Rupert's story resonates here. I woke up when I was 11 or so. It lasted only a moment or two. I had no idea what it was and no language for it and certainly no one to share it with. It was a simple indelible experience that did not need to be understood because it felt like understanding itself. A simple profound moment of absolute clarity. It reminds me of Leonard Cohen's lyrics... "There is a crack, a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." I have been chasing that moment for decades now and it feels like coming home.
I love the interviewer bringing Rupert’s and Bernardo’s philosophical ideas into ordinary life. How have they changed the way you live? How they can tell they don’t come from ego? Etc This was an amazing interview❤
But Rupert, thinking and feeling is the only way we have to experience the wholeness which results from recognizing that we are part of all. So we still have the mechanism of desire, but we no longer believe that a specific "thing" is going to satisfy us since our true desire is to fulfill our natural inclination to find release of servitude to pursuit of happiness and instead we are fulfilled in serving the whole, in whatever way we can. We know when it is the right action when the feeling of release of individual responsibility overcomes us and releases us. But, isn't that a feeling? It is certainly a feeling that I've experienced. Somatically it manifests as a frisson of shivers and goosebumps which come over my body. That is a wonderful feeling. It is actually the feeling of encountering knowledge about ..everything.
The least become the most and the most become the least. The rich are poor and the poor are rich. We have forgotten. The paradox of awakening. Thanks alot gentlemen. What a great video and so important.
In vedanta philosophy, there are 4 types of non-dualities are discussed. One is that of swapna or dream state, in this stage all the characters are ourselves, nevertheless characters exist. The next state of nonduality is susupti, that is in deep sleep state, in that state we do not even know we exist, the third state is that of turiya, in which we witness our own nonduality, the fourth stage is the turiyata nonduality in which we do not have even the sense of witness, but have a blissful sense of nonduality. The four stages of nonduality is attained one by one, after overcoming our duality -awareness, that is called Jagriti.
Rupert feels wise, sincere, and soft spoken, Bernardo is eloquent and knowledgeable. Bernardo’s view on meaning and purpose of life look to me a little bit utilitarian; as if humans were created to be nature’s chess pawns, and give no reason for hope to no one, Some mystics speak of God as ‘ maternal and unfailing ‘ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a mystic, physicist and scientist would be an enlightening reading for him to give a try and translate to us, in lay relatable terms, because Teilhard is to be read by scientific minds mostly, he is a difficult read but is so warm and loving in the definition of the ‘Christ’ and the ‘Omega Point’ as the ultimate goal of the universe and emphasizes on the personal intimacy and communion between God and his creation, it’s beyond my understanding but maybe someone like Bernardo can. Thanks for the talk 😊
Soft spoken maybe, but I dont think a man who is lying can be wise and sincere. I think Rupert is just narcissistic. I dont think it is important what people say or if they are soft spoken or not, it is more important to look at the action, they are taking. And Ruperts actions are more about earning money than about anythink else.
Thank you bringing these two wonderful thinkers and beings together again. On happiness, would it be ok to say that oneness is not entirely whole and lacking of anything? I wonder if the one does “ache” with sort of loneliness and creates a sort of trauma which causes disassociation? So in this understanding, love is what bring the multitude back to the one and it’s also what fractures the one into the many. Neither static state of separateness or oneness is “God”. Rather it’s the constant flow between states.
I have a vivid memory of my 4th birthday because a question formed that no one was able to answer. At least not to my satisfaction. How do I know I am not a character in a dream of a boy taking a nap under a tree? And if I am just a character who is the one dreaming and does he ask the same question? Pre school was a drag but kindergarten was a nightmare :)
All hypotheses with spurious metaphors & analogies to paint a picture of apparent truth. Interesting & it feels good but it still comes down to wanting to believe something beyond death.
[Assume we are all souls having human experiences and that we potentially develop across multiple lifetimes]. These fellas were born with a unique task to make an appealing case for there being something more to it all if you want to follow a sort of logically restrictive narrative. The truth is way ahead of all of us, just waiting for us to ready ourselves.
You can't really get "more sober" or "more out of social media, porn, gambling". The practical level of addiction is fairly simple. Not easy, but fairly simple: Stop the action of abusing. What must happen after the longest withdrawal symptoms is to get in touch with what you have been avoiding, or fluidly compensating for.
My conclusion, based on the words of the interviewees, is the following: Rupert describes and interprets his own subjective experience, which, I believe, is not the same as that of most people, at least mine. I believe he has this exceptional subjective experience, but I have no reason to think his interpretation is correct. No evidence that tells me I'm likely to be right. As for Bernardo, for whom I have great admiration, and who I consider to be a very intelligent and informed person, he ends up saying, in other words, that I am my physical body (regardless of what the physical body means). A dissociation of the Mind at Large that, like the whirlpool of the river, ceases when the waters calm down (the physical body dies). In both Rupert's case and Bernardo's case, my conclusion is that I will cease to exist with the death of my body. There is nothing in me that is eternal and definitive. This subject who observes and experiences my subjective experience, which is what I call "I", will cease to exist. In other words, there is no continuation of the “I” after death. This is the same as what metaphysical materialism says. Whether Mind at Large continues to exist or not, if "I" don't exist, is irrelevant to me. But to suffer I exist! Suffering can sometimes be the result of illusions, but suffering is not an illusion.
