Sam Harris & Rupert Spira debate the primacy of consciousness (excerpt)
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 01. 2021
- Does epistemological primacy equate to ontological primacy? That is, does the fact that consciousness is the most immediate and foundational basis of knowledge mean that consciousness creates reality? That's what's discussed in this clip.
The full 90 minute interview is available with a subscription to Sam Harris's Making Sense podcast at samharris.org/. That will give you access to all of his full length conversations. This one is from the Waking Up series and is called The Nature of Awareness.
My website has short essays and musings on the kind of thing this video is about: sites.google.com/view/ponderi... - Zábava
The full 90 minute interview is available with a subscription to Sam Harris's Making Sense podcast at samharris.org/. That will give you access to all of his full length conversations. This one is from the Waking Up series and is called The Nature of Awareness.
Rupert: “What is it that makes you feel a scientist is qualified to make observations on reality?”
Such a great question!
15£ a month 😮
Hello. I am subbed to the Making sense podcast and can't seem to find it. Could you provide the date ? Thanks for posting this!
@@chris.p88 I don't recall the date, but it's not new. You might have to click 'Load More' a few times and keep scrolling down to find it.
'To Be or Not To Be', That is the Question?
This is like my left brain and right brain having a conversation.
Hahaha, yes! and the two together makes for a balanced, more wholistic overview. Instinct and rationality should be bedfellows.
@@JaneDoe-zk4uk Are instinct and rationality material constructs?
@@Certaintyexists888 can you elaborate why you ask that question, please?
@@JaneDoe-zk4uk I find it fascinating how much people focus on the material world and use immaterial concepts to explain it.
@@Certaintyexists888 good for you :) - oops sorry misread your meaning! I will get back to you! X
I love that Sam asks rupert all the same things his students ask him, just with bigger words 😄
Sam is a highly intelligent being and asks good questions. But Rupert is just a master .
Yes, a master of quackery and nonsense.
Spira wipes the floor with Sam on Idealism. LOL!
Triangles
@@Ghanzo
What is the meaning of your post?
Wrong.
"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." - Erwin Schrodinger
Right, fine. But there sure as hell aren't any ways of verifying anything Rupert is saying on any account then.
@@DiogenesNephewyes, by your own experience. Can you prove that you are conscious?
@@Alecwigi I can't prove to you that I'm conscious, but it's self-evident to me that I am.
@@DiogenesNephewIn the same manner it is self evident for me that consciousness pervades everything.
I will never be able to prove this to you though, I cannot put infinity in a test tube and show it to you, you have to see it for yourself❤
@@Alecwigi What the hell does it even mean to say that consciousness "pervades" everything. Everything you've ever experienced IS consciousness.
For Sam it is shaky territory because he has not experienced it for himself yet. 💕🌻
Not experienced what? He’s experienced it, it’s just that he doesn’t trust experience alone.
I love Sam but Rupert made him look like an idiot here.
Well that certainly is presumptuous of you, you got a little bit of a spiritual chip on your shoulder don't you?
As enlightenment is not an experience, it is impossible for anyone to understand.
There's a video of Sam Harris describing his experience with mushrooms. It's very interesting.
@@sxsmith44 nah. How did you become such an expert on "idiot"s?
This is one of the most important conversations to be had - and here it is between two of the most qualified people capable of having it. I really hope this happens more often.
What makes you qualified to judge who is and is not qualified?
@@Certaintyexists888 what makes you qualified to the judge his judgement 😆
@@TheFuhreer is asking a question equivalent to making a judgement?
@@Certaintyexists888 What makes you qualified to determine the difference between questions and judgements?
@@coolingen8 Do I need qualification to ask a question about judgement?
I think Rubert didn't want to shock Sam by saying that Time is just the product of our mind
The problem is that thst isn't even really a far out concept, even for materialists. We know time is relative. We know that the faster a thing is, the less time and the less space there is from its perspective. From the perspective of light itself, there is no time, there is no space. There's no 'speed'. Simple dual-slit experiments also show that light exists simply as a potentiality until observed. The underlying base of all of this is consciousness.
@@phillt436 I think Sam already know this , but because he didn't experience the absence of time himself he still believe in everything related to time which is just stories like the story of Rupert having surgery ...
@@jinzokrim9979 I think Sam fully understands but they miss each other just slightly in what the other us trying to convey. On the issue of time, Sam has a great 10 minute talk called Space, time and attention inside his Waking Up app. I've learned a lot from both of these two and I'm super thankful for them.
@@shawnstpeter6004 I hope we will see more conversation like this between "scientists" and "spiritual teachers"
I trust Sam to grasp the relativity of both, time and space.
I love this discussion/debate; however, it is just entertainment. I have a lot of respect for both of these gentlemen. Sam Harris is a brilliant logician, but you either get it or you don't. No amount of thinking, no matter how stealthy and brilliant, will ever get you there. It's circular. You have to STOP thinking long enough and often enough to begin to understand. There is no “thought” per se, in understanding the infinite. Just a profound, silent knowing. It's humbling, to say the least. Ego cannot enter that state. This is where the idea of surrender fits in. Does "consciousness" create reality? What is reality? There would only be one way to know what is reality. Consciousness, which will continue to create endless reality as long as you want to continue the chase.
None of this contradicts Sam Harris's argument; he's fully on board with non-dual first person awareness
@@livefastdieyoung2470
This is a beautiful conversation! Two great thinkers not trying to beat up or one-up the other - just engaging... wonderful.
Admittedly I'm no intellectual beast like Sam or inspired intuitive like Rupert - I'm just tossing this out there.
From this snippet it seemed to me reality is like a coin standing on edge. Each has walked around the coin, taken observations and is compelled (as we all are) to choose one side as real and the other as illusion.
If I was to indulge in the use of Myers Briggs typology I would hazard a guess that Sam is very strong on the Sensing function, and Rupert the Intuitive function, which almost necessitates the final choice about which side of the coin they like!
@@JasonJen-JungKuo-ot4rh he makes a metaphysical claim, which by definition is not directly observable or knowable!
@@JasonJen-JungKuo-ot4rh Hello. I disagree. Rupert purports to understand the nature of the universe. Impossible. Unknowable.
Just because the only way to know anything is through consciousness, does not mean that consciousness is all there is. The only way to breathe is with your lungs, but this does not mean that only your lungs exist.
Though Rupert makes valid points, I think Sam's ontological agnosticism is the more intellectually honest position at least for now, given how little we know about consciousness from a scientific point of view. Consciousness is unquestionably the epistemological ground of being, but can we confidently make the claim that it is also the ontological ground of being? Some people will say yes, but like Sam I'm agnostic on this one for now, though the view of consciousness-only certainly could turn out to be true. The philosophical division between ontology and epistemology may just prove to be spurious down the line, since even so-called objective, "third-person" observations are happening within the confines of our own subjectivity. Remaining open to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be, is a more enlightened attitude we can take rather than prematurely choosing a position and criticizing anyone who doesn't agree with us. Even so, the general tendency of scientific communities to ridicule anything other than a materialist world view is truly unfortunate, and I think it will take the sincere and humble collaboration of scientists and contemplatives to even begin to unravel the mystery of consciousness.
At the end of the day, we have to keep in mind that people have different roles to play in the world, so you can disagree with someone but still recognize and appreciate the value he/she is adding to the world. Scientists have their roles to play and the same with contemplatives. Sam’s role is to point out the dangers of religious dogmatism while presenting spirituality in the most objective and scientific way possible as he sees it, and Rupert’s role is to guide people wake up to their true nature based on the traditional teachings of Advaita Vedanta. So it’s only natural that the two have differences in their views, but it is precisely this creative tension that fuels progress and help the world become a better place.
Thanks for sharing your balanced and well considered thoughts. For me, your post raises some interesting questions, such as:
If consciousness happens to _not_ be derivative or emergent, how will science be able to know that?
If all of the neuronal correlations that are currently touted as pertaining to consciousness actually pertain instead to its _contents,_ with the purely subjective component remaining ever elusive, how will neuroscience come to recognize this?
What if the nature of consciousness is such that fundamental questions about it and its ontological status can't be known from a third-person perspective? At what point might science concede this? *_Would_* science concede this?
Whenever someone does claim definitive knowledge about consciousness, is it necessarily intellectually dishonest to do so just because the claim hasn't been (or can't be) validated by scientific consensus?
What if the only way for science collectively to approach such knowledge is for individual scientists to employ some kind of meditative or contemplative means? Would that be unscientific or unempirical because the approach is first-person rather than third-person? What if their basic insights turned out to match up, not only with each other's, but with those of non-scientist meditators and contemplatives?
_"The philosophical division between ontology and epistemology may just prove to be spurious down the line..."_
Yes, it may. But given that meditators, contemplatives, and some philosophers have already been contending this to be the case for ages, how would science be able to "prove" it as long as it remains married to that "so-called objective, 'third-person'" approach you mentioned?
@@_PL_ Hello, you also raise a lot of interesting points. In retrospect, I should have added to my original post that the fundamental mystery of consciousness may never be resolved scientifically. I'm secretly hoping that this is the case because intellectual certainty about any topic is dull, uninteresting, and can degenerate into a lack of appreciation, respect, and wonder for existence. There may come a time in the future when scientists and contemplatives alike join hands together to collectively marvel at the self-evident wonder of consciousness, which could indeed turn out to be an unconditioned, self-existing property of the universe just as mystics, poets, contemplatives, and meditators have proclaimed for ages. Compared to the various spiritual traditions of the world, which have had thousands of years to develop and refine their views based on empirical first-person data, modern science is a relatively young discipline so only time will tell what are its upper limits of knowledge.
By fully acknowledging the epistemological primacy of consciousness while remaining openly agnostic to its ontological primacy, I was trying to pick a position that honors both science and spirituality as equals, as the two are both indispensable to advancing human growth and well-being. Regarding some of your points, I don't think that meditators are being intellectually dishonest to proclaim the ontological primacy of consciousness because they are simply speaking from experience, which is all that we have to make any claims about reality. It has long been observed that spiritual experiences and insights have a noetic quality to them, which imparts to these experiences an overwhelming sense that they are more real and more true than everyday, ordinary reality characterized by duality and a feeling of separateness. For someone who has had such an experience, it’s only natural to claim to have found the ultimate ground of existence from which all things manifest. I made the point about Sam’s view being more intellectually honest partly because he remains open to the possibility that things could be otherwise while for Rupert the matter seems to be completely set. It’s not that I have a problem with Rupert’s views because I pretty much concur with almost everything he says, but I am cautious about absolutizing one’s views and ruling out all possibility that consciousness is an emergent property of something other than consciousness.
As for the objective study of consciousness, I think the commonly-held scientific idea that one can figure something out in its entirety from the outside is misguided and even arrogant, especially when it comes to understanding the very nature of subjectivity itself. The hard problem of consciousness is truly hard and no amount of studying brain/neuron activity will make consciousness any less mysterious, which is why I think, as you’ve pointed out, that scientists will eventually have to contend that beyond a certain point third-person observations come to a dead-end. At that point, the definition of what constitutes “science” will probably have to expand to include inward, first-person investigations of consciousness as long as they are guided by reason and motivated by genuine curiosity to discover the truth, whatever it turns out to be. I like to think of modern science as the objective, empirical study of the contents of consciousness and spirituality as the objective, empirical study of consciousness itself. I’m using the word “objective” here to mean “universally true irrespective of the differences in people’s opinions, feelings, and perceptions” rather than “existing outside of consciousness” because empirically speaking, nothing can exist outside of consciousness.
