Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. - Albert Einstein
That questioner has resulted in a couple of great recent video uploads. lol! Just fantastic how Mr. Rupert is able to articulate and guide towards the "both/and".... it is just so wild to me how he is able to so clearly articulate things in such a contemporary manner... describing the human experience of reality. No need for speculative metaphysics!
This is important. So many teachings mistakenly advocate destruction of the ego. I think the problem is language. Self is just a word, a label. There really is no self. As Rupert says: You can only know what you are not: a description, a label, a thing. We can never know ourselves, because we're not some "thing". We are so used to labeling everything that we become uncomfortable, and feel lost without one.
But we can know ourself as what we truly are. If it's true "we can never know ourself" then what's the use? I disagree! We can know ourself...this is why Rupert points the way!
@@mauricepowers3804 You can only know yourself as an idea, a concept, a label. Not as a direct experience. Ramana Maharshi and many others have stated" You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself " Which means: knowing is dual, a knower and the known. Rupert is teaching non duality, and has said the same thing.
Brilliant teaching - I love how Rupert explains the relationship between illusion and reality. I never heard any other teacher explaining this so well. I studied and re-read Nisargadatta over and over in the past eight or nine years so I am not a stranger to these concepts. But Rupert has a real gift and fantastic analogies to explain these difficult things. I remember how I struggled to understand the classic snake and rope analogy reading Nisargadatta. Here is is: Q: Consciousness itself is a reflection. How can it hold the real? M: To know that consciousness and its content are but reflections, changeful and transient, is the focussing of the real. The refusal to see the snake in the rope is the necessary condition for seeing the rope. Q: Only necessary, or also sufficient? M: One must also know that a rope exists and looks like a snake. Similarly, one must know that the real exists and is of the nature of witness-consciousness. Of course it is beyond the witness, but to enter it one must first realise the state of pure witnessing. The awareness of conditions brings one to the unconditioned. Now, combined with Ruperts explanations, it all makes sense. Thank you Rupert for your generous gifts of wisdom. If I understand it right, Nisargadtta's "focussing of the real" is the same as Ruperts "localized finite consciousness" that spurns the illusion that whatever appears in consciousness (which is everything we perceive and conceive, I think), is real when it isn't. It is the snake that, in reality, is the rope. But we "must know the rope exists and looks like a snake". I guess, that knowledge comes through awakening experiences.
I was asking myself for a while who am i inquiring into the Illusion or the Real Self, and i felt that question was holding me back. And then this Video appears and answers my Question perfectly. Thank you.
As always, that was great, another step forward, but this time a longer step, a leap, where you can’t fail. In that, it does not matter what “I” you think you are investigating, because there is only the One, anyway. That means, no longer any hesitation, or regrouping, or refocusing. It is always, full steam ahead, delving into the “I.”
This is brilliant. This is it. The simplest yet the profound meaning of self enquiry and as to why should we do it, it has value, life transforming value. If you were here in India , we would say "Ruprt Maharaj ki Jay" Pranaams to you , thousand Namaskars to most beloved teacher , the Guru. ❤🙏🙏🙏
But King Lear on learning that he's actually John Smith feels very relived, and so with this knowledge now believes he IS John Smith. In other words, the character King Lear now holds onto a new belief, that he IS John Smith. The separate self will latch onto any concept or belief because that's what it does. This is the trick of the egoic "Me" or separate "I" plays, especially strengthened when it affirms "I am, that I am". That's the danger and that's why so many who come to a deep non-duality understanding still feels like a separate, individual "Me"... and it can go on for decades, and decades.
Brilliantly put. It’s interesting because inquiry seems to be the glitch in the universe. Like many sci fi movies and tv shows where there exists a seemingly omnipotent and dangerous alien computer that man only defeats after asking it questions it can not answer.
Muchas gracias Maestro !! Por tan clara explicación entre algo que es una ilusión y algo que no es real, ha quedado muy clara la diferencia. Muchas gracias 🙏🏻✨
❤The snake-role analogy is much like how we mistakenly identify the I (ego) with our true self. Just as we might perceive a rope as a snake in dim light, we misconstrue the I as our true self. It's a perceptual error, rooted in our egoic identity, which believes itself to be the center of our being. However, a critical distinction exists between the I (ego) and consciousness, which doesn't exist between the snake and the rope. That means that I (ego) and consciousness are not identical as snake and rope are. So, the I isn't consciousness appearing as the I, but a psychological element distinct from consciousness.The I (ego), on one hand, is composed of psychic energy, has form, is limited, individual, and has a beginning and an end. The consciousness, on the other hand, is formless, timeless, unlimited, and the constant empty, silent background in which the I (ego) appears and functions. Therefore, what is needed here is to discern the I (ego) from consciousness and realize that we are the consciousness and not the I. That is , we don't realize that the I is Consciousness but we are consciousness which is something different than the I. Of course ultimately all life and I as well arise from consciousness. However, we should not confuse lure consciousness with its expressions.
Yes ❤ And the very last step, that, - just as buddha did, jesus did, many many holy ones did, - is to stay awake in the " non-duality ", in the " being of consciousnes "... meanwhile healthily and simultanously functioning in the (illusionary) " duality ", in the " doing of consciousness ": in the illusion of labels, concepts, ego-body-minds, objects and genrally in the time-space illusion. I have a nice metaphor ❤: just because as grown ups, we realise santa claus does does not excist we can still enjoy the mood and idea of christmas (the whole thing: the warm and vibrant atmosphere of the tree, the music, the loving gatherings, the food, the drinks, the children exctiedly waiting for the xmas gifts, etc). ❤
For me I feel I'm listening/reading to a group of intellectuals. Something that was made simple by Eckhart, Mooji and Rupert has now been made confusing. I'll leave this alone for a while.
