all like him.
Another brilliant talk from Rupert. One of my favourites on non-duality. Rupert is always so clear and well considered.
This is a really great talk. The new science of consciousness would place scientific materialism into the dust bin of history. You can already hear its dying cries in some of the comments.
+David Rogers nicely put just, it is yourselves, invested yourself in deep woo woo and can't get out... Luckily sanity and science is starting to grow, but we are still in the stone age, most of us
Old energy dies hard
‘Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.’ Albert Einstein
It doesn't get much clearer than this. Rupert displays extraordinary sharpness and clarity. Even better is that it is free of the trappings of Eastern culture and jargon.
I agree.
But your forgetting the source the east stupid
He just said it's free of the trappings. Not that this isn't taught in eastern traditions.
Yes, exactly my thoughts, too. My very personal intuition is that this awakened being, Rupert Spira is the same being, who once incarnated as Rudolf Steiner 🤔🤔💞💞
After listening to this talk twice - I am beginning to grasp the essence of pure knowing - pure consciousness. Contemplation of Rupert’s words is helping me to understand what he is saying in between the words through his presence and being in the words.
It’s like the words are a transmission speaking to something deeper into an understanding that tickles my mind and soul at the same time.
Thank you Rupert for your clarity and presence in this teaching. The soul in me that is pure God and Pure Awareness! I will dig deeper here until I know fully my being.
This post is very interesting in its intensity. He's skimming the cream of his teaching here and it is almost too rich. I feel that if I hadn't been following Rupert for quite a while this talk alone would not / could not do it for me. I found I had to listen to it a few times to get his message, which I can do if I reflect back to myriad of his talks about experiencing... his beautiful video 'I Never Go Anywhere' is about as succinct as it gets in this respect. Watching that then going directly to this, one gets IT intuitively, at least that's how I feel. His message is so simple that he gets frustrated using words. After decades of reading Krishnamurti, a decade of E Tolle books, tapes and retreats, and myriad other speakers, I love Rupert for his cutting straight to the bone of experiencing, of IT coming to you, being you, in presence, not you going to it as separate objects.
Love your talks Rupert, I listen and listen to your beautiful calm voice as I get ready to sleep. X love, peace and joy to you. X
WoW...I literally had to pause for a couple of minutes before commenting...This video touched the depths of my being and evoked tears of joy...Suffice it to say...Thanks for posting !!!
Well you're an idiot then, aren't you... Obsessing about how YOU feel, and then wondering why you're still unhappy... Rupert Spira is a fraud, just like all the other 'gurus'. Why are you clinging onto nonsense like this? Selfish much?
John Thomas What gives you the right to take away a persons personal experience and inspiration. Just because you dont get what he is saying doesnt mean everyone is so dull and skeptical
Wow is right !!!! Heavy Heavy !!!
@@johnthomas338 except gurus arent fraud
@@johnthomas338 you are just delusious
This could go down as one of the most important , relevant and Enlightening transfers ever ! I don’t mean just within the scope of the spiritual discussion realm . I mean within the totality of our being!!🙏
I am not sure I grasp or even accept his statements on awareness in higher level applications, but Rupert is legit ether when it comes to the lower level bits.
For example, he's a great resource of living figures today to highlight the absurdity of identifying as a separate self, as if you are an entity or organ behind the eyes that is somehow disconnected from processes and influences in the organism, and in turn, the external world which is linked to the internal functions of said organism. He speaks very well on showing people intellectually the absurdity of this identification, which is helpful, for many of us today would have difficulty sticking with the raw scientific data that implies there's no additional self as a thinker to thoughts in the brain.
