Our last illusion is to think that there are two consciousness: first one is "the one who remembers the source" second is "the source" In this Universe there is only one thing appearing as many therefore there is only one " self" So it's not that "you" remember "the source" it's just source remembers that it is the source!!! If you remember that "You" is not exist then you become the source then you don't have to go back and forth to engage to the world and come back the source! Because you already remembered that "you" are the source🙏❤🙏
"Remembering" is the perfect word, it is the beginning of creating a set of cognitive bells, linguistic bells, to re- awaken us in our everyday life with others. for some one not in your privelidged position, they need a method to stay alert, to fend off unconscious mechanical behaviours. Your description's have the air of someone 's private contemplations, not the practice needed for taking it into a busy world where forces will work against our intentions as we try to reach our aims.
Just listened to "In search of the miraculous", and got Rupert's talk as a recommendation. Thank you Rupert for the crisp description of self remembering, I could have struggled with that concept on the minds plane for the rest of my life. Your descriptions of the process of abiding in the self, for me, are the most clear and concise I have come upon. Thank you.
Thank you for this. You explain here what Self-remembering is. Gurdjieff asked the question: "When you remember yourself, which self do you remember?" In this sense remembering is the right word, although it is at the same time confusing. To be and I am are clearer.
I understand this. I was researching for hours for my project and when I went outside, I was able to simply "see" whatever was before me. the sky was blue, sunny, stunning, I was not separated from it. my research is very meaningful, and my mind, being satisfied with my work, rewarded itself with the pure "seeing" and feeling and sensing of the pure beauty of the sky. my trick, then is to dedicate all my attention on the meaningful purpose (the book art and music) and the spontaneous reward always seems to be this splendid delicious experiencing of the natural world. when I get tangled in nonsense such a junk entertainment or drama, the sky is dull, bland, no matter how blue. engage purposefully and the "breaks" will follow suit. in other words, the satisfied mind, once satisfied will automatically pause for beauty. when the pausing has sufficed for the experience of beauty, sensuality, this beauty will then inspire once again the meaningful work. ah!
Thank you again Rupert! this no resistance part reminds me of Abraham Hicks... "let this Be, that Be, the World Be, the fights Be, the Happy times Be..., let it all Beeeesss " :) Indeed, Great Blessings 2021 Love & Light All
as I watch this video I am filled with overwhelm. overwhelmed internally: from intense emotions. overwhelmed externally: from a to-do list with 999-trillion things on it... God help me: this planet's just way too hard.
I'm grateful that you have made so much of your teaching readily and freely available. It's a real generosity. I do think some of the digs you make from time to time at other teachers or teachings are superfluous and don't enhance your message. And in my experience of the Gurdjieff teachings, the idea of self remembering very clearly refers -in this moment- to dropping identification with the narrative of the moment and remembering the witness. Of course, the words are clumsy, but the movement pointed to by the phrase self remembering is clear.
This guy needs to stop trying so hard and just listen, actually listen. There's nothing to learn here. No knowledge to acquire. The "teaching" here, and in all of Rupert's talks, is to stop identifying with the acquiring and comparing processes that are the analytical mind - the only obstacle to knowing (in the truest sense). Stop trying to understand, because that very process of trying to grasp the teaching is the analytical mind (the foundation and substance of the "false self"). The questioner in this video is not present. He and Rupert aren't even having the same conversation. Rupert is only pointing him to fall back from identification with that habitual thought pattern of acquiring superficial understanding (conceptually) of the how's and the why's, the things that hide the "what is", and while Rupert is doing this, this man is already planning out his next question (so that he can understand it conceptually/ superficially). He isn't hearing Rupert at all. He isn't silent enough to receive Rupert's grace. The teaching is ALWAYS ONLY "be silent, child...slow down...let go...rest in stillness...here you are...welcome back home" Ironically, it's apparently treated by his questioners as an invitation to expand upon, or compare to, their former beliefs about spirituality, which is the opposite of what must happen if the mind is to come to silence. Rupert is asking you to disengage with that person up in your head, the false self that has these questions. They're not YOUR questions. People need to realize that Rupert's presence alone, without him having to say a word, is the most value that he can offer to a person who's earnest about discovering their true identity. If his words are treated as anything more than an invitation to stop thinking (stop identifying with thought), then the message is lost. He talks only to keep you there (interested enough to stick around) so that the power of his presence can make you (the false self) disappear. IMO, most people don't want to know. They may convince themselves that they want to know, but what they really want deep down (probably outside of conscious awareness) is to keep their minds engaged. More specifically, they want to keep with the habit of finding ways to press that "pleasure button" (releasing that intoxicating drug - serotonin - into the body) that keeps the false self thriving. Unfortunately, meeting the labyrinth of the infinite unknown (from the perspective of the mind) that is the depth of oneself is never met with arms wide open when the mind is so engaged and the sense of a self (to defend and honor) is so strong. Most people would piss their pants in fear if they sensed their identity slipping away, but that's only because they haven't adequately re-acquainted themselves with the silence (pure awareness - free from and of thought) that they are, which is the same as saying that they invested too much energy/ attention (time) into protecting an image that their minds created.
How does one know, really, what that guy needed or does not need? It seems that teaching appropriately is a very personal interaction that takes place within a context that is present and emergent. How does one experience only Rupert and "that guy" only as dualistic rather than an all-inclusive, self arising, emergence which so happens to contain an observable dialog relating what we give meaning to in retrospect? I still don't know who or what "most people" are in fact, so it is difficult to speak to such vague, general abstraction in a provisional sense, let alone in the light of a definitive one. Without being difficult here, words like never and always do have some gravity and punch to them, but one tends to find them to be rather extremist to the point of losing or negating the point being made, sometimes. It has not occurred to me that being in the silence before thoughts cannot include anything, everything and nothing with thoughts arising, abiding, and returning on their own within the spaciousness of mind as it is. Consider that the true nature may, for some, involve various types of experiences and techniques, (which may prove to be the emergence of it naturally) in order to recognize it, possibly in short glimpses where one simply relaxes and rests with heightened awareness. The rest, for those so inclined, is a deepening and discovery of continuity in all aspects of daily life. That could be called making the pathless path a path. Those with the capacity and proclivities to do so can then use secondary practices and methods as a means to assist those who suffer, which pertains to the manifest essence, nature and compassion of our natural condition. I am not sure that it requires one having their identity, (or sense of it) to slip away, (which can often be the case of depersonalization that renders one "psychotic" or in some other state of dysfunction. In some sense, there may be no "adequate" preparation when we consider the question, what is it that prepares? We do like to think there is one and that goes along with your idea of the "false self", which does cling to notions like that for comfort and which is why the skillful means are used compassionately to address the fear that is the very core of the illusory contraction of a separate self, rather than to deride it. In that case, it is just as simple and easy to see the identity for what it is without any dramatic pants wetting involved, via a gradual or sudden shift of insight where everything changes and nothing at all changes. Eyebrow dancing. The terror on the threshold is a metaphor used for that abstract fear felt so strongly in the imagination. And it is fear as long as we are motivated by it to avoid it or ponder it conceptually in vivid detail. It is very possible that some will reach it, recognize it for what it is and pass "through" it into a realization that the response was to inculcated mirage. People can have different ways to approach that and there are numerous ways to address it, encounter it, and "transcend" it. Yet, it proves to be nothing that needed transcending. Others may not even need to encounter it in such an intense and dramatic way. There are literally thousands of ways and an adept teacher recognizes that and works skilfully with dialog in a dynamic encounter with knowledge and from the place that there is no student, no teacher and no teaching. This is not contradictory. One can consider that the mind is "vast" and awareness is a non-physical luminosity, wherein reality opens infinitely from absence and reveals a spontaneous unity in the here and now as direct experience. In that case, it can be called the Universal approach and is known to be all inclusive. Nothing is left out. It is perfection on its own revealing perfection as all experience including without bias what is called imperfection, which is quite a challenging issue for the intellect from the start because the intellect cannot recognize itself as duality and as the source of confused wandering and suffering. That is useful to contemplate. So, I don't know what most people need to know. I do know that there is an open minded context that is without the constraints of bias and dogmatic or doctrinal thinking which allows for what is in a given situation and responds appropriately as the situation requires. Simply being only seems complex and difficult because it is ultimately so simple. And so, the intellect is utilized in its mode of keen and constant investigation into the heart of the matter and reverts to the natural mode of deconstruction in order to rediscover the sole holistic seed of knowing.