I suppose defining science and spirituality this way would put both disciplines under the umbrella of epistemology, which would in effect dissolve the traditional boundary that has existed between ontology and epistemology. As I mentioned in my post, I’m not even sure if the concept of ontology as it is commonly understood makes any sense because it presupposes that there is something “out there” more fundamental to reality than consciousness when in fact, the only thing we can ever know and experience is consciousness and its manifold expressions. Maybe the definition of what constitutes consciousness has to change. Most people interpret the word as “conscious awareness” which, according to this definition, would mean that whatever that I’m not directly aware of at this moment is not within the boundary of my consciousness. But consciousness as defined by spiritual practitioners is simply the ever-present awake space within which anything and everything can and does happen. In other words, it is just the field of pure, infinite possibility which is ever-still and ever-generative. Defined this way, what scientists now call “matter” would be just another aspect of this numinous wakefulness that isn’t directly being cognized at the moment by sentient beings yet nonetheless affecting our lives in significant ways. How this claim about the all-pervasive nature of consciousness could be verified or disproven scientifically, I have no idea as of yet.
Anyways, I’m just rambling now jumping from topic to topic.
@@geunhokim35 Hi again. Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful reply. I agree with the spirit of much of what you've said here. The main point on which I'm inclined to diverge is that I wouldn't characterize noetic or mystical insight as "intellectual certainty." We're talking here about a kind of knowing that's direct and non-representational-that is, it's not conceptually mediated; in fact, it transcends the subject-object modality entirely, so that knower and known are realized to be subsumed in nondual identity. (I'm sympathetic to the fact that this would sound utterly foreign, and quite possibly ridiculous, to most folk.)
Additionally, to the extent that this kind of insight transforms one's moment-to-moment perception and experience of reality, it will often tend to dramatically increase-not decrease-one's sense of wonder, curiosity and openness. Speaking from my own experience with this, the extraordinariness and sheer mystery of being is _more_ pronounced, not less so, once some of the mediating or buffering filters from a lifetime of conditioning are removed (or at least attenuated) via whatever means-meditation, contemplation, deconstructive self-inquiry, etc.
Having said that, it also seems to be the case that no matter how deep and transformative an insight or realization might prove to be, one's established personality will remain intact and (often) largely unchanged. Thus, e.g., if one had a tendency toward dogmatism or black and white thinking prior to their shift, afterward they might still evince at least some of this tendency when talking about their insight. So, even if the insight itself is transpersonal and transconceptual, talking about it puts one squarely in realm of the personal and conceptual, with all the pitfalls that this entails. That's one reason (though not the only one) I think it's prudent for public figures to be circumspect when talking about this kind of stuff, as it lends itself too readily to misunderstanding. For this reason (and considerations of intellectual honesty aside) I agree that Sam's stated agnositicism is probably the wiser stance, at least publicly.
@@_PL_ I very much appreciate your balanced and well-informed views on this all too important subject. There is always the temptation to put spiritual awakening on a pedestal and treat it as a panacea for all of our problems. But, as you’ve put it beautifully, spiritual realization/insight alone does not make our conducts any nobler unless we actively strive to embody our newly-recognized basic goodness in ordinary, everyday life.
This is the reason why, for example, that the Korean Zen master Jinul talked about “sudden awakening, gradual cultivation” as the universal path on which all buddhas, bodhisattvas, and sages have traveled, will travel, and are traveling now. It’s becoming more and more clear that Self-realization doesn’t override human nature; it simply opens up space within which human nature can be expressed in a more wholesome, skillful, and mutually beneficent way. Left to its own devices, human nature (even those of realized masters) tends to degrade into ignorance and selfishness, hence the necessity to continuously establish ourselves in and conduct ourselves from non-dual, loving awareness. On this point, both Rupert and Sam agree, and I think any sensible person on the spiritual path would concur as well.
I wish you and I and all sentient beings the best of luck in skillfully navigating this absolute ineffable miracle of a phenomenon called Life.
this is the most delightful comment exchange that i've ever read. thank you both for sharing your thoughts
The anesthesia example is a conflation of the contents of consciousness and consciousness itself.
This is the distinction between "cit" and "citta" which doesn't exist so much in Western thought.
@@kumaaraanderson234 To be a bit tongue in cheek, there is not much else in Western thought _but_ thought. These distinctions make little sense when you're trapped in concepts.
Yeah Rupert just need to answer it with dream example.Wbat happens when one undergoes anesthesia in a dream and get operated .
Or if Sam needs objective time then it is not available in Science also .What if the doctors twin start a space journey at near the speed of light at the start of operation and comes back.He wouldnt experience 30 mintues and would be puzzled by 30 mintues of surgery...
Sam is so articulate and presents what he thinks is a challenge to Rupert. Rupert is unperturbed because he is already home. Too bad Sam doesn’t want to take that little extra step and listen a little more deeply!
Well, he’s a materialist and just won’t relax the white knuckle grip he has on that for anything. I’m listening to the whole interview via SH’s app and it’s really fascinating
It's just a matter of defining reality
You are spot on Rupert E. Both points are valid. No one can push beyond there evolution at this moment. Self realization of own experience is far more than intelligence. Intelligence means a whole lot of reading. Both have to exist to become wisdom. Sam’s Ego tends to get on his way. We are all here to dissolve the illusion of our own ego. It’s only a internal job and it can be very laborious based on your own Karma’s. I agree that Rupert is at home though. His wisdom is profound.
Sam and Rupert have both had the exact same enlightenment experience. Sam Harris just has respect for the scientific method. As anyone who uses computers, iPhones, or Tylenol should.
Chuckle of the week
Sam Harris has a lot of experience talking with people of differing beliefs, and I think it shows here. This is not so easy to navigate smoothly.
Keep in mind Sam also has a belief system of his own, materialism hasn’t been proven yet, no scientist has found physical matter - hence it’s a belief system. Materialism is an assumption & belief that physical matter exists in it’s own right, which by no means has been proven. The closer we look at atoms and particles, the more we realise they are not physical at all. Matter also requires an observer (consciousness) on a fundamental level to be “perceived”. Sam is great at exploring other beliefs on reality, but don’t for a minute think he has all the answers - because he doesn’t.
@@verumverboten5549 i mean i like your comment but i feel like this took too much time and effort :D quarantine huh?
@@verumverboten5549 well, "I" am just the space in which the concept "me" appears. so i would have to know who this "me" is, that may or may not be trying hard...sorry i just had to.
@@verumverboten5549 ok you win this one. but i´ll get you in the next Episode of "circle jerk today"
@@verumverboten5549 I see what you did there
Notice how Sam makes a point and then "closes the door" on any rebuttal from Rupert, who is too kind to kick "the door" open? Sam's point about anesthesia and losing 30 minutes of time hinges on the assumption that time is real. That consciousness exists within time. Time only exists as a concept in the mind. The mind itself exists within consciousness.
"The truth is simple. If it were complicated, everyone would understand it." - Walt Whitman
Wonderful quote. Thank you!
Yes.
yes, I wrote the same but lost my comment when the video clicked off on me. Rupert was too kind, and I'm not sure what he agreed to there at the end. I used to be interested in Sam but now I won't waste my time going to the full exchange. You nicely point out that among the other idiocies of the anesthesia distraction, Sam doesn't get it about time. Rupert has answered all this in many youtubes. Sam couldn't be bothered to do his homework. I used to be impressed by Sam, but I'm done. I just don't have time for time wasters like that. Oh yeah, as you point out, he doesn't understand time. Heh heh.
Thank you.
@@davidthomson802 🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road, in Traditional Chinese]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (Cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness.
This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.
Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise.
Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
Rupert takes on materialism in a quiet but powerful way.
Between Rupert and Sam which one do you think wrote the following?
"So whether it's anger or sadness or fear, simply be willing to burn up with the raw sensations without trying to name it, which is just a subtle way the ego tries to maintain the illusion that there's a self actually controlling one's experiences."
@@gratefulgregg9058 Initially, I thought Rupert, but I'm going to say that this is a Sam Harris quote. Maybe?
@@vincentwilliamcarmichael4257 yes it's Sam. It seems a lot of people think he's arrogant or something because he speaks with such calm and presence and he's ridiculously articulate. But for anyone who's using his meditation app it's quite the opposite. He regularly guides loving-kindness meditations, and speaks often about loving the people who are present in your life. Quite different from the "atheist" label that's followed him from the early days of public career.
@@gratefulgregg9058 sounds like Sam.
@@gratefulgregg9058 sam 100%
Simple: One man is enlightened (awake) and One is not, (yet).
Any serious student of meditation has heard multiple times that one can not come to enlightenment through rationalization. Science can never ‘explain’ enlightenment, it’s literally impossible with concepts and thoughts...it’s beyond conceptualization.
Not saying Sam isn’t serious about meditation, just hasn’t crossed the line.
Science can very easily explain enlightenment. Delusions.
@@FootyFrenzyHD Where is your proof? Your opinion is of no value.
@@bdt5527 Where is/what exactly is this "observer" that you speak of? Why does it disappear during Anesthesia and brain injuries? This strongly suggests the brain is generating conciousness/awareness. Rupert makes nonsensical leaps regarding this so called "observer" and states that because one can detach from their thoughts and emotions their must be some magical infinite awareness beyond comprehension to our "finite mind" to Put it into his words. This is just detachment/ spiritual bypassing in my eyes. Nonduality also leads to terrible and nonsensical morals and ethics such as "murder and torture is love' since everything is ultimately just god or this infinite awareness experiencing itself.
@@FootyFrenzyHD Non-duality doesn’t lead to anything, people’s brains do that. I don’t disagree with you on the other points but only because I’m not there yet, I’m not enlightened or awake. But I wouldn’t put all my eggs in the science basket because I know science has limitations and consciousness so far does not. All great meditation teachers from the past including but not at all limited to Buddha and Jesus, have all pointed in the same direction, which is a much broader consciousness than what’s in our individual brain. There are many books with different takes on the subject but they end in the same place, non-dualistic truth.
@@bdt5527 Agree the Observer of thoughts emotions and body is not a delusion. However, the claim that this observer is infinite in all aspects and that this observer is the only substance from which all reality is made is a bit delusional. Especially, when it does not explain why things that appear in consciousness seem to appear in a deterministic way that through science we are able to predict.
I want more! This is one of the best conversations I’ve heard in a long time.
"Doing nothing is not an option for one that believes they are a seperate self" Rupert Spira
Good to see advaita vedanta is being soo deeply explored by the western thinkers . Let Shri Adi Shankara's immense knowledge be spread 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 On namah shivaya .... Lead us from unreal to real ; lead us from darkness onto light ; lead us from death to immortality...
Spira is from the Kashmir Shaiva tradition actually
@@mishree No ,his wife follow kashmiri shaivism. He follows true Advaita
@@castelessaastik4655 the true advaita also has homa, Deity meditation and also Bhakti tradition.
@@mishreethere is no much difference between Kashmir shaivism and Advaita vedanta of Ramakrishnaparamahamsa
@@megharshagowda2232there is a difference.
