1:22:30 "All that is necessary for the Direct Path is to ask yourself the question "Am I aware?", and to pause...and to follow your attention back to the experience of being aware, and to stay there. That's it." Kapow! A one line summary of the most direct route to realisation from one of the best teachers on the planet. You don't get that kind of clarity and brevity very often, Rupert's polite but firm refusal to play Rick's "who knows the most classical quotes" game was very refreshing. I think we may hear less Gita quotes from Rick in the future... One of the best BATGAPs so far, worth several viewings, thanks to all involved.
I have never heard ND described so simply and so clearly as Rupert Spira has here; in my estimation, clearer and simpler than Eckhart Tolle, Maharshi, and Krishnamurti combined. I'm not resonating with the critical comments here about him. I do not see any ego or unnecessary over-intellectualization going on. Instead, I felt a great amount of humility, patience, gratitude, humor, honesty, care and love coming from the guest. Spira is using the intellect, but only in the sense of trying to get us OUT of our intellectual mind in order to experience truth directly (for ourselves). This is a beautiful thing and he sums it all up masterfully by the end with: "All that's necessary for the direct path is to ask your Self, 'am I aware?'. And to pause and just follow your attention back to the experience of being aware and to stay there. That's it". So simple! Great interview and great questions (after the halfway mark) by Rick. In the first half, Rick was delusionally stuck in his mind. By the midway mark though, Spira started to get him to see how "stuck" he was in his mind and then Rick "unstuck" himself by the end (....I think...at least I hope :)
This is a most significant interview. The radical notion that "Experience alone is the test of Reality," is the realization that the world is waiting to hear. We can only hope that this understanding spreads and spreads hastily..!
What a magnificent interview! Rick and Rupert are at the top of their form. Rupert here presents a fairly complete summary of most of his teachings in recent years, both elementary and advanced. Rick seems to finally get a little of what he has been searching for so long (as has also happened for me). I recommend this video to everyone who either wants to understand the mysteries of life better or wants to find a level of fulfillment that brings true peace and happiness.
Wow.. thankyou rick for this one..15 minutes in and already ruperts pointing here is stunning, so clear and simple ❤ and i now have to add that it was really nice to see you rick in person with someone like rupert, you can see the shift in your own energy relax so much, the silent moments towards the end, i sensed total innocence in your little smiles, i instantly felt such love for you 😊
Other comments aside, I'm so glad that Rick interviewed Rupert again -- I would also like to hear more from Francis Lucille. I thank you, Rick, for be willing to "delve into it" with these folks on our behalf. You really do us all a considerable favor with your interviews.
Wow so greateful for this wonderful interview. I really like Rupert's percision and the way he directs attention to that which is vital. It's rare to get an interview format that is like this, a dynamic in the moment investigation of experience. I must say Rick is on a roll doing great interviews with important teachers. Thank you for making this available!
This is such an amazing interview and I see that the direct path witch Rupert teaches has become very clear and transparent over time, including life's challenges. AM I AWARE ? seems to be the only question worth asking. Thank you Rick for this so enlightening moment :)
Thank you Rick for doing this interview with Rupert. I had been feeling as if i was stuck in my enquiry for a long time and I am so greatful that through Rupert's tweaking of the direct method from "who am i" to "am i aware", I just realised that the every longing of knowing the answer to "who am i" is composed of the true I and realising this I can rest myself and does not feel stuck anymore. His words have echoed with me and you have been the medium so I greatly thank you and ofcourse Rupert from the bottom of my heart!:)
Rupert has the patience of .....well a SAINT, I guess. Although I can`t imagine many saints have as much patience. Lol. Rick, there is such a thing as "knowing too much"! This is truly amazing. Thank you both!
BTW... very enjoyable interview. Rupert looks and sounds very sincere and genuine and he seems to truly believe what he is saying. I sensed that Rick enjoyed the interview a lot and he benefitted a lot from the experience.
Some beautiful lines from the interview. In suffering, we are longing for happiness. The source of happiness itself, pure being, is pulling the separate self, back into itself saying, Sweetheart, come back to me, stop looking for me out there. I’m not there. You’ve been looking for me there for decades. Can’t you see I’m not there? If I was there, you would have found me by now. Turn round, come back to your home in me. That longing for happiness is God’s footprint in our hearts. The light of pure knowing is never extinguished, it shines in everyone, in everyone’s feelings as the longing for happiness , in the mind as, I am aware, follow either back to their source. . . Thank you Rick for this wonderful interview.
Nice comment. I am reminded of the words "Sin" (miss the mark) and "Repent" (turn around). You point to the truth of these words in Christianity which is something most Christians miss (or should I say sin in regards to). CHeers!
I still maintain that living in this physical realm, our uninformed experience seems to confirm that we are separate, that we live in a world of separate things. It is counterintuitive to realize that there is just a single Consciousness, that Reality is not as it appears. That is why it helps to have a paradigm shift to our experience that the Direct Path followed by Rupert enables. It explains why we have charitable intentions to even strangers without having to follow a ‘teaching’. Deep down,it’s our nature, Consciousness embracing us in its shining unity. We finally realize that the seemingly separate things are only modulations of the one single Consciousness.
Rick's questions appear to me as being thoughtful and genuine. He was speaking based upon the experience of having enjoyed a wonderful method for regularly immersing in / recognizing pure awareness (that I have also practiced for the last 40 years). Rupert Spira speaks very clearly about the theoretical understanding and experience of non-duality, and yet in spite of his clarity, he expounds a minority view with respect to how we should come to recognize this reality for ourselves. Rupert explicitly advocates that we should not bother with disciplines or practices such as meditation. He states that we should simply become aware of awareness itself by asking questions such as, "Am I aware?" or "Who am I?" I think Rick was quite fair to ask, "How do you know that your practice of 20 years of meditation did not prepare you to be able to settle into that state with such a non-method, whereas, such an approach would not be possible for one not similarly unprepared. It is not controversial for anyone familiar with one of the non-dual traditions that it is the same pure consciousness that is present for everyone, and that it is unstained by any experience/object. But this is the perspective from the highest reality - not much use for one who is limited by karmic impressions residing within the buddhi (deepest aspect of cognition) and is, therefore, unable to experience that clearly. The majority view appears to me to be much more helpful for those who want to taste fully the deep bliss and freedom inherent in pure consciousness (and I am not sure why Rupert has an issue with the B-word!) - that we are helped significantly by having a regular practice of meditation so that we can actually experience increasingly clearly what follows, in fact, the question, "Am I aware?" By first getting beyond the distractions of thoughts/feelings, etc, we can more easily prepare ourselves to experience what Rupert discusses clearly, but gives a sparse program for recognizing in a progressive manner. Progressively, we cleanse our buddhi of that which limits us and can then experience the Reality of Pure Consciousness more and more, eventually making it an increasingly permanent reality.
David Kuttruff I agree with you, although I can see how Ruperts approach of it beeing something so fundamental to our nature that it does not require the practice of meditation and is lead by a simple question, which can be stated at as often as wanted at any time or place internally, can be a very appealing and encouraging thing for all the people, which are most, that do not feel like they can sit down and meditate for what ever reson the might precive.
In the light of Rupert's clear calm questioning, poor old Rick seems to squirm around in desperate avoidance. It is as if he is being brought to the edge of a realization that he is just too afraid to admit and not liking it, he responds with a reactionary criticism of Rupert's approach. It's very interesting. Rupert is truly an amazing teacher. I wonder what Rick must have thought when he looked back on this video.
Doing what Rupert Spira is describing is reminding me of the state of being I had in my early childhood. However, it also feels like it's charging me up with a a sort of intense energy.
Rupert: What does awareness need to do to be aware of itself? Rick: Is this a trick question? Hehe. Rick was trying to get the right conceptual answers but Rupert just wanted him to look at his experience right then and there. I like Rupert's approach. It's so simple and direct. Nice Interview, Rick!
They are very cute. Great 2 beings in their own way: genuine, natural and down to Earth - all of these are concepts but expressed in the relative world - the world of illusion or dream. Thank you for very clear pointing to our True Selves
Wonderful pointing to what is obvious when honestly investigated. Interesting, also, the apparent competition between the 2 non-duality dualists, at some level. This could be seen as a simple fleshing out of the truth. Rupert clearly will not compromise his vision, or his and ours, present realisations when truly looked into. One cannot help but see, though, the apparant separation between those 2 bodies. This is seen, however, from consciousness itself, is it not? Wonderful dialogue/mononlogue. :-) ♥
Rupert Spira ideas are very beautiful, but I feel that what we need is a deeper understanding of physical reality that is based on physics. An understanding of the nature of time and why we have a future that is always uncertain and a past we can never change.Such an understanding would give us a reason why we have duality in our everyday life, but have the capacity to be aware of nonduality or oneness. This is done by explaining the Universe as a continuum of continuous energy exchange or continuous creation. Each individual life form is in the center of their own reference frame as part of this universal process. Therefore each life form has their own individual view of the Universe creating the duality of everyday life. But this duality is based on the nonduality or oneness of one universal process! This physical process is explained using physics and mathematics. The mathematics is very easy to follow because it represents the dynamic geometry of a physical process in the three dimensional space of everyday life. Is duality formed out of the nonduality of one universal process?
Hi bro, Menkind has not the measurement united field adjusted instrument like www.blog.de/media/photo/swp_um_first_constructive_1/7100025 with parse Axiom by a set of definitions the recurrence values. www.blog.de/media/photo/swp_um_parser_definitions/7100027 These may be represented by an atlas of symbols that lead the way pathway through www.blog.de/media/photo/g_dt_deckblatt/7100844. Function may derrive like www.blog.de/community/profile_photo_sizes.php?item_ID=7097762 ... pp. but here shown only in a single one of that plenty "uncertain" propabilities. Place on earth is just like every place in universe ... that will get *not* that reasoning here meant. The energys from multitude thus far of inertia also too, ar'nt not for evidence. The motion from butterfly wing is'nt evident for causality. "... that's the problem my friend." Well, idea imagined here is quite right, but the entity of theoretical seems to be an substitute with *not-knowing* "ever uncertain future" in hope dimish, where the real pure inbetween of prince of these mutual induce emerge to idee.
I'm sorry Rick, I've listened to this 3-4 times now because it's so powerful and each time I hear a defensive Rick. Not sure why you responded the way you did. Overall it may have added to Rupert's points, but it's all good. I appreciate it just the same.