This is where the new science really is, for it argues a new lens of perception: that the self we identify as is largely a neurological, psychological, and even sociological illusion. This idea of being a free agent, even with free will, are dead, incompatible views with what we know of the world today, but if you poll any given individual, this current perspective of data and understanding is almost entirely ignored. What you are in the default state is a being with consciousness, and consciousness is innately selfless, so there's no "I" there. Our mistake is making this "I" various concepts and ideas, all of which are phoney and incorrect to this understanding. This is what gurus are implying when they say "you are everything you cannot objectify", for consciousness is not found by linking yourself by identity and objects of self-imaging. It's a state *prior* to that labeling. Sam Harris argues these exact same statements, and I think that's important for us skeptics to really digest, because we're more prone to think of bullshitters like Deepak Chopra instead.
I think the higher level stuff about conscious and awareness being deeply linked for the universe is still deeply in the air, so I lean on the side of at the very least, consciousness and its emergence is relative to the brain, in a non-dualistic cosmos: it's not disconnected from reality, coming into and being taken away from reality as if it's ultimately separate or isolate, but the mere emergence of relative phenomena relating to particular organisms. This is all we can state and defend with evidence today. We need to accept a non-dual situation by first accepting we are not separate, cut off waves from this cosmic ocean. This is the first thing many of us have ignored or not realized, and at the very least is the first major step we can take to being more accountable to what we can speak of regarding reality.
Just sit with him and dont talk and your Heart will resonate with the Self. Rupert is your dearest Self. Cherish him without a need to hero worship. What a kind and generous illuminated being. That im so sad i cannot meet.
Brilliant. Perhaps Rupert's best video yet. If I had to recommend just one video to someone who didn't know about him, it would probably be this one as he covers most of his bases here.
Love rupert Eckhart mooji many more I can spend all day listening to them I am becoming more conscious everytime I listen to them waking me up to who I truly am
thank you Rupert... this is the only way to explain this... and I for one am just as emotional about "teachers" who make this beyond complicated.... thank you Rupert you are a master....
You might want to do something useful with your life, instead of pissing ANY of it away on 'enlightenment' and the investigation thereof...
Are you vegan?
John Thomas Since you are quick to criticize other's viewpoints, calling them idiots (kind of childish), I am curious to know how useful your life is?... because your comments are surely of no value.
Lol John thomas... Like its so much more useful to scroll through comment sections of videos you don't even like and obnoxiously contradict people's remarks. I can't help but notice the hypocrisy.
But it seems that was 6 years ago. Maybe you're not so aggressively obnoxious anymore. 😇
@@johnthomas338how much has your life changed in 9 years?
Rupert is totally correct! His arguments are flawless! God Bless him!
Ego sees ego everywhere.
Why is God soooooo difficult to reach
,, Pure Love ? Why is it so complicated . . It doesn’t need to be ! ....we simply let go ! And when we do, we feel the Love ❤️ dear Mister Rupert,
Ouch!! OUCH!!! This is beautiful. BBEEAAUUTTIIIFUUULLL!!! I am totally going to meditate to this until it completely sinks in. I have never ever been able to concentrate on such deep perceptions. I am so frickin happy right now. Thank you Rupert.
Brilliant! Truly brilliant!
Thanks for eliminating the gap between the self & the Self
Ask three questions from yourself after waking from a dream.
1. The observer of my dream was conscious or unconscious?
2. The observer of my dream was in my dream or in the universe?
3. Is the observer of my dream still conscious?
Answers of these questions will enable us to understand that Consciousness is singular and fundamental.
Consciousness is a self-referencing loop in the architecture of mind. We are each such a loop, but the fact that we each have the same fundamental architecture doesn't mean we are all one thing, even if we arise from and melt back into the same universe.
Reminds me a lot of Neville Goddard. Your "I AM'ness" or Awareness of Being is what we refer to as God. God is The Self (Consciousness) and is Personal. We are the Dream and the Dreamer, We are One Being.
that which is never ceases to be. that which is not never comes into existence-Bhagavad Gita
. "That which is real has never not existed.
That which is unreal never existed.
Herein lies the peace of God "
-A Course In Miracles
Thank you so much for these incredible talks ❤
He made some really clear distinctions, sometimes it gets a bit intellectual for me but there are some points that really hit home.