In Kashmir Shaivism, consciousness is aware of itself. It is dynamics in nature.
Such a refreshing conversation between an extremely smart mind that believes and a mind that is no longer identified as mind, consciousness, awareness or the nature of mind. Simply delicious. Thank you for posting.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck
said the software about the hardware ?
supposedly there's an eternal competition between the "engine room" and the "helm" of a ship, each thinking that they are the "important part" when perhaps it's the hull? B-)
@@solarnaut You only know about the software OR the hardware through conscious experience. Any assumptions besides that are, as Sam admitted in the video, pure speculation.
@@leatui7, so . . . Cogito, ergo sum : I think, therefore I am - Rene Descartes, 1637
"One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an 'I' which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that 'thinking is occurring', not that 'I am thinking' "
Could such occurrence of thought be taking place in a realm where it requires no substrate/ platform?
If "you" do not exist, except as the twinkle in the wet dream of a "simulator" "should" this effect how "you" "choose" to think ?
JBP seemed to argue that "god" is required before Sam (or anyone else) get have any bearings about "should."
Rupert seems to argue that since the inside of the car cab is all he has " personally experienced" on his road trip, the whole universe must be car cab interiors.
@@solarnaut Sounds like a non sequitur. Descartes' views were a bizarre mixture of naive dualism and naive materialism. Besides I didn't make any metaphysical claims in my statement.
I simply repeated what Harris said. Here I'll put it in outline form, with some slight clarifications, to make it simpler. Everything I'm saying here is perfectly acceptable from a purely physicalist view:
1. All we know directly (if we go by current scientific standards of what is acceptable as knowledge) is conscious experience. "conscious experience" has no requirement of any perception of some kind of fundamentally separate, individual "I".
2. Any claim beyond that is purely speculative, exactly as Harris said.
3. There is not a shred of evidence, from any scientific study in the past 400 years, that something purely physical exists ("physical" not in the phenomenological sense of the "physical" world that surrounds us, but in the purely abstract meaning of the word "physical" as used in "physicalism").
4. Any claim that the substratum of the "real" world (what exists if there were no conscious individual living beings) is purely physical must first convey at least some infinitesimal indication of what "physical" means.
No physicalist has ever gotten to step 4. Is there any intellectual justification - forget Spira, harris, Decartes or quoting anyone else - I'm asking you directly - for positing that the ultimate substratum of the universe, that which exists independently of conscious, individualized living beings - is purely physical?
Be sure to tell me first:
1. What do you mean by "physical" (and don't define it phenomenologically, because that requires conscious experience)?
2. How do you account for regularities in the universe?
3. If you account for them by something dead, non conscious, unintelligent and non sentient (which is pretty much what most philosophers implicitly mean by "physical" ) is there any basis at all for me to believe in such a speculation? How does it add to anything? What value, if any, does it have for science? or for our lives?
@@leatui7 " What is Mind ? No Matter !
" What is Matter ? Never Mind . "
- HOMER
(Simpson) B-)
As the great Zen master Shunryu Suzuki wrote: “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.”
That is all.
Cool! 👏🏻
a conversation between two of most respected people in my life..what a great day!!!!!!!
I heard Rupert say something that caught me, could just be nice words but it went something like this: "Time is thought within eternity" works for me IMO.
Rupert is a beast-his patience and clarity as well as his deep understanding of non-duality makes him a formidable spreaker for every scientist without exception !
No, he's a BS artist
@@johngilmore697 Can you provide reasons for your opinion that he is a BS artist? Referring to Spira.
And he is a potter. No degrees or Ph D. But no trouble to cut through Sam's sophisticated word salad and cut to the chase. Doesn't that tell you something?
Its more like a conversation between mind and consciousness.
Haha yea we could say tht
@@robbie6905 With all due respect, there’s no such thing as Sam’s consciousness. Consciousness speaks from experience while the mind tends to want to reassert itself by insisting on ‘external knowledge.’ Maybe. Hope I get to pose this to Rupert at some point.
There is no such actual thing as a mind. (Yes there is Mind ;) A separate, individual mind is a mirage created by a thought. No thought, no mind. That simple.
no that actually isn't the case, Sam isn't aware of his consciousness, Robbie isn't aware of consciousness. Only Awareness is aware.
Sam being mind, Rupert being consciousness, I assume?
THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT SAM KEEPS CONFLATING THE MIND, WITH CONSCIOUSNESS, MIND IS AN EFFECT OF/WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS NOT THE TOTALITY OF IT 🙏🏾
Yep, and without being awake there’s no way you’re going to “figure” it out...
Unfortunately this is a typical conflatiin that also most scientists and professional philosophers of mind do.
@@FreeMind320 🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (Cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness.
This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.
Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise.
Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
@@renakmans3521, what do you mean by “AWAKE”. ☝️
@@TheWorldTeacher I’ll let you know when I’m Awake. Thus far, I’m caught up in illusion via ego/mind so I can’t speak in details:/)
I loved the comments. gives me hope. to Sam I say be quiet, stop thinking ahead and just listen. and also Thanks to both for this discussion.
Wrong way around. Spira needs to be quiet and listen.
@@livefastdieyoung2470 not sure about that
you are funny.....A neuroscientists need to stop thinking and listen to a teacher who is a magical thinker
@@pythIV educate yourself on neuroscience to become sure about that black and white chicken.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Yawn. The materialist needs to put down the microscope and realize what he's looking for isn't outside.
Amazing conversation and beyond my intellect. I am just happy to be here!
Sam makes a blunder to use the interruption of a personal awareness by use of anesthesia, to demonstrate that "consciousness can be interrupted". He pursues this by citing the fact that there would be others controlling the anesthesia, having conversations, etc., apparently overlooking the fact that these activities inferred to have happened, are evidence of a continuity of consciousness and a refutation of an interruption of consciousness. The interruption was to one person's experiential awareness, not to consciousness.
Sam Harris on fire. But he cannot reach the depth and beauty that Rupert often touches.
@Simone Schmidt between Rupert and Sam which one do you think wrote the following?
"So whether it's anger or sadness or fear, simply be willing to burn up with the raw sensations without trying to name it, which is just a subtle way the ego tries to maintain the illusion that there's a self actually controlling one's experiences."
@@gratefulgregg9058 i know its for simone but that sounds like rupert i guess
@@mementomori5374 no it's Sam Harris.
@@j2futures500 Anger, sadness and fear are not sensations, but that is how they are experienced. All emotions are experienced in the body and only in the body, though they do not originate from it. Therefore the saying, 'Awakening is in the body'. Therefore also the incredible addictive power of drugs like heroin, which completely dull physical sensations and therefore all emotional pain.
Spira's depth of realization is deeper than Harris'. I don't think Harris has had a genuine liberation experience. They are quite rare.
A problem that often occurs when arguing in favour of the materialist worldview is mixing consciousness with the contents that are in consciousness, such as thoughts, for example. But what is needed to be understood is that your consciousness is not limited to that. Take, for instance, yourself at the age of 10: EVERYTHING about your experience was different, including memories, inner monologue, feelings (your body as well of course). Yet, even though all that is different, you still say it was YOU - meaning the same consciousness. The ONLY reason why you feel that was you, but you don't feel that I or any other person or living being is you is because you have memories of "your" past. But other than those memories - which are, when you really contemplate it, are just thoughts - there is no real difference between saying that the consciousness in you while being 10 year old is the same as the one in your present moment, and saying that you share the same consciousness with other people - you just don't have a memory of it. And saying that the fact of not having a memory proves that it is not the same consciousness is merely based on the assumption that it is not possible, which is just that, an ASSUMPTION. So when Rupert - or any other non-dual / philosophical teacher - says consciousness the thing to notice is that it doesn't mean that everything that happens does so inside the particular thoughts and memories that fill your awareness right now as a separate person, but that it doesn't happen unless it is EXPERIENCE THROUGH CONSCIOUSNESS - not human consciousness, not even living beings' consciousness, but through the consciousness we all share, but are UNAWARE of as a limited mind with particular thoughts. It's like a split that occurs in mentally ill people (I think Multiple Personality Disorder, though not certain of the term) where there is a sense of more than one personality in one's mind, and none of them is aware of the other's point of view.
yes, we here at the Mind-Body Experiment Centre (aka a couple of old poor people in a trailer in Niagara) have read what. you wrote here and seen the wisdom of it. Especially compelling to me is that our relationship to our ten-year-old selves provides a fruitful (excuse Niagara metaphor) template for a thought experiment about how some guy we see in the street isn't or is me. My companion here, a geriatric nurse, anticipated (as I read you aloud) your reference to mental disorders. Wild stuff.
FYI the term now is Dissociative Identity Disorder, which is a more accurate description of what's happening.
Perfectly brilliant follow up 👍
What makes you feel YOU is the Ego not Consciousness. Consciousness has nothing not do with YOU, ME, THIS or THAT.
One still has to argue with the materialist in a symbolic system optimized for material perception. That's why Tony Parsons sounds like a madman when he keeps repeating that nothing is everything. Nothing pretends to be everything and happens independently of everything personal
Sam never fails to try weave a materialistic story with Non Duality. His chat with Jim Newman was amusing.Sam will not get this message because he believes he is Sam on some subtle level. Good to see Rupert keep it clear.
Where is the chat with Jim Newman please?
@@mandyramsdell it's in his waking up app
He is a false prophet of non-duality.
They both agree that basic human ability should be above thought.
I’d like to know where to find the chat with Jim newman and Sam Harris! Can you say?
Sam is confusing consciousness with memory and intellect. That's a strong basic flaw in his assumption. Consciousness is universal and is not limited by our intellect or memory.
How so....
You need to support your claim
@@musicalarchitecture7875 I am only stating a fact. By the way.. to support this or, even tell you about what I think. I would like to know what according to you is Consciousness??
@@vinayviking bruh) your ego just got offended
@@yehor_ivanov may be, i am learning to let go my ego.. will take some time!
Only the universe is universal. You can call the universe “consciousness” if you wish, but doing so is both unnecessary and misleading.
Enlightenment is not a credit card, and does not buy you anything. It does not purchase for you a complete or correct philosophy. Enlightenment is something that happens to you, not something you discover. You do not have the answers. No one does.
I'm very happy Sam addressed some of the issues of non-duality. Couldn't agree more.
Absolutely beautiful sharing of viewpoints. Thank you!!!
I love Sam, been one of my favorites for 15 years. But Rupert made him look foolish.
Sam needs to do a podcast with Bernardo Kastrup. If there’s anyone in the world that can persuade, Sam it is BK.
YES!
Bernardo has tried to contact Sam for a debate a few times in the past, but Harris refused it. I suspect that Sam knows that he would look even more silly than he did with Spira, so his ego says no. It would be more difficult with Bernardo, because Spira is talking from direct experience, but Bernardo is coming from direct experience plus philosophical rigor.
The problem with Sam and many others is the simple lack of wisdom, the beliefs on materialist philosophy are hard wired into the scientific community, it’s a shame Sam hasn’t thought outside the box a little more
@@grosbeak6130 I think you need to learn a little more about non dual philosophy
@@joshc7865 i’m sure you’re right.
The problem with anesthesia is that “losing consciousness” is indistinguishable from merely losing memory of the time you’re under.
