Alan Watts started me on this journey being described by Robert and Donald around 50 years ago. It is so refreshing that we are now witnessing the wisdom and beginning to understand the nature of that which understands.
... the grey-test, most delight-fully baffling mystery of ALL, for me, is the arrisal of a DUALITY-PLURALITY derrived from thee SINGULAR-ONENESSof ISNESS-ESITY ...
Well, Hoffman's non-physicalist monism is really epiphysicalism. Before reality becomes physical it has to be something else at the roots. So, something pure and true which can never be an illusion must be the case. It really is common sense. Consciousness is everything; it has to be the ultimate reality.
Using carnal language to define higher consciousness is really challenging and frustratingly limiting🥴 but both guests are doing it so brilliantly. Thank you both🌹
*CARNAL* language ???? What on Earth is that ??? Pretty much all human languages are material based. WTF !!!!! That's why the bible uses metaphors, poetry, and other literary devices to teach spiritual lessons. If there is such a thing as spiritual distinct from material.
@@cattailer1077 they were not meant to be particularly kind. Just intellectual crap . . . that's also called " fact. " Such as we get in schools and colleges USA. Facts are often very unkind. Thank you very much.
They discussed the limitation of language to describe these concepts, but we are fortunate that English is already the best language to discuss such deep and complex topics because it has the richest collection of vocabulary including synonyms and antonyms all derived from a diverse source of Germanic, French, Latin, Greek, and other languages. Something no other language has. This is coming from a bilingual Chinese and English speaker who has studied Japanese and other European languages in case you think I am a biased monolingual English speaker.
All this is explicitly written in Hindu ancient texts called Upanishads by Yogis and Rishis thousands of years ago. The great thing is that science is now catching up to it.
@@ashleyjean53204I once heard Mooji go very quiet on contemplating a question like this, before quietly, gently, saying, “love”; but in way that suggested he knew this wouldn’t be widely understood.
I had a professor at UCLA named Tyler Burge (famous philosophy of mind dude) who once said in lecture something like, "Right now, psychology is a soft science, but in 100 years time, psychology will be a hard science and so technically dense, that you will need entirely different skills to do the subject." Donald Hoffman might be contributing to that innovation should science more generally catch onto pre-space-time mathematical structures and their relation to consciousness and mind.
I’d like to see them disagree occasionally. Also I think Rupert is combining understanding with appreciation, which includes feelings, of joy, rather than just thought. Very stimulating discussion!
@@3william714 Look at That which is pointed at, not what points to That. Because this looks more like a projection of thoughts than an absolute truth sorry.
He literally answered the question a few seconds later. The question was if he resolved the dance. That is to seek the dissolution of the mind with meditation, but only to retract when things get to real in a sense. His answer was that he bypasses the dance entirely, because he start with “being”, which is the end goal of meditation.
@@3william714I think he has spent decades and decades of his life contemplating and exploring all these questions already so it may seem like he is avoiding a question when he probably already has the answer, which may not be satisfying to the questioner. That is why I see him often interrupt the questioner. He is familiar with those questions and just wants to help them arrive at the conclusion faster. His framework is based on experiential knowledge so at the end, if the answer cannot be experientially known, it cannot be the right answer. And a lot of people who haven’t gone thru the journey of exploring that will just need more time to do it to experience the right answer.
: No, Rupert didn't avoid the question, but your understanding of him is the problem. Go back again and again to get it. The direct path will tell you everything without mediation.
Since I can remember, I have been using the analogy of a jeanie granting 3 wishes. It has always befuddled me why the obvious response wouldn't be wish 1 = infinite wishes. Awareness space is infinite. & all memory is that same space. There is only 1 awareness, 1 space, 1 time. Here Now. 🎉 ...to remind myself that time does not create memories, memories create time. Same space.
There have been shifts in consciousness to bring us to the present time It is likely another one is due It still does not give the solution to consciousness itself itself, but is likely to bring a bring a deeper understanding.