There is a Silence always present, no matter the goings on, the situation, the experiences. It’s just always here! It’s just always here exclamation. So calm, still and unaffected. Is that to be investigated? Is that open to investigation? How? It just is it seems. ⁉️⁉️⁉️
The true nature of the snake is illusion, not the rope. As it is said in Yoga Vasishta: The dream mountain is dream, not mountain. The true nature of ego is illusion, not the Self. The end point of ego-inquiry is illusion, not the Self. From there, you need to jump. You could as well jump right away. The snake will never become a rope, whether you explore the snake or not. The snake doesn't exist. Period. To realize that is liberation. There is a qualitative leap from snake to rope, which includes a qualitative leap from the seer of the snake to the seer of the rope. The seer of the rope is not the true nature of the seer of the snake. The seer of the snake is exactly as illusory as the snake. It IS as illusion, though. And this is important to state, and Rupert Spira has done that magnificently.
The true nature of the snake is the rope. Yes, the snake is an illusion, but the foundation of that illusion is based on a fundamental essence, which is the rope. Similarly, the nature of "I," the ego, is actually "I," the Self. There are not two separate "I"s, but always just one "I" regardless if it is Ego or not.
@@ananda224No, the true nature of the ego is illusion, not Self. There are not two separate "I"s, exactly because the ego is illusion. The snake has never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. There cannot be a "fundamental essence" or "true nature" of something that does not exist. And you will never succeed in finding the "fundamental essence" or "true nature" of something that does not exist. If your spiritual practice is to "find the true essence of the ego", liberation won't happen. Understand the illusion as illusion, and be free. This might seem like semantics, but it is actually very important. It's about correct outlook and focus, not semantics. The two approaches are very different. If you start with false assumptions, you will probably not get to true conclusions. The traditional definition of delusion is "to take something that is not (ego, snake) as being, and something that is (Being, rope) as not being". The solution is to see that which is not as not being, and that which is as being. This is not reached by finding "the true essence" of that which is not, but by seeing that which is not as what it is: inexistent. This is reached by seeing the illusion or the misunderstanding as that which it is: an illusion or a misunderstanding. This is much quicker and much more efficient than searching for the "true essence" of something that doesn't exist. Finding the true essence of King Lear doesn't lead to John Smith, but only leads deeper into the illusion. Don't waste your time chasing illusions!
@@ReneHatt For many, their experience of self-hood is intertwined with ego. Suggesting to them that this experience of self-hood does not exist could lead to confusion, as from their perspective, it is very much a lived reality. If one were to tell someone observing what they perceive as a snake is actually a rope, the discrepancy between their perception and your assertion would seem absurd. When discussing the ego, I’m not referring to it as a separate entity or thing but rather as the experience of "I" or self that most people have. So, when I speak of the "true nature of ego," I’m essentially addressing the "true nature of I." Although I find myself in agreement with your overall understanding, the approach you've taken could potentially cause confusion to people who are beginning. The snake/rope analogy conveys a means to self-investigate our own sense of self. The analogy illustrates misperception, where the rope (Reality) is obscured by darkness (or ignorance) and is misperceived as a snake. The rope never truly become a snake; but rather, the snake's appearance is a misinterpretation superimposed by the mind or seer. The snake is unreal because its existence is confined to the realm of the mind, and has no independent existence. What is real and exist is always the rope which is not dependent on perception or mind. Though the rope is always a rope, we can’t overlook the relative and conventional layers of reality stemming from the mind and the misperception, as this is the starting point for most people. When we adopt the stance-that "there is no me, you or ego"- it can be confusing to someone whom is not seeing from that reality but rather at the relative level of the ego. So how can we assert "there is no me" when individuals palpably feel their existence as a body, as a person? From the perspective of the individual, it becomes both useful and conventional to encourage the investigation of one's experience of Self, even if that experience is entangled with ego. This inquiry helps to unveil that the Self we perceive ourselves to be is actually a misperception of a truer self caused by the minds tendency to categorize and identify with thoughts, senses and perceptions. You're right that nature of the perception of the snake, or the ego, is unreal; it exists as an illusion. However, this unreality doesn't equal non-existence but rather a lack of independent existence, as it is reliant on the real. Every illusion has a basis in something fundamental. Without the rope, the snake-or the misperception it represents-cannot exist. This is the reason for my statement that the true nature of the snake is the rope. It's not to suggest that the snake transforms into the rope, but rather that our perception of a snake is actually a misinterpretation of the rope, which has a constant and underlying presence . The snake can never exist apart from the rope, they are intertwined as long as there is misperception, but, like you had mention, if one understand it as a misperception then what is actually there will be apparent. The analogy has a dual purpose, it not only facilitates the pointing to absolute reality but also provides guidance at a relative level for those still perceiving the relative reality or snake.