Dear rick, your own holding onto your self image doesnt allow you to experience to what is being pointed to. I guess in an interview format u must talk, but simply doing what he said would have enlightened u. Your qs are from the very mind which u want to quiten. A little humility would take u right into the heart of what is said. Nevertheless, thank u for this great oppurtunity to meet
Kavi63, I think your interpretation that Rick is being defensive and arrogant is unfair and untrue. Rick has a long and very deep background in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's philosophy and practice of Transcendental Meditation. This predisposes him to a certain understanding of things spiritual, in spite of his later following of other teachers, and his exposure to so many ideas through his hundreds of interviews. Rick recognizes the essential value of what Rupert is offering, but it is just taking him time to come around to really listening and practicing. It is very difficult to see the flaws in teachings that have proven themselves over and over again in so many ways, as have Maharishi's teachings for Rick. But there is one way in which Maharishi's teachings have failed Rick (and many others), and that is in its promise to deliver awakening (self-realization, higher states of consciousness). Rick is doing the best he can, and he deserves our best wishes and support for getting past the blocks of his own beliefs, that have kept him from making the rapid progress he seeks. He is a beautiful, dedicated, honest, humble, and authentic human being who is on his own path, as are we all.
Undoubtedly rick is a beautiful human being doing this great service for which im truly grateful. But does he want to remain a ' great human being' or discover His Being . It seemed to me that he did want to move beyond this identity. I say what im saying through experience of having spent many years seeking. Only when i recognised that this personal identity needs to go, and i must have faith in the guidance of guru it could happen.
Kavi63 Hare Krishna I appreciate that you have spent many years seeking. Please also appreciate that Rick has spent many years seeking. Give your advice with kindness and love, rather than using a voice of authority or harsh words. Sweetness will help others better than criticism or judgement. We are each of us on our own path, and the passage of time is important for our transformation from belief in a separate self to full awakening. There is no rush for any of us. The Absolute is infinitely patient and eternally available.
Kavi63 Hare Krishna I have to agree wholeheartedly. Rick brings us a wonderful service and many of us are dearly grateful. I guess another gift is that he himself highlights and demonstrates just how one can remain stuck in an intellectual understanding alone. In this and most of his interviews Rick doesn't engage his heart so much as his intellect and even before his guest have completed their replies, has mentally categorised and assimilated the statement which correlates to his innumerable one-liners. I am sure it is all well intentioned, but I agree a measure of humility would work wonders as would a little more silence. Just my own reflections. Thanks
Kavi63 Hare Krishna I get what you're saying and I would bet that Rick does too. Our karmas and vasanas are very different from others and produce different paths towards the same goal as it were. I'm quite sure that Rick is well aware that he tends to be in his head a lot but his head is in the right place! :)
I totally agreed. This is what I experience with the Buddha's guidance. It is the same. We create our own world through seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling & thinking. Even our body. Who am I? Selfless, I'm just a part of nature
I am really impressed with how Rupert stays calm and clear and makes known his intention to get to the heart of the issue, while Rick is apparently busy denying the use of Rupert's suggestions and falling back on knowledge of things that don't relate to said issue. To Rick's defense, him being the interviewer, it must be a little odd, perhaps even a little threatening or embarrassing to be 'schooled' a second time and I was initially a little bewildered by Rupert's approach to these podcasts/interviews.
hexagonal Yes, I thought both were quite bravely honest and true to themselves. I think, therefore, Rick is far more sincere and not-subservient than some people unnecessarily are - to their detriment!
one of the best videos on youtube shit its like the culmation of all of ruperts teachings I also like the one where he says shut up for a moment, and then he says what more could you want? that's a good one 2
Whoa! Deep stuff! Rupert Spira speaks the truth! I get what he says! You have to stop over-analyzing, stop being attach to concepts you cling to... and just listen with no bias! Reading Franklin Merrell-Wolff might help but... might too heady for the simple folks. The objects, the rising attention and subsiding, resting it into consciousness-without-an-object... I finally get it! Well intellectually. The real knowledge is in experiencing it!
So many in the West insist in using eastern analogies, names and terms in order to express themselves in this subject. I suggest you try to use your own words. Rupert is incredibly talented at that. Early on he realized that, since this understanding is universal, we could use our own words to reflect our understanding, and it is so more rewarding.
I was a little surprised watching this interview. I like Rupert Spira, but this time i could see him getting quite reactive towards Rick (which he admited himself) It almost felt like he wanted to dominate the interview and change it from it being a conversation with Rick into his own speech or presentation of his view. I saw him facing the audience more than he was Rick, which i found rude and inappropriate for such dialogue. For me, Rick was simply Rick, getting maybe a little offensive, but since he is not claming to be fully liberated that seems normal. In my feeling, Rupert was the one in this talk who showed his limitations more! Maybe it is a process of embodying his message where he is still evolving. In the case of Adyashanti for example, i feel there is always utter respect for the person who interviews him, no matter the circumstances!
You could say body, mind is consciousness, appears in consciousness, but consciousness does not need anything to know itself, because it is the knowing.
I think Rick's resistance to Rupert's demands are similar to various other students' resistance to Spira's and Lucille's demands in various Q&A videos of theirs. "Now please think of a pink elephant. Now if you are thinking of a pink elephant, this means..." etc. What Rick is demonstrating, is that the technique only works if the student totally agrees to do exactly what the teacher is asking, and even then the student might not "get it". (In fact, there is a Lucille youtube video where a student say "I understand everything you say, but I still need you to convince me" and then Lucille (Spira's teacher) spends 10-15 minutes in attempting to do this ... and even then the student still says "Sorry, I just don't buy it." This "totally agreeing to do exactly what the teacher is asking" is precisely what gets success, and it does so as long as the particular spiritual path is valid. So, if you were fed a diet of Masterpiece Theatre as a young child, and so perfectly spoken Upper Class English gives you a subconscious sensation of truth, then you are more likely to do exactly what Spira says, than to do exactly what Adyashanti says in his giggly sarcastic California dude voice. BTW, something that Spira has in common with many teachers, is requiring a strict adherence to logic and "experience" at some points, and then coming up with totally unsupported concepts like "Feeling Understanding" without any explanation of where it comes from, or what it means. (What we call "feelings" are almost always survival instincts that are genetically based - instincts work only because they seem to be an intrinsic part of you.) And, all throughout this, and other Spira talks, I have the same reservations about his metaphysics and cosmology that RIck expresses at the very end of the talk - they don't "add up" (As Rick said - if Absolute Consciousness could experience itself and that was as sufficient as it would seem to be, then why did it create the Universe of forms?)
Couldn't agree more with your comments here. While I find Spira well-intentioned, and I happen to completely agree with him that consciousness is the ground of being, I find his approach seriously lacks rigour - as you mention, he conflates 'experience', 'consciousness' and 'feeling-understanding' with cavalier abandon. This might be convincing for those who are neophytes in the realm of philosophy of consciousness, or those who just want a practical approach to living that is seemingly accessible to most people (of course, the caveat here being that if what people are accessing is simply wishy-washy teachings, the value of 'accessibility' may not be so high). I also find Spira's approach to be subtly but painfully patronising. He almost never uses the first person to describe his opinions and theories, a tool I see used as a subtle power play by many 'gurus'. It seems to me that his projected aura of 'calmness' will appeal to those want a 'Master' or an 'answer'. I am so glad Rick doesn't just roll over like a puppy-dog and take the guru-bait. Rick raises many poignant questions which Spira simply can't answer. And it is not because there are no answers, it's because Spira's cosmology is overly simplistic. Many yogic and tantric philosophies (and their neutral monist correlates within Western philosophy of consciousness) explain what Rick is getting at, how there can be both a reality of a finite world of manifest forms and objects (Shakti) and a reality of an infinite (not-yet-manifest-in-the-world) consciousness (Shiva). Both of these poles can be considered to play out in Absolute consciousness (Brahman) - and Brahman INCLUDES both the finite and infinite aspects of consciousness. Metaphorically, saying that the wave (finite consciousness) is a part of the ocean (infinite consciousness) is true, yet it doesn't help to explain why there are waves in the first place - which to me seems to be Rick's objection. What Spira seems to do is completely deny the existence (or even our experience) of finite objects and forms. He never explains why the level of enquiry to which he goes should constitute more of a reality than the ordinary reality, he just asserts it as such. Both the ordinary reality and the infinite reality occur in 'experience', so if he wants to base his cosmology on this, he can't simply pick and choose which levels of experience he wants to be 'real' - and yet this is exactly what he does. I wrote a whole thesis on this at the Australian National University, supervised by Prof. David Chalmers, one of the world's top philosophers of consciousness. I also run my own yoga and philosophy centre as my full-time job, so I am not making any of these assertions from the perspective of being intellectually pernickety for the sake of it. I say what I say as an offering that comes from deep devotion to the light of consciousness. It seems to me that most people have mistaken Rick's discernment, rigorous enquiry and humility for lack of understanding and ignorance. I honour and support Rick's diligent enquiry. I wish more of us would keep our wits about us in conversations like this.
