Sometimes i have the impression that most teachers don't help or allow questioners to fully express themself. Often we are doubtious about something without knowing why just because the doubt is not fully formulated. But once we proceed to clarify it we have the opportunity to answer the question it imply, gaining an insight that is not only a theoretical understading but an intuitive comprehension. I don't understand why this opportunity gets often ignored.
I watched something a few years ago (Maybe a follow-up to The Secret???) with Neale Donald Walsch and Michael Beckwith in which they suggested using the biblical scripture pronouncing God’s name.....”I Am that I Am,” more pragmatically by placing a comma after the word “that.” Ruppart’s suggestion to spend the week looking at everything as himself, triggered the experience I had when consciously applying the comma experiment. For example, when crossing paths with a homeless person asking for money, interacting with an obnoxious coworker, admiring a sunset, or admiring the character of a mentor....etc, rather than judging (myself or the other) I’d consciously say silently in my head, I am that, I am. The second I Am is only to emphasize the first statement - I Am That. I remember it having a pretty significant influence on my overall mood and my ability to hold space and show compassion for others and myself. I hadn’t yet encountered Rupert’s pointings, or practiced self inquiry, so I’m excited to try the experiment again in this deeper context.
The philosopher Bernardo Kastrup explains that beautifully with a metaphor about disassociate personality disorder. The same being having multiple separate points of view is well known in psychiatry.
Rupert Spira is the greatest man in the world to explain reality in models. But in the end, the map is not the territory. Even to say it's a map is to give it to much a credit. Any search for truth is a mindgame. When you drop your search and questions regarding truth, that is when you "drop" your mind and find that you ARE the truth. And all there is..is experiencing.., mysterious and obvious at the same time. Obvious in the way that you find any "search" for truth as foolish(since you ARE the truth). Take care! Love you❤️
Very, very good opinion. Agree and That’s why I converted to Buddhas teaching, but was born into christianity. Absolutely not wrong with a beleive in Jesus and God, but we ARE already the devine inside, without a creation in time! Love you back and Namaste 👍🕉🌺
Interesting , last night in between waking and sleep that narrow slit where your not here nor there I had a thought that said I’m the truth and a fiction at the same time . Sometimes I feel all this searching I’m doing is in a way the obstacle yet my fascination with the truth keeps me curious and the momentum going.
True, mind must vanish and it will fight you because it doesn’t want to go as Dylan Thomas once penned “ gently into that good night” it wants to “ rage rage against the dying of the light [mind]. Avatar Meher said it best decades ago when he discoursed: “Mind wants to know that which is beyond mind. To know that which is beyond mind, mind must go-vanish, leaving no vestige of itself behind. The humour of it is, the mind, which is finite, wants to retain itself and yet know Truth, which is infinite. This is the position of those who seek Truth through intellect. Few grasp this fact, and so most grope and grapple in vain. “ -Meher Baba
How I love this type of sceptical inquiry! It is important that we stay sceptical (and also open-minded) when we are to investigate the mystery of life, consciousness and experience. With open minded scepticism, we don't succumb to either naive acceptance of every idea on the one hand, or close ourselves off to new experience, wisdom and knowledge on the other. This is why curiousity is such an important virtue when it comes to maturing knowledge and wisdom.
How lovely summery, thanks! ❤😊Same is true for when we do our learning, researching and experimenting in the so called natural sciences, too. Look how far critical thinking took us in the matter only model! At last, but not the least, we are now even getting ( back ) to the consciousness only (consciousness as source) model after a few centuries of researching and evolving; see quantum physics.❤ 😊🎉
Rupert has a beautiful deep gentle syrupy voice. I could listen to him for hours on end. He would easily play the God character in a film, sharing his wisdom.
First of all, I really enjoy Rupert's method. One thing I've come to notice now though is that this model of teaching has the disadvantage that the person answering can't really think too deeply about the question. I think this is a disadvantage because it's hard to understand what the questioner's problem really is. Like here, I feel like the issue isn't that the questioner thinks that he can't have two experiences at once, he's rather having an issue with the idea that one's main attention can be fixed to two aspects of experience at one time. He might be aware of the mic, or attentive to someone's voice, and still not be attentive to the fact that his foot is touching the ground, and to the fact that there's a certain quality of feeling attached to that experience; there are always levels of awareness to certain experiences. Then comes the second issue, that he thinks that this kind of attention is analogous to consciousness being at several places at the same time. Which, it seems to me, means that he thinks that awareness of something equals consciousness of something, but whatever experience I'm aware of is something that's entered consciousness. I always focus on a part of consciousness, and not to be focused on something doesn't mean that it's unconscious. I guess this means that the issue is also semantical, how do we define awareness, how do we define consciousness? When I say awareness, I seem to mean the fact that I use one or more senses to aim at some object of the senses and to do so, I must be conscious of that object. With consciousness, I seem to mean the prerequisite for there being anything to aim one's attention at in the first place. I mean, it must be really difficult for anyone, enlightened or not, to catch up on all of this while trying to have a conversation with somebody. o_O'
How would you apply this to breathing? Breathing is something we do most often without intention. It is in our consciousness? We can experience the results of breathing with several sensations. When focusing on breathing explicitly, is that awareness? I realize it isn’t that rigid but what are your thoughts?
My mind keeps shattering 💥 each time I listen to this. I was so close to this truth back in high school - 40 years ago!! - my friend and I had versions of this same conversation. And then off to college I went, society got its hooks in me, I bought into the whole separate self business and i went to hell and back trying to figure out what was wrong with me AAAARRRRGGGHH So I return here to my starting point and recognize the truth of conscious mind, only this time I have the experience of knowing the light by having met the dark. 🙏❤️
But remember Rupert isn't talking about the conscious mind. He's talking about just consciousness and awareness itself. I do think you are getting it though, keep going.
Honestly, this fundamental question is the most challenging one to puzzle through for someone seeking to find the nondual nature of consciousness. People are conditioned into believing that differences in perspective is sepperation. I am not aware of my all the things my nerves experience all the time, but I would never deny that they are my nerves. But Ruperts point about our experience of yesterday being forgotten, in the same way we forget each other and everything in between. This is the key. It's sad it wasn't enough for the seeker he is responding too.
For me, it’s a great point, but it remains theoretical and not experiential. It’s a great point that, while I believe I had an experience exactly 5 years ago, I don’t remember it exactly. I see how that can extrapolate to the possibility of “forgetting” or excluding simultaneous experiences. However, this is just a thought, and not a direct experience I am currently having (as far as I’m aware, or as I’m interpreting my experience)
Rupert has highlighted many entries into Presence in this video. The moment shines with the opportunity of unity. In spite of seeming separation love dispels all boundaries; as boundaries are localized reflections of the all mind.
If you relax; local awareness spreads out again & you are not as locked in individual identity. It's hard to accept because the ego wants to protect itself, but you don't need to listen to the ego just because it throws a tantrum:)
The "practice" of seeing in that particular way he gives him at the end of the video is great way to see and i was somehow similirly intuitevely known about such practice but somehow never really actually done it, i will try for the next week to keep that in mind
A simpler answer to me is that all consciousness comes from the same source. But that source is outside of our experience and manifests in conscious forms in our reality. It is the vast number of forms and different experiences that creates the illusion of separation. Once we come to realize that it is all one experience, occurring simultaneously through different forms, we are freed from the illusion
Amazing question! His question essentially is 'how can one consciousness have multiple experiences?' The answer is clear. That the one consciousness CANNOT have multiple experiences. From the one consciousness point of view, there is just one experience. And this quality is shared by the one consciousness with our mind as well, that we cannot experience two things at the same time. The hearing and looking at Rupert are not simultaneous, but in rapid quick succession. Because of the rapidity, the hearing and looking at Rupert appear simultaneous, but really they are not simultaneous. Similarly, one consciousness has one experience, the experience of the whole. At the level of one consciousness, there are no differentiations of many, yet, things become many at the level of mind. That's why the one consciousness is also described as one in many and many in one.
Updesh Sharma, Kaushitaki Upanishad says thus; *When consciousness rules the mind, we can think all thoughts*. It's not speech which we want to know, we should know the speaker. It's not things seen which we should want to know, we should know the seer. It's not the sound which we want to know, we should know the hearer. It's not mind which we should want to know, we should know the thinker. Namaste
It’s like how when you have a dream the characters in the dream seem separate, you cannot read their minds or predict or control those characters, even though they are generated by your sleeping mind.
"I'm out finding myself...if I get back, before I return...keep me here." Wonderful that he was kept there with poignant analogies until he returned. ☺️
The questioner is still under the impression that he is the same person moment to moment. This is an illusion. We are constantly being reborn each millisecond. Think of it this way: you could wake up each day as a different person, and you’d never know, because you would always have the memories of the person you woke up as. That’s how strong the illusion of “self” is. You can actually experience this by smoking enough weed to the point where your hippocampus gets impaired and you can’t remember what happened 5 seconds ago. Once your memories are gone, the illusion goes too. The universe is experiencing itself every millisecond through whatever sentient vessel it can. Science has already acknowledged that there’s no single point inside your brain for a “self” to exist. The “self” you think you are is literally the conscious universe experiencing itself but since it’s not physically connected to other parts of itself (aka other people’s minds, animals, etc) in a way that it can communicate, the illusion of being separate persists. Not to mention, there are parts of the brain which are believed to be responsible for maintaining an ego, which if turned off (often through meditation or various psychedelics) the illusion of separation between “self” and the rest of the universe dissolves. Imagine a day in which we can physical connect our minds in a way that made sense. We would then realize that we were never separate to begin with. Our seemingly separate experiences would merge together. The True Self aka God as a single “entity” exists outside of both space and time, but is experiencing itself through an infinite number of forms through both the dimensions of space (other people’s minds) and time (what you though 5 seconds ago). Nonduality points to the fact that differentiating between one and infinity is also a duality. One IS infinity and infinity IS one. Differentiation is a concept that the mind does. So, when speaking of whether consciousness is one or infinite, the difference is only conceptual. Consciousness as Rupert says is One, but it’s also infinite, but again, the difference between the two is just a duality, a conceptual differentiation which does not ACTUALLY exist in reality.
