The stillness, love and true nature (qualities) of pure awareness are observable within and thru Rupert throughout this video. Such pose and patience when confronted with such (apparent) ignorance is indeed a true lesson and example of this (Nondual) understanding IN FORM. Almost painful to watch, but immensely Beautiful ❤️
Mr Spira is so articulate because he has gone so deeply into himself & unraveled himself so minutely to understand who the "I" is. He is true honest sincere to his ownself. That is as far as I can see him. He is so much more beyond my comprehension. I am blessed to hear him. Thank Mr. Spira.
@@QED_ to be fair, i don't think he does that at all. He speaks to many, (they are always resepctful towrds him, but this is OK,!) And like J Krishnamurti used to do -in his very diferent way, he just hears what they ask/say... understands what they're getting at, (-he makes sure), and then answers in his stock way -for it is SO OBVIOUS to him
Rupert Spira is a Prodigy, words are so limited to explain what he is talking about,but he was able to describe the nature of infinite consciousness so clearly. I believe because it is based on experience not just a logical or intellectual point of view.Maybe the other guy needs more experience in order for him to understand that there is no other reality except pure consciousness.
I found Almaas muddies the water throughout this talk. Rupert gets right to the heart of the matter and is much easier to understand as his understanding/knowing is clear. Namaste
I appreciate the discussion between these spiritually advanced individuals. I would like to comment on a few of the comments below. Almaas does not need me to defend him, but many actually find his books to be very helpful and extremely insightful. He is an amazing wealth of spiritual knowledge and guidance, and I say this as someone who is not an "easy sell" when it comes to spiritual teachings. The questions that Almaas poses seem to me to be with the intent of furthering the discussion by clarifying words that can have many meanings, not because he is "foggy" in his own understanding. I can assure you from reading a half dozen of his books that Almaas is not in the least foggy in his understanding of spiritual advancement. Just don't want people who can be helped by him to be turned off.
Janet,. If you go one step further and join one of hundreds of the Ridhwan groups, your understanding of Hameed and his teaching will likely deepen. I've been a long time student of the Diamond Approach. Before I became a student in 2004, I read every book Hameed had written at that time. I read and read for about 2 years prior to joining the group that was newly forming near Ann Arbor, Mi. For me, the books touched the surface of this alive teaching. Meaning I only understood it intellectually. I did not know then as I do now what it means to embody a teaching. To put it simply, dropping down into the body was and is the key that adds a dimension that is unfathomable from my previous egoic mind. The methods and techniques of discovering "Presence" is an important and essential aspect of being in a group being taught by an ordained Ridhwan teacher.
I'm a little curious for a non dual teacher would be grasping something like prayer beads in his hand during this talk he must be practicing bahkti yoga.
Almaas has so much clarity! He expresses the process and embodiment of Being Awareness. Such a compassionate and nuanced expression of what it means to be human on a spiritual path of unfolding. Rupert talks as if his direct realisation is all we need, but in my experience it is just the beginning.
he copies himself tho! I would not call it original. He goes to his stock points. I wanted him to engage more in THEIR language! We have heard it all before, from him. That is OK, Good and great even; but it is just not Original (maybe it was for you 7 years ago!?) Rupert is Rupert!
There's an interesting paradox displayed in this discussion. On one hand, I feel that Rupert is crystal clarity and Hameed seems like an ever-shifting target, even jumbled and contradictory. On the other, I resonate with his Sufi-esque emphasis on individual incarnation, that there is a precious quality to individuality that we shouldn't relegate to mere delusion. See also, for instance, the views of Tim Freke and his "clashes" with what he calls monological nondualism (as opposed to what he calls paralogical, which is a both/and experience of universal and individual consciousness). One of the things i appreciate about Rupert is that he is always grounding the conversation in what is actually experienced. Whatever metaphysical statements he makes are grounded in what we actually experience. Hameed seems to be more speculative and conceptual. I can't help but wonder if he's a bit threatened by Rupert and trying to one-up him, thus the ever-shifting target and contradictions...he keeps saying some variation of "I totally realize what you realize but then there's a further realization possible that you're not talking about that I experience." Rupert says, "But let's bring it back to what we actually experience."
I find Rupert very dry. Worse yet when he starts rapping about anything aesthetic. But to your point that he keeps it to "what is actually experieced" I think perhaps you are imagining that because I have heard him wax on and on about "what consciousness WANTS" -- consciousness wants to know itself, he says, and therefore consciousness created the world and (of course especially) the people as a vehicle to use to get to know itself. On and on it goes. My point is -- what?? Consciousness is suddenly just like a person (how suspect) -- a person with wants and likes and dislikes and motivations and so forth. It really is just exactly like some of the more rudimentary interpretations of god for christians as some sort of man like being which can be comprehended by man -- man made in god's image/god made in man's image. It really was such a crock of fairy-tale. And actually, he told this fairy tale in the same way he says everything -- as if he is lulling a woebegon toddler. Compared to a lot of these other suspect characters hawking their "personal" stories about their narcissistic selves he is consistent and unoffensive and a very easy pill to swallow but there is no fire there. That said, it is completely unreal to me how stupid and inane are the questions thrown at these people by their followers who are inevitably like a bunch of pre-k kids sitting on the story-mat and raising their hands with nothing to say so they can get the adult attention for a minute. The other guy makes no sense to me so I won't comment except to say it's his conference after all . . .but I would "resonate" with anything Sufi over Spira who is a linguistic gymnast who finds a chicken way out of anything by relying on exactly what you describe which is debate techniques. For the "direct path" there is the spiritual penetration of Alan Watts and J. Krishnamurti who will hang you by your feet and shake you until everything falls out.. Or just the sound of the gong or the beat of the drum in Shiva's cosmic dance -- BOOM! Cuts right through the chit-chat. Namaste. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I agree. I've watched a lot of rupert spira and many other teachers. Rupert just has a way of bringing the mind to its essence. He doesn't have a mission and his presence backs it up. The other guy knows what he's talking about but hasn't destroy the distinction between mind and consciousness. Because if you dont you'll realize there contradictory in relativity. Context is also key and rupert is excellent on that for the most part.
it doesn't seem to make sense to make sense of something that doesn't make sense with sense. it seems rather inauthentic and dishonest. the screen may never be explained by the movie on the screen. the only way the movie can go closest to the screen is by annihilating itself. if i was to follow someone of those two, i would rather choose the one that doesn't make any sense, no sense at all.. because, as far as the physical and all it's subjects is concerned - it doesn't make sense. so the only thing the physical can do is annihate itself - i think that's what they mean by direct path. maybe, all that exists is consciousnes. maybe there is something beyond the "all consciousness" through which conscousness knows it's "all consciousness". maybe, call that nothingness, and something beyond nothingness.....but what does it matter trying to talk about something that doesnt make sense with sense. wouldn't it feel rather awkward when a 2d entity try to explain a 3d entity or a phenomenon. and maybe you would start to feel repulsive when you see the 2d being, with assertion and authority, trying to explain to other 2d beings about 3d beings and phenomenon. the physical will always pussyfoot around self annihalation and strive to live while trying to make sense of the beyond. do not underestimate the lower self in you in its resolve for survival. after all, its nature is survival.
@@jedimind5337 to be so simple I see myself as a portion or uniqueness to the full expression of the one creator. In this density of 4th (which is love) that were in, I serve the one creator in love of others as we are all one. That's where im at the knowing of myself in everything. Differences are ones experience. Namaste my friend
@@garypuckettmuse you do not understand ruperts pointing my friend. Rupert clearly states that consciousness does not have likes or dislikes. It accepts reality as is because reality is not apart from awareness, reality is awareness itself
Host is right. If one can go beyond pure awareness --there is pure potentiality where even awareness disappears. It just pure potentiality from which awareness arises and that leads to duality.
At 26:00 these two crack me up. They are so wrapped up in their persona as being spiritual beings thay keep missing Rupert's point and he just remains calm and them search.
As a young boy I came out with a statement, a kind of a question: When we will know what is infinity, we will know ourselves. "Infinity" is a tricky word. Does it represent reality? From mathematic perspective it does not, for mathematic and physic it's just a concept, a tool for certain calculations. But we are all close to that concept, and I guess most of us feel it does represent something real. It just occurred to me, that there is just one "thing" (or better a "non-thing") which is infinite and eternal, and that's consciousness (or better pure consciousness). So, from this perspective who are we? We are finite expression of infinity. Why do we even exist? To experience relativity. How can something absolute, infinite, and eternal experience something relative, finite and temporal? Well, through us, through conscious beings.