Four years ago, If you'd have asked me to listen to this conversation, I can safely say I wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes! Now I see it as the most important articulate talk of existence, all triggered by a simple interaction with a simple "conscious agent" that we Homo sapiens call a toad ! 5MeoDmt
What is the mind capable of? What is the mind not capable of? What is the quality of the mind? And when one speaks of the mind. Is it the mind speaking of the mind?
Rupert's insistence that the Infinite cannot know our suffering makes the same assumptive error of separation that he identified in his Moth/Candle analogy. If an individual finds relief in accessing the state of Pure Being through the body/mind knowing the suffering, as claimed, it reveals fully connected awareness, and could suggest soteriological intent. The fact it knows itself and isn't experiencing suffering does not justify the assumption or even imply that therefore it only knows itself and is not aware suffering exists within it's creation.
Are you trying to get clarity on the level of the mind? The way I understand this point Rupert makes is that there is only one reality and all else is a misunderstanding/misperception of that reality. I love Joel Goldsmith’s way of describing this as “hypnotism” - if we are hypnotised to see a poodle, we can’t get rid of the poodle by shooing it, we have to recognise we are hypnotised and then the poodle dissolves. Rupert often talks about “making concessions”, others talk about “pointers” - to indicate that when trying to describe reality in language, the focus is on what is talked about, not the words or concepts or analogies. The apparent confusion is that as soon as putting something into language, an apparent duality is created. Interestingly I think that Rupert’s focus on trying to be as precise as possible with language can appear to reinforce this duality if held on to too tightly…by definition there’s no perfect way of teaching from the perspective of the mind. What is understood or seen or experienced as truth is causeless and just becomes known (or is it always known, in truth?) and all else is the mind’s/ego’s story of how it happens/is uncovered, which is all part of the one, but when held as a “branch cut off from the tree” is misleading
It’s not what we know but that which knows. Knowing transcends all it knows. You cannot comprehend with thinking that which comprehends because thinking is something it does and not what it is, as that which comprehends (knows) transcends all it comprehends If you could conceptually comprehend what consciousness is, you would soon realise that’s folly because that which comprehends that concept also transcends it - Just to clarify
Thumbs up from a former assistant physics teacher. Now i call myself simply a Space / Time Cadet. hahaha Do i believe mainstream science will ever break into spiritual studies ???? Who can say ??? !!! My own understanding seems to be stuck at the level of semantics. Words have a lot of flexibility. Just look at most politicians and other liars. According to the bible the answer is NO. Matter and spirit seem to be at odds. That's the classic DUALITY conundrum.
❤ LEVELS OF MIND according to Sri Aurobindo With respect to mind, Aurobindo contends that evolution will not stop with homo sapien. Rather, he posits higher levels of consciousness: Higher Mind, Illumined Mind, Intuitive Mind, Overmind, and Supermind
35:41 Kuantum evreninde Atom-altı tanecikler bu sebeple mi Kuantum süper pozisyondan çıkıp Dalga fonksiyonu çöküp Algılanabilmesi için tanecik formuna geçiyor..?
The One is being unconscious me or you to know what it might be like to NOT be The One which is, of course, necessary for The One to know everything and therefore, is a BIG WHY as to The One's primordial and ad infinitum ongoing impetus to infinitely create, sustain and destroy in any given universe.
i think the question of why the absolute had to lose itself in manifestation is not sufficiently answered; This is what i think; To know things, there has to be contrast... no cold without heat etc. Thus the absolute ,that which has no contrast , cannot know itself ,since there is no contrast. So it manifested something to contrast itself to ,but manifestation IS the absolute... Thus it had to create an experience in which it could lose itself and experience itself as not being the absolute ,and allthough this experience is a mere illusion ,it is a sufficient contrast to what it truly is ,in order for it to know itself. one day ,the absolute wanted to know itself ,the next day ,it was you.