Logical contradictions implies duality. Questions are dual to answers. Does God not exist? The question of God is an ongoing question called evolution in science. The universe, reality, objectification, actualization become questions for the search for absolute truth. Start is dual to finish. The big answer is dual to the big question! God is dual to that which is not God (privation). The question or concept of God is a duality. Truth is dual to falsity. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the objective is dual to the subjective. Noumenal (rational, eternal) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, finite) -- Immanuel Kant. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda, duality or two aspects of the same thing.
Fantastic....this was always a sticky point for me, but it is so clear now. ....Another helpful experience for me is realizing that even in my own awareness I can dissociate in a waking state (dreaming, of course, too as he explains)....for instance, in a waking state when I am driving on the freeway and become lost in thought or conversation....my mind can completely lose track of my drive, and a couple hours may go by during which I am absorbed completely in something besides driving which my consciousness must also be making decisions about. I have consciousness that knows how to drive without requiring my foreground awareness....the car to pass, the speed changes, the exit to take etc. However, if there is a sudden urgency to become very aware, I immediately am present as driver to deal with the car that pulls out in front of me, etc. My localized consciousness is aware of things that "I" am not seemingly aware of.
Ahaha and I am now reading a comment posted by myself to myself on a video about myself explaining myself to myself on a platform created by myself. Trippy
Can the witness be witnessed? Can the observer be observed? Can the Seer be seen? Be aware without objects you are the One Pure Reality you are That Parabrahman 🙏🕉️ Namaste
Namaste. The Witness cannot be witnessed because if the Witness is witnessed, then Witness becomes part of the crime scene. If this is the case, then we must look for another witness who witnesses the previous witness and what he had witnessed. The true and final Witness is like behind in a mirror looking out at the world projected from within the mirror. The true Witness is hidden and does not have properties that are witness-able (measurable). therefore the Witness is the Nothing-ness. Now the "man in the mirror" witnesses all which passes in front of it. The mirror is everywhere, in each of us behind perception. The mirror produces creation/life. Each point in the mirror reflects something but stays pure as the antidote of each creation. Therefore all parts of the mirror are the same, but only if it is simple witnessing and not getting attached to the witnessed. If the Witness gets attached, fearful et cetera, then it will become a prisoner to the witnessed. Then the Witness would have "fallen down to a lower level" of consciousness and will lie to you, that you are the prettiest of them all, because that is how you want to be judged.
@@sheikmunjah2241 Namaste yes the witness has no attribute neither quality..It is beyond form, name, time and space.. Purusha and Prakriti are One and the Same.. It is obvious that the seen cannot be the Seer and the Seer if Seen was no the true Seer..Emptiness and nothingness are our true nature, a deep inner silence which is still and doesn't come into manifestation.. HARI OM 🕉️🙏🏵️
I believe the speaker, Spira, in his brilliance, is talking about "awareness" as the nature of the localized self and is God consciousness. I've just started watching and listening and I am so excited to feel my anxieties disappearing.
@@AlaskaPants Spreadsheets are too complicated for me. Easier is this: Pretend a guy named Mateo knows all of London. One night he has a dream that he is someone named Matthew who only knows one street in London. In the dream, Matthew believes London is not himself. He believes London is an object "out there" that is not himself and that he only knows one street. It's a really vivid dream. But when Mateo wakes up, he realizes this idea of being just Matthew and not knowing all of London was only a dream. In the same way, we can wake up and realize that all our little Matthew-like ways of looking at things (as if we don't know everything!) are just a dream. And for fun, pretend that your cat understands everything I just said and knows that you are, well, God. Keep an eye on that cat, heh heh!
Stay with it, don't call off the search. There is clearly some longing within you to discover your Self. Perhaps watch some other videos, even other teachers, then come back to this one another time when your understanding deepens. One step at a time, no spread sheet required, but don't forget to feed the cat.
I loove this explaination. In my body there are a lot of proceses going on that I am not aware of. Or as the unconscious aspects of our minds too. This make sense to me. 😊 🙏🏼
The radio broadcast the same signal every where but each radio set reproduce that only one signal in different ways I have never had problem in understanding this very basic concept of non duality
As Rupert i don't think you understand the questioner either i think. In your metaphor we have to add one thing. Knowing. Which we are. The radio signal is now not only a signal, it's a knowing signal. If we are that knowing signal we should be aware of all outputs at once. This is where the questioner get stuck. Signal for radio is fine. But a knowing signal is a bit different. Like the space and rooms in a house metaphor. If consciousness is the space in the house. The rooms do not divide the space. But in this metaphor as well, consciousness should know all rooms simultaneously. Then, if we are that infinite consciousness, why do we not know all minds? Then it seems more accurate to say we are the finite mind, at least for these kinds of metaphors.
Infinite Awareness, the eternal Now, is outside of time, space and movement, so there can be no sequentiality, only simultaneity - a reality our temporal mind simply cannot grasp.
I have had a lucid dream on a new source of energy that is a "Topological Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect". An infinite mind related a prototype molecular gas cloud chamber that present science has not yet to realize. Although science is still only working on bulk materials, they are still formulating the cellular structures with computerized syntheses of thousands of composites for development that produces the desired phenomena. This is more about a complexity of quantum phase transitions where an exotic time-reversal symmetry takes place.
One thing that is fascinating about the realm of imagination is the ability to in some way unforget what consciousness knows fully, that being to somehow witness the life as someone else as if it was a vivid memory of your own consciousness
Computer games do this all the time. Many characters, one computer. Back in the day before all these fancy parallel computing devices you could still do it with what are often referred to as interrupts or co-routines. Whatever you call them the principle is the same. Every character gets a tiny slice of time to update its behaviour. The update is so small it can't be perceived. A similar thing could be imagined to happen for people in real life. Same processor, thousands of different perspectives every second. It's a crude mechanical analogy, but it might help some.
Wow, it sounds so strange when you put it like that, as if we were in a simulation... it could make sense... So the one consciousness or God is playing all the characters? Simultaneously
@@Rocio-wy2eg Yes, the one consciousness is knowing/experiencing itself through many characters. One consciousness/God is knowing/experiencing itself through many people.
I would edit this to the last 10 minutes or so. Rupert's explanation was succinct and brilliant. But, what an hilarious ending. I almost expected Emily LItella to come out and say, "Nevermind".
I see it took half an hour to come to the conclusion that you both have always agreed. What I understood from the question is that the questioner wanted from the beginning to explore that intermediate step that occurs in the process of localization and limitation in a single point of view. Also my experience include something like that.... a sort of middle “world” in the process in which infinite consciousness begun to color itself with a single shape and gradually collapse into a single point of retransmission and manifestation. taking our steps backwards in reasoning passes that way. at least as such it has been for me. No doubt that Rupert is the best in reasoning, I appreciate also the honesty of the questioner... and I love the irrational one week experiment Rupert offers him, because it addresses to the felt sense... and in that way, the heart 💜 is the master. 🙏🏾
Consciousness is like light passing through our individual equipment. Depending on our unique equipment a projected experience takes place. The same light passing through different prisms will give different rainbows. This issue afflicts the Homo sapiens more than it does to any other species. Primarily because of the duality of our equipment. It understands by a subject object analogy than as a unity.
We are one consciousness divided into many. You can experience for instance looking at a red ball in the middle of a room together with your friend and understand that this friend sees the same ball from a different angle. But you both see the same red ball. The fact is that this red ball is in your both's field of vision. Different location is an experience of one consciousness dividing into multiple, which is you and your perspective and your friend and his perspective. But there's only ONE red ball existing in the room.
Each angle (localized consciousness) is "point of view" but there is no one to claim the view. As soon as the claiming starts, the questions and doubt starts, then as the lights go out, the movie of duality (play of life) begins.
True but Universal Mind can experience all thoughts. Example from “Lord Meher”: “During a stage of avatar Meher Baba’s regaining worldly consciousness, Meher Baba began experiencing the thoughts of all human beings in the universe. The individual thoughts of those persons in the gross world , irrespective of whether they were near ( on earth) or far ( in another galaxy) , would instantaneously pour into his universal mind at the moment they were created ( thought). The numerous thought-waves were so forceful and so tremendously rapid, it is virtually impossible to describe their effect. The very process of “ infinite” thinking was rushing through Meher Baba’s individual mind, he could withstand it only because his mind had become “ universal.” Thought-waves vibrate faster than any speed known to man; thus , all thought-waves of all humanity on earth would stream into and permeate Meher Baba’s universal mind in a few minutes. At the beginning of this particular stage of Meher Baba’s coming down , when his universal mind was starting to function , one day he was sitting alone by a canal at Sakori. Within a few minutes , the force of the thoughts of thousands and thousands of persons on earth entered his universal mind. The impact of it was so tremendous that Meher Baba became extremely agonized as if his mind was being pulled apart by all the contradictory thoughts. He soon became extremely uneasy and restless , and at that time, he had to submerge his head underwater in the canal to try to break the shock! He had his head underwater several minutes until his individual mind found relief” ~ “The Biography of the Avatar of the Age Meher Baba Volume One 1894-1922”
Consciousness is the light shining through the minds of Man (includes Woman). Our minds are like different shades of glass which, each gives the light according to its colour. That is why it is possible for multiple experiences (shades of colour) to happen simultaneously.