Yes! Not sure if you checked out seeker to seeker and his videos on emptiness. The whole me and I thing gets in the way, kinda like calling God "he". There is no me or I when I die and the way I see it now there is no me even while I'm sitting here breathing and typing. Rupert and materialism are two sides of the same coin and the coin is the ego and whatever sees the coin is consciousness. Whether there is an eternal universal consciousness is irrelevant to the ego but our minds can latch on to that concept to take control of our psychological urges, desires, thoughts or whatever will lead to suffering and laugh at it. Infinite consciousness or not love makes everything better!
The “subject who observes and experiences my subjective experience, which is what I call ‘I’” is the one thing that WILL remain after death (if we are speaking within the confines of linear time - it’s actually eternal, or outside of time). Every single aspect of our experience, every single piece of content, our names, histories, personalities, etc etc… those all gotta go. But this formless aware being that is NOT any of those things but that experiences it all (which, admittedly, is not the person we take ourselves to be), will keep going. This is at least my understanding of the more nondual teachings, and my experience in some more heightened states of consciousness 😵💫. I can’t legitimately say that it’s my lived experience or that I’m in any way sure of what happens after physical death
If your conclusion is based on what they said, you got it wrong, my friend. Watch it again, or, watch shorter (and older) videos by Spira, and surely, your understanding will deepen. Have a great one!
Lots of good insights there. I would like to add that my understanding of both Kastrups and Spiras ideas is that you actually do "survive" death. That is, the most essential part of you, the essence of you which is consciousness itself continues. That which "disappears" never truly existed in the first place, only as a story, a layer on top of your essential nature as consciousness. So that story drops away, but that story was never "you" in the first place, it was who you thought you were and what you identified yourself with. I see this as different conpared to the idea underlying materialism, which is that there is no essence beyond the appearance. You are your body, your thoughts, your emotions, and when that goes you go. So in materialism, you are totally annihilated at the time of death, and from the pov of "consciousness only" models, an illusion (or state of dissociation) simply seems to end, but you don't go anywhere. What "dies" is an idea of who you believe yourself to be.
"I" is my body with the mind/memories and the ego.. When someone dies the mind and the ego cease to exist necs of death of cells, the body is just the matter which transforms into dust... But what if the information of my mind is stored somewhere in the knowledge of God and when he judges he puts it back into a new body and we wake up again.. Without God there cannot be next life and sense of justice .
Love it when these two get together - thank you! If consciousness (or God - name your label) is fundamental (which I feel it is), then isn't everything in life, whether from ego or not, of God and even free will an illusion in this dream of life? In other words, nothing is separate and everything is accepted - nature (as Bernado puts it) is flowing no matter what - we can't get in the way of that even when it looks like we can...?
Yes to both of your questions. 'Life is but a dream, only longer and more linear than other dreams' (Ramana Maharshi). In ALL dreams we identify erroneously with the seemingly separate person only and each time it takes awakening to (be able to) realize our mistake. There is only one choice in life (although not for the seemingly separate person you think you are): whether or not to awaken into the dream of life. Consciousness is what you are, in which everything appears, by which everything is experienced, of which everything consists. As in any dream. Bonus: leaving the personal perspective is the end of all your suffering.
Interesting that Bernard seems to be entrapped in some mainstream narrative, belief and perception... Makes his words and seeing Intellectual chit-chatting
Very much aligns with teachings that, rather than preaching absolute abstinence, allow for one to act out on their addiction, but to do so only in an extremely mindful way. If we were absolutely aware of the entirety of the affects an action has, it would be easy to either continue that action (if it were a net positive) or to cease it (if it were a net negative). Smoking for example, feeling every sensation, the lungs burning, the taste of the cigarette, any guilt or fear that arises, etc etc… you might realize that you genuinely don’t even enjoy it. Addiction thrives on lack of awareness!
I'm confused by Bernardo's take on free will (which I largely agree with), but then him also saying things like your life being miserable if you're going against nature's will. How can you go against natures will, at all? Aren't we all just doing whatever we were always going to?
That's a good point and I hope he elaborates some day. I think he would say that from the point of view of the conscious alter, it would be an experience of swimming against the current of life. But to your point, it would be the will of nature that your alter were doing that. So it's not that one is actually going against the will of nature, but rather that one is experiencing a tension between itself and a greater whole.
I think Bernardo is a unique man because he’s always been able to follow along beautifully and have an intuitive conversation with Rupert but he said something in this interview that makes me now doubt his intelligence (maybe awareness is a better word to use here but I’m not sure). **Unless he has Trump derangement syndrome, which many humans were subjected to through mass hypnosis (an altered state of mind) and lacks awareness and/or consciousness, he should not be comparing president Trump to Hitler and Stalin, who both committed atrocious war crimes and killed millions of people. If Bernardo studies the brain he should analyze why he made that comparison… he was clearly influenced by the media by mass repetition of ‘orange man bad’ and lost his cognitive awareness. Sad to see that it can happen to even the most educated scholars among us and yet even Bernardo who literally studies the brain… I do respect Bernardo for his collaboration with Rupert because most scientists and scholars don’t understand nor can speak at his level on the subject of consciousness. Great conversation as usual Rupert!❤ Thanks to all three of you! ❤
I question the analogy or parallel between the defense mechanism of becoming blind that Kastrup tells and the macro level of that. It requires to explain what made Consciousness create a self defense mechanism! Was it worry about something? Something didn’t want to remember?