There is only one true possibility to make 'this understanding to be available not just to a few people...': it ist Love! We all are One, totally connected in the One Spirit. We must overlook this illusion of separation of Body's. So the only way to communicate ist thru you Spirit, inside, not outside.... There is no need for words, for sharing of well sounded Mind concepts, ideas ... Just Love what really ist. Only Love ist really, so there is no need for teachings. So, what you see outside of you, is not there. It is just your own projection. which means, you receive, what you want to. So ask you self, why a do not see Love and perfection? Why I ask my self, 'how it can be shared more widely'? The spirit ist totally wide. It contains everything and everyone and share Love with. This is the only teaching. Just Trust. Love is trust. Love is ! God is! This is the whole truth.
En la ignorancia voy y vengo en el mundo En la sabiduría el mundo va y viene en Mí En el amor el mundo se consume en Mí - Rupert Spira, Meditación sobre Yo Soy Vive como la luz del puro Conocer que es la totalidad de la experiencia, íntimamente uno con ella, totalmente libre de ella. - Rupert Spira, La luz del puro Conocer Es Mi omnipresencia la que da continuidad al tiempo Es Mi infinitud la que aparece sin fin en el espacio - Rupert Spira, Meditación sobre Yo Soy Como luz del puro Conocer, no conocemos nada -ninguna cosa-, sino que somos la sustancia o la realidad de todas las cosas aparentes. - Rupert Spira, La luz del puro Conocer No tengo experiencia pero soy toda experiencia - Rupert Spira, Meditación sobre Yo Soy
@HereNowInfiniteAwareness Both Language & Math are mere descriptors , overlays, imitators of the real thing. I modulate raw materials & its the finite self constructing derivative. imitations, knockoffs, etc. Not entirely of the finite but I can see most of it this way. Separate endorsing. Ego enforcement. So what is art? Modulation of the I Am. This is my build up to the body is the highest purest form of artwork & shalt not be neglected or defined by the finite, but cultivated to its fullest potential. 💚
🌞 There is no understanding beyond mind. Withough mind there is no knowledge and nothing, but you probably confuse mind with the lower limited and conditioned by many elements mind. The higher mind in its purest state is the dynamic aspect of consciousness it self🌞 Ramana Maharishi nsaid this bery simply: Lure mind is Brahman (Absolute Consciousness) itself ❤
I disagree that 'The One' doesn't know our suffering, The One is The One suffering, knows it and welcomes it, as experience, as a means to further it's remembrance and expansion back to complete Oneness, where suffering does not exist. The distinction would be that The One just observes it, while the Limited forgetful perspective assigns a value to it, and thus suffers if deemed painful. One thing never stops being One thing, even when it becomes individual variations that have forgotten they are One Thing, be it a human, a rock, or an amoeba
I don’t agree with Rupert when he says that Consciousness has to lose itself in order to have a singular perspective and see the world. I can look through a lens without losing myself. Lens being a human in this case. The theory Rupert presents here is to simple (one-dimensional) to be true.
That's the difference between being awake or Avidya/ignorance! When one has a bad dream at night it has forgetten it's true nature and is completely indulged within the dream experience, the dream is considered to be very real until one awakes out of it. It comes down to: to have a true experience there must be duality, otherwise the experience wouldn't be real. So we are the one infinite consciousness, but in order to have an experience we must be somewhat unconscious to let it appear as real, thats where duality and the minds game come into play which separates existence into duality. When everything is light there is no experience possible, therefore duality is needed. So just to have the ilussion of experience the One infinite consciousness has to become unaware. When you are dreaming at night There is an entire show produced with many entities, a decor, world and situation but all of this is the result of the dreamer, this world we experience in the wakefull state works the same. When one is awake of its true nature as you suggest that doesn't change the rules in which the game is played. Rupert, a ramana maharshi, maybe you as a person, maybe me, Jesus or Nisergedatta investigated this apparent existence and realized that One Dreamer or Brahman. The whole foundation of this wakefull state or dream is to keep us in ignorance, therefore the mind is playing all these tricks. It's like a divine play between prakriti and Purusha although ultimatly both are the same.