I have had some of these experiences of knowing existence without any perception, I would say that in itself is a perception. You need to exist in order to know when something doesn't, so I'm biased towards a materialistic viewpoint but I'm open to challenge that if it urns out there is more compelling evidence. I'm not sure what that evidence would look like, I would be more compelled to entertain these theories but I honestly have a difficult time understanding Objective Idealism. I would need to dedicate probably years or a decade to get a rough idea of how these concepts could be quantified. Question is how does consciousnesses happen and if it doesn't go away like these guys say, then we need to ask what we mean my Death and what about being conscious is important. I feel that saying your still aware even after the death of the Relative or Finite mind is kind of a side stepping the question since what others mean by Death is the absence of our Current subjective experience not experience itself.
Almass should be knee on the floor and listen what Rupert speaks. There is no individual soul. if there is entity independent of reality, it’s another reality and each of them exists independently and can not relate each other. but we can see everything is inter related, therefore the concept of independent entity is just ignorance.
One can not describe the reality from a single point of view. Take an example of ocean. Now ocean is nothing bot water, so when we consider the reality from the point of view of water, there is nothing else except water. Now when we consider the reality from the point of view of ocean, it feels that i am the only one here. Again when we consider the reality from the point of view of wave in the ocean then there are numerous waves big and small, each one crashing on one another, rising and collapsing, etc. So the real realisation is to understand this reality of different perspectives.
+Suresh Sharma i suggest that there may be more realities [relative realities, i.e. that ignore the bigger picture] but the Truth cannot be multiple otherwise there's no truth at all. Alternatively, truth and reality can be used interchangeable but with the qualifiers of relative or absolute.
I’d say there is an enormous amount to learn from Almaas. He speaks to my experience…they both do actually…very eloquently. Almaas is difficult to grasp through the intellect but he speaks to the human experience in the context of spiritual realisation. His varioius books do so most articulately.
@@DavidSumeray_BassGod I think some confuse articulate speech with spiritual insight. As though spiritual enlightenment makes you eloquent... a preposterous premise. They're both worth listening to, although I agree Almaas is a better writer than speaker. No doubt Spira is great with language- and while this itself isn't proof of his mastery, it is a wonderful compliment to be masters at both expression and established insight.
Dr. Hameed and Rupert conducted themselves in a manner befitting Reaized persons. They were so calm putting forth their views although different from each other's. Dr. Hameed explained Rupert's questioning the questioner towards the end- that Rupert was trying to make the speaker feel the 'awareness' directly ( direct path ) instead of telling it himself in words. This is what happened in the case of the lady interviewer also. Some body commented negatively without understanding this aspect
The distinction between the I that is aware (the personal I) and the I that happens to be there as awareness expresses itself from a more connected or enlightened or impersonal perspective is crucial and I’m glad it was elucidated so clearly here by the speaker on the left. It’s too simplistic and impartial to say that the one who is behind perceptions is what we are looking for and need to connect with. My own personal view is that although it may appear to be more difficult to grapple with; it’s nonetheless a key distinction.
Though I have a 70 year old body, I'm but a baby with a big ego. My ego reacts to to A.H. he is a mirror to an aspect of myself.. ms. know it all. With Rupert I Calm . I am at peace. I will continue to listen to Rupert and pass on A.H.
Right on! I perfectly agree. Although... he's just pure awareness expressing himself through an individual, localized personality. (or something like that)
i have respect for both these individuals and this is a fascinating discussion. i think when almaas talks about individuated consiousness he wants to introduce the concept of soul(i may be dead wrong) . but i know he comes from sufi tradition and there is this idea of individuated higher self in sufi tradition which is the realization that comes after the annihilation in god. many mystics believed that its wrong that we assume that we have souls. soul is something to be born. a result of a realization. some spiritual tradition dont talk about soul. but in islam there is a whole body of teaching about it
F- yes, soul and individuated consciousness are the same. This is what Hameed means, you are not wrong. I am a long time student of the Ridhwan school, founded and taught by Hameed and Karen Johnson along with hundreds of ordained Ridhwan teachers leading groups of students around the globe. For me this teaching has become alive in me as my practice of embodying it continues to develop with the guidance of the teacher and group support. After 18 years, I still feel like I'm scratching the surface of reality! That in no way diminishes the fact that I have immensely deepened into the direct knowing of the fabric of my soul...
Rupert wonderful as usual. I suggest you re-issue this video with Almaas edited out, he speaks endless jibberish and robs us of the pleasure of listening to Rupert.
A perfect example of why words can't express the deepest truths. This would've been much more meaningful had they simply sat there, smiling and nodding at each other, without saying a word.
Wow Rupert Spira LIVES what he talks so eloquently about. The sheer ignorance of this other guy and Rupert manages to stay calm and clearly explaining his point of view without interrupting.
In the same way that the substance of a wave is the ocean - it is the nature of form to be aware because its substance is awareness. When an individual wave/form is clear that it is made out of the ocean/awareness, then it loses its individuality such that the wave-form and ocean-awareness are 'not-two'.
+James Traverse: Okay . . . but what is the nature of that "movement" of awareness from wave to ocean (or the reverse) (?) Isn't the fact that awareness can BE either the wave or the ocean . . . ontologically more fundamental than WHAT it can be (?)
+greenrate It is a relaxation. Yes, Awareness not only can be, it is both the wave and the ocean; what falls away in the relaxation is the limited, mentally generated identification.
James Traverse What Almaas is suggesting in this video (although no one is listening to him) is that BEING is more fundamental than awareness. Can there "be" awareness . . . without Being (?)
@@QED_ We interpreted Almaas very differently. He seemed to me to be saying that the finite mind is always implicit in every fundamental Realization of the Absolute. It is always people that come back to share *their* realizations. This is a different point than that Being is more fundamental than awareness. If anything he seemed to explicitly reject all conceptual categories as being adequate descriptors for what is absolute (I would have to dig for the time signature, but I believe I'm paraphrasing that exact point).
Once you experience that naked awareness you will realise that all these talks are just a hindrance. You will have to let go everything you know but the majority won’t, myself included.
18:30 beautiful 42:00 mind as all we perceive. You know, every one is awake, aware. It is the knowing of itself. It it unknowable as an object. (From "to know" to "to be") Peace on earth good will to man "Shivali"
This is the problem with the separate self... too much speculation and almost zero experience. As Papaji said: "Find it and then keep quiet!" 🤣🤣🤣♥️ thanks Rupert.
+Chikaodili1: Well . . . what about the "is" in your statement (?) In order for there to BE awareness . . . there has to be the underlying capacity to BE.
@@InspirationParadise In viewing Peerpont as a police, you yourself are engaging in police activity. We are all just sharing our perspectives. There are fake gurus but all the more reason for conversations with different perspectives. Allowing one nondual philosophy or system to take the podium unchallenged is a greater threat to the democracy of spirituality than Almaas disagreeing with Spira. You're free to critique me as you critiqued Peerpont, just as Peerpont critiqued ayasinsk. This all needs to be said and be a part of the conversation. I don't think Peerpont is saying ayasinsk shouldn't voice their opinion- they're just expressing different attitudes.
I like how Rupert tries to make Almaas understand his perspective. In the Bible, Jesus tells his disciples, that on the day of enlightenment/salvation (in John 14:20) they shall realize that all LIFE is one. It is ALWAYS so and those who have experienced it confirm it (he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit ). It is the individual minds that bar us from realizing this fact! This is more or less what Rupert is trying to make his counterpart understand.
Hameed's presence strongly feels "finite mind". He comes across like a university professor. Odd for someone who is focusing on the essence of the pearl of the essence. Wonder why this is so? Would he choose this presence if he were truly conscious of it? Has no-one ever given him gentle feedback? Rupert has a presence that carries experience. it feels layered. depth-y, journeying, anchored. the Interviewer is misunderstanding the meaning of the word "aware". Basically saying there is something Im aware of that is before awareness.
i dont understand all the hate for almaas here. his realization is very very deep and mature, and i daresay it even exceeds rupert’s in a certain sense. a lot of people seem to just want to forget about the individual aspect of realization, but true nonduality includes the individual, and this is the point that almaas hammers home. you just have to listen with an open mind.
Classic example of a clear difference between true light (Rupert) and borrowed light (western pandit!!). Something each of us must learn - better to shut up and accept and learn when Real Knowledge radiates it's Light unto us!!
Thank you so much for posting such an inspiring dialog. Wonderful. It coud be very, very nice and i would appreciate if you were able to fix the video from the minute 1:25:00 to the minute 1:30:00 (more or less) that is out of sync with the voices. Thanks a lot. Namaskar !
noenemee Hi Bill, I watched the video and had a very different interpretation than yours. I think they both have similar realizations, however, emphasize different points. Rupert tends to emphasize and be biased toward awareness in contrast to manifestation, what I would term a nondual realization biased toward causal awareness. Hameed tends to emphasize awareness with manifestation, what I would term a radical nondual or embodied nondual realization. Given their emphases in their teachings, they did not... I think you may be correct to call me on the comment. It was a superficial, gut, reaction to two personalities. Obviously I have a preference. I would need you to walk me through your arguments to be able to respond honestly. I am not so gifted as you apparently are with words. Thanks for calling me out on it though, I really want to be more aware of the effect my remarks have on others.
in one moment Al Hamaas is suggesting that consciousness depends on the individual and then in the next he is saying it doesn't matter it is all reality.. he is but a walking contradiction to himself and has no real contemplation on his words. Ruperts pointings are clearer than ever giving clear definitions of the terminology we use to define our experience. Al Hamaas says in one moment consciousness and then he says awareness and he thinks by saying consciousness he means our daily waking experience and by making a distinction between consciousness and awareness he has not come from a place of true experiential realisation just as a parody for the cloak with which the truth veils itself under. Beware the Charlatans and use your intelligence wisely with this type of thing and if you have humility to admit that the intellect cannot and shall not ever be able to grasp the reality the truth shall shine through this is acceptance or the divine act of where the illusory identity surrenders itself into the infinite nature of consciousness.