I have a more complex suggestion. Consciousness is like breathing, it keep going ON and OFF, or let's say come and go. As you know time is an illusion, consciousness have plenty of times to come and go in every single living being within a certain frame of time, for an example, a little millisecond. What's define your ego is your brain, so does your memories, so then when consciousness come into you it has no clue of what just happened outside your own perspective. That's why meditation is sooo powerful, it makes you "more often" conscious, that way you take back the control of your thoughts, our feelings and emotions. If you go further and further, you may even find out who you really are. 🧘♂️
I like the idea of conciousness as a toggle makes me think of first priciples how brai needs energy and how could it compute so much information for its wattage, maybe the information is equal to power usage yet seems more, yet gives rise to qualia by streching that information into a prediction.
Let me tell you a pathway that makes you perfectly accept that: a psychotic break. I guarantee! I had 2! It's been a trudge to recover, but I can totally accept consciousness having many experiences at the same time. It's a shortcut that I would not recommend overall, but it does work. It's not like I was looking for this specific shortcut, but once I was placed in front of that door I was pushed into it, I know I didn't push it, still looking for my pusher... We need to have a serious conversation :)
Funny you say this because I absolutely relate and have had a couple myself. Always felt like I was searching for myself internally, and I was on the trail via natural intuition, and only discovering Buddhism and Rupert did it finally click that I was naturally inclined towards that truth. And the psychotic break were terrifying but they were also grounded in truth because there is no static thing behind the eyes called self bundled as thoughts feelings and perceptions, and my tendency towards impulsive creativity and thinking for myself led to these breaks. And These breaks also forced me into a position to surrender and I began meditating and found for the first time in my life what peace truly felt like.
Also, I tried 5 meo dmt with spiritual /consciousness expansion in mind, and it indeed blew my consciousness as an ego experience wide open, felt similar as a psychotic break in a way for sure! I have zero regrets and feel like it was the most incredible experience of my life that left me humbled and in awe of reality /existence/life.
@@bulletsmichael I probably differ from you in this: I am not without my struggle. In hindsight my psychotic breaks did gifted me with a few things, but on balance, the negative consequences still outweigh what I gained, because whether I like it or not, I still have to live in this world, and this world very much still looks at these types of breakdowns as an unwanted reality. It has come some way from the middle ages, and some social supports are in place, but let me tell you, even though people like saying in public how they are rid of their stigmas, in private they keep on spewing their prejudices. I calculated something this morning: the social assistance I got from the state for being impaired for quite sometime due to the break, awarded me in 11 years the same as it awards a University professor in 2... In my mind I overpassed the University professor in 10 days of being hospitalized...Does this make sense? No... But that's this world and I am back here...so I can't say I am not grateful some days for a lot of it, but most days my struggle still wins...
@@tryadifferentone354 I see and I understand and empathize. The struggle is still real for everyone, but now from the more awake perspective, it changes how I perceive and experience the struggle oh, I can say that much is for sure.
Simply - we are all One, One is each and all of us, One is all of the bits, all separate bits as individual wholeness within themselves but part of the greater Wholeness, Consciousness, Oneness, God, Creation... All whole and One within each but all within One
Sebastian Key Your statement is coming from the ego. Paradoxically, mine is to. Life is easier and we’re all less hypocritical if we don’t judge and just let be. 🙏
By 26:49 I started to feel this person was argumentative and was determined NOT to understand. A great metaphor was that pot plant. The Universe is the soil in the pot experiencing the room through each of those flowers. Each flower in this context is a person.
Rupert, I love your videos with all my heart, thank you dear friend for sharing. if our consciousness is not embodied in a physical form (we exists as one with the ever present eternal now) do we maintain any sense of “I” as the knower relative to what can be known? What does ever present now, practically, look like assuming we could fathom it? Also, any thoughts on how Bhakti connects with the model you discuss here? In the Shrimad Bhagavtam, it seems (in my humble, novice experience) Bhakti Vedanta maintains a sense of individuality in pursuit of devotion to Bhagavan, and at the same time Bhakti merges the two… so there is individuality and Union. I wonder if that total union also leads to the same ever present now now discussed in non-duality. And once again, can the lover know its beloved without some semblance of individuality or “I.” I wonder how Bhakti and non-duality relate to one another.
The contradiction that the questioner is struggling with is that if consciousness is divided into *many* separate forms, then _in what sense_ can it be said to be *one,* since it never gets together with itself and has that one single experience of all viewpoints at once, and appears to be limited in its ability to merge with itself. Where is the evidence that it even has the ability to be one consciousness, since what divides our separate experiences from each other is a wall of not just physical division but also persistent perceptual division. Just saying that one consciousness has chosen to build those walls does not fully satisfy the questioner, who feels that he ought to have some kind of access to the other experiences he(it), as the one consciousness, is having. I don't personally feel that his intellectual question is satisfactorily, fully, answered. The answer given is a theory. That is why Spira goes on to the practical strategy of "try out my theory and see if it fits". I do think this is a valid strategy for testing a model of perception. I like this approach of upping the ante and testing the theory. It is not as unscientific a method as Spira rather humbly suggests. Science may not like that approach but that's because science has strict limits. But this is a useful plan B. If it's hard to theoretically test an idea, then practically test it. In effect, push your chips into the middle of table and bet on them for a week. The nice thing about this kind of gamble is that it's not really a gamble. Many people are resistant to new ideas due to some kind of irrational security issue around their world view. But you can always go back to the naive materialism model later if this new idea doesn't work, so therefore why not give it a go for a week. The potential gain is a new angle of perception, which may not even exclude naive materialism, but could augment and append that model in a way that gives an amount of additional clarity to it. After all, even science is just a model. It's not the only valid model we use to perceive or comprehend the world. A map, for example, is an accurate representation of the world. But so is a dialogue. So is my first person eyes forward cine reel of my life. So is the atoms and molecules endlessly spinning model. These models augment and append our understanding of *it* but no model ever, in so doing, excludes any other model. The consciousness model is simply a layer that is ignored by the other layers. That is the partiality of science, that's how and why science of each kind, whether it's chemistry or cartography, works. In fact, the *only* test of science is _does it work?_ and therefore Spira's final answer is potentially validated both scientifically and perceptually.
The man in the audience insists that his space-time perception is all that exists and the only valid one. He should try shrooms or LSD. He needs to experience non-locality, expanded awareness and timelessness for himself.
That’s solipsism. I think you’re strawmanning him. He never said that he thinks his mind is the only mind that exists. In fact he was saying the opposite. If there are so many different minds with different subjective experiences then how can they all be said to be the same consciousness? That was his question.
@@1999_reborn thanks for your comment. I can't be sure if that was meant as an insult, but in any case, the term strawmanning doesn't really apply. I think I understood his objection. He doesn't understand how the awareness of so many individual minds could be unified by one consciousness. I reiterate: He has not experienced non-local, unbounded awareness. My prescription for this limitation is either psychedelic drugs (mentioned above) or a rigorous, yet humble meditation practice.
"...though hearing, they do not hear or understand". I've been in this situation, like Mateo in this video. To understand pure consciousness, we have to remove the veil of our belief system, perceptions, thoughts, etc.
This is exactly my question. It is actually the limitation of language. It should be rather said like that there is only 1 consciousness (the the dream of the being or god) in which our existences are the different dream characters. When we investigate, we get the glimpses of our true nature the 1 consciousness. This is how I understood it.
The Saints be like : This is The best and entertaining ever and to See Sir Rupert doing what he does best but there is no doer....😌😂🙏🏽❤️✨ Thank You Sir Rupert!
Hi Rupert. Always glad to hear your talks. Have you ever researched the amazing similarities (there are differences also of course) between your ontology and that of Saint Maximus the Confessor regarding the Logos and logoi? Juxtapose this to atman and Brahman. It is , I believe, truly amazing how the ontology of India and Christianity meet
My question is: why does consciousness take the many forms of our separate selves at all? For what reason does it do this? If it is to experience itself (as we do in a dream), why should it want experience itself? We supposedly dream because that helps our conscious selves process the worries or fears of life that happens subconsciously (under our conscious awareness). But does the unity consciousness really have worries or things that needs processing that happens under its conscious awareness? What would it even be aware of in its “waking state” as we are aware of trees and such in our waking state? The unity consciousness is everything that we can conceive of after all. So again why does the consciousness want to experience itself through the lens of an individual such as ourselves?
I've often wondered the same thing myself. I suppose because a physical existence is quite different than a non physical one. But we feel like puppets in the process, don't we?
The unity consciousness, being all that is, must contain everything, every possibility of existence, thus it takes all possible forms, including me and you. If my experience or yours didnt exist, it would not be complete, it would lack something. In this sense, we are not just puppets but an important instance, among infinite others, fundamental and necessary for the existence of the whole.
Worry and suffering only came last 63 of our births. In golden age also known as heaven the infinite consiousness had a really good time in bliss and happiness. :)
our senses are limited in nature. To realize or to be aware of the true consciousness is like asking a computer to feel the emotions/senses of it's creator. Awareness never stop or sleep, even when we're in a deep sleep, a poke/shake will be sensed and wake you up. Even when we see a preacher and simultaneously hearing him/her, other senses are still working. Even though you might not sense it, but the awareness of that sensing is always there. Otherwise you won't feel a prick of a needle while your focus is with the preacher. By using our limited senses to explain how to be aware will produce a limited version of awareness, why not let the true awareness to take control by letting go the feels/senses of the limited ones
As close as I’ve seen Rupert get frustrated/angry. The metaphors and explanations are exquisite even to those who’ve ‘seen’ but haven’t quite pieced it all together.