From the first person perpective I would agree. However we could monitor the brain to see whether its activity under anesthesia resembles patterns correlated with normal waking consciousness, or whether it bears more likeness to dreamless sleep for example. In particular we could scan for correlates of pain in the case of a surgical operation. If we were to merely lose memory of events we would expect to see 'pain-patterns' in the brain.
We know what a little about what a brain in pain looks like. Heightened activation in particular areas of the brain. Simply monitor the brain for activitation in these regions we know to be correlated with experience of pain, then go ahead and do an operation. Some light could be shed on this question by carryin out this experiment. From the first person it is indeed indistinguishable but in this case of anesthesia it is not the only relevant perspective.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (Cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness.
This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.
Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise.
Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
@@TheWorldTeacher
*"Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE"*
Why would this be true? There was no justification given. Just a bare assertion.
Actually, no; Bernardo Kastrup, another proponent of the theory that consciousness > matter (and less spiritual and much more scientifically-minded than Spira), argues legitimately that though there is an "unconscious", it actually very well may still be a conscious state over at ejop-dot-psychopen-dot-eu (you can also find a link on his website's list of his published papers), interesting stuff.
I absolutely love this quote. An object is that which objects to consciousness.
Kinda interersting how Harris tried to brush it off as a semantic difference at the end, even though they were not talking about the same experience at all. I respect him a lot, but I feel like being in his role as some kind of 'intellectual autorithy' can also really limit your ability to get to the level of humbleness required to make the final shift into the non-dual experience.
Well said.
yeah I'm not sure what Rupert agreed to at the end. Their difference isn't some merely semantic thing. I've been impressed by Sam elsewhere but here he just looked like a petulant kid who wanted to look like he was open to nonduality but wasn't going to let go of a world prior to and outside of consciousness. Sam's a believer, and nothing's going to shake his faith. I'm glad Rupert called him on the nonsense about hi-falutin.
'Kinda interesting how Harris tried to brush it off as a semantic difference at the end'... yeah, almost farcical and weak on his side.
“Non dual experience?” What is that?
@@davidthomson802 can’t get more hi falutin than Rupert. Believing you can understand the nature of consciousness, reality and the universe seems to me to be the most arrogant claim someone can make. And he makes it often
Seems to me that Sam stills see Concioussness as an individual phenomenon and by that logic, something exists outside it ie. Matter.
However, the argument here is that matter is never experienced seperate from concioussness neither through the individual self nor from pure Self. The fact that concioussness alone is experienced is the most obvious fact.
He just explained it. Triangulation, anaesthesia. Etc. Make an effort.
Yes. I made my conclusions on Sam's viewpoint based on his argument and thought experiments.
To say that concioussness is the primary fact of the individual, but all things outside it are constituted by matter which cannot be known by the individual, is a flawed argument as it means that there is both concioussness ( individual) and matter are seperate from each other. Thus both elements won't be primary.
So yes, I have made my effort. 😉
@@nitinajithkumar you're not seeing it. He gives examples as well. Sigh.
@@junaidesse This attitude of condescension is what Rupert was referring to about materialists... Harris is still basing his points on a unproved premise that consciousness is limited to the body-mind complex.. And btw, i don't see you making an effort to explain Sam's point. Your argument seems to be 'because he said so'; thats how religions work.. Sigh..
Read quantum psychology by Robert Anton Wilson.
Love how humble Sam is, he knows experientially ongoing what Rupert discusses. I am that.
Yet he is not very humble and OBVIOUSLY has not experienced the True Self.
Sam Harris - humble?! Lol
What does a doorknob, Aristotle and the Eiffel Tower have in common?
Yes. YOU. The consciousness in which all of the above appear. It can not appear anywhere else, even your brain or body can only appear in consciousness.
they're all made of matter? ;)
me??
I'd love to witness a debate between Sam Harris and Bernardo Kastrup
yes!!
No debate is necessary. Sam and Bernardo admit the mystery. People like Rupert are the ones in need of dismantling.
@@moesypittounikos The debate between them would be idealism versus physicalism. Rupert and Bernardo are both idealist. Sam is not!
@@moesypittounikos How do you know? We don't have a model of consciousness yet, and the most testable hypothesis is also the one that is the least physicalist! (Orch-OR)
@@moesypittounikos No, not really; Bernardo has his own consciousness-fundamental ontology (cosmopsychism) that he details and supports very thoroughly in his papers that you can find links to on his own website (specifically "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology"). Admitting the mystery does nothing, shrugging and going "well we don't know" is not an acceptable answer to the questions. Sorry. :)
The problem is that the same word, "consciousness", is used in two completely different ways. Some non-dualists use it to refer to the Ground of Being, but it's also (and much more commonly) used to refer to the individual experience of the mind dangling out here in space-time. If we could just leave our sense of the Ground of Being as impenetrable mystery (out of which consciousness manifests), then there would be no argument.
I was thinking along the same lines. Had there been any disagreement if they referred to it as the undeniable fact of existence itself rather than consciousness? That is atleast my understanding of the Consciousness that Spira is talking about.
THESE ARE TWO OF MY FAVORITE THINKERS, THEM AND ALAN WATTS
And Krishnamurti too
I think that makes you my brother. I have read (and listened) to all of Alan Watts publications, and these two cats I never tire of. I recommend “Awareness” by Anthony DeMello. he blew me away.
However about the ending part of the video, Sam totally "defeated" Spira, saying that it's too much faithful thinking that it's surely sure that consciousness is primary and the ultimate reality..... Cause 78billions years ago, no life form existed on earth and earth did not exist either, and the universe or multiverse surely existed then......... Let's hope though that Rupert is right, or the Dalai Lama
@@kuroryudairyu4567 All this is a concept of a finite mind. Study deeper and you will get Rupert. It is worth it. Sam won't improve your life, Rupert will.
There are a thousand comments here, so I may be repeating what others have said. This seems to be what trips Sam up: The sciences (I use the plural deliberately here, since there exists no one unified science , each discipline has its own methods, its own epistemologies) can be highly effective without the assumption of materialism. There are many things we can know about the universe as an object -- as many objects -- of knowing. The sciences have much to say about the nature of the universe and its contents -- as objects of knowing. Understanding cause and effect -- making accurate predictions about the effects of causes -- is very much a vital pursuit. The sciences can know the mind as an object of knowing. They can know the brain as an object of knowing. But the sciences can never know consciousness itself as an object of knowing. Consciousness can never be known as an effect of some cause (whether matter, brain chemistry, or whatever) -- Sam does concede that.
You're right, this has been discussed by others here, and by me in a few responses, but it bears repeating and you've put it nicely. Thanks for commenting.
"Consciousness can never be known as an effect of some cause." Really??? Prove to me that consciousness can live beyond or outside the brain. Take your time....
@@bradbray1737 Prove that it can't?
@@nietzschean3138 I do think the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that it can or does. My proof is self relevant in the absence of proofs. Nice try.
@@bradbray1737 Falsification. Look it up.
Great conversation. I don't really know anything about Sam Harris and only recently listened to Rupert Spira. Harris seemed to keep an open mind, had good questions/comments, and respected his guest, which sadly often seems not to be the case with many modern hosts...Then I stopped by the comment section, which honestly is never an advisable move on youtube, but I was pleasantly surprised by the level of comments here as well. Bravo, everyone! lol. Best luck to you all in the future.
Rupert is such a clear thinker. A connected Soul. He gets to the heart of a subject/question in a way I am just in awe of. So enjoyable and enlightening to hear this chat.
What a pity the conversation about anaesthesia and nondual awareness was shut down at the end of this clip. I subscribed to the full version which was worth a listen for other reasons, but Sam and Rupert did not return to this crucial point. This is exactly where things get juicy and I would say even those of us who intuitively feel Rupert to be right might have their rational minds butt in at this point wanting deeper clarification from him. Put concisely, the problem is that of a seemingly objective conventional reality. Under anaesthesia, whilst insensate and without memory, conventional reality certainly trundles on regardless. Our everyday experiences are replete with the accurate correlation of observations by local minds and yet conversely one mind can be totally unaware of knowledge held by another. Even if this seemingly objective reality we experience is illusory, many of us need help understanding how the illusion is created... Until we can look at this more deeply I would say any naive belief in matter is forgivable, even if it is an error. The open-minded want clarification to help 'get' the awareness-only alternative, such as how does the data arise to produce this seemingly objective 'show' ? What a pity Sam dd not let Rupert get his teeth into this issue, pennies may have dropped. I agree with other commentators that Bernado Kastrup is a person who could also bring illumination to the topic of 'seeming objectivity' and suggest Sam Harris should invite him to a discussion asap.
Thank you, Cathy, for commenting. You've expertly and gracefully brought up some good and well-considered points that get to the heart of why "the temptation to be materialist," as Sam puts it here, is so tenacious for us. For whatever it might be worth, I'd like to offer a few of my own thoughts on the matter (no pun intended).
First, I'll suggest that "a seemingly objective conventional reality" doesn't presuppose materialism, and the notion that it does is circular, since it's based on a materialist definition of what constitutes "objective" reality. True, there's a deeply compelling sense of object permanence, inculcated in early childhood and reinforced by direct experience ever since. But to say, as materialism does, that this compelling objectivity is based on something existing independently of, and even causally prior to, subjectivity or awareness is a non sequitur. Whether reality at large is made of subatomic matter, some laws of physics, information, or pure awareness truly has no bearing on how it behaves and how seemingly consistent it is.
A related consideration: since materialism and idealism each makes an inference about reality at large; and since reality at large should be expected to behave identically in either case, the choice of which ontology has the greatest likelihood of being true would seem to favor the one whose inference is less of a stretch.
The main obstacle facing idealism is widespread confusion about what consciousness even _is_ and what a consciousness-only ontology entails (more about that below). Additionally, there's some archaic baggage around associations with religion, and fears that idealism equates to deism or theism. (To be fair, my own observation is that most who argue for any form of idealism are at least somewhat theistically inclined; often those who identify as "spiritual but not religious.")
The greatest liability of materialism is that even in principle there's no way to 1) confirm a completely non-experiential reality (all theories, predictions, experiments and observations have been, and can only ever be, performed and confirmed or disconfirmed via experience), and 2) explain how inert, inanimate matter or the laws that govern it could produce subjectivity or awareness (hiding behind "neuronal complexity" doesn't cut it; one thinks of that famous "Then a miracle occurs…" cartoon).
I also think that the tendency to take objectivity as contraindicative of an idealist ontology is based at least partly on confusing subjectivity per se with the private inner lives of individuals - i.e., their minds.
Which brings me to another suggestion regarding your post: One thing to "get" about an "awareness only alternative" to materialism is that this awareness has nothing to do with the subtle _contents_ that define individual minds (e.g., thoughts, feelings, intuitions, a sense of personal energy and agency, and any states at all, from the highest and most sublime to the lowest and most depressed). "Consciousness is not content," as the slogan goes. Another crucial point is that while mind content is personal and discrete, pure subjectivity or awareness is impersonal and unlocated. If you do the thought experiment of discriminatively stripping away layer after layer of your (or anyone's) personal history, memories, inclinations, behavior tendencies, thought patterns and so on, what you'll finally be left with is the bare fact of being aware (though, n.b., not someTHING that's aware), and this is utterly the same in anyone who now lives or has ever lived, and who ever might live.