I don't know much about science and definitly nothing about quantum physics, mechanica etc. but it shows the same thing when you look at the double split experiment for example. we expect light to follow the rational steps but it happens that when there is an observer (consciousness) it divides into many and behaves totally irrational. so the mind or rational thinking can't explain us what happens.
Look up rubin vase. It’s an ambiguous image made out of two faces on the side and a vase in the middle. The special part is that we humans can only see either the faces or the vase, but never all of it at the same time. This is what happens in spiritual terms->we are either aware of our thoughts or we are aware of our awareness, but never can we comprehend both at the same time. I suspect Rupert is using this human experience and putting it on infinite Consciousness. I could be mistaken of course, in that case I apologize to Rupert in advance.
Why is it necessary to conflate science and spirituality? Nothing useful or beneficial to the spiritual path comes from knowing any of this stuff. Suzuki Roshi once responded when asked about consciousness: "I don't know anything about consciousness, I just try to teach my students how to listen to the birds sing". Conversely, spirituality doesn't offer answers to science. No amount of meditation would have led to building the first transistor nor will it do anything to build a quantum computer. In physics the choice isn't to switch between the finite or the infinite, it's about changing an observer reference frame and understanding what happens. Quantum entanglement already embodies the whole notion of infinite consciousness, because if one were to write down the hamiltonian for the entire universe one would need to know exactly every single degree of freedom and every single possible state of the universe By definition the infinite is the hamiltonian for the entire universe. But knowing this doesn't help me listen to the birds sing.
But consciousness tells about any object ... intelligence you gain by having allot of knowledge... so a bigger consciousness but its stays still the same... intelligence is the accumilation of consciousness...
@@Ockersvin yes ...AI is nothing more then knowlegde with an programmed avatar... but... the more interesting question would be... is AI selfaware and or will AI be capable to create an ego like humans do... then if it does... does it care more for the ego...or the greater collective....
like chalk and cheese, they don't combine. distnctly different magisteria. using science to explore spirituality is the wrong tool. you might as well try to weigh youself with a thermometer. but silly people do.
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
These conversations energize me!
same.
Alan Watts started me on this journey being described by Robert and Donald
around 50 years ago. It is so refreshing that we are now witnessing the wisdom
and beginning to understand the nature of that which understands.
Yes I loved listening to Alan when I was 16-17 and to be honest I didn't have a clue what he was talking about 😂
Yess, this is the best content! Would love to see donald debate materialists
... the grey-test, most delight-fully baffling mystery of ALL, for me, is the arrisal of a DUALITY-PLURALITY derrived from thee SINGULAR-ONENESSof ISNESS-ESITY ...
Well, Hoffman's non-physicalist monism is really epiphysicalism. Before reality becomes physical it has to be something else at the roots. So, something pure and true which can never be an illusion must be the case. It really is common sense. Consciousness is everything; it has to be the ultimate reality.
A clearer explanation for manifestation is for the ONE to experience itself
These discussions are food for the soul. Thank you for them.
Thank you to all the speakers for this wonderful conversation🌹🌹🌹
Using carnal language to define higher consciousness is really challenging and frustratingly limiting🥴 but both guests are doing it so brilliantly. Thank you both🌹
*CARNAL* language ???? What on Earth is that ??? Pretty much all human languages are material based. WTF !!!!! That's why the bible uses metaphors, poetry, and other literary devices to teach spiritual lessons. If there is such a thing as spiritual distinct from material.
@@piehound thank you for your kind words. I wish you well🕊
@@cattailer1077 they were not meant to be particularly kind. Just intellectual crap . . . that's also called " fact. " Such as we get in schools and colleges USA. Facts are often very unkind. Thank you very much.
@@piehound got it👍
I call boolsheet!
Excellent discussion! Love them both!ॐ ❤ 🙏
Life is the meditation, every experience from the ONE teaches us valuable lessons
They discussed the limitation of language to describe these concepts, but we are fortunate that English is already the best language to discuss such deep and complex topics because it has the richest collection of vocabulary including synonyms and antonyms all derived from a diverse source of Germanic, French, Latin, Greek, and other languages. Something no other language has. This is coming from a bilingual Chinese and English speaker who has studied Japanese and other European languages in case you think I am a biased monolingual English speaker.