Quote: "He never explains why the level of enquiry to which he goes should constitute more of a reality than the ordinary reality, he just asserts it as such Both the ordinary reality and the infinite reality occur in 'experience', so if he wants to base his cosmology on this, he can't simply pick and choose which levels of experience he wants to be 'real' - and yet this is exactly what he does." The overall philosophy he uses is that of Ramana Maharshi and Advaita Vedanta (Shankara, Gaudapada). David Godman once wrote in his blog on Ramana Maharshi: "In everyday English the word ‘real’ generally denotes something that can be perceived by the senses. As such, it is a misleading translation of the Sanskrit word ‘sat’, which is often rendered in English as ‘being’ or ‘reality’. Bhagavan, along with many other Indian spiritual teachers, had a completely different definition of reality: Bhagavan: What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging. (Maharshi’s Gospel, p. 61) In Indian philosophy reality is not determined by perceptibility but by permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity. This important definition is elaborated on in the dialogue from which the above quotation has been taken...As for the word ‘world’, Muruganar points out in his comments to verses 63 and 64 that the Sanskrit word for world, ‘loka’, literally means ‘that which is seen’. If one combines this definition of the word ‘world’ with the standard of reality set by Bhagavan, the question, ‘Is the world real?’ becomes an enquiry about the abiding reality of what is perceived: ‘Do things that are perceived have permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity?’ The answer to that question is clearly ‘no’. The names and forms perceived by a seer do not meet the standard of reality defined by Bhagavan, and as such they are dismissed as ‘unreal’. According to Bhagavan these names and forms appear in Brahman, the underlying substratum. Brahman does meet the stringent test for reality outlined above since it, and it alone, is permanent, unchanging and self-luminous. If one accepts these definitions, it follows that Brahman is real, whereas the world (the collection of perceived names and forms) is unreal. This formulation, ‘Brahman is real; the world is unreal’ is a standard and recurring statement in vedantic philosophy. Vedanta is the philosophy that is derived from the Upanishads, the final portions of the Vedas, and the subdivision of it that tallies with Bhagavan’s teachings is known as ‘advaita’, which translates as ‘not two’. ‘Not two’ means, among other things, that there are not two separate entities, Brahman and the world; all is one indivisible whole. This point is important to remember since it is at the crux of the apparently paradoxical statements that Bhagavan made on the nature and reality of the world and its substratum. Since there is nothing that is separate from Brahman, it follows that the names and forms that appear and manifest within it partake of its reality. This means that when the world is known and directly experienced to be a mere appearance in the underlying Brahman, it can be accepted as real, since it is no longer perceived as a separate entity. If one knows oneself to be Brahman, one knows that the world is real because it is indistinguishable from one’s own Self. However, if one merely perceives external names and forms, without experiencing that substratum, those forms have to be dismissed as unreal since they do not meet the strict definition of reality. Bhagavan summarised this position in the following reply: Shankara [a ninth century sage and philosopher who was the principal populariser of advaita Vedanta] was criticised for his views on maya without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman is real, (2) The universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence maya and reality are one and the same. (Guru Ramana, p. 65)"
Thanks TheKStuart.... I am well aware of everything you have raised regarding Advaita philosophy, having explored it in depth in my thesis and in my work as an East-West philosophy teacher and spiritual practitioner. However, none of your points actually speak to the bones of what I am getting at. A whole bunch self-referential quotes about Bhagavan's personal "strict definition" of reality does not constitute a rigorous philosophical case from my perspective. Sorry, but it ain't gospel just because he says it is. And to state that 'Indian philosophy' agrees with the Advaita view that reality is changeless, is wildly reductive - as I mentioned, many Indian yogic and tantric paths do not adhere to this view at all. All that aside, like I mentioned above, I'm certainly not here to be pernickety for the sake of it. I'm all about shedding light (not dogma) on these "things" we call consciousness and reality. And something piques my interest - I am actually quite curious as to why you brought up these quotes at all. Because unless I have misinterpreted you, prima facie these seem to pose themselves in contradistinction to my commentary. However, in some of your previous comments, we seem to be in quite striong resonance in terms of (in your words) "reservations about [Spira's] metaphysics and cosmology". So, what's the deal? :)
I quoted a small portion of your comment where you stated: "he can't simply pick and choose which levels of experience he wants to be 'real'" and then quoted from a blog on Advaita Vedanta to show that this portion of Spira's teaching is not his personal choice, but rather the viewpoint of Vedanta. In fact, it is also the viewpoint of Buddhism (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence ). If you follow the double quotes in my comment, you will see that the person you were arguing with is David Godman, not me. As you can see, youtube comments are not a good structure for debating which major philosophical system is more accurate and such issues.
Rick Archer I enjoy your presence. Through the talk i felt my gaze being taken to you. ( the thought did arise how would this talk feel with out the vision of it) As awareness you were abiding . I saw Ruperts passion too. I think its funny we think that that moment could have been any other way. Do you know for me I think the peace lie in the letting go of the judge (inner and outer). Some how i feel we have something to do with the Character the flavour of this presence. Do you see the light or the dark. I dont think we would find it very interesting if there were two Ricks talking or Two Ruperts. There is this great beauty in this amazingly diverse garden if we would just stop trampling on it there could only be peace. This idea of just speaking and hearing with out the desire or the impression of wanting it to be just one way. I really want to be this open accepting awareness this complete softeness that just flows. I hope the feeling im trying to convey come across more than the words being used. I enjoyed Rick and Rupert and most importantly the message God was trying to get across. Can I hear and see clearly and just enjoy the view, I ask myself? This is from the prophet: Then said a teacher, "Speak to us of Teaching." And he said: No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of our knowledge. The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness. If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind. The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding. The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it. And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither. For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man. And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth.
When Rupert said, "Treat everything as God's infinite being," I thought of Walt Whitman's words from Song of Myself: " I hear and behold God in every object.... I see something of God each hour of the twenty-four, and each moment, then, In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass."
Your problem Rick here is that Rupert gives you some practical exercises to do in the moment approached with fresh mind but you instead of doing that, instantly go back to your accumulated knowledge and ideas. I can clearly see that you don't even do what Rupert asks you to do, you immediately jump back to your database in your head and try to find an answer there
JechtNH On the contrary, I feel Rick is being himself and rather naughty - which is delightful... I don't value people who mould themselves into the perfect student for a certain teacher, a 'yes person, but who THEREFORE probably LEARN less!
Julian Bates That's not what I meant at all. Yes his attitude is great in general and he is an honest seeker and good interviewer, but I explained why he had such difficulty seeing what Rupert is pointing at. Rupert wanted to make Rick experience what he was talking about and to speak from this experience, in the very moment. All that Rupert wanted from him is to not respond with all the accumulated ideas he had about the phenomena, Rupert wanted him to respond from pure experiencing in that particular moment without going back to accumulated knowledge. Rick has a lot of intellectual knowledge of the Self/Consciousness and he tries to respond with that knowledge. Rupert wants him not to speak from mind gathered knowledge, but to experience it on his own. To use a metaphor, Rick here is like a guy who knows everything about swimming, how to behave in water, how water feels like etc. only from reading books and listening to others. Rupert wants him not to speak these ideas, he wants him to get into water, experience it himself
JechtNH And I will say to you that again he did respond with his authenticity in that moment, in the mood he was in - almost deliberately staying outside what Rupert commanded at first - perhaps demonstrating his fear/reluctance to do what Rupert was saying. He is also a go-between between Rupert and what viewers may be having difficulty with! I say let Rick be himself and evolve into this awareness - as he himself implied, rather than take the Guru's instruction in front of many people! I am not sure your reading was quite what was going on - that he was merely responding from his 'database'. Rick is well-aware of Rupert's insistence on one's own awareness - the 'I am aware' bit, but I liked the slight tension, and I imagine Rupert did as well, and I would suggest, Rupert appreciated what he was doing. I know Rick well from his interviews and like it that he never feels subservient to all he interviews. He did behave himself more in the last half! ;) This is my impression of fit all - having known them both via this media :)
Julian Bates People seem to assume that 46 years of dedicated spiritual practice hasn't resulted in much for me. As an interviewer, I don't feel it is appropriate to dwell much on my own experience.
Well, when I get to see them, I love what you make available to us... not only the person you are interviewing, but also - as my point above alludes to, we value your input being you, equally. I do, anyway. Perhaps your experience/wisdom is intuited by what and how you respond to who you are interviewing - even if it is not purely your direct experience... I just felt you were being yourself in this interview... It was Alive!... I remember what teachers do indeed say - that they prefer the sincere person, rather than the one who knows 'all the answers' - but does not necessarily respond form their experience. As to the knowledge/insight/etc. we have, it is not always necessary to put it into words... Can anything like that be 'objectified', or put out there... Maybe when we least expect it . Thanks anyway, Rick! P.S. I have to admit - the bit on 'there is just God's Infinite Being'' really blew me away, - because I was open to this at that time, ============================.
Dear Rick: Love your interviews! Thank you! I sensed you struggling w/what Rupert was attempting to lead you to...May I suggest you check out the brainoptimization.com website & the Psychology of Consciousness with Emphasis on Non-Duality course (Awakening Protocol)..I'm in the 2nd month of the 5 month course and the organism ("I") is Awake and in the process of embodying the Awakening---excellent course for those of us wanting to go beyond metaphysics (which wasn't working for me in real life). Just a suggestion...
Oh man, I love Rick Archer! He is the Spiritual Everyman, the Classic Seeker who, with many years of spiritual experiences behind him, seems to find it impossible to drop his developed intellectual stance and mental distance from what Rupert is talking about or trying to explicate here because Rick seems to only want confirmation of what he already knows... When Mr Archer uses quotes from The Gita, etc, trying to intellectually relate with or comment on what Rupert is saying, it seems to promote (apparently unbeknownst to him) exactly the opposite effect - it keeps him locked into his preconceived understanding. In doing this instinct tells me that he will never cross "the line drawn in the sand" his mind has drawn till he lets go of his mind/rigid mental stance. And so there will have to be more and more interviews... which is undoubtable what his mind wants!! LOL! +Alicea Sarawati: if you don't relate to or trust Rupert, who do you believe is a real Teacher?
Alicea Saraswati No need to apologize, Alicea. Since you were so strong in your condemnation of Mr Spira I thought perhaps you had something specific you were promoting from your own experience. But judging by your answer this appears not to be the case... And now I'M sorry back at you if it seems that you (and others reading my initial post) might think I was "condemning" Mr Archer. Quite the contrary. I love Rick A for the boldness (or is it hubris?) with which he sticks to his apparent beliefs which, if they are really honest and admit it, most "spiritual seekers" also essentially believe: that they are separate entities/realities that need to reason their way into "Enlightenment" or Higher Reality using their mind as the tool... which is sorta like attempting to work on a fine piece of electronics with a sledgehammer...
