It’s good to see a materialist & a non-materialist be able to discuss these topics and respect each other’s opinion without getting into a debating session!
I don't think James is a materialist, he's stated many times that there isn't a substance that underlies reality but that reality itself is a constantly changing process that's beyond the grasp of thought, which is a Buddhist perspective
I came upon this video because I enjoy Rupert's videos (was very happily shocked to discover him in 2020 since it aligned with my beliefs and he's very articulate and poetic about them) and have recently started watching some of the interviews of him. I watched one yesterday from some new age spiritual interviewers from his own "realm" and it wasn't very enjoyable because they didn't seem to be able to really follow what he was trying to say. There's some "disagreement" in this video, especially in the latter part, but it's very different. When I first put this video on after watching that one, I made the assumption that the very dry tone etc would mean this was gonna be another video I wouldn't really enjoy. I was pleasantly proven wrong. You are an excellent interviewer. I noticed halfway through that you're a neuroscientist and that made a lot of sense because I tend to align better with that kind of approach to spiritual/philosophical topics. So this is just my way of suggesting that viewers give this longer, drier interview a chance because it's done very well. Thank you so much for this.
Words can be slippery. I felt this was esp. the case, in this interview. There is also a heavy reliance on subjective phenomenology, such as the singular nature of beingness, and consiousness (at least in feel). I acknowledge this has been a source of healing for many people (including myself). The experiential sense was also the source of agreement, at the end of the interview, regardless of its ontological interpretation. However, I never felt my Advaita teachers adequately accounted for the realm of "form". It is somehow brushed aside, relegated to a kind of nuisance status, describing it as an "illusion", a "play", a "concession", the "functional world", "oh yes, there's all this stuff on the side, such as finances, relationships, society, etc.", "that's just the practical stuff". There's a huge, unresolved split. And the explanations trying to resolve this split oftentimes felt ad hoc. This was why I left. Having said this, there are now a second generation of western Advaita teachers with backgrounds in psychotherapy, also emphasizing "embodiment", somatic awareness, and one's life, as it's actually lived.
Advaita Vedanta is the way of the mystic. The way of the shaman is a more practical approach. When you realize this dimension as a game, you don't see it as a nuisance, but try to have fun in the game, improve the game, bend the limits.
What a sensational wrap up!! I have listened to literally thousands of TH-cams, audio's, etc of Rupert. Done a week long retreat. And I've gotten a lot out of Living Mirrors. But I was uncomfortable with James' perspective on matter. The last two "chapters" (starting at 1.01.27) of this interview went a long way to bringing me to peace on the disagreements between the matter and consciousness only models. Thanks so much.
Thanks for this great interview, highly enjoyable!! Rupert is very expressive and its great to see him showcase Advaita Vedanta in the modern world. I would like to add some observations: - 00:51 In Advaita Vedanta, the method is Sravana Manana Nididhyasana which roughly translates to Learn the Truth, Contemplate what's been learnt and then Live/Breathe the Truth. Advaita Vedanta is a well-defined well-refiend Direct Teaching of True Nature primarily by way of Jnana Yoga. Jnana is the Knowledge to remove the Ignorance of our True Nature. I would encourage you to research direct vedantic teachings such as Drg Drysa Viveka and Aparokshanubhuti. - 1:00 Rupert says "Meditation is what we are". This is great as its exactly what Advaita Vedanta Nididhyasana is all about. - 1:02 Here the conversation moved from Experiential to Metaphysics. I would suggest you research Shankara's Commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika of Mandukya Upanishad which is a metaphysical masterpiece. It explains the Nondual Absolute in the context of everyone's direct experience of Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep. Furthermore, The Nondual Absoulute is Satchitananda. Sat = Existence (Being). Chit = Consciousness (Knowing). Ananda = Bliss (Values). Effectively, Sat = Ontology. Chit = Epistemology. Ananda = Axiology. I would be enthralled if you would interview Swami Sarvapriyananda so that he can intellectually explain the ontology & epistemology of The Nondual Absoulute. As said before, Advaita Vedanta's aim is to give you the Knowledge to remove the Ignorance of your true nature. Ignorance is our Doubts and the Swami is good at resolving doubts. :-) Thanks again to you and Rupert for this interview :-)
@@thenewwaydevil yes he is you can check some of his lectures on vedanta .He describes complex things in great ways and his knowledge on this topic is immense too...