Ernest Weber "I am not sure that it requires one having their identity, (or sense of it) to slip away, (which can often be the case of depersonalization that renders one "psychotic" or in some other state of dysfunction. ........ .......In that case, it is just as simple and easy to see the identity for what it is without any dramatic pants wetting involved, via a gradual or sudden shift of insight where everything changes and nothing at all changes. Eyebrow dancing." Ernest, this is confusing to me- how is it 'simple and easy to see the identity for what it is' in what you say? I can see my body for what it is but not the identity with all its baggage of 'achievements' and related history. 'I am not that' is at the core of my effort of searching for what I really am. This ego/identity must go away in order to create the empty space for God's grace to fill it in with the awareness of universal consciousness. Can you have an ego and at the same time be no-thing?
+James Brown He can only teach us in the finite state, because words are objects, and he and all of us are in the finite state while we are on this planet. He couldn't have a lecture in the infinite state, because there are no words there, and we wouldn't remember the lecture, anyway, because anything we remember, is an activity of the finite mind. We don't remember where we came from because, remembering is a mind tool. Memory is not needed in that dimension because supposedly, everything is simultaneous.
hhhstar I feel that all these words can only hold back real seeing/ understanding. To say that he can only teach us in the finite state is to imply that a "he" exists along with an "I" that is separate and that there's "something" to teach to "someone." It's all duality speak to a mind that stays alive by clinging to duality. Reality is empty to the mind, there's nothing there for it to grab, nothing to "bring back", no "experiencer" separate from an experience, just the "what is", underneath, outside of, and entwined within the projected world of a mind in constant movement. Infinity made to appear finite. Nothingness and timelessness made into space and time. Everything held together by thought and memory, with no way or no one to see beyond it. The words and concepts that we hold onto superimpose the silence, which is the source of existence and only reality; thus, the more attached we are to "our" ideas/ thoughts, the more "distance" and "separateness" we sense, the more lost we feel. Unity comes with total surrender, which is to accept absolutely everything internally, spontaneously. Thoughts arise and subside, energy emerges and dissipates, images appear and fade away, all types of sensations occur, but there's nobody there doing it, it just happens when there's a sense of someone here to experience, and there's no "happening" at all when that "experiencer" also merges with reality. But this can only be seen if no "you" or "else" is gripped, out of resistance (non-acceptance) to the unknowable Self/ Reality. Thinking is the opposite of spontaneity. The "thinker" is a thought that separates from and labels other thoughts. "I" is the bridge from thinking to accepting thoughts to seeing beyond the illusion of thinker/ effort/ choice (being). Spontaneity emerges. Therefore, thinking is not the answer. Words only help the one who thinks, who himself is a thought. This must be seen. And it can only be seen by somehow reaching a point of spontaneous acceptance of what is. This means that the appearance of effort to seek the real "I" must also be absolutely allowed, and the appearance of a person that is allowing must also be seen, and the seer of these things will eventually merge into the unknowable Self, after the illusion fades by a deepening of awareness in this way. There's an "I-thought" and "I". One awakens when only "I" is. Words speak to the I-thought. This is my take...but they are only words, after all :)
In my experience there is no awareness without objects, so u only can be aware of objects with or without identifiing with them. If u ask the question who hears , u can see there is nobody hearing , just hearing. But without an object of awareness you are just not conscious as a human being. The awareness that is existent without we are conscious is just metafysical speculation and an image we make up to grasp the ungraspable. So there is identification and no identification, seeing things as a proces or becoming the things. The eye cant see itself. u can be aware that u are aware but only of the objects in it. There can be just hearing, looking, feeling without a feeler , seeier... but there has to be an object before seeing , hearing , feeling...
@@vhawk1951kl They get tired of trying to explain and no one can understand, due to a dimensional shift eventually ill just give up , I can sense it coming fast everyone seems to get really upset when as you start to break them as well and just run away
@@gratefulkm If you can, if you wish. I cannot and have no such wish The following can be found on the Gurdjieff international review "I am going to tell you of a scene at the table with Mr. Gurdjieff. He sat down, we were all there together, he turned and asked me: “You understand what self-remembering means?” I answered him, I said: “Maybe I don’t understand.” “Ah!” said Mr. Gurdjieff, “Repeat so the others can hear.” I repeated, “Maybe I don’t understand.” He said: “From today, you are my brother.” I share that with you." - George Adie. Oddly enough on one view the opposite of remember is dismember. Perhaps more practical to have direct immediate personal experience of being a being, or two-natured.
@@vhawk1951kl yea I'm noticing this literal thing happening a lot, When trying to guide someone to look for a needle in a haystack, you must always help them realise that when they find the needle, it may not be the needle they need to find, Gurdjeff means never stop looking for the needle in the haystack, because haystacks full of needles are funny things and when you go ouch that hurt, you may find that's not the hurt your looking for That what I have revealed is completely inline with what a Kundabuffer is
(-: The wave it longs to be free, and wonders just what could it be, it surfs on a notion, there's me and there's ocean, though it's never not other than sea.
There are 4 things at work here: awareness, objects, awareness of objects, and identification with objects. From his own description of our human experience . . . he doesn't actually make the case that awareness is fundamental. Instead, he inadvertently makes the case that it's the capacity for identification that is fundamental. If we observe our experience as he describes . . . we find that we are ALWAYS identified with an object. It's true that awareness is one of those objects that we can be identified with. But we have to BE identified with it before it can become an object of awareness. Our "true self" . . . our "real I" . . . "who we really are" . . . is fundamentally the capacity to identify with things.
There are not really "things" there inherently which we may or may not be identified with. The appearance of things co-arises with the appearance of the one who is aware of them. Subject and object are mutually dependent - some"thing" must be known by some"one", etc. That which embraces both subject and object is the true Reality and is all that is and all that I am.
Interesting point. I tend to agree with the later. You can only identify with what you are not, but no matter what you current believe of yourself is, you can only be what always and already are. 😘
I just need to figure out how to remain in this bliss state when bad things happens, a disaster, an illness, the death of a friend, or being robbed by the credit card company, how to deal with anger, pain, depression, irritability, stress, and even becoming rude or violent sometimes. In a moment, I can be extremely angry, and the next, I come to the bliss state of thedeep self. How to deal with human real life condition while remaining in the bliss state of the self awareness? ( I mean, I am aware of my awareness, but outside people and happenings stress me a lot ).
The Buddhists have a better word for Self-Remembering - they call it the "Witnessing-Consciousness" ..... just to clarify - I am not a Buddhist - I teach the Fourth Way in groups - in London, England.
There is a well-worn zen koan that asks, "What is my original face?" and this description of self-remembering closely aligns with where that question can lead us. I am very interested in the commonalities between Buddhism and the Fourth Way.
What is Witnessing? And What is it witnessing? We are not our thoughts, emotions, imaginations, sensations, not even the perceiver of these objects. The act of perceiving simultaneously creates both the perceiver object and the perceived object. But in what is the subject and object created? In awareness. And what are the subject and object created out of? Awareness. What you call the witness and the objects that are witnessed are totally and only consolidations in and of awareness by filtering down from the infinity and totality of Pure Awareness. Recognizing that all objects and subjects arise and fall away allows us to recognize that they are not our essential self. Our essential self is that which never changes, cannot be hurt or destroyed or even be born. We are Being itself, Pure Awareness able to remember to be aware of being aware.
Gurdjieff was the teacher who brought this to us. It's not Ouspensky's tradition. (Comment written after listening for 30 seconds.) Sorry to be such a nitpicker, but an error like that just ruins the interest for me. Anyway; i'll continue listening and hopefully you correct the facts further on.
This guy is just tweaking G's teachings, because he doesn't 'understand' them and to suit his own agenda...He's also adding in a few methods that G never mentioned...i.e Self Witnessing. This is an old trick these self appointed gurus do, to give the impression that they are better thinkers than the originators..All this guys teachings are tweaked Gurdjieffs teachings...who himself admitted that they weren''t his own..
If you looked deeper you would learn that Spira literally grew up in a Gurdjieff school in England and that his mother was a long-time student. He understands.
