My absolute favorite spiritual food, Rupert and Bernardo together. So grateful! I can't get enough of them. If it's true that we all get what we deserve, I'm in awe of what i must have done to receive this gift beyond compare.
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one Consciousness experiencing Itself subjectively, there’s no such thing as death life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves…..here’s Tom with the weather” Bill Hicks
Thank you for making this discussion between Rupert and Bernado available to the public. I find trying to express my thoughts clunky because of the limitations of language. The importance of abiding in the awareness of the essential self in regard to mitigating the overall anxiety experienced in this world cannot be overstated. These gentlemen are pointing in the right direction. ❤
My first awareness of conciousness was at 2 yrs old, I very early on perceived the concept of a vibrant force of life in the universe but my environmental circumstances knocked this out of me and i seem to have lost the capacity to endure my own perceived self until now in my 70's. I determined to persue with passion the realities of life having worked at dumping one by one the false beliefs of a cultured mindset. So I think we are born with awareness and culture whacks it out of us to a greater or lesser degree, and some people are numbed into acceptance and others fight their way out of ìt
Accidently bumped into Bernardo through an online article about AI. This is the first thing I see and hear after this and my mind is blown! I'm studying and practicing Dzogchen on a modest level and this knowledge aligns very well with it. Excited to hear more 🙏🏻
I find the comments very interesting and only because I followed Rupert years ago, and only discovered Bernardo a short time ago through the I AM... podcast with Jonny Wilkinson and found that profound in regards to 50 years of spiritual exploration, and something was always missing. Always one more thing to do or think. Bernardo's 'allowing nature to live us' made more sense than anything anyone else had said. Of course it was more than that, but perhaps because when I was in my 20, 30, 40, and 50's, life was about manifesting materialism and spiritual awakening. That was until one day I realized none of it mattered, it was all just stuff and beliefs, and none of it was a pathway to what I thought it was. I crashed my material world and what a journey it has been--one most cannot understand. But Bernardo did, and Trust and Surrender to Nature/Creator, in this nano-second IS peace, is clarity. It is living a life of creativity and not bound to stress or fear. I other reason I stopped listening was because I had never heard a tone in Rupert's voice as I did this time--I can't define it, it was a sense of slight superiority even though he 'complimented' Bernardo repeatedly, and that was surprising. Yes, I get it, this is my reality (at least for this moment) and certainly not someone else's.
I was brought here through my "religious" background and interest in Rupert's teachings. I am very sceptical of scientists, until Bernardo began describing his personal/spiritual experiences as a replica of my own 🤯
About the fact that dissociation/illusion never truly happens (spoken of by Bernardo and Rupert before 45 min.) I have come to recognize this in doing Byron Katie style self-inquiry, known as the Work. When I investigate whether a thought I believed in a past stressful situation is true, I begin the process believing that stressful thought, such as "she abandoned me". In the inquiry I discover how I reacted in that situation when believing that thought... reactions such as anger, fear, feeling very young, yelling at her, judging myself harshly as well as her, feeling tension in my body, not listening to her etc. And then in the 4th question of the Work, "who would I be in that situation without that thought?" I discover that I would be calm, open, compassionate, connected to her and to myself, and also autonomous, not reactive. After doing the Work for many years I suddenly saw that I, awareness/ consciousness/true nature was there all along during stressful events, although it appeared to me at the time that my calm, compassionate self was not present. But through the lens of the 4th question I actually recognize things that I may have not seen for 20 years... who is it that can remember things I as a "separate"imaginary self could not see at the time? The One Consciousness that we all always are. In fact, the real question is who was I without the thought rather than who would I be. What I truly am, was there at the time, seeing without concepts, even while the mind's identification as a separate suffering self was happening.
When Bernardo talked about being his childhood self again, he was acknowledging that the child now had meta consciousness. He could be the child and experience the child, but he could now appreciate the child from a different perspective.
A massively important conversation. Thanks to all involved. I was in a coma 5 days and had and continue to have a complete absence of any awareness during this period. I’m not sure how to process this experience in the context of this discussion
Awesome and thanks for Bernado K being the guest and I’m positive that most of the people who really listen will have an enlarged sense of perception of all of reality!! Great stuff
So Adam and eve took a bite from the apple from the tree of knowledge, then became meta cognitive, so before they took the bite they were acting on instinct and totally unaware of the consequences, I'm not understanding this
I am a Hindu Indian. My scriptures of Vedanta tell me the same thing. However, they make a point succinctly but do not explain, clarify or expound on it. Hence it gets lost to us who are at the yet un-evolved state. But these two, and many others in the western world, go the extra mile to make it understandable even to us. Many thanks..
Because it is not something which can be explained but can only be experienced through meditation. Focus of Indian yogic system is on the experience and realisation not mere words. You can hear the explanation a thousand times but until you have realised it, it will remain unclear.
@@raj50001I agree. The West makes it intellectually interesting, appears to explain and gift knowledge which we accumulate. Food for thought from which we can generate sensations of contentment, ego, superiority etc This can be a trap if one clings to that knowledge (they did not discover themselves) as it then frames/creates foundations and boundaries for the new reality of the proceeding moments. A form of confusion. Unless you realise these things for yourself, thus 'know', then you have not really progressed any further than before. I would say that even reading books, watching talks etc has the same effect - pollution of mind with ideas. The best way is to not know anything and discover the wonder step by step as a child. We were all in that state at the beginning of our awakenings, then we tend to get lost in intellectual titilation and egoic satisfaction.
Because of a chronic medical condition, I have to go undergo general anesthesia about every six months. I have begun to ask the doctors to let me know when the medication begins so I can observe the effect. I’ve come to realize there is consciousness in that place. It is beyond space/time. It has no attributes. It is perfectly peaceful. We associate psychedelics with the idea of confronting our true nature. I realize that experience only opens us up to more content of experience. Yes, the experience of ego death is illuminating but it is still awareness of objects. I’ve come to see the experience of being under general anesthesia as a much closer analog to reality. Infinite consciousness undifferentiated by any experience, wrapped in a black velvet of probability.
This is the best Spira/Kastrup talk. As to why it took 200k years could it simply be that culture tool that long to develop to where it is now. Our first priority is survival before we can contemplate. What Bernardo said about the seemingly banal present is absolutely brilliant.
Beautiful dialog between two essential voices for our times. Roger Penrose stated that he could imagine a universe without consciousness, but something seemed off in such a statement. To imagine a universe without consciousness is not to imagine our same world just with nobody there, since color, shape, texture, scent, movement and everything else perception, including "luminosity" (as a comment has pointed out), captures as external objects/phenomena is also removed. Such a universe is inconceivable or is no-thing. Whatever the universe is, it is always apprehended/experienced/cognisized/conceptualized, etc., through a first-person perspective. What the Indian yogis such as Patanjali or Sri Ramana refer to as pure consciousness (i.e. non dualism) is simply the state where all thinking recedes and only pure perception (certainly as an experienced feeling of presence) exists wherein the perceived (observed) and the perceiver (observer) have merged and the sensation (illusory) of a separate world out there from my world within ceases. Patanjali calls this the stilling of all patterns of conciousness. Very much like J.L. Borges' image of the book of sand whose writing is erased or the blank screen minus the fleeting film images.
Thank you for presenting this very nourishing exchange. Giving ourselves permission to experience, in direct connection with nature, what reality wants to be, through us, is one of the most importants steps on the path of feeling more unity with what is.