Even if you eventually give up materialism, we still need those who keep at least one foot over that side of the fence to explain and lead those stuck in scientism to a better understanding of reality and at least take it seriously. It’s great understanding the nature of reality at its absolute but it has no benefit when you’ve gone so far that no one then understands you. It’s a cultural evolution that has to go through small steps in order to progress. My conclusion came from the realization that there was no difference between the experience of the dream and the waking world. I couldn’t limit the possibility of there being a ‘waking up’ out of the waking world. Nested dreams all having the same appearance reminded me of the saying ‘ as above, so below’.
James, Well done! I really thought the conversation with Rupert went well, and you nearly read my mind with your line of questioning. I too have always thought along the same lines as you, that matter gives rise to consciousness, but more recently I am not so sure, simply because it would be impossible to ever verify it. Even what we call eyes are only observed through awareness, and from what I can tell, we'll never get behind it (awareness), so to speak. It seems to be the base case. Even though I am coming to agree with Rupert, I still have doubtful ideas and my own lived experience is still under realignment, but as you two agreed, the ontology is not really that important. By the way, I highly highly recommend the work of Greg Goode, particularly The Direct Path. His writing is very clear and extremely thorough, and that book has a ton of experiments to verify what our experience is really like.
This is awesome, Advaita as student here is perfect, one can just step in as him and learn. Qs... Is consciousness omni-present and we have just evolved beond just being to complex thoughts, organizationalized self and communal framing and boxing of thoughts at best and mental slavery if not checked...or...is it just something we have evolved to experence and do to ourselves beyond just simple being? Does this framing jail us in objectivization of the world around us, others? Thoughts... and even our own thinking and living with unconscious framings that at time is more mental poison, than progress, orthogonal to being. The power take away for me is to be aware of my own self imposed finiteness, with any negative or positive overtones of feelings that guide or judgement in real time with engrams. But engrams are not my master, and they bow to my being, not the other way around. They are tools for the moment, nothing more, not your master or your reality and definitely not your or my being, don't use them without 4thought or thoughtfulness.
Keep up the good work. I truly appreciate your time and care and love for sharing transcendental knowledge. 🙏🏾 I hope we can be friends one day. Please have a conversation with Jason Gregory. He’s held up in Nepal due to Covid. However you will jive with him no question. 🙏🏾
He is very good at regurgitating these concepts in a digestible manner for the common human. I do hope he gives credit where it is do in his books. Of course this is just my ego trying to defend other teachers that this mind admires.
"I AM" cannot merely refer to "isnness" because the recognition is itself the identity of being-and-awareness. Were it not for this identity there would still be a duality in the recognition itself. That is, if I merely realize "isness" but fail to see awareness in that isness, then implicitly awareness is behind the seeing of isness. In the moment of recognition itself, the recognition of awareness and isness but be a seemless, single act of consciousness.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Rupert has said many times that awareness cannot know finity, cannot know a thought for example. Awareness needs to become apparently finite in order to apparently know a thought, which is the same as apparently becoming a thought. Now if this is true, how can he say that I referring to awareness is aware of its thoughts? Awareness itself is not aware of anything other than itself, it cannot know any form it takes as naked awareness. Therefore when I am aware of my thoughts, it is awareness as a thought that is aware, not naked awareness. Thus I am a vested awareness of naked awareness, not naked awareness. If I am misinterpreting Rupert please correct me.
When Naked awareness relieves itself of even the awareness of itself then it stands as the absolute nakedness. That absolute nakedness is what is being referred to as the one who cannot know anything finite.The absolute Nakedness becomes aware only when there is something to be aware of.
1:12:05 to 1:16:10 Like the path of the lone photon, I suspect our thoughts are made of everything inside and outside of the self because everything interpenetrates. That is, I cannot accept the our thoughts are made of the local conscious mind except in the sense that all is conscious mind - there is nothing else. A local conscious mind making all my thoughts and perceptions introduces an unacceptable duality between self and all else. If interested, see my book, The Emergent Method...
The problem with all discussions on the subject of "mind" is the it is presumed that all humans are in possession of one. This has always been the worst place to start. Mind, Consciousness and Intelligence are all inextricably linked, meaning, wherever intelligence is absent, so too is mind and even consciousness. This is the only productive place from which to start if one is even going to come close to solving the poorly named "Hard Problem of Consciousness".