Ryan McGregor I totally agree; yes, the intellect can never experience or grasp reality. As Avatar Meher Baba once so eloquently declared : “Mind wants to know that which is beyond mind. To know that which is beyond mind, mind must go-vanish, leaving no vestige of itself behind. The humour of it is, the mind, which is finite, wants to retain itself and yet know Truth, which is infinite. This is the position of those who seek Truth through intellect. Few grasp this fact, and so most grope and grapple in vain” --Meher Baba Meher Baba also said: “ Things that are Real are given and received in silence” -Meher Baba
LoopA: He could not even Himself understand what He is talking about. He always does that for Years. He should just listen and learn instead of talking.
Rupert is brilliant. Still I believe there are different levels whereas Rupert describes Black and White I believe there are shades of grey in between. The double slit experiment describes the duality of the wave/particle and the self awareness of the wave. A wave has peaks and troughs, I believe in between the rises and falls of the wave are the shades of grey. In the grey areas individual minds may continue on in some way. Maybe it is when we are born into a finite mind, body, world that the energy wave is at its peak and when the body dies it is the fall of the wave back toward the oneness of pure awareness and as it journey's there it may encounter other realms and deceased loved ones. When one is absorbed or merges with the light at death maybe that is just prior to the wave beginning to rise up once again to a finite world with finite bodies and minds. In this way when one surrenders to the light one gives up everything of the self before and the energy rises to become another new finite self.
What always puzzled me, is that organised religions don't do self enquiry? It is true for anyone who believes in something or have a strong opinion about the meaning of life.... How can you believe in God or a higher power if you don't know who or what you are? Surely that's the first step, to ask who or what am I? I always felt the power of religion or any belief is repitition! If you hear the same thing over and over, then you think it's true! If you do self enquiry then you can only come to the realisation that awarenes is what you are! That still presence that is beyond words. That awarenes that never moves. It's always here. Everything that's experienced happens to that what is aware. Watever happens in church, or wherever, it is experienced by awarenes, and that is true for us all. The awarenes that you are never moves and is the experiencer. It's very simple. There's nothing to know or understand. The "I" is a fabrication of thought, and awarenes is what is the experiencer of absolutely everything! 😊
If Hameed was simply talking about classical non-duality, he would be able to speak more simply as well. But not as simple as Rupert, because even in classical non-duality, Rupert doesn't speak to the non-dual experience of love, presence, and dynamism (all of which have awareness but have distinct experiences of their own). Rupert also simplifies by using one word to describe many things. A couple examples; he uses "mind" to describe all perception, and uses "awareness" to include consciousness and knowing. Hameed discriminates all perceptions, which gives people the chance to experience a depth of spiritual love in their heart, the strenth of spiritual power in the body, and the scintillating spiritual brilliancy in the mind for example. Hameed has also realized states beyond classical enlightenment. These are more complex to convey. While we all have heard a lot about conventional non-duality, we haven't heard a lot about non-dual unilocality for example. So most of the audience, and probably Rupert, don't have a basis of experience for this. Another big difference is Rupert doesn't recognize the vast spiritual potential of the individual personal consciousness, so he doesn't speak to this at all unless he's speaking to the egoic nature. For people interested in the one aspect of spiritual realization that Rupert has to offer, non-dual awareness, then Rupert seems really wonderful for that. For those who've had experienced the vast potential of many different and equally incredible, peaceful, contentful, powerful spiritual states, Rupert's approach seems a little flat. I feel Rupert is transmitting his spiritual state more than Hameed is. It's beautiful.
Really valuable conversation. But what keeps coming up for me is the phrase "if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". To use another cliché - "there's more than one way to skin a cat!".
Right, Rupert is saying that there's no such a thing created in the first play which would stand apart from awareness (or God) having its own existence, there's only God (awareness) while Almaas probably have not directly seen this to grasp it experientially.
If Hameed was simply talking about classical non-duality, he would be able to speak more simply. But not as simple as Rupert, because even in classical non-duality, Rupert doesn't speak to the non-dual experience of love, presence, and dynamism (all of which have awareness but have distinct experiences of their own). Rupert also simplifies by using one word to describe many things. A couple examples; he uses "mind" to describe all perception, and uses "awareness" to include consciousness and knowing. Hameed discriminates all perceptions, which gives people the chance to experience a depth of spiritual love in their heart, the strenth of spiritual power in the body, and the scintillating spiritual brilliancy in the mind for example. Hameed has also realized states beyond classical enlightenment. These are more complex to convey. While we all have heard a lot about conventional non-duality, we haven't heard a lot about non-dual unilocality for example. So most of the audience, and probably Rupert, don't have a basis of experience for this. Another big difference is Rupert doesn't recognize the vast spiritual potential of the individual personal consciousness, so he doesn't speak to this at all unless he's speaking to the egoic nature. For people interested in the one aspect of spiritual realization that Rupert has to offer, non-dual awareness, then Rupert seems really wonderful for that. For those who've had experienced the vast potential of many different and equally incredible, peaceful, contentful, powerful spiritual states, Rupert's approach seems a little flat. I feel Rupert is transmitting his spiritual state more than Hameed is. It's beautiful.
A H ALMAAS doesn't have the full recognition of the true nature of reality. You can experience the world as a separate me from all these others that appear my experience are someone totally different from me and this is one manifestation from which the illusion of separateness plays out. There comes in everyone's lives at some time opportunities to shatter this illusion.. the idea that "I am this 24 year old individual and this life is all I know". Or you can investigate the true nature of the experience you've been having and are having right now and be liberated from the ties we have with the appearances that manifest in our experiences. The truth is in the case between Rupert & Al Hamaas is really.. do you want to wake up or do you want to stay asleep and it is each of our priveleges to be given the opportunity in every moment to stay asleep and continue the dream of "I am" or if we want to we can inquire within into the true nature of this apparent "I" that I refer to as myself to reveal it's true nature. As human beings we have this amazing gift to be able to discover the true nature of the self and thus discover the fundamental secrets of the universe. Something I think is relevant "uni ~ Latin derivatives such as Un, uno, una all meaning one verse ~ Versa Versæ meaning song Universe literally means one song and this where the word came from.
I believe Almaas was having a hard time comprehending consciousness as infinity. It is the same Consciousness that is both behind his mind and all other minds. You could see he had the feeling that pure awareness depends on his particular mind which I can see how that confusion can occur. Maybe it would help to put it like this: Pure awareness is that which is both experience AND non-experience at the same time. It understands itself as both. And although it seems awareness/consciousness/God depends on experience. It does not. It depends on nothing else other than itself. It is really just infinity understanding itself as infinity infinitely in infinite ways lol. (It seems like Rupert putting non-experience as “awareness looking back at itself with no object” was a bit difficult for him to feel)
Spira and Almas are both see the same reality from two different angles. Both are equally interesting. Inexplicable is explained according their capacity using the most appropriate metephors. Thanks for sharing this invaluable discussion.
How can you know that awerness can be awere of it self without any content like thoughts etc. Is that even possible ? Almaas say that its rare. If i claim such an experience, would i not immidiatly lie because of the experience of it/ awerness of it ?
It’s because the nature of awareness is without limit. Saying that awareness depends on an experiencer (or mind) places a limit on it. If you tap in to the awareness within yourself you will notice that the awareness is already aware of itself without the need for you to think about it or feed it content. However, since we currently are awareness attached to a mind, I do think the awareness will always be defiled by nature of that fact(even if only slightly). Since pure awareness being placed directly back on itself is not an experience, no one can claim to have experienced that, that situation is what we mean when we talk about death.
It's funny how people adduce Spira's relative clarity as indication of superior spiritual depth when in fact Almaas is more liberated of an interpretive framework: Almaas presents the experiential realizations and the ways conceptual frames interface with them. He occupies a neutral zone from which he can fluidly engage with various vantage points. Spira has a clean and simple interpretive framework that he often confuses with the Realization itself as evidenced by how he defends his ideas about Consciousness as though they were the truth itself.
The screen is not the awareness, the manifested world is both the screen and the movie, there can be an outside witness watching the movie, but in our case we are the movie and the Steen and the awareness and the experience, but there is a universe beyond the screen!