Our knowledge of ourself becomes a struggle against the maelstrom to define an anchor in the sea, or a staff in the ground, until you realise all you are left with is a name you choose - well you parents chose that name for you, to hold you into the reality stream of existence. Fascinating.
Great sharing thanks and gratitude beyond measure. After many decades on this wonderful experience I have learned that our purpose is to bring joy, peace and happiness to it. This is not available without us. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
As a pointer, I'd suggest changing the name of the video to "With Mind in Reality" due to the fact that people typically use their mind to 'look for' the Awareness that existence (and mind) is within. Understandable, but mispositional ignorance must be transcended. EXCELLENT video.
This is an intense discussion that shouldn't obscure the fact that Bernardo is expressing a very very profound idea that matter is a ' product ' of Consciousness not the other way around . He gives fantastic scientific and philosophical bases for this point of view . For this I regard him as the Galileo of Consciousness.. All three participants deserve great respect for this civilized debate 🕊️ E=🕉️
@@NondescriptMammal Well I think in some of his talks BK gives very good scientific evidence for Idealism . Is there scientific evidence for multiverses or indeed emergent consciousness?
@@michaeldillon3113 Zero scientific evidence exists for multiverses, in most versions of multiverse theories, no empirical evidence of their existence is even possible. I don't know enough about emergent consciousness to say one way or the other.
@@michaeldillon3113 I like to keep my mind open even to theories that sound crazy though... can you point me to some of the very good scientific evidence he has presented, for the idea that our consciousness literally creates the physical reality around us?
1:08:00 I would say that I don't think consciousness gets back to anything or changes in any way, because time is an illusory creation of consciousness, so for true reality there is no time and thus nothing to go back to or to change with.
Who knows? Everyone has their own take, but until you realise it for yourself it is not real and simply someone else's knowledge, opinion, guidance, reality or just an imagined idea created from logical reasoning; also known as your mind
This is an extraordinary conversation on the philosophical underpinnings of Rupert’s work and the experiential underpinnings of Bernardo’s. Thanks to both of you for taking the time and bringing your full being to the inquiry. 🙏
Can we get a talk session with Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Spira, Eben Alexander and Ed Kelly? It would be very beneficial to our collective human family (let alone animals) to have a collaboration between SAND(science and non duality) and IANDS(international association for near death research) headed by Bruce Grayson and Ed Kelly and Jim B Tucker and in touch with Eben Alexander who’s testimony is absolutely breath taking and can’t be debunked. One Love
Great discussion. 👌 Comment to "words are hints" topic. In my experience language is for communication not for understanding. What I mean, understanding happens via direct experience, which means experiences without a storyline, and without thinking.
The question of what universal consciousness gains from its dissociative experience might better be framed as an exploration of its potentialities. When form drops away, consciousness merges into itself. It’s primordial state is pregnant with latent potential. Dissociation is the means by which it experiences all possible aspects- like an ever bubbling pot of limitless ingredients…
Thank you, thank you so much for this discussion. I have watched the previous podcasts with these two on Rupert's channel and I've always been wanting more! This is an amazing resource for people interested in these matters :)
Translation: Everything we “know”, that is what we perceive / sense or can think about (memories of past experiences, which is also a form of perception) is not “true” understanding of reality. This is because it is like listening to a friend on a telephone: you have “faith” that that voice is from someone you know, but your knowledge in this case is indirect - you only know the transmission of their voice into a microphone and then an electric current ending in a speaker at your phone. RS says that the only true knowledge is self-knowledge. Is that “special”? I think not. “Self-knowledge” fundamentally is when you ask yourself, “am I conscious?”. The answer to that question comes when you pause a moment and remember that something has changed since you asked the quesion - you notice where you are, you see something go by, you hear a dog bark… something that proves that you are not exactly the same as you were a few moments ago - i.e. that you exist independently of any other experience or sensation. And yet, you are the “same” you - how can that be? The “you” that realizes you are not exactly the same from moment to moment… who is that? Our dualistic-thinking mind cannot tolerate that dichotomy, that paradox. And yet, that is the essence of what Rupert indicates is the “real” us, the only thing that is non-illusory. The problem is, that’s just how our brain works, comparing past and present experiences all the time. That comparison that tells us we are “self-aware” is the origin of our dualistic outlook on life. It’s also an illusion, just a continuous one - like watching a TV screen with white noise. It does not signify anything different than everything else we know about reality. Whether we see a screen with white noise or a screen with lots of images, it’s still the same experience of the screen!
This talk on consciousness so rings true here. " I" seemingly "caught", when awaking from the seeming sleeping state, consciousness rapidly contract into localized , individual consciousness, and it felt so uncomfortably confining with such an overwhelming intense alertness, with an urge that so wanted to revert back to a seeming lulled peace and expansive freedom. Confusing is that something or someone was aware of it all. Thus, three "I" positions or levels. Incredible finite mind sticky webs of illusion.
The debate between RS and BBK is quite enthralling and revealing! If Consciousness were to learn anything from manifestation in form, there would be no manifestation; because the human species has repeatedly shown that it learns very little in a body. I tend to agree with RS that Consciousness knows ALL there is to know because, there is nothing else other than Consciousness. And, I agree with the notion that Consciousness manifests in form for its on entertainment.
On the surface, I would agree with Rupert 1:08:40 that infinite consciousness would ultimately return to the same state it was in, however, we may not be considering the full picture when asking that question. Because Rupert uses terms like “before the great Journey“ and “after the great journey“ Regarding the state of infinite consciousness before and after the contraction of itself into individual mind consciousness….. This appears to assume that time is manifest in original infinite consciousness, which I can’t imagine is correct.
Yes, I believe he would agree that time is an appearance in consciousness, which isn't bound my time, but for the sake of conversation/language we can speak of a journey, although this isn't real in the ultimate sense.
My main question has to do with the lack of 'polarity', for lack of a better word, in how Rupert speaks of the ultimate foundation. His example of squashed ball 'yearning' to expand to its natural shape is nice....but part of the balls natural/original state is a the beginning urge to compress. I don't think there is some frozen point of Ultimate Reality where it is not already actively expressing its creative polaric nature. But many teachers like Rupert would say that polaric creativity is wonderful but one step away from fundamental reality. My little experience and most of the evidence suggests to me that this dual dynamics are at the beautiful core of what eternity is. To be clear, 'polarity' is not the same thing as 'duality' or the subject/object dynamic.
The modulation of pure consciousness is selfreferential and thus it seems to assume the forms of different sepsrate selves to enable itself to perceive itself as the universe.
Thank you Bernardo and Rupert Spira .As per Rupert's discussion , why does Infinite Consciousness wants to self aware of Its self .It is by nature Awareness ,what causes or prompts it to become aware it ? No reason , doesn't it seem confusing ?
my dear gentlemen, thank you so much for this conversation. Sufi Mansur Al-Hallaj, who had lived between 858 - 922, was executed for saying this. Today we are fortunate. Will there be a book coming out soon?
It feels like Bernardo is being judged. Every experience is unique and not to be compared. Thank you for looking at your own experience from the beginning
Viz consciousness being self-aware? Question to consider: is there such a thing as knowing without a knower? Perhaps ground consciousness can be described as primordial knowingness or primordial awareness.