I liked Rupert Spira in this conversation - i generally avoided listening to his public discourses because of the long pauses and the strange theatrics involved, this seems more candid and genuine- less 'i am your spiritual guru'
He has speech trouble, which is the reason for the long pauses. He wants to make sure he's getting the right point across. He's mentioned before his wife helped him learn how to speak publicly. It didn't come naturally which is probably why you feel he's insincere.
It's a shame Rupert repeatedly misrepresents the Vedantic tradition as a "via negativa" and "inward-facing path." This is only the first step in a two-step process whereby the second step involves collapsing that which has been discriminated as not-self into the self.That is, everything, including the external world and other beings, is taken back into the self so that there is nothing but the self, or Brahman. The one Reality is both transcendent and immanent. This is not "implicit." It's stated clearly by all genuine teachers of Advaita Vedanta.
Self-Enquiry was developed by Nargajuna (150 - 250) and popularized in modern times by Ramana Maharshi. In Buddhism, it's regard as a preparatory technique, by no means complete. But completeness depends upon one's current level of Self-Awareness. Some so-called "Neo-Advaitins" go around spouting such rubbish as "Stop the search and just Be". Don't fall for that nonsense. Instead, begin with accessing "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to i for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Enjoy the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Self.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s good to see a materialist & a non-materialist be able to discuss these topics and respect each other’s opinion without getting into a debating session!
U should check out the Vervaeke/Kastrup discussion that took place on Curt Jaimungal’s (sp?) channel, Theories of Everything
I don't think James is a materialist, he's stated many times that there isn't a substance that underlies reality but that reality itself is a constantly changing process that's beyond the grasp of thought, which is a Buddhist perspective
I came upon this video because I enjoy Rupert's videos (was very happily shocked to discover him in 2020 since it aligned with my beliefs and he's very articulate and poetic about them) and have recently started watching some of the interviews of him. I watched one yesterday from some new age spiritual interviewers from his own "realm" and it wasn't very enjoyable because they didn't seem to be able to really follow what he was trying to say.
There's some "disagreement" in this video, especially in the latter part, but it's very different. When I first put this video on after watching that one, I made the assumption that the very dry tone etc would mean this was gonna be another video I wouldn't really enjoy. I was pleasantly proven wrong. You are an excellent interviewer. I noticed halfway through that you're a neuroscientist and that made a lot of sense because I tend to align better with that kind of approach to spiritual/philosophical topics. So this is just my way of suggesting that viewers give this longer, drier interview a chance because it's done very well. Thank you so much for this.
It’s the ignorance that goes not the illusion. Pure genius. Needed to hear that.
Words can be slippery. I felt this was esp. the case, in this interview. There is also a heavy reliance on subjective phenomenology, such as the singular nature of beingness, and consiousness (at least in feel). I acknowledge this has been a source of healing for many people (including myself). The experiential sense was also the source of agreement, at the end of the interview, regardless of its ontological interpretation.
However, I never felt my Advaita teachers adequately accounted for the realm of "form". It is somehow brushed aside, relegated to a kind of nuisance status, describing it as an "illusion", a "play", a "concession", the "functional world", "oh yes, there's all this stuff on the side, such as finances, relationships, society, etc.", "that's just the practical stuff". There's a huge, unresolved split. And the explanations trying to resolve this split oftentimes felt ad hoc. This was why I left.
Having said this, there are now a second generation of western Advaita teachers with backgrounds in psychotherapy, also emphasizing "embodiment", somatic awareness, and one's life, as it's actually lived.
Advaita Vedanta is the way of the mystic. The way of the shaman is a more practical approach. When you realize this dimension as a game, you don't see it as a nuisance, but try to have fun in the game, improve the game, bend the limits.
@@VennThuria you get it!
This is such a great conversation! Much value in re-listening. As stated below, you're a great interviewer and I feel you're doing very important work
Thank you very much for the support!
Absolutely no doubt that Rupert is a GENIUS
This is excellent. Just subscribed. Appreciate very much that you listed the topics by timestamp.
rupert is a genius
What a sensational wrap up!! I have listened to literally thousands of TH-cams, audio's, etc of Rupert. Done a week long retreat. And I've gotten a lot out of Living Mirrors. But I was uncomfortable with James' perspective on matter. The last two "chapters" (starting at 1.01.27) of this interview went a long way to bringing me to peace on the disagreements between the matter and consciousness only models. Thanks so much.