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). th-cam.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
I don’t understand how you could even think that your life is about you. 😂 That weird mindset of not being ABLE to think my life is about me has caused me much pain. So maybe what I write here will change your life. Maybe it’s my gift to you now: So I can understand why people don’t want to think otherwise (that their life is about them, their concerns). When I say much pain I am being very understated. I mean crushing misunderstanding and isolation and seeing suffering you can’t close your eyes to. ❤ I would choose the ability to see and change the actual world over a comfortable life any day. I think faith, high intelligence, seeing the big picture, and hope would open your eyes. Might be some empirical things you could do there. Rupert’s nephew being a symbol from the larger mind of a life purpose for Rupert, and his Nephew being the unsung hero love of larger mind for Rupert for example. With Bernardo, it’s the intellectual discovery which sinks in and changes him. That sort of thing. ❤ That’s what I mean by not seeing your life as about you or even the two interviewees as about them. I see beyond the normal categories of dissociative thoughts because I am here to change things. Love is also removal of unnecessary thoughts and pain from those who don’t use it. Who have divine purposes that don’t require it. No one is a hero in a vacuum. We breathe in the sacrifices of whole suns that shine for billions of years in the dark. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
Actually i believe that Maruti Shivrampant Kambli (Nisargadatta's birth name) kept smoking until death, Nisargadatta after realizing his true nature clearly understood that whatever the body/mind does has nothing to do with his essence. As the Astavakra Gita says in chapter 15 verse 4: "You are not the body, nor is the body yours; you are not the doer nor the enjoyer. You are Consciousness itself, the eternal Witness, and free. Go about happily." When Mary suddenly realise she's Mary and not Jane she would not be bothered anymore by whatever Jane does within the dream, whether Jane becomes the queen of France or Jane's life unfolds in a way that she's becoming a prostitute Mary holds no judgment about it because she knows it's just like a play. Although Maruti Shivrampant Kambli smoked like an ancient steamship he (his true Self) wasn't affected by it at all, he disentangled from the ego belief of individuality. Many (although in reality there is just one consciousness and separation doesnt exist) consider addictions as unholy but the judgement who considers this as unholy is itself coming from the ego. In fact fighting against an addiction like smoking or drinking makes it even worse because you validate something that in reality is like an illusion. You can compare it maybe with Ramana Maharshi who had spent years in a cave because he was in a state of Samadhi, when in this Samadhi there is no need anymore to do anything "personal" like eating, walking or cleansing his body. No he just sit there in a state of ultimate bliss, in that state the world probably (most likely) even completely dissapeared so as his body. It's just from our localized perspective as Rupert would call this, that we feel bad for Ramana as we still see a body sitting and where insects ate away his thighs, because we don't understand the state he's in many came to him daily to offer him food en stuff, and maybe some would label this as unholy as well. Nisergadatta didn't need to silence his mind anymore as he trancended his mind.
Love works this way as well. Our earthly experience of it is very deceptive, and the world uses it to create shame and opprobrium. For example, love expresses itself willingly, but the world seems to want to indict people for not forcing it to happen in their own lives. It is a natural phenomenon that God did not intend us to be culpable for, but people cannot wrap their mind around this because they struggle with earthquakes and hurricanes in the same way. This to me, is part of that watercolor paint that would be obscuring the moon. When I look at the world, and perceive love's dearth in my experience, the paint is removed and love gives me its own answer: to abide in my memory or dream of love, and to have compassion and empathy for myself and others who terrorize themselves with it. In other words, love is still there with you even when you are sick. Love is also alive; it can be queried. The nature of the discussion always starts by reminding me of the love I have received, and teaches me to return it by being thankful for it and treating others the same way. I believe this to be the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I would say, the separate self needs purpose maybe but not Awareness/Consciousness. If Bernardo insists on purpose that is a mistake fundamentally. He further says when discerning if it is from Awareness or Ego..... He says a Hallmark is Awareness never offers a "why" and so if we apply that to my other comment, purpose and why are not of Awareness.
One of the problems with Ruperts explanation is that of Consciousness taking the apparent mode of multiple minds and all the rest. I am that Consciousness according to him and yet I am not aware of everything there is to be aware of and yet Consciousness should be aware of everything there is to know. This tells me that God Awareness and I as awareness share the same life or awareness substance and yet I depend on God and I am not God. I look at Jesus for example i. The Bible and I find recorded that he was able to know what was in men, he knew what no one knew, nobody had to tell him anything, he said I am the truth. It seems that we need that kind of experience to n order to say what Rupert is saying at the deepest level, that is, that we are God in essence.
_I am not aware of everything there is to be aware of_ What if I tell you that, indeed, at the deepest level, you are? And the difference is about how the contents in that awareness are related among themselves. So, what is that "I"? Because if that "I" is a feeling in a specific body/structure, then, even if it is still related with the entirety of existence, its intimacy is just with the most immediate inner workings and surroundings of that body, and the extension in that point of focus loses strength as it moves away from that "center." So it's about focus, but consciousness is the same everywhere. You, in the most profound sense, are indeed aware of my thoughts, as I am aware of them, but *the thoughts that correspond to the image of this body are very poorly connected with the thoughts that correspond to the image of that other body.* Spacetime gives us a hint in how the contents of experience are related and how intimate and strongly connected they become at different points of attention.
In non-duality god does not have will and everything we know and including our concioisness is an illision becs its finite and incomplete and error prone.... In non-dusl world god has only mind without ego...Its just like a book written without an author... How did god create the universe if he does not have will... Non- dualist would give an absurd answer that the universe dont exist in reality... And then they claim to understand reality... What a contradiction.. And advait vedanta philosophers have claimed themselves to be god and being the absolute truth... This is ignorance and a higher level of self deception.. No one knows the complete truth as two person looking at an apple from different position, angle and different experience with apples in past... No one can claim to know everything relative to all point of possible observations... Its infinite... No one can claim to know the infinite and so again the meaning question remains unanswered...