Alicea Saraswati Dear Alicea. Thank you for your beautiful, intensive and very genuine reply to my earlier post. I think your queries are right on and a exposition of what so many of us have and do go thru if we are serious and thoughtful about matters of The Spirit and Authentic Self. And I want to say right off that I too have had many of these same questions/doubts before (and possibly will again) about the "concepts", motives and integrity of various characters in the "Neo Adavita" group, including the ones you mention. And, at the risk of disappointing you if you're spoiling for an argument/good conflict over their teachings, I also have to admit upfront that I have been around the "Spiritual Culture" and this sort of thing long enough to know that all I know for certain is what I have experienced myself. And what I've experienced in my study of Adavita Vedanta/Juana Yoga/Whatever over the last 6 years or so is nothing short of a renaissance of Spirit in my life. From the moment I stumbled upon (almost literally) Tolle's Power of Now, which I found distilled the fundamental "idea" or kernel of all the Buddhist and Hindu scripture I'd read over many years ("which seems to be quite common for centuries or much more if we only look at the history of mysticism" as you say) and made it truly understandable/accessible/laid bare to me for the first time ever, I have been drawn ever deeper into the question of who/what I really am and what am I doing here and now?.. Listening to hours of downloaded audio of E.T. (the Extraterrestrial! ;-)) from his retreats ("in beautiful clubs for holidaymakers" - love that!) I gleaned many of his sources, the origins of some of his ideas, and then pursued them: books and videos on/by Nissargadatta, Sri Ramana, etc etc etc. This then lead me to the websites (including one run by a gentleman also in this stream of commentary on the above video - Chris Hebard) which featured several "contemporary" teachers, one of whom was/is Mr. Spira. And I have to also admit that I found his speeches compelling and revealing of the Truth as I intuited it (tho that said I have seen a video or two of his on TH-cam where I felt his pedantry showed a tad too excessively, to the point of what's the point, Rupert?)... But anyway, The Point for me is that it's NOT a solipsistic, "feel good technique" at all that is being put forth by Mr Spira and that most (if not all) of the folks you mention as "Charlatans" are (I believe) genuine and authentic in their concern and feelings for their work and humankind. However, as we are all human beings and as such not perfect (which Mr Spira has admitted himself on one occasion) and have to speak to "others" thru this persona, the human body/mind and as such ego will rear it's head, with the attendant fears, desires, missteps etc etc... But to get to what you really seem to be wanting from me: what do I believe is the truth of this "Neo Advaita" and the true use of the mind in spiritual practice? Again, I can/will only speak of my experience but ever since I had my "ah-HA" with ET's work I have been in and out of feeling (and therefore understanding) The Bliss (which I now understand as an early, elemental stage of "Awakening") and seeing that thru this "stateless state" one can indeed "...radically change or annihilate the mind and teach a spiritual path that can help others". However, I should add that one never should attempt to annihilate the mind as it's really like trying to chew your own hand off! The mind is a terrific instrument (which is what it's real function is) and is really your best ally once you stop putting it's whims and whining ahead of your own True Desire (for God Realization, to quote a source ;-)). Anyway, that is what I feel. And as far as charging for spiritual teaching is concerned (a Big Deal Discussion in spiritual circles) I would add that it's only necessary if you think it is. There are many "free" resources for study, as I know you know, and therefore to condemn someone for charging is to really reveal one's own issues with money/energy exchange. As Jesus (incidentally a teacher ET helped me finally understand and "reconcile" with) supposedly said in Matthew 7:3 about the sawdust in another believers eye, I don't want to ignore the log in my own! All the best and love to you Alicea! I hope this is helpful/what you were asking about... D
Alicea Saraswati ... after rereading my last entry to you I realized that, over-long as it was, it was missing a real comment on your two main points: what good is all this "Neo Advaita" stuff to the problems of the world and isn't it just avoiding the world's problems by learning to be falsely "positive" and blissful all the time? By just putting a Sunshine Bandaid on the gross shit going down on the Planet? What good is the fucking Bliss anyway?"... And to this I say that yes, it could indeed appear to "make people more egocentric, selfish and completely apathetic with their insane 'positive thinking'" as you say and perhaps some are going that way. But I don't feel that is real message here nor is it my experience, which actually has me MUCH more empathetic/sympathetic and respectful of ALL people and their beliefs/concepts because another name for the Bliss (Happiness or the "uncaused Joy beyond good and bad") is acceptance of the way things are, right now, not letting things annoy me or "have" to be other than they are. This makes me much more capable of "doing good" in the world, for anybody who embraces this approach to life. This makes making "peace" with life (and all the creatures in it) so much more possible. And this is truly the Power of Now. The Now isn't a moment it's the space the moment takes place in, if that makes any sense (when you really get down to the nitty gritty of this stuff Alicea it gets harder to verbalize because ALL LANGUAGE IS OF THE MIND)... And this brings me to the second thing you wrote about which is: "But sincerely, what else do you have if not the mind to practice the so-called 'direct path'"? Alicea, it is, again, hard to talk about things that are not of the mind with the mind but the best I can say is that the "practice" of being "direct" is to be on another wave-length, so to speak, than the mind and to discover (and therefore trust) that there is an intelligence, so to speak, that is much larger than the mind, that speaks to all of us thru our intuition, "in our deepest self", that anyone can develop the "skill" of listening to and that teaches and leads us. I believe it is this "Source" that all great Wisdom Teachers throughout time have "tuned" into (for lack of better words for it) and used as the source of their teachings. And because it is actually beyond the individual it also can seem to come out of fools, "Charlatans" and unusual sources at times... Does this make sense to you? I'm very sorry for my lack of eloquence on this Alicea but my heart is really trying to make this clear to you, to give you an sense of what I see in these teachers.... peace, D
Alicea Saraswati Happy new year to you too. I enjoy reading your comments, btw :) Thank you for putting effort and time for it. I like understanding different ideas and thoughts on this subject.
i do not understand why Rick is being attacked for acting in a way that most of us do. When confronted with something new, or that doesn't fit out current view of the world, it is natural to refer back to our conceptual "comfort zone". I find myself doing it all the time. I suspect that is why so many of us are still "searching"!
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
No offense to Rick at all, a great interviewer giving tons of topics for people to feed on... but I feel that Rick just didn't understand the point Rupert was trying to express: that consciousness is all there is. There is nothing other than consciousness. Everything is an experience of consciousness. The meta physical stuff Rick was trying to talk about is completely irrelevant because the only reality of meta physics exists in consciousness...If there were something outside of consciousness, you wouldn't know about it (which means it wouldn't exist for you), because all you are/know is consciousness.
+danielconditioning I get that consciousness is all there is. See my talk at the SAND conference the next year, which Rupert attended: batgap.com/rick-archer-science-nonduality-conference/. As I recall, the point I was trying to bring out is that since consciousness is all there is, the self-interacting dynamics of consciousness must be responsible for apparent physical creation.
what kind of meditation/practice do you do? Any recommendations? Also, the reason why people experience consciousness to be everything, from my understanding, is because they realize that there is no self and therefore no separate entity called a subject. Since there is no subject, you can't really say there are any objects either (which rupert explains well). This concludes to the realization that everything must be one thing, and since we clearly only know our subjective experience, we can say that everything is consciousness. I've done a lot of meditation and still have no experiential understanding of it. Do you need to have a complete realization that there is no self to understand this by experience? What is your experience of reality and how does your experience show you that everything is consciousness. .Sorry for the long question.
I learned Transcendental Meditation when I was 18 (1968) and taught it for 25 years. No longer in the TM movement, but I still do a variation of it. As its name implies, it resulted in transcendental "experience" from day one. Some traditions call that no self. Some call it Self. Anyway, through daily practice the "experience" gets integrated. I put it in quotes because it's not an experience involving objects, as are other experiences. I know that there are people whose experience is clearer than mine, but I have an abiding sense that I'm everywhere, I'm nowhere, and I'm right here. Does that make sense? It doesn't depend upon my thinking about it.
*Roughly a 1.9 on the new -3 to +3 scale. Disclaimers at the end of the comment.* This is a very good interview ! The 0.1 below the 2.0 is due to the BS flag I called regarding 1:12:00, see my other comment below. _About the rating: anything below and including 0 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative + 2 - 2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
I don't agree with your low rating for this interview. All one needs to find out who one really is, is in this interview. No unnecessary belief systems in Spira's teaching. To me this is probably the closest that one can come to pure Truth.
Sebastian Taeggi _"your low rating for this interview"_ *What are you smoking ? I find this interview to be of exceptionally high value !* The 1.9 is only 0.1 points below the highest possible rating of 2.0 short of original cosmological revelations, and that subtraction is due to the false claim I commented on in the other commentary. I am not reposting the _About_ and *Disclaimer* sections of a rating for no reason because all these idiots who keep projecting their false assumptions about my ratings without asking first. But your blindness seems to be exceptionally extreme among them as you keep projecting further still even though I explicitly refuted them in the rating. You are a good example for what I have observed over the decades: the so called "spiritual" crowd seems to be exceptionally base, uneducated, arrogant, stupid and mean spirited, particularly since they like to mask the disgusting expression of their low character with all kinds of sweet and spiritual sounding platitudes.
well, true - I didn't know you and I only commented based on your comparison with the rating you give to Francis Bennett (2.0) and to Harri Alto (2.5 if I am not wrong, your highest). Just this one reaction to my comment shows me that you are spmeone I don't need to connect with, though. Enjoy your bitterness.
Sebastian Taeggi _"I didn't know you and I only commented based on your comparison with the rating you give to Francis"_ I didn't do that at all. It's just that you are totally immune to facts, such as my descritpions of my ratings you are obsessed reacting to, ignore what others actually say and waste their time trying to insult them. You don't need to connect with me ? Oh what a loss =:) Then stop it already and get a life.
Dear Rupert can you do this process of attention during deep sleep ? Of course not. Why? Because the Conscious mind (buddhi) is sleeping deeply. Attention is the reflected Consciousness in the buddhi. When the mind (manas ) remains without an object the buddhi (which is only consciousness in motion) 'takes the form' (words are limited) of consciousness. There is not in and out in this experience because consciousness is beyond space and time, forms and sensations..
No one has any evidence that consciousness is not present during sleep. Indeed, falling asleep is very enjoyable because as the outside world fades away, consciousness remains. What ceases is the mind, including memory. Without memory, we can't remember what sleep was really like--that we were aware the whole time. It is only our beliefs that tell us lies about reality. Our experience is always reliable. Most of us choose to accept beliefs and the products of the mind. That is what keeps us suffering.
David Spector The point we are we talking about s that when you are sleeping deeply you are not conscious of this bliss. It doesn't matter if the consciousness is awake. Your conscious mind is asleep and therefore you are not enjoying the bliss of deep sleep consciously.
***** That was the exact point I addressed. Did you read my last comment?. Your belief that we are not conscious of bliss during sleep has not a shred of evidence, and, in fact, after the shift called self-realization, this bliss is finally remembered. There is no difference between consciousness, awareness, bliss, peace, freedom, love, or happiness. They are eventually seen as synonyms for pure, absolute, spacious awareness. That is ultimately all there is, as verified by our own experience, even prior to self-awareness. That is what Rupert is saying. I'd explain further, but I'm not sure what you are missing. Rupert speaks so clearly...