This is still a little misunderstanding off from pure awareness. Real self remembering comes prior to the individual's separate existence. It is prior to the creation of either the objects of perception or the Subject that perceived them. Recognizing that there is no individual you and that awareness cannot be damaged or hurt is what allows for tranquility, equanimity, peace, and feelings of Unity and Love with All, the Absolute. Abiding in Awareness Being Aware of itself is what Gurdjieff meant by Self Remembering. The split attention exercises are just a step along the way. As are the self observation exercises before them.
Yes this is common at first. Perhaps try a few years of meditation upon a single object. Vipassana is an option. Later it will be easier once you have trained your attention to rest on one thing.
As usual this is a conversation that explains directly what all that is needed for a perfect understanding. If the childhood example is understood correctly and extended to every 'knowing' that is the end. What is there except 'knowing'? When you know any object what exactly is happening in the awareness except knowing? No change at all. That is why it is said that your BMI, the objective world with all its variety and the so called God (jeeva,jagath, eeswara) are nothing but a thought which in turn is nothing but 'knowig/awareness'.
So i should always keep my attention towards awareness even when I’m doing something else like watching tv or talking to someone? My effort should always be to keep my attention on my the awareness of I ?
That is not what he said. Listen again. Keep trying and you will find that it is not possible to control your attention to the degree you suggest. But give it a try and see what you learn by doing. Then listen again to what Spira says here. And read Gurdjieff again. It is worth it.
i dont find daydreams to be useless in fact my daydreams are useful to me when exploring the world of my story. I wonder if the ultimate goal of these methods is to shift the body and mind into a state of being totally asleep whilst totally awake, rejuvinating your self while focusing on your prized work.
I understand this. I was researching for hours for my project and when I went outside, I was able to simply "see" whatever was before me. the sky was blue, sunny, stunning, I was not separated from it. my research is very meaningful, and my mind, being satisfied with my work, rewarded itself with the pure "seeing" and feeling and sensing of the pure beauty of the sky. my trick, then is to dedicate all my attention on the meaningful purpose (the book art and music) and the spontaneous reward always seems to be this splendid delicious experiencing of the natural world. when I get tangled in nonsense such a junk entertainment or drama, the sky is dull, bland, no matter how blue. engage purposefully and the "breaks" will follow suit. in other words, the satisfied mind, once satisfied will automatically pause for beauty. when the pausing has sufficed for the experience of beauty, sensuality, this beauty will then inspire once again the meaningful work. ah!
Ashcomics: You are absolutely deadly wrong and You know it. Please leave us alone. We do not need distractions. There is a format for daydreamers somewhere else. Please go away!! 🙄
Good vid, though "being aware of being aware" is a result of self-remembering imo, rather than the process/practice as such (at least according to Fourth Way notes). Swapping terms from different teachings doesn't always work perfectly.
There are no nouns in this world. No objects. Because there are no subjects. Therefore there cannot be 'a result'. There are only processes in ultimate reality which is what Rupert teaches. One process leads to the arising of another process. Every'thing' is a process, ever changing and transforming. There is nothing solid and static. Rupert's other videos go deep into this. Namaste x
No, el "cubo de hielo" que es tu compañero(a) tiene que derretirse también en el agua que realmente somos. El OCEANO, no un riacho.. El OCEANO tiene su corriente propria, natural, somos olas y el OCEANO es indivisible, como el silencio, puro. Solo hay UNO(A). Saludos.
Self Remembring is a double looking ; Being aware of oneself while being engaged in outer forms... almost like looking from the outside. So you could get upset with someone (identifying) but not get completely lost in the experience by remembering oneself....splitting of attention pointing in & out at same time
No. What you are describing is the Ouspenskian mis-understanding of "self-remembering", which is really a form of directed attention similar to the Witness. It's a useful intermediate state. But it's not the "self-abiding" that Gurdjieff and Spira are talking about . . .
The are not two in the numinous. So split attention is only possible in phenomena, not in numena. Prior to the subject/object split is unitary abiding, synonymous with symply Being (and Love and God and Beauty). Ospensky never quite got there. Gurdjieff was not very clear in his teaching and seems to have been more interested in usining the obfuscation of the mysterious to get students psychology engaged in seeking.
Gurdjieff is quite explicit that we need to try self-remembering. like self-observation, to come to the realisation that we cannot do it, we do not ordinarily do it, and that we cannot do it at will. Ouspensky's interpretation of this is the most dangerous and erroneous teaching I have ever encountered. Self=remembering, in Ouspensky's sense of this term, which is an analogy for self-consciousness, is achieved in us by a technique, and this is what Gurdjieff was demonstrating. Its just that Ouspensky did not get it.You are in serious error here, in my experience.
Self observation is a necessary step toward abiding in pure awareness. But It is common for learners to stop learning before realizing the unification of the subject and object. Awareness of awareness is the only awareness prior to the reification of a subject and an object. Most people still think that self remembering means a subject is thinking about itself. That it is a mind is making pictures, words, or feelings about itself. These subtle objects are still objects and there is still a split that is creating a subject and is creating these objects. Gurdjieff was actually pointing prior to that subject/ object split to where awareness is aware that it is aware. He called that Self Remembering, but that name presupposes a subject and an object so that name points in the right direction but creates confusion. Just "Aware Being" might be a better name.
Bro you need to speak up or turn your mic up. I love your insight but i cant hear half of what you say got my bluetooth all the way up still straining to hear you over Regular household noises.
Self-remembering is Being-Aware that we really our this Aliveness-Awareness-Beingness-Awakeness-Peace; -this Space/Presence.. that is truly Deep, Truly 'High', Strong/Powerful, but Very Subtle, and Universal - it is the 'I' that is also 'we' - it is utterly Egoless... This is the True I that is Never these words, images, limits but is All, and Contains the Whole... It is Truly Beautiful, Dignified, Powerful (perfect) but is nothing to do with MY-self, My-ego, My-individual-being alone, but is the Essence of God/Life... It is free of identification with limits, partialness... Yes, it is thing-less/objectless, and is meant to be an intuitive 'awakening'... It is the Self-remembering-That-is-alive, NOT Primarily intellectual... It is NOT a thought, a THING, but only a living reality...: let it come to us...
Yes, LIFE itself, the ONE, natural way, the manifested and the unmanifested, no entity in between. All flows by "itself". No intellectual or reason, just pure clean energy moving and resting, the energy that "sees itself". LET IT BE.
Obviously this guy means well in his explainations but slick words such as "being aware of being aware" does not convey anything to anybody. The correct explaination is .... One begins to witness for the first time - oneself and others from an outside vantage point. In other words - it is a new state of awareness whereby we are "LOOKING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE" so to speak.. In this state, lies, nonsense and cover stories show up on our internal radar - in clear "technicolour". We also become aware that people ARE NOT AT ALL AWARE OF THEMSELES OR INDEED WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. Obviously, this guy has NEVER EXPERIENCED SELF-REMEMBERING for HIMSELF. No insult intended here -
this is quite an esoteric explanation of the practice, to be honest I think you have left out some quite key elements. it is about division of attention. this can only be done properly with a regular or preferably nightly sitting meditation practice. but then the aim is to split the attention, madame de Salzmann in the reality of being describes it as turning 3/4 of your attention inwards. So in terms of the inner, you are being aware of the breath, of posture, of tension in the muscles, and then of thought. and to self observe thought is a huge world. essential , as Gurdjieff always spoke of as an excellent starting point, man must have an aim, so what is your aim within the task or setting you find yourself in? what are you doing and being. This then leads, in de Salzmann's terms to the other 1/4 of attention as being on the outer, so the initial starting point the there for me is always the visual, what you are hearing, feeling physically an sensing, and as with the inner attention, how do these things relate to your aims? what are you doing and being? It is described so minimally by many, such as Gurdjieff, because as he says, it is an esoteric practice, you must find your own way. For me , the physical and mental discipline of taoist sitting meditation, as spoken of by Da Liu in his books, is the thing that helps the most with being able to "self-remember" during my daily life. Self remembering is the practice of seeing life's hypnosis and snapping out of waking sleep, essentially via triggers in the worlds around us, sounds or words or sights associated with "the work" (your own personal spiritual practices will have key words or sounds such as "balance" , "remember" , "dogs", "peace" and say the sound of a metal bell, all, for me, via Gurdjieff's work , and Ropp's idea of creative psychology, have become, alarm bells in life, that snap you from unconscious doing, back into taking control of the body, relaxing it, and seeing the thoughts, and pulling them back to the things and the getting round to actually doing them, that you have decided , usually in medattive contemplation at night, that you must do for your own, the people around you and the planets happiness.