Barnardo is a scientist and Rupert is philosopher of life by understanding it direct way. Barnardo’s research supports the basic direct understanding thru science.
dear bernardo, about the pain or burden of empathy: you say that you see that A is attacking B, and you feel B's pain because you got it that B is really you (or, as you said: it's not that "it could be us" but "it IS us"). that means: consciousness localized as bernardo got it that B is nothing else than the same consciousness localized as B, hence the pain. but do see that also A is nothing else than the same consciousness localized as A? and localized as A it is having a good time, in the same moment and situation as it has a bad time localized as B, and as bernardo. so, in this example, there is 1 situation causing 3 different emotional experiences for one and the same consciousness. it is bathing in pure joy of creation and variation, above any dual concepts of morality. that means, empathy "hurts" on one side of the dual medallion, but on the other side there are positive feelings. so, for somebody who suffers under painful empathy, it is recommended to allow oneself to feel also the other side. and THEN come back to reality: there are no others, there is no bernardo who could suffer under being bernardo. all of this is just consciousness hiding from itself, and its best trick it has up its sleeve, is the illusion of duality, you and them. in that package you find "good" and "bad", "useful" and "useless", "attacker" and "attacked" etc, and as unconscious individuals we are choosing sides all the time, in order to invent our stories about ourselves and the rest of the world. but you are not unconscious anymore, bernardo. "you" just believe that a conscious person does not have "your" fascination with thoughts anymore, which for "you" seems to be an indicator for "enlightenment". but this is just another random thought. the one who came up with that story inside of you, is the one you should be watching closely, until it isn't there anymore (knowing then that it never existed in the first place). and, more importantly, how could you NOT be enlightend, if you are able to say "i am not enlightend"? only someone who knows "enlightened" can make a statement about "not enlightened". as you can say "i'm cold" only if you know "i'm not cold". ask "what do i not want to give up? what am i afraid to lose, so that i cling on being a "person bernardo"? what is it that i'm getting out of telling myself the story of the "person who doesn't get it"? " because, whatever you are afraid to lose or hope to get, it doesn't exist outside of your personal beliefsystem. so it must be only your personal beliefsystem that "keeps" you "outside" of realizing that consciousness is, but bernardo is not. with love from spain
I love the way Bernardo says, 'Kant' ;) Sorry, that's my non-perspicacious contribution to the discussion :) But on a more serious note, many thanks to the uploader for hosting such a fruitful conversation.
From my inner observations I lean towards Bernardo's view of the innate telos of nature. With the sole addition that, in my view, this innate telos exists as a sort of pre-defined disposition already encoded in the fabric of the universe itself. A sort of apriori "intent" or "blueprint". Rather than an organic and spontaneous drive forming "on the spot". Basically, in order for the universe to feel the organic push or pull towards a thing or another, it feels intuitively natural that there has to be an apriori "direction" or "disposition" already imprinted in the fabric of the universe itself. Only through this innate disposition, that would act as a reference of sorts, could then the universe know "left from right". A bee will feel organically driven to seek flowers, even though the bee might have never seen flowers yet. There seems to be a certain apriori "order of things" or "blueprint" that tells bees to seek flowers :) Similarly, there might be a certain inner disposition that tells the universe to seek self awareness and self reflection. Otherwise.. what would lead the universe to feel the "pull" towards becoming self aware? Why this option and not another one? Without an innate disposition of sorts, that would act as a reference, it is my opinion that nothing in the universe would be able to be perceived. No drives, no pushes nor pulling would inform the universe of what "feels good" or not. This innate disposition might not be in the form of a conscious thought. The universe might not think to itself "I need to become self aware". Yet it might be an encoding of sorts, from which the universe enacts itself from. And who says that the magnetic force, pulling or pushing the universe towards a thing or another, is not actually a higher order of thought or intent?
"It is what it is! (BK). Or from the Mind-at-Large perspective: "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14). Or from its more dynamic (creative) perspective: "I shall be who I shall be"
It’s actually amazingly ironic that the verse saying “I am that I am” is verse # 3:14 or 3.14 which is Pi in math indicating a circle, which is the shape of infinity or golden ratio which also is sacred geometry such as the Tetragrammaton and egg of life. No coincidences
1:38......How we can return to groundstate if groundstate only exists in relation to the chaos of experience? They appear to be two ends of a stick....the stick and each end can be conceptually separated but in truth it's just one thing.
Groundstate is empty ness,or no thing ness ,it does not exist in relation to any thing.It is experience.When one THINKS they are having an experience thats when separation appears to happen.When you realise its all appearing as you that is the return.Though return implies you left,you did'nt.You just thought you left.
It is a surprising question by Bernardo, regarding consciousness returning back to original state would it be enriched or any change ? This question is the result of quantizing the Consciousness ,I think it is complete by Nature , refer the Upanishad sloka ,Poornamatha , poornamitham , poornath, poorna muthasyathe.when fullness is taken away ,from poornam, what remains is Poornam . Thanks.
Being new to both Rupert and Alberto, the conversation is very interesting, to my mind which craves understanding. Instinct tells me surrendering to that which is beyond all understanding is probably the way forward, which scary for mind, which I guess is the resistance to realisation?
Hi John, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Some random ones fro me: In other videos Bernardo talks about the value of meta-cognitive awareness, and the ability to discern and bring some essential egoic choice to the forces and energies of nature, which include the curiosity those watching these channels will have towards deeper realisation. Certainly, the intellect by definition cannot understand that which is beyond intellect, but there may be no reason to let go of it entirely. Different spiritual traditions emphasise surrender to different degrees. For example, the famous Sufi saying 'Trust in God, but tie up your camel."
Hi, I don’t necessarily see that it’s a question of surrendering the ego, more of making it transparent in awareness. (To what would we be surrendering it to?) Then we can see if we are fixing the car (or whatever) with knowledge and skill for practical purposes- or being attached to our abilities. Ultimately I think it’s a question of focus. Having spent a long time looking at my ego, and as a therapist the ego of others . I am coming more perhaps to what I believe may be Rupert’s view. That it’s better to spend the time as that which we are . Namaste John
Love these guys. You know, they could be totally wrong. Idealism is an "ism." Spirituality is not an "ism." It doesn't depend on any one philosophical or scientific view, or conceptual understanding, though these may certainly be employed by teachers wherever it's appropriate. Spirituality as a whole, or unilaterally, does not endorse the primacy of Consciousness. Some traditions do, and some don't; some teachers do and some don't. The Numinous doesn't care about our ideas, or even know what they are. This is Spirituality plus a philosophical and to an extent scientific overlay which can be useful as a pointer, but if my belief or grasping, or attachment to, or identification with, a particular conceptual modality is the only thing which is veiling the beyond Beyond, guess what I'll let go of.
Identification is the choice of universal consciousness. The entire rodeo is universal consciousness 'consciousness-ing'. Consciousness via infinite minds 'plays' all games. It conceives, creates and perceives its creation without ever anything being 'really' created.
This is an excerpt from a 5-week course with Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira. For the full discussion visit th-cam.com/video/5dRD3vJI3R8/w-d-xo.html If you have more questions, or want to dive deeper together, come join the next course - Visit www.adventuresinawareness.com/ Also, if you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at: Patreon: www.patreon.com/adventuresinawareness In the UK: pay.gocardless.com/flow/RE001YHWMCVNJB4RZFQFCR13VJE709CE One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com/paypalme/adventuresin
1:26:00 When you are not in the ground state of causeless happiness, at that moment, you are assuming the model of separation that consciousness is presenting you with. At that moment of illusory separation, you have said yes to consciousness, and you have opted for the belief that reality is limited and separate. In fact, all of it, is the play of consciousness. One could say that consciousness is opting to say yes to the model of separation which it is presenting to itself and playing it out momentarily as the personal self. Whenever you say no to the model of separation, at that moment you are sitting in the driver seat, at that moment you are recognizing your true nature, and you are not opting for the separate self model. Consciousness plays the roller coaster game until it decides to 'return' home, so to speak. Upon 'returning' home, it may still play the game of manifestation but without believing in the illusion of separation.