I’m glad Bernardo brought up “Danger”. He is the “DANGER” in which he’s sensing and proclaiming. The “SELF” is not the finality of realization. The “SELF” is the false ego of GOD. He thinks he’s finished because he’s banded his identity of SELF with the other self realized who think they are finished and are the height of LOVE. Bernardo, your words are very harmful and dangerous. You are expressing what you call your self through the false beliefs your mind and small ego still holds. I thought the SlELF was the finality. I know that nothing and everythingness boundless now. That is the true EGO. That is the most dangerous EGO. That is the EGO that holds the eternal delusion all together. I’m tired of the harm these deluded self realized are causing. Yes, he is being made use of by nature, but also made use of by those who do know how to manipulate nature. I’ve only encountered one self- realized who saw through the delusion of that eternal Self and woke to the true SOURCE of love. Self-realization is not God-realization. I’m tired and hurt by all the harm the self-realized do. They are so deluded and so harmful. Yes, they can express and share immense beauty and lead others past the false sense of limited identity into the boundless I AM. That is there use for nature but are so so easily subverted with there own lies and delusions they hold onto and spread to so many minds that believe those lies with even greater fervor because a self-realized spoke them. They are the most dangerous beings, the most harmful beings and are oblivious to it. If you think I’m deluded and mad, you can witness the expression of the experience through a true God-realized being in David Thomas’s BATGAP interview. He’s who I found after I had my own paradigm of reality destroyed when that SOURCE prior to SELF graced me with its inexpressible visage, the true inexpressible. I found him talking to nobody so “nature worked through me” to get him that BATGAP interview. SELF-REALIZATION is easily expressible. No thought can escape our true Source without it creating an entire reality to distort it. Excuse my expression here. I’m so hurt and disgusted by all the harm done with their false beliefs and ideological possessions the ETERNAL EGO’S spread. May this reach you Bernardo. See through the lies you spread unknowingly. See through your possessions of mind.
He even claims to not be enlightened, but he is being quite modest. He is clearly quite deeply realized. He speaks about lived experience and embodiment, which necessitates going beyond intellect.
None dual means "not two" don't interpret it as one ..not subject(mind) or object(matter) therefore all experiences are out of our understanding and not experienced 😂
Lotta teachers get in big trouble sexually when their desires arise "on behalf of the whole" and they are unconsciously swept into participation! Just sayin', Rupert.
Yes, he lives in is upper society bubble....makes a lot of money out of his teachings and live with one of his former students, much younger then him in an Oxford mansion. Perfect example of hypocrisy.
Rupert's story resonates here. I woke up when I was 11 or so. It lasted only a moment or two. I had no idea what it was and no language for it and certainly no one to share it with. It was a simple indelible experience that did not need to be understood because it felt like understanding itself. A simple profound moment of absolute clarity.
It reminds me of Leonard Cohen's lyrics... "There is a crack, a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." I have been chasing that moment for decades now and it feels like coming home.
That’s beautiful. Happy journeying
Beautiful
Watching bernardo amd rupert is the only addiction that I will subject myself into. ☺️
True 🙏
What is addiction, really? It's a lack of control, isnt it... particularly self control
@@hoykoya3382 _"chill duuude!"_
First you chill your addiction pattern lol
Me too
Add David Bentley Hart into the mix and I assure you, you will never lose the addiction.
Thank God that I have access to wonderful discussions like this. No time wasted here! : )
I love the interviewer bringing Rupert’s and Bernardo’s philosophical ideas into ordinary life. How have they changed the way you live? How they can tell they don’t come from ego? Etc
This was an amazing interview❤
It's an honor to be able to listen to these two share their knowledge with us. Thanks a lot Weekend University for making it possible 😊
But Rupert, thinking and feeling is the only way we have to experience the wholeness which results from recognizing that we are part of all. So we still have the mechanism of desire, but we no longer believe that a specific "thing" is going to satisfy us since our true desire is to fulfill our natural inclination to find release of servitude to pursuit of happiness and instead we are fulfilled in serving the whole, in whatever way we can. We know when it is the right action when the feeling of release of individual responsibility overcomes us and releases us. But, isn't that a feeling? It is certainly a feeling that I've experienced. Somatically it manifests as a frisson of shivers and goosebumps which come over my body. That is a wonderful feeling. It is actually the feeling of encountering knowledge about ..everything.
Thank you for sharing. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
The least become the most and the most become the least. The rich are poor and the poor are rich. We have forgotten. The paradox of awakening. Thanks alot gentlemen. What a great video and so important.
What a treat to wake up to. ♥️
I need this everyday!
Ruberts teachings have expanded my program. I am so grateful.
He’s wise and explanations
Help me to experience and see the truth.
Did a week in person very
Powerful.
Following the wheel of nature also keeps me in the
Feeling of existing in consciousness and oneness.peace and love
Both these gentlemen are inspirational to the experience of the human journey in this reality.
Bernardo is so humble and grounded. Thanks for this great conversation with Rupert Spira
Thank u! This is exactly
What I have been contemplating in the world.
Silence is the way.
Beautiful talk!
Just when I was enjoying this podcast while driving my car... Bernardo strikes.
What an amazing conversation! Thank you for all the revelations you've opened my eyes to.
Thank you both I really enjoyed that I'm listening in Morocco at 5:00 in the morning I listened to the whole thing
I totally get the service idea without expecting specific outcomes.
Love them both.Thanks for uploading!
In vedanta philosophy, there are 4 types of non-dualities are discussed.