@@ananda224 Thank you very much for your thorough and deep post! It shows me several things, and I hope I can address them all. First, I agree that my statements can be confusing for beginners. It's important to know where you are. As Gautama Buddha said, the teaching is a boat, and while you can't get across the river without it, it would be silly to then drag it with you on the land after you have reached the other shore. And this is also something I find important to point out: Know which boat suits which river. And know when the analogy has fulfilled its function. The snake/rope analogy can be read superficially ("The rope is the essence of the snake"), ot it can take you further. I don't say "There is no me, you or ego". I don't get that this could be a fruitful statement in any situation. It is much too unclear, and thus not true. The ego IS real AS illusion. It is not real as what it tries to convince you it is. I don't advocate "fight the ego" or even "recognize that there is no ego" at all. I invite to see the mechanisms, and to see things as they are. The problem is not what you see, the problem is that you look incorrectly. The classical statement of delusion doesn't talk about things, it talks about outlook, about consciousness. Delusion is an issue of consciousness (way of looking), not of things (the seen). I wouldn't say that the perception of the snake is reliant on the rope. It is reliant on misperception and an incorrect view (this contains a lot, which I don't have the space to fully explicate - "consciousness is primary" is the short version of it). Ask yourself: Where does the snake originate? In the rope? Or in the misperception? The rope doesn't have anything to do with the snake. Never had, never will. This is the great liberation. This. So it's not wise to water it down. What I wrote (including in my initial statement on the other account) can be read negatively ("There is no ego"), but also positively: It's not about finding the "true nature" of the ego, it's about seeing the ego as what it is: an illusion, which has specific traits and mechanisms, which can be recognized and seen truthfully. This realization (there is nothing to do in the realm of the ego or the person) is very freeing, and a very positive experience. You don't have to make the ego perfect in order for it to enlighten. There is nothing to do but to see things as they are. The ego's only reality is its being an illusion, a misunderstanding. As that it IS real, which also means that it becomes what it truly is when it is recognized as illusion. It comes home. This is what the ego longs for - and is afraid of. Another important point is that the snake seer only occurs together with the snake. King Lear's world disappears together with King Lear. And another important point: the snake seer doesn't become the rope seer. The rope seer realizes the inexistence of the snake seer. Which means: It's a loss of identity. The snake seer's identity is lost when the rope is seen. This is something very important in the spiritual process as well as in the therapeutical process: the fact of identity loss. If you don't address that properly, the patient can easily fall back, or even be retraumatized. The traumatized person dies with the trauma, and this can be experienced as a loss of identity. If you "cure" the addiction, but not remove the addict, it will have to find a new addiction in order to experience its wholeness. As long as the identity of King Lear is not lost, you are still fully in the illusion. And at the moment it is lost, you might experience it as a loss. This has to be attended, or else there could be a crash. And it's not sincere to tell King Lear that he himself will live as John Smith. John Smith is not the "true nature" of King Lear, he's King Lear's annihilation. But King Lear is coming home in that annihilation. This is a totally different orientation than to "find King Lear's true nature". And since these are natural processes, this annihilation can occur spontaneously. It is better to be prepared, and to understand what is happening. So that you see it as the blessing that it is. It's not a loss, it's fulfillment. If you are aware of the mechanisms, you are more prepared, you have a roadmap, you see things more clearly (which also means that you are more in Clarity, since consciousness is primary), and the chances of getting sidetracked are smaller. This is why I don't see it as problematic to tell even beginners what the mechanisms and the processes are. Which includes "Don't try to get rid of the ego, don't see it as something problematic, see it as what it is, and be free from its grasp".
@@ReneHatt Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. I am in agreement that King Lear cannot live as John Smith, and it wouldn't be fruitful as King Lear is merely an idea and lacks tangible reality, while John Smith is a tangible reality. Although Rupert's analogy has its limitations, as it's designed as a teaching tool for self-investigation. In truth, John Smith, representing The Self, is never ignorant of himself; it remains unchanging. Ignorance or realization are constructs of the mind, which, like King Lear, is not sentient but an idea or a mechanical process. My original statement was that the rope is the true nature of the snake, however, you had said that the snake has nothing to do with the rope. In Advaita, these two things are interconnected. King Lear, being an idea, lacks reality unless portrayed by an actual person like John Smith. The snake's existence is nothing but a misinterpretation of the rope; without the rope, there is no misinterpretation. Brahman (the ultimate reality) and Maya (the power of illusion) are intertwined and inseparable, like fire and its heat. While the snake is indeed an idea and unreal compared to the tangible rope, this doesn't mean there is a separation between the two where they have nothing to do with each other; they are one reality that is experienced differently. There exists an independent reality (the rope) and a dependent reality (the snake as perceived); the dependent reality (snake) is always dependent on the independent reality (rope) for its existence. When asking the audience who the person behind King Lear is, they wouldn't say King Lear is portrayed by King Lear; they would acknowledge John Smith as the actor who portrayed King Lear. Ramana Maharshi had said that if we look at the Self as the ego, then we become the ego; if as the mind, we become the mind; if as the body, we become the body. It is the thought which builds up sheaths in so many way. So, we only appear to be the Ego, when we do not look closely, however our nature never changes it is always as it is, there is only ever a distorted reflection in the mirror of the mind, and we mistake that reflection as ourselves. I understand your point that the snake has no absolute reality, therefore has no true existence outside of the perception of it, so there is no need to remove or improve on the snake as it's unreal in the first place. The misrepresentation is only in the mind, and the mind is the faculty of perception and seeing and it's only in correcting this view that the snake disappears reveling the rope. However, the Rope/Snake analogy is intended to provide a holistic approach for self-investigation. This is why I said the snakes true nature is the rope. When investigating the ego, we're inquiring into our Self. This inquiry reveals that the ego-our sense of individual self-is an illusion, yet at the same time unmasking a truer understanding of our Self. There aren't two selves who sees a snake, and one that sees a rope; there's only one Self illuminating both the true knowledge and the mind's misperceptions. My approach is to unify the "I" with its cognitive play, irrespective of illusion. The difference lies in the mind's experience, which is transient and relies on the "I" for illumination. The snake represents a misperception of the "I," while the rope symbolizes the "I" accurately reflected in the mind. This perspective clarifies that through the mind's changing and unreal nature, and dependent on the "I," the false impression of the snake and the true nature of the rope are both manifestations of the same illuminating I reflected in the mind, only one is a distorted representation of the I. This way, one understands that their Self is always as it is, it is only the mind that changes. A mind full of thoughts is a mind distorted reflecting a distorted view of self, a mind empty of thoughts can clearly reflect the true nature of Self. Though I appreciate your perspective I disagree that "there is nothing to do but see things as they are" that facilitates freedom. The process of disentangling from identification and the ego-centric sense of self involves the mind, which is intrinsically linked to the body's biological systems. Habitual patterns embedded within the mind play a large role in this identification which creates this centered feeling of self that identifies with the senses (Ego). Without the mind working to reverse its own entanglement, or an event that profoundly impacts the mind, liberation from identification and the experience of thought-free awareness do not usually emerge. Meditation, self-enquiry and drawing the mind inwards create conditions that facilitate this untangling, then, can words like “see things as they are” may help trigger the final entanglement of the mind’s knot of identification. Despite this, I mostly align with your foundational understanding, although I don’t agree fully on your approach. Ultimately, the specific method matters less as long as it effectively guides one to liberation.
I have no use for the words "dream", "appearance" or "illusion" for the simple fact that nothing exists outside the Real; including Life, Diversity, et al. I prefer to keep it simple: "The purpose of the Real/Life is Love which is why We are Diverse." In other words; I will stick to the true teachings of Jesus and the Gospel of Love.