A fair - though imperfect - analogy is how electricity can power any number and variety of appliances and devices without itself partaking of any of their unique and individual characteristics and functions, and also without being a discrete _unit_ of electricity contained within any of the appliances or devices (obviously the current is coursing through wires within the device; the point is the current is identical to any electrical current anywhere). In a comparable sense, you could say that awareness is the purely subjective dynamic that illuminates (and possibly animates) any number and variety of forms and functions.
Having said that, this doesn't necessarily mean that awareness or subjectivity exists independently of objects any more than objects can be said to exist independently of awareness. It could be, for example, that there are objective and subjective _poles_ to all phenomena, with neither having primacy and each being superseded by something yet more fundamental and irreducible. (For the record, I don't mean to imply anything theistic there.)
_"Our everyday experiences are replete with the accurate correlation of observations by local minds and yet conversely one mind can be totally unaware of knowledge held by another."_
So, bearing in mind (so to speak) my points above - i.e., that the data constituting those correlations and observations, as well as any other local qualia distinguishing one mind from another, are not awareness as such - maybe consider these ideas:
Any observations, even when shared with others, are predicated on not-two awarenesses. In other words, instead of thinking of, say, Janelle making an observation and Steven corroborating it, think of awareness making an observation and awareness corroborating it.
As for why Janelle and Steven are not privy to each other's private inner experiences, the reason is that _people are not what's aware;_ that is, people don't "have" awareness. Awareness is both the registering of, and the unifying context for, the countless elements that make up the person. So, as with the previous example, it's simply generic, impersonal awareness (not personal minds) that's privy to anyone's inner experiences.
_"how does the data arise to produce this seemingly objective 'show' ?"_
I'm not sure that one is answerable. And that agnosticism would seem to apply equally to materialist and idealist angles of approach. It's a fascinating mystery. My sense is that if the question is shifted to _what_ something or someone is in essence, rather than the mechanics of _how_ it arises, and especially if it's a deeply felt and urgent question (the archetypal seeker question of who or what am I? or what is this?), then there might come a resolution (though still not an "answer") that renders the _how?_ question irrelevant.
Regarding Sam inviting Bernardo Kastrup to a discussion, it's probably a matter of enough people asking Sam to do this (via his website or Twitter or other social media). Apparently that's how this conversation with Rupert came to be. I don't agree with BK on everything, but I agree with you that he'd be a powerfully stimulating and challenging interlocutor for Sam.
Thanks again for your intelligent and thoughtful post, and apologies for my ridiculously lengthy reply.
To see the objective reality of the Now or present moment takes effort and discipline of an individual. One has to observe their mental body, emotional body, energy body and physical body. At the onset observing thought is the beginning and a fundamental aspect. Thought exists only for your survival and the Mind wants to exist via Thought. Your Life Source, YOU the "I" can use self enquiry and thinking to reach the subjective and objective reality. When the physical body, your mind and you are equanimous, a non dual reality is reached, higher consciousness. It takes discipline to want to distance yourself from your mind and body. To reach these higher states Love is the quickest bridge, because Divine Love does not have hate, discrimination, judgement, it is pure unconditional Love for the Universe and all within it. Every sage, religion, Saint, mystic that has reached Consciousness defines Love, which one has to experience. 🙏
Cathy L I just want to say that you are a beautiful writer. I hope you work in a field or otherwise occupy yourself with pursuits that allow you to write and take full advantage of this talent. Very well said!
@@consciousliving.africa well said .
"Pennies may have dropped", lmao.
Sam keeps going on about “temptation”, it’s the temptation to presume matter exists independently without perception - that’s temptation.
Well said
Yes,we are back to the garden of eden ,the temptation in the apple grown in the tree of knowledge
That was a brilliant chat! More of those please! BTW there is plenty of evidence of people retaining consciousness during surgery under anaesthetic, such as Pamela Reynolds, who popped out of her body (or rather viewed events from a non local aspect), watched the procedure and remembered conversations and instruments used in theatre. Her story corroborated with the surgeons, much to their horror, haha!
This is just an anecdote. Nothing like this has ever been proven. It could easily be proven if it was real.
@@benjaminnord1465. So what you believe to be real is the only reality there is? There is good reason to believe that we may exist in a multi-dimensional multiverse where the laws of physics as we know them are very different from ours.
If anyone is interested, I think this passage from a blog by Bernardo Kastrup on why the ontology of idealism/nonduality is the most parsimonious model of reality is well worth a read:
“Indeed, we can make the following four statements about reality:
My conscious perceptions exist;
Other conscious perceptions, separate from my own, exist;
There are things that exist independently of conscious perception;
Things that are independent of conscious perception create conscious perception.
My own worldview, as discussed in my books and other articles in this blog, requires statements 1 and 2 to hold. In other words, it acknowledges the most certain and then requires merely a small leap of faith. The reigning materialist worldview, on the other hand, requires all four statements above to hold; a gargantuan and gratuitous leap of faith. This is what I called our modern madness.”
At the end of Sam's conversation with the Nagarjuna expert, Garfield, Sam talks about this world being a dream! It blew my mind. Also in one of Sam's meditation podcasts he does mention consciousness being primary! I feel Sam has many aspects. He has the pop persona and the real Sam Harris who is more in line with consciousness itself. Also, in this interview and the one with Adyashanti, Sam is debating and so were Rupert and Adya. But in Sam's interviews with Papaji's students and with the Zen lady Jayasara, Sam is completely different in that he lets his hair down and talks about spiritual things and he sounds less robotic. I wonder if others have noticed this?
Like everyone else Sam has the potential to wake up. It's harder for him as he allowed life to feed his ego, which is in the way.
Holy shite. Two of my heroes. I'm actually a little nervous to listen lol
Haha nice. Hope you had a good time like i had. You know you can listen to the full conversation on Sam's podcast.
Your lessor self feels nervous; your higher self is experiencing empathy. The blending being the basis of the statement " be in it but not of it"
@@bigfletch8 you really believe in this lower self higher self ego etc business ? Their is no such thing its only you you and you just you but ive youre possessed or schizo you could have more than 1 in you
My feelings exactly.
@@mementomori5374 The lower self is an illusion, but when believed in we make the lower self our reality. In non-duality a distinction is made between the Real and reality. The Real is the actual reality and "reality" is the dream of the Real. When the Real forgets itself, it creates this kind of dreambubble that it now lives in and sees as reality. But it, usually consisting of the (small) self, the world and in some also God, all is illusion. It is illusion, yet it is seen as reality, because one is ignorant of the Real.
It's useful to make this distinction.
I would be interested to see Sam Harris do a deep dive into near death experiences. There are many NDE occurrences in which doctors are stating that they have no idea how the patient knew which tools they were using when the patients eyes were taped shut, or how they could have known that the patients father was drinking a Pepsi in the waiting room. One woman spoke of a sneaker being wedged in a window on another floor of the hospital. A nurse went up to that floor and realized the patient was correct. These NDE experiences (the conscious experience they have outside their own brain/mind) could be a way to really move us forward with these debates. Doctors are now beginning to collect data from all over the world especially from those whom have had a heart attack (because of the higher probability they can bring them back).
He speaks about them at length in his book "waking up". Entire chapter dedicated to them... Just FYI 🙂
@@BakerWase Thanks! I'll check it out!
@@BakerWase Thanks again! Interesting article but he appears to really zero in on Alexander. I think Sam would need to go much deeper into this space before writing again on it. Much of what he wrote in that article is a tell and overwhelmingly demonstrates the surface knowledge & extremely limited research he has likely done on the subject matter. That's the problem with not going deep enough into a space. But he's a generalist that enjoys speaking about deep topics. He tends to have a difficult time when running up against those who do go much deeper than Sam such as David Deutsch who wrote the Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity (both great books by the way).
@@JamesDidato Hmm I do agree in this case - that article is not the same as his book and his book elaborated further.
He also has spoke to David Deutcsh but I don't know if they touched on NDE tbh...
I think his main point is a difficult one for NDE to overcome - namely, if there was truly 0 brain activity, it is extremely hard to envision a way that memories could be made that can then be recalled after brain activity returns.
Do you have any recommended podcasts or reading on the matter Jimmy ?
Thanks for a respectful dialogue ! :)
@@BakerWase Most materialists likely believe that memories are stored as material traces in brains. But we have to ask them to summarize the evidence. We have to ask how they think memory retrieval systems recognize the memories they are trying to retrieve from memory stores. We have to ask them if they think there is a possibility that memory might depend on some kind of "resonance" rather than on material traces. If the Trace Theory of memory is a testable hypothesis rather than a dogma, how could it be established experimentally that memory depends on traces rather than resonance? Repeated failures to find memory traces fit well with the idea of memory as a resonant phenomenon, where similar patterns of activity in the past affect present activities in minds and brains.
Both Sam and Rupert did an excellent job at digging into the topic.Thank you teachers and thinkers for offering us such an interesting and complex discussion on the various facets of our collective existence. Many of us would be hard pressed to maintain a productive conversation on topics like this one, so skillfully.
There is no thinker. Thoughts only appear to happen.
@@highvibefreqzshow5967 , such as it is in youtube :
There is no youtube commentator
Comments only appear to happen. B-)
@@solarnaut Well in reality there isn't really an entity called "CZcams." Just like there are no speakers in a video, there only seems to be sounding emerging from within this Silence "it"-Self. 🙏
How can we deny the only existence we ever experience “ I am “ ? No wonder so much depression and suffering around. When we deny ourselves of our own being nothing can fulfill that lack no matter how hard we try, at the end we’re just doomed to despair and everlasting sense of lack.
No experience we have is the "I Am." "I Am" in its proper sense is without experience. Our experience arises out of being. Suffering only occurs when we believe ourselves to be our experience and not our being. When we are being our true selves, which is being, there is no suffering.
This is something I keep hearing repeated: Sam is alluding to consciousness (personal individual awareness). Rupert is alluding to Consciousness (the "stuff" of reality). They are speaking past each other.
This is a good observation. It seems at some point of deeper realization these things blend together and you go from being a Sam to experiencing a Rupert and the consciousness of personal awareness is self-obsserved to be the Consciousness that also bases the ground of all reality.
very good. the only thing we are absolutely certain is this awareness. What is being witnessed by this awareness could be real or merely a dream. There is no way for us to know which one is true. That's the rule of this game. Now be happy with this awareness whether it's real or a dream. If it's a dream, it better be a good dream.
Swami Sarvapriyananda would be an excellent guest to discuss Advaita Vedanta.
He has a very clear description of nonduality and the mind.
Swami goes to the fundamentals with such a large array of work from Upanishads to ashtavakra Geeta , so a conversation is a must between them, i think it would be hard to describe the event between them as a debate, may be more as a discussion, n that surely would be a melody for ears to amateur spiritualists 😍😍😍😍
Swami Sarvapriyananda's conversation with Sam Harris is present on YT. Do check it out.