@Armenias Thunk it has to be esoterically answered, or to come from your own ‘flow of consciousness’ grasp of oneness does not come easily, Nor is it always helpful in a world so defined by multiformity. Certain knowledge of what is figuratively called ‘oneness’, from what I have seen, only some will truly understand, and be able to keep. Whether that comes from great suffering of the accidental situational kind, through intentional suffering or through natural luck in seeing. So coming to understand self remembering has both common threads from people, but also has to be learned via the inner, not passed on via instruction. Your categorising me as Mahayana shows this reliance on categorising via instructional rather than experiential learning. Good luck with your own happiness! I would suggest to you the assumption you have made about my own relationship with happiness shows you might have some ‘little ego’ interfering with your meditation and the realising of the full potential of your ‘big ego’ , good luck friend!
@Armenias Thunk I have since making this comment also come back to my own comment and realised that it is esoteric, and that Spira’s definition is obviously correct in that it begins with attention, but my counter is based on my feeling that maybe his response was a little cold, and also rather than his words being meant as an introduction to the idea, that it was meant as definitive, and that seemed a little ‘instructionally learned’ rather than giving some more clue to its full potential, a little dead, or stuck in small ego , rather than sharing its full potential. But maybe this is technique, intentional or technique of the one via collective unconscious!
Self remembering is the replacing of sequential talk-thought with the simultaneity of the visual field. Huge regions of our psyche were created by and are associated with speech. It's what we are as a species, it's what differentiates us within the mammalian world and gives us leverage to discover the spirit. Speech and the word-controlled mind swirl together with repressed trauma of the subconscious to give us reactive thought, fantasy, day dream, delusions. Removing inner speech from mental processes allows the immediacy, nowness and inclusivity of visual modalities to assert themselves. Sorry to break up the party, but the realm of the spirit is eminently logical and accessible to analysis as to cause. Visual analysis is done by comparison. Compare this moment with the next. Wait quietly for your next thought. Shut it off and wait for the next while maintaining maximum alertness. Alertness.
Self remembering is prior to both auditory objects and visual holistic objects. Also prior to kinesthetic sensations and exterior perceptions. To become aware of awareness itself is the only awareness that is self illuminating. There is no subject / object split because awareness is aware of being aware... it is awareness being aware of being. This is abiding in pure awareness which is prior to all thoughts.
Being aware of being aware is being aware of being aware Remembering is remembering Remembering is either recalling words in your mind or Remembering is sitting inside visions of the past we are not taught to value sitting in our past In Fact we are discouraged by our Slave masters from sitting in our memories of the past Sorry to break it to you, but most of us have nothing of importance worth remembering
It is unfortunate that Spira speaks of self-remembering, while he does not know exactly what this means. He confuses it with all kinds of other spiritual inner states, including religious ones, that have nothing to do with self-remembering. Self-remembering is not a 'return' to your inner self after you have been 'outside' for a while. Self-memory is PERMANENT (after you practiced this long enough) whether you are acting 'outside' in the world, or observing 'things' inside yourself. No difference. So Spira speaks of something else than self-remembering, as defined by Ouspensky. So you cannot rely on this speech if you want to know what self-remembering is. Simple definition of self-remembering: "Acting (or not acting) with your attention completely in Now (so: not with your mind in the past or future), in a feeling perception of mySelf. Self-remembering a full perception of thoughts, feelings and movements in Now, by the absolute neutral (non-dual) Observer in us (Jiva-atman), the reflective consciousness in Stillness that's been given to us as human beings.
I 'd like to tell you that in truth if there aren't any ego and problématics as oneness and truth is everlastingly everpervading is there such thing as 'perceived suffereing' if this remains part of our 'mind' it perpetuate the 'thought'and therefore reality that there is such a thing as suffering or sufferers. Source of awareness, You, Is, all are And none Are . lets know dear One we are at Home in God Always. Now home source. Its all there is And this isness is perfect innocent safe sinless pure happy peace om. Paradise Is now. Illimitless timeless omnipresent , omnipotent, omiscient, free. Love Amen-om
He explains well. But all his thoughts and explanations are borrowed from Ramana Maharshi, Shankaracharya etc, even the examples he gives are borrowed from them. But strangely somewhere in the talk he says these are Christian thoughts. Why such reluctance to say the truth that these ideas are borrowed from India ?
These same ideas can be found in mystic religions of all sorts. Read the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and you well see that Jesus was teaching them to the disciples. Read Rumi and you will find them in Islam. Some forms of Shamanism find them in plant medicines. They are called the perennial philosophy because they keep arising in all cultures.
🌅"In the Book of The Revalation , lS written: " ln The Beggining was The WORD and THAT WORD was God , And God 'Reveal' lTS Presence As l , (of course I cannot Be seen with the finite vision or defined by finite reasoning faculty) All things Come from l ".. The Uni-Verse lS the expression of l , Which lS God , Truth , Life , Spirit , Intelligence , Light , Consciousness , Awareness , Being , Self , Knowing , out of Which our lndividual-lndivisible lD and Nature comes forth , we each Are the very manifestation of THAT One l , As the 🌊 Arise out of the Ocean , so All of Life expressions come froth from That One Infinite Dimentioneless Boundless , Limitless l , for which No adequate name can be given , As l 'announces' or Reveal lTS Presence As The lnner Pure Knowing🙏Thank🦋 Y🦢u for sharing 🪷Rupert🤍
To Moses: I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:7-8, 13-14) Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58) Popeye: "I yam what I yam." We are!
The best definition I heard so far about self remembering.
Agreed
Our last illusion is to think that there are two consciousness: first one is "the one who remembers the source" second is "the source"
In this Universe there is only one thing appearing as many therefore there is only one " self"
So it's not that "you" remember "the source" it's just source remembers that it is the source!!! If you remember that "You" is not exist then you become the source then you don't have to go back and forth to engage to the world and come back the source! Because you already remembered that "you" are the source🙏❤🙏
Brilliant explanation. He puts Ouspensky tradition on its right place. Thanks for sharing.
There is no Ouspensky tradition.
Awareness is a lable, a noun. Being aware is an activity, a way of being.
We are the experiencing of being aware of the qualities of Infinite Being.
"Remembering" is the perfect word, it is the beginning of creating a set of cognitive bells, linguistic bells, to re- awaken us in our everyday life with others. for some one not in your privelidged position, they need a method to stay alert, to fend off unconscious mechanical behaviours. Your description's have the air of someone 's private contemplations, not the practice needed for taking it into a busy world where forces will work against our intentions as we try to reach our aims.
omg the analogy of the child and mother (6:50) is so beautiful that is soooo beautiful
Bahut.bahut.gretitude.abhar.for.Wonderful.understanding.Dr.Rupert.Spira.bahut.bahut.dhanyabad.thanks.
Just listened to "In search of the miraculous", and got Rupert's talk as a recommendation. Thank you Rupert for the crisp description of self remembering, I could have struggled with that concept on the minds plane for the rest of my life. Your descriptions of the process of abiding in the self, for me, are the most clear and concise I have come upon. Thank you.
Manufacturing daydream. This hit me hard. So true.😍
These videos are amazing. So simple yet so revealing. Thank you.
Absolutely. I usually don't forget my Self when I engage with objects and situations. I understand what you are saying here.
Thank you for this. You explain here what Self-remembering is. Gurdjieff asked the question: "When you remember yourself, which self do you remember?" In this sense remembering is the right word, although it is at the same time confusing. To be and I am are clearer.
Who told you that "Gurdjieff asked the question: "When you remember yourself, which self do you remember?" "?It's complete bollocks
I understand this. I was researching for hours for my project and when I went outside, I was able to simply "see" whatever was before me. the sky was blue, sunny, stunning, I was not separated from it. my research is very meaningful, and my mind, being satisfied with my work, rewarded itself with the pure "seeing" and feeling and sensing of the pure beauty of the sky. my trick, then is to dedicate all my attention on the meaningful purpose (the book art and music) and the spontaneous reward always seems to be this splendid delicious experiencing of the natural world. when I get tangled in nonsense such a junk entertainment or drama, the sky is dull, bland, no matter how blue. engage purposefully and the "breaks" will follow suit. in other words, the satisfied mind, once satisfied will automatically pause for beauty. when the pausing has sufficed for the experience of beauty, sensuality, this beauty will then inspire once again the meaningful work. ah!
incredible clarity Rupert thank you
Thank you again Rupert! this no resistance part reminds me of Abraham Hicks...