When I add individual angle I make the concsiousness limited and equate limited with unlimited...and the problem arises ... concsiousness is unlimited and if replaced with awareness .. probably the difference will be better understood..one object surfacing from the soup of many..for each in the greater whole of concsiousness/ awareness
I think he was trying to say that if we're all the same conscious how is it we have individuality. I think we would all have to be enlightened or awakened to see each other as one and see passed the vessel. Maybe individuality only comes from the finite mind but then is it consciousness making decisions and choices adding to the individuality of a person?
I don't have any problem with this. What I don't understand is why we don't all have the awareness of all experiences, if it's all just one anyway. But I only know my own limited experience, not those around me, nor do they know mine.
The question is not whether consciousness can have different experiences at the same time. Of course it does. The guy wants to know whether one person can have different lives in other dimensions at the same time. That is why he says that Rupert misunderstood him.
You as Rupert dont understand the questioner. you say "The question is not whether consciousness can have different experiences at the same time. Of course it does." Then if we are this consciousness why dont we have different experiences at the same time? This is what the questioner wants an answer to.
When “you” dream at night, “others” may appear IN the dream. “They” may speak to “you.” Do these appearances have “minds?” Or do “you” imagine “them” to? What are these appearances made of? Is there any substance to these appearances other than the knowing of them? Why in the waking state is it assumed any differently? Why is it assumed in the waking state that these appearances have “minds?”
I think Rupert totally missed the point of Mateo's question. It is actually about why solipsism wouldn't more reasonable and parsimonious that inferring that there are other minds we cannot directly experience. In the same vein, it is also about the absurdity of saying a single mind can hold mutually exclusive experiences simultaneously and yet still be regarded as one single mind. It makes me wonder if Rupert even has a good answer to the question.
Mateo´s question could be explained with a Mary and Jane metaphore, in wich Mary has a conversation with John in the dream. In this case, John thoughts and words are completely private and unknown to Mary, but it s just a serie of thought of the same Jane ´s mind. Mary and John seem to feel that they have private thoughts, but that privacy is just an illusion for their illusory selves, but they are a reality to Jane ´s mind.
If this was truely the experience of Rupert that the world is a dream that is known in consciousness I would wonder if he had lucid dreams every night. Because in a sleeping dream if one becomes aware of the consciousness of the dreamer then it triggers a lucid dream
The dream analogy breaks down here, since all the other characters in the dream were indeed "cardboard cutouts" and Mary only experiences the dream from a single point of view, Jane's. When she wakes up she cannot recall the dream from the point of view of any of the other characters in the dream. Similarly, the disassociative personality disorder analogy doesn't work either. In a person suffering from the condition, only one alter is ascendant at any given time, and is reported as having gaps in its memory when it was not ascendant. Ultimately, we cannot know either way, and I consider it moot. Whether a) infinite consciousness localises itself to billions of individual points of view simultaneously or b) infinite consciousness only localises itself to my own individual point of view makes no meaningful difference because in both cases, it's still just infinite consciousness experiencing only itself. The underlying reality is the same.
The analogy of the dream does not quite make sense. We dream because we experience reality from our individual perspective, the content derives from our waking experience. So if we in our waking experience are a dreamer in unity consciousness’s dream, then where does the content of our experience-the content of unity consciousness’s dream- (like our sensations) come from? Did unity consciousness experience something in its own “waking state” that is the basis of what we as the dreamers perceive? Is there something that unity consciousness perceives, and if so, wouldn’t that mean it is just a dreamer of itself (more unity consciousness)? And if that’s the case, is this explanation of consciousness being an infinite being ultimately a paradox?
The content of the waking world(Earth) is the collective tendencies(Vasanas) which has been suppresed by all the beings that have ever lived and living since the apparent manifestation from the Unmanifest (Infinite consciousness). This is just a possibility. There is causality to viel the truth. The infinite can only dream of being finite. There can be infinite ways in which the "finite" causality is manifested.
Thank Mateo for this question. why he wasnt satisfied by answer is that if Im infinite awareness and consciousness in which everything appears why am I not experience others thoughts for example? I was stuck with it also and probably The answer is that nothing exists really, if you look after the thoughts, perceptions etc you can't find one. and the one who wants to know and see those is mind, if we achieve calm state of mind probably we can see more... i would like to talk to Rupert about this subject. if anyone has clear vision about this pls enlighten me
There can't be "localizations" of consciousness because the atom is empty space. There is no matter. It is only the belief in a body and brain that posits an outline/ a form/ a finite expression. Using the term "minds" always confuses, because it is not the fact. There never are "minds".
Generalization is dual to localization. Localization is the opposite, opposame to the eternal -- duality. Logical contradictions implies duality. Questions are dual to answers. Does God not exist? The question of God is an ongoing question called evolution in science. The universe, reality, objectification, actualization become questions for the search for absolute truth. Start is dual to finish. The big answer is dual to the big question! God is dual to that which is not God (privation). The question or concept of God is a duality. Truth is dual to falsity. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the objective is dual to the subjective. Noumenal (rational, eternal) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, finite) -- Immanuel Kant. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda, duality or two aspects of the same thing.
@@ommeditationmind1554 Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter, the relationship is a duality and not a singularity. Non duality is dual to non duality!
@@ommeditationmind1554 Duality: two aspects of the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes offspring -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Points of reference, perspectives, projections (predictions) are inherently dual. The word synthesis means to create and according to Hegel and Plato etc. it is a by-product of conserving duality. Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. Efficient or first cause is dual to final cause -- Aristotle, material and formal cause are synthesized by conserving duality. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant.
I've re-thought the matter, and there is a need for me to ABIDE as SELF in order for me to arrive at an answer. I simply think that localizations of consciousness is what the finite mind or person would think as we think each of us is separate and apart.....but this discussion has made wonder what is prior to consciousness. The answer cannot come from the mind.
@@ommeditationmind1554 There are new laws of physics which you may not be aware of:- Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. The word syntropy means 'a tendency to converge' to localize or to focus. The word entropy means 'a tendency to diverge or differentiate' into new states. Divergence is dual to convergence, integration is dual to differentiation. Thinking or thought forms converge or localize into being -- syntropy. Teleological physics is dual to non-teleological physics. "I think therefore I am", Cogito ergo sum -- Descartes. Duality (energy) is being conserved -- the 5th law of thermodynamics. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton. Energy is dual mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Waves are dual to particles, pure energy or light, photons are dual -- quantum duality. Duality is hardwired into the physics.
Rupert says that awareness has no limits and looked around fill the experience of multiplicity but when you are experience of mind then mind makes the time experience and there for time makes the experience of running conditions so finite mind can't understand that Awareness has no starting and no ending point it's only present and when you are in pure awareness you can't find anything other then awareness
What is evolution in this model? Before there is capacity to form a point of view, before there was anything with the capacity for awareness, was universal consciousness simply not viewing itself, yet existing nonetheless? If so, is it that universal consciousness in evolution bends towards knowing itself? Does this statement imply intentionality?
The question itself is kinda dumb because it's basically the mind asking "why can I see my thoughts but not any others?" Well cuz other thoughts and experiences are happening in other minds dum-dum, but the dream analogy was so interesting that I'm glad somebody brought it up.
looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking inside a radio for the announcer
The announcer is looking and is exactly the same as everything we’re aware of beside the existence of the announcer. Crystal lol
@@Puuws what?
Consciousness is playing a game of hide and seek. If we get to know all the secrets,then there is no more game to play.
beautiful
🤣😂🤣🤣
Sometimes i have the impression that most teachers don't help or allow questioners to fully express themself. Often we are doubtious about something without knowing why just because the doubt is not fully formulated. But once we proceed to clarify it we have the opportunity to answer the question it imply, gaining an insight that is not only a theoretical understading but an intuitive comprehension. I don't understand why this opportunity gets often ignored.
I watched something a few years ago (Maybe a follow-up to The Secret???) with Neale Donald Walsch and Michael Beckwith in which they suggested using the biblical scripture pronouncing God’s name.....”I Am that I Am,” more pragmatically by placing a comma after the word “that.”
Ruppart’s suggestion to spend the week looking at everything as himself, triggered the experience I had when consciously applying the comma experiment. For example, when crossing paths with a homeless person asking for money, interacting with an obnoxious coworker, admiring a sunset, or admiring the character of a mentor....etc, rather than judging (myself or the other) I’d consciously say silently in my head, I am that, I am. The second I Am is only to emphasize the first statement - I Am That. I remember it having a pretty significant influence on my overall mood and my ability to hold space and show compassion for others and myself.
I hadn’t yet encountered Rupert’s pointings, or practiced self inquiry, so I’m excited to try the experiment again in this deeper context.
This film is Mose's Code
From a prism, light is refracted in many different places simultaneously.
The philosopher Bernardo Kastrup explains that beautifully with a metaphor about disassociate personality disorder. The same being having multiple separate points of view is well known in psychiatry.
So does philosophers Daniel Kolak and Arnold Zuboff!
No it's not possible to have 'multiple separate points of view', imho.
@@moonglow6639 It is, and that is in your direct experience.
@@moonglow6639 it’s a known studied psychiatric “disorder” :)
Rupert Spira is the greatest man in the world to explain reality in models. But in the end, the map is not the territory. Even to say it's a map is to give it to much a credit. Any search for truth is a mindgame. When you drop your search and questions regarding truth, that is when you "drop" your mind and find that you ARE the truth. And all there is..is experiencing.., mysterious and obvious at the same time. Obvious in the way that you find any "search" for truth as foolish(since you ARE the truth). Take care! Love you❤️
So true...my gratitude for this little extra push to get me from the little me 'searching' into the 'trust' of I Am.