... Hare Krishna..! ..at least an illusion should be there, to begin with. is it not? Call it, journey, investigation, inquiry .. Without that who is there to travel, investigate, or inquire?
Or, Wherever you find yourself, just do the Hokey-Pokey and turn your self around. ‘Cause that’s what it’s all about. (Clap…clap) -The Help Self Author
Surat Maryam from the Great Qur’an. The translation is from the Holy Bible from the Kingdom of God, Sunday from Heaven. The surah talks about the Lady Mary and Jesus Christ, son of Mary.
The localized mind illusion is not real, but the intellect (ego) refuses to let go. The localized sense perceptions are illusory and are not separate from the oneness. It's a simple 'feel' or 'feel' of a paradox. (same word different interpretations) ...for if it were a snake it would of bit you.😊
So, do not pursue enlightenment. Seek, as our species is so diligently carrying out already, the absolute limits of ego and illusion/delusion. We're already inevitably headed for the recognition anyway, so do not worry about "finding" it. Hang on to the mirage as long as you can, when else will we have this opportunity?
You can not see GOD because we are in GOD I am not exactly sure what the ego is to you But I assumed ( Opps the old saying made an axx out of you and me ) that the ego to you is our own individual consciousness And I know we are very special and wonderfully made and we are individuals but we are in a GOD It is like we are a thought of GOD that can actually choose to do what we want to do And by are choices GOD will decide if we can continue with HIM or if we are only evil because we will never choose to submit to GOD'S authority And GOD is going to change us to something much better than what we are now 💗
The movie can be quite entertaining and it's easy to get lost in the fleeting happy....just knowing the innate eternal bliss resides at the screen level. 🎉
Yes, what I find problematic in Rupert's teachings (which I didn't realize initially) is the constant recurring theme of the negation of Life, Personality, or Ego which can potentially lead to schizophrenia. While I'm not a fan of Osho, his book Tantra echoes the same sentiment: the negation of personality or ego can lead to schizophrenia. It is the wrong way! Rupert's teachings are unmistakably inspired by Advaita Vedanta, but not Tantra or Kashmir Shaivism if you really understand it and definitely not Christianity. There's a good reason why Jesus emphasizes love so much in the New Testament. The purpose of Life is not negation; instead, it is to understand that the true meaning of Life is Love. I wish Rupert would consider reading the New Testament, or, since he seems to pulled towards the Indian thought system, the philosophy of Shuddadvaita. He is too fixated on negating differentiation within oneness while not understanding why oneness is different in life. Personally; I'll stick to the teachings of Jesus. Thank you. ✝♥😌
I don't think that Jesus was talking about love as the opposite of fear. He was talking about the universal acceptance that arises when the illusion of ego is unveiled, and this is not an act of neglecting its existence. Rupert even has a video called "The Ego Is Not a Mistake." If we take a closer look, we see that the narrator is only someone who makes sounds with his voice, which we then call language, and the interpreter can only grasp what he knows and wants to recognize. What Rupert says is not a problem, but it is your problem-to be more accurate, it is your false identity's problem with letting go of the known. Trust me, I know how that feels, which is why you have my compassion. I was also once carrying the identity of "being a Christian." "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44, ESV) Ego = father of lies
@@Equinox5555 Actually what you write is spot on and I quote "I don't think that Jesus was talking about love as the opposite of fear. He was talking about the universal acceptance that arises when the illusion of ego is unveiled.". It could be argued that the Self has created the veil (the ego) for love. So there's two ways to look at this (glass half empty or half full). Advaita Vedanta is more about the negation of the ego whereas Kashmir Shaivsim/Tantric Buddhism or the true teaching of Jesus in the NT are more life affirming. Personally I prefer the latter. But we are free to choose whatever feels most comfortable to us. Thank you. Bless you. Grateful you are here.
@@Ekam-Sat I would say that the devil or the ego is also just following its divine purpose. Yin loves Yang just as Shiva loves Shakti, and just as God loves his creation. After the final realization, one recognizes that God and his creation are one and the same. The purpose of the ego is to remind consciousness not to get too deeply lost in form. When consciousness gets too lost in form, the ego or suffering arises. So, one could say that all those who get too lost in the world are whipped by the devil until they return to God, haha. Bless you ❤️
@@Equinox5555 Actually yes I completely follow what you are saying here. It's a very good explanation. In fact. I have met very few people who understand it as well and can express it so clearly. I took a screenshot just so I can re-read it later again. Hope to meet again through your writings. Blessings.
How beautifully explained. It's so much more clear now, this answer has helped me take the leap. Another masterpiece by Rupert. Gratitude ❤
Beautifully Said ❤
Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. - Albert Einstein
WONDERFUL, TO-THE-POINT EXPLANATION!!!!
Beautiful ❤
That questioner has resulted in a couple of great recent video uploads. lol! Just fantastic how Mr. Rupert is able to articulate and guide towards the "both/and".... it is just so wild to me how he is able to so clearly articulate things in such a contemporary manner... describing the human experience of reality. No need for speculative metaphysics!
Such clarity in question, and answer.
This is important. So many teachings mistakenly advocate destruction of the ego. I think the problem is language. Self is just a word, a label. There really is no self. As Rupert says: You can only know what you are not: a description, a label, a thing. We can never know ourselves, because we're not some "thing". We are so used to labeling everything that we become uncomfortable, and feel lost without one.
But we can know ourself as what we truly are. If it's true "we can never know ourself" then what's the use? I disagree! We can know ourself...this is why Rupert points the way!
@@mauricepowers3804 You can only know yourself as an idea, a concept, a label. Not as a direct experience. Ramana Maharshi and many others have stated" You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself " Which means: knowing is dual, a knower and the known. Rupert is teaching non duality, and has said the same thing.
The ego is to be loved! So much to learn from it.
You can be just the knowing.
....or possibly "feel whole without one"?
Thank you, Rupert, for once again explaining so beautifully.
Brilliant teaching - I love how Rupert explains the relationship between illusion and reality. I never heard any other teacher explaining this so well.