One is that of swapna or dream state, in this stage all the characters are ourselves, nevertheless characters exist. The next state of nonduality is susupti, that is in deep sleep state, in that state we do not even know we exist, the third state is that of turiya, in which we witness our own nonduality, the fourth stage is the turiyata nonduality in which we do not have even the sense of witness, but have a blissful sense of nonduality. The four stages of nonduality is attained one by one, after overcoming our duality -awareness, that is called Jagriti.
Lets make it more simple
Thank you for such a great interview!
Rendezvous with beautiful minds .
Rupert and Bernado have similar point of view .
What an awesome interview. Thank you
I really love them both so much! They articulate their case so well!
Soo excited to listen to these two brilliant minds discuss god consciousness from their own intuitive perceptions again! Such a treat ❤
Rupert feels wise, sincere, and soft spoken, Bernardo is eloquent and knowledgeable. Bernardo’s view on meaning and purpose of life look to me a little bit utilitarian; as if humans were created to be nature’s chess pawns, and give no reason for hope to no one,
Some mystics speak of God as ‘ maternal and unfailing ‘
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a mystic, physicist and scientist would be an enlightening reading for him to give a try and translate to us, in lay relatable terms, because Teilhard is to be read by scientific minds mostly, he is a difficult read but is so warm and loving in the definition of the ‘Christ’ and the ‘Omega Point’ as the ultimate goal of the universe and emphasizes on the personal intimacy and communion between God and his creation, it’s beyond my understanding but maybe someone like Bernardo can. Thanks for the talk 😊
Soft spoken maybe, but I dont think a man who is lying can be wise and sincere. I think Rupert is just narcissistic. I dont think it is important what people say or if they are soft spoken or not, it is more important to look at the action, they are taking. And Ruperts actions are more about earning money than about anythink else.
a life well lived begins,
where we perceive ourselves as a UNIT🥰🙏
Amazing interview! Thanks so much to the three of you! ❤
Thank you bringing these two wonderful thinkers and beings together again.
On happiness, would it be ok to say that oneness is not entirely whole and lacking of anything? I wonder if the one does “ache” with sort of loneliness and creates a sort of trauma which causes disassociation? So in this understanding, love is what bring the multitude back to the one and it’s also what fractures the one into the many. Neither static state of separateness or oneness is “God”. Rather it’s the constant flow between states.
Thank you everyone for your comments.They are all appreciated
I have a vivid memory of my 4th birthday because a question formed that no one was able to answer. At least not to my satisfaction.
How do I know I am not a character in a dream of a boy taking a nap under a tree? And if I am just a character who is the one dreaming and does he ask the same question?
Pre school was a drag but kindergarten was a nightmare :)
I love thinking about Mary and Jane. Especially when I have some Mary-Jane.
All hypotheses with spurious metaphors & analogies to paint a picture of apparent truth. Interesting & it feels good but it still comes down to wanting to believe something beyond death.
Very good discussion, thanks ❤
Thank God! Love them both!😊
Great Talk...I Enjoyed..Got new prespectives
Absolutely loved this one
[Assume we are all souls having human experiences and that we potentially develop across multiple lifetimes]. These fellas were born with a unique task to make an appealing case for there being something more to it all if you want to follow a sort of logically restrictive narrative.
The truth is way ahead of all of us, just waiting for us to ready ourselves.
THANK YOU 🕊️🌱
🤗
Bernardo shows books racks behind...
Rupert shows nothing behind!
He has all his books in mind..
Nothing left behind!
Gnostic blessings 🙌 🙏 ✨️
You can't really get "more sober" or "more out of social media, porn, gambling". The practical level of addiction is fairly simple. Not easy, but fairly simple: Stop the action of abusing. What must happen after the longest withdrawal symptoms is to get in touch with what you have been avoiding, or fluidly compensating for.
what a great video
Happy if you got what they were talking about I didn’t.
Bernardo throwing powerful bombs
My conclusion, based on the words of the interviewees, is the following: Rupert describes and interprets his own subjective experience, which, I believe, is not the same as that of most people, at least mine. I believe he has this exceptional subjective experience, but I have no reason to think his interpretation is correct. No evidence that tells me I'm likely to be right. As for Bernardo, for whom I have great admiration, and who I consider to be a very intelligent and informed person, he ends up saying, in other words, that I am my physical body (regardless of what the physical body means). A dissociation of the Mind at Large that, like the whirlpool of the river, ceases when the waters calm down (the physical body dies). In both Rupert's case and Bernardo's case, my conclusion is that I will cease to exist with the death of my body. There is nothing in me that is eternal and definitive. This subject who observes and experiences my subjective experience, which is what I call "I", will cease to exist. In other words, there is no continuation of the “I” after death. This is the same as what metaphysical materialism says. Whether Mind at Large continues to exist or not, if "I" don't exist, is irrelevant to me. But to suffer I exist! Suffering can sometimes be the result of illusions, but suffering is not an illusion.
Yes! Not sure if you checked out seeker to seeker and his videos on emptiness. The whole me and I thing gets in the way, kinda like calling God "he". There is no me or I when I die and the way I see it now there is no me even while I'm sitting here breathing and typing. Rupert and materialism are two sides of the same coin and the coin is the ego and whatever sees the coin is consciousness. Whether there is an eternal universal consciousness is irrelevant to the ego but our minds can latch on to that concept to take control of our psychological urges, desires, thoughts or whatever will lead to suffering and laugh at it. Infinite consciousness or not love makes everything better!
The “subject who observes and experiences my subjective experience, which is what I call ‘I’” is the one thing that WILL remain after death (if we are speaking within the confines of linear time - it’s actually eternal, or outside of time).