David Spector What I say its not my belief, its my actual experience, that is to say, during my deep sleep I have no experience of anything. Rubert speaks so clearly, and I speak very clearly too. Also I´m not missing anything, you think that I´m missing something. When the ´I´ falls , bliss is experienced without a break , when the ´I´ is present, people fall in deep sleep to find little rest
***** What constitutes an "actual experience" depends on the state of consciousness. In deep sleep, there is no experience, for the mind (thinking, feeling, remembering, sensing, and perceiving) does not function. Thus, there is no relative experience during deep sleep. This leaves awareness free to enjoy and experience itself without the usual veiling that occurs during the waking state. Thus, the same awareness that we experience during waking and dreaming states is also experienced during deep sleep, according to Rupert.The only difference is that in deep sleep there is no veiling due to the illusory separate self (the ego). Since there is no veiling, there is no obstruction to the bliss of full awareness. You say you have no actual experience of anything during deep sleep. You are correct. But awareness is not a thing, it is not an object. It is the foundation of all experience, not an experience itself. Experiences are modulations within awareness. They are not separate from awareness, although they can seem to be due to our beliefs as a separate self (prior to awakening). This is the explanation for your apparent experience of nothingness during deep sleep: what you remember is nothingness, because your mind was not active. There seemed to be simply a gap in time, since it requires the activity of the limited mind to measure time within the unlimited field of awareness. It is impossible to remember the full value of awareness that we experience during deep sleep until after self-realization (awakening), because our memory does not continue intact until then. This is an explanation of the apparently contradictory nature of deep sleep. You seem to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and even some of the Sanskrit terms relating to it. Why is Rupert's description of deep sleep not clear to you? At this point I have stated his position, as I understand it, several times. Our discussion needs to stop now. I can only recommend that you watch some of Rupert's videos on deep sleep at TH-cam, as I have, so you can hear these concepts directly from Rupert. Best of luck in listening and understanding. You can always return here and comment further if you have new points to make.
Rick does some great interviews, but it seemed at every turn he interrupted Rupert with some metaphor or analogy. It would be nice to hear Rick speak from his truth instead of what he has read. If Rick allowed each guest to communicate their truth instead of it being compared to a revered and enlightened masters quote it would make the interview more applicable to our personal lives. As long as there are enlightened masters and regular unenlightened beings (duality) we will have seekers.
Yes, L Cc, I believe you hit the nail on the head, so to speak. That is why Mr Spira tried to stop him from constantly quoting the Gita during the interview, because he could see that Mr Archer was just spouting what he had already learned from books and from his intellect and it all seemed rather remote and even like Mr Archer was bored... What Mr Spira appeared to be doing, to my ears, was to try bringing Mr Archer into a direct experience of his authentic "self" but, as he has usually done in any of the 10 or so interviews I've seen him give before, Mr Archer chooses to stay within his "ego shell" and not come out and "play". He even gets defensive about Mr Spira quoting an author later in the interview because he can't see that what Mr Spira is doing is different from what he was doing, ie: is not some rote quote. But Mr Spira steps back from what he was driving at and says Mr Archer is right about complaining but I think he is just being kind...
I invite everyone who likes Rupert's teachings to check out a short text called "The Present" on TruthContest. It shares many truths with his teachings and explains spirituality very simple, based on science and in line with actual experience. Very interesting text for every person on spiritual journey. Enjoy :)
rupert switch your word to presence awareness is only available in presence HAN SOLO here and now all is one the mind is always in suffering in past or future guilt or fear god is only available in the present his presence will save us from the past future worrier god GOD is now and unconditional LOVE FOR EVRYONE WHICH BRINGS PEACE AND JOY AND NONJUDGEMENTAL LOVE FOR ALL
I understand that consciousness is aware of itself as pure being and that it exists even in deep sleep, but for sometime now when consciousness arises as attention it is focuses on depression and thoughts of anxiety which makes my sentient existence difficult to deal with. I know there is in reality no little me and that only the source is real but can what arises out of it be changed.
Mae rik Maybe. But what can surely be changed is you - your attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, perspective(s). Not saying I have any grand answers - or even that such things exist. Since everything is relative - at least in the illusive world in which most believe - then there's no one answer that works for everyone on anything. All one can say is, "It depends..." What I found helpful, tho, was to quit identifying with the physical so much, with the body-mind aspect of being. Knowing we're consciousness - whether called spirit or soul or Source or what have you - by identifying with that your perspective changes. It's amazing, how everything else changes with that shift - how it flips your whole reality, eventually (if you stick with it). The 3D part is hugely important, so I'm not saying to ignore or trash it - but some time spent on shifting perspective in the midst of it all is great fun - and ultimately useful. I guess it just depends on what you're after. ;-) ~♥~
Harshness nor arrogance was meant. If there be no rush nor urgency then all is well Yes ,in Infinite patience we will Recognize What we already are My study for years did not bring me closer to the Truth Just simply recognizing that i did not know Opened the path to faith n doing as the Guru said.
Someone says: "Just look at this simple fact of being aware". The other guy 'understands': "There are small practical steps one can take towards realizing the true self." Ehm yes, but what was really meant was: "Just look and see that you are awareness." The self is always realized in the consciousness of individual existence. It is, however, obscured by the very thoughts that 'reveal' it. It's as if the moon is saying to itself that one day it may shine like the sun, once it has got rid of the moonlight! It would be right and completely missing the point at the same time! Its very own 'moonlight' IS sunlight. The self is closer by than you think.
ONENESS - It can be argued and possibly, even proven that the Consciousness is potentially ONE. Unconsciousness is undeniably one ...(as well as none)... ...without needing any argument or proving. Unconsciousness is the end of all differentiations.
Dear Rick you are aware that you are aware (during the waking state if you are not lost in forgetfulness) and this is self evintent but you cannot say the same thing during deep sleep, because the conscious mind is sleeping. This is the proof that awareness cannot be aware of itself without the aid of the conscious mind.
Rick Archer If they have this experience is because the mind in them which is different from the brain is not sleeping. In fact when they are aware of their sleeping this is meditation. Conscious sleeping is meditation. This answer I had also by a Swami in the ashram of Swami Sivanada at rishikesh India.
***** Is it the mind that's not sleeping, or is it that pure consciousness is awake to itself, while mind, senses, and body sleep? After all, the Gita says "the Self realizes itself by itself."
Rick Archer Hello Rick, Mind and consciousness are not two different things. Pure mind is Consciousness and Consciousness in motion mixed with forms is Mind. If we consider Mind and Consciousness as two different things we acept duality as a reality. Baghavand gita says the truth. But Gita says also in 18 chapters how the devotee of truth will realize the truth and how will purify his mind. As you already know, words are limited and when we speak or think about one thing or topic all other aspects of the same thing are not mentioned because the mind can think and speak one thing every time. For these reason the sacred texts and the sayings of great masters can (and have been) be misunderstood if we have not a comprehensive overview of the teaching. I tell you only one more thing. If the Self realizes itself by itself without the aid of a pure buddhi then why the Self is not realized by itself in the millions of earthlings who have impure minds? Do you thing that all earthlings are at the level of Buddha, Christ, Krishna etc.? I do not think so. The play of Maya is uncoprehensible and all teachings especially the advaita do not focus the how and the why of Maya but how to free ourselves from the Maya. It is very simple but very difficult at the same time because MAya is so seductive. Thank you for this oppurtunity we have to speak about the truth and enjoy the unity of life and spirit Atman
One more point is that if buddhi is not necessary to realize the Self then all animals (which haven't buddhi) are Self-realized. Moreover all humans no matter the state of their mind (criminals, prostitutes, thieves, liers, greedy, brutal, violent people etc. ) are also self-realized because the Self in them does not need their mind in order to be conscious of Itself. Finally all those who did and all those who do sadhana nowadays in order to purify their mind and realize the Self by selfenquiry or meditation lost or lose their time because the Self in them is already realized. Is this true?
The 'I also is not always present in our daily experience if we mean as 'I the ego. Most of the time is, but there are moments that it is not. How often happens this dependes on the purity of mind. The 'I (ego) it is not the knower. The knower is the buddhi and the buddhi knows thanks to the light of consciousness that reflects on it. Of course finally the ultime knower is the consciousness because the buddhi cannot know without the light of consciousness and the buddhi as I said is Consciousnessin in motion.
Hi Rick Archer and ***** . I would just like to share with you both my take on the metaphysical, cosmological stuff that Rick mentioned in the interview, which I agree may be helpful for some seekers in answering the pesky, nagging questions that they may have about why an apparent universe seems to manifest at all in spite of the absolutely perfect self-sufficience of the infinite, eternal pure awareness that we are. Here's how I would answer that question; In truth, Reality itself can have no real ultimate 'edge', in any direction at all, in expanse or duration. The very presence of any conceivable 'absence of Reality' that may intuitively seem to inherently remain boundlessly beyond such an edge would forever ensure, in and of itself, that its own essential condition of 'absolute lack of presence' could NEVER be met. Consequently, this apparent absence is always already encompassed by (and therefore, included 'within') the ever-remaining causeless, boundless presence that is Reality itself, which is, as such, not a 'thing'. In truth, Reality fundamentally equals 'ZERO'. That is to say, actually, there isn't anything. Yet, the very 'ISness' of this 'ZERO' inextricably equals 'ONE'. Being intrinsically infinite and eternal, 'ONE' is forever choicelessly aware of (and is therefore effortlessly experiencing) the eternal infinity that is 'ONE', all the while remaining (due to its fundamentally attributeless nature) absolutely unrequiring of (and thus, completely devoid of) any capacity for the formation of any kind of 'knowledge' of 'itself', or of 'anything else'. This is the stateless state of 'pure awareness'. It simply 'is', without beginning, ending or edge, always already perfect and complete, and absolutely sufficient unto itself. As such, it remains forever in an unfathomable state of unthreatenable bliss. This, alone, is 'What Actually 'IS'', 'Here' and 'Now'. As 'ONE' experiences 'ONE', 'ONE' SEEMS to be 'TWO'. These illusory 'TWO' are 'the seer' and 'the seen'. The seen is fundamentally manifested as the state of 'absolute chaos' (finite, ever-changing and moving form). The seer is fundamentally manifested as the state of 'absolute order' (infinite, ever-changeless and still emptiness). 'From' the eternal interaction between this apparent 'pair', 'Everything' happens, in the ONLY way that it possibly can; 'THIS' way. In other words, the so-called 'big bang' (which is one in an infinite series of such bangs) can be described as an instantaneous event of pure chaos (the seen) that happens in the infinite field of changeless and orderly emptiness (the seer). When this occurs, the passive 'gaze' of the field causes the event to coherently 'evaporate', unresistingly, via the orderly path of least resistance until it has completely dissolved, and then another bang happens, and so on forever. The evaporation itself (which can ONLY happen perfectly) is the seemingly causal and sequential 'life' of the universe, along with all of its apparently coherent hierarchical structure and physical 'laws'. Being an evaporation, it doesn't really have any actual 'parts', that are fundamentally different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they seem to be. Therefore, every'thing', every'one', and every 'event' EVER is actually an 'apparent part' of the forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfurling of this one choiceless effect, which is itself comprised ONLY of the one causeless, unencompassed, self-aware presence that is 'ZERO'. Ultimately 'Here' and 'Now', without another, forever and ever; ((((('THIS'-EXPERIENCING-'THIS')))))
The sufi's say that wherever the 'I falls there is the face of god but the 'I and the conscious mind or buddhi are two different things. When the 'I falls the Buddhi asumes its original state which is Consciousness.