Upon Listening I have noted that Almaas STILL is subject to Separation and Division in that HE IS the Maharishi (sp) As there IS NO separation, nor division as then ;between’ one and an ‘other’. I watched as BOTH of these struggled with their EGOS. Ouch! Ah!, such is common to ALL Man kind... While this attempt WAS to present the WHOLE, at the same time separation and division was the MEANS by which the both would seek that which was and IS Whole..Alas, as it has been said by an other, ie Einstein: ‘You cannot solve the problem, utilizing the SAME as created the problem...’
Yes. Because absolute is infinite wholeness without parts and limits. All the absolute directly know can be only itself. Selfaware, eternal, unlimited, empty essence. In order to be possible to see other there needs to be two, so this is why abolute wilingly and temporarily limist itself to the concept I am. This is why reality is one pure wholeness but in manifeststion apearing as two..I and other but this is only a temporary modulation and two never really exists but are ilusion.
Why do I feel like I’m watching a dueling ‘non-dual’ dual banjos match?! This captures for me everything that is wrong with today’s popular fascination with non-dual approach to awakening. Is anyone falsely laboring under the belief that ‘getting’ the fine distinction between the importance of the (f)utility of conscious individuation vs. awareness directly being able to cognize itself without the agency of a human mind body complex? Do two renown Bhaktis ever get into the ring and wrestle with each other to demonstrate how best to hug and love one another to get God Realized? I was cringing the whole time.
Mr. Almaas' undisclosed hostility towards the Direct Path is quite evident right from the beginning, when he openly ridicules it. I almost suspect him of hiring that obnoxious Hungarian (?) accented guy from the end just to put Rupert into difficulty, and then appear as the saviour... Just a thought...
It's not undisclosed hostility- it's an open critical attitude. He's had the nondual realization and eventually came to seriously doubt the completeness of standard direct path interpretations. This is a good thing- it would be terrible if we allow dogmatism to the tenets of a nondual philosophy to overshadow a free and critical discussion of the Ultimate.
Light is light is light. Awareness is awareness is awareness. Water is water is water. Yet, the light coming from the candle burning in my room is separate from the light from the candle burning in Kenya and from the light of the Betelgeuse star. I can blow the candle in my room and this light will disappear, yet, the room in Kenya would keep basking in the light as long as the candle there keeps burning. Water is water. Yet, the water in the glass I am drinking from is separate from the water in the dead sea and the water in the Atlantic. Ultimately, all water, all light, all humans, all rocks came from the same source... ...the Big Bang... ...which came from the Singularity before the Big Bang... ...which came from the unknowable (no)thing before the Singularity. I am not sure what the confusion is.
TOA (Transmission of Awakening) "Ultimately, all water, all light, all humans, all rocks came from the same source... ...the Big Bang... ...which came from the Singularity before the Big Bang... ...which came from the unknowable (no)thing before the Singularity. I am not sure what the confusion is." Yes, but what is it the contains all of that activity? Big bang coming from singularity coming from unknowable coming from etc etc... Yet something is even before all of that! Find out what that is.
Of what use would this world be, if we were not aware of it in the first place. Without us being aware we cannot even say that there is a separate world existing (matter). There could be a lot of enlightened ignorance out there which we need to be careful about and I am sorry to say Mr A.H Almaas, please question the very origins of the mind than forming absolute realities around it.
Mr. Spira is such a sharp, clear speaker capable of putting into words what very few imagine possible. It's painful to watch Mr. Spira try to guide these two participants' confused intellects to simple "Yes" or "No," as they roam lost in their metaphysical masturbation. The blabblling gentleman on the stage's questions and comments-as well as his limited English vocabulary-makes the video nearly unwatchable when he talks. There's a constant grabbing and pulling back into a "talk-about-we-already-know-Rupert!!" Who picked these two folks to have a debate with Mr. Spira?
Spira made questions to the woman in order to help her realize her real Self and at the same time he tried to superimpose on her his ideas about the experience she had. It seemed to me that he wanted by any mean this woman to have the same understanding with him. Spira has a difficulty to understand that Self- awareness does not happen by itself. If it was so then all humanity should have been self-aware. But this is not the case. As long there is ego self-awareness happens by effort even if this effort is so subtle that hardly we could name it as effort. And this effort is done by the mind. The ultimate reality cannot realize itself without an individual mind. Without the body-mind of Spira who would be aware of it and how? Spira claims that from the point of view of reality, reality is aware only of itself. How he knows that? The ultimate reality have told this to him, he himself is the ultimate reality (without at the same time to be the Spira) and he knows it directly or this is his intellectual understanding? It is obvious that this is his intellectual conclusion. But he considers that his opinion is the reality. And as it is obsessed with his point of view and identified with his mental creations he cannot listen what Mr Almaas so sweetly wants to tell him. He cannot understand that anything he says about awareness, reality or consciousness, it happens because firstly he exists here and now as a body mind entity and an idividualised consiousness, and he as an individual has the experience about awareness or reality. The fact that the individual and the reality are one or to say it better, the reality appears as Spira does not cancel the very fact that the Spira is here and through him reality realizes itself. So the simple question is this: if nobody were in this conference hall who would be self-aware and who would know that the ultimate truth is self-aware?
There is no one and no conference hall. Man, like a conference hall, is an idea and ideas don't exist for they come and go. Communication suggests a you and a me but that is not so. perception is responsible for the paradox. The senses don't connect some 'me' to an outside world.
The indian dude is really trying hard and I'm sure Rupert wants to correct him so many times but dont want to make him feel wrong because the guy so thinks he knows. I'll give it to him he's trying though ... sometimes he seems to be close but then he says something that looks otherwise. He seems like a good guy though hope he gets there, he's apparently pretty passionate about it.
![[DRIP] ‘Woke Up In Tokyo (RUKA & ASA)’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QN44lcR_VkI/mqdefault.jpg)
The stillness, love and true nature (qualities) of pure awareness are observable within and thru Rupert throughout this video. Such pose and patience when confronted with such (apparent) ignorance is indeed a true lesson and example of this (Nondual) understanding IN FORM. Almost painful to watch, but immensely Beautiful ❤️
wow. I'm not there yet.
he is very happy -is what I see, 30 mins in.
I like Zaya! She is cool, real to Rupert, doesn't back down unlike some do!
Rupert comes across as arrogant, not loving at all
Mr Spira is so articulate because he has gone so deeply into himself & unraveled himself so minutely to understand who the "I" is. He is true honest sincere to his ownself. That is as far as I can see him. He is so much more beyond my comprehension. I am blessed to hear him. Thank Mr. Spira.
Rupert's eloquence shines as intelligence, patience, love and enthusiasm. Thank you SAND for providing such a wonderful platform for these exchanges.
Mr. Spira is amazingly articulate.
+Paul Ladendorf: It's easy to appear that way . . . if you stick to a simplistic perspective and avoid things that are more difficult to understand.
@@QED_ to be fair, i don't think he does that at all. He speaks to many, (they are always resepctful towrds him, but this is OK,!)
And like J Krishnamurti used to do -in his very diferent way, he just hears what they ask/say... understands what they're getting at, (-he makes sure), and then answers in his stock way -for it is SO OBVIOUS to him
Rupert Spira is a Prodigy, words are so limited to explain what he is talking about,but he was able to describe the nature of infinite consciousness so clearly. I believe because it is based on experience not just a logical or intellectual point of view.Maybe the other guy needs more experience in order for him to understand that there is no other reality except pure consciousness.
I found Almaas muddies the water throughout this talk. Rupert gets right to the heart of the matter and is much easier to understand as his understanding/knowing is clear. Namaste
Rupert's precision in languaging these non dual concepts speaks to me in a way that few teachers have. I am very greatful !
I appreciate the discussion between these spiritually advanced individuals. I would like to comment on a few of the comments below. Almaas does not need me to defend him, but many actually find his books to be very helpful and extremely insightful. He is an amazing wealth of spiritual knowledge and guidance, and I say this as someone who is not an "easy sell" when it comes to spiritual teachings. The questions that Almaas poses seem to me to be with the intent of furthering the discussion by clarifying words that can have many meanings, not because he is "foggy" in his own understanding. I can assure you from reading a half dozen of his books that Almaas is not in the least foggy in his understanding of spiritual advancement. Just don't want people who can be helped by him to be turned off.
Thank you for really putting in the work with your response. I'm lacking the patience dappled throughout your reply.
Touche' 💗
Janet,. If you go one step further and join one of hundreds of the Ridhwan groups, your understanding of Hameed and his teaching will likely deepen. I've been a long time student of the Diamond Approach. Before I became a student in 2004, I read every book Hameed had written at that time.
I read and read for about 2 years prior to joining the group that was newly forming near Ann Arbor, Mi.
For me, the books touched the surface of this alive teaching. Meaning I only understood it intellectually.