Very, very good opinion. Agree and That’s why I converted to Buddhas teaching, but was born into christianity. Absolutely not wrong with a beleive in Jesus and God, but we ARE already the devine inside, without a creation in time! Love you back and Namaste 👍🕉🌺
Interesting , last night in between waking and sleep that narrow slit where your not here nor there I had a thought that said I’m the truth and a fiction at the same time . Sometimes I feel all this searching I’m doing is in a way the obstacle yet my fascination with the truth keeps me curious and the momentum going.
True, mind must vanish and it will fight you because it doesn’t want to go as Dylan Thomas once penned “ gently into that good night” it wants to “ rage rage against the dying of the light [mind].
Avatar Meher said it best decades ago when he discoursed:
“Mind wants to know that which is beyond mind. To know that
which is beyond mind, mind must go-vanish, leaving no vestige
of itself behind. The humour of it is, the mind, which is finite,
wants to retain itself and yet know Truth, which is infinite. This is
the position of those who seek Truth through intellect. Few grasp
this fact, and so most grope and grapple in vain. “
-Meher Baba
How I love this type of sceptical inquiry! It is important that we stay sceptical (and also open-minded) when we are to investigate the mystery of life, consciousness and experience. With open minded scepticism, we don't succumb to either naive acceptance of every idea on the one hand, or close ourselves off to new experience, wisdom and knowledge on the other. This is why curiousity is such an important virtue when it comes to maturing knowledge and wisdom.
How lovely summery, thanks! ❤😊Same is true for when we do our learning, researching and experimenting in the so called natural sciences, too. Look how far critical thinking took us in the matter only model! At last, but not the least, we are now even getting ( back ) to the consciousness only (consciousness as source) model after a few centuries of researching and evolving; see quantum physics.❤ 😊🎉
Rupert has a beautiful deep gentle syrupy voice. I could listen to him for hours on end. He would easily play the God character in a film, sharing his wisdom.
Hahahaha yep
So true addictive
So beautifully put🙏 God bless you Rupert
First of all, I really enjoy Rupert's method. One thing I've come to notice now though is that this model of teaching has the disadvantage that the person answering can't really think too deeply about the question. I think this is a disadvantage because it's hard to understand what the questioner's problem really is.
Like here, I feel like the issue isn't that the questioner thinks that he can't have two experiences at once, he's rather having an issue with the idea that one's main attention can be fixed to two aspects of experience at one time. He might be aware of the mic, or attentive to someone's voice, and still not be attentive to the fact that his foot is touching the ground, and to the fact that there's a certain quality of feeling attached to that experience; there are always levels of awareness to certain experiences.
Then comes the second issue, that he thinks that this kind of attention is analogous to consciousness being at several places at the same time. Which, it seems to me, means that he thinks that awareness of something equals consciousness of something, but whatever experience I'm aware of is something that's entered consciousness. I always focus on a part of consciousness, and not to be focused on something doesn't mean that it's unconscious.
I guess this means that the issue is also semantical, how do we define awareness, how do we define consciousness? When I say awareness, I seem to mean the fact that I use one or more senses to aim at some object of the senses and to do so, I must be conscious of that object. With consciousness, I seem to mean the prerequisite for there being anything to aim one's attention at in the first place.
I mean, it must be really difficult for anyone, enlightened or not, to catch up on all of this while trying to have a conversation with somebody. o_O'
How would you apply this to breathing?
Breathing is something we do most often without intention. It is in our consciousness? We can experience the results of breathing with several sensations. When focusing on breathing explicitly, is that awareness?
I realize it isn’t that rigid but what are your thoughts?
What beautiful guidance and exploration. I love Rupert's impeccable skill at explaining things of such depth...
Rupert is worlds no 1 spiritual teacher 🙏
My mind keeps shattering 💥 each time I listen to this. I was so close to this truth back in high school - 40 years ago!! - my friend and I had versions of this same conversation. And then off to college I went, society got its hooks in me, I bought into the whole separate self business and i went to hell and back trying to figure out what was wrong with me AAAARRRRGGGHH So I return here to my starting point and recognize the truth of conscious mind, only this time I have the experience of knowing the light by having met the dark. 🙏❤️
It’s okay.. it’s always true.
Beautiful. Wellcome back "sister", "You" never left after all. True pure light.
“No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.”
― Carl Jung
But remember Rupert isn't talking about the conscious mind. He's talking about just consciousness and awareness itself. I do think you are getting it though, keep going.
@@AwakeningWings thank you 🙏
Honestly, this fundamental question is the most challenging one to puzzle through for someone seeking to find the nondual nature of consciousness.
People are conditioned into believing that differences in perspective is sepperation.
I am not aware of my all the things my nerves experience all the time, but I would never deny that they are my nerves.
But Ruperts point about our experience of yesterday being forgotten, in the same way we forget each other and everything in between. This is the key. It's sad it wasn't enough for the seeker he is responding too.
For me, it’s a great point, but it remains theoretical and not experiential. It’s a great point that, while I believe I had an experience exactly 5 years ago, I don’t remember it exactly. I see how that can extrapolate to the possibility of “forgetting” or excluding simultaneous experiences. However, this is just a thought, and not a direct experience I am currently having (as far as I’m aware, or as I’m interpreting my experience)
Rupert has highlighted many entries into Presence in this video. The moment shines with the opportunity of unity. In spite of seeming separation love dispels all boundaries; as boundaries are localized reflections of the all mind.
If you relax; local awareness spreads out again & you are not as locked in individual identity. It's hard to accept because the ego wants to protect itself, but you don't need to listen to the ego just because it throws a tantrum:)
The point: consciousness transcends our limited idea and belief of what space and time exists as.
The "practice" of seeing in that particular way he gives him at the end of the video is great way to see and i was somehow similirly intuitevely known about such practice but somehow never really actually done it, i will try for the next week to keep that in mind
A simpler answer to me is that all consciousness comes from the same source. But that source is outside of our experience and manifests in conscious forms in our reality. It is the vast number of forms and different experiences that creates the illusion of separation. Once we come to realize that it is all one experience, occurring simultaneously through different forms, we are freed from the illusion
Amazing question!
His question essentially is 'how can one consciousness have multiple experiences?'
The answer is clear. That the one consciousness CANNOT have multiple experiences.
From the one consciousness point of view, there is just one experience. And this quality is shared by the one consciousness with our mind as well, that we cannot experience two things at the same time. The hearing and looking at Rupert are not simultaneous, but in rapid quick succession. Because of the rapidity, the hearing and looking at Rupert appear simultaneous, but really they are not simultaneous.
Similarly, one consciousness has one experience, the experience of the whole.
At the level of one consciousness, there are no differentiations of many, yet, things become many at the level of mind. That's why the one consciousness is also described as one in many and many in one.
Updesh Sharma, Kaushitaki Upanishad says thus;
*When consciousness rules the mind, we can think all thoughts*.
It's not speech which we want to know, we should know the speaker.
It's not things seen which we should want to know, we should know the seer.
It's not the sound which we want to know, we should know the hearer.
It's not mind which we should want to know, we should know the thinker. Namaste
Great explanation !
It’s like how when you have a dream the characters in the dream seem separate, you cannot read their minds or predict or control those characters, even though they are generated by your sleeping mind.
But here rupert says infinite consiousness can see all thoughts in all minds its just the characters can't read thier thoughts
"I'm out finding myself...if I get back, before I return...keep me here." Wonderful that he was kept there with poignant analogies until he returned. ☺️
The questioner is still under the impression that he is the same person moment to moment. This is an illusion. We are constantly being reborn each millisecond. Think of it this way: you could wake up each day as a different person, and you’d never know, because you would always have the memories of the person you woke up as. That’s how strong the illusion of “self” is. You can actually experience this by smoking enough weed to the point where your hippocampus gets impaired and you can’t remember what happened 5 seconds ago. Once your memories are gone, the illusion goes too.
The universe is experiencing itself every millisecond through whatever sentient vessel it can.
Science has already acknowledged that there’s no single point inside your brain for a “self” to exist. The “self” you think you are is literally the conscious universe experiencing itself but since it’s not physically connected to other parts of itself (aka other people’s minds, animals, etc) in a way that it can communicate, the illusion of being separate persists. Not to mention, there are parts of the brain which are believed to be responsible for maintaining an ego, which if turned off (often through meditation or various psychedelics) the illusion of separation between “self” and the rest of the universe dissolves.
Imagine a day in which we can physical connect our minds in a way that made sense. We would then realize that we were never separate to begin with. Our seemingly separate experiences would merge together.
The True Self aka God as a single “entity” exists outside of both space and time, but is experiencing itself through an infinite number of forms through both the dimensions of space (other people’s minds) and time (what you though 5 seconds ago).
Nonduality points to the fact that differentiating between one and infinity is also a duality. One IS infinity and infinity IS one. Differentiation is a concept that the mind does. So, when speaking of whether consciousness is one or infinite, the difference is only conceptual.
Consciousness as Rupert says is One, but it’s also infinite, but again, the difference between the two is just a duality, a conceptual differentiation which does not ACTUALLY exist in reality.
Great reaction! 👌 Thnx for sharing
Lol, what's up with that profile pic epicbehavior?
@epicbehavior what does "aka" mean?
@@silvinaalterman aka= Also Known As
My motto: "Google knows everything" ;)
@@tryadifferentone354 that's just his epic behavior 😜
It’s a good question and a very wonderful answer 🙏 thank you Rupert 🌸 you’re amazing
Logical contradictions implies duality. Questions are dual to answers.
Does God not exist?
The question of God is an ongoing question called evolution in science.
The universe, reality, objectification, actualization become questions for the search for absolute truth.
Start is dual to finish.
The big answer is dual to the big question!
God is dual to that which is not God (privation).
The question or concept of God is a duality.
Truth is dual to falsity.
Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the objective is dual to the subjective.
Noumenal (rational, eternal) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, finite) -- Immanuel Kant.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda, duality or two aspects of the same thing.
Fantastic....this was always a sticky point for me, but it is so clear now. ....Another helpful experience for me is realizing that even in my own awareness I can dissociate in a waking state (dreaming, of course, too as he explains)....for instance, in a waking state when I am driving on the freeway and become lost in thought or conversation....my mind can completely lose track of my drive, and a couple hours may go by during which I am absorbed completely in something besides driving which my consciousness must also be making decisions about. I have consciousness that knows how to drive without requiring my foreground awareness....the car to pass, the speed changes, the exit to take etc. However, if there is a sudden urgency to become very aware, I immediately am present as driver to deal with the car that pulls out in front of me, etc.
My localized consciousness is aware of things that "I" am not seemingly aware of.
I miss my turns when I'm deep in conversation when I drive
Lol it's funny how I'm commenting to myself on a video about myself explaining myself to myself, on a platform created by myself
Ahaha and I am now reading a comment posted by myself to myself on a video about myself explaining myself to myself on a platform created by myself. Trippy
Can the witness be witnessed? Can the observer be observed? Can the Seer be seen? Be aware without objects you are the One Pure Reality you are That Parabrahman 🙏🕉️ Namaste
Namaste. The Witness cannot be witnessed because if the Witness is witnessed, then Witness becomes part of the crime scene. If this is the case, then we must look for another witness who witnesses the previous witness and what he had witnessed. The true and final Witness is like behind in a mirror looking out at the world projected from within the mirror. The true Witness is hidden and does not have properties that are witness-able (measurable). therefore the Witness is the Nothing-ness. Now the "man in the mirror" witnesses all which passes in front of it. The mirror is everywhere, in each of us behind perception. The mirror produces creation/life. Each point in the mirror reflects something but stays pure as the antidote of each creation. Therefore all parts of the mirror are the same, but only if it is simple witnessing and not getting attached to the witnessed. If the Witness gets attached, fearful et cetera, then it will become a prisoner to the witnessed. Then the Witness would have "fallen down to a lower level" of consciousness and will lie to you, that you are the prettiest of them all, because that is how you want to be judged.
@@sheikmunjah2241 Namaste yes the witness has no attribute neither quality..It is beyond form, name, time and space.. Purusha and Prakriti are One and the Same.. It is obvious that the seen cannot be the Seer and the Seer if Seen was no the true Seer..Emptiness and nothingness are our true nature, a deep inner silence which is still and doesn't come into manifestation.. HARI OM 🕉️🙏🏵️
this was so light- hearted and lovely 💗
I believe the speaker, Spira, in his brilliance, is talking about "awareness" as the nature of the localized self and is God consciousness. I've just started watching and listening and I am so excited to feel my anxieties disappearing.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! We are a dream in the conciousness that will last about 90 years, and will have to end💖🙏
This is too complicated for me. My hats off to the rest of you. I have to go do a spreadsheet....and feed the cat!
🤣🤣🤣
@@AlaskaPants Spreadsheets are too complicated for me. Easier is this: Pretend a guy named Mateo knows all of London. One night he has a dream that he is someone named Matthew who only knows one street in London. In the dream, Matthew believes London is not himself. He believes London is an object "out there" that is not himself and that he only knows one street. It's a really vivid dream. But when Mateo wakes up, he realizes this idea of being just Matthew and not knowing all of London was only a dream. In the same way, we can wake up and realize that all our little Matthew-like ways of looking at things (as if we don't know everything!) are just a dream. And for fun, pretend that your cat understands everything I just said and knows that you are, well, God. Keep an eye on that cat, heh heh!
Stay with it, don't call off the search. There is clearly some longing within you to discover your Self. Perhaps watch some other videos, even other teachers, then come back to this one another time when your understanding deepens. One step at a time, no spread sheet required, but don't forget to feed the cat.
Hahaha! You’re doing it right.
Chop wood, carry water.
@@davidthomson802 so nicely put and understandable, thanks David 👌💚
I loove this explaination.
In my body there are a lot of proceses going on that I am not aware of.
Or as the unconscious aspects of our minds too.
This make sense to me.
😊
🙏🏼
The radio broadcast the same signal every where but each radio set reproduce that only one signal in different ways I have never had problem in understanding this very basic concept of non duality
As Rupert i don't think you understand the questioner either i think. In your metaphor we have to add one thing. Knowing. Which we are. The radio signal is now not only a signal, it's a knowing signal. If we are that knowing signal we should be aware of all outputs at once.
This is where the questioner get stuck. Signal for radio is fine. But a knowing signal is a bit different.
Like the space and rooms in a house metaphor. If consciousness is the space in the house. The rooms do not divide the space. But in this metaphor as well, consciousness should know all rooms simultaneously.
Then, if we are that infinite consciousness, why do we not know all minds? Then it seems more accurate to say we are the finite mind, at least for these kinds of metaphors.
@@jfilm4518 I have difficulties to understand even 1 wave XD
That was a remarkable answer. Answered it in two sentences as far as I’m concerned.
Infinite Awareness, the eternal Now, is outside of time, space and movement, so there can be no sequentiality, only simultaneity - a reality our temporal mind simply cannot grasp.
I have had a lucid dream on a new source of energy that is a "Topological Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect". An infinite mind related a prototype molecular gas cloud chamber that present science has not yet to realize. Although science is still only working on bulk materials, they are still formulating the cellular structures with computerized syntheses of thousands of composites for development that produces the desired phenomena. This is more about a complexity of quantum phase transitions where an exotic time-reversal symmetry takes place.
One thing that is fascinating about the realm of imagination is the ability to in some way unforget what consciousness knows fully, that being to somehow witness the life as someone else as if it was a vivid memory of your own consciousness
Consciousness is an ocean. We are the waves.
The body are the waves*
We truly are the Conciouness
This was awesome! He really explains it well
I do it in my dreams all the time. Proof enough.
Computer games do this all the time. Many characters, one computer. Back in the day before all these fancy parallel computing devices you could still do it with what are often referred to as interrupts or co-routines. Whatever you call them the principle is the same. Every character gets a tiny slice of time to update its behaviour. The update is so small it can't be perceived. A similar thing could be imagined to happen for people in real life. Same processor, thousands of different perspectives every second. It's a crude mechanical analogy, but it might help some.
very nicely put
Wow, it sounds so strange when you put it like that, as if we were in a simulation... it could make sense... So the one consciousness or God is playing all the characters? Simultaneously
@@Rocio-wy2eg Yes, the one consciousness is knowing/experiencing itself through many characters. One consciousness/God is knowing/experiencing itself through many people.
Bahut. Bahut. Gretitude. Thanks.
I would edit this to the last 10 minutes or so. Rupert's explanation was succinct and brilliant. But, what an hilarious ending. I almost expected Emily LItella to come out and say, "Nevermind".
I see it took half an hour to come to the conclusion that you both have always agreed. What I understood from the question is that the questioner wanted from the beginning to explore that intermediate step that occurs in the process of localization and limitation in a single point of view. Also my experience include something like that.... a sort of middle “world” in the process in which infinite consciousness begun to color itself with a single shape and gradually collapse into a single point of retransmission and manifestation. taking our steps backwards in reasoning passes that way. at least as such it has been for me. No doubt that Rupert is the best in reasoning, I appreciate also the honesty of the questioner... and I love the irrational one week experiment Rupert offers him, because it addresses to the felt sense... and in that way, the heart 💜 is the master. 🙏🏾
Consciousness is like light passing through our individual equipment. Depending on our unique equipment a projected experience takes place. The same light passing through different prisms will give different rainbows.
This issue afflicts the Homo sapiens more than it does to any other species. Primarily because of the duality of our equipment. It understands by a subject object analogy than as a unity.
You nailed it
The analogy was helpful with understanding.
What an explanation O my…what a gift of god Rupert is!
I am afraid we need mary&jean now 🤣🤣🤣❤️
I love you rupert ...i really do ..‘ thank you man🙏
Wonderful explanation
Wir können nur einen Gedanken gleichzeitig haben, aber wir switchen so schnell hin und her, dass wir glauben alles gleichzeitig wahrzunehmen.
We are one consciousness divided into many. You can experience for instance looking at a red ball in the middle of a room together with your friend and understand that this friend sees the same ball from a different angle. But you both see the same red ball. The fact is that this red ball is in your both's field of vision. Different location is an experience of one consciousness dividing into multiple, which is you and your perspective and your friend and his perspective. But there's only ONE red ball existing in the room.
Each angle (localized consciousness) is "point of view" but there is no one to claim the view. As soon as the claiming starts, the questions and doubt starts, then as the lights go out, the movie of duality (play of life) begins.
True but Universal Mind can experience all thoughts.
Example from “Lord Meher”:
“During a stage of avatar Meher Baba’s regaining worldly consciousness, Meher Baba began experiencing the thoughts of all human beings in the universe. The individual thoughts of those persons in the gross world , irrespective of whether they were near ( on earth) or far ( in another galaxy) , would instantaneously pour into his universal mind at the moment they were created ( thought). The numerous thought-waves were so forceful and so tremendously rapid, it is virtually impossible to describe their effect. The very process of “ infinite” thinking was rushing through Meher Baba’s individual mind, he could withstand it only because his mind had become “ universal.”