I agree, although I know that German, which happens to be my mother tongue, is also very capable.
MARK MY WORDS
ALL IS ONE
YOU ARE EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING IS YOU
A joy that it's creation will return and that is the cyclical nature of reality
All this is explicitly written in Hindu ancient texts called Upanishads by Yogis and Rishis thousands of years ago. The great thing is that science is now catching up to it.
Manifestation surely is not a sacrifice, but a joy
This is a deeply satisfying conversation
I absolutely LOVE these Guys!! I can listen for hours on hours to them. ❤️💯
same
... then you'definitely enjoy a recent Curt Jimungle😅 TOE, Theories Of Everything podcast with John Verveikie & Bernardo Kastrup laying down views ...
Fabulous, been waiting for these two to get together again.
37:21 Thank you so much for that question, that was the biggest question i've had. ❤
Me too, however I think I need to hear the answer over and over for it to be understood 🔥
@@ashleyjean53204I once heard Mooji go very quiet on contemplating a question like this, before quietly, gently, saying, “love”; but in way that suggested he knew this wouldn’t be widely understood.
FInally a talk between these two great - would love to see part one! :D
It's also available on TH-cam. I tried to post the link for you but it gets deleted.
Yes surrender of the ego is necessary for completion
I hope Donald and Rupert will write a book together one day, perhaps a series of dialogs.
I had a professor at UCLA named Tyler Burge (famous philosophy of mind dude) who once said in lecture something like, "Right now, psychology is a soft science, but in 100 years time, psychology will be a hard science and so technically dense, that you will need entirely different skills to do the subject." Donald Hoffman might be contributing to that innovation should science more generally catch onto pre-space-time mathematical structures and their relation to consciousness and mind.
35:01
Harika bir tespit ❤❤❤
I’d like to see them disagree occasionally. Also I think Rupert is combining understanding with appreciation, which includes feelings, of joy, rather than just thought. Very stimulating discussion!
@@3william714 Look at That which is pointed at, not what points to That. Because this looks more like a projection of thoughts than an absolute truth sorry.
He literally answered the question a few seconds later. The question was if he resolved the dance. That is to seek the dissolution of the mind with meditation, but only to retract when things get to real in a sense. His answer was that he bypasses the dance entirely, because he start with “being”, which is the end goal of meditation.
@@3william714I think he has spent decades and decades of his life contemplating and exploring all these questions already so it may seem like he is avoiding a question when he probably already has the answer, which may not be satisfying to the questioner. That is why I see him often interrupt the questioner. He is familiar with those questions and just wants to help them arrive at the conclusion faster. His framework is based on experiential knowledge so at the end, if the answer cannot be experientially known, it cannot be the right answer. And a lot of people who haven’t gone thru the journey of exploring that will just need more time to do it to experience the right answer.
@@3william714like a spiral
: No, Rupert didn't avoid the question, but your understanding of him is the problem. Go back again and again to get it. The direct path will tell you everything without mediation.
❤ Thank you so much for that vídeo.
Since I can remember, I have been using the analogy of a jeanie granting 3 wishes. It has always befuddled me why the obvious response wouldn't be wish 1 = infinite wishes.
Awareness space is infinite. & all memory is that same space. There is only 1 awareness, 1 space, 1 time. Here Now. 🎉
...to remind myself that time does not create memories, memories create time. Same space.
There have been shifts in consciousness to bring us to the present time
It is likely another one is due
It still does not give the solution to consciousness itself itself, but is likely to bring a bring a deeper understanding.
The definition of religion is: that to which we are bound. Associate that with consciousness and we have the answer.
Four years ago, If you'd have asked me to listen to this conversation, I can safely say I wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes! Now I see it as the most important articulate talk of existence, all triggered by a simple interaction with a simple "conscious agent" that we Homo sapiens call a toad !