I studied and re-read Nisargadatta over and over in the past eight or nine years so I am not a stranger to these concepts. But Rupert has a real gift and fantastic analogies to explain these difficult things. I remember how I struggled to understand the classic snake and rope analogy reading Nisargadatta. Here is is:
Q: Consciousness itself is a reflection. How can it hold the real?
M: To know that consciousness and its content are but reflections, changeful and transient, is the
focussing of the real. The refusal to see the snake in the rope is the necessary condition for seeing
the rope.
Q: Only necessary, or also sufficient?
M: One must also know that a rope exists and looks like a snake. Similarly, one must know that the
real exists and is of the nature of witness-consciousness. Of course it is beyond the witness, but to
enter it one must first realise the state of pure witnessing. The awareness of conditions brings one
to the unconditioned.
Now, combined with Ruperts explanations, it all makes sense. Thank you Rupert for your generous gifts of wisdom.
If I understand it right, Nisargadtta's "focussing of the real" is the same as Ruperts "localized finite consciousness" that spurns the illusion that whatever appears in consciousness (which is everything we perceive and conceive, I think), is real when it isn't. It is the snake that, in reality, is the rope.
But we "must know the rope exists and looks like a snake". I guess, that knowledge comes through awakening experiences.
I was asking myself for a while who am i inquiring into the Illusion or the Real Self,
and i felt that question was holding me back.
And then this Video appears and answers my Question perfectly.
Thank you.
Very helpful! Thank you Rupert.
Easily the best of Rupert’s exposition on Awareness ❤👌🙏🌺
As always, that was great, another step forward, but this time a longer step, a leap, where you can’t fail. In that, it does not matter what “I” you think you are investigating, because there is only the One, anyway. That means, no longer any hesitation, or regrouping, or refocusing. It is always, full steam ahead, delving into the “I.”
Great explanation
Dreams seem real when you are in them...
Love breaks the spell...
This is brilliant. This is it. The simplest yet the profound meaning of self enquiry and as to why should we do it, it has value, life transforming value. If you were here in India , we would say
"Ruprt Maharaj ki Jay"
Pranaams to you , thousand Namaskars to most beloved teacher , the Guru.
❤🙏🙏🙏
Rupert please allow me to use the entire content of this video . Please. Thank you. 🙏
Extremely good video. If you're reading this in the future remind me to rewatch it
It's only been 11 hours, but here's you reminder. 🙂
@@KimBieske😂
heres your reminder lol
Rewatch it !
Mind has this ability to sensibly physicalize the illusion.
Wow this was so enlightening!!! Beautifully described how the ego plays into the self
Thank you Rupert,
Beautifully explained.
But King Lear on learning that he's actually John Smith feels very relived, and so with this knowledge now believes he IS John Smith. In other words, the character King Lear now holds onto a new belief, that he IS John Smith. The separate self will latch onto any concept or belief because that's what it does.
This is the trick of the egoic "Me" or separate "I" plays, especially strengthened when it affirms "I am, that I am".
That's the danger and that's why so many who come to a deep non-duality understanding still feels like a separate, individual "Me"... and it can go on for decades, and decades.
Brilliantly explained...wow!!
Profound clarification in such a matter of fact way.
Great question, magister answer. Wow. Thanks❤
Great explanation! Beautiful said!
Utterly brilliant ✨🙏🏼✨
Blazingly clear explanation Simply brilliant
Muchísimas gracias por la clara y concisa explicación... Absolutamente BRILLANTE!!! 🙏🙏🙏
Muchísimas gracias!!! Genial!!!🙏🩵🤍❤️💜💚🧡💛
Très belle explication, merci beaucoup
Brilliantly put.
It’s interesting because inquiry seems to be the glitch in the universe. Like many sci fi movies and tv shows where there exists a seemingly omnipotent and dangerous alien computer that man only defeats after asking it questions it can not answer.
superbly said!
You are giving words to my knowing 🙏🏼
Muchas gracias Maestro !! Por tan clara explicación entre algo que es una ilusión y algo que no es real, ha quedado muy clara la diferencia. Muchas gracias 🙏🏻✨
the square circle lol i love that i’ve seen you mention that several times rupert
❤The snake-role analogy is much like how we mistakenly identify the I (ego) with our true self.
Just as we might perceive a rope as a snake in dim light, we misconstrue the I as our true self. It's a perceptual error, rooted in our egoic identity, which believes itself to be the center of our being.
However, a critical distinction exists between the I (ego) and consciousness, which doesn't exist between the snake and the rope.
That means that I (ego) and consciousness are not identical as snake and rope are. So, the I isn't consciousness appearing as the I, but a psychological element distinct from consciousness.The I (ego), on one hand, is composed of psychic energy, has form, is limited, individual, and has a beginning and an end. The consciousness, on the other hand, is formless, timeless, unlimited, and the constant empty, silent background in which the I (ego) appears and functions.
Therefore, what is needed here is to discern the I (ego) from consciousness and realize that we are the consciousness and not the I.
That is , we don't realize that the I is Consciousness but we are consciousness which is something different than the I.
Of course ultimately all life and I as well arise from consciousness. However, we should not confuse lure consciousness with its expressions.
Yes ❤ And the very last step, that, - just as buddha did, jesus did, many many holy ones did, - is to stay awake in the " non-duality ", in the " being of consciousnes "... meanwhile healthily and simultanously functioning in the (illusionary) " duality ", in the " doing of consciousness ": in the illusion of labels, concepts, ego-body-minds, objects and genrally in the time-space illusion. I have a nice metaphor ❤: just because as grown ups, we realise santa claus does does not excist we can still enjoy the mood and idea of christmas (the whole thing: the warm and vibrant atmosphere of the tree, the music, the loving gatherings, the food, the drinks, the children exctiedly waiting for the xmas gifts, etc). ❤
@@violaevavenczel8378 Yes! Duality is not the opposite of non-duality.
"In the world, but not of the world".
For me I feel I'm listening/reading to a group of intellectuals. Something that was made simple by Eckhart, Mooji and Rupert has now been made confusing. I'll leave this alone for a while.
So good!