Every single aspect of our experience, every single piece of content, our names, histories, personalities, etc etc… those all gotta go. But this formless aware being that is NOT any of those things but that experiences it all (which, admittedly, is not the person we take ourselves to be), will keep going.
This is at least my understanding of the more nondual teachings, and my experience in some more heightened states of consciousness 😵💫. I can’t legitimately say that it’s my lived experience or that I’m in any way sure of what happens after physical death
If your conclusion is based on what they said, you got it wrong, my friend. Watch it again, or, watch shorter (and older) videos by Spira, and surely, your understanding will deepen. Have a great one!
Lots of good insights there. I would like to add that my understanding of both Kastrups and Spiras ideas is that you actually do "survive" death. That is, the most essential part of you, the essence of you which is consciousness itself continues. That which "disappears" never truly existed in the first place, only as a story, a layer on top of your essential nature as consciousness. So that story drops away, but that story was never "you" in the first place, it was who you thought you were and what you identified yourself with. I see this as different conpared to the idea underlying materialism, which is that there is no essence beyond the appearance. You are your body, your thoughts, your emotions, and when that goes you go. So in materialism, you are totally annihilated at the time of death, and from the pov of "consciousness only" models, an illusion (or state of dissociation) simply seems to end, but you don't go anywhere. What "dies" is an idea of who you believe yourself to be.
"I" is my body with the mind/memories and the ego.. When someone dies the mind and the ego cease to exist necs of death of cells, the body is just the matter which transforms into dust...
But what if the information of my mind is stored somewhere in the knowledge of God and when he judges he puts it back into a new body and we wake up again..
Without God there cannot be next life and sense of justice .
Love it when these two get together - thank you! If consciousness (or God - name your label) is fundamental (which I feel it is), then isn't everything in life, whether from ego or not, of God and even free will an illusion in this dream of life? In other words, nothing is separate and everything is accepted - nature (as Bernado puts it) is flowing no matter what - we can't get in the way of that even when it looks like we can...?
Yes to both of your questions. 'Life is but a dream, only longer and more linear than other dreams' (Ramana Maharshi). In ALL dreams we identify erroneously with the seemingly separate person only and each time it takes awakening to (be able to) realize our mistake. There is only one choice in life (although not for the seemingly separate person you think you are): whether or not to awaken into the dream of life. Consciousness is what you are, in which everything appears, by which everything is experienced, of which everything consists. As in any dream. Bonus: leaving the personal perspective is the end of all your suffering.
Yes, see his discourse on free will...
Interesting that Bernard seems to be entrapped in some mainstream narrative, belief and perception... Makes his words and seeing Intellectual chit-chatting
Thich Nhat Hanh said if you are going to drink that whiskey, drink it mindfully! Lol thats only part of thought but thats the part i like!
Very much aligns with teachings that, rather than preaching absolute abstinence, allow for one to act out on their addiction, but to do so only in an extremely mindful way.
If we were absolutely aware of the entirety of the affects an action has, it would be easy to either continue that action (if it were a net positive) or to cease it (if it were a net negative).
Smoking for example, feeling every sensation, the lungs burning, the taste of the cigarette, any guilt or fear that arises, etc etc… you might realize that you genuinely don’t even enjoy it.
Addiction thrives on lack of awareness!
You know what: On most german beer bottles theres actually the similar advice on it: 'Bier bewusst geniessen' - Enjoy beer consciously
The Great Way is easy to those who have no preferences
Indian philosophy is so deep yet world try to deny it , the polity doesn’t allow , Indians to learn their own
Science and spirituality ARE compatible!
I'm confused by Bernardo's take on free will (which I largely agree with), but then him also saying things like your life being miserable if you're going against nature's will. How can you go against natures will, at all? Aren't we all just doing whatever we were always going to?
That's a good point and I hope he elaborates some day. I think he would say that from the point of view of the conscious alter, it would be an experience of swimming against the current of life. But to your point, it would be the will of nature that your alter were doing that. So it's not that one is actually going against the will of nature, but rather that one is experiencing a tension between itself and a greater whole.
I think Bernardo is a unique man because he’s always been able to follow along beautifully and have an intuitive conversation with Rupert but he said something in this interview that makes me now doubt his intelligence (maybe awareness is a better word to use here but I’m not sure).
**Unless he has Trump derangement syndrome, which many humans were subjected to through mass hypnosis (an altered state of mind) and lacks awareness and/or consciousness, he should not be comparing president Trump to Hitler and Stalin, who both committed atrocious war crimes and killed millions of people.
If Bernardo studies the brain he should analyze why he made that comparison… he was clearly influenced by the media by mass repetition of ‘orange man bad’ and lost his cognitive awareness.
Sad to see that it can happen to even the most educated scholars among us and yet even Bernardo who literally studies the brain…
I do respect Bernardo for his collaboration with Rupert because most scientists and scholars don’t understand nor can speak at his level on the subject of consciousness.
Great conversation as usual Rupert!❤ Thanks to all three of you! ❤
What if all material objects become transparent or permeable!
With all due respect, Bernardo contradicted his teaching when he mentioned certain names he finds to be evil .
Don’t fault others for not being you. Don’t fault yourself for not being others. Thats a much better way to say “don’t judge” in my estimation 🤔
'It will haunt you' FL
I question the analogy or parallel between the defense mechanism of becoming blind that Kastrup tells and the macro level of that. It requires to explain what made Consciousness create a self defense mechanism! Was it worry about something? Something didn’t want to remember?