5MeoDmt
🐸 ❤️🔥
What is the mind capable of? What is the mind not capable of? What is the quality of the mind? And when one speaks of the mind. Is it the mind speaking of the mind?
Rupert's insistence that the Infinite cannot know our suffering makes the same assumptive error of separation that he identified in his Moth/Candle analogy. If an individual finds relief in accessing the state of Pure Being through the body/mind knowing the suffering, as claimed, it reveals fully connected awareness, and could suggest soteriological intent. The fact it knows itself and isn't experiencing suffering does not justify the assumption or even imply that therefore it only knows itself and is not aware suffering exists within it's creation.
Are you trying to get clarity on the level of the mind? The way I understand this point Rupert makes is that there is only one reality and all else is a misunderstanding/misperception of that reality. I love Joel Goldsmith’s way of describing this as “hypnotism” - if we are hypnotised to see a poodle, we can’t get rid of the poodle by shooing it, we have to recognise we are hypnotised and then the poodle dissolves. Rupert often talks about “making concessions”, others talk about “pointers” - to indicate that when trying to describe reality in language, the focus is on what is talked about, not the words or concepts or analogies. The apparent confusion is that as soon as putting something into language, an apparent duality is created. Interestingly I think that Rupert’s focus on trying to be as precise as possible with language can appear to reinforce this duality if held on to too tightly…by definition there’s no perfect way of teaching from the perspective of the mind. What is understood or seen or experienced as truth is causeless and just becomes known (or is it always known, in truth?) and all else is the mind’s/ego’s story of how it happens/is uncovered, which is all part of the one, but when held as a “branch cut off from the tree” is misleading
Yes the ONE does not suffer, but the personalised aspect of the ONE if I can say that, can actually offer advice through insights
Is this one of the best conversations on the internet ?
I wish I can ask more questions!!!!
Bit too complicated for me but thanks…just going to sit quietly with our cat and drink tea
It’s not what we know but that which knows. Knowing transcends all it knows.
You cannot comprehend with thinking that which comprehends because thinking is something it does and not what it is, as that which comprehends (knows) transcends all it comprehends
If you could conceptually comprehend what consciousness is, you would soon realise that’s folly because that which comprehends that concept also transcends it - Just to clarify
Thumbs up from a former assistant physics teacher. Now i call myself simply a Space / Time Cadet. hahaha Do i believe mainstream science will ever break into spiritual studies ???? Who can say ??? !!! My own understanding seems to be stuck at the level of semantics. Words have a lot of flexibility. Just look at most politicians and other liars. According to the bible the answer is NO. Matter and spirit seem to be at odds. That's the classic DUALITY conundrum.
@Phoneix-vq8iv *SHORT* essay ????? In the comments section of TH-cam that's like a book. But thanks for your interest.
@Phoneix-vq8iv thanx for your comment. Politicians, actors, models, and other celebrities have faces. The rest of us have feces.
❤ LEVELS OF MIND according to Sri Aurobindo
With respect to mind, Aurobindo contends that evolution will not stop with homo sapien. Rather, he posits higher levels of consciousness: Higher Mind, Illumined Mind, Intuitive Mind, Overmind, and Supermind
35:41
Kuantum evreninde
Atom-altı tanecikler bu sebeple mi
Kuantum süper pozisyondan çıkıp
Dalga fonksiyonu çöküp
Algılanabilmesi için tanecik formuna geçiyor..?
What is beyond spacetime and projects into it? David Bohm called it The Implicate Order.
The One is being unconscious me or you to know what it might be like to NOT be The One which is, of course, necessary for The One to know everything and therefore, is a BIG WHY as to The One's primordial and ad infinitum ongoing impetus to infinitely create, sustain and destroy in any given universe.
i think the question of why the absolute had to lose itself in manifestation is not sufficiently answered; This is what i think;
To know things, there has to be contrast... no cold without heat etc. Thus the absolute ,that which has no contrast , cannot know itself ,since there is no contrast.