These are great truths. As Niels Bohr said, the opposite of a great truth is another great truth. Both approaches are epistemologically impossible to prove. Great truths are not objects that can be measured. They are constructed concepts that show their "truth" by whether they are useful to the one adopting it. See David Levy's Tools of Critical Thinking Chapter 2.
Agree with the previous comment! --> to dissociation: even at the lowest physical level of reality, nature shows us its dual nature: quantum fluctuations from material nothingness and merging back into material nothingness!... wherever you look: you see nothing else: dissociatuin and remerging! ...this is the dance of life - on all levels and in all areas! also the history of mankind, for example in the Bible tells of dissociation and remerging: the prodigal son!
The question posed by BK (1:08:00), namely 'If consciousness goes back to that original state, having gone through the experience of apparent limitation, does it come back richer?' This question overlooks that the 'great journey' of consciousness is not a real journey. It is only a sort of play within consciousness, a sort of play that consciousness is conducting. In other words, there is no reality to this 'great journey' which appears to be undertaken. Consciousness does not go through the experience of limitation. It only seems to do so. As Bernardo says, limitation is apparent, not real limitation. Which leads us to the possibility that there was no before or after, when it comes to universal consciousness. Just sharing an observation.
That drug that you were given during your procedure from the anesthesiologist is what we at the hospital call an "amnesiac". That's what they were using on all my patients for minor outpatient surgical procedures like colonoscopies or for oocyte (egg) donation aspirations in the infertility department. Some of my patients complained that they did remember feeling pain and it was awful, but most didn't remember.
Consciousness has the overview from the dimensionless point of view. The only point of contact with this is love, or union, or to be it. To discover that we are it.❤
So grateful for these, both Bernardo and Rupert resonate so much with me and my experience. Will there be another course with these two and how can I get on it? I’m in a difficult time zone but would make it work
So glad you're enjoying it - you can sign up to the mailing list here: adventuresinawareness.com/events We tend to do a series twice a year, but check the website for updates Hope to see you there!
1:43 Again, anesthesia isn't "experience of the absence of consciousness" it is inference of the absence of consciousness from discontinuity of experience. But the sudden discontinuity is the problem. I don't know what sense it makes to talk of "experience" when we are not aware of that experience. The questioner is in the right here.
The irony here is that if you watch Stuart Hameroff’s work he’s associated with SAND (science and non duality like Rupert is) Stuart has shown evidence that anesthesia does not actually cut off Consciousness at all just certain parts of the brain…..his videos showing this are on TH-cam check it out.
@@r3b3lvegan89 hi There's a difference to be drawn between responsiveness and consciousness though. I may stick my tongue out under anesthesia in response to a command to do so, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I was conscious of doing so.
We feel more empathy with people we are attached to. It is in a way we don’t have the same intensity of emotions with every one. So it is shared being with few, not with all. That also comes and goes as experiences. So ground is sat chit aanand. All other states are experiences.
The Core Subjectivity is Awareness which is aware of sufferings but it doesn't experience the sufferings. That which suffers is the temporal "small egoic self", but the eternal "Universal True Self" ie Core Subjectivity (Universal True Nature) is beyond Causality. Tang Dynasty Zen en Grandmaster *Hui Hai* (to paraphrase) says, _It (Universal True Nature) exists in a "different time-level" ie in modern terms is "different dimension", thus it is not subject to Causality in the mortal dimension._ 😊🙏🙇♂️🌷
I think Rupert makes an error - experience ITSELF does not come and go - I would therefore argue that experience is essential to me. Great conversation - thank you!
@@bradcolinyoung2978 from consciousness' point of view. If as I suggest, experience is essential to consciousness, this would be consistent with your experience of GA. Your being conscious of only consciousness in a time and spaceless realm is an inference made in the waking state but not verifiable in experience.
@@robryane2169 I'm not certain I know what you mean but I think I would agree that experience is refracted by mind as a schema of objects in space and time.
I've been mulling around with a model/abstract structure for consciousness and perception in the form of 313. It's eyes within perception...God.. I'm not good at communication but around the 42:53 mark, Rupert is sorta describing what Ive also come up with..
Half of my brain is philosophical and dare I say that awful word... 'spiritual'. The other half is a science major. Suffice to say, Rupert and Bernado together is more appealing to my grey matter and heart than a Five Guys burger is to my greedy gut. Amazing. I'm now watching it again for a third time. ☝
Hi. I am confused hearing Rupert say that the activity of self-reflection is necessary to us. I don't believe it is actually an activity but rather a knowing. Would you agree with that?
Salvianorin A seems to affect the perception of Time, As Ketamine, and can move your Consciousness through the realms of time, total dissociation of the Outer Space/TIME.
Okay, that was helpful Rupert doesn't believe that Fundamental Reality can be surprised by what it 'finds' as it plays with itself as a evolutionary process. He believe that compressed aspects of itself can be surprised but not not reality as a whole. I disagree but it gets very tricky trying to put words to this. That said, I believe that fundamental reality is being joyfully surprised to some extent all of the time.
Well..what to say about them two together..Bernardo+Rupert the best satsang one could ever aspire to..Grateful to all the three of you gentlemen.
Many thanks for your engagement and comment! 🙏
True beauty!
@@adventuresinawareness Now get Donald Hoffman to make it a quad.
My absolute favorite spiritual food, Rupert and Bernardo together. So grateful! I can't get enough of them. If it's true that we all get what we deserve, I'm in awe of what i must have done to receive this gift beyond compare.
Thanks for sharing Kim!
I agree, its a great pairing. I hope this happens many more times!
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one Consciousness experiencing Itself subjectively, there’s no such thing as death life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves…..here’s Tom with the weather” Bill Hicks
Thank you for making this discussion between Rupert and Bernado available to the public. I find trying to express my thoughts clunky because of the limitations of language. The importance of abiding in the awareness of the essential self in regard to mitigating the overall anxiety experienced in this world cannot be overstated. These gentlemen are pointing in the right direction. ❤
My first awareness of conciousness was at 2 yrs old, I very early on perceived the concept of a vibrant force of life in the universe but my environmental circumstances knocked this out of me and i seem to have lost the capacity to endure my own perceived self until now in my 70's. I determined to persue with passion the realities of life having worked at dumping one by one the false beliefs of a cultured mindset. So I think we are born with awareness and culture whacks it out of us to a greater or lesser degree, and some people are numbed into acceptance and others fight their way out of ìt
So relatable ❤
Accidently bumped into Bernardo through an online article about AI. This is the first thing I see and hear after this and my mind is blown! I'm studying and practicing Dzogchen on a modest level and this knowledge aligns very well with it. Excited to hear more 🙏🏻
I find the comments very interesting and only because I followed Rupert years ago, and only discovered Bernardo a short time ago through the I AM... podcast with Jonny Wilkinson and found that profound in regards to 50 years of spiritual exploration, and something was always missing. Always one more thing to do or think. Bernardo's 'allowing nature to live us' made more sense than anything anyone else had said. Of course it was more than that, but perhaps because when I was in my 20, 30, 40, and 50's, life was about manifesting materialism and spiritual awakening. That was until one day I realized none of it mattered, it was all just stuff and beliefs, and none of it was a pathway to what I thought it was. I crashed my material world and what a journey it has been--one most cannot understand. But Bernardo did, and Trust and Surrender to Nature/Creator, in this nano-second IS peace, is clarity. It is living a life of creativity and not bound to stress or fear. I other reason I stopped listening was because I had never heard a tone in Rupert's voice as I did this time--I can't define it, it was a sense of slight superiority even though he 'complimented' Bernardo repeatedly, and that was surprising. Yes, I get it, this is my reality (at least for this moment) and certainly not someone else's.
