Thank you for your wonderful compilations of Rupert’s teachings I think that there is not a better metaphor to explain the relation between the separate self and the real self than the one of “King Lear” and “John Smith” I will never be tired of hear it!
I really like the caption here - 'A symphony without a Conductor'. It really speaks directly to what Rupert is point to. We are not doing per say but we are being done. Seems to me that we are merely the agent through which thought, words and deed takes form. Our purpose is to observe and guard the 'symphony' that we allow to be orchestrated through us. This is powerful! Thanks again Alan
@@widipermono229 I believe there is free will. The thing is the harvest or outcome (favorable of unfavorable), is always relative to the prior choose made.
@@danielu1763 There's no rub really! Again one can make a conscious choice to relax in the isness of now or attempt fight it fruitless. It is as it is.
I am so grateful to hear another teacher apart from David Carse say that "there is no one home," which is how the thought that there is no such thing as a separate self came to me when I was very young. It is a comfort to remember that this thought is not crazy
Wow just got hit in the head. This recording highlights much of my misunderstandings about the I and awareness. Allen so grateful for all that you do. We all need to listen many times . “We”can’t stop listening because “we”decided “we” now “UNDERSTAND “.🌺
You needn't to have a near-death-experience to be liberated from the belief of a seperate selbst. It will suffice to listen to these dialogues with Rupert: they are absolutely liberating! Thank you, Allan!
Yes, you are prior to I Am. I Am is the doorway between the absolute and the relative. By resting as the sense I Am there is a natural disolving into the absolute in time.
Thank you, dear Alan! Great compilation, as usually! 🙏💚 P. S. I would also like to know something about the bird that flew away from this screen.😉 Do you have any information? 🤔
Three remarks by listening to this again: Putin is the incorporation of an evil-doing separate self, doing harm to others and the world. Second remark: the poet Brecht gave the instruction to actors of his plays not to identify themselves with the characters of these plays. Third: Heinz von Foerster asked himself: who do I want to be in relation to my friends, thus being conscious of himself and of his role in his relationships.
so does consciousness care for the finite mind? why shouldn't the finite mind do wrong to others if it doesn't affect consciousness (the screen on which the film of life plays out, an analogy you have used in the past) The mind is localized consciousness so it ought to know better but I presume it has identified with the ego so has forgotten itself, the ego can be hurt but not the localized consciousness (if I understand correctly) so why should love and consideration even be something of importance for consciousness, indeed why would consciousness make a universe and then attempt to objectively understand it....sort of pointless really. i would like an answer if possible.
Reality consists of Awareness and it's activity. Everything in activity is equal until it is categorised by thought. The activity is self known and self organising. Awareness doesn't know activity and so it's not a question of caring or not. It's important to understand that everything said about reality is only a model. Many mind activities can give the impression that there are individuals that can act and choose to do something differently. There is only Awareness and it's activity.
@@alanneachell9092 First, thank you for replying, I presume by awareness you mean consciousness, these two terms seem to be used concurrently with one another. You write;'The activity is self known and self organizing. Awareness and ITS activity...' but then go on to say 'awareness doesn't know activity'???. Self organizing sounds like 'causality' which I approve of as all events are causal. 'Awareness and its activity' must be wrong as it implies awareness owns activity whereas activity happens within awareness which merely observes it otherwise awareness would be responsible say for the holocaust. Now if awareness doesn't 'know' activity then any action of the Jiva is of no importance, love or hate would be inconsequential except for the person (who isn't real anyway). Since 'enlightenment' is only possible when the ego has been destroyed (not really possible in my opinion) there wouldn't be anybody left to know that they were enlightened. Yes, it is only a model, a concept, but concepts are not the truth, concepts are of the inquiring mind trying to make sense of the world. Semantics get in the way of course. Francis Lucille likes to say that there is no proof that awareness is limited, he omits to say that there is also no proof that it is unlimited. I think it is important to question every statement, whether it be from a spiritual teacher, a religious teacher or a scientist. There are physicists who agree that the substratum of everything is consciousness which causes the different vibrations (in string theory any way) to make matter, either way I don't think a vibration cares about love or hate or whether it is understood or not.