Rupert ask you. What we have to do in order to be conscious that we are conscious? The answer is nothing. But because we do not do nothing to be conscious we cannot conclude that the buddhi is not necessary to happen this selfknowing.
That is a difficult question, is the measuring mind necessary? The Buddha answer is no Jana without discernment, no Discernment without Jana so both are required. So maybe there is an invisible sub level of cognitive perception in awareness. This could be an instinctual neuro-path in the brain. Don't think source consciousness needs a great deal of mindful noting though - that maybe superfluous and distracting.. It is just maybe accessing an invisible sub level of brain together in the space of awareness. Then again Rupert could be correct but does it really matter-- same type experience of being with differing description.
Very frustrating interview at times. Rupert is trying to get down to basics, and Rick is replying with textbook answers, or second guessing the final answer. Rupert looses his train of thought, and we loose the thread of conversation. Good all the same.
Rupert says that consiousness doesn't need to do anything to realize it self that is self luminus (It is), but forgets that consciousness has already created this vast universe in order Rupert to realize himself as consciousness. Maya is so playful indeed.
1:12:00 BS flag: it is not true that in suffering "by definition we are longing for happiness". I would be very pleased to get a reliable promise from God that I will utterly cease to exist forever in any shape of form tomorrow because then my suffering will surely end and no happiness will arise instead. I don't care for happiness at all anymore, I just want suffering to cease.
Jan Martin Ulvåg Even if that latest red herring were true, it would be totally irrelevant since I didn't approach you unasked and played your guru in as dilettantic a manner as you did. Deal with the issue of *the initial point* instead and please leave me alone until you do. If you do so honestly, you will find there will be nothing to add, *Spira is just plain wrong at that point*. I will repost my last post because it explains why to those without sufficient intelligence to immediately notice it by themselves. Please leave me alone now.
Sathu Sathu Sathu, mind and consciousness always exist because of 5 skandhas and because of 6 receptors. Mind and consciousness always appear and always disappear all the times depend on a focusing.
Ultimately traditional advaita and this so called direct path are one and the same, though the direct path appears to be easily accessible. The difference between separate self and Awareness ( 1.20 to 1.22) are better explained in one of the upanishads with the narration of two birds on the same tree. One bird sitting at the top observing another bird in the lower branches jumpring from branch to branch and ultimately realising that it is it's own self
Rupert is trying to make it as simple as possible, experiential. Rick seems to have problem with the simplicity of this. Everything arises in and AS consciousness. No object has its own existence..
Rupert doesn't want Rick or anyone else for that matter to say anything. What he and other teachers do want is for others to come to their own understandings.
Rupert when says to you about the space around you and all other things about the nature of consciousness etc. forgets one very simple but very important factor. He is (or exists) in the room as a body Mind (Mind has many levels) entity before any discussion or any talk happen. This is very simple and for this reason is overtaken very easily. I do this simple question. If you and Rupert as body mind entities you weren't there who would talk about the nature of consciousness and who would be aware of Consciousness or Existence or anything else? You see and hear the Rupert because you are there not only as Conssciousness but as body and MInd. If we take the MInd (which is essentially formless like consciousnees and identical with consciousness) as something separate from consciousness then we acept without to be conscious of it that there is duality.
Whats the difference between Rupert's teaching here and Buddhism , I don't really seem to see any, not on a practical level of understanding awareness. Anyone who reaches the stage of studying awareness itself, and not the objects surely has to be in some state of samadhi
Rick doesn't seem to experience what Rupert tried to show. It would've have been better interview if Rick didn't have prejudice about Rupert's previous comments. I hope Rick now gets what pure one's pointing.
Rupert is one of those people that obviously has some understanding, yet comes of as so uptight and set in his ways. Not to say he should always seem over joyous, but he does seem way too serious. I know he has some understanding but maybe having a few very basic teachings you repeat to others may not replace an ongoing practice.
Brits don't often emote like Americans. They often come off as dry and cold when they are not. I see Rupert as having a very warm heart but it is subtle. I would also say that he is truth realized IMO and the truth is not an opinion, it is true even when people don't accept it.
i don't think there is such a thing as awareness, i think awareness is just a conceptual sum of .. being aware of something. So that i don't always have to check that i am aware of every single thing to say that i am aware. I -for example- check wether am i aware of my feet and therefore i don't have to check if i am aware of my hands and the rest of my body parts and my feelings and so on.. Just in language we admit the existence of awareness by adding "ness" without being actually aware of something, but my experience does not see such a thing as awareness.
1:22:30 "All that is necessary for the Direct Path is to ask yourself the question "Am I aware?", and to pause...and to follow your attention back to the experience of being aware, and to stay there. That's it."
Kapow! A one line summary of the most direct route to realisation from one of the best teachers on the planet. You don't get that kind of clarity and brevity very often, Rupert's polite but firm refusal to play Rick's "who knows the most classical quotes" game was very refreshing. I think we may hear less Gita quotes from Rick in the future...
One of the best BATGAPs so far, worth several viewings, thanks to all involved.
I have never heard ND described so simply and so clearly as Rupert Spira has here; in my estimation, clearer and simpler than Eckhart Tolle, Maharshi, and Krishnamurti combined. I'm not resonating with the critical comments here about him. I do not see any ego or unnecessary over-intellectualization going on. Instead, I felt a great amount of humility, patience, gratitude, humor, honesty, care and love coming from the guest.
Spira is using the intellect, but only in the sense of trying to get us OUT of our intellectual mind in order to experience truth directly (for ourselves). This is a beautiful thing and he sums it all up masterfully by the end with: "All that's necessary for the direct path is to ask your Self, 'am I aware?'. And to pause and just follow your attention back to the experience of being aware and to stay there. That's it". So simple!
Great interview and great questions (after the halfway mark) by Rick. In the first half, Rick was delusionally stuck in his mind. By the midway mark though, Spira started to get him to see how "stuck" he was in his mind and then Rick "unstuck" himself by the end (....I think...at least I hope :)
This is a most significant interview. The radical notion that "Experience alone is the test of Reality," is the realization that the world is waiting to hear. We can only hope that this understanding spreads and spreads hastily..!
What a magnificent interview! Rick and Rupert are at the top of their form. Rupert here presents a fairly complete summary of most of his teachings in recent years, both elementary and advanced. Rick seems to finally get a little of what he has been searching for so long (as has also happened for me). I recommend this video to everyone who either wants to understand the mysteries of life better or wants to find a level of fulfillment that brings true peace and happiness.
Wow.. thankyou rick for this one..15 minutes in and already ruperts pointing here is stunning, so clear and simple ❤ and i now have to add that it was really nice to see you rick in person with someone like rupert, you can see the shift in your own energy relax so much, the silent moments towards the end, i sensed total innocence in your little smiles, i instantly felt such love for you 😊
Yes! More Rupert! He is so fluid and clear.
THIS MAN IS A GENIUS TEACHER IN NON-DUALITY. RUPERT IS ONE OF THE BEST, CLEAREST TEACHER I HAVE EVER SEEN.
And here he is at the peak of clarity! Inspired and enlightening.
Other comments aside, I'm so glad that Rick interviewed Rupert again -- I would also like to hear more from Francis Lucille. I thank you, Rick, for be willing to "delve into it" with these folks on our behalf. You really do us all a considerable favor with your interviews.
Wow so greateful for this wonderful interview. I really like Rupert's percision and the way he directs attention to that which is vital. It's rare to get an interview format that is like this, a dynamic in the moment investigation of experience. I must say Rick is on a roll doing great interviews with important teachers. Thank you for making this available!
This is such an amazing interview and I see that the direct path witch Rupert teaches has become very clear and transparent over time, including life's challenges. AM I AWARE ? seems to be the only question worth asking.
Thank you Rick for this so enlightening moment :)
Thank you Rick for doing this interview with Rupert. I had been feeling as if i was stuck in my enquiry for a long time and I am so greatful that through Rupert's tweaking of the direct method from "who am i" to "am i aware", I just realised that the every longing of knowing the answer to "who am i" is composed of the true I and realising this I can rest myself and does not feel stuck anymore. His words have echoed with me and you have been the medium so I greatly thank you and ofcourse Rupert from the bottom of my heart!:)
Thank you Rupert! It was a great joy to listen to you again. Thumbs up!
Rupert has the patience of .....well a SAINT, I guess. Although I can`t imagine many saints have as much patience. Lol. Rick, there is such a thing as "knowing too much"! This is truly amazing. Thank you both!
Rupert is a marvelous teacher and his books are fantastic.
Thank you very much to both, so precious ! All this words and this enthusiasm go directly to the heart :)
Thank you again. I really liked this interview. I will be listening to it again and again.
BTW... very enjoyable interview. Rupert looks and sounds very sincere and genuine and he seems to truly believe what he is saying. I sensed that Rick enjoyed the interview a lot and he benefitted a lot from the experience.
Some beautiful lines from the interview. In suffering, we are longing for happiness. The source of happiness itself, pure being, is pulling the separate self, back into itself saying, Sweetheart, come back to me, stop looking for me out there. I’m not there. You’ve been looking for me there for decades. Can’t you see I’m not there? If I was there, you would have found me by now. Turn round, come back to your home in me. That longing for happiness is God’s footprint in our hearts. The light of pure knowing is never extinguished, it shines in everyone, in everyone’s feelings as the longing for happiness , in the mind as, I am aware, follow either back to their source. . . Thank you Rick for this wonderful interview.
Nice comment. I am reminded of the words "Sin" (miss the mark) and "Repent" (turn around). You point to the truth of these words in Christianity which is something most Christians miss (or should I say sin in regards to). CHeers!
Thank you Rick & Rupert Spira! Beautiful interview!
Beautiful interview! Thank you Rick & Rupert!
I still maintain that living in this physical realm, our uninformed experience seems to confirm that we are separate, that we live in a world of separate things. It is counterintuitive to realize that there is just a single Consciousness, that Reality is not as it appears. That is why it helps to have a paradigm shift to our experience that the Direct Path followed by Rupert enables. It explains why we have charitable intentions to even strangers without having to follow a ‘teaching’. Deep down,it’s our nature, Consciousness embracing us in its shining unity. We finally realize that the seemingly separate things are only modulations of the one single Consciousness.