Great to read your perspective, Angelica. Thanks for sharing!
I was brought here through my "religious" background and interest in Rupert's teachings. I am very sceptical of scientists, until Bernardo began describing his personal/spiritual experiences as a replica of my own 🤯
About the fact that dissociation/illusion never truly happens (spoken of by Bernardo and Rupert before 45 min.) I have come to recognize this in doing Byron Katie style self-inquiry, known as the Work. When I investigate whether a thought I believed in a past stressful situation is true, I begin the process believing that stressful thought, such as "she abandoned me". In the inquiry I discover how I reacted in that situation when believing that thought... reactions such as anger, fear, feeling very young, yelling at her, judging myself harshly as well as her, feeling tension in my body, not listening to her etc. And then in the 4th question of the Work, "who would I be in that situation without that thought?" I discover that I would be calm, open, compassionate, connected to her and to myself, and also autonomous, not reactive. After doing the Work for many years I suddenly saw that I, awareness/ consciousness/true nature was there all along during stressful events, although it appeared to me at the time that my calm, compassionate self was not present. But through the lens of the 4th question I actually recognize things that I may have not seen for 20 years... who is it that can remember things I as a "separate"imaginary self could not see at the time? The One Consciousness that we all always are. In fact, the real question is who was I without the thought rather than who would I be. What I truly am, was there at the time, seeing without concepts, even while the mind's identification as a separate suffering self was happening.
Beautiful. How do you make decisions? What do you follow
What an amazing sharing and depth of honesty, it's so refreshing to witness such integrity and intimacy from such wonderful minds. Thank you so much 🪷
Thanks Kathleen! Great to hear your feedback 🙏
When Bernardo talked about being his childhood self again, he was acknowledging that the child now had meta consciousness. He could be the child and experience the child, but he could now appreciate the child from a different perspective.
A massively important conversation. Thanks to all involved. I was in a coma 5 days and had and continue to have a complete absence of any awareness during this period. I’m not sure how to process this experience in the context of this discussion
Excellent conversation so many thanks!
2.10.59:What Rupert is saying here to Bernardo is really moving..ॐ ❤
Thanks Kelly - and yes we agree :)
Awesome and thanks for Bernado K being the guest and I’m positive that most of the people who really listen will have an enlarged sense of perception of all of reality!! Great stuff
The two of them are so inspiring 💓 I’ve listened so many times to them and continue to pick up new wondrous things I didn’t get before
So Adam and eve took a bite from the apple from the tree of knowledge, then became meta cognitive, so before they took the bite they were acting on instinct and totally unaware of the consequences, I'm not understanding this
I am a Hindu Indian. My scriptures of Vedanta tell me the same thing. However, they make a point succinctly but do not explain, clarify or expound on it. Hence it gets lost to us who are at the yet un-evolved state.
But these two, and many others in the western world, go the extra mile to make it understandable even to us.
Many thanks..
Because it is not something which can be explained but can only be experienced through meditation. Focus of Indian yogic system is on the experience and realisation not mere words. You can hear the explanation a thousand times but until you have realised it, it will remain unclear.
@@raj50001I agree. The West makes it intellectually interesting, appears to explain and gift knowledge which we accumulate. Food for thought from which we can generate sensations of contentment, ego, superiority etc This can be a trap if one clings to that knowledge (they did not discover themselves) as it then frames/creates foundations and boundaries for the new reality of the proceeding moments. A form of confusion.
Unless you realise these things for yourself, thus 'know', then you have not really progressed any further than before.
I would say that even reading books, watching talks etc has the same effect - pollution of mind with ideas.
The best way is to not know anything and discover the wonder step by step as a child. We were all in that state at the beginning of our awakenings, then we tend to get lost in intellectual titilation and egoic satisfaction.
Because of a chronic medical condition, I have to go undergo general anesthesia about every six months. I have begun to ask the doctors to let me know when the medication begins so I can observe the effect. I’ve come to realize there is consciousness in that place. It is beyond space/time. It has no attributes. It is perfectly peaceful. We associate psychedelics with the idea of confronting our true nature. I realize that experience only opens us up to more content of experience. Yes, the experience of ego death is illuminating but it is still awareness of objects. I’ve come to see the experience of being under general anesthesia as a much closer analog to reality. Infinite consciousness undifferentiated by any experience, wrapped in a black velvet of probability.
This is the best Spira/Kastrup talk. As to why it took 200k years could it simply be that culture tool that long to develop to where it is now. Our first priority is survival before we can contemplate. What Bernardo said about the seemingly banal present is absolutely brilliant.
Beautiful dialog between two essential voices for our times.
Roger Penrose stated that he could imagine a universe without consciousness, but something seemed off in such a statement. To imagine a universe without consciousness is not to imagine our same world just with nobody there, since color, shape, texture, scent, movement and everything else perception, including "luminosity" (as a comment has pointed out), captures as external objects/phenomena is also removed. Such a universe is inconceivable or is no-thing.
Whatever the universe is, it is always apprehended/experienced/cognisized/conceptualized, etc., through a first-person perspective. What the Indian yogis such as Patanjali or Sri Ramana refer to as pure consciousness (i.e. non dualism) is simply the state where all thinking recedes and only pure perception (certainly as an experienced feeling of presence) exists wherein the perceived (observed) and the perceiver (observer) have merged and the sensation (illusory) of a separate world out there from my world within ceases. Patanjali calls this the stilling of all patterns of conciousness. Very much like J.L. Borges' image of the book of sand whose writing is erased or the blank screen minus the fleeting film images.
Thank you for presenting this very nourishing exchange. Giving ourselves permission to experience, in direct connection with nature, what reality wants to be, through us, is one of the most importants steps on the path of feeling more unity with what is.
These men get better and better. And through their accumulating wisdom we get better.
Thanks Rick 🙂
You blew mind away at 2:10 by describing reality in the most powerful way that i could imagine. thank you.
In one word? BRILLIANT!
Our knowledge of ourself becomes a struggle against the maelstrom to define an anchor in the sea, or a staff in the ground, until you realise all you are left with is a name you choose - well you parents chose that name for you, to hold you into the reality stream of existence. Fascinating.
THANK YOU - THIS WAS INSPIRING - WE ARE CHANGING THE WORLD AND YOU ARE THE REASON -
The best discussion I ever listened to. ❤. Amazing humans.
I'm so grateful for these two!
Great sharing thanks and gratitude beyond measure. After many decades on this wonderful experience I have learned that our purpose is to bring joy, peace and happiness to it. This is not available without us. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
💗
Bernardo,
You have changed my life🙏🏽
As a pointer, I'd suggest changing the name of the video to "With Mind in Reality" due to the fact that people typically use their mind to 'look for' the Awareness that existence (and mind) is within. Understandable, but mispositional ignorance must be transcended. EXCELLENT video.
This is an intense discussion that shouldn't obscure the fact that Bernardo is expressing a very very profound idea that matter is a ' product ' of Consciousness not the other way around . He gives fantastic scientific and philosophical bases for this point of view . For this I regard him as the Galileo of Consciousness.. All three participants deserve great respect for this civilized debate 🕊️ E=🕉️
There is no scientific basis for this point of view, not in any conventional sense of the word "scientific".