At the fundamental level it may not be a defense mechanism, but it may be an artifact of the mind as it tries to focus in different aspects of itself.
We are still lacking a theodicy of nonduality
I'm thankful ,he gave us valuable knowledge BUT HE NEVER TELL US THE WAY TO BRING ALL HE TALKS ABOUT INTO E X P E R I E N C E.
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia).
th-cam.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
Red meat is not addictive. It's what we evolved on and is in perfect harmony with our biology. Plants are addictive.
Why Rupert Spira is not regarded as philosopher?
I don’t understand how you could even think that your life is about you. 😂 That weird mindset of not being ABLE to think my life is about me has caused me much pain. So maybe what I write here will change your life. Maybe it’s my gift to you now:
So I can understand why people don’t want to think otherwise (that their life is about them, their concerns). When I say much pain I am being very understated. I mean crushing misunderstanding and isolation and seeing suffering you can’t close your eyes to. ❤ I would choose the ability to see and change the actual world over a comfortable life any day. I think faith, high intelligence, seeing the big picture, and hope would open your eyes. Might be some empirical things you could do there.
Rupert’s nephew being a symbol from the larger mind of a life purpose for Rupert, and his Nephew being the unsung hero love of larger mind for Rupert for example. With Bernardo, it’s the intellectual discovery which sinks in and changes him. That sort of thing. ❤ That’s what I mean by not seeing your life as about you or even the two interviewees as about them.
I see beyond the normal categories of dissociative thoughts because I am here to change things. Love is also removal of unnecessary thoughts and pain from those who don’t use it. Who have divine purposes that don’t require it. No one is a hero in a vacuum. We breathe in the sacrifices of whole suns that shine for billions of years in the dark. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
❤🎉🎉🎉ThankYou ❤❤❤
What if your addiction is listening to non-dual talks 🤔
The separate self is an illusion.
Nisargadatta kept his smoking habit till his death, may be it gives a minute of silencing the mind
Actually i believe that Maruti Shivrampant Kambli (Nisargadatta's birth name) kept smoking until death, Nisargadatta after realizing his true nature clearly understood that whatever the body/mind does has nothing to do with his essence. As the Astavakra Gita says in chapter 15 verse 4: "You are not the body, nor is the body yours; you are not the doer nor the enjoyer. You are Consciousness itself, the eternal Witness, and free. Go about happily."
When Mary suddenly realise she's Mary and not Jane she would not be bothered anymore by whatever Jane does within the dream, whether Jane becomes the queen of France or Jane's life unfolds in a way that she's becoming a prostitute Mary holds no judgment about it because she knows it's just like a play. Although Maruti Shivrampant Kambli smoked like an ancient steamship he (his true Self) wasn't affected by it at all, he disentangled from the ego belief of individuality. Many (although in reality there is just one consciousness and separation doesnt exist) consider addictions as unholy but the judgement who considers this as unholy is itself coming from the ego.
In fact fighting against an addiction like smoking or drinking makes it even worse because you validate something that in reality is like an illusion.
You can compare it maybe with Ramana Maharshi who had spent years in a cave because he was in a state of Samadhi, when in this Samadhi there is no need anymore to do anything "personal" like eating, walking or cleansing his body. No he just sit there in a state of ultimate bliss, in that state the world probably (most likely) even completely dissapeared so as his body. It's just from our localized perspective as Rupert would call this, that we feel bad for Ramana as we still see a body sitting and where insects ate away his thighs, because we don't understand the state he's in many came to him daily to offer him food en stuff, and maybe some would label this as unholy as well.
Nisergadatta didn't need to silence his mind anymore as he trancended his mind.
How can you talk about the Ego and the Spirit in the context of non-duality? Isn't that yet another illusion that Ego and Spirit are separate?
I'm not in service to nature. I'm in service to God.
❤
Love works this way as well. Our earthly experience of it is very deceptive, and the world uses it to create shame and opprobrium. For example, love expresses itself willingly, but the world seems to want to indict people for not forcing it to happen in their own lives. It is a natural phenomenon that God did not intend us to be culpable for, but people cannot wrap their mind around this because they struggle with earthquakes and hurricanes in the same way. This to me, is part of that watercolor paint that would be obscuring the moon. When I look at the world, and perceive love's dearth in my experience, the paint is removed and love gives me its own answer: to abide in my memory or dream of love, and to have compassion and empathy for myself and others who terrorize themselves with it. In other words, love is still there with you even when you are sick. Love is also alive; it can be queried. The nature of the discussion always starts by reminding me of the love I have received, and teaches me to return it by being thankful for it and treating others the same way. I believe this to be the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I would say, the separate self needs purpose maybe but not Awareness/Consciousness. If Bernardo insists on purpose that is a mistake fundamentally. He further says when discerning if it is from Awareness or Ego..... He says a Hallmark is Awareness never offers a "why" and so if we apply that to my other comment, purpose and why are not of Awareness.
One infinite whole whose nature is love that we experience as cancer, war, old age, birth defects and Komodo dragons devouring deer.
All the people here objecting to Bernardo's statements have not understood Rupert's or Bernardo's message...
Rupert looks a lot better with a beard.
Eating meat is an addiction!! What!!! That’s crazy to say, so nobody should eat meat?! Why is it!?
He said feeling entitled to eat it.