"let this Be, that Be, the World Be, the fights Be, the Happy times Be..., let it all Beeeesss " :)
Indeed, Great Blessings 2021 Love & Light All
as I watch this video I am filled with overwhelm.
overwhelmed internally: from intense emotions.
overwhelmed externally: from a to-do list with 999-trillion things on it...
God help me: this planet's just way too hard.
I am amazed by the simplicity of the explanation for such a complex sublime subject!
Thank you so much Rupert ❤
I'm grateful that you have made so much of your teaching readily and freely available. It's a real generosity.
I do think some of the digs you make from time to time at other teachers or teachings are superfluous and don't enhance your message.
And in my experience of the Gurdjieff teachings, the idea of self remembering very clearly refers -in this moment- to dropping identification with the narrative of the moment and remembering the witness. Of course, the words are clumsy, but the movement pointed to by the phrase self remembering is clear.
This guy needs to stop trying so hard and just listen, actually listen. There's nothing to learn here. No knowledge to acquire. The "teaching" here, and in all of Rupert's talks, is to stop identifying with the acquiring and comparing processes that are the analytical mind - the only obstacle to knowing (in the truest sense). Stop trying to understand, because that very process of trying to grasp the teaching is the analytical mind (the foundation and substance of the "false self").
The questioner in this video is not present. He and Rupert aren't even having the same conversation. Rupert is only pointing him to fall back from identification with that habitual thought pattern of acquiring superficial understanding (conceptually) of the how's and the why's, the things that hide the "what is", and while Rupert is doing this, this man is already planning out his next question (so that he can understand it conceptually/ superficially). He isn't hearing Rupert at all. He isn't silent enough to receive Rupert's grace.
The teaching is ALWAYS ONLY "be silent, child...slow down...let go...rest in stillness...here you are...welcome back home" Ironically, it's apparently treated by his questioners as an invitation to expand upon, or compare to, their former beliefs about spirituality, which is the opposite of what must happen if the mind is to come to silence. Rupert is asking you to disengage with that person up in your head, the false self that has these questions. They're not YOUR questions.
People need to realize that Rupert's presence alone, without him having to say a word, is the most value that he can offer to a person who's earnest about discovering their true identity. If his words are treated as anything more than an invitation to stop thinking (stop identifying with thought), then the message is lost. He talks only to keep you there (interested enough to stick around) so that the power of his presence can make you (the false self) disappear.
IMO, most people don't want to know. They may convince themselves that they want to know, but what they really want deep down (probably outside of conscious awareness) is to keep their minds engaged. More specifically, they want to keep with the habit of finding ways to press that "pleasure button" (releasing that intoxicating drug - serotonin - into the body) that keeps the false self thriving. Unfortunately, meeting the labyrinth of the infinite unknown (from the perspective of the mind) that is the depth of oneself is never met with arms wide open when the mind is so engaged and the sense of a self (to defend and honor) is so strong.
Most people would piss their pants in fear if they sensed their identity slipping away, but that's only because they haven't adequately re-acquainted themselves with the silence (pure awareness - free from and of thought) that they are, which is the same as saying that they invested too much energy/ attention (time) into protecting an image that their minds created.
How does one know, really, what that guy needed or does not need? It seems that teaching appropriately is a very personal interaction that takes place within a context that is present and emergent. How does one experience only Rupert and "that guy" only as dualistic rather than an all-inclusive, self arising, emergence which so happens to contain an observable dialog relating what we give meaning to in retrospect?
I still don't know who or what "most people" are in fact, so it is difficult to speak to such vague, general abstraction in a provisional sense, let alone in the light of a definitive one. Without being difficult here, words like never and always do have some gravity and punch to them, but one tends to find them to be rather extremist to the point of losing or negating the point being made, sometimes.
It has not occurred to me that being in the silence before thoughts cannot include anything, everything and nothing with thoughts arising, abiding, and returning on their own within the spaciousness of mind as it is. Consider that the true nature may, for some, involve various types of experiences and techniques, (which may prove to be the emergence of it naturally) in order to recognize it, possibly in short glimpses where one simply relaxes and rests with heightened awareness. The rest, for those so inclined, is a deepening and discovery of continuity in all aspects of daily life. That could be called making the pathless path a path. Those with the capacity and proclivities to do so can then use secondary practices and methods as a means to assist those who suffer, which pertains to the manifest essence, nature and compassion of our natural condition.
I am not sure that it requires one having their identity, (or sense of it) to slip away, (which can often be the case of depersonalization that renders one "psychotic" or in some other state of dysfunction. In some sense, there may be no "adequate" preparation when we consider the question, what is it that prepares? We do like to think there is one and that goes along with your idea of the "false self", which does cling to notions like that for comfort and which is why the skillful means are used compassionately to address the fear that is the very core of the illusory contraction of a separate self, rather than to deride it. In that case, it is just as simple and easy to see the identity for what it is without any dramatic pants wetting involved, via a gradual or sudden shift of insight where everything changes and nothing at all changes. Eyebrow dancing.
The terror on the threshold is a metaphor used for that abstract fear felt so strongly in the imagination. And it is fear as long as we are motivated by it to avoid it or ponder it conceptually in vivid detail. It is very possible that some will reach it, recognize it for what it is and pass "through" it into a realization that the response was to inculcated mirage. People can have different ways to approach that and there are numerous ways to address it, encounter it, and "transcend" it. Yet, it proves to be nothing that needed transcending. Others may not even need to encounter it in such an intense and dramatic way. There are literally thousands of ways and an adept teacher recognizes that and works skilfully with dialog in a dynamic encounter with knowledge and from the place that there is no student, no teacher and no teaching. This is not contradictory.
One can consider that the mind is "vast" and awareness is a non-physical luminosity, wherein reality opens infinitely from absence and reveals a spontaneous unity in the here and now as direct experience. In that case, it can be called the Universal approach and is known to be all inclusive. Nothing is left out. It is perfection on its own revealing perfection as all experience including without bias what is called imperfection, which is quite a challenging issue for the intellect from the start because the intellect cannot recognize itself as duality and as the source of confused wandering and suffering. That is useful to contemplate.
So, I don't know what most people need to know. I do know that there is an open minded context that is without the constraints of bias and dogmatic or doctrinal thinking which allows for what is in a given situation and responds appropriately as the situation requires.
Simply being only seems complex and difficult because it is ultimately so simple. And so, the intellect is utilized in its mode of keen and constant investigation into the heart of the matter and reverts to the natural mode of deconstruction in order to rediscover the sole holistic seed of knowing.
Ernest Weber
Thanks for that comment, Ernest. You've given me a lot to contemplate.
Ernest Weber "I am not sure that it requires one having their identity, (or sense of it) to slip away, (which can often be the case of depersonalization that renders one "psychotic" or in some other state of dysfunction. ........ .......In that case, it is just as simple and easy to see the identity for what it is without any dramatic pants wetting involved, via a gradual or sudden shift of insight where everything changes and nothing at all changes. Eyebrow dancing."
Ernest, this is confusing to me- how is it 'simple and easy to see the identity for what it is' in what you say? I can see my body for what it is but not the identity with all its baggage of 'achievements' and related history. 'I am not that' is at the core of my effort of searching for what I really am. This ego/identity must go away in order to create the empty space for God's grace to fill it in with the awareness of universal consciousness. Can you have an ego and at the same time be no-thing?
+James Brown He can only teach us in the finite state, because words are objects, and he and all of us are in the finite state while we are on this planet. He couldn't have a lecture in the infinite state, because there are no words there, and we wouldn't remember the lecture, anyway, because anything we remember, is an activity of the finite mind. We don't remember where we came from because, remembering is a mind tool. Memory is not needed in that dimension because supposedly, everything is simultaneous.
hhhstar I feel that all these words can only hold back real seeing/ understanding.