Weird that Sam would ask Rupert to bracket claims about reality but physics isn't held up to the same standard. I've seen Sam in other contexts and he's smart as a whip. I have six degrees and used to teach philosophy at Princeton and I'm not sure I'd want to tangle with him, at least not in real time. My own way is slower and more contemplative. Sam's smart but here he just seems to be riding on the usual tribal beliefs in favour of the reigning bias. Let's cut to the chase. Science hasn't managed to come up with any explanation for consciousness. Its best shot has been complexity, but there's nothing about complexity that explains consciousness. As far as form (as opposed to content) Sam perhaps hasn't followed Rupert much and so might be forgiven for not knowing that Rupert's way tends to be interrogative. Sam seems to have been distressed by other teachers making claims that exceed the parameters of the known. But fifty times I've seen Rupert clear the decks and say, in effect: "look, let's just proceed with what we know to be true. What we ourselves can experience." Against this, Sam's position seems religious with its invocation of priests and specialists and so on. All neurological assessments, all data, everything comes through experience. The reverse is not true. What science is there that Sam thinks isn't filtered through our experience?
Yes!
Thanks for commenting, David. First, just as an aside, usually “six degrees” is followed by “of separation” or “of Kevin Bacon,” but to see it preceded by “I have” is definitely unusual. I mean, that’s like 5½ more than I’ve got, so…wow.
But on a more meaningful note, I agree with what you’ve said here. Neuroscience has so far shown only correlation, not causation, between consciousness and the brain. But even on that front, a more subtle and overlooked point is that what those correlations pertain to isn’t even consciousness per se, but rather the various _contents_ of consciousness in the form of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. The purely subjective dynamic that gives those contents their defining salience, and that serves as their noumenal basis, is nowhere to be found in any fMRI and EEG data.
I think it’s fair to say that idealism and materialism each rests on an inference. The problem with materialism is that the inference it rests on is epistemologically unsound, since it posits a reality outside of consciousness - something that even in principle could never be validated. As for the adjacent argument Sam makes here, concerning the _"amazing spectrum of effects in terms of making predictions,"_ which I acknowledge to be a persuasive consideration, it’s good to note that those predictions and their eventual confirmation or disconfirmation are all predicated on, and animated by, consciousness.
Similarly, the question _if idealism is true, what gives reality its durability and predictability, its “tenacious realism”?_ to paraphrase someone I conversed with about this recently. The implication of the question seems to be that only materialism can account for such “realism” because, obviously, under idealism everything should be surreal and dreamlike. Of course, even dreams have a sense of realism and self-consistency while one is identified as a character within them, although they also usually lack the narrative continuity and seriality of waking life. It kind of reminds me of the contrast between the quantum world and everyday reality (or quantum v quotidian, to be pithy and alliterative), where the former seems to be governed by laws and forces that are completely belied at the macro scale.
@@_PL_ oh, your alliterative pith pleases me. Qu- and qu-. Very tiny things don't seem to pay much attention to our laws, do they? If I were to bump around in the quantum world I'd always be hitting my head on doorframes--just too tall I suppose. Damn quantum building codes. As to alliterative and pithy, I suppose that's like starting well and getting right to the heart of things.
I see you've quoted Sam as saying something approving about making predictions, and you rightly point out that that sort of thing is persuasive, but not particularly persuasive in terms of giving us a scientific account of consciousness. Oldnew old Newtonianism has been very good at predicting the behaviour of balls in the billiards game that has become our common sense. A sort of ball psychology--noticing ball behaviour and predicting outcomes. In the last century or so we've added waves and particles to the old balls. Became very pleased with ourselves for, how did Sam say it--this amazing spectrum of effects in terms of making predictions. Sheesh. I'm seeing Barnum and Bailey, "amazing" plus a nice gypsy lady making predictions from her crystal ball. A sort of carney feel to it. Puffs of steam, the crowd oohs and aaahhs. And science is admittedly an impressive three-ring circus. Tenacious realism indeed. But as you suggest, not much good at giving us the good stuff. An account of consciousness. Happiness (that'd be good too).
And I'm liking your nuance, your "more subtle and overlooked point," that neuroscience's correlational consciousness isn't even that. It's the stuffing. Consciousness's stuffing. I'm visualizing one of those old pumpkin life preservers with the kapok being plucked out. Stuff in consciousness.
And yeah, thank-you for the necessary facetiousness here with the common-sense but silly idea that without materialism everything's going to be sort of low rez, like a cheap video game. Like it's a cautionary tale, and if we lose our grip on materialist realism stuff's gonna get surreal. If we stop believing that the high priests of neuroscience are standing on some privileged platform outside the whole system what's going to happen to us? We'll, like, start seeing people only in outlines? I'm melting! I stopped believing in neuroscience's special viewing platform!
Thank-you for making the connection with six degrees of separation. In the middle of that life, with everyone's expectations on me as the rising young academic, I just quit. Didn't retire, just walked away. I would say it was all a waste of time except that going the long way round like that was probably the only way forward. In other words, all that failure was necessary and important. And I had to spend a few years on the streets to work some shit out. Coming to rest here in a trailer with a woman who's worked out from intuition and experiment and weirdly long breath-holds what I've been piecing together from books and street living.
@@davidthomson802 Your story sounds intriguing. If you've ever written about it in a blog or something, I'd be interested in reading it. Yes, it's interesting how we tend to learn and grow more through failure and strife than through sailing along with the program (though all that and more are still natural and necessary phases of life). Always nice to have a kindred partner, too ;-)
@David Thomson Disagree. Spira said "let's start from what we know" and then proceeded to make a leap into declaring an understanding of what can't be known, namely objective reality
16:05 Harris "This could be purely a semantic distinction....." No. It is not.
He always says that. He said that repeatedly during the interview with Jim Newman too!
Rupert Spira is a very intelligent individual
As Sam mentions people under anesthesia totally lose awareness. But while that happens at first to people under anesthesia who also have a near death experience, awareness often returns while still under the affects of the anesthesia and they sometimes are aware and see people working on their body from above.
yes, true
I had one and first I wondered where am I ?? in the infinite space with my thoughts alone :0 than I have got answer from a voice....
those people didn't loose awareness, but the contents of their awareness changed to a void-like state, similarly when we deeply sleep. awareness cannot be gained or loosed, because it is the ground in which any state of gaining or loosing surges.
in a way, i think sam is right when he says there is a semantic issue, because in usual language 'awareness' and 'consciousness' overlap with 'mind' and 'attention', so there is no word left for this pre-cognitive I-basis I just referred.
@@mihadono Under anesthesia I dont think its a void like state as sleep usually is. If Sam is right that its a semantic issue then I dont see it. I see a stark difference between a materialist and non materialist.
I mean, it's also been argued that what we know as "unconscious" may well be conscious anyway philpapers.org/archive/KASTIA.pdf so it's not like that's much of a strong point to start with.
It's clear that Sam rather wants to win and appear like the smarter one rather than to listen. He doesn't even try to understand what Rupert is saying before coming up with a "counter attack". This is sad. It would have been a much better talk if he actually wanted them to understand each other.
Harris assumes the two of them have had the same experiences, then says "no one knows the reality" (assuming he knows that). What if people, like Rupert, have had experiences that Sam has not. Maybe Rupert isn't just assuming these things, as Harris implies. Maybe he is actually experiencing it. And maybe an experience can tell something about the truth. Just because Sam hasn't experienced it, doesn't mean no one has or that it is not real.
To me, Sam showed quite a bit patience throughout this whole part of the conversation. He was carefully listening to Rupert and responding accordingly.
@@haroldmatias12 patience with what exactly?
@@Lullefication He just seems patient in general. I point this out because I don't see that attitude in Sam of just wanting "to win and appear smart". If that's how you see him, maybe he is in fact quite smart and made the better point in this exchange. Namely, that there is a reality out there whether there are conscious creatures to be aware of it or not.
@@haroldmatias12 There is absolutley no doubt that Sam Harris is a very smart guy. I'm not trying to say that he is not. What I mean is that he is not very open to the possibility that what Rupert says isn't just asumptions. Harris uses his logic to make it sound like the other person is not using logic, and in that way invalidating their experience, without having experienced the same thing himself. An experience has nothing to do with logic. And regarding to if there is a reality without consciousness or not, it is in fact something that can't ever be proven or disproven, because only a conscious being can try to prove it, making it impossible. And I'm not saying that you should believe matter does not exist without consciousness, you believe what you want. I'm just saying that it is impossible to tell, and therefore a belief rather than a proven truth. This is what Rupert was saying. And like him I also find it peculiar that so many people find it more reasonable to think that something seemingly dead (matter) can give rise to something living (consciousness) than the other way around.
@@Lullefication I understand your point and there is no way to refute it the way I see it.
The thing is that this kind of intellectual stalemate does little to further our understanding of a possible shared reality, including an understanding of our subjective experiences. We have to pull ourselves by our bootstraps to one extent or another, and positing that there is a reality independent of our existence seems to be a theoretical minimum to keep ourselves from being paralyzed and intellectually moot.
"A materialist scientist's belief that there is something outside consciousness, namely matter, is an unverifiable belief". Hit the nail right on the head.
The thing is that most scientists are not at all interested in ‘the fundamental nature of reality’, they just want their science to work. Philosophical idealism or dualism has never solved any practical problem. Materialism does. Another thing is that making consciousness fundamental without even understanding it, is nothing more then crypto-religion, which just puts consciousness in the place of ‘God’, it explaines nothing.
An amazing discussion - I wish though that it had not ended as it did. I would loved to have heard Rupert's response to the last question posed by Sam Harris - the idea that there is a separate reality from us - that there is another . . .
"I will never experience anything directly outside my own consciousness," concedes Sam. So can we all go home now? Yet notice that, despite having conceded the essential of the difference between the two men, Sam just can't let it be. First it's the attempt to degrade the simple honest truth he has spoken by calling it a tautology. Well I've said this a thousand times but the thousand-and-first iteration might well be worth it: not every tautology takes you nowhere. Tautologies are usually used as a put-down, but they can also often reveal a truth so simple and certain and frankly obvious that they are essentially just a restatement (very close to phatic communication but I'll not get into that).
Noticed that too, that although he accepts intellectually that all that is ever known is consciousness, he still believes that there is something apart from consciousness and cant seem to let go of that belief
@@XxXjuan96carlosXxX To be fair, Rupert doesn't PROPERLY explain the non-dual philosophy.
@@TheWorldTeacher how can you explain the unexplainable? Every teacher tries to get as close to the teaching as possible, but none will ever be able to articulate it correctly, and thats fine because it is up to us to discover it in our own experience.
@@XxXjuan96carlosXxX
02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Impersonal Absolute NOTHINGNESS (otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF.
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of temporary, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an 'awakened' individual.
APPARENTLY, this phenomenal universe was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning ‘all this is indeed Brahman’ or ‘everything is the Universal Self alone’). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation:
E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit for tat”) karma is just that - an unverified belief. Likewise, the notion of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal 'doership' - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling or unable to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements and the three subtle material elements, listed above.
The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one's core identity). This is the very same peace which is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This 'resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness' can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one's life.
Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (religion) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or else in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is often referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life.
Fortunately, that is not the case - it is eminently possible to live one's life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined.
Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure which enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture.
So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to be liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT?
WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher.
Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life - all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course.
Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment.
@@TheWorldTeacher do not worry, i understand
17:00 lol. Yea, Rupert makes a good point!! Lol. Trust direct experience
Was it a sarcasm
So much of what rupert claims are simply presuppositions. He is trapped in egoic beliefs of how he thinks things are supposed to be, rather than letting experiecne inform him of how it is. Most of these 'teachers' are full of shit to an extent. The whole guru thing is looking like a scam atm.