I did not know then as I do now what it means to embody a teaching. To put it simply, dropping down into the body was and is the key that adds a dimension that is unfathomable from my previous egoic mind.
The methods and techniques of discovering "Presence" is an important and essential aspect of being in a group being taught by an ordained Ridhwan teacher.
My Experience of this talk. Almaas: difused light. Rupert: Surgical laser.
Almaas is more non duel and Rupert is more dual POV.
I'm a little curious for a non dual teacher would be grasping something like prayer beads in his hand during this talk he must be practicing bahkti yoga.
Rupert conveys the Direct approach of jnana yoga.
I figure there is a broud spectrum of light that is diffused in the mirror of one's understanding. Where the light illuminates is what is necessary.
satnam jt True name. There is no mirror and there is no reflection and no one is understanding. Hah.
After a couple of Glasses of Wine this is Divinely Hysterical..... Infinite Consciousness is having a good Laugh through me, which is IT!!!
Rupert gets it. What a wonderfully clear teacher. As for the physicist, don't quit your day job. Cute.😊
Almaas has so much clarity! He expresses the process and embodiment of Being Awareness. Such a compassionate and nuanced expression of what it means to be human on a spiritual path of unfolding.
Rupert talks as if his direct realisation is all we need, but in my experience it is just the beginning.
Rupert just repeats the same thing, not really a conversation unfortunately. Almaas kept trying to get him to actually dialogue but it never happened.
What do we need beyond knowing?
rupert as usual, so original, not copy pasting what other sages have said
he copies himself tho! I would not call it original. He goes to his stock points. I wanted him to engage more in THEIR language!
We have heard it all before, from him.
That is OK, Good and great even; but it is just not Original (maybe it was for you 7 years ago!?)
Rupert is Rupert!
Rupert was easy to understand once again, thank you!
+Sacra: It's easy to be understood . . . if you restrict yourself to what people can easily understand.
There's an interesting paradox displayed in this discussion. On one hand, I feel that Rupert is crystal clarity and Hameed seems like an ever-shifting target, even jumbled and contradictory. On the other, I resonate with his Sufi-esque emphasis on individual incarnation, that there is a precious quality to individuality that we shouldn't relegate to mere delusion. See also, for instance, the views of Tim Freke and his "clashes" with what he calls monological nondualism (as opposed to what he calls paralogical, which is a both/and experience of universal and individual consciousness).
One of the things i appreciate about Rupert is that he is always grounding the conversation in what is actually experienced. Whatever metaphysical statements he makes are grounded in what we actually experience. Hameed seems to be more speculative and conceptual. I can't help but wonder if he's a bit threatened by Rupert and trying to one-up him, thus the ever-shifting target and contradictions...he keeps saying some variation of "I totally realize what you realize but then there's a further realization possible that you're not talking about that I experience." Rupert says, "But let's bring it back to what we actually experience."
I find Rupert very dry. Worse yet when he starts rapping about anything aesthetic. But to your point that he keeps it to "what is actually experieced" I think perhaps you are imagining that because I have heard him wax on and on about "what consciousness WANTS" -- consciousness wants to know itself, he says, and therefore consciousness created the world and (of course especially) the people as a vehicle to use to get to know itself. On and on it goes. My point is -- what?? Consciousness is suddenly just like a person (how suspect) -- a person with wants and likes and dislikes and motivations and so forth. It really is just exactly like some of the more rudimentary interpretations of god for christians as some sort of man like being which can be comprehended by man -- man made in god's image/god made in man's image. It really was such a crock of fairy-tale. And actually, he told this fairy tale in the same way he says everything -- as if he is lulling a woebegon toddler. Compared to a lot of these other suspect characters hawking their "personal" stories about their narcissistic selves he is consistent and unoffensive and a very easy pill to swallow but there is no fire there. That said, it is completely unreal to me how stupid and inane are the questions thrown at these people by their followers who are inevitably like a bunch of pre-k kids sitting on the story-mat and raising their hands with nothing to say so they can get the adult attention for a minute.
The other guy makes no sense to me so I won't comment except to say it's his conference after all . . .but I would "resonate" with anything Sufi over Spira who is a linguistic gymnast who finds a chicken way out of anything by relying on exactly what you describe which is debate techniques. For the "direct path" there is the spiritual penetration of Alan Watts and J. Krishnamurti who will hang you by your feet and shake you until everything falls out.. Or just the sound of the gong or the beat of the drum in Shiva's cosmic dance -- BOOM! Cuts right through the chit-chat. Namaste. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I agree. I've watched a lot of rupert spira and many other teachers. Rupert just has a way of bringing the mind to its essence. He doesn't have a mission and his presence backs it up. The other guy knows what he's talking about but hasn't destroy the distinction between mind and consciousness. Because if you dont you'll realize there contradictory in relativity. Context is also key and rupert is excellent on that for the most part.
it doesn't seem to make sense to make sense of something that doesn't make sense with sense. it seems rather inauthentic and dishonest. the screen may never be explained by the movie on the screen. the only way the movie can go closest to the screen is by annihilating itself.
if i was to follow someone of those two, i would rather choose the one that doesn't make any sense, no sense at all.. because, as far as the physical and all it's subjects is concerned - it doesn't make sense. so the only thing the physical can do is annihate itself - i think that's what they mean by direct path.
maybe, all that exists is consciousnes. maybe there is something beyond the "all consciousness" through which conscousness knows it's "all consciousness". maybe, call that nothingness, and something beyond nothingness.....but what does it matter trying to talk about something that doesnt make sense with sense. wouldn't it feel rather awkward when a 2d entity try to explain a 3d entity or a phenomenon. and maybe you would start to feel repulsive when you see the 2d being, with assertion and authority, trying to explain to other 2d beings about 3d beings and phenomenon.
the physical will always pussyfoot around self annihalation and strive to live while trying to make sense of the beyond. do not underestimate the lower self in you in its resolve for survival. after all, its nature is survival.
@@jedimind5337 to be so simple I see myself as a portion or uniqueness to the full expression of the one creator. In this density of 4th (which is love) that were in, I serve the one creator in love of others as we are all one. That's where im at the knowing of myself in everything. Differences are ones experience. Namaste my friend
@@garypuckettmuse you do not understand ruperts pointing my friend. Rupert clearly states that consciousness does not have likes or dislikes. It accepts reality as is because reality is not apart from awareness, reality is awareness itself
Host is right. If one can go beyond pure awareness --there is pure potentiality where even awareness disappears. It just pure potentiality from which awareness arises and that leads to duality.
I 'm not sure but it seems like pure potentiality I experienced or known vibe awaren
Jay DZ Agreed. Parabrahman or the Absolute is utterly without attributes, including consciousness.
A fascinating conversation between Rupert Spira and Yoda.
I thought he sounds a bit like Yoda as well
Rupert Spira is a genius!
+Lucille Gm He is a GOD!
At 26:00 these two crack me up. They are so wrapped up in their persona as being spiritual beings thay keep missing Rupert's point and he just remains calm and them search.
As a young boy I came out with a statement, a kind of a question: When we will know what is infinity, we will know ourselves.
"Infinity" is a tricky word. Does it represent reality? From mathematic perspective it does not, for mathematic and physic it's just a concept, a tool for certain calculations. But we are all close to that concept, and I guess most of us feel it does represent something real. It just occurred to me, that there is just one "thing" (or better a "non-thing") which is infinite and eternal, and that's consciousness (or better pure consciousness).
So, from this perspective who are we? We are finite expression of infinity. Why do we even exist? To experience relativity. How can something absolute, infinite, and eternal experience something relative, finite and temporal? Well, through us, through conscious beings.
I have had some of these experiences of knowing existence without any perception, I would say that in itself is a perception. You need to exist in order to know when something doesn't, so I'm biased towards a materialistic viewpoint but I'm open to challenge that if it urns out there is more compelling evidence. I'm not sure what that evidence would look like, I would be more compelled to entertain these theories but I honestly have a difficult time understanding Objective Idealism. I would need to dedicate probably years or a decade to get a rough idea of how these concepts could be quantified. Question is how does consciousnesses happen and if it doesn't go away like these guys say, then we need to ask what we mean my Death and what about being conscious is important. I feel that saying your still aware even after the death of the Relative or Finite mind is kind of a side stepping the question since what others mean by Death is the absence of our Current subjective experience not experience itself.
Almass should be knee on the floor and listen what Rupert speaks. There is no individual soul. if there is entity independent of reality, it’s another reality and each of them exists independently and can not relate each other. but we can see everything is inter related, therefore the concept of independent entity is just ignorance.
Experiencing, experiencing Experiencing...Thank for posting !!!
One can not describe the reality from a single point of view. Take an example of ocean. Now ocean is nothing bot water, so when we consider the reality from the point of view of water, there is nothing else except water. Now when we consider the reality from the point of view of ocean, it feels that i am the only one here. Again when we consider the reality from the point of view of wave in the ocean then there are numerous waves big and small, each one crashing on one another, rising and collapsing, etc. So the real realisation is to understand this reality of different perspectives.