Yeah. Seems logical to me that knowledge of what is beyond the finite wouldn't be quite possible to describe with language which is finite by nature.
It seems the intention of spiritual teaching is to use words and ideas which point the listener to that which is beyond the ability of language to describe.
That's why it is often called "pointing".
If you look only at the hand you don't see what it is pointing at.
I try to remember that when listening to stuff like this. Otherwise the words can always be picked apart and found to be imperfect.
~ The one thing I would like to point out is its the dynamic interplay between particles ( the finite ) and waves ( the infinite ) within a “ consciousness field “ that gives rise to sensory intelligence and awareness ~
Finite is an idea in a finite psychological mind. It's only relevant to that which is finite.
(Just responding how I see it. Not trying to correct you !😇)
“Profound ignorance masquerading as wisdom”....
That line right there sums up 99% of interactions with people I have had on this topic of consciousness over the last 10-15 years.
"Knowledge of the world is a kind of ignorance"
There are teachers/gurus out there who might express this without judgement. We are all in this together. The rigidity of an Oxfords professor’s mind is the least of our concerns. It is humility for the predicament we are in, and compassion for other’s inevitable ignorance and struggle.
This is amazingly profound sounding. His composure and poetic pace is really wise sounding. He has figured out an innovative way to make people think about peace and happiness as almost objective values, and delivers the space that he holds right to your ear with patients and clearly composed ideas.
The brings me to understand that "God" or "I" are one in the same, for one cannot exist without the other? (In the sense of awareness)
Thanks for the well explained truths. If we could all understand, believe and live these truths....
Rupert is expressing god amazingly.
At what point does he advocate for the existence of any juvenile and anthropomorphic sky genie?
34:48 "Until we know the nature of the knowing with which our experience is known, nothing true about the known can be known." If this is an important idea I think we need better language to describe it, instead of words that sound like a riddle.
If we dont recognize that all we know of the world is our perceptions and start from there, we will not know any truth of our reality.
It’s not a riddle, it’s called a way of communicating the fact of being aware being the baseline of experience and you can’t known what you’re experiencing without knowing how and what gives us the ever present awareness that allows us to perceive and experience. It’s just unraveling an illusion that we convince ourselves through ego is real but it isn’t.
Indeed. But the truth is often spoken in riddles - to comprehend their deeper meanings. Contemplation helps us to truly understand the meaning beyond his words!
I wish this could be LOUDER....I'm having trouble hearing this, and some of the other of Rupert Spira's lectures.
The goal is to become Enlightened (becoming one with god/universe/Truth). The way to do this is use the best tools at your disposal (matter, knowledge, etc.) to connect with the infinite. The practice of meditation facilitates the process by which our beings/spirits/souls pierce the veil of illusion and eventually experience reality directly. It is impossible to merely 'see' or 'understand' reality, contrary to what the self/ego would have us believe.
Thank you for taking a risk and putting yourself out there Rupert. Your videos are a tremendous help guiding those of us who have newly experienced non identification. Your thoughts have helped me better understand where I have come from and where I am going. God bless.
Can I ask what risk he has taken?
What is Buddha’s teaching is about:
It is more about how living beings psychologically and materially functions and how that could lead to suffering. In summary, it explains how this universe naturally functions without any individual interference. What Buddha’s advice to us:
He asked us to listen to his teaching, understand and investigate it applying our self and see whether it is true.Outcome is, if one understood that his complete existence is govern by nature and he doesn’t have any control over his body or his mental functions, then he loses the attachment to himself. Once the attachment is lost; the greed and the hatred are extinguished and only pure peace exists.
Time to own our destiny❤
Just woW.. VERY DEEP talk !! Thank your sir for the wonderful speech (hat off)
The greatest speech about the nature of reality/mind i have ever heard until i "existed" in this realm :)
How infinite consciousness create body along with the finite mind? And why it needs to know something else other than itself making it necessary to create the body and the finite mind, If Mr Rupert Spira answers this I will be gratefull
It’s due to karma and consciousness wanting to explore the essence of a dimension despite being an illusion, which just makes it fun when truly understood as what it is. Nikola Tesla understood this very well.