@@NondescriptMammal Well I think in some of his talks BK gives very good scientific evidence for Idealism .
Is there scientific evidence for multiverses or indeed emergent consciousness?
@@michaeldillon3113 Zero scientific evidence exists for multiverses, in most versions of multiverse theories, no empirical evidence of their existence is even possible. I don't know enough about emergent consciousness to say one way or the other.
@@michaeldillon3113 I like to keep my mind open even to theories that sound crazy though... can you point me to some of the very good scientific evidence he has presented, for the idea that our consciousness literally creates the physical reality around us?
@@NondescriptMammal your experience, instead theory
1:08:00 I would say that I don't think consciousness gets back to anything or changes in any way, because time is an illusory creation of consciousness, so for true reality there is no time and thus nothing to go back to or to change with.
Who knows? Everyone has their own take, but until you realise it for yourself it is not real and simply someone else's knowledge, opinion, guidance, reality or just an imagined idea created from logical reasoning; also known as your mind
REALITY IS CONSCIOUS IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
Such a Beautiful and Deep way to look at the Process..Bravo Bernardo. Namaste
This is an extraordinary conversation on the philosophical underpinnings of Rupert’s work and the experiential underpinnings of Bernardo’s. Thanks to both of you for taking the time and bringing your full being to the inquiry. 🙏
Thanks for the kind words Keith - its encouraging 🙏
Can we get a talk session with Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Spira, Eben Alexander and Ed Kelly? It would be very beneficial to our collective human family (let alone animals) to have a collaboration between SAND(science and non duality) and IANDS(international association for near death research) headed by Bruce Grayson and Ed Kelly and Jim B Tucker and in touch with Eben Alexander who’s testimony is absolutely breath taking and can’t be debunked. One Love
The "removal" exercise is profound. Thank you
Great discussion. 👌
Comment to "words are hints" topic. In my experience language is for communication not for understanding. What I mean, understanding happens via direct experience, which means experiences without a storyline, and without thinking.
The question of what universal consciousness gains from its dissociative experience might better be framed as an exploration of its potentialities. When form drops away, consciousness merges into itself. It’s primordial state is pregnant with latent potential. Dissociation is the means by which it experiences all possible aspects- like an ever bubbling pot of limitless ingredients…
Beautifully put 🙏🙏
Thank you, thank you so much for this discussion. I have watched the previous podcasts with these two on Rupert's channel and I've always been wanting more! This is an amazing resource for people interested in these matters :)
Tears of joy. 🙏
blessings!
Translation: Everything we “know”, that is what we perceive / sense or can think about (memories of past experiences, which is also a form of perception) is not “true” understanding of reality. This is because it is like listening to a friend on a telephone: you have “faith” that that voice is from someone you know, but your knowledge in this case is indirect - you only know the transmission of their voice into a microphone and then an electric current ending in a speaker at your phone. RS says that the only true knowledge is self-knowledge. Is that “special”? I think not. “Self-knowledge” fundamentally is when you ask yourself, “am I conscious?”. The answer to that question comes when you pause a moment and remember that something has changed since you asked the quesion - you notice where you are, you see something go by, you hear a dog bark… something that proves that you are not exactly the same as you were a few moments ago - i.e. that you exist independently of any other experience or sensation. And yet, you are the “same” you - how can that be? The “you” that realizes you are not exactly the same from moment to moment… who is that? Our dualistic-thinking mind cannot tolerate that dichotomy, that paradox. And yet, that is the essence of what Rupert indicates is the “real” us, the only thing that is non-illusory. The problem is, that’s just how our brain works, comparing past and present experiences all the time. That comparison that tells us we are “self-aware” is the origin of our dualistic outlook on life. It’s also an illusion, just a continuous one - like watching a TV screen with white noise. It does not signify anything different than everything else we know about reality. Whether we see a screen with white noise or a screen with lots of images, it’s still the same experience of the screen!
This talk on consciousness so rings true here. " I" seemingly "caught", when awaking from the seeming sleeping state, consciousness rapidly contract into localized , individual consciousness, and it felt so uncomfortably confining with such an overwhelming intense alertness, with an urge that so wanted to revert back to a seeming lulled peace and expansive freedom. Confusing is that something or someone was aware of it all. Thus, three "I" positions or levels. Incredible finite mind sticky webs of illusion.
The debate between RS and BBK is quite enthralling and revealing! If Consciousness were to learn anything from manifestation in form, there would be no manifestation; because the human species has repeatedly shown that it learns very little in a body.
I tend to agree with RS that Consciousness knows ALL there is to know because, there is nothing else other than Consciousness. And, I agree with the notion that Consciousness manifests in form for its on entertainment.
Nobel prize winning information!
Thanks for the encouragement! 🙏♥🙏
The question about anesthetic is great. Thank you so much for asking. Have wondered how Global Amnesia fits into all this. Explains so much.
Glad it was helpful!
Lessons is consciousness work and how mature communication is done. High quality stuff. Thanks and best wishes to all.
On the surface, I would agree with Rupert 1:08:40 that infinite consciousness would ultimately return to the same state it was in, however, we may not be considering the full picture when asking that question. Because Rupert uses terms like “before the great Journey“ and “after the great journey“ Regarding the state of infinite consciousness before and after the contraction of itself into individual mind consciousness….. This appears to assume that time is manifest in original infinite consciousness, which I can’t imagine is correct.
Yes, I believe he would agree that time is an appearance in consciousness, which isn't bound my time, but for the sake of conversation/language we can speak of a journey, although this isn't real in the ultimate sense.
There is someone who looks after us from behind the curtain, in truth we are not here. Rumi
My main question has to do with the lack of 'polarity', for lack of a better word, in how Rupert speaks of the ultimate foundation. His example of squashed ball 'yearning' to expand to its natural shape is nice....but part of the balls natural/original state is a the beginning urge to compress.
I don't think there is some frozen point of Ultimate Reality where it is not already actively expressing its creative polaric nature. But many teachers like Rupert would say that polaric creativity is wonderful but one step away from fundamental reality. My little experience and most of the evidence suggests to me that this dual dynamics are at the beautiful core of what eternity is. To be clear, 'polarity' is not the same thing as 'duality' or the subject/object dynamic.
The modulation of pure consciousness is selfreferential and thus it seems to assume the forms of different sepsrate selves to enable itself to perceive itself as the universe.
Thank you Bernardo and Rupert Spira .As per Rupert's discussion , why does Infinite Consciousness wants to self aware of Its self .It is by nature Awareness ,what causes or prompts it to become aware it ? No reason , doesn't it seem confusing ?
Not sure I get much of this...but these are lovely guys.That alone is reason to be✌️
This is fantastic.
I used to think it was noble to suffer. Hogwash. I can see how Bernardo and Rupert would hit it off. great video.
my dear gentlemen, thank you so much for this conversation. Sufi Mansur Al-Hallaj, who had lived between 858 - 922, was executed for saying this. Today we are fortunate. Will there be a book coming out soon?
Thanks for your comment
Yes there are several books by Bernardo and Rupert which you can find on their websites 🙏
It feels like Bernardo is being judged. Every experience is unique and not to be compared. Thank you for looking at your own experience from the beginning
"The brain is the bouncer of the heart."
❤
I’m happy to have stumbled upon this lovely channel 😊
Viz consciousness being self-aware?
Question to consider: is there such a thing as knowing without a knower?