Which side do your stand on the disagreement? If you don't mind me asking.
Thanks for this great interview, highly enjoyable!! Rupert is very expressive and its great to see him showcase Advaita Vedanta in the modern world. I would like to add some observations:
- 00:51 In Advaita Vedanta, the method is Sravana Manana Nididhyasana which roughly translates to Learn the Truth, Contemplate what's been learnt and then Live/Breathe the Truth. Advaita Vedanta is a well-defined well-refiend Direct Teaching of True Nature primarily by way of Jnana Yoga. Jnana is the Knowledge to remove the Ignorance of our True Nature. I would encourage you to research direct vedantic teachings such as Drg Drysa Viveka and Aparokshanubhuti.
- 1:00 Rupert says "Meditation is what we are". This is great as its exactly what Advaita Vedanta Nididhyasana is all about.
- 1:02 Here the conversation moved from Experiential to Metaphysics. I would suggest you research Shankara's Commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika of Mandukya Upanishad which is a metaphysical masterpiece. It explains the Nondual Absolute in the context of everyone's direct experience of Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep. Furthermore, The Nondual Absoulute is Satchitananda. Sat = Existence (Being). Chit = Consciousness (Knowing). Ananda = Bliss (Values). Effectively, Sat = Ontology. Chit = Epistemology. Ananda = Axiology.
I would be enthralled if you would interview Swami Sarvapriyananda so that he can intellectually explain the ontology & epistemology of The Nondual Absoulute. As said before, Advaita Vedanta's aim is to give you the Knowledge to remove the Ignorance of your true nature. Ignorance is our Doubts and the Swami is good at resolving doubts. :-)
Thanks again to you and Rupert for this interview :-)
Wow
The swami you mentioned would be a tremendous person to interview.
@@thenewwaydevil I totally agree! I hope Dr James will make it happen. 🙏
@@thenewwaydevil yes he is you can check some of his lectures on vedanta .He describes complex things in great ways and his knowledge on this topic is immense too...
Even if you eventually give up materialism, we still need those who keep at least one foot over that side of the fence to explain and lead those stuck in scientism to a better understanding of reality and at least take it seriously. It’s great understanding the nature of reality at its absolute but it has no benefit when you’ve gone so far that no one then understands you. It’s a cultural evolution that has to go through small steps in order to progress. My conclusion came from the realization that there was no difference between the experience of the dream and the waking world. I couldn’t limit the possibility of there being a ‘waking up’ out of the waking world. Nested dreams all having the same appearance reminded me of the saying ‘ as above, so below’.
I really wld like to know more aboit this saying as above more below?
Yes!! I believe in this very much! Thanks again James!!
Thank you for inviting Rupert Spira, James! :) It was good interview. You look a bit tired, hope you get well rest!
Thanks! My temporary lighting situation casts deep shadows below my eyes, feeling well rested though despite appearances!
Your a great interviewer...
James, I've said it before and I'll say it again you are a beautiful conversationalist.🙏🏻☘️
Brilliant interview James I've just subscribed! And time stamping the interview is genius 👍
Rupert is genius and truth of reality in cosciousness❤
James, Well done! I really thought the conversation with Rupert went well, and you nearly read my mind with your line of questioning.
I too have always thought along the same lines as you, that matter gives rise to consciousness, but more recently I am not so sure, simply because it would be impossible to ever verify it. Even what we call eyes are only observed through awareness, and from what I can tell, we'll never get behind it (awareness), so to speak. It seems to be the base case. Even though I am coming to agree with Rupert, I still have doubtful ideas and my own lived experience is still under realignment, but as you two agreed, the ontology is not really that important.
By the way, I highly highly recommend the work of Greg Goode, particularly The Direct Path. His writing is very clear and extremely thorough, and that book has a ton of experiments to verify what our experience is really like.
This is awesome, Advaita as student here is perfect, one can just step in as him and learn.
Qs...
Is consciousness omni-present and we have just evolved beond just being to complex thoughts, organizationalized self and communal framing and boxing of thoughts at best and mental slavery if not checked...or...is it just something we have evolved to experence and do to ourselves beyond just simple being?
Does this framing jail us in objectivization of the world around us, others?
Thoughts...
and even our own thinking and living with unconscious framings that at time is more mental poison, than progress, orthogonal to being.