Who knows the sensation of the thirst or the sensation of a hot pan on the skin? Logically, we can conclude that it is awareness - because logically we can argue that one needs to be aware in order to know anything. However, that is just a logical deduction and not a real experience.
At the time of the experience, there is no real separate awareness apart from what is actually experienced. The logical conclusion of separateness and the thought of "I am aware (or, I am awareness) and I know of the thirst, touch or pain" only arises in the thinking, only as a logical deduction.
Experience and awareness arise together. True, there is no experience without awareness. But, there is also no awareness without experience. When you think you have awareness without experience - that itself is yet another experience.
So awesome. Thank you umpteen . 💥🏵️🌺❤️🙏
Marvelous!
Inspiration 🌹
When I saw Tolle I knew who posted it...flu bugger !!
all healed up
i love this conversation but why the extremely long pauses
Regina k I think he's got a habit of choosing his words carefully, that's all.
@@juliai3956 perhaps your right i just found in moments it was too long.
My meditations have developed space in the mind. I guess it's the same with him, so thoughts and speech are phased out, not as a torrent of words.
New drinking game: Drink every time he says the words "Finite Mind" 😂😂
Lol in all sincerity tho I love rupert's style.
This is so clear and so dear. Thank you!
God is Consciousness .
Me , You and the Universe are the samething.
We looks separated , but it is just a thought .
Reality is existence , awareness , bliss .
Amazingly simple, beautiful and true.
Wow,that was spot on for me and very informative of the Consciousness Screen.
In another talk, Rupert spoke about the development of the bodymind as being a seemingly endless process whether awakening has occurred or not. In other words there is always room for learning and he gave examples this (The example he gave was that he realized in retrospect he had been somewhat short with someone who had asked about the benefits of mantra meditation during questioning time after a talk. He spoke of how he had used mantra meditation for many years and it had been very helpful to him, but during this questioning time he felt he might have given the impression that he was being dismissive of it and this may not have been skillful). Now when people like Rupert step onto the "teacher" stage they are far more visible than those of us who consume the wisdom they offer merely by listening in the shadows.. Its easy to be critical from the peanut gallery so to speak. Nevertheless here goes from the peanut gallery! : With regard to the lecture by the "world-renowned expert on consciousness" that Rupert attended and clearly didn't like I think I would have felt differently as I think all these "positions" have their place and love rigorous philosophical discussion too. All of us make up this world. All of us are unique. Does anyone know who the "renowned expert" was?
Spot on. I have a friend who is enlightened ,a very large cockney mechanic. He doesn't know what enlightenment is,he can barely read and write. My belief in his enlightenment is based on only one aspect of his nature. He is free of judgement. There are things he likes and others he can't stand but its never a judgement of those things as good or bad or whether he is above or bellow. Rupert is on stage because he wants attention. Thats what we want as egoic people
That I am = That which is.
That which is = the All in One in All.
Look for me in the Whole that is greater than the sum of it's elements.
it gives very good information of consciousness for us.
This Professor is full of conceptual ideas, purely theoretical and academic and far far from Reality and Rupert informs him of the perennial Truth which will take him decades if not lifetimes to know. I feel so so sad that i cant be with Rupert to experience this living ever present Truth. As circumstances, finances prevents me. But listening to him allows me these sparks of illumination
Rupert you talk about PURE SPIRITUALITY and every body else is interested in MATERIALISM but use spirituality to misguide people. If you read old scriptures (Veda's and Upanishads) which you sometimes refer to talk about all this but you explain it in very simple words so people don't believe. Not many people liked Ramana Maharishi because they didn't understand him, Lao Tzu wrote some quotes that you refer 2500 yrs ago. Truth will prevail, keep up the good work of making people aware of the self and awareness. Thanks.