Perhaps ground consciousness can be described as primordial knowingness or primordial awareness.
Barnardo is a scientist and Rupert is philosopher of life by understanding it direct way. Barnardo’s research supports the basic direct understanding thru science.
dear bernardo, about the pain or burden of empathy: you say that you see that A is attacking B, and you feel B's pain because you got it that B is really you (or, as you said: it's not that "it could be us" but "it IS us"). that means: consciousness localized as bernardo got it that B is nothing else than the same consciousness localized as B, hence the pain. but do see that also A is nothing else than the same consciousness localized as A? and localized as A it is having a good time, in the same moment and situation as it has a bad time localized as B, and as bernardo.
so, in this example, there is 1 situation causing 3 different emotional experiences for one and the same consciousness. it is bathing in pure joy of creation and variation, above any dual concepts of morality.
that means, empathy "hurts" on one side of the dual medallion, but on the other side there are positive feelings. so, for somebody who suffers under painful empathy, it is recommended to allow oneself to feel also the other side.
and THEN come back to reality: there are no others, there is no bernardo who could suffer under being bernardo. all of this is just consciousness hiding from itself, and its best trick it has up its sleeve, is the illusion of duality, you and them. in that package you find "good" and "bad", "useful" and "useless", "attacker" and "attacked" etc, and as unconscious individuals we are choosing sides all the time, in order to invent our stories about ourselves and the rest of the world. but you are not unconscious anymore, bernardo. "you" just believe that a conscious person does not have "your" fascination with thoughts anymore, which for "you" seems to be an indicator for "enlightenment". but this is just another random thought. the one who came up with that story inside of you, is the one you should be watching closely, until it isn't there anymore (knowing then that it never existed in the first place). and, more importantly, how could you NOT be enlightend, if you are able to say "i am not enlightend"? only someone who knows "enlightened" can make a statement about "not enlightened". as you can say "i'm cold" only if you know "i'm not cold".
ask "what do i not want to give up? what am i afraid to lose, so that i cling on being a "person bernardo"? what is it that i'm getting out of telling myself the story of the "person who doesn't get it"? "
because, whatever you are afraid to lose or hope to get, it doesn't exist outside of your personal beliefsystem. so it must be only your personal beliefsystem that "keeps" you "outside" of realizing that consciousness is, but bernardo is not. with love from spain
when you break the tension, it's always a good day :)
I figured a lot if this out already when I was living over by Rancho Cucamonga.
I love the way Bernardo says, 'Kant' ;) Sorry, that's my non-perspicacious contribution to the discussion :) But on a more serious note, many thanks to the uploader for hosting such a fruitful conversation.
Thanks for engaging!
Bernardo has that accent that pulls you in when he starts flowing. I feel it
From my inner observations I lean towards Bernardo's view of the innate telos of nature. With the sole addition that, in my view, this innate telos exists as a sort of pre-defined disposition already encoded in the fabric of the universe itself. A sort of apriori "intent" or "blueprint". Rather than an organic and spontaneous drive forming "on the spot".
Basically, in order for the universe to feel the organic push or pull towards a thing or another, it feels intuitively natural that there has to be an apriori "direction" or "disposition" already imprinted in the fabric of the universe itself. Only through this innate disposition, that would act as a reference of sorts, could then the universe know "left from right".
A bee will feel organically driven to seek flowers, even though the bee might have never seen flowers yet. There seems to be a certain apriori "order of things" or "blueprint" that tells bees to seek flowers :) Similarly, there might be a certain inner disposition that tells the universe to seek self awareness and self reflection. Otherwise.. what would lead the universe to feel the "pull" towards becoming self aware? Why this option and not another one?
Without an innate disposition of sorts, that would act as a reference, it is my opinion that nothing in the universe would be able to be perceived. No drives, no pushes nor pulling would inform the universe of what "feels good" or not.
This innate disposition might not be in the form of a conscious thought. The universe might not think to itself "I need to become self aware". Yet it might be an encoding of sorts, from which the universe enacts itself from.
And who says that the magnetic force, pulling or pushing the universe towards a thing or another, is not actually a higher order of thought or intent?
Lovely to read your thoughts - they make a lot of sense. Thanks! ❤
"It is what it is! (BK). Or from the Mind-at-Large perspective: "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14). Or from its more dynamic (creative) perspective: "I shall be who I shall be"
It’s actually amazingly ironic that the verse saying “I am that I am” is verse # 3:14 or 3.14 which is Pi in math indicating a circle, which is the shape of infinity or golden ratio which also is sacred geometry such as the Tetragrammaton and egg of life. No coincidences
1:38......How we can return to groundstate if groundstate only exists in relation to the chaos of experience? They appear to be two ends of a stick....the stick and each end can be conceptually separated but in truth it's just one thing.
Groundstate is empty ness,or no thing ness ,it does not exist in relation to any thing.It is experience.When one THINKS they are having an experience thats when separation appears to happen.When you realise its all appearing as you that is the return.Though return implies you left,you did'nt.You just thought you left.
It is a surprising question by Bernardo, regarding consciousness returning back to original state would it be enriched or any change ? This question is the result of quantizing the Consciousness ,I think it is complete by Nature , refer the Upanishad sloka ,Poornamatha , poornamitham , poornath, poorna muthasyathe.when fullness is taken away ,from poornam, what remains is Poornam . Thanks.
Being new to both Rupert and Alberto, the conversation is very interesting, to my mind which craves understanding. Instinct tells me surrendering to that which is beyond all understanding is probably the way forward, which scary for mind, which I guess is the resistance to realisation?
Hi John, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Some random ones fro me:
In other videos Bernardo talks about the value of meta-cognitive awareness, and the ability to discern and bring some essential egoic choice to the forces and energies of nature, which include the curiosity those watching these channels will have towards deeper realisation.
Certainly, the intellect by definition cannot understand that which is beyond intellect, but there may be no reason to let go of it entirely.
Different spiritual traditions emphasise surrender to different degrees. For example, the famous Sufi saying 'Trust in God, but tie up your camel."
Hi, I don’t necessarily see that it’s a question of surrendering the ego, more of making it transparent in awareness. (To what would we be surrendering it to?) Then we can see if we are fixing the car (or whatever) with knowledge and skill for practical purposes- or being attached to our abilities.
Ultimately I think it’s a question of focus. Having spent a long time looking at my ego, and as a therapist the ego of others . I am coming more perhaps to what I believe may be Rupert’s view.
That it’s better to spend the time as that which we are .
Namaste
John
Love these guys. You know, they could be totally wrong. Idealism is an "ism." Spirituality is not an "ism." It doesn't depend on any one philosophical or scientific view, or conceptual understanding, though these may certainly be employed by teachers wherever it's appropriate. Spirituality as a whole, or unilaterally, does not endorse the primacy of Consciousness. Some traditions do, and some don't; some teachers do and some don't. The Numinous doesn't care about our ideas, or even know what they are. This is Spirituality plus a philosophical and to an extent scientific overlay which can be useful as a pointer, but if my belief or grasping, or attachment to, or identification with, a particular conceptual modality is the only thing which is veiling the beyond Beyond, guess what I'll let go of.
Identification is the choice of universal consciousness. The entire rodeo is universal consciousness 'consciousness-ing'.
Consciousness via infinite minds 'plays' all games. It conceives, creates and perceives its creation without ever anything being 'really' created.
This is an excerpt from a 5-week course with Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira.
