The journey is a sort of journey in consciousness but it is not a journey of consciousness. In other words, consciousness is not taking a journey whereby it goes from state A to state B. The journey is an illusory arising within consciousness and in fact it is the play of consciousness from itself to itself.
This is actually a very interesting and difficult question. I feel like any non-essential understanding would have to be mental in nature and so not really a part of the universal Self. But I also feel like experience exists purely so that the Self gains something it needs to be what it is. Perhaps what it gains is reflexivity, in such a sense that the Self is creating itself via the inversion of its awareness over time.
So consciousness in its each individuated alter goes through three phases: 1. Essential knowledge of itself with no manifestation activity 2. Manifestation activity unaware/ignorant of the essential knowledge of its nature 3. Rediscovering the essential knowledge while retaining the manifestation activity, in which case the manifestation activity becomes non-deluded about its essential nature (the Buddhists call it "enlightened activity")
Consciousness potential to create is inherent to itself given creativity without consciousness has no significance. Thus the creative journey that consciousness conceives and perceives does not in essence add anything to consciousness. It is like having a glass of wine and experiencing the taste and light headedness of this experience. This experience doesn’t in essence add anything or remove anything from your essential being.
I believe that the purpose of each personal consciousness is to bring to the primary source the experience of our unique personality unrestricted and given a free choice of actions and experience. Do we will preserve our consciousness or will unite again with the primary source I cannot answer, but my best guess is that anything with value will be preserved in its unique form. I hope that you understand what this means!
Several aspects of science, including the big bang theory and quantum mechanics seem to contradict intuition because our intuition is associated with our particular size scale. The big bang is correct on the largest scale, and quantum mechanics is correct on the smallest scale. We know this through scientific observation, understanding, and self-correction, even though it seems counter-intuitive.
There seems to be a cosmic mind that learns. For instance, the mind responsible for the incredible diversity of Nature and for learning in the area of evolution.
Objective would be anything that can be treated as an object. So everything in subjective experience are objects, except for the space in which the experience takes place.
Just belief: I think from life to life it is reifining and "going somewhere", but in that there's a bigger arch that will be over and it's a hard reset. Or maybe because it's infinite it can infinitly refine and surprise "us" with infinite novelty
I think both of those positioins are problematic. If consciousness just "went back" to an undifferentiated state, and if that were possible, the universe and life would entirely be zombies except in real time, which frankly doesn't make sense. Rendering existence nonfunctional to itself doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I don't think it is particularly likely that existence "learns as it goes". This imagines existence itself somehow moving in, or subject to, one or another kind of timeline, which is no less problematic than Spira's stance. The solution, imo, is that consciouisness (in the big picture at least) never "goes back". Existence is what we might think of as an eternal, resonant "I-Thou" expression, with "I" here representing what we call consciousness, and "thou" representing life or the world. Consciousness cannot exist without context (the world) and context cananot exist without consciousness, so it is an eternal co-dependence. I don't think either of these two gentlemens' solutions are actually workable.
In a way that is correct, because there is no adequate way to describe all of consciousness in words or concepts. But if you study nonduality, you will see that Rupert's answers are its answers to the excellent question put by Bernardo.
Stupid question... Because time is an illusion, the process can never go back to only itself. God is integral with its expression, but never dependant on it. Its one of those spiritual enlightenment paradoxes that there never was actually a beginning formless state, because time and space is maya. Everything is happening in the eternal now. There is no where to go to. Only ego asks these questions. The state of the formless is ever perfect, and does not benefit or require anything from experience. Its a formless game of itself playing at tricking itself into expression for fun and joy, but none of it is actually necessary.
🎶Hi, don't You think consciousness doesn't learn say new nuances about say, music? As a song is perfected it builds upon itself,and learns new information. ??... I don't know?🔥🌈🎶🎇💖
I think music is information. It is in.form.ation. it's in form. And the form changes. And it learns in a way. But really it teaches us and we learn from it. I grow songs up from the bottom as a producer and I'm constantly learning. And music is learning me and us in a way because we shape it according to our own individuality and idiosyncrasies.
If you define a limited form of consciousness as the workings of the human mind, then, yes, obviously we grow and develop over time. But the philosophy of nonduality shows that our experience of change is based on being able to observe, and that ability can only be hidden. It cannot itself change in any way. Ultimately, the subjective ability to observe is due to one unbounded consciousness, which manifests all change within it. Experience, including music, only benefits human minds. It has no effect on consciousness, the great observer of it all.
@@nbenda this seems to be a discussion about philosophical subjects. So instead of being concerned with keeping the non-dual doctrine pure let's look at the bigger picture and that means you cannot ignore for example all the information we have today from near death experiences. I find it kind of dogmatic to claim that everything beyond the non-dual experience is by definition unreal.
There is absolutely no denial of spiritual evolution in nondualism. There is such a denial in certain spiritual teachers, but not in Rupert Spira. Nondualism does not deny science, religion, childhood development, capitalism, socialism, or any other facet of human knowledge and interest. It only says that all human activities happen on the basis of our consciousness, which does not change, just observes.
The journey is a sort of journey in consciousness but it is not a journey of consciousness. In other words, consciousness is not taking a journey whereby it goes from state A to state B.
The journey is an illusory arising within consciousness and in fact it is the play of consciousness from itself to itself.
Thanks for posting! These guys are so wise! The world really needs thinkers liking them
A beautiful exchange of a few thoughts.
This is actually a very interesting and difficult question. I feel like any non-essential understanding would have to be mental in nature and so not really a part of the universal Self. But I also feel like experience exists purely so that the Self gains something it needs to be what it is. Perhaps what it gains is reflexivity, in such a sense that the Self is creating itself via the inversion of its awareness over time.
Perhaps this explains why Bernardo prefers to use the term analytic idealism rather than non-dualism.