Rick's questions appear to me as being thoughtful and genuine. He was speaking based upon the experience of having enjoyed a wonderful method for regularly immersing in / recognizing pure awareness (that I have also practiced for the last 40 years). Rupert Spira speaks very clearly about the theoretical understanding and experience of non-duality, and yet in spite of his clarity, he expounds a minority view with respect to how we should come to recognize this reality for ourselves.
Rupert explicitly advocates that we should not bother with disciplines or practices such as meditation. He states that we should simply become aware of awareness itself by asking questions such as, "Am I aware?" or "Who am I?" I think Rick was quite fair to ask, "How do you know that your practice of 20 years of meditation did not prepare you to be able to settle into that state with such a non-method, whereas, such an approach would not be possible for one not similarly unprepared.
It is not controversial for anyone familiar with one of the non-dual traditions that it is the same pure consciousness that is present for everyone, and that it is unstained by any experience/object. But this is the perspective from the highest reality - not much use for one who is limited by karmic impressions residing within the buddhi (deepest aspect of cognition) and is, therefore, unable to experience that clearly.
The majority view appears to me to be much more helpful for those who want to taste fully the deep bliss and freedom inherent in pure consciousness (and I am not sure why Rupert has an issue with the B-word!) - that we are helped significantly by having a regular practice of meditation so that we can actually experience increasingly clearly what follows, in fact, the question, "Am I aware?" By first getting beyond the distractions of thoughts/feelings, etc, we can more easily prepare ourselves to experience what Rupert discusses clearly, but gives a sparse program for recognizing in a progressive manner. Progressively, we cleanse our buddhi of that which limits us and can then experience the Reality of Pure Consciousness more and more, eventually making it an increasingly permanent reality.
David Kuttruff I agree with you, although I can see how Ruperts approach of it beeing something so fundamental to our nature that it does not require the practice of meditation and is lead by a simple question, which can be stated at as often as wanted at any time or place internally, can be a very appealing and encouraging thing for all the people, which are most, that do not feel like they can sit down and meditate for what ever reson the might precive.
In the light of Rupert's clear calm questioning, poor old Rick seems to squirm around in desperate avoidance. It is as if he is being brought to the edge of a realization that he is just too afraid to admit and not liking it, he responds with a reactionary criticism of Rupert's approach. It's very interesting. Rupert is truly an amazing teacher. I wonder what Rick must have thought when he looked back on this video.
Beautiful !! So simply, so beautifully put!
Doing what Rupert Spira is describing is reminding me of the state of being I had in my early childhood. However, it also feels like it's charging me up with a a sort of intense energy.
Rupert: What does awareness need to do to be aware of itself?
Rick: Is this a trick question?
Hehe. Rick was trying to get the right conceptual answers but Rupert just wanted him to look at his experience right then and there. I like Rupert's approach. It's so simple and direct. Nice Interview, Rick!
I appreciate your work with all the teachers and see more clearly what a effort that is on your part. Good stuff, vincnet
Rupert's kicking ass again!!!
a lot of clarity here. worth repeated viewings. thank you
They are very cute. Great 2 beings in their own way: genuine, natural and down to Earth - all of these are concepts but expressed in the relative world - the world of illusion or dream. Thank you for very clear pointing to our True Selves
Wonderful pointing to what is obvious when honestly investigated. Interesting, also, the apparent competition between the 2 non-duality dualists, at some level. This could be seen as a simple fleshing out of the truth. Rupert clearly will not compromise his vision, or his and ours, present realisations when truly looked into. One cannot help but see, though, the apparant separation between those 2 bodies. This is seen, however, from consciousness itself, is it not? Wonderful dialogue/mononlogue. :-) ♥
Rupert Spira ideas are very beautiful, but I feel that what we need is a deeper understanding of physical reality that is based on physics. An understanding of the nature of time and why we have a future that is always uncertain and a past we can never change.Such an understanding would give us a reason why we have duality in our everyday life, but have the capacity to be aware of nonduality or oneness. This is done by explaining the Universe as a continuum of continuous energy exchange or continuous creation. Each individual life form is in the center of their own reference frame as part of this universal process. Therefore each life form has their own individual view of the Universe creating the duality of everyday life. But this duality is based on the nonduality or oneness of one universal process! This physical process is explained using physics and mathematics. The mathematics is very easy to follow because it represents the dynamic geometry of a physical process in the three dimensional space of everyday life. Is duality formed out of the nonduality of one universal process?
Hi bro,
Menkind has not the measurement united field adjusted instrument like
www.blog.de/media/photo/swp_um_first_constructive_1/7100025
with parse Axiom by a set of definitions the recurrence values.
www.blog.de/media/photo/swp_um_parser_definitions/7100027
These may be represented by an atlas of symbols that lead the way pathway through
www.blog.de/media/photo/g_dt_deckblatt/7100844.
Function may derrive like www.blog.de/community/profile_photo_sizes.php?item_ID=7097762 ... pp. but here shown only in a single one of that plenty "uncertain" propabilities.
Place on earth is just like every place in universe ... that will get *not* that reasoning here meant. The energys from multitude thus far of inertia also too, ar'nt not for evidence. The motion from butterfly wing is'nt evident for causality.
"... that's the problem my friend."
Well, idea imagined here is quite right, but the entity of theoretical seems to be an substitute with *not-knowing* "ever uncertain future" in hope dimish, where the real pure inbetween of prince of these mutual induce emerge to idee.
I'm sorry Rick, I've listened to this 3-4 times now because it's so powerful and each time I hear a defensive Rick. Not sure why you responded the way you did. Overall it may have added to Rupert's points, but it's all good. I appreciate it just the same.
"The mind turned inwards is the Self. Turned outwards , it becomes the Ego and the world."
""Pure mind is absolute consciousness"
~ Ramana Maharshi
Dear rick, your own holding onto your self image doesnt allow you to experience to what is being pointed to.
I guess in an interview format u must talk, but simply doing what he said would have enlightened u.
Your qs are from the very mind which u want to quiten. A little humility would take u right into the heart of what is said.
Nevertheless, thank u for this great oppurtunity to meet
Kavi63, I think your interpretation that Rick is being defensive and arrogant is unfair and untrue. Rick has a long and very deep background in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's philosophy and practice of Transcendental Meditation. This predisposes him to a certain understanding of things spiritual, in spite of his later following of other teachers, and his exposure to so many ideas through his hundreds of interviews.
Rick recognizes the essential value of what Rupert is offering, but it is just taking him time to come around to really listening and practicing. It is very difficult to see the flaws in teachings that have proven themselves over and over again in so many ways, as have Maharishi's teachings for Rick.
But there is one way in which Maharishi's teachings have failed Rick (and many others), and that is in its promise to deliver awakening (self-realization, higher states of consciousness). Rick is doing the best he can, and he deserves our best wishes and support for getting past the blocks of his own beliefs, that have kept him from making the rapid progress he seeks. He is a beautiful, dedicated, honest, humble, and authentic human being who is on his own path, as are we all.
Undoubtedly rick is a beautiful human being doing this great service for which im truly grateful.
But does he want to remain a ' great human being' or discover His Being .
It seemed to me that he did want to move beyond this identity.
I say what im saying through experience of having spent many years seeking.
Only when i recognised that this personal identity needs to go, and i must have faith in the guidance of guru it could happen.
Kavi63 Hare Krishna I appreciate that you have spent many years seeking. Please also appreciate that Rick has spent many years seeking. Give your advice with kindness and love, rather than using a voice of authority or harsh words. Sweetness will help others better than criticism or judgement. We are each of us on our own path, and the passage of time is important for our transformation from belief in a separate self to full awakening. There is no rush for any of us. The Absolute is infinitely patient and eternally available.
Kavi63 Hare Krishna I have to agree wholeheartedly. Rick brings us a wonderful service and many of us are dearly grateful. I guess another gift is that he himself highlights and demonstrates just how one can remain stuck in an intellectual understanding alone. In this and most of his interviews Rick doesn't engage his heart so much as his intellect and even before his guest have completed their replies, has mentally categorised and assimilated the statement which correlates to his innumerable one-liners. I am sure it is all well intentioned, but I agree a measure of humility would work wonders as would a little more silence. Just my own reflections. Thanks
Kavi63 Hare Krishna I get what you're saying and I would bet that Rick does too. Our karmas and vasanas are very different from others and produce different paths towards the same goal as it were. I'm quite sure that Rick is well aware that he tends to be in his head a lot but his head is in the right place! :)
I totally agreed. This is what I experience with the Buddha's guidance. It is the same. We create our own world through seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling & thinking. Even our body. Who am I? Selfless, I'm just a part of nature
Rupert lays a finely-tuned conceptual path to understanding ourselves/reality as undivided consciousness
....fantastic.....real time
illuminting.......thank you
This is so good!
I am really impressed with how Rupert stays calm and clear and makes known his intention to get to the heart of the issue, while Rick is apparently busy denying the use of Rupert's suggestions and falling back on knowledge of things that don't relate to said issue. To Rick's defense, him being the interviewer, it must be a little odd, perhaps even a little threatening or embarrassing to be 'schooled' a second time and I was initially a little bewildered by Rupert's approach to these podcasts/interviews.
hexagonal Yes, I thought both were quite bravely honest and true to themselves. I think, therefore, Rick is far more sincere and not-subservient than some people unnecessarily are - to their detriment!
Thank you, Rupert!!
one of the best videos on youtube shit its like the culmation of all of ruperts teachings I also like the one where he says shut up for a moment, and then he says what more could you want? that's a good one 2
IF YOU FORGIVE AND LOVE YOURSELF THE WHOLE EXISTENCE BECOMES YOUR BODY
I Am the 'ping' inside that never dies, never laughs and never cries. Primordial Peace - the silence before the 'big bang' of a thought.
Whoa! Deep stuff! Rupert Spira speaks the truth! I get what he says! You have to stop over-analyzing, stop being attach to concepts you cling to... and just listen with no bias!
Reading Franklin Merrell-Wolff might help but... might too heady for the simple folks.
The objects, the rising attention and subsiding, resting it into consciousness-without-an-object... I finally get it! Well intellectually. The real knowledge is in experiencing it!
Love u rupert , thank u thank u thank u
So many in the West insist in using eastern analogies, names and terms in order to express themselves in this subject. I suggest you try to use your own words. Rupert is incredibly talented at that. Early on he realized that, since this understanding is universal, we could use our own words to reflect our understanding, and it is so more rewarding.