WoW thank you🙏
🙏🧡☮️🕉️
So long as your listening to someone talk about it, there will be subject and object
💯 Rupert on 🔥
How beautiful 🥰❤️
Waw!
There is a Silence always present, no matter the goings on, the situation, the experiences. It’s just always here! It’s just always here exclamation. So calm, still and unaffected. Is that to be investigated? Is that open to investigation? How? It just is it seems. ⁉️⁉️⁉️
The true nature of the snake is illusion, not the rope.
As it is said in Yoga Vasishta: The dream mountain is dream, not mountain.
The true nature of ego is illusion, not the Self.
The end point of ego-inquiry is illusion, not the Self.
From there, you need to jump. You could as well jump right away.
The snake will never become a rope, whether you explore the snake or not. The snake doesn't exist. Period. To realize that is liberation.
There is a qualitative leap from snake to rope, which includes a qualitative leap from the seer of the snake to the seer of the rope.
The seer of the rope is not the true nature of the seer of the snake.
The seer of the snake is exactly as illusory as the snake.
It IS as illusion, though. And this is important to state, and Rupert Spira has done that magnificently.
The true nature of the snake is the rope. Yes, the snake is an illusion, but the foundation of that illusion is based on a fundamental essence, which is the rope. Similarly, the nature of "I," the ego, is actually "I," the Self. There are not two separate "I"s, but always just one "I" regardless if it is Ego or not.
@@ananda224No, the true nature of the ego is illusion, not Self. There are not two separate "I"s, exactly because the ego is illusion. The snake has never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. There cannot be a "fundamental essence" or "true nature" of something that does not exist. And you will never succeed in finding the "fundamental essence" or "true nature" of something that does not exist.
If your spiritual practice is to "find the true essence of the ego", liberation won't happen. Understand the illusion as illusion, and be free.
This might seem like semantics, but it is actually very important. It's about correct outlook and focus, not semantics. The two approaches are very different. If you start with false assumptions, you will probably not get to true conclusions.
The traditional definition of delusion is "to take something that is not (ego, snake) as being, and something that is (Being, rope) as not being". The solution is to see that which is not as not being, and that which is as being. This is not reached by finding "the true essence" of that which is not, but by seeing that which is not as what it is: inexistent. This is reached by seeing the illusion or the misunderstanding as that which it is: an illusion or a misunderstanding.
This is much quicker and much more efficient than searching for the "true essence" of something that doesn't exist. Finding the true essence of King Lear doesn't lead to John Smith, but only leads deeper into the illusion.
Don't waste your time chasing illusions!
@@ReneHatt For many, their experience of self-hood is intertwined with ego. Suggesting to them that this experience of self-hood does not exist could lead to confusion, as from their perspective, it is very much a lived reality. If one were to tell someone observing what they perceive as a snake is actually a rope, the discrepancy between their perception and your assertion would seem absurd.
When discussing the ego, I’m not referring to it as a separate entity or thing but rather as the experience of "I" or self that most people have. So, when I speak of the "true nature of ego," I’m essentially addressing the "true nature of I."
Although I find myself in agreement with your overall understanding, the approach you've taken could potentially cause confusion to people who are beginning. The snake/rope analogy conveys a means to self-investigate our own sense of self. The analogy illustrates misperception, where the rope (Reality) is obscured by darkness (or ignorance) and is misperceived as a snake. The rope never truly become a snake; but rather, the snake's appearance is a misinterpretation superimposed by the mind or seer. The snake is unreal because its existence is confined to the realm of the mind, and has no independent existence. What is real and exist is always the rope which is not dependent on perception or mind. Though the rope is always a rope, we can’t overlook the relative and conventional layers of reality stemming from the mind and the misperception, as this is the starting point for most people.
When we adopt the stance-that "there is no me, you or ego"- it can be confusing to someone whom is not seeing from that reality but rather at the relative level of the ego. So how can we assert "there is no me" when individuals palpably feel their existence as a body, as a person? From the perspective of the individual, it becomes both useful and conventional to encourage the investigation of one's experience of Self, even if that experience is entangled with ego. This inquiry helps to unveil that the Self we perceive ourselves to be is actually a misperception of a truer self caused by the minds tendency to categorize and identify with thoughts, senses and perceptions.
You're right that nature of the perception of the snake, or the ego, is unreal; it exists as an illusion. However, this unreality doesn't equal non-existence but rather a lack of independent existence, as it is reliant on the real. Every illusion has a basis in something fundamental. Without the rope, the snake-or the misperception it represents-cannot exist. This is the reason for my statement that the true nature of the snake is the rope. It's not to suggest that the snake transforms into the rope, but rather that our perception of a snake is actually a misinterpretation of the rope, which has a constant and underlying presence . The snake can never exist apart from the rope, they are intertwined as long as there is misperception, but, like you had mention, if one understand it as a misperception then what is actually there will be apparent. The analogy has a dual purpose, it not only facilitates the pointing to absolute reality but also provides guidance at a relative level for those still perceiving the relative reality or snake.
@@ananda224 Thank you very much for your thorough and deep post!
It shows me several things, and I hope I can address them all.
First, I agree that my statements can be confusing for beginners. It's important to know where you are. As Gautama Buddha said, the teaching is a boat, and while you can't get across the river without it, it would be silly to then drag it with you on the land after you have reached the other shore.
And this is also something I find important to point out: Know which boat suits which river. And know when the analogy has fulfilled its function.
The snake/rope analogy can be read superficially ("The rope is the essence of the snake"), ot it can take you further.
I don't say "There is no me, you or ego". I don't get that this could be a fruitful statement in any situation. It is much too unclear, and thus not true. The ego IS real AS illusion. It is not real as what it tries to convince you it is. I don't advocate "fight the ego" or even "recognize that there is no ego" at all. I invite to see the mechanisms, and to see things as they are.
The problem is not what you see, the problem is that you look incorrectly. The classical statement of delusion doesn't talk about things, it talks about outlook, about consciousness. Delusion is an issue of consciousness (way of looking), not of things (the seen).