The power take away for me is to be aware of my own self imposed finiteness, with any negative or positive overtones of feelings that guide or judgement in real time with engrams.
But engrams are not my master, and they bow to my being, not the other way around.
They are tools for the moment, nothing more, not your master or your reality and definitely not your or my being, don't use them without 4thought or thoughtfulness.
Brilliant interview!
Keep up the good work. I truly appreciate your time and care and love for sharing transcendental knowledge. 🙏🏾 I hope we can be friends one day. Please have a conversation with Jason Gregory. He’s held up in Nepal due to Covid. However you will jive with him no question. 🙏🏾
i loved this!!!
He is very good at regurgitating these concepts in a digestible manner for the common human. I do hope he gives credit where it is do in his books. Of course this is just my ego trying to defend other teachers that this mind admires.
Love Rupert
This interview pairs brilliantly with Shamash Alidina's interview.
"I AM" cannot merely refer to "isnness" because the recognition is itself the identity of being-and-awareness. Were it not for this identity there would still be a duality in the recognition itself. That is, if I merely realize "isness" but fail to see awareness in that isness, then implicitly awareness is behind the seeing of isness. In the moment of recognition itself, the recognition of awareness and isness but be a seemless, single act of consciousness.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Rupert has said many times that awareness cannot know finity, cannot know a thought for example. Awareness needs to become apparently finite in order to apparently know a thought, which is the same as apparently becoming a thought. Now if this is true, how can he say that I referring to awareness is aware of its thoughts? Awareness itself is not aware of anything other than itself, it cannot know any form it takes as naked awareness. Therefore when I am aware of my thoughts, it is awareness as a thought that is aware, not naked awareness. Thus I am a vested awareness of naked awareness, not naked awareness. If I am misinterpreting Rupert please correct me.
When Naked awareness relieves itself of even the awareness of itself then it stands as the absolute nakedness. That absolute nakedness is what is being referred to as the one who cannot know anything finite.The absolute Nakedness becomes aware only when there is something to be aware of.
1:12:05 to 1:16:10 Like the path of the lone photon, I suspect our thoughts are made of everything inside and outside of the self because everything interpenetrates. That is, I cannot accept the our thoughts are made of the local conscious mind except in the sense that all is conscious mind - there is nothing else. A local conscious mind making all my thoughts and perceptions introduces an unacceptable duality between self and all else. If interested, see my book, The Emergent Method...
Wordless as this even led me into a meditative state. Superb 👍😑
The problem with all discussions on the subject of "mind" is the it is presumed that all humans are in possession of one. This has always been the worst place to start.
Mind, Consciousness and Intelligence are all inextricably linked, meaning, wherever intelligence is absent, so too is mind and even consciousness.
This is the only productive place from which to start if one is even going to come close to solving the poorly named "Hard Problem of Consciousness".
Consciousness is living an illusion it weaves out of itself.
I liked Rupert Spira in this conversation - i generally avoided listening to his public discourses because of the long pauses and the strange theatrics involved, this seems more candid and genuine- less 'i am your spiritual guru'
He has speech trouble, which is the reason for the long pauses. He wants to make sure he's getting the right point across. He's mentioned before his wife helped him learn how to speak publicly. It didn't come naturally which is probably why you feel he's insincere.
@@juliai3956 ah my bad in that case- I was too quick to judge :( I totally understand in that case!
What exactly was the disagreement about towards the end?
🙏
Proof?
🕉️ 💟 🙏
Well, its gonna be a late night lol.
🙏🏽🧡🙏🏽🧡🙏🏽
It's a shame Rupert repeatedly misrepresents the Vedantic tradition as a "via negativa" and "inward-facing path." This is only the first step in a two-step process whereby the second step involves collapsing that which has been discriminated as not-self into the self.That is, everything, including the external world and other beings, is taken back into the self so that there is nothing but the self, or Brahman. The one Reality is both transcendent and immanent. This is not "implicit." It's stated clearly by all genuine teachers of Advaita Vedanta.
Gibberish
Self-Enquiry was developed by Nargajuna (150 - 250) and popularized in modern times by Ramana Maharshi. In Buddhism, it's regard as a preparatory technique, by no means complete. But completeness depends upon one's current level of Self-Awareness. Some so-called "Neo-Advaitins" go around spouting such rubbish as "Stop the search and just Be". Don't fall for that nonsense. Instead, begin with accessing "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to i for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Enjoy the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Self.