So it manifested something to contrast itself to ,but manifestation IS the absolute... Thus it had to create an experience in which it could lose itself and experience itself as not being the absolute ,and allthough this experience is a mere illusion ,it is a sufficient contrast to what it truly is ,in order for it to know itself.
one day ,the absolute wanted to know itself ,the next day ,it was you.
Maybe replace the moth and flame analogy with the old story of the King in pauper's clothes.
There is only one true possibility to make 'this understanding to be available not just to a few people...': it ist Love! We all are One, totally connected in the One Spirit. We must overlook this illusion of separation of Body's. So the only way to communicate ist thru you Spirit, inside, not outside.... There is no need for words, for sharing of well sounded Mind concepts, ideas ... Just Love what really ist. Only Love ist really, so there is no need for teachings.
So, what you see outside of you, is not there. It is just your own projection. which means, you receive, what you want to. So ask you self, why a do not see Love and perfection? Why I ask my self, 'how it can be shared more widely'? The spirit ist totally wide. It contains everything and everyone and share Love with. This is the only teaching. Just Trust. Love is trust.
Love is ! God is! This is the whole truth.
En la ignorancia voy y vengo en el mundo
En la sabiduría el mundo va y viene en Mí
En el amor el mundo se consume en Mí
- Rupert Spira, Meditación sobre Yo Soy
Vive como la luz del puro Conocer que es la totalidad de la experiencia, íntimamente uno con ella, totalmente libre de ella.
- Rupert Spira, La luz del puro Conocer
Es Mi omnipresencia la que da continuidad al tiempo
Es Mi infinitud la que aparece sin fin en el espacio
- Rupert Spira, Meditación sobre Yo Soy
Como luz del puro Conocer, no conocemos nada -ninguna cosa-, sino que somos la sustancia o la realidad de todas las cosas aparentes. - Rupert Spira, La luz del puro Conocer
No tengo experiencia
pero soy toda experiencia
- Rupert Spira, Meditación sobre Yo Soy
@HereNowInfiniteAwareness Both Language & Math are mere descriptors , overlays, imitators of the real thing.
I modulate raw materials & its the finite self constructing derivative. imitations, knockoffs, etc.
Not entirely of the finite but I can see most of it this way.
Separate endorsing. Ego enforcement.
So what is art? Modulation of the I Am.
This is my build up to the body is the highest purest form of artwork & shalt not be neglected or defined by the finite, but cultivated to its fullest potential. 💚
🌞 There is no understanding beyond mind.
Withough mind there is no knowledge and nothing, but you probably confuse mind with the lower limited and conditioned by many elements mind.
The higher mind in its purest state is the dynamic aspect of consciousness it self🌞
Ramana Maharishi nsaid this bery simply:
Lure mind is Brahman (Absolute Consciousness) itself ❤
So does mathematics go beyond space time?
Ancient proverb says, "Seek to measure the illusiion, infinitely" ~Confusion 100Be.See. 😊
As above so below
However things are, polar bears go with the artic environment
Se-ance and re-Legion, and ain’t no spaceship going to no moon...
I disagree that 'The One' doesn't know our suffering, The One is The One suffering, knows it and welcomes it, as experience, as a means to further it's remembrance and expansion back to complete Oneness, where suffering does not exist. The distinction would be that The One just observes it, while the Limited forgetful perspective assigns a value to it, and thus suffers if deemed painful. One thing never stops being One thing, even when it becomes individual variations that have forgotten they are One Thing, be it a human, a rock, or an amoeba
I am that one conscious
Singularity
Of ⭕️ = I = ♾
Universal
Light
Generator Organizer Destroyer
Of
Dimensions
Swami SriDattaDev SatChitAnanda
33:40
" God dreamt to become man in hopes that man would dream to become God"
Like that connection. Sort of a past lives storyline on time travel.
Self Realised persons always talk the same/alike. They talk from the BEING EXISTENCE CONSCIOUSNESS state.