The source is water only and all other is its manifestation and nothing but water alone.
+Suresh Sharma i suggest that there may be more realities [relative realities, i.e. that ignore the bigger picture] but the Truth cannot be multiple otherwise there's no truth at all. Alternatively, truth and reality can be used interchangeable but with the qualifiers of relative or absolute.
Their is an awareness of the one ‘ ocean ‘
Fast forwarding through Almaas so I can learn something. ha ha!
I’d say there is an enormous amount to learn from Almaas. He speaks to my experience…they both do actually…very eloquently. Almaas is difficult to grasp through the intellect but he speaks to the human experience in the context of spiritual realisation. His varioius books do so most articulately.
@@DavidSumeray_BassGod I think some confuse articulate speech with spiritual insight. As though spiritual enlightenment makes you eloquent... a preposterous premise. They're both worth listening to, although I agree Almaas is a better writer than speaker. No doubt Spira is great with language- and while this itself isn't proof of his mastery, it is a wonderful compliment to be masters at both expression and established insight.
Dr. Hameed and Rupert conducted themselves in a manner befitting Reaized persons. They were so calm putting forth their views although different from each other's. Dr. Hameed explained Rupert's questioning the questioner towards the end- that Rupert was trying to make the speaker feel the 'awareness' directly ( direct path ) instead of telling it himself in words. This is what happened in the case of the lady interviewer also. Some body commented negatively without understanding this aspect
The distinction between the I that is aware (the personal I) and the I that happens to be there as awareness expresses itself from a more connected or enlightened or impersonal perspective is crucial and I’m glad it was elucidated so clearly here by the speaker on the left. It’s too simplistic and impartial to say that the one who is behind perceptions is what we are looking for and need to connect with. My own personal view is that although it may appear to be more difficult to grapple with; it’s nonetheless a key distinction.
Though I have a 70 year old body, I'm but a baby with a big ego. My ego reacts to to A.H. he is a mirror to an aspect of myself.. ms. know it all.
With Rupert I Calm . I am at peace. I will continue to listen to Rupert and pass on A.H.
Right on! I perfectly agree. Although... he's just pure awareness expressing himself through an individual, localized personality. (or something like that)
i have respect for both these individuals and this is a fascinating discussion. i think when almaas talks about individuated consiousness he wants to introduce the concept of soul(i may be dead wrong) . but i know he comes from sufi tradition and there is this idea of individuated higher self in sufi tradition which is the realization that comes after the annihilation in god. many mystics believed that its wrong that we assume that we have souls. soul is something to be born. a result of a realization. some spiritual tradition dont talk about soul. but in islam there is a whole body of teaching about it
F- yes, soul and individuated consciousness are the same. This is what Hameed means, you are not wrong. I am a long time student of the Ridhwan school, founded and taught by Hameed and Karen Johnson along with hundreds of ordained Ridhwan teachers leading groups of students around the globe.
For me this teaching has become alive in me as my practice of embodying it continues to develop with the guidance of the teacher and group support. After 18 years, I still feel like I'm scratching the surface of reality! That in no way diminishes the fact that I have immensely deepened into the direct knowing of the fabric of my soul...
Rupert wonderful as usual. I suggest you re-issue this video with Almaas edited out, he speaks endless jibberish and robs us of the pleasure of listening to Rupert.
He’s like that drunk uncle rambling on and on at a family gathering with no real substance
I need a decoder for Almaas. Does he even know what he's trying to say?
Almaas is a charlatan!
Almaas is actually very clear to me and adds some very important perceptions to this discussion
The battle of intellectual concepts-of non- duality -
Rupert is the best, beyond doubt
A perfect example of why words can't express the deepest truths. This would've been much more meaningful had they simply sat there, smiling and nodding at each other, without saying a word.
Rupert just talking helps me sleep at night. Lucid dreams et al.
I don't know why this made me laugh out loud.
Wow Rupert Spira LIVES what he talks so eloquently about. The sheer ignorance of this other guy and Rupert manages to stay calm and clearly explaining his point of view without interrupting.
I'd love to have a meaningful discussion with someone who sees Almaas as ignorant 🤠
Almas doesn't know WHAT he's talking about most of the time! REALLY interesting watch...
In the same way that the substance of a wave is the ocean - it is the nature of form to be aware because its substance is awareness. When an individual wave/form is clear that it is made out of the ocean/awareness, then it loses its individuality such that the wave-form and ocean-awareness are 'not-two'.
+James Traverse: Okay . . . but what is the nature of that "movement" of awareness from wave to ocean (or the reverse) (?) Isn't the fact that awareness can BE either the wave or the ocean . . . ontologically more fundamental than WHAT it can be (?)
+greenrate It is a relaxation. Yes, Awareness not only can be, it is both the wave and the ocean; what falls away in the relaxation is the limited, mentally generated identification.
James Traverse What Almaas is suggesting in this video (although no one is listening to him) is that BEING is more fundamental than awareness. Can there "be" awareness . . . without Being (?)
@@QED_ We interpreted Almaas very differently. He seemed to me to be saying that the finite mind is always implicit in every fundamental Realization of the Absolute. It is always people that come back to share *their* realizations. This is a different point than that Being is more fundamental than awareness. If anything he seemed to explicitly reject all conceptual categories as being adequate descriptors for what is absolute (I would have to dig for the time signature, but I believe I'm paraphrasing that exact point).
Listening to Almaas makes my brain hurt.
Spira is beyond patience...
Once you experience that naked awareness you will realise that all these talks are just a hindrance. You will have to let go everything you know but the majority won’t, myself included.
18:30 beautiful 42:00 mind as all we perceive.
You know, every one is awake, aware. It is the knowing of itself. It it unknowable as an object.
(From "to know" to "to be")
Peace on earth good will to man
"Shivali"
Almas being a good comedian
This is the problem with the separate self... too much speculation and almost zero experience.
As Papaji said: "Find it and then keep quiet!"
🤣🤣🤣♥️ thanks Rupert.
There is ONLY AWARENESS!
+Chikaodili1: Well . . . what about the "is" in your statement (?) In order for there to BE awareness . . . there has to be the underlying capacity to BE.
My experience is that Rupert's microphone works wayyy better than Almaas'.
Almaas shouldn’t be sitting on stage, but amongst the audience.
No , perspectives need to be introduced. Just because you like one more then the other doesn’t mean almass perspective is irrelevant
@@InspirationParadise In viewing Peerpont as a police, you yourself are engaging in police activity. We are all just sharing our perspectives. There are fake gurus but all the more reason for conversations with different perspectives. Allowing one nondual philosophy or system to take the podium unchallenged is a greater threat to the democracy of spirituality than Almaas disagreeing with Spira. You're free to critique me as you critiqued Peerpont, just as Peerpont critiqued ayasinsk. This all needs to be said and be a part of the conversation. I don't think Peerpont is saying ayasinsk shouldn't voice their opinion- they're just expressing different attitudes.
I wonder what the story was which Rupert was going to talk about at 53.22 :)
I like how Rupert tries to make Almaas understand his perspective. In the Bible, Jesus tells his disciples, that on the day of enlightenment/salvation (in John 14:20) they shall realize that all LIFE is one. It is ALWAYS so and those who have experienced it confirm it (he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit ). It is the individual minds that bar us from realizing this fact!
This is more or less what Rupert is trying to make his counterpart understand.
Thank you.
Hameed's presence strongly feels "finite mind". He comes across like a university professor. Odd for someone who is focusing on the essence of the pearl of the essence. Wonder why this is so? Would he choose this presence if he were truly conscious of it? Has no-one ever given him gentle feedback? Rupert has a presence that carries experience. it feels layered. depth-y, journeying, anchored. the Interviewer is misunderstanding the meaning of the word "aware". Basically saying there is something Im aware of that is before awareness.
i dont understand all the hate for almaas here. his realization is very very deep and mature, and i daresay it even exceeds rupert’s in a certain sense. a lot of people seem to just want to forget about the individual aspect of realization, but true nonduality includes the individual, and this is the point that almaas hammers home. you just have to listen with an open mind.
Lmao, if you cant see through Almaas’ bullshit, no hope for you bro
-
Classic example of a clear difference between true light (Rupert) and borrowed light (western pandit!!). Something each of us must learn - better to shut up and accept and learn when Real Knowledge radiates it's Light unto us!!
Thank you so much for posting such an inspiring dialog. Wonderful.
It coud be very, very nice and i would appreciate if you were able to fix the video from the minute 1:25:00 to the minute 1:30:00 (more or less) that is out of sync with the voices.
Thanks a lot. Namaskar !
noenemee
Hi Bill, I watched the video and had a very different interpretation than yours. I think they both have similar realizations, however, emphasize different points. Rupert tends to emphasize and be biased toward awareness in contrast to manifestation, what I would term a nondual realization biased toward causal awareness. Hameed tends to emphasize awareness with manifestation, what I would term a radical nondual or embodied nondual realization. Given their emphases in their teachings, they did not...