To say that he can only teach us in the finite state is to imply that a "he" exists along with an "I" that is separate and that there's "something" to teach to "someone." It's all duality speak to a mind that stays alive by clinging to duality.
Reality is empty to the mind, there's nothing there for it to grab, nothing to "bring back", no "experiencer" separate from an experience, just the "what is", underneath, outside of, and entwined within the projected world of a mind in constant movement. Infinity made to appear finite. Nothingness and timelessness made into space and time. Everything held together by thought and memory, with no way or no one to see beyond it.
The words and concepts that we hold onto superimpose the silence, which is the source of existence and only reality; thus, the more attached we are to "our" ideas/ thoughts, the more "distance" and "separateness" we sense, the more lost we feel.
Unity comes with total surrender, which is to accept absolutely everything internally, spontaneously. Thoughts arise and subside, energy emerges and dissipates, images appear and fade away, all types of sensations occur, but there's nobody there doing it, it just happens when there's a sense of someone here to experience, and there's no "happening" at all when that "experiencer" also merges with reality.
But this can only be seen if no "you" or "else" is gripped, out of resistance (non-acceptance) to the unknowable Self/ Reality.
Thinking is the opposite of spontaneity. The "thinker" is a thought that separates from and labels other thoughts. "I" is the bridge from thinking to accepting thoughts to seeing beyond the illusion of thinker/ effort/ choice (being). Spontaneity emerges.
Therefore, thinking is not the answer. Words only help the one who thinks, who himself is a thought. This must be seen. And it can only be seen by somehow reaching a point of spontaneous acceptance of what is.
This means that the appearance of effort to seek the real "I" must also be absolutely allowed, and the appearance of a person that is allowing must also be seen, and the seer of these things will eventually merge into the unknowable Self, after the illusion fades by a deepening of awareness in this way.
There's an "I-thought" and "I". One awakens when only "I" is. Words speak to the I-thought.
This is my take...but they are only words, after all :)
In my experience there is no awareness without objects, so u only can be aware of objects with or without identifiing with them.
If u ask the question who hears , u can see there is nobody hearing , just hearing. But without an object of awareness you are just not conscious as a human being. The awareness that is existent without we are conscious is just metafysical speculation and an image we make up to grasp the ungraspable.
So there is identification and no identification, seeing things as a proces or becoming the things. The eye cant see itself. u can be aware that u are aware but only of the objects in it.
There can be just hearing, looking, feeling without a feeler , seeier... but there has to be an object before seeing , hearing , feeling...
The best explanation of "remembering yourself "!😊
Those that understand never explain; those that don't understand can't help explaining.
@@vhawk1951kl They get tired of trying to explain and no one can understand, due to a dimensional shift
eventually ill just give up , I can sense it coming fast
everyone seems to get really upset when as you start to break them as well
and just run away
@@gratefulkm If you can, if you wish.
I cannot and have no such wish
The following can be found on the Gurdjieff international review
"I am going to tell you of a scene at the table with Mr. Gurdjieff. He sat down, we were all there together, he turned and asked me: “You understand what self-remembering means?” I answered him, I said: “Maybe I don’t understand.” “Ah!” said Mr. Gurdjieff, “Repeat so the others can hear.” I repeated, “Maybe I don’t understand.” He said: “From today, you are my brother.” I share that with you." - George Adie.
Oddly enough on one view the opposite of remember is dismember. Perhaps more practical to have direct immediate personal experience of being a being, or two-natured.
@@vhawk1951kl yea I'm noticing this literal thing happening a lot,
When trying to guide someone to look for a needle in a haystack, you must always help them realise that when they find the needle, it may not be the needle they need to find,
Gurdjeff means never stop looking for the needle in the haystack, because haystacks full of needles are funny things and when you go ouch that hurt, you may find that's not the hurt your looking for
That what I have revealed is completely inline with what a Kundabuffer is
@@gratefulkm You cannot guide someone, you cannot even guide yourself so say nothing; least said sinister mended best say nothing at all
Superb and very helpful exposition, thank you Rupert!
Es increíble lo bien que se explica. Muchas gracias
superb analogy, the king/john one.
(-:
The wave it longs to be free,
and wonders just what could it be,
it surfs on a notion,
there's me and there's ocean,
though it's never not other than sea.
Ron van der Horst 🙏Welcome to you my friend.
Ron van der Horst beautiful poem!!!
🔥🔥🔥
Wonderful explanation of that which is unexplainable. The finger pointing to the moon. Follow the finger, let go the finger and see the moon
Silence ♡ Presence ॐ Peace
Sir could you tell me how silence is same as aweeness ????
Plllzzzzz
Pllzzzzz
Thank you.
There are 4 things at work here: awareness, objects, awareness of objects, and identification with objects. From his own description of our human experience . . . he doesn't actually make the case that awareness is fundamental. Instead, he inadvertently makes the case that it's the capacity for identification that is fundamental. If we observe our experience as he describes . . . we find that we are ALWAYS identified with an object. It's true that awareness is one of those objects that we can be identified with. But we have to BE identified with it before it can become an object of awareness. Our "true self" . . . our "real I" . . . "who we really are" . . . is fundamentally the capacity to identify with things.
There are not really "things" there inherently which we may or may not be identified with. The appearance of things co-arises with the appearance of the one who is aware of them. Subject and object are mutually dependent - some"thing" must be known by some"one", etc. That which embraces both subject and object is the true Reality and is all that is and all that I am.
You can not identify with something that you already are , you already are... The identification is not needed
Interesting point. I tend to agree with the later. You can only identify with what you are not, but no matter what you current believe of yourself is, you can only be what always and already are. 😘
Thanks gretitude Dhanyabad Dhanyabad Dhanyabad ❤❤😮 thanks
i have seen youtube of Rupert talk about the 3 centers and i can’t find it anywhere. Where can i find it¿ that’s
We have forgotten who we are.
This is the original sin.
We cannot remember where God ends,
And where women and men begin.
I just need to figure out how to remain in this bliss state when bad things happens, a disaster, an illness, the death of a friend, or being robbed by the credit card company, how to deal with anger, pain, depression, irritability, stress, and even becoming rude or violent sometimes. In a moment, I can be extremely angry, and the next, I come to the bliss state of thedeep self. How to deal with human real life condition while remaining in the bliss state of the self awareness? ( I mean, I am aware of my awareness, but outside people and happenings stress me a lot ).
Ur teachings are more then nector to me. I just sink in ur talks. Thank you Sir
try nectAr, not nectOr, not that spelling matters.
Love, thank you
The Buddhists have a better word for Self-Remembering - they call it the "Witnessing-Consciousness" ..... just to clarify - I am not a Buddhist
- I teach the Fourth Way in groups - in London, England.
There is a well-worn zen koan that asks, "What is my original face?" and this description of self-remembering closely aligns with where that question can lead us. I am very interested in the commonalities between Buddhism and the Fourth Way.
What is Witnessing? And What is it witnessing?
We are not our thoughts, emotions, imaginations, sensations, not even the perceiver of these objects. The act of perceiving simultaneously creates both the perceiver object and the perceived object. But in what is the subject and object created? In awareness. And what are the subject and object created out of? Awareness.
What you call the witness and the objects that are witnessed are totally and only consolidations in and of awareness by filtering down from the infinity and totality of Pure Awareness.
Recognizing that all objects and subjects arise and fall away allows us to recognize that they are not our essential self. Our essential self is that which never changes, cannot be hurt or destroyed or even be born. We are Being itself, Pure Awareness able to remember to be aware of being aware.
Forth way is surely the most freeing way.
Beautiful
Gurdjieff was the teacher who brought this to us. It's not Ouspensky's tradition. (Comment written after listening for 30 seconds.) Sorry to be such a nitpicker, but an error like that just ruins the interest for me. Anyway; i'll continue listening and hopefully you correct the facts further on.
Allright gurdjieff brung it but ouspensky made it his own and kind of deviated from gurdjieff but still calling it the gurdjieff tradition
This guy is just tweaking G's teachings, because he doesn't 'understand' them and to suit his own agenda...He's also adding in a few methods that G never mentioned...i.e Self Witnessing. This is an old trick these self appointed gurus do, to give the impression that they are better thinkers than the originators..All this guys teachings are tweaked Gurdjieffs teachings...who himself admitted that they weren''t his own..
If you looked deeper you would learn that Spira literally grew up in a Gurdjieff school in England and that his mother was a long-time student. He understands.