"...consciousness is a coherent whole, which is never static or complete, but which is in an unending process of movement and unfoldment." - David Bohm
Most people here are failing to understand Sam's position. Consider this
Suppose there was an objective reality and consciousness was somehow an emergent phenomenon of that objective reality, how would your subjective experience be any different than it is now? Subjectively, everything would still appear in consciousness and no matter what we studied (obects appearing in consciousness) consciousness would still be the filter through which we'd know anything. Even in that universe, nothing about the experience of "oneness" would reveal to you anything about the objective reality. That is what Sam is trying to get at. That subjective experience of oneness alone is insufficient to make a definite claim about THE OBJECTIVE REALiTY.
Now it is entirely possible that we can combine subjective & objective means (physics) to come to know about the objective reality but it is also possible we may never get to know anything about the objective reality. It may be beyond our capacity. I'm agnostic on this issue.
Before you start hating me, i should say none of this takes anything away from spiritual experience. It is the most important thing one can wake up to. I have had psychedelics in the past and i practice meditation as well and i consider that we are all spititual beings. Having said that, I'm open to the idea that consciousness might be the basis of objective reality and i do appreciate the fact that some scientists and philosophers like david hoffman and david chalmers for example take the notion of consciousness being a fundamental force seriously. We need people investigating this claim without blindly accepting the idea. In the end i would say, dogmatism on both sides, be it hardcore materialists, who are convinced that brain produces consciousness and on the other end, some people in psychedelics/spiritual circle who think that experience of oneness alone is a sufficient basis for coming to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental to the objective reality are both in the end, mirror images of each other. If experience of oneness tells me something, it's that consciousness is a deep mystery. An ever present one.
Thank God I’ve found someone else who actually understands what Harris was saying, and you put it very well. Reading the CZcams comments can be a frustrating and depressing ordeal.
One simply cannot make a claim about the relationship between consciousness and any supposed independent reality. The universe is exactly as you’d expect it to seem if materialism were true and exactly as you’d expect it to seem if idealism were true. The only intellectually honest thing to do is remain agnostic and admit that our experience admits of no insight into metaphysical statements about the place of consciousness.
Best comment here...
@@motorhead48067 haha i know what you mean. Although i do understand why people think it is important for them to beleive in consciousness being fundamental. I think for some reason, they think it gives life special meaning and ofcourse afterlife seems possible in this view. Also, it is a pushback against people they consider to be uptight materialists "who act like they know it all" lol. So it is consciousness hating consciousness while subscribing that it is the same consciousness and at the same time, it is also the enemy to be defeated lol.Also, think they take it to mean that consciousness won't be special anymore if it was an emergent phenomenon and "the sacred" would go out the window. Personally, i think it does not take anything away even if consciousness did turn out to be an emergent phenomenon but it will be more interesting if "Mind at large" idea of Aldous Huxley did turn out to be true. Are you familiar with Donald Hoffman's work?
Having said all this, i'd say I like Sam and i almost share his position on this but he is less open minded and less adventurous than his wife Annaka on these issues. Annaka is awesome.
@@verumverboten5549 i think from POV of a person who is saying that Sam Harris is a materialist, their argument would be the following
"The locus of consciousness that goes by the name "Sam Harris" seem to think that there is such thing as matter. What Sam calls matter are actually just fluctuations at the quantum level and quantum mechanics has shown that you need an observer for the wave function to collapse at the quantum level making consciousness fundamental for quantum mechanics to make sense"
Or they usually argue
"Since consciousness is the ultimate filter through which we know anything, everything we call "out there" or "matter" is just consciousness itself manifested in that form and since there is no such thing as matter, all there is, was and will be is consciousness itself. Matter is a myth"
These are views i do not share and there are some problems with this view imo. Because copenhagen interpretation is not the final truth and there are other interpretations like David Bohm's model or Many Worlds interpretation. The second problem is that since consciousness is the ultimate filter through which we know anything, whatever we are studying be it physics even at the quantum level, is ultimately filtered through consciousness, meaning we can never get behind consciousness. This means we may know nothing about the objective reality (if such a reality exists) or that we may never get to say anything about that objective reality. Also, making a leap from "subjecively everything is consciousness" to "consciousness is fundamental fabric of the objective reality" is a big leap. Many people who argue for idealism just based on "experience of oneness" don't recognize the problem with this move.
When they (people who agree with rupert) call someone a materialist, i think they just mean someone who "thinks" there is such thing as matter. And they "presume" that this thing is inanimate. From their POV, a materialist "thinks" this matter (inanimate) somehow gives rise to consciousness. From their POV, even if they assume there is such a thing as matter, they can't fathom how can something dead as matter may give rise to subjectivity or experience of that matter. And since they cannot fathom this, they think consiousness must be fundamental for the anything to exist. I hope i did justice to their position.
Consciousness as a mystery may as well be outside the realm of science to solve. Even if consciousness is fundamental to the objective reality, i don't have a clue what would count as "evidence" for it's proof. On the other hand, if there is an objective reality and consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the objective reality, we may nevrer get to know that objective reality since we can never get behind consciousness. To me, Consciousess is deeply myterious and i am actually okay with the idea of never finding out answers to these questions.
Having said that , i should mention Sam is agnostic about this issue. He is neither a materialist or an idealist. People who are calling him a materialist are just mistaken about his position.
I would have liked to see Sam push Rupert further on Rupert's extrapolation from his experience of consciousness to an account of reality as a whole. When he asked that question, Rupert didn't answer that but went on to a different question about the assumptions of materialism. The points he made were correct but were a diversion from Sam's question.
I agree with each of your points. My take is that one can come to a direct (i.e., nondual or unmediated) realization that's authoritative for oneself, but will still be unable to turn this realization into the sort of conceptual or logical proof that would be necessary to convince anyone else in the absence of their own direct realization.
Rupert strikes me as more intuitively oriented than rigorously intellectual or philosophical, and so I'm not sure how fruitful or interesting his response would've been had he not diverted to that critique of materialism.
@@_PL_ Yes indeed. Two good guys with slightly different orientations to an important field, both using the dialogue to arrive at better understanding. Thank you for sharing it.
It ended like I thought it would.
I have such respect for Rupert Spira & just now discovered that Sam Harris comes from an agnostic materialist perspective. Having experienced the loss of separation in the ‘waking’ state, and the dissolution of a separate self, into one of ‘all that is -is no separation’, no one can describe that Knowing with the egoic mind, as it is beyond the experience of a separate mind/self. For ‘me’, it was and truly is ‘Waking Up’
SH isn't agnostic.
He's an atheist - and is also (or at least was) an anti-theist.
And someone who in the past has made a huge contribution to the cause of promoting intelligence, rationality, and science, and countering the ever pervasive forces of stupidity, magical thinking, and anti-rationality.
So it's extremely disappointing to see him wasting time on - and giving a platform to - a low-brow "neo-vedanta"/"new-age mumbo-jumbo" snake oil salesman like speira!
SH isn't an agnostic.
He's (famous for being) an atheist.
And also for being (or at least he was) an anti-theist.
Who has done a huge amount of good, by challenging and refuting theism, magical thinking, and the worship of irrationality and mumbo-jumbo.
So it's profoundly disappointing to see him engaging with - and giving a platform to - a lowbrow purveyor of "neo-vedanta" and new -age nonsense like Spira!
@@sibanought Sam Harris tried to find God and failed. Maybe in his next life. I can't see this mountain of ego dissolve in this lifetime but wish him luck.
Where is Bernardo Kastrup? We need Kastrup to debate Harris. I feel that Sam knows about him, but runs away from Kastrup. He has done it before, when Bernardo asked him a few times for a debate and Sam Harris said NO.
possible next conversation - Sam Harris and Bernardo Kastrup
Yes!
Connection
The most needed
This is the podcast to make
@@Mramidu
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION:
The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”.
The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”.
The PHYSICAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty.
The mind and intellect are phenomena arising in consciousness (even if one considers that mind is a function of the brain), and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of epistemology.
It is impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness.
How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness?
Consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge.
All that can be said or known about the world is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject/object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic.
So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not actually seeing the tree in any direct sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of the sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there’s nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as the “Schrödinger's cat” hypothesis.
As Lord Śri Krishna so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, material scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming homo sapien society will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race but for it to be acted upon; that is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism.
So, just as the physical scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “it” is conscious, of a steady state (i.e. imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yoga”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga.
When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that physical phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20).
Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a topic of debate, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace.
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century:
E=∞BCP (Everything is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace)
Alternatively, and more simply, expressed as:
E= A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness)
For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to Chapters 05 and 06.
In summary, actual science and actual religion/mysticism are IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of observable phenomena, whilst the other deals mainly with the inner-world of man, particularly with the subject (i.e. the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs both.” Without authentic religion, scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence, spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism.
“Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.”
*************
“Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness;
just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.”
Rupert Spira,
English Spiritual Teacher.
“Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.”
*************
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.”
*************
“Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.”
*************
“Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.”
David Bohm, American Theoretical Physicist,
From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”
A great conversation between two great minds. But, Sam is still thinking about it, Rupert has thought and to a great extent realised 'it'.
Sam is not thinking, he has understood it differently and he is playing role as if he new on non-duality. Moreover he has complex that Dzogchen is better approach than non-duality. But the end result of both are same (I can say it by my own experience). Though Dzogchen may be faster way of understanding for some of the brilliant individuals.
Rupert Spira is truly wonderful
He's a scammer
Beautiful conversation.
It was great to hear Sam and Rupert talk. I used to read a lot of Rupert's stuff and I have heard him speak in London several times in Hampstead. However, I wonder whether it is essentially the same thing ( or at least very similar) to that Bishop Berkeley was advocating three hundred years ago. Berkeley called it God whereas Rupert calls it consciousness.
Most likely. Monotheism has messed up so much for so many that the word god is the most abused word probably ever next to awake, feminism and socialism. And it’s all coming from conscious ness thru the illusion of mind
There is a podcast where Rupert answers this and how his view differs from Barkley. I think the podcast is with Rupert Shelldrake? or similar to that.
My guess is that consciousness is the infinite being aware of the finite manifestation of itself. My reasoning is that consciousness is aware of the world which means that there is a duality yet reality is at the same time one "thing".
How can one point with words to what is beyond words. This is some stunning verbal acrobatics, especially by Sam, but Rupert clearly has a greater depth of understanding.
Most excellent. I would love to experience more debates of this type particularly with Mr. Spira. Often the attempt to disprove a claim by this method is called *dialectic.* It brings basic concepts to light. And light is what i crave more of. Heat ???? Not so much.
Hurtz
In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, written 2500 years ago (conservatively speaking), one of the aphorisms states -- "knowledge is from direct experience, the testimony of a reliable witness, or intuition". In all cases, Consciousness is the primary mode of knowing. Even in the case of the anesthesia -- the assumption Sam is making is that the "awareness" is only localized to a body-mind. Actually, for those who have advanced yogic capabilities, even these so-called "unconscious" experiences are simply awareness without any objects. This is an everyday experience of deep sleep. In order to 'experience' deep sleep, a certain degree of disentanglement with the mind needs to occur (in the waking and dream states) -- which is called "abiding in awareness". Then deep sleep is simply and directly known as "deep sleep" while it is occurring. Similarly with anesthesia. Such people can be & are perfectly lucid across all three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep.