I think you may be correct to call me on the comment. It was a superficial, gut, reaction to two personalities. Obviously I have a preference. I would need you to walk me through your arguments to be able to respond honestly. I am not so gifted as you apparently are with words. Thanks for calling me out on it though, I really want to be more aware of the effect my remarks have on others.
The duel of the non dual.
in one moment Al Hamaas is suggesting that consciousness depends on the individual and then in the next he is saying it doesn't matter it is all reality.. he is but a walking contradiction to himself and has no real contemplation on his words. Ruperts pointings are clearer than ever giving clear definitions of the terminology we use to define our experience. Al Hamaas says in one moment consciousness and then he says awareness and he thinks by saying consciousness he means our daily waking experience and by making a distinction between consciousness and awareness he has not come from a place of true experiential realisation just as a parody for the cloak with which the truth veils itself under. Beware the Charlatans and use your intelligence wisely with this type of thing and if you have humility to admit that the intellect cannot and shall not ever be able to grasp the reality the truth shall shine through this is acceptance or the divine act of where the illusory identity surrenders itself into the infinite nature of consciousness.
Ryan McGregor I totally agree; yes, the intellect can never experience or grasp reality. As Avatar Meher Baba once so eloquently declared :
“Mind wants to know that which is beyond mind. To know that which is beyond mind, mind must go-vanish, leaving no vestige
of itself behind. The humour of it is, the mind, which is finite, wants to retain itself and yet know Truth, which is infinite. This is the position of those who seek Truth through intellect. Few grasp this fact, and so most grope and grapple in vain”
--Meher Baba
Meher Baba also said:
“ Things that are Real are given and received in silence”
-Meher Baba
LoopA: He could not even Himself understand what He is talking about.
He always does that for Years. He should just listen and learn instead of talking.
Al Hammas is in a wrong place
Rupert is brilliant. Still I believe there are different levels whereas Rupert describes Black and White I believe there are shades of grey in between. The double slit experiment describes the duality of the wave/particle and the self awareness of the wave. A wave has peaks and troughs, I believe in between the rises and falls of the wave are the shades of grey. In the grey areas individual minds may continue on in some way.
Maybe it is when we are born into a finite mind, body, world that the energy wave is at its peak and when the body dies it is the fall of the wave back toward the oneness of pure awareness and as it journey's there it may encounter other realms and deceased loved ones. When one is absorbed or merges with the light at death maybe that is just prior to the wave beginning to rise up once again to a finite world with finite bodies and minds.
In this way when one surrenders to the light one gives up everything of the self before and the energy rises to become another new finite self.
It really is beginning to sound more about having to be right about a meaningless distinction rather than a concept.
What always puzzled me, is that organised religions don't do self enquiry? It is true for anyone who believes in something or have a strong opinion about the meaning of life.... How can you believe in God or a higher power if you don't know who or what you are? Surely that's the first step, to ask who or what am I? I always felt the power of religion or any belief is repitition! If you hear the same thing over and over, then you think it's true! If you do self enquiry then you can only come to the realisation that awarenes is what you are! That still presence that is beyond words. That awarenes that never moves. It's always here. Everything that's experienced happens to that what is aware. Watever happens in church, or wherever, it is experienced by awarenes, and that is true for us all. The awarenes that you are never moves and is the experiencer. It's very simple. There's nothing to know or understand. The "I" is a fabrication of thought, and awarenes is what is the experiencer of absolutely everything! 😊
It can be painful to give up your personal consciousness after investing for years in them
God bless Rupert!!
Excellent!
Rupert makes everything clear. Fort me
Up until now, 20 mins, Rupert seems very happy, truly; and t'other guy seems like flip-flopping around with his different + varied take
Rupert brings a simplicity to nonduality. Almaas seems to be making it more complicated. I could be wrong.
If Hameed was simply talking about classical non-duality, he would be able to speak more simply as well. But not as simple as Rupert, because even in classical non-duality, Rupert doesn't speak to the non-dual experience of love, presence, and dynamism (all of which have awareness but have distinct experiences of their own). Rupert also simplifies by using one word to describe many things. A couple examples; he uses "mind" to describe all perception, and uses "awareness" to include consciousness and knowing. Hameed discriminates all perceptions, which gives people the chance to experience a depth of spiritual love in their heart, the strenth of spiritual power in the body, and the scintillating spiritual brilliancy in the mind for example. Hameed has also realized states beyond classical enlightenment. These are more complex to convey. While we all have heard a lot about conventional non-duality, we haven't heard a lot about non-dual unilocality for example. So most of the audience, and probably Rupert, don't have a basis of experience for this.
Another big difference is Rupert doesn't recognize the vast spiritual potential of the individual personal consciousness, so he doesn't speak to this at all unless he's speaking to the egoic nature. For people interested in the one aspect of spiritual realization that Rupert has to offer, non-dual awareness, then Rupert seems really wonderful for that. For those who've had experienced the vast potential of many different and equally incredible, peaceful, contentful, powerful spiritual states, Rupert's approach seems a little flat.
I feel Rupert is transmitting his spiritual state more than Hameed is. It's beautiful.
That is moment of Big Bang!
Really valuable conversation. But what keeps coming up for me is the phrase "if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". To use another cliché - "there's more than one way to skin a cat!".
As I understand it, Almaas is saying: "All is God". While Rupert Spira is saying: "All is not. God only is"
Right, Rupert is saying that there's no such a thing created in the first play which would stand apart from awareness (or God) having its own existence, there's only God (awareness) while Almaas probably have not directly seen this to grasp it experientially.
If Hameed was simply talking about classical non-duality, he would be able to speak more simply. But not as simple as Rupert, because even in classical non-duality, Rupert doesn't speak to the non-dual experience of love, presence, and dynamism (all of which have awareness but have distinct experiences of their own). Rupert also simplifies by using one word to describe many things. A couple examples; he uses "mind" to describe all perception, and uses "awareness" to include consciousness and knowing. Hameed discriminates all perceptions, which gives people the chance to experience a depth of spiritual love in their heart, the strenth of spiritual power in the body, and the scintillating spiritual brilliancy in the mind for example. Hameed has also realized states beyond classical enlightenment. These are more complex to convey. While we all have heard a lot about conventional non-duality, we haven't heard a lot about non-dual unilocality for example. So most of the audience, and probably Rupert, don't have a basis of experience for this.
Another big difference is Rupert doesn't recognize the vast spiritual potential of the individual personal consciousness, so he doesn't speak to this at all unless he's speaking to the egoic nature. For people interested in the one aspect of spiritual realization that Rupert has to offer, non-dual awareness, then Rupert seems really wonderful for that. For those who've had experienced the vast potential of many different and equally incredible, peaceful, contentful, powerful spiritual states, Rupert's approach seems a little flat.
I feel Rupert is transmitting his spiritual state more than Hameed is. It's beautiful.
A H ALMAAS doesn't have the full recognition of the true nature of reality. You can experience the world as a separate me from all these others that appear my experience are someone totally different from me and this is one manifestation from which the illusion of separateness plays out. There comes in everyone's lives at some time opportunities to shatter this illusion.. the idea that "I am this 24 year old individual and this life is all I know". Or you can investigate the true nature of the experience you've been having and are having right now and be liberated from the ties we have with the appearances that manifest in our experiences. The truth is in the case between Rupert & Al Hamaas is really.. do you want to wake up or do you want to stay asleep and it is each of our priveleges to be given the opportunity in every moment to stay asleep and continue the dream of "I am" or if we want to we can inquire within into the true nature of this apparent "I" that I refer to as myself to reveal it's true nature. As human beings we have this amazing gift to be able to discover the true nature of the self and thus discover the fundamental secrets of the universe.
Something I think is relevant "uni ~ Latin derivatives such as Un, uno, una all meaning one
verse ~ Versa Versæ meaning song
Universe literally means one song and this where the word came from.
We never got to hear Rupert's Story he was about to tell !
Rupert Rupert Rupert and one more time Rupert!
I believe Almaas was having a hard time comprehending consciousness as infinity. It is the same Consciousness that is both behind his mind and all other minds.
You could see he had the feeling that pure awareness depends on his particular mind which I can see how that confusion can occur.
Maybe it would help to put it like this: Pure awareness is that which is both experience AND non-experience at the same time. It understands itself as both. And although it seems awareness/consciousness/God depends on experience. It does not. It depends on nothing else other than itself. It is really just infinity understanding itself as infinity infinitely in infinite ways lol.
(It seems like Rupert putting non-experience as “awareness looking back at itself with no object” was a bit difficult for him to feel)
Name of the tune at the beginning , please? It's beautiful.
Hello. You might want to look at Quentin Sirjaq (i don't know how to spell it) he has a few that sounds exactly like that.