I wouldn't say that the perception of the snake is reliant on the rope. It is reliant on misperception and an incorrect view (this contains a lot, which I don't have the space to fully explicate - "consciousness is primary" is the short version of it).
Ask yourself: Where does the snake originate? In the rope? Or in the misperception? The rope doesn't have anything to do with the snake. Never had, never will.
This is the great liberation. This. So it's not wise to water it down.
What I wrote (including in my initial statement on the other account) can be read negatively ("There is no ego"), but also positively: It's not about finding the "true nature" of the ego, it's about seeing the ego as what it is: an illusion, which has specific traits and mechanisms, which can be recognized and seen truthfully. This realization (there is nothing to do in the realm of the ego or the person) is very freeing, and a very positive experience. You don't have to make the ego perfect in order for it to enlighten. There is nothing to do but to see things as they are. The ego's only reality is its being an illusion, a misunderstanding. As that it IS real, which also means that it becomes what it truly is when it is recognized as illusion. It comes home. This is what the ego longs for - and is afraid of.
Another important point is that the snake seer only occurs together with the snake. King Lear's world disappears together with King Lear.
And another important point: the snake seer doesn't become the rope seer. The rope seer realizes the inexistence of the snake seer. Which means: It's a loss of identity. The snake seer's identity is lost when the rope is seen.
This is something very important in the spiritual process as well as in the therapeutical process: the fact of identity loss. If you don't address that properly, the patient can easily fall back, or even be retraumatized.
The traumatized person dies with the trauma, and this can be experienced as a loss of identity.
If you "cure" the addiction, but not remove the addict, it will have to find a new addiction in order to experience its wholeness.
As long as the identity of King Lear is not lost, you are still fully in the illusion. And at the moment it is lost, you might experience it as a loss. This has to be attended, or else there could be a crash.
And it's not sincere to tell King Lear that he himself will live as John Smith. John Smith is not the "true nature" of King Lear, he's King Lear's annihilation.
But King Lear is coming home in that annihilation.
This is a totally different orientation than to "find King Lear's true nature".
And since these are natural processes, this annihilation can occur spontaneously. It is better to be prepared, and to understand what is happening.
So that you see it as the blessing that it is. It's not a loss, it's fulfillment.
If you are aware of the mechanisms, you are more prepared, you have a roadmap, you see things more clearly (which also means that you are more in Clarity, since consciousness is primary), and the chances of getting sidetracked are smaller. This is why I don't see it as problematic to tell even beginners what the mechanisms and the processes are.
Which includes "Don't try to get rid of the ego, don't see it as something problematic, see it as what it is, and be free from its grasp".
@@ReneHatt Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. I am in agreement that King Lear cannot live as John Smith, and it wouldn't be fruitful as King Lear is merely an idea and lacks tangible reality, while John Smith is a tangible reality. Although Rupert's analogy has its limitations, as it's designed as a teaching tool for self-investigation. In truth, John Smith, representing The Self, is never ignorant of himself; it remains unchanging. Ignorance or realization are constructs of the mind, which, like King Lear, is not sentient but an idea or a mechanical process.
My original statement was that the rope is the true nature of the snake, however, you had said that the snake has nothing to do with the rope. In Advaita, these two things are interconnected. King Lear, being an idea, lacks reality unless portrayed by an actual person like John Smith. The snake's existence is nothing but a misinterpretation of the rope; without the rope, there is no misinterpretation. Brahman (the ultimate reality) and Maya (the power of illusion) are intertwined and inseparable, like fire and its heat. While the snake is indeed an idea and unreal compared to the tangible rope, this doesn't mean there is a separation between the two where they have nothing to do with each other; they are one reality that is experienced differently. There exists an independent reality (the rope) and a dependent reality (the snake as perceived); the dependent reality (snake) is always dependent on the independent reality (rope) for its existence.
When asking the audience who the person behind King Lear is, they wouldn't say King Lear is portrayed by King Lear; they would acknowledge John Smith as the actor who portrayed King Lear.
Ramana Maharshi had said that if we look at the Self as the ego, then we become the ego; if as the mind, we become the mind; if as the body, we become the body. It is the thought which builds up sheaths in so many way. So, we only appear to be the Ego, when we do not look closely, however our nature never changes it is always as it is, there is only ever a distorted reflection in the mirror of the mind, and we mistake that reflection as ourselves.
I understand your point that the snake has no absolute reality, therefore has no true existence outside of the perception of it, so there is no need to remove or improve on the snake as it's unreal in the first place. The misrepresentation is only in the mind, and the mind is the faculty of perception and seeing and it's only in correcting this view that the snake disappears reveling the rope.
However, the Rope/Snake analogy is intended to provide a holistic approach for self-investigation. This is why I said the snakes true nature is the rope. When investigating the ego, we're inquiring into our Self. This inquiry reveals that the ego-our sense of individual self-is an illusion, yet at the same time unmasking a truer understanding of our Self. There aren't two selves who sees a snake, and one that sees a rope; there's only one Self illuminating both the true knowledge and the mind's misperceptions. My approach is to unify the "I" with its cognitive play, irrespective of illusion. The difference lies in the mind's experience, which is transient and relies on the "I" for illumination. The snake represents a misperception of the "I," while the rope symbolizes the "I" accurately reflected in the mind. This perspective clarifies that through the mind's changing and unreal nature, and dependent on the "I," the false impression of the snake and the true nature of the rope are both manifestations of the same illuminating I reflected in the mind, only one is a distorted representation of the I. This way, one understands that their Self is always as it is, it is only the mind that changes. A mind full of thoughts is a mind distorted reflecting a distorted view of self, a mind empty of thoughts can clearly reflect the true nature of Self.
Though I appreciate your perspective I disagree that "there is nothing to do but see things as they are" that facilitates freedom. The process of disentangling from identification and the ego-centric sense of self involves the mind, which is intrinsically linked to the body's biological systems. Habitual patterns embedded within the mind play a large role in this identification which creates this centered feeling of self that identifies with the senses (Ego). Without the mind working to reverse its own entanglement, or an event that profoundly impacts the mind, liberation from identification and the experience of thought-free awareness do not usually emerge. Meditation, self-enquiry and drawing the mind inwards create conditions that facilitate this untangling, then, can words like “see things as they are” may help trigger the final entanglement of the mind’s knot of identification. Despite this, I mostly align with your foundational understanding, although I don’t agree fully on your approach. Ultimately, the specific method matters less as long as it effectively guides one to liberation.