The common problem with the kind of questions Sam had vis-a-vis the problem of one being under anesthesia while the world continues on without him, is that of conflating consciousness and the mind. The world is known in the mind. A localized mind has localized knowledge. Consciousness is not the mind, it is that which illuminates all minds.
In non-dual traditions, the experience of non-duality can be one of "no self" and before that, a sense of "expanded self" where everything seems like you. I wonder if Sam is in the expanded self category and Rupert is in the no self lane. This would explain the differences in their cosmologies. I love Sam's pressing of this question. I think it's perfectly in line with the concept of vipassana and seeing things are they truly are. If Sam doesn't have the experience the Rupert is explaining, then he should question it. So many people take scripture as truth. It seems like the Buddha would have warned against this.
If Sam doesn't have the experience the Rupert is explaining, then he should question it. So many people take scripture as truth. It seems like the Buddha would have warned against this.
buddha did warn against not questioning even what he said.
Listening to this debate I felt that Rupert kept on insisting about ‘water’ ( this is a very classic example in Indian non dual tradition: water and wave ) while Sam would half heartedly acknowledge the water but keeps insisting that ... look at these waves they are interesting in themselves ( like : how stars evolve etc.. ) and also now and then opine that just because you are water that does not mean you would know how high the waves are ( paraphrasing the anesthesia analogy in the debate) . Rupert does agree with that ... but those are details that have only transactional validity to Rupert and hence do not in anyway change the fundamental nature of consciousness.
.
Well observed. Rupert cuts to the chase of what really matters. He doesn't get hooked on all these intellectual baits. Anyone who thinks these two are somehow on a similar level of understanding has no idea. Sam is an intellectual pretending to be spiritual.
12:48 "No one's talkin' about the God head if you're just running from a leapard" 😂😂👌
As a matter of fact its a great way to empty the mind, a costly one indeed. But extremely effective 😂
A great example of total identification with the body - Sam is very confused in all things spiritual.
As an anesthesiologist, I’m glad they discuss the phenomenon of anesthesia. It’s definitely an interesting experience!
16:10 Sam: _"This could be purely a semantic distinction. The temptation to talk about matter is born of this undeniable fact that there seems to be processes at large about which no conscious mind is currently conscious..."_
But you don't really know that either. You don't know if consciousness isn't conscious of it. You just know that your little conscious mind - as you experience and know it now - isn't conscious of it.
_"And yet these processes explain the things we are conscious of"_
Actually, they don't. They don't explain how we're conscious or why we're conscious. Nor do they explain how phenomena are separate or independent of consciousness. They don't explain any of that.
And even if the planet was wiped, consciousness would still remain. Because according to non-dual philosophy, consciousness is all there is anyway.----- All the hifaluten materialism or claims that there's something separate form consciousness is totally unnecessary.
Well put.
Jordan Peterson style linguistic acrobatics trying to hide from the truth. Sam hit the nail on the head by Asking Rupert what would count as evidence against his position.
@@shader5410 Actually, Rupert hit it on the head when he called out Sam's hifaluten philosophical bs by stating that "materialist philosophy claims that there is something outside of consciousness" i.e. matter, "...which has never been experienced"... it's mere intellectual projection; a poor substitute belief for lack of an adequate explanation. He also points out that "at least a religious person is honest enough to admit that it's a belief" as opposed to materialist philosophers that don't have the integrity or honesty to admit that their claims are also beliefs. I think that was the real nail in the coffin in all this.
@@Corteum Yeah except the religious person lacks the honesty to admit that he/she always knows the answer before the reality investigation even starts.
The desperation is evident when trying to argue that we all believe in matter without evidence. Simply taking matter and hard science as it is would shatter your god bs.
@@Corteum The materialism assumption is where you're getting this absolutely 100% wrong.
Science is NOT commited to the view that materialism is true. Science is open to what ever is true.
Wonderful exchange. The world needs more exchanges of opposing opinions in a rational manner.
I would have loved to have seen a discussion between Sam & Ian Paisley (deceased Unionist politician Northern Ireland)
My mother was fond of using the expression; Empty vessels make the loudest noise.
Didn’t expect to read that!😂
In this case Sam should pontificate less and listen more.
Wrong - Spira uses a mystical experience to justify a metaphysical proposition; Harris acknowledges a mystical experience, without making any metaphysical proposition
@@livefastdieyoung2470 spira after his practice has only peace and love in his heart, progress driven humans are bombing us with wars, anxiety and destruction from the first moment it got addicted to ego.
@@livefastdieyoung2470 when you thin that experience is mystical ... what would not be then.
@@livefastdieyoung2470 what mystical experience? Consciousness? It's the most obvious thing there is,,,how is that mystical?
@@snowdog87 My point still holds. Whatever you want to call it, it can't be used to justify a metaphysical proposition
I wanna listen more!
I wi
This is probably taken from the podcast of sam. He has a podcast with rupert both on waking up app and his website. The podcast is called Making sense. The category is Waking up conversations.
You'll have to subscribe to Sam's meditation app then. The full conversation can be heard there and it runs about 1.5 hours.
My friend's aunt viewed events from a non local perspective while in coma. When she got out of coma in the next day, she asked my friend and other family members: 'why were you all so worried?' and she could also tell the clothes they were wearing and surprisingly, all she said was confirmed to be true. Everyone in the family was shocked. Now, no one in my friend's family proclaims that they know how the world works. They admit "there are lots of things that we do not know and we cannot make assumptions about anything -- including the assumption that consciousness is generated in the body"
Consciousness pervades the body. Usually human beings experience consciousness from human-perspective. However, that doesn't mean the stuff outside, like stars, in far away galaxies, are outside consciousness. Human-consicousness is like a facet of a diamond, yet it IS the entire diamond at the same time and it is possible to have the experience of both the individual facet of the diamond as well as the entire diamond. By "entire diamond" -- I mean the entire universe (or multi-verses), even the ones that not not directly experienced by the human-body, like galaxies that science knows exists but the human consciounsness cannot experience.
With careful contemplation, the primacy of cosciousness over materialism becomes self evident.
Scientists point of view consciousness is merely being conscious of something, where in non duality consciousness or rather pure consciousness is not an object of the mind so it can’t be really conceptualised. Because conscious mind being limited can only talk about something that’s limited. And pure consciousness has no boundaries.
I would not say that consciousness is a 'seeming of something happening.'
Rather, consciousness is an indisputable fact, which stands on its own and does not depend on the universe. One could say that the universe depends on consciousness. It is not possible to investigate the universe without going through consciousness which is the reality of the universe.
Whatever processes at large are underway, they are operational as an aspect of consciousness and have no independent reality outside of consciousness.
Anesthesia is a discontinuity of form. One can turnoff the light switch in a room. This does not mean that the current/grid is turned off. It is only a local switch that has been interrupted which does not augment nor diminish its reality, which is the current/grid.
Isn't this the same argument as saying that a radio or TV are the creators of the electromagnetic waves, because without these devices you are not able to perceive them?
@@janschneider8647 Yes. The radio is 'subject' to the electromagnetic waves.
The electromagnetic waves are not 'subject' to the radio/instrument.
@@janschneider8647
The perceiver is not perceived.
Reality is not perceived (formless). That which is perceived (does not perceive) is a 'creative expression' of the formless.
@@MagdiNonDuality How do you know that the perceiver cannot be perceived?
do you have any evidence for it?
How do you know that reality is not perceived? What is your definition of formless?
What do you mean by creative? what do you mean by expression?
I'm jumping a bit here, but if consciousness cannot be perceived, how can you add attributes to it like being infinite or formless? Where is the evidence for it?
If the answer is, to do some introspection, which is a good one, how can I know that the reason I can't find limits or forms to consciousness or reality is just that my instruments are not good enough to do that?
What I'm trying to say is that our mind and body are not capable to make any accurate assertion about the nature of consciousness. Nevertheless, those are the only instruments we have. Adding attributes to consciousness that we cannot experience is as incorrect as saying that the matter in the brain magically creates the phenomenon of consciousness. At the moment, there is just not evidence that consciousness is eternal, infinite, and independent from the universe, and also no evidence that consciousness is created by certain configurations presented in the universe.
Based on experience and evidence we can just state that both consciousness and the universe exist in reality. The precise attributes of both consciousness, the universe, and the interaction between them are pretty fussy and to me, it means that there are too many things that we do not know.
When Sam speaks of the nurses and such who can account for thst half hour he fails to realise that Rupert's own sense of experience himself/itself could not in turn account for them nurses. It can be taken on good faith, but there's no underlying absolute truth to it. We understand that time is relative, and from the perspective of light there is no time and space. Everything just is. Is consciousness is unlimited it needn't be restrained to accounts of the past, but rather be experienced as an ever expanding and infinitely updating sense of the 'present' that increasingly infers events of the past.
In the end nobody knows for sure what’s real outside human awareness. Sam made a very good point asking what if there were no human beings, would there be self awareness or just instinct to survive. As articulate as Rupert is on self awareness it comes from being human and we cannot ascertain that consciousness or self awareness s the ground of being. It might be the ground of
Sam, Rupert, I would truly like to hear the rest of this conversation... I will happily join if I can hear further conversations between you both.
It’s on CZcams , just search for their names
Does anyone else agree that it seems like they have two different definitions of the word consciousness and that is where the disagreement stems from?
Sam’s definition is more like what you’d find in the dictionary which is something like: simply being aware, which only complex life forms can be.
Rupert’s definition seems to be more synonymous to simply “being” and not necessarily having to be aware of the being. That would include literally everything that exists. A stone is being but is not aware of its being, a human is being and is aware of its being. Both are being = both are a part of consciousness but only one is aware of the consciousness (according to Ruperts definition).
Does this make sense to anyone else? I’m not great at explaining it, but I feel like Sam and Rupert probably agree with each other if they just make sure that their definitions of “consciousness” are the same and continue the conversation from there. Thoughts?
What you’re getting at is their core disagreement, which is about whether consciousness is the nature of reality at large. They agree on the phenomenology of consciousness, and on its epistemological primacy. But Sam is more conservative about extrapolating that to the nature of being itself. As he says in the clip, he doesn’t take a hard line against this type of idealism, but he’s inclined to hold to the materialist view of consciousness as derivative of neuronal activity.
They’re coming at this discussion from different backgrounds, and maybe also different dispositions, and this is most likely influencing their positions. Aside from being a nonduality teacher, Rupert is an artist (ceramics) with an intuitive disposition; Sam’s a neuroscientist who’s also a public intellectual, something that could make it tougher for his meditative insights to override that “temptation to be materialist” he refers to in the clip.
@@_PL_ Great reply, thanks. Such an interesting subject that I look forward to learning more about and experiencing.
Yes.They are both right,just not equally right.The one view that can include both views is the right view as it is not limited in its view.Consciousness with the a capital C is that what is pure subjectivity,that everything appears in it and as it.Through humans it can "experience" by means of dualistic thinking..subject/object.that is small c conscious.The world is appearing in you,