@@albundy9597 No I don't mean Awareness is synonymous with consciousness. I know that Rupert uses that model but I don't think it's helpful to answer the question that you asked, at least not for me 😊. I would hate to confuse anyone so I suggest that you ask your question of Rupert or Francis.
@@albundy9597 Awareness and it's activity are one but the apparent activity is unreal in the sense that it's only a thought construct which categorises things that don't actually exist. Awareness only knows itself. This is verified by Rupert and Francis.
You are a blessing to us Alan 💕💕💕💕
Thanks Alan for your beautiful compilation
Thank you Rupert and Alan 🌹❤🙏 always grateful!
Thank You so much for sharing this!
All the very Best to You, Alan!
Thank you for your wonderful compilations of Rupert’s teachings I think that there is not a better metaphor to explain the relation between the separate self and the real self than the one of “King Lear” and “John Smith” I will never be tired of hear it!
Dear Alan ...again and again thank you for your doing ... what a wonderful symphony (together with my sunday morning coffee)..all the best Hannes
I really like the caption here - 'A symphony without a Conductor'. It really speaks directly to what Rupert is point to. We are not doing per say but we are being done. Seems to me that we are merely the agent through which thought, words and deed takes form. Our purpose is to observe and guard the 'symphony' that we allow to be orchestrated through us. This is powerful! Thanks again Alan
Thanks Olive ❣️
This is an other way for me to understand that actually there is no free will
Who is allowing? - is where the rub is, here.
@@widipermono229 I believe there is free will. The thing is the harvest or outcome (favorable of unfavorable), is always relative to the prior choose made.
@@danielu1763 There's no rub really! Again one can make a conscious choice to relax in the isness of now or attempt fight it fruitless. It is as it is.
Trank you so much ❤️Made my weekend 💜🙏Looking forward to this sooo much💜
Enjoy 😊
So inspiring,so good to be reminded,clearly...John Smith.Back home.
Thank you!❤🙏
I am so grateful to hear another teacher apart from David Carse say that "there is no one home," which is how the thought that there is no such thing as a separate self came to me when I was very young. It is a comfort to remember that this thought is not crazy
We are unbounded consciousness that takes on the apparent form of being a human for a little while for the experience of a lifetime. How beautiful.
Thank you Alan for all these videos. They are a great treasure and yoy are doing a wonderful service
All is Oneness...
We are different blends,
Of the same Source,
With subtle differences,
That initiate their due course...
........... 💗💗💗 .........
Thank you. What an incredible teaching and teacher.
Wow just got hit in the head. This recording highlights much of my misunderstandings about the I and awareness. Allen so grateful for all that you do. We all need to listen many times . “We”can’t stop listening because “we”decided “we” now “UNDERSTAND “.🌺
🙏💕
Thank you again Alan ❤️
Thank you Alan.
Alan, thanks so much for putting these together… You sir are a Treasure 🙏🏼
Thanks Alan 🙏💕
Gah! This was so good! Excellent compilation, Alan. I’m going to have to save this one to listen to again later ❤️🤍❤️
Wahwah AhaAha dhanyabadDhanyabadDhanyabad thanksgretitude dhanyabad dhanyabadDhanyabadDhanyabad
🙏🏾❤️🙏🏾 Thankyou. Hope your well brother
All well, thank you 🙏💕
1 feeling of being.
You needn't to have a near-death-experience to be liberated from the belief of a seperate selbst. It will suffice to listen to these dialogues with Rupert: they are absolutely liberating! Thank you, Allan!
Thanks Peter 🙏💕
If there was no singular self there would be no objectifiable experience.
Amen
🙏 ❤️
💞🙏🌺
🙏❤🙏❤🙏
I am lost when he talks about John Smith and King Lear analogy.
Yes, not everyone likes it 😊
😂
19 seperate self
So "I am" is not our real being. Our real being is beyond "I am".
Yes, you are prior to I Am.
I Am is the doorway between the absolute and the relative.