What I can say over here, that the experience of beeing concious is not experienced by "me" because it is pure experience itself without any reference other than beeing itself.
I would disagree with Rupert when he says, beeing aware of beeing aware.
There is no need for that other than in spiritual gymnastic.
Anyway we mean the same. Words are not needed ❤
Love Rupert
Excellent, true, well said.
As much as his words can say what his words said, his words are very good, very happy, very very words...
Thank You, Rupert :0)
Many thanks for sharing this. While Rupert bases his ideas/insights on personal experience, he still seems emotionally attached to them. For instance, the notion that the infinite consciousness knows itself through finite localized consciousness seems to upset him. These matters can be multi-faceted and appear to be one way to a person and another to someone else. It is still thru our minds that we have such experiences and report them.
That is why I find the of teaching of Dependent Origination and emptiness more resonate with my own investigation. There are form and formless. Form and formless are both side of the same coin.
***** I agree. The belief that the mind is needed for awareness to know itself is only indicative that one has not really seen yet. There is nothing wrong about that, since that is just how the mind perceives reality. But from the point of view of awareness itself, it is seen that one doesn't need a mind to know itself, since one has never been the mind/body in the first place. Awareness is before the mind/body/world even seem to come into existence. Not in time, but in absolute terms.
John Browne Yes, but that is because language is developed by and for the mind (limited awareness). Language can and will never be able to explain awareness. The mind works only with conceptual knowledge which we can communicate to each other (which is language). Even Rupert Spira has to make use of the mind and language to point others in the direction of awareness. The true "teaching" however always comes from within, from the stillness of awareness itself.
Keeping the limitations of language in mind, it is sometimes more useful to say for example 'from the point of view of awareness', even if that is the only true point of view. Because even if the mind is not absolutely real, it is our reality now. It is our point of view. Even if suffering is not truly affecting that what we are, it still is our reality now. We have to be with these relative realities to see that they are not absolutely real. We cannot just skip that step, because then we do not accept what is and are again seeking in the future. These experiences all borrow their reality from awareness, as Rupert beautifully says. All experience is real, yet only awareness (the unspeakable) is absolute reality. It is the source of all, existence itself.
John Browne Rupert does discuss this in other videos. There is only so much depth he can go into in this venue in the time allotted to him. When Rupert says something like "From the point of view of Awareness itself", he is making a concession to speech for an audience and has said as much many times. Awareness as Pure Consciousness doesn't have a "point of view" of course as it has no subject-object existence.
From what point of view do you ask the question "why illusion at all?" From the viewpoint of the body-mind or finite consciousness, it is like asking why is water wet? It is illusory by nature. From the "viewpoint" of Infinite Consciousness, there is not illusion.
As to "why the hell are we here?", the "here" refers to Maya or Illusion. The experiences of "here" are relatively real not absolutely real. The "how" is karma (action) and vasanas (tendencies) that produce the experience of the birth/death cycle. The birth/death experience is again relatively real and not absolutely real as with the experiences in the dream state. The actual answer to the question of "why the hell are we here?" is really quite simple; Self Realization.
Where are you getting that Rupert is "emotionally attached"? If you are referring to Rupert's "rattling saber" comment, I think you are reading more into it than was meant. It was simply meant metaphorically. I'm quite sure that Rupert didn't feel any more of a need to correct the lecturer and "defend the Truth" than he does while speaking to audiences such as this.
As far as "It is still thru our minds that we have such experiences and report them." goes, as Rupert clearly elaborated on, the mind doesn't have its own existence apart from Consciousness.
Consciousness- is like dreamless sleep you cannot express It but the mind will vanish pointing towards It. This is what happens when something agreeable is presented to the mind it loses it's restricting form.
He reminds me of my buddhist friend... he has a similar peace about him.
I am the I am...Now I got the meaning of those words.