And Jesus and many other sages brought it to Gurdjief.
Thank you very helpful
Very good
👁️🌌🦢🪷🦋🕉️♾️⛲💟🌅☮️🙏 Namaste 😇
Robert Earl Burton calls this: Divided Attention : seeing the object and feeling/being aware of Source at the same time.
that is a term from Gurdjieff. Burton being a student of G.
This is still a little misunderstanding off from pure awareness. Real self remembering comes prior to the individual's separate existence. It is prior to the creation of either the objects of perception or the Subject that perceived them.
Recognizing that there is no individual you and that awareness cannot be damaged or hurt is what allows for tranquility, equanimity, peace, and feelings of Unity and Love with All, the Absolute.
Abiding in Awareness Being Aware of itself is what Gurdjieff meant by Self Remembering. The split attention exercises are just a step along the way. As are the self observation exercises before them.
Robert Earl Burton is a sexual predator who for decades has preyed upon the unsuspecting young men who have fallen into the orbit of his sex cult.
More clear than that, it´s impossible. I can amost guess the next words he says.
I still have no idea how to “rest my attention” I feel like just being alive means my attention has to be on something
Yes this is common at first. Perhaps try a few years of meditation upon a single object. Vipassana is an option. Later it will be easier once you have trained your attention to rest on one thing.
A calmness
As usual this is a conversation that explains directly what all that is needed for a perfect understanding. If the childhood example is understood correctly and extended to every 'knowing' that is the end. What is there except 'knowing'? When you know any object what exactly is happening in the awareness except knowing? No change at all. That is why it is said that your BMI, the objective world with all its variety and the so called God (jeeva,jagath, eeswara) are nothing but a thought which in turn is nothing but 'knowig/awareness'.
So i should always keep my attention towards awareness even when I’m doing something else like watching tv or talking to someone? My effort should always be to keep my attention on my the awareness of I ?
That is not what he said. Listen again.
Keep trying and you will find that it is not possible to control your attention to the degree you suggest. But give it a try and see what you learn by doing.
Then listen again to what Spira says here. And read Gurdjieff again. It is worth it.
i dont find daydreams to be useless in fact my daydreams are useful to me when exploring the world of my story. I wonder if the ultimate goal of these methods is to shift the body and mind into a state of being totally asleep whilst totally awake, rejuvinating your self while focusing on your prized work.
Yeah i so think this too
I understand this. I was researching for hours for my project and when I went outside, I was able to simply "see" whatever was before me. the sky was blue, sunny, stunning, I was not separated from it. my research is very meaningful, and my mind, being satisfied with my work, rewarded itself with the pure "seeing" and feeling and sensing of the pure beauty of the sky. my trick, then is to dedicate all my attention on the meaningful purpose (the book art and music) and the spontaneous reward always seems to be this splendid delicious experiencing of the natural world. when I get tangled in nonsense such a junk entertainment or drama, the sky is dull, bland, no matter how blue. engage purposefully and the "breaks" will follow suit. in other words, the satisfied mind, once satisfied will automatically pause for beauty. when the pausing has sufficed for the experience of beauty, sensuality, this beauty will then inspire once again the meaningful work. ah!
Ashcomics: You are absolutely deadly wrong and You know it.
Please leave us alone.
We do not need distractions.
There is a format for daydreamers somewhere else.
Please go away!!
🙄
the motile bags of molecules on the flying rock imagined if they pretended to "be aware" of themselves they would achieve immortality.
Thank you Master
You seem to be missing a crucial aspect and are still caught up in duality.
You assumed a mind posture and strayed from your true self. Just remember your true self, dispose the mind posture and retrieve your true self.
Good vid, though "being aware of being aware" is a result of self-remembering imo, rather than the process/practice as such (at least according to Fourth Way notes). Swapping terms from different teachings doesn't always work perfectly.
There are no nouns in this world. No objects. Because there are no subjects. Therefore there cannot be 'a result'. There are only processes in ultimate reality which is what Rupert teaches. One process leads to the arising of another process. Every'thing' is a process, ever changing and transforming. There is nothing solid and static. Rupert's other videos go deep into this. Namaste x
It's the Essence in us
Is it possible to be in love with a partner who never try to puts attention to rest on its source?
No, el "cubo de hielo" que es tu compañero(a) tiene que derretirse también en el agua que realmente somos. El OCEANO, no un riacho.. El OCEANO tiene su corriente propria, natural, somos olas y el OCEANO es indivisible, como el silencio, puro. Solo hay UNO(A). Saludos.
Self Remembring is a double looking ; Being aware of oneself while being engaged in outer forms... almost like looking from the outside. So you could get upset with someone (identifying) but not get completely lost in the experience by remembering oneself....splitting of attention pointing in & out at same time
No. What you are describing is the Ouspenskian mis-understanding of "self-remembering", which is really a form of directed attention similar to the Witness. It's a useful intermediate state. But it's not the "self-abiding" that Gurdjieff and Spira are talking about . . .
Haroulla Fanos. absolutely wonderfully stated
The are not two in the numinous. So split attention is only possible in phenomena, not in numena. Prior to the subject/object split is unitary abiding, synonymous with symply Being (and Love and God and Beauty). Ospensky never quite got there. Gurdjieff was not very clear in his teaching and seems to have been more interested in usining the obfuscation of the mysterious to get students psychology engaged in seeking.
My God, thanks for sending Rupert Spira.. the perfect antidote for the disease of Gurdjieffianism..
Gurdjieff is quite explicit that we need to try self-remembering. like self-observation, to come to the realisation that we cannot do it, we do not ordinarily do it, and that we cannot do it at will. Ouspensky's interpretation of this is the most dangerous and erroneous teaching I have ever encountered. Self=remembering, in Ouspensky's sense of this term, which is an analogy for self-consciousness, is achieved in us by a technique, and this is what Gurdjieff was demonstrating. Its just that Ouspensky did not get it.You are in serious error here, in my experience.
in simple terms, self remembering is the extension of and reaction to self observation.
Self observation is a necessary step toward abiding in pure awareness. But It is common for learners to stop learning before realizing the unification of the subject and object.
Awareness of awareness is the only awareness prior to the reification of a subject and an object. Most people still think that self remembering means a subject is thinking about itself. That it is a mind is making pictures, words, or feelings about itself. These subtle objects are still objects and there is still a split that is creating a subject and is creating these objects.
Gurdjieff was actually pointing prior to that subject/ object split to where awareness is aware that it is aware. He called that Self Remembering, but that name presupposes a subject and an object so that name points in the right direction but creates confusion. Just "Aware Being" might be a better name.
Bro you need to speak up or turn your mic up. I love your insight but i cant hear half of what you say got my bluetooth all the way up still straining to hear you over Regular household noises.
Self-remembering is Being-Aware that we really our this Aliveness-Awareness-Beingness-Awakeness-Peace; -this Space/Presence.. that is truly Deep, Truly 'High', Strong/Powerful, but Very Subtle, and Universal - it is the 'I' that is also 'we' - it is utterly Egoless... This is the True I that is Never these words, images, limits but is All, and Contains the Whole... It is Truly Beautiful, Dignified, Powerful (perfect) but is nothing to do with MY-self, My-ego, My-individual-being alone, but is the Essence of God/Life... It is free of identification with limits, partialness...
Yes, it is thing-less/objectless, and is meant to be an intuitive 'awakening'... It is the Self-remembering-That-is-alive, NOT Primarily intellectual... It is NOT a thought, a THING, but only a living reality...: let it come to us...
Yes, LIFE itself, the ONE, natural way, the manifested and the unmanifested, no entity in between. All flows by "itself". No intellectual or reason, just pure clean energy moving and resting, the energy that "sees itself". LET IT BE.
Obviously this guy means well in his explainations but slick words such as "being aware of being aware" does not convey anything to anybody. The correct explaination is .... One begins to witness for the first time - oneself and others from an outside vantage point. In other words - it is a new state of awareness whereby we are "LOOKING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE" so to speak.. In this state, lies, nonsense and cover stories show up on our internal radar - in clear "technicolour". We also become aware that people ARE NOT AT ALL AWARE OF THEMSELES OR INDEED WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.
Obviously, this guy has NEVER EXPERIENCED SELF-REMEMBERING for HIMSELF. No insult intended here -
I think you have not understood.