😮
I don’t agree with Rupert when he says that Consciousness has to lose itself in order to have a singular perspective and see the world. I can look through a lens without losing myself. Lens being a human in this case. The theory Rupert presents here is to simple (one-dimensional) to be true.
That's the difference between being awake or Avidya/ignorance! When one has a bad dream at night it has forgetten it's true nature and is completely indulged within the dream experience, the dream is considered to be very real until one awakes out of it. It comes down to:
to have a true experience there must be duality, otherwise the experience wouldn't be real. So we are the one infinite consciousness, but in order to have an experience we must be somewhat unconscious to let it appear as real, thats where duality and the minds game come into play which separates existence into duality. When everything is light there is no experience possible, therefore duality is needed. So just to have the ilussion of experience the One infinite consciousness has to become unaware.
When you are dreaming at night There is an entire show produced with many entities, a decor, world and situation but all of this is the result of the dreamer, this world we experience in the wakefull state works the same. When one is awake of its true nature as you suggest that doesn't change the rules in which the game is played. Rupert, a ramana maharshi, maybe you as a person, maybe me, Jesus or Nisergedatta investigated this apparent existence and realized that One Dreamer or Brahman. The whole foundation of this wakefull state or dream is to keep us in ignorance, therefore the mind is playing all these tricks. It's like a divine play between prakriti and Purusha although ultimatly both are the same.
I don't know much about science and definitly nothing about quantum physics, mechanica etc. but it shows the same thing when you look at the double split experiment for example. we expect light to follow the rational steps but it happens that when there is an observer (consciousness) it divides into many and behaves totally irrational. so the mind or rational thinking can't explain us what happens.
I can have a lucid dream. I can dream to fly and have the experience without necessarily “forgetting” that I’m dreaming.
If it didn't lose itself, it wouldn't be able to have a singular perspective, wouldn't be able to experience itself as an individual either.
Look up rubin vase. It’s an ambiguous image made out of two faces on the side and a vase in the middle. The special part is that we humans can only see either the faces or the vase, but never all of it at the same time. This is what happens in spiritual terms->we are either aware of our thoughts or we are aware of our awareness, but never can we comprehend both at the same time. I suspect Rupert is using this human experience and putting it on infinite Consciousness. I could be mistaken of course, in that case I apologize to Rupert in advance.
Why is it necessary to conflate science and spirituality? Nothing useful or beneficial to the spiritual path comes from knowing any of this stuff. Suzuki Roshi once responded when asked about consciousness: "I don't know anything about consciousness, I just try to teach my students how to listen to the birds sing". Conversely, spirituality doesn't offer answers to science. No amount of meditation would have led to building the first transistor nor will it do anything to build a quantum computer. In physics the choice isn't to switch between the finite or the infinite, it's about changing an observer reference frame and understanding what happens. Quantum entanglement already embodies the whole notion of infinite consciousness, because if one were to write down the hamiltonian for the entire universe one would need to know exactly every single degree of freedom and every single possible state of the universe By definition the infinite is the hamiltonian for the entire universe. But knowing this doesn't help me listen to the birds sing.
Mathmatics is how to calculate things... consciousness is how to call things... both are tools and never be fundamental in any way...
_” Consciousness is how to call things “_
Shouldn’t that be intelligence?
@@youssefalaoui4286 you also could call it intelligence is basically the same thing... your right...
But consciousness tells about any object ... intelligence you gain by having allot of knowledge... so a bigger consciousness but its stays still the same... intelligence is the accumilation of consciousness...
@@dwoopieso by that account I take it AI should be conscious at this point…?
@@Ockersvin yes ...AI is nothing more then knowlegde with an programmed avatar... but... the more interesting question would be... is AI selfaware and or will AI be capable to create an ego like humans do... then if it does... does it care more for the ego...or the greater collective....
Amplituhedron wikipedia
like chalk and cheese, they don't combine.
distnctly different magisteria.
using science to explore spirituality is the wrong tool.
you might as well try to weigh youself with a thermometer.
but silly people do.
This sounds like dancing around the religious implications of a spiritual concept of the universe. The problems of too high an IQ!!