Indeed. I am the way the truth and life. Doesn't mean him as a person. But the I Am. All the Bible is about this in different words.
advaita vedanta is just one worldview among so many. one theory like that of big bang, steady state, evolution, or else one of the religions like JudeoChrisLam, HinduBudhism, Materialism
This is my first taste of this Rupert. I would like to know how he explains how the finite seems to overcome the infinite. He can say that it only seems so, but how is it that the infinite can be fooled at all, making the finite stronger than the infinite? That is, we identify with the ego, the small self, as against the higher Self, which we don't see. How is it possible for the Self to be in ignorance at all, such that there could be individuals unable to see the Self? It should not be possible, yet it is the case. Thus, if all that exists is the Infinite, then how to explain "illusion" at all? Some are clever and call it "apparent illusion" but that just begs the question. Even if we theoretically agree that the illusion does not really exist, it does not follow that we don't have to explain it. I do not see that he made the case that reality cannot by its nature be intelligible.
The attention of infinite Conciousness, points its self toward finite existance as it rises in her and forgets her self into her ( creation)s
well moron, think about when you were an infant. oh right, you can't. consciousness and self-awareness are continually developing. you were in total ignorance as a baby but that was a necessary state that laid the groundwork for your current level of understanding. you might need to check out Gnostic writings. The Self is something we grow into like the acorn becoming an oak, a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. The infinite is not static like you stupidly think. it is an open system and requires uncertainty to generate all possibilties.
True "consciousness" may be outside the gray matter/the brain but the brain must be to use consciousness or be aware of consciousness?
Infinity - any finite quantity remains infinite.
“Look for me at the source of attention’” Can someone help me understand what this means? Is he referring to being with God, like in meditation, the silence?
Does anyone know who the professor is that Rupert refers to at the beginning of the recording? The one he refers to as going off on tangents that Rupert did not understand?
So amazing!!!
he is like a new krishnamurti
I like Rupert Spira,but he's wrong on this notion of "consciousness knowing itself".Actually he uses the word consciousness as the ultimate,final reality underlying all conventional phenomena.In Buddhism,consciousness is just a component of the phenomenal existence that builds on top of perception.It's just a subtle layer of ego.Think about it,if there's something that "knows" something,even if it is itself (in "knowing itself"),that cannot be the ultimate because there's a split in subject and object.There can be no knowing without this split.However,the ultimate is non dual,so there's no such distinction in it,and as many Zen masters have said "it's free from knowing".Consciousness is just one of the twelve links of dependent origination (The Twelve Nidanas) and that's all.
Notice that this is not my personal theory,this is Buddhism 101,so anyone adopting Spira's view will have to part ways with Buddhism.
Good point. Glad you brought up a more technical view as per Buddhism. One can really attempt to be precise about this using language and there are many views on Awareness of Awareness, even in Buddhism that differ depending on context. Mahamudra and Dzogchen deal with that very issue using a more specific terminology, and yet, the are buddhadharma and at the apex of the entire teaching.
He was subtly implying, in a roundabout way, that the dualism of a knower that knows is illusory and it seems to be that going into that in more depth in this video would have taken more time and might be better as another talk since we have the very issue of "self" and "not self" to deal with and for the Western mind, I think it is best to lead up to it and explore it carefully rather than to try to cram it all into less than an hour. So, this talk was, to me, a skillful primer, at the very least.
In my opinion, it is very difficult to express the inexpressible as the result or point is ineffable, so Spira does a very good job at putting it into the context that his audience might best relate to without getting bogged-down in too much intellectual precision based on more esoteric sounding nomenclature.
I would say that the terms awareness an knowing are more to the point and precise because, as you pointed out, consciousness is an aspect, not an ultimate or essence.
It is good to see talks on the subject of non-duality and I express my thanks for those who are able to articulate such an uncommon subject without requiring familiarity with another culture, language or religion. That is helpful an useful and what can be called skillful means as a benefit to others.
Only ignorances do not know what Rupert Spira is talking about. You need to do some more reflection upon yourself !!!