Thought-waves vibrate faster than any speed known to man; thus , all thought-waves of all humanity on earth would stream into and permeate Meher Baba’s universal mind in a few minutes. At the beginning of this particular stage of Meher Baba’s coming down , when his universal mind was starting to function , one day he was sitting alone by a canal at Sakori. Within a few minutes , the force of the thoughts of thousands and thousands of persons on earth entered his universal mind. The impact of it was so tremendous that Meher Baba became extremely agonized as if his mind was being pulled apart by all the contradictory thoughts. He soon became extremely uneasy and restless , and at that time, he had to submerge his head underwater in the canal to try to break the shock! He had his head underwater several minutes until his individual mind found relief”
~
“The Biography of the Avatar of the Age Meher Baba Volume One 1894-1922”
al fogel Become the void.
Consciousness is the light shining through the minds of Man (includes Woman). Our minds are like different shades of glass which, each gives the light according to its colour. That is why it is possible for multiple experiences (shades of colour) to happen simultaneously.
I have a more complex suggestion. Consciousness is like breathing, it keep going ON and OFF, or let's say come and go. As you know time is an illusion, consciousness have plenty of times to come and go in every single living being within a certain frame of time, for an example, a little millisecond. What's define your ego is your brain, so does your memories, so then when consciousness come into you it has no clue of what just happened outside your own perspective. That's why meditation is sooo powerful, it makes you "more often" conscious, that way you take back the control of your thoughts, our feelings and emotions. If you go further and further, you may even find out who you really are. 🧘♂️
I like the idea of conciousness as a toggle makes me think of first priciples how brai needs energy and how could it compute so much information for its wattage, maybe the information is equal to power usage yet seems more, yet gives rise to qualia by streching that information into a prediction.
Rupert patience is truly infinite ...
Let me tell you a pathway that makes you perfectly accept that: a psychotic break. I guarantee! I had 2! It's been a trudge to recover, but I can totally accept consciousness having many experiences at the same time. It's a shortcut that I would not recommend overall, but it does work. It's not like I was looking for this specific shortcut, but once I was placed in front of that door I was pushed into it, I know I didn't push it, still looking for my pusher... We need to have a serious conversation :)
Funny you say this because I absolutely relate and have had a couple myself. Always felt like I was searching for myself internally, and I was on the trail via natural intuition, and only discovering Buddhism and Rupert did it finally click that I was naturally inclined towards that truth. And the psychotic break were terrifying but they were also grounded in truth because there is no static thing behind the eyes called self bundled as thoughts feelings and perceptions, and my tendency towards impulsive creativity and thinking for myself led to these breaks. And These breaks also forced me into a position to surrender and I began meditating and found for the first time in my life what peace truly felt like.
Also, I tried 5 meo dmt with spiritual /consciousness expansion in mind, and it indeed blew my consciousness as an ego experience wide open, felt similar as a psychotic break in a way for sure! I have zero regrets and feel like it was the most incredible experience of my life that left me humbled and in awe of reality /existence/life.
@@bulletsmichael I probably differ from you in this: I am not without my struggle. In hindsight my psychotic breaks did gifted me with a few things, but on balance, the negative consequences still outweigh what I gained, because whether I like it or not, I still have to live in this world, and this world very much still looks at these types of breakdowns as an unwanted reality. It has come some way from the middle ages, and some social supports are in place, but let me tell you, even though people like saying in public how they are rid of their stigmas, in private they keep on spewing their prejudices.
I calculated something this morning: the social assistance I got from the state for being impaired for quite sometime due to the break, awarded me in 11 years the same as it awards a University professor in 2... In my mind I overpassed the University professor in 10 days of being hospitalized...Does this make sense? No... But that's this world and I am back here...so I can't say I am not grateful some days for a lot of it, but most days my struggle still wins...
@@tryadifferentone354 I see and I understand and empathize. The struggle is still real for everyone, but now from the more awake perspective, it changes how I perceive and experience the struggle oh, I can say that much is for sure.
How so? You mean you experienced as Consciousness being aware of TWO PERSON'S POV AT THE SAME TIME?
Qué bueno!!! Muchísimas gracias
Simply - we are all One, One is each and all of us, One is all of the bits, all separate bits as individual wholeness within themselves but part of the greater Wholeness, Consciousness, Oneness, God, Creation... All whole and One within each but all within One
It’s a good question 💫
It is a rubbish question coming from the mind. There is no point to this question and it doesn't really lead you anywhere. The answer is great though.
@@YaTut169 the question led to the answer
@@Tea-lw9bj No, the consciousness led to the answer.
Sebastian Key how do you become aware of the infinite number of possibilities than. Isn’t that how you choose your wave of reality.
Sebastian Key Your statement is coming from the ego. Paradoxically, mine is to. Life is easier and we’re all less hypocritical if we don’t judge and just let be. 🙏
thank you rupert
The guy is right there is a missing point in his explanation which the jiva which is the reflection of consciousness in each separate mind
El que pregunta parece argentino. Que fortuna haber podido ver a Rupert.
By 26:49 I started to feel this person was argumentative and was determined NOT to understand. A great metaphor was that pot plant. The Universe is the soil in the pot experiencing the room through each of those flowers. Each flower in this context is a person.
Rupert, I love your videos with all my heart, thank you dear friend for sharing.
if our consciousness is not embodied in a physical form (we exists as one with the ever present eternal now) do we maintain any sense of “I” as the knower relative to what can be known? What does ever present now, practically, look like assuming we could fathom it?
Also, any thoughts on how Bhakti connects with the model you discuss here? In the Shrimad Bhagavtam, it seems (in my humble, novice experience) Bhakti Vedanta maintains a sense of individuality in pursuit of devotion to Bhagavan, and at the same time Bhakti merges the two… so there is individuality and Union. I wonder if that total union also leads to the same ever present now now discussed in non-duality. And once again, can the lover know its beloved without some semblance of individuality or “I.”
I wonder how Bhakti and non-duality relate to one another.
The contradiction that the questioner is struggling with is that if consciousness is divided into *many* separate forms, then _in what sense_ can it be said to be *one,* since it never gets together with itself and has that one single experience of all viewpoints at once, and appears to be limited in its ability to merge with itself. Where is the evidence that it even has the ability to be one consciousness, since what divides our separate experiences from each other is a wall of not just physical division but also persistent perceptual division.
Just saying that one consciousness has chosen to build those walls does not fully satisfy the questioner, who feels that he ought to have some kind of access to the other experiences he(it), as the one consciousness, is having.
I don't personally feel that his intellectual question is satisfactorily, fully, answered. The answer given is a theory. That is why Spira goes on to the practical strategy of "try out my theory and see if it fits". I do think this is a valid strategy for testing a model of perception. I like this approach of upping the ante and testing the theory. It is not as unscientific a method as Spira rather humbly suggests. Science may not like that approach but that's because science has strict limits. But this is a useful plan B. If it's hard to theoretically test an idea, then practically test it. In effect, push your chips into the middle of table and bet on them for a week. The nice thing about this kind of gamble is that it's not really a gamble. Many people are resistant to new ideas due to some kind of irrational security issue around their world view. But you can always go back to the naive materialism model later if this new idea doesn't work, so therefore why not give it a go for a week.
The potential gain is a new angle of perception, which may not even exclude naive materialism, but could augment and append that model in a way that gives an amount of additional clarity to it. After all, even science is just a model. It's not the only valid model we use to perceive or comprehend the world. A map, for example, is an accurate representation of the world. But so is a dialogue. So is my first person eyes forward cine reel of my life. So is the atoms and molecules endlessly spinning model. These models augment and append our understanding of *it* but no model ever, in so doing, excludes any other model. The consciousness model is simply a layer that is ignored by the other layers. That is the partiality of science, that's how and why science of each kind, whether it's chemistry or cartography, works. In fact, the *only* test of science is _does it work?_ and therefore Spira's final answer is potentially validated both scientifically and perceptually.
The man in the audience insists that his space-time perception is all that exists and the only valid one. He should try shrooms or LSD. He needs to experience non-locality, expanded awareness and timelessness for himself.
agree on that his consciousness still in 3d linear world.
That’s solipsism. I think you’re strawmanning him. He never said that he thinks his mind is the only mind that exists. In fact he was saying the opposite. If there are so many different minds with different subjective experiences then how can they all be said to be the same consciousness? That was his question.
@@1999_reborn thanks for your comment. I can't be sure if that was meant as an insult, but in any case, the term strawmanning doesn't really apply. I think I understood his objection. He doesn't understand how the awareness of so many individual minds could be unified by one consciousness. I reiterate: He has not experienced non-local, unbounded awareness. My prescription for this limitation is either psychedelic drugs (mentioned above) or a rigorous, yet humble meditation practice.
I want to speak with you Mateo!
"...though hearing, they do not hear or understand". I've been in this situation, like Mateo in this video. To understand pure consciousness, we have to remove the veil of our belief system, perceptions, thoughts, etc.
This is exactly my question. It is actually the limitation of language. It should be rather said like that there is only 1 consciousness (the the dream of the being or god) in which our existences are the different dream characters. When we investigate, we get the glimpses of our true nature the 1 consciousness. This is how I understood it.
The Saints be like : This is The best and entertaining ever and to See Sir Rupert doing what he does best but there is no doer....😌😂🙏🏽❤️✨
Thank You Sir Rupert!
Could someone answer me, taking the dream as an example. Why some dreams are premonitory and become true months or years later?
Hi Rupert. Always glad to hear your talks. Have you ever researched the amazing similarities (there are differences also of course) between your ontology and that of Saint Maximus the Confessor regarding the Logos and logoi? Juxtapose this to atman and Brahman. It is , I believe, truly amazing how the ontology of India and Christianity meet
My question is: why does consciousness take the many forms of our separate selves at all? For what reason does it do this? If it is to experience itself (as we do in a dream), why should it want experience itself? We supposedly dream because that helps our conscious selves process the worries or fears of life that happens subconsciously (under our conscious awareness). But does the unity consciousness really have worries or things that needs processing that happens under its conscious awareness? What would it even be aware of in its “waking state” as we are aware of trees and such in our waking state? The unity consciousness is everything that we can conceive of after all. So again why does the consciousness want to experience itself through the lens of an individual such as ourselves?