By resting as the sense I Am there is a natural disolving into the absolute in time.
@@alanneachell9092 Thank you soo much Alan. Keep doing your good work.
@Dean Mitchell I Am is an experiential sense of existing. That's what I am referring to. You are prior to the sense of existence.
@Dean Mitchell No. The pure sense of existence is the first form of manifestation. We are prior to that.
🙏🙏Thanks a lot🙏🙏
Thank you, dear Alan! Great compilation, as usually! 🙏💚
P. S. I would also like to know something about the bird that flew away from this screen.😉 Do you have any information? 🤔
Which bird?
@@alanneachell9092 The one who left her feathers. That one.😉🕊
It proves that there is no transcendence in this world without a material trace. ;)))
@@fea88 got it! 🤣
@@alanneachell9092 🥰
14 body
I wonder, if Rupert actually meant "A symphony without a composer". A symphony without a conductor makes no sense.
No, he meant conducter (=king lear). A symphony without a composer wouldn ´t even exist. The composer is the Self.
Three remarks by listening to this again: Putin is the incorporation of an evil-doing separate self, doing harm to others and the world. Second remark: the poet Brecht gave the instruction to actors of his plays not to identify themselves with the characters of these plays. Third: Heinz von Foerster asked himself: who do I want to be in relation to my friends, thus being conscious of himself and of his role in his relationships.
so does consciousness care for the finite mind? why shouldn't the finite mind do wrong to others if it doesn't affect consciousness (the screen on which the film of life plays out, an analogy you have used in the past) The mind is localized consciousness so it ought to know better but I presume it has identified with the ego so has forgotten itself, the ego can be hurt but not the localized consciousness (if I understand correctly) so why should love and consideration even be something of importance for consciousness, indeed why would consciousness make a universe and then attempt to objectively understand it....sort of pointless really. i would like an answer if possible.
Reality consists of Awareness and it's activity.
Everything in activity is equal until it is categorised by thought.
The activity is self known and self organising.
Awareness doesn't know activity and so it's not a question of caring or not.
It's important to understand that everything said about reality is only a model.
Many mind activities can give the impression that there are individuals that can act and choose to do something differently.
There is only Awareness and it's activity.
You're true identity is Awareness and as such never enter the show.
@@alanneachell9092 First, thank you for replying,
I presume by awareness you mean consciousness, these two terms seem to be used concurrently with one another.
You write;'The activity is self known and self organizing. Awareness and ITS activity...' but then go on to say 'awareness doesn't know activity'???. Self organizing sounds like 'causality' which I approve of as all events are causal. 'Awareness and its activity' must be wrong as it implies awareness owns activity whereas activity happens within awareness which merely observes it otherwise awareness would be responsible say for the holocaust.
Now if awareness doesn't 'know' activity then any action of the Jiva is of no importance, love or hate would be inconsequential except for the person (who isn't real anyway). Since 'enlightenment' is only possible when the ego has been destroyed (not really possible in my opinion) there wouldn't be anybody left to know that they were enlightened.
Yes, it is only a model, a concept, but concepts are not the truth, concepts are of the inquiring mind trying to make sense of the world. Semantics get in the way of course.
Francis Lucille likes to say that there is no proof that awareness is limited, he omits to say that there is also no proof that it is unlimited.
I think it is important to question every statement, whether it be from a spiritual teacher, a religious teacher or a scientist.
There are physicists who agree that the substratum of everything is consciousness which causes the different vibrations (in string theory any way) to make matter, either way I don't think a vibration cares about love or hate or whether it is understood or not.
@@albundy9597 No I don't mean Awareness is synonymous with consciousness.
I know that Rupert uses that model but I don't think it's helpful to answer the question that you asked, at least not for me 😊.
I would hate to confuse anyone so I suggest that you ask your question of Rupert or Francis.
@@albundy9597 Awareness and it's activity are one but the apparent activity is unreal in the sense that it's only a thought construct which categorises things that don't actually exist. Awareness only knows itself. This is verified by Rupert and Francis.
1 I am