Study of consciousness begins with the Upanishads 5000 years ago
SUPERB
unconsciousness is not the lack of consciousness or the opposite of it rather just the...consciousness with the mind content .
Describe your first-hand, direct... ...feeling/experience/sensation of... ..."being Aware"... ...right now!
What is that experience/feeling/sensation/awareness... ...right now... at this very moment!
Let's see if there is a similarity in what we directly experience... ...in this moment...
But, first can we describe exactly how we feel IT (Awareness) right now... ...without bothering ourselves with what Buddha, Ramana, Mr. Tolle or Mr. Spira say about it?
My direct experience is the awareness of the diffused spacious energy without boundaries...
The awareness, energy and spaciousness are intimately interconnected - i.e. there is no real separateness between them - they are like the attributes of the same thing - which is also me..
Everything else... ...including my own human body is my indirect experience... ...or, my logical conclusion...
brilliant.......
What promts infinite consciousness to localise itself intò finite body?
That which is knowns all that is. Ego exists only in consciousness
What's new about it?
hello . the reality of conscious explains itself , quiet naturally but most people don`t understand the impersonal memory . if you hold to other interprettations their experiences and quotes are actually blocking the open mind in a nurtured human `school of thought` . with regards
Where are the flowers.
We are DNA code emergent rendering machines that exists to replicate. By our brain / consciousness collapsing wave function and resolving mathematical probability our nervous system allows us to interact with reality.
Haaaa at minute marker...about 30...how can you say we? Okay....got it now! didn't understand your writing at first, but posted....future for me?
benbennit an excellent thought but a thought nonetheless. Much of what you have said is based on many assumptions. One, that meaning is objective and second, that reality exists. You seem to be asking the question what or who are you. But really answering the question who do you identify as. This video is an attempt to answer the question who are you, a subtle difference I think
How can you know yourself without the mind and how can the mind exist without the brain?
How would the sun knows it's giving off light if there's nothing to reflect it's light off of?
You’re right, from the finite perspective you can’t know yourself without the mind and the mind can’t exist without the brain. However, Rupert is speaking of infinite consciousness, which knows itself without requiring a finite mind. The only purpose for which consciousness needs the mind is to experience the finite world.
@@mangelwurzel476 How does the infinite consciousness knows itself?
C.L. Self-awareness is an inherent, demonstrable quality of consciousness and consciousness is our irreducible being. So I’m not even sure, in that context, whether ‘how’ is a relevant question. “I am that I am” is a foundational statement. “I am that I am because ...”? No idea! Perhaps a good question to ask Rupert at his next satsang.
misleading title. it should say: The New Age Science of Consciousness. It's just some guy showing off the power of "pregnant pauses" in front of a willing crowd.
Is there a transcript of this talk anywhere?
+Yasser Malik hit "more" under the vid. and you will see transcript :0)
u r awesome, THANK YOU! tRUMP HAS to win, maybe......
Who was the professor of philosophy? I'd like to Google him to see what he is saying.
Daniel Dennet.....he wrote "Consciousness Explained", which many of his peers dubbed "consciousness unexplained"......the book does little, or anything at all to explain consciousness.....he sees it as "non remarkable", simply a construction for survival......he also is a compatabalist regarding free will.....
Play ...........at .......................1.5x .................
playback ...............................................................speed.
You...................are.............. welcome.
+Brainbuster he's just giving you time to think about it, because it's deeper than those words ever could explain. but yeah, joking about people which have got really great ideas, thats why our world is, what our world is. Even if it's just fun.
+Brainbuster
Thank you Brainbuster!!
+Brainbuster words are comming from consciousness, it takes time to form good speach if U take it seriously, Einstein was really slow at school he needed time to form words. Fast dont mean good. We live to fast today and we think that everyone should run and run or speak speak.
s. top
We can comprehend much faster than typical human speech.
And once Einstein reached maturity, he spoke at a normal pace.