One of the problems with Ruperts explanation is that of Consciousness taking the apparent mode of multiple minds and all the rest. I am that Consciousness according to him and yet I am not aware of everything there is to be aware of and yet Consciousness should be aware of everything there is to know. This tells me that God Awareness and I as awareness share the same life or awareness substance and yet I depend on God and I am not God. I look at Jesus for example i. The Bible and I find recorded that he was able to know what was in men, he knew what no one knew, nobody had to tell him anything, he said I am the truth. It seems that we need that kind of experience to n order to say what Rupert is saying at the deepest level, that is, that we are God in essence.
_I am not aware of everything there is to be aware of_
What if I tell you that, indeed, at the deepest level, you are? And the difference is about how the contents in that awareness are related among themselves.
So, what is that "I"? Because if that "I" is a feeling in a specific body/structure, then, even if it is still related with the entirety of existence, its intimacy is just with the most immediate inner workings and surroundings of that body, and the extension in that point of focus loses strength as it moves away from that "center."
So it's about focus, but consciousness is the same everywhere. You, in the most profound sense, are indeed aware of my thoughts, as I am aware of them, but *the thoughts that correspond to the image of this body are very poorly connected with the thoughts that correspond to the image of that other body.*
Spacetime gives us a hint in how the contents of experience are related and how intimate and strongly connected they become at different points of attention.
Rupert + Gaza + finite mind + nature of reality = metabolism. [ theory of everything]
Non-duality is a clumsy convoluted way of saying Oneness. I don't call things non-nothings.
You have a right to think the way you think.
Karl Marx.
Read him on Essence and Appearance!
Karl Marx....
But he wrote well : Man can master nature!
i agree with most of what they say but holy moly do they repeat themselves a lot. every interview they say more or less the same stuff.
You should check out their books, Kastrup’s are mind blowing and Spira’s are some of the best pointers I’ve read.
i have several of kastrups books. and i wonder if thats why hes doing all these videos repeating himself constantly, to sell his books.@@SuitedPup
In non-duality god does not have will and everything we know and including our concioisness is an illision becs its finite and incomplete and error prone....
In non-dusl world god has only mind without ego...Its just like a book written without an author...
How did god create the universe if he does not have will... Non- dualist would give an absurd answer that the universe dont exist in reality... And then they claim to understand reality... What a contradiction..
And advait vedanta philosophers have claimed themselves to be god and being the absolute truth... This is ignorance and a higher level of self deception..
No one knows the complete truth as two person looking at an apple from different position, angle and different experience with apples in past... No one can claim to know everything relative to all point of possible observations... Its infinite... No one can claim to know the infinite and so again the meaning question remains unanswered...
I’m glad Bernardo brought up “Danger”. He is the “DANGER” in which he’s sensing and proclaiming. The “SELF” is not the finality of realization. The “SELF” is the false ego of GOD. He thinks he’s finished because he’s banded his identity of SELF with the other self realized who think they are finished and are the height of LOVE. Bernardo, your words are very harmful and dangerous. You are expressing what you call your self through the false beliefs your mind and small ego still holds. I thought the SlELF was the finality. I know that nothing and everythingness boundless now. That is the true EGO. That is the most dangerous EGO. That is the EGO that holds the eternal delusion all together. I’m tired of the harm these deluded self realized are causing. Yes, he is being made use of by nature, but also made use of by those who do know how to manipulate nature. I’ve only encountered one self- realized who saw through the delusion of that eternal Self and woke to the true SOURCE of love. Self-realization is not God-realization. I’m tired and hurt by all the harm the self-realized do. They are so deluded and so harmful. Yes, they can express and share immense beauty and lead others past the false sense of limited identity into the boundless I AM. That is there use for nature but are so so easily subverted with there own lies and delusions they hold onto and spread to so many minds that believe those lies with even greater fervor because a self-realized spoke them. They are the most dangerous beings, the most harmful beings and are oblivious to it. If you think I’m deluded and mad, you can witness the expression of the experience through a true God-realized being in David Thomas’s BATGAP interview. He’s who I found after I had my own paradigm of reality destroyed when that SOURCE prior to SELF graced me with its inexpressible visage, the true inexpressible. I found him talking to nobody so “nature worked through me” to get him that BATGAP interview. SELF-REALIZATION is easily expressible. No thought can escape our true Source without it creating an entire reality to distort it. Excuse my expression here. I’m so hurt and disgusted by all the harm done with their false beliefs and ideological possessions the ETERNAL EGO’S spread. May this reach you Bernardo. See through the lies you spread unknowingly. See through your possessions of mind.
He is an intellectual,not a mystic.
I think they are both intellectuals, but Bernado knows this very well, while Rupert really thinks that he is a mystic....
He even claims to not be enlightened, but he is being quite modest. He is clearly quite deeply realized. He speaks about lived experience and embodiment, which necessitates going beyond intellect.
@@humnhumnhumn that's not my sensation
None dual means "not two" don't interpret it as one ..not subject(mind) or object(matter) therefore all experiences are out of our understanding and not experienced 😂
Gaza!😑
Didn't need to bring politics & vegetarianism into it.
Lotta teachers get in big trouble sexually when their desires arise "on behalf of the whole" and they are unconsciously swept into participation! Just sayin', Rupert.
Rupert needs to visit Gaza to understand reality and finite mind. These are hypocrisy.😒
What did you think of Gaza when you visited?
Yes, he lives in is upper society bubble....makes a lot of money out of his teachings and live with one of his former students, much younger then him in an Oxford mansion. Perfect example of hypocrisy.
Two commercials right from the get go really turned me off ! ....I'm out🫡😮💨
¡Hello Another me! ¡I am Another You! Happeacesness in it selve(s). 🎉
❤
Karl Marx....
But he wrote well : Man can master nature!
❤
❤