So consciousness in its each individuated alter goes through three phases:
1. Essential knowledge of itself with no manifestation activity
2. Manifestation activity unaware/ignorant of the essential knowledge of its nature
3. Rediscovering the essential knowledge while retaining the manifestation activity, in which case the manifestation activity becomes non-deluded about its essential nature (the Buddhists call it "enlightened activity")
The child shines . May it remind us of the love that we forever is.
Consciousness potential to create is inherent to itself given creativity without consciousness has no significance. Thus the creative journey that consciousness conceives and perceives does not in essence add anything to consciousness.
It is like having a glass of wine and experiencing the taste and light headedness of this experience. This experience doesn’t in essence add anything or remove anything from your essential being.
Thank you so much... to do all the thinking for us!🙏
I believe that the purpose of each personal consciousness is to bring to the primary source the experience of our unique personality unrestricted and given a free choice of actions and experience. Do we will preserve our consciousness or will unite again with the primary source I cannot answer, but my best guess is that anything with value will be preserved in its unique form. I hope that you understand what this means!
Bernardo, it's a challenge to unattached from mind, I agree with you, still.... pure Consciousness is not mind, and even not mind like
....
wow!..its so deep..,but I touched it..,it was pure..,in innocence..that I had long forgotten.🥰💖
We started growing up in fun and ended growing up in anxiety. That is the value of taking a path to self-realization: to return to the fun.
Good to see you having fun, Bernardo!!🎸🤩 PS I doubt the big bang theory too. Gonna watch your video. 🌈💕🧘♀️🎇💖🐦 Grace Victoria Burleson
Several aspects of science, including the big bang theory and quantum mechanics seem to contradict intuition because our intuition is associated with our particular size scale. The big bang is correct on the largest scale, and quantum mechanics is correct on the smallest scale. We know this through scientific observation, understanding, and self-correction, even though it seems counter-intuitive.
There seems to be a cosmic mind that learns. For instance, the mind responsible for the incredible diversity of Nature and for learning in the area of evolution.
1:30 well what can be objectively distinguished? ....or Subjectively? How are u defining objective?
Objective would be anything that can be treated as an object. So everything in subjective experience are objects, except for the space in which the experience takes place.
Just belief: I think from life to life it is reifining and "going somewhere", but in that there's a bigger arch that will be over and it's a hard reset. Or maybe because it's infinite it can infinitly refine and surprise "us" with infinite novelty
I think both of those positioins are problematic. If consciousness just "went back" to an undifferentiated state, and if that were possible, the universe and life would entirely be zombies except in real time, which frankly doesn't make sense. Rendering existence nonfunctional to itself doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, I don't think it is particularly likely that existence "learns as it goes". This imagines existence itself somehow moving in, or subject to, one or another kind of timeline, which is no less problematic than Spira's stance. The solution, imo, is that consciouisness (in the big picture at least) never "goes back". Existence is what we might think of as an eternal, resonant "I-Thou" expression, with "I" here representing what we call consciousness, and "thou" representing life or the world. Consciousness cannot exist without context (the world) and context cananot exist without consciousness, so it is an eternal co-dependence. I don't think either of these two gentlemens' solutions are actually workable.
At the end of the day it's just two guys speculating on the unfathomable
In a way that is correct, because there is no adequate way to describe all of consciousness in words or concepts. But if you study nonduality, you will see that Rupert's answers are its answers to the excellent question put by Bernardo.
Stupid question... Because time is an illusion, the process can never go back to only itself. God is integral with its expression, but never dependant on it. Its one of those spiritual enlightenment paradoxes that there never was actually a beginning formless state, because time and space is maya. Everything is happening in the eternal now. There is no where to go to. Only ego asks these questions. The state of the formless is ever perfect, and does not benefit or require anything from experience. Its a formless game of itself playing at tricking itself into expression for fun and joy, but none of it is actually necessary.
Sincere questions are never stupid
🎶Hi, don't You think consciousness doesn't learn say new nuances about say, music? As a song is perfected it builds upon itself,and learns new information. ??... I don't know?🔥🌈🎶🎇💖
I think music is information. It is in.form.ation. it's in form. And the form changes. And it learns in a way. But really it teaches us and we learn from it. I grow songs up from the bottom as a producer and I'm constantly learning. And music is learning me and us in a way because we shape it according to our own individuality and idiosyncrasies.
If you define a limited form of consciousness as the workings of the human mind, then, yes, obviously we grow and develop over time. But the philosophy of nonduality shows that our experience of change is based on being able to observe, and that ability can only be hidden. It cannot itself change in any way.
Ultimately, the subjective ability to observe is due to one unbounded consciousness, which manifests all change within it. Experience, including music, only benefits human minds. It has no effect on consciousness, the great observer of it all.
I'm with Bernardo here. The outright denial of spiritual evolution is probably the major philosophical flaw in non-dualism.
It's rather a spiral than a circle. exactly!
Couldn't it be just a mind problem? A have the feeling Bernardo is very attached to mind, what I understand, but .....
@@nbenda this seems to be a discussion about philosophical subjects. So instead of being concerned with keeping the non-dual doctrine pure let's look at the bigger picture and that means you cannot ignore for example all the information we have today from near death experiences. I find it kind of dogmatic to claim that everything beyond the non-dual experience is by definition unreal.
@@Stefan69whatever that's another question. You can also have a view of a real duality, that's not a problem, and also not what is being discussed.
There is absolutely no denial of spiritual evolution in nondualism. There is such a denial in certain spiritual teachers, but not in Rupert Spira. Nondualism does not deny science, religion, childhood development, capitalism, socialism, or any other facet of human knowledge and interest. It only says that all human activities happen on the basis of our consciousness, which does not change, just observes.