I hope it helps
@@aurelienyonrac thank you very much :)
I might have found it
th-cam.com/video/Ne3stO_nERw/w-d-xo.html
@@aurelienyonrac thank you. Though it doesn't sound to me like it is the tune at the start of this video :)
Spira and Almas are both see the same reality from two different angles. Both are equally interesting. Inexplicable is explained according their capacity using the most appropriate metephors. Thanks for sharing this invaluable discussion.
How can you know that awerness can be awere of it self without any content like thoughts etc. Is that even possible ? Almaas say that its rare. If i claim such an experience, would i not immidiatly lie because of the experience of it/ awerness of it ?
It’s because the nature of awareness is without limit.
Saying that awareness depends on an experiencer (or mind) places a limit on it.
If you tap in to the awareness within yourself you will notice that the awareness is already aware of itself without the need for you to think about it or feed it content.
However, since we currently are awareness attached to a mind, I do think the awareness will always be defiled by nature of that fact(even if only slightly).
Since pure awareness being placed directly back on itself is not an experience, no one can claim to have experienced that, that situation is what we mean when we talk about death.
God is a sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.
Rupert wants to point out that we all live in a cave where as Hamid wants to point at the shadows on the Cave wall..
It's funny how people adduce Spira's relative clarity as indication of superior spiritual depth when in fact Almaas is more liberated of an interpretive framework: Almaas presents the experiential realizations and the ways conceptual frames interface with them. He occupies a neutral zone from which he can fluidly engage with various vantage points. Spira has a clean and simple interpretive framework that he often confuses with the Realization itself as evidenced by how he defends his ideas about Consciousness as though they were the truth itself.
Completely agree!
More words mean less.
Consciousness becomes the object cognized.
The screen is not the awareness, the manifested world is both the screen and the movie, there can be an outside witness watching the movie, but in our case we are the movie and the Steen and the awareness and the experience, but there is a universe beyond the screen!
31:46 Almaas: "Yeah"
Rupert: "No"
Almaas :"Wait what?
Man ...he said yeah to agree with rupert😁
Upon Listening I have noted that Almaas STILL is subject to Separation and Division in that HE IS the Maharishi (sp) As there IS NO separation, nor division as then ;between’ one and an ‘other’. I watched as BOTH of these struggled with their EGOS. Ouch! Ah!, such is common to ALL Man kind... While this attempt WAS to present the WHOLE, at the same time separation and division was the MEANS by which the both would seek that which was and IS Whole..Alas, as it has been said by an other, ie Einstein:
‘You cannot solve the problem, utilizing the SAME as created the problem...’
nisagadatta. says that the absolute does not know itself prior to the “I am ‘ concept.
Yes. Because absolute is infinite wholeness without parts and limits. All the absolute directly know can be only itself. Selfaware, eternal, unlimited, empty essence. In order to be possible to see other there needs to be two, so this is why abolute wilingly and temporarily limist itself to the concept I am. This is why reality is one pure wholeness but in manifeststion apearing as two..I and other but this is only a temporary modulation and two never really exists but are ilusion.
I love how the one guy sounds like yoda ♤
💞🙏🌺
Almas is all over the place. He doesn't make any sense
Why do I feel like I’m watching a dueling ‘non-dual’ dual banjos match?! This captures for me everything that is wrong with today’s popular fascination with non-dual approach to awakening. Is anyone falsely laboring under the belief that ‘getting’ the fine distinction between the importance of the (f)utility of conscious individuation vs. awareness directly being able to cognize itself without the agency of a human mind body complex? Do two renown Bhaktis ever get into the ring and wrestle with each other to demonstrate how best to hug and love one another to get God Realized? I was cringing the whole time.
Mr. Almaas' undisclosed hostility towards the Direct Path is quite evident right from the beginning, when he openly ridicules it. I almost suspect him of hiring that obnoxious Hungarian (?) accented guy from the end just to put Rupert into difficulty, and then appear as the saviour... Just a thought...
It's not undisclosed hostility- it's an open critical attitude. He's had the nondual realization and eventually came to seriously doubt the completeness of standard direct path interpretations. This is a good thing- it would be terrible if we allow dogmatism to the tenets of a nondual philosophy to overshadow a free and critical discussion of the Ultimate.
I don't think the guy in the glasses really knows what he's talking about..
I think you've just confessed your inability to understand what the guy in the glasses is talking about.
Light is light is light. Awareness is awareness is awareness. Water is water is water.
Yet, the light coming from the candle burning in my room is separate from the light from the candle burning in Kenya and from the light of the Betelgeuse star.
I can blow the candle in my room and this light will disappear, yet, the room in Kenya would keep basking in the light as long as the candle there keeps burning.
Water is water. Yet, the water in the glass I am drinking from is separate from the water in the dead sea and the water in the Atlantic.
Ultimately, all water, all light, all humans, all rocks came from the same source... ...the Big Bang... ...which came from the Singularity before the Big Bang... ...which came from the unknowable (no)thing before the Singularity.
I am not sure what the confusion is.
TOA (Transmission of Awakening) "Ultimately, all water, all light, all humans, all rocks came from the same source... ...the Big Bang... ...which came from the Singularity before the Big Bang... ...which came from the unknowable (no)thing before the Singularity.
I am not sure what the confusion is."
Yes, but what is it the contains all of that activity? Big bang coming from singularity coming from unknowable coming from etc etc... Yet something is even before all of that! Find out what that is.
Of what use would this world be, if we were not aware of it in the first place. Without us being aware we cannot even say that there is a separate world existing (matter). There could be a lot of enlightened ignorance out there which we need to be careful about and I am sorry to say Mr A.H Almaas, please question the very origins of the mind than forming absolute realities around it.
Isha Agreed:)
Mr. Spira is such a sharp, clear speaker capable of putting into words what very few imagine possible.
It's painful to watch Mr. Spira try to guide these two participants' confused intellects to simple "Yes" or "No," as they roam lost in their metaphysical masturbation. The blabblling gentleman on the stage's questions and comments-as well as his limited English vocabulary-makes the video nearly unwatchable when he talks. There's a constant grabbing and pulling back into a "talk-about-we-already-know-Rupert!!" Who picked these two folks to have a debate with Mr. Spira?
Spira made questions to the woman in order to help her realize her real Self and at the same time he tried to superimpose on her his ideas about the experience she had. It seemed to me that he wanted by any mean this woman to have the same understanding with him.
Spira has a difficulty to understand that Self- awareness does not happen by itself. If it was so then all humanity should have been self-aware. But this is not the case.
As long there is ego self-awareness happens by effort even if this effort is so subtle that hardly we could name it as effort. And this effort is done by the mind.
The ultimate reality cannot realize itself without an individual mind.
Without the body-mind of Spira who would be aware of it and how?
Spira claims that from the point of view of reality, reality is aware only of itself. How he knows that? The ultimate reality have told this to him, he himself is the ultimate reality (without at the same time to be the Spira) and he knows it directly or this is his intellectual understanding? It is obvious that this is his intellectual conclusion. But he considers that his opinion is the reality. And as it is obsessed with his point of view and identified with his mental creations he cannot listen what Mr Almaas so sweetly wants to tell him.
He cannot understand that anything he says about awareness, reality or consciousness, it happens because firstly he exists here and now as a body mind entity and an idividualised consiousness, and he as an individual has the experience about awareness or reality.
The fact that the individual and the reality are one or to say it better, the reality appears as Spira does not cancel the very fact that the Spira is here and through him reality realizes itself.
So the simple question is this:
if nobody were in this conference hall who would be self-aware and who would know that the ultimate truth is self-aware?
There is no one and no conference hall. Man, like a conference hall, is an idea and ideas don't exist for they come and go.
Communication suggests a you and a me but that is not so. perception is responsible for the paradox. The senses don't connect some 'me' to an outside world.
:)
***** No one is asking. There is an experiencing of condition and therefore I must be condition-less.
swingtrade2 I Agree
*****
Some day man will see that man is an idea. Then, peace on earth.
love the old guy :) Thanks
Which one? Lol
Who is the woman?
THANK YOU!!! Good catch... we did not put Zaya's name in the credit...
They never got to help the poor man at the end that asked the last question
The indian dude is really trying hard and I'm sure Rupert wants to correct him so many times but dont want to make him feel wrong because the guy so thinks he knows. I'll give it to him he's trying though ... sometimes he seems to be close but then he says something that looks otherwise. He seems like a good guy though hope he gets there, he's apparently pretty passionate about it.
Mr. H. A. Almass cannot finish a full sentence without veering directions a three or four times. Unwatchable.
Good
where does SPIRIT fit in to this ???
Spirit = Experiencing/I am/Consciousness/Being
the theme music is really like the opening of a daytime soap opera from the 60's. Just sayin' . . .where's phillip glass when we need him?
i know... cannot afford his music... :-) Phillip Glass is SURELY our favorite composer!