🙏
this is quite an esoteric explanation of the practice, to be honest I think you have left out some quite key elements. it is about division of attention. this can only be done properly with a regular or preferably nightly sitting meditation practice. but then the aim is to split the attention, madame de Salzmann in the reality of being describes it as turning 3/4 of your attention inwards. So in terms of the inner, you are being aware of the breath, of posture, of tension in the muscles, and then of thought. and to self observe thought is a huge world. essential , as Gurdjieff always spoke of as an excellent starting point, man must have an aim, so what is your aim within the task or setting you find yourself in? what are you doing and being. This then leads, in de Salzmann's terms to the other 1/4 of attention as being on the outer, so the initial starting point the there for me is always the visual, what you are hearing, feeling physically an sensing, and as with the inner attention, how do these things relate to your aims? what are you doing and being? It is described so minimally by many, such as Gurdjieff, because as he says, it is an esoteric practice, you must find your own way. For me , the physical and mental discipline of taoist sitting meditation, as spoken of by Da Liu in his books, is the thing that helps the most with being able to "self-remember" during my daily life. Self remembering is the practice of seeing life's hypnosis and snapping out of waking sleep, essentially via triggers in the worlds around us, sounds or words or sights associated with "the work" (your own personal spiritual practices will have key words or sounds such as "balance" , "remember" , "dogs", "peace" and say the sound of a metal bell, all, for me, via Gurdjieff's work , and Ropp's idea of creative psychology, have become, alarm bells in life, that snap you from unconscious doing, back into taking control of the body, relaxing it, and seeing the thoughts, and pulling them back to the things and the getting round to actually doing them, that you have decided , usually in medattive contemplation at night, that you must do for your own, the people around you and the planets happiness.
@Armenias Thunk it has to be esoterically answered, or to come from your own ‘flow of consciousness’ grasp of oneness does not come easily, Nor is it always helpful in a world so defined by multiformity. Certain knowledge of what is figuratively called ‘oneness’, from what I have seen, only some will truly understand, and be able to keep. Whether that comes from great suffering of the accidental situational kind, through intentional suffering or through natural luck in seeing. So coming to understand self remembering has both common threads from people, but also has to be learned via the inner, not passed on via instruction. Your categorising me as Mahayana shows this reliance on categorising via instructional rather than experiential learning. Good luck with your own happiness! I would suggest to you the assumption you have made about my own relationship with happiness shows you might have some ‘little ego’ interfering with your meditation and the realising of the full potential of your ‘big ego’ , good luck friend!
@Armenias Thunk I have since making this comment also come back to my own comment and realised that it is esoteric, and that Spira’s definition is obviously correct in that it begins with attention, but my counter is based on my feeling that maybe his response was a little cold, and also rather than his words being meant as an introduction to the idea, that it was meant as definitive, and that seemed a little ‘instructionally learned’ rather than giving some more clue to its full potential, a little dead, or stuck in small ego , rather than sharing its full potential. But maybe this is technique, intentional or technique of the one via collective unconscious!
Self remembering is the replacing of sequential talk-thought with the simultaneity of the visual field. Huge regions of our psyche were created by and are associated with speech. It's what we are as a species, it's what differentiates us within the mammalian world and gives us leverage to discover the spirit. Speech and the word-controlled mind swirl together with repressed trauma of the subconscious to give us reactive thought, fantasy, day dream, delusions. Removing inner speech from mental processes allows the immediacy, nowness and inclusivity of visual modalities to assert themselves. Sorry to break up the party, but the realm of the spirit is eminently logical and accessible to analysis as to cause. Visual analysis is done by comparison. Compare this moment with the next. Wait quietly for your next thought. Shut it off and wait for the next while maintaining maximum alertness. Alertness.
The trurh is that u are not more th an a si ck s h it
Self remembering is prior to both auditory objects and visual holistic objects. Also prior to kinesthetic sensations and exterior perceptions. To become aware of awareness itself is the only awareness that is self illuminating. There is no subject / object split because awareness is aware of being aware... it is awareness being aware of being. This is abiding in pure awareness which is prior to all thoughts.
This seems inspired by Buddhism.
Holy fuck
Being aware of being aware is being aware of being aware
Remembering is remembering
Remembering is either recalling words in your mind
or
Remembering is sitting inside visions of the past
we are not taught to value sitting in our past
In Fact we are discouraged by our Slave masters from sitting in our memories of the past
Sorry to break it to you, but most of us have nothing of importance worth remembering
7:30
the Ghost, not the Shell
It is unfortunate that Spira speaks of self-remembering, while he does not know exactly what this means. He confuses it with all kinds of other spiritual inner states, including religious ones, that have nothing to do with self-remembering.
Self-remembering is not a 'return' to your inner self after you have been 'outside' for a while. Self-memory is PERMANENT (after you practiced this long enough) whether you are acting 'outside' in the world, or observing 'things' inside yourself. No difference.
So Spira speaks of something else than self-remembering, as defined by Ouspensky. So you cannot rely on this speech if you want to know what self-remembering is.
Simple definition of self-remembering: "Acting (or not acting) with your attention completely in Now (so: not with your mind in the past or future), in a feeling perception of mySelf. Self-remembering a full perception of thoughts, feelings and movements in Now, by the absolute neutral (non-dual) Observer in us (Jiva-atman), the reflective consciousness in Stillness that's been given to us as human beings.
Warning: This critique misunderstands both Gurdjieff and Spira.
I 'd like to tell you that in truth if there aren't any ego and problématics as oneness and truth is everlastingly everpervading is there such thing as 'perceived suffereing' if this remains part of our 'mind' it perpetuate the 'thought'and therefore reality that there is such a thing as suffering or sufferers. Source of awareness, You, Is, all are
And none Are . lets know dear One we are at Home in God Always. Now home source. Its all there is
And this isness is perfect innocent safe sinless pure happy peace om. Paradise Is now. Illimitless timeless omnipresent , omnipotent, omiscient, free. Love
Amen-om
find the seeker...
Rather stop seeking
He explains well. But all his thoughts and explanations are borrowed from Ramana Maharshi, Shankaracharya etc, even the examples he gives are borrowed from them. But strangely somewhere in the talk he says these are Christian thoughts. Why such reluctance to say the truth that these ideas are borrowed from India ?
These same ideas can be found in mystic religions of all sorts. Read the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and you well see that Jesus was teaching them to the disciples. Read Rumi and you will find them in Islam. Some forms of Shamanism find them in plant medicines. They are called the perennial philosophy because they keep arising in all cultures.
6
A poor understanding of self-remembering is evident in these comments.
Lovely. Dont think: FEEL
"I" feels like it's in this body.
🥀💚🙄🌱
well I guess he's trying. self rememembering begins with self observation... there saved you 27 minutes of self agrandisement
🤔🌱🌸💙😀
Always the same old , how to trip yourself up, Now ! let's talk about the Law of Octaves ?
Yes Rupert, but the finite mind can remember the activity of self-remembering....
It would have been a shorter but much better video if he'd left well enough alone and stopped at 0:40.
Totally disagree. If one truly understands “self-remembering”, “remember” is the perfect description. I remember that I am
Who is this "I" of whom you speak?
@@KeithFail2 The observer within me. What exactly that is-I do not know.
😂😂
nonsense
🌅"In the Book of The Revalation , lS written: " ln The Beggining was The WORD and THAT WORD was God , And God 'Reveal' lTS Presence As l , (of course I cannot Be seen with the finite vision or defined by finite reasoning faculty) All things Come from l ".. The Uni-Verse lS the expression of l , Which lS God , Truth , Life , Spirit , Intelligence , Light , Consciousness , Awareness , Being , Self , Knowing , out of Which our lndividual-lndivisible lD and Nature comes forth , we each Are the very manifestation of THAT One l , As the 🌊 Arise out of the Ocean , so All of Life expressions come froth from That One Infinite Dimentioneless Boundless , Limitless l , for which No adequate name can be given , As l 'announces' or Reveal lTS Presence As The lnner Pure Knowing🙏Thank🦋 Y🦢u for sharing 🪷Rupert🤍
To Moses: I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:7-8, 13-14)
Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)
Popeye: "I yam what I yam."
We are!
@@KeithFail2🌅 "Be Still and Know That l AM GOD"🙏