I have no use for the words "dream", "appearance" or "illusion" for the simple fact that nothing exists outside the Real; including Life, Diversity, et al.
I prefer to keep it simple: "The purpose of the Real/Life is Love which is why We are Diverse."
In other words; I will stick to the true teachings of Jesus and the Gospel of Love.
The audio is a bit noisy, but great video nonetheless!
... Hare Krishna..!
..at least an illusion should be there, to begin with. is it not?
Call it, journey, investigation, inquiry ..
Without that who is there to travel, investigate, or inquire?
Or,
Wherever you find yourself, just do the Hokey-Pokey and turn your self around.
‘Cause that’s what it’s all about.
(Clap…clap)
-The Help Self Author
2:00 👌
🙏🙏
❤️😊
Friday 🎉❤
❤
❤❤
I'll say one thing for all the non-duality teachers, not just Rupert. They all stay well hydrated.
What I don't understand is how you perform this investigation. Can anyone provide some clarification?
You will find an explanation in earlier Rupert videos on how to engage in Self enquiry
Surat Maryam from the Great Qur’an. The translation is from the Holy Bible from the Kingdom of God, Sunday from Heaven. The surah talks about the Lady Mary and Jesus Christ, son of Mary.
The localized mind illusion is not real, but the intellect (ego) refuses to let go.
The localized sense perceptions are illusory and are not separate from the oneness.
It's a simple 'feel' or 'feel' of a paradox. (same word different interpretations)
...for if it were a snake it would of bit you.😊
@LifesInsight A habit is not evidence of truth. ~ Francis Lucille
@LifesInsight Think for me. I don't mind. 😊🤕
So, do not pursue enlightenment. Seek, as our species is so diligently carrying out already, the absolute limits of ego and illusion/delusion.
We're already inevitably headed for the recognition anyway, so do not worry about "finding" it. Hang on to the mirage as long as you can, when else will we have this opportunity?
💜🕉️👏👏👏🙏
How to explore my ego then?
You can not see GOD because we are in GOD I am not exactly sure what the ego is to you But I assumed ( Opps the old saying made an axx out of you and me ) that the ego to you is our own individual consciousness And I know we are very special and wonderfully made and we are individuals but we are in a GOD It is like we are a thought of GOD that can actually choose to do what we want to do And by are choices GOD will decide if we can continue with HIM or if we are only evil because we will never choose to submit to GOD'S authority And GOD is going to change us to something much better than what we are now 💗
Actually yes, there is such a thing as a square circle. Research it.
The movie can be quite entertaining and it's easy to get lost in the fleeting happy....just knowing the innate eternal bliss resides at the screen level. 🎉
I started a youtube channnel inspired by Rupert Spira teachings..
3:20
Yes, what I find problematic in Rupert's teachings (which I didn't realize initially) is the constant recurring theme of the negation of Life, Personality, or Ego which can potentially lead to schizophrenia. While I'm not a fan of Osho, his book Tantra echoes the same sentiment: the negation of personality or ego can lead to schizophrenia. It is the wrong way! Rupert's teachings are unmistakably inspired by Advaita Vedanta, but not Tantra or Kashmir Shaivism if you really understand it and definitely not Christianity. There's a good reason why Jesus emphasizes love so much in the New Testament. The purpose of Life is not negation; instead, it is to understand that the true meaning of Life is Love. I wish Rupert would consider reading the New Testament, or, since he seems to pulled towards the Indian thought system, the philosophy of Shuddadvaita. He is too fixated on negating differentiation within oneness while not understanding why oneness is different in life. Personally; I'll stick to the teachings of Jesus. Thank you. ✝♥😌
I don't think that Jesus was talking about love as the opposite of fear. He was talking about the universal acceptance that arises when the illusion of ego is unveiled, and this is not an act of neglecting its existence. Rupert even has a video called "The Ego Is Not a Mistake." If we take a closer look, we see that the narrator is only someone who makes sounds with his voice, which we then call language, and the interpreter can only grasp what he knows and wants to recognize. What Rupert says is not a problem, but it is your problem-to be more accurate, it is your false identity's problem with letting go of the known. Trust me, I know how that feels, which is why you have my compassion. I was also once carrying the identity of "being a Christian."
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44, ESV)
Ego = father of lies
@@Equinox5555 Actually what you write is spot on and I quote "I don't think that Jesus was talking about love as the opposite of fear. He was talking about the universal acceptance that arises when the illusion of ego is unveiled.". It could be argued that the Self has created the veil (the ego) for love. So there's two ways to look at this (glass half empty or half full). Advaita Vedanta is more about the negation of the ego whereas Kashmir Shaivsim/Tantric Buddhism or the true teaching of Jesus in the NT are more life affirming. Personally I prefer the latter. But we are free to choose whatever feels most comfortable to us. Thank you. Bless you. Grateful you are here.
@@Ekam-Sat I would say that the devil or the ego is also just following its divine purpose. Yin loves Yang just as Shiva loves Shakti, and just as God loves his creation. After the final realization, one recognizes that God and his creation are one and the same. The purpose of the ego is to remind consciousness not to get too deeply lost in form. When consciousness gets too lost in form, the ego or suffering arises. So, one could say that all those who get too lost in the world are whipped by the devil until they return to God, haha. Bless you ❤️
@@Equinox5555 Actually yes I completely follow what you are saying here. It's a very good explanation. In fact. I have met very few people who understand it as well and can express it so clearly. I took a screenshot just so I can re-read it later again. Hope to meet again through your writings. Blessings.
@@Ekam-Sat Thank you :)
🇺🇦👁🗨🙏🏾👁🗨🇯🇴🇮🇱teacher ❤
Square circles are a common thing when working with higher dimensions than 3.
❤❤❤