For the full discussion visit th-cam.com/video/5dRD3vJI3R8/w-d-xo.html
If you have more questions, or want to dive deeper together, come join the next course - Visit www.adventuresinawareness.com/
Also, if you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:
Patreon: www.patreon.com/adventuresinawareness
In the UK: pay.gocardless.com/flow/RE001YHWMCVNJB4RZFQFCR13VJE709CE
One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com/paypalme/adventuresin
1:26:00
When you are not in the ground state of causeless happiness, at that moment, you are assuming the model of separation that consciousness is presenting you with. At that moment of illusory separation, you have said yes to consciousness, and you have opted for the belief that reality is limited and separate.
In fact, all of it, is the play of consciousness. One could say that consciousness is opting to say yes to the model of separation which it is presenting to itself and playing it out momentarily as the personal self.
Whenever you say no to the model of separation, at that moment you are sitting in the driver seat, at that moment you are recognizing your true nature, and you are not opting for the separate self model.
Consciousness plays the roller coaster game until it decides to 'return' home, so to speak. Upon 'returning' home, it may still play the game of manifestation but without believing in the illusion of separation.
Inherent self awareness vs evolved self awareness is a pretty massive difference guys!
These are great truths. As Niels Bohr said, the opposite of a great truth is another great truth.
Both approaches are epistemologically impossible to prove.
Great truths are not objects that can be measured. They are constructed concepts that show their "truth" by whether they are useful to the one adopting it.
See David Levy's Tools of Critical Thinking Chapter 2.
Agree with the previous comment!
--> to dissociation:
even at the lowest physical level of reality, nature shows us its dual nature: quantum fluctuations from material nothingness and merging back into material nothingness!... wherever you look: you see nothing else: dissociatuin and remerging!
...this is the dance of life - on all levels and in all areas!
also the history of mankind, for example in the Bible tells of dissociation and remerging: the prodigal son!
The question posed by BK (1:08:00), namely 'If consciousness goes back to that original state, having gone through the experience of apparent limitation, does it come back richer?'
This question overlooks that the 'great journey' of consciousness is not a real journey. It is only a sort of play within consciousness, a sort of play that consciousness is conducting. In other words, there is no reality to this 'great journey' which appears to be undertaken. Consciousness does not go through the experience of limitation. It only seems to do so. As Bernardo says, limitation is apparent, not real limitation. Which leads us to the possibility that there was no before or after, when it comes to universal consciousness.
Just sharing an observation.
That drug that you were given during your procedure from the anesthesiologist is what we at the hospital call an "amnesiac". That's what they were using on all my patients for minor outpatient surgical procedures like colonoscopies or for oocyte (egg) donation aspirations in the infertility department. Some of my patients complained that they did remember feeling pain and it was awful, but most didn't remember.
Consciousness has the overview from the dimensionless point of view. The only point of contact with this is love, or union, or to be it. To discover that we are it.❤
So grateful for these, both Bernardo and Rupert resonate so much with me and my experience.
Will there be another course with these two and how can I get on it?
I’m in a difficult time zone but would make it work
So glad you're enjoying it - you can sign up to the mailing list here: adventuresinawareness.com/events
We tend to do a series twice a year, but check the website for updates
Hope to see you there!
experience of the universe via perception, conception, and knowledge of I am. 6.20.....
¡Que belleza!, gracias.
52 conciousness have no tought before taking shape of finite mind but have experience of being Itself
42 localisation of conciousness seems to happen from the point of view of seperate self.
Descartes already did that (the mind/thought experiment mentioned here).
1:43 Again, anesthesia isn't "experience of the absence of consciousness" it is inference of the absence of consciousness from discontinuity of experience. But the sudden discontinuity is the problem. I don't know what sense it makes to talk of "experience" when we are not aware of that experience. The questioner is in the right here.
The irony here is that if you watch Stuart Hameroff’s work he’s associated with SAND (science and non duality like Rupert is) Stuart has shown evidence that anesthesia does not actually cut off Consciousness at all just certain parts of the brain…..his videos showing this are on TH-cam check it out.
@@r3b3lvegan89 hi There's a difference to be drawn between responsiveness and consciousness though. I may stick my tongue out under anesthesia in response to a command to do so, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I was conscious of doing so.
We feel more empathy with people we are attached to. It is in a way we don’t have the same intensity of emotions with every one. So it is shared being with few, not with all. That also comes and goes as experiences. So ground is sat chit aanand. All other states are experiences.
The Core Subjectivity is Awareness which is aware of sufferings but it doesn't experience the sufferings.
That which suffers is the temporal "small egoic self", but the eternal "Universal True Self" ie Core Subjectivity (Universal True Nature) is beyond Causality.
Tang Dynasty Zen en Grandmaster *Hui Hai* (to paraphrase) says,
_It (Universal True Nature) exists in a "different time-level" ie in modern terms is "different dimension", thus it is not subject to Causality in the mortal dimension._ 😊🙏🙇♂️🌷
I think Rupert makes an error - experience ITSELF does not come and go - I would therefore argue that experience is essential to me. Great conversation - thank you!
Experiencing is different to experience.You are the experience ..Experiences happen to someone and is a reference point to the small me
@@bradcolinyoung2978 I've never had a GA. From who's point of view is the screen still there while under GA?
experience ITSELF is not an object, it's content is.
@@bradcolinyoung2978 from consciousness' point of view. If as I suggest, experience is essential to consciousness, this would be consistent with your experience of GA. Your being conscious of only consciousness in a time and spaceless realm is an inference made in the waking state but not verifiable in experience.
@@robryane2169 I'm not certain I know what you mean but I think I would agree that experience is refracted by mind as a schema of objects in space and time.
I've been mulling around with a model/abstract structure for consciousness and perception in the form of 313. It's eyes within perception...God..
I'm not good at communication but around the 42:53 mark, Rupert is sorta describing what Ive also come up with..
Half of my brain is philosophical and dare I say that awful word... 'spiritual'. The other half is a science major. Suffice to say, Rupert and Bernado together is more appealing to my grey matter and heart than a Five Guys burger is to my greedy gut. Amazing. I'm now watching it again for a third time. ☝
Could it be that its instinct, just like our own, is to free itself from excitations/experience.
Free itself from creating disassociation etc
lovely gentlemen
I got it, Consciousness! For that is all there is! 😆🙏
Energy, pure energy 🙏🏼
Hi. I am confused hearing Rupert say that the activity of self-reflection is necessary to us.
I don't believe it is actually an activity but rather a knowing. Would you agree with that?
Salvianorin A seems to affect the perception of Time, As Ketamine, and can move your Consciousness through the realms of time, total dissociation of the Outer Space/TIME.
I like how Rubert ask to remove everything yet he keeps his glasses although his eyes are closed .
I am the speaker and I am the listener.
Okay, that was helpful Rupert doesn't believe that Fundamental Reality can be surprised by what it 'finds' as it plays with itself as a evolutionary process. He believe that compressed aspects of itself can be surprised but not not reality as a whole. I disagree but it gets very tricky trying to put words to this. That said, I believe that fundamental reality is being joyfully surprised to some extent all of the time.
Sounds like you’ve listened to Alan Watts a bit….. word. An infinite game of hide and seek with endless characters and stories.
@@r3b3lvegan89 Haven't dove into Watts yet, but I plan to very soon. Thanks for the nudge.
I’d also nudge you into Krishnamurti’s teachings as well, who Rupert Spira and his teacher studied a lot before becoming teachers themselves.
@@r3b3lvegan89 Ah, me and Krishnanurti go way back.
Don’t mind me then….hehe
The Heart Sutra is a guide to reality