I've often wondered the same thing myself. I suppose because a physical existence is quite different than a non physical one. But we feel like puppets in the process, don't we?
The unity consciousness, being all that is, must contain everything, every possibility of existence, thus it takes all possible forms, including me and you. If my experience or yours didnt exist, it would not be complete, it would lack something. In this sense, we are not just puppets but an important instance, among infinite others, fundamental and necessary for the existence of the whole.
Worry and suffering only came last 63 of our births. In golden age also known as heaven the infinite consiousness had a really good time in bliss and happiness. :)
our senses are limited in nature. To realize or to be aware of the true consciousness is like asking a computer to feel the emotions/senses of it's creator.
Awareness never stop or sleep, even when we're in a deep sleep, a poke/shake will be sensed and wake you up. Even when we see a preacher and simultaneously hearing him/her, other senses are still working. Even though you might not sense it, but the awareness of that sensing is always there. Otherwise you won't feel a prick of a needle while your focus is with the preacher.
By using our limited senses to explain how to be aware will produce a limited version of awareness, why not let the true awareness to take control by letting go the feels/senses of the limited ones
As close as I’ve seen Rupert get frustrated/angry. The metaphors and explanations are exquisite even to those who’ve ‘seen’ but haven’t quite pieced it all together.
It's not easy explaining something infinite with our finite mind - among it all rupert does it the best he can-
@@84sahi That is true.
When I add individual angle I make the concsiousness limited and equate limited with unlimited...and the problem arises ... concsiousness is unlimited and if replaced with awareness .. probably the difference will be better understood..one object surfacing from the soup of many..for each in the greater whole of concsiousness/ awareness
I think he was trying to say that if we're all the same conscious how is it we have individuality. I think we would all have to be enlightened or awakened to see each other as one and see passed the vessel. Maybe individuality only comes from the finite mind but then is it consciousness making decisions and choices adding to the individuality of a person?
I don't have any problem with this. What I don't understand is why we don't all have the awareness of all experiences, if it's all just one anyway. But I only know my own limited experience, not those around me, nor do they know mine.
The question is not whether consciousness can have different experiences at the same time. Of course it does. The guy wants to know whether one person can have different lives in other dimensions at the same time. That is why he says that Rupert misunderstood him.
You as Rupert dont understand the questioner. you say "The question is not whether consciousness can have different experiences at the same time. Of course it does." Then if we are this consciousness why dont we have different experiences at the same time? This is what the questioner wants an answer to.
Amazing and I get it!!!!
When “you” dream at night, “others” may appear IN the dream. “They” may speak to “you.” Do these appearances have “minds?” Or do “you” imagine “them” to? What are these appearances made of? Is there any substance to these appearances other than the knowing of them? Why in the waking state is it assumed any differently? Why is it assumed in the waking state that these appearances have “minds?”
I think Rupert totally missed the point of Mateo's question. It is actually about why solipsism wouldn't more reasonable and parsimonious that inferring that there are other minds we cannot directly experience. In the same vein, it is also about the absurdity of saying a single mind can hold mutually exclusive experiences simultaneously and yet still be regarded as one single mind.
It makes me wonder if Rupert even has a good answer to the question.
Things don't blur when you're not focused on them, awareness doesn't focus it experiences everything that is happening now
That was very good
got there in the end
"Don't make your beliefs conform to your experience. Make your experience conform to your beliefs."
Mateo´s question could be explained with a Mary and Jane metaphore, in wich Mary has a conversation with John in the dream. In this case, John thoughts and words are completely private and unknown to Mary, but it s just a serie of thought of the same Jane ´s mind. Mary and John seem to feel that they have private thoughts, but that privacy is just an illusion for their illusory selves, but they are a reality to Jane ´s mind.
Can someone sum up the test/experiment Rupert gives? That week long test based on what Rupert said earlier. Thank you ❤️
If this was truely the experience of Rupert that the world is a dream that is known in consciousness I would wonder if he had lucid dreams every night. Because in a sleeping dream if one becomes aware of the consciousness of the dreamer then it triggers a lucid dream
Perfect 🥂
The dream analogy breaks down here, since all the other characters in the dream were indeed "cardboard cutouts" and Mary only experiences the dream from a single point of view, Jane's. When she wakes up she cannot recall the dream from the point of view of any of the other characters in the dream.
Similarly, the disassociative personality disorder analogy doesn't work either. In a person suffering from the condition, only one alter is ascendant at any given time, and is reported as having gaps in its memory when it was not ascendant.
Ultimately, we cannot know either way, and I consider it moot.
Whether
a) infinite consciousness localises itself to billions of individual points of view simultaneously
or
b) infinite consciousness only localises itself to my own individual point of view
makes no meaningful difference because in both cases, it's still just infinite consciousness experiencing only itself. The underlying reality is the same.
Consciousness is the emotional response to intellectual conclusions to thought processes of ones senses. Done please email me my award.
The analogy of the dream does not quite make sense. We dream because we experience reality from our individual perspective, the content derives from our waking experience. So if we in our waking experience are a dreamer in unity consciousness’s dream, then where does the content of our experience-the content of unity consciousness’s dream- (like our sensations) come from? Did unity consciousness experience something in its own “waking state” that is the basis of what we as the dreamers perceive? Is there something that unity consciousness perceives, and if so, wouldn’t that mean it is just a dreamer of itself (more unity consciousness)? And if that’s the case, is this explanation of consciousness being an infinite being ultimately a paradox?
The content of the waking world(Earth) is the collective tendencies(Vasanas) which has been suppresed by all the beings that have ever lived and living since the apparent manifestation from the Unmanifest (Infinite consciousness). This is just a possibility. There is causality to viel the truth. The infinite can only dream of being finite. There can be infinite ways in which the "finite" causality is manifested.
12:29: Mary & Jane
Beautiful conversation. I admire questioner too. And of course, rupert is the best ❤❤❤💕💕
I guess consciousness has to experience limitation to experience existence in form. In whatever the form might be.
Yes. Form is limitation.
Thank Mateo for this question. why he wasnt satisfied by answer is that if Im infinite awareness and consciousness in which everything appears why am I not experience others thoughts for example? I was stuck with it also and probably
The answer is that nothing exists really, if you look after the thoughts, perceptions etc you can't find one. and the one who wants to know and see those is mind, if we achieve calm state of mind probably we can see more... i would like to talk to Rupert about this subject. if anyone has clear vision about this pls enlighten me
There can't be "localizations" of consciousness because the atom is empty space. There is no matter. It is only the belief in a body and brain that posits an outline/ a form/ a finite expression. Using the term "minds" always confuses, because it is not the fact. There never are "minds".
Generalization is dual to localization.
Localization is the opposite, opposame to the eternal -- duality.
Logical contradictions implies duality. Questions are dual to answers.
Does God not exist?
The question of God is an ongoing question called evolution in science.
The universe, reality, objectification, actualization become questions for the search for absolute truth.
Start is dual to finish.
The big answer is dual to the big question!
God is dual to that which is not God (privation).
The question or concept of God is a duality.
Truth is dual to falsity.
Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the objective is dual to the subjective.
Noumenal (rational, eternal) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, finite) -- Immanuel Kant.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda, duality or two aspects of the same thing.
@@ommeditationmind1554 Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter, the relationship is a duality and not a singularity.
Non duality is dual to non duality!
@@ommeditationmind1554 Duality: two aspects of the same thing, two sides of the same coin.
Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes offspring -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato.
Points of reference, perspectives, projections (predictions) are inherently dual.
The word synthesis means to create and according to Hegel and Plato etc. it is a by-product of conserving duality.
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
Efficient or first cause is dual to final cause -- Aristotle, material and formal cause are synthesized by conserving duality.
Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant.
I've re-thought the matter, and there is a need for me to ABIDE as SELF in order for me to arrive at an answer. I simply think that localizations of consciousness is what the finite mind or person would think as we think each of us is separate and apart.....but this discussion has made wonder what is prior to consciousness. The answer cannot come from the mind.
@@ommeditationmind1554 There are new laws of physics which you may not be aware of:-
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics.
The word syntropy means 'a tendency to converge' to localize or to focus.
The word entropy means 'a tendency to diverge or differentiate' into new states.
Divergence is dual to convergence, integration is dual to differentiation.
Thinking or thought forms converge or localize into being -- syntropy.
Teleological physics is dual to non-teleological physics.
"I think therefore I am", Cogito ergo sum -- Descartes.
Duality (energy) is being conserved -- the 5th law of thermodynamics.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Energy is dual mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Waves are dual to particles, pure energy or light, photons are dual -- quantum duality.
Duality is hardwired into the physics.
Rupert says that awareness has no limits and looked around fill the experience of multiplicity but when you are experience of mind then mind makes the time experience and there for time makes the experience of running conditions so finite mind can't understand that
Awareness has no starting and no ending point it's only present and when you are in pure awareness you can't find anything other then awareness
What is evolution in this model? Before there is capacity to form a point of view, before there was anything with the capacity for awareness, was universal consciousness simply not viewing itself, yet existing nonetheless? If so, is it that universal consciousness in evolution bends towards knowing itself? Does this statement imply intentionality?
I think he is talking about the egoic individuality which he is confusing with the word same consciousness
The question itself is kinda dumb because it's basically the mind asking "why can I see my thoughts but not any others?" Well cuz other thoughts and experiences are happening in other minds dum-dum, but the dream analogy was so interesting that I'm glad somebody brought it up.
Yes, but 'other' minds are experienced by consciousness. So if we are that consciousness why dont we know all 'minds'?