+s. top the problem is that i, and a good portion of people that i know, will loose track of the point of a sentence, if whoever is speaking, is speaking too slow. I dont know if there's some sort of scientific explanation for this.
Infinite …that which is encompasses all that is, finite qualities cannot be separated from source. It is mind blowing isn’t it🤣🤣🤣
You are so right! I am not as educated yet i know that, I know.
He says that infinite consciousness can not know the finite mind. This assumes that "infinite consciousness" is infinite. However, many speak of consciousness manifesting "reality" in order to experience, or to evolve to even higher levels of consciousness. Which is correct? I suspect that consciousness is not infinite. If it were, there would be no higher level of consciousness to be obtained, and it would not manifest "reality" because it would already know that which would be gained from all experience of "reality". Likewise, if we are all part of consciousness...and it were infinite...then we too would be infinite, which we are clearly not, at least as we are manifesting ourselves currently. Of course, there is the argument that we, as infinite consciousness are manifesting limitations within this "reality". If so, I ask, why? Infinite consciousness would not need to experience limited "reality" as it would already know the results that each of an infinite number of choices of how to limit "reality" would be. If you are going to make such a claim as to the infinite nature of consciousness, I would sure like to see some evidence, or at least sound logic, to make such a statement.
From another point of view, by definition "infinite" is without boundaries or limits. To say that infinite consciousness can not know the finite mind is to put a limitation on "infinite". In fact, it MUST know the finite mind in order to fulfill it's infiniteness.
Did you know there are lokas... In Leela?
All these assertions with nothing to back them up
I reach you in every word you say
This dialog is totally unnecessary the brain processes or receives consciousness - If all the brains were gone or sensory perception of the life forms was gone would "consciousness" still exist on its own? Perhaps I am consciousness?
The brain exists inside of consciousness. I once heard Rupert make a statement “to think that consciousness is derived from the brain is like thinking that your computer screen is derived from your email”. Basically, the brain is an appearance or object inside of Consciousness, and if we alter it, it can affect perception/material reality. To think consciousness would disappear if all the brains disappeared is like believing that your computer screen disappears when you turn off the computer. Consciousness is before Mind. This is your direct experience. You KNOW your thoughts, perceptions, etc. That which knows thoughts, by definition, can not be thoughts. For some reason, we’ve been led to believe that we are our Minds and Bodies, however we can hear without ears, see without eyes, smell without noses, touch without the body, and even perceive our own Mind, yet we continue to believe that we are the Body and the Mind.
I didn’t hear any science. How does he know that consciousness is infinite? How does he know that consciousness can be separate from the physical brain? How does he know that it is consciousness and not something else, that is aware of consciousness? How does he know that consciousness can know things? If he didn’t understand the speaker how does he know that the speaker was like a fool masquerading as a wise man?
I’m not saying he’s wrong or that another theory is better. I’m just saying he didn’t use very many sources or models or anything that sounded scientific to argue his ideas. He just asserted everything meanwhile denigrating those he disagreed with who actually do support their ideas with sources.
From his deep analysis of personal experience. This has been his lifetime’s study. What do you think is aware of consciousness other than consciousness?
Faulty logic maybe at 10.00 mins. The infinite could by definition contain all knowledge? E
Teacher says A for apple and some of the students start applauding. How funny and innocent would that be.
Think Tony Parsons would find this amusing.
the idea that consciousness cannot "know" or essentially bring into being...the finite mind...that the finite mind displaces it...is an idea...and a limiting idea...consider the finite mind as the deliberate expression of the infinite...of consciousness. think in terms of fractals rather than the opposing boxes of "finite" and "infinite" which are merely ideas...a better model is needed. this one being espoused makes the obvious mistake that omniscience is itself limited...based on the the old dogma that individuation is separation. it isn't. it is love.
funny that his sword rattled at the philosopher, and mine at him...obviously infinite knowledge does not have to cease in its attention to itself to direct its attention to its individuated expression...its individuated expression IS itself. nothing exists outside consciousness. this includes the person. this is godhood.