I was a little surprised watching this interview. I like Rupert Spira, but this time i could see him getting quite reactive towards Rick (which he admited himself) It almost felt like he wanted to dominate the interview and change it from it being a conversation with Rick into his own speech or presentation of his view. I saw him facing the audience more than he was Rick, which i found rude and inappropriate for such dialogue.
For me, Rick was simply Rick, getting maybe a little offensive, but since he is not claming to be fully liberated that seems normal.
In my feeling, Rupert was the one in this talk who showed his limitations more!
Maybe it is a process of embodying his message where he is still evolving. In the case of Adyashanti for example, i feel there is always utter respect for the person who interviews him, no matter the circumstances!
I went to see Rupert a few years ago, this is good , he 's got better or maybe I just got to a place where I can now agree with & understand him
Thank u consciousness
Thank u
You could say body, mind is consciousness, appears in consciousness, but consciousness does not need anything to know itself, because it is the knowing.
I think Rick's resistance to Rupert's demands are similar to various
other students' resistance to Spira's and Lucille's demands in various
Q&A videos of theirs. "Now please think of a pink elephant. Now if
you are thinking of a pink elephant, this means..." etc. What Rick is
demonstrating, is that the technique only works if the student totally
agrees to do exactly what the teacher is asking, and even then the
student might not "get it". (In fact, there is a Lucille youtube video
where a student say "I understand everything you say, but I still need
you to convince me" and then Lucille (Spira's teacher) spends 10-15
minutes in attempting to do this ... and even then the student still says "Sorry, I
just don't buy it."
This "totally agreeing to do exactly what the teacher is asking" is precisely what gets success, and it does so as long as the particular spiritual path is valid.
So, if you were fed a diet of Masterpiece Theatre as a young child, and so perfectly spoken Upper Class English gives you a subconscious sensation of truth, then you are more likely to do exactly what Spira says, than to do exactly what Adyashanti says in his giggly sarcastic California dude voice.
BTW, something that Spira has in common with many teachers, is requiring a strict adherence to logic and "experience" at some points, and then coming up with totally unsupported concepts like "Feeling Understanding" without any explanation of where it comes from, or what it means. (What we call "feelings" are almost always survival instincts that are genetically based - instincts work only because they seem to be an intrinsic part of you.)
And, all throughout this, and other Spira talks, I have the same reservations about his metaphysics and cosmology that RIck expresses at the very end of the talk - they don't "add up" (As Rick said - if Absolute Consciousness could experience itself and that was as sufficient as it would seem to be, then why did it create the Universe of forms?)
Couldn't agree more with your comments here. While I find Spira well-intentioned, and I happen to completely agree with him that consciousness is the ground of being, I find his approach seriously lacks rigour - as you mention, he conflates 'experience', 'consciousness' and 'feeling-understanding' with cavalier abandon. This might be convincing for those who are neophytes in the realm of philosophy of consciousness, or those who just want a practical approach to living that is seemingly accessible to most people (of course, the caveat here being that if what people are accessing is simply wishy-washy teachings, the value of 'accessibility' may not be so high). I also find Spira's approach to be subtly but painfully patronising. He almost never uses the first person to describe his opinions and theories, a tool I see used as a subtle power play by many 'gurus'. It seems to me that his projected aura of 'calmness' will appeal to those want a 'Master' or an 'answer'. I am so glad Rick doesn't just roll over like a puppy-dog and take the guru-bait. Rick raises many poignant questions which Spira simply can't answer. And it is not because there are no answers, it's because Spira's cosmology is overly simplistic. Many yogic and tantric philosophies (and their neutral monist correlates within Western philosophy of consciousness) explain what Rick is getting at, how there can be both a reality of a finite world of manifest forms and objects (Shakti) and a reality of an infinite (not-yet-manifest-in-the-world) consciousness (Shiva). Both of these poles can be considered to play out in Absolute consciousness (Brahman) - and Brahman INCLUDES both the finite and infinite aspects of consciousness. Metaphorically, saying that the wave (finite consciousness) is a part of the ocean (infinite consciousness) is true, yet it doesn't help to explain why there are waves in the first place - which to me seems to be Rick's objection. What Spira seems to do is completely deny the existence (or even our experience) of finite objects and forms. He never explains why the level of enquiry to which he goes should constitute more of a reality than the ordinary reality, he just asserts it as such. Both the ordinary reality and the infinite reality occur in 'experience', so if he wants to base his cosmology on this, he can't simply pick and choose which levels of experience he wants to be 'real' - and yet this is exactly what he does. I wrote a whole thesis on this at the Australian National University, supervised by Prof. David Chalmers, one of the world's top philosophers of consciousness. I also run my own yoga and philosophy centre as my full-time job, so I am not making any of these assertions from the perspective of being intellectually pernickety for the sake of it. I say what I say as an offering that comes from deep devotion to the light of consciousness. It seems to me that most people have mistaken Rick's discernment, rigorous enquiry and humility for lack of understanding and ignorance. I honour and support Rick's diligent enquiry. I wish more of us would keep our wits about us in conversations like this.
Odette. Thank you for your time and passion in writing down your response. I appreciate it deeply.
Quote: "He never explains why the level of enquiry to which he goes should constitute more of a reality than the ordinary reality, he just asserts it as such Both the ordinary reality and the infinite reality occur in 'experience', so if he wants to base his cosmology on this, he can't simply pick and choose which levels of experience he wants to be 'real' - and yet this is exactly what he does."
The overall philosophy he uses is that of Ramana Maharshi and Advaita Vedanta (Shankara, Gaudapada).
David Godman once wrote in his blog on Ramana Maharshi:
"In everyday English the word ‘real’ generally denotes something that can be perceived by the senses. As such, it is a misleading translation of the Sanskrit word ‘sat’, which is often rendered in English as ‘being’ or ‘reality’. Bhagavan, along with many other Indian spiritual teachers, had a completely different definition of reality:
Bhagavan: What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging. (Maharshi’s Gospel, p. 61)
In Indian philosophy reality is not determined by perceptibility but by permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity. This important definition is elaborated on in the dialogue from which the above quotation has been taken...As for the word ‘world’, Muruganar points out in his comments to verses 63 and 64 that the Sanskrit word for world, ‘loka’, literally means ‘that which is seen’.
If one combines this definition of the word ‘world’ with the standard of reality set by Bhagavan, the question, ‘Is the world real?’ becomes an enquiry about the abiding reality of what is perceived: ‘Do things that are perceived have permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity?’ The answer to that question is clearly ‘no’. The names and forms perceived by a seer do not meet the standard of reality defined by Bhagavan, and as such they are dismissed as ‘unreal’.
According to Bhagavan these names and forms appear in Brahman, the underlying substratum. Brahman does meet the stringent test for reality outlined above since it, and it alone, is permanent, unchanging and self-luminous. If one accepts these definitions, it follows that Brahman is real, whereas the world (the collection of perceived names and forms) is unreal. This formulation,
‘Brahman is real; the world is unreal’ is a standard and recurring statement in vedantic philosophy.
Vedanta is the philosophy that is derived from the Upanishads, the final portions of the Vedas, and the subdivision of it that tallies with Bhagavan’s teachings is known as ‘advaita’, which translates as ‘not two’. ‘Not two’ means, among other things, that there are not two separate entities, Brahman and the world; all is one indivisible whole. This point is important to remember since it is at the crux of the apparently paradoxical statements that Bhagavan made on the nature and reality of the world and its substratum. Since there is nothing that is separate from Brahman, it follows that the names and forms that appear and manifest within it partake of its reality. This means that when the world is known and directly experienced to be a mere appearance in the underlying Brahman, it can be accepted as real, since it is no longer perceived as a separate entity. If one knows oneself to be Brahman, one knows that the world is real because it is indistinguishable from one’s own Self. However, if one merely perceives external names and forms, without experiencing that substratum, those forms have to be dismissed as unreal since they do not meet the strict definition of reality.
Bhagavan summarised this position in the following reply:
Shankara [a ninth century sage and philosopher who was the principal populariser of advaita Vedanta] was criticised for his views on maya without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman is real, (2) The universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence maya and reality are one and the same. (Guru Ramana, p. 65)"
Thanks TheKStuart.... I am well aware of everything you have raised regarding Advaita philosophy, having explored it in depth in my thesis and in my work as an East-West philosophy teacher and spiritual practitioner. However, none of your points actually speak to the bones of what I am getting at. A whole bunch self-referential quotes about Bhagavan's personal "strict definition" of reality does not constitute a rigorous philosophical case from my perspective. Sorry, but it ain't gospel just because he says it is. And to state that 'Indian philosophy' agrees with the Advaita view that reality is changeless, is wildly reductive - as I mentioned, many Indian yogic and tantric paths do not adhere to this view at all.
All that aside, like I mentioned above, I'm certainly not here to be pernickety for the sake of it. I'm all about shedding light (not dogma) on these "things" we call consciousness and reality. And something piques my interest - I am actually quite curious as to why you brought up these quotes at all. Because unless I have misinterpreted you, prima facie these seem to pose themselves in contradistinction to my commentary. However, in some of your previous comments, we seem to be in quite striong resonance in terms of (in your words) "reservations about [Spira's] metaphysics and cosmology". So, what's the deal? :)
I quoted a small portion of your comment where you stated: "he can't simply pick and choose which levels of experience he wants to be 'real'" and then quoted from a blog on Advaita Vedanta to show that this portion of Spira's teaching is not his personal choice, but rather the viewpoint of Vedanta. In fact, it is also the viewpoint of Buddhism (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence ).
If you follow the double quotes in my comment, you will see that the person you were arguing with is David Godman, not me.
As you can see, youtube comments are not a good structure for debating which major philosophical system is more accurate and such issues.
Rick Archer I enjoy your presence. Through the talk i felt my gaze being taken to you. ( the thought did arise how would this talk feel with out the vision of it)
As awareness you were abiding . I saw Ruperts passion too. I think its funny we think that that moment could have been any other way. Do you know for me I think the peace lie in the letting go of the judge (inner and outer). Some how i feel we have something to do with the Character the flavour of this presence. Do you see the light or the dark. I dont think we would find it very interesting if there were two Ricks talking or Two Ruperts. There is this great beauty in this amazingly diverse garden if we would just stop trampling on it there could only be peace. This idea of just speaking and hearing with out the desire or the impression of wanting it to be just one way.
I really want to be this open accepting awareness this complete softeness that just flows. I hope the feeling im trying to convey come across more than the words being used.
I enjoyed Rick and Rupert and most importantly the message God was trying to get across. Can I hear and see clearly and just enjoy the view, I ask myself?
This is from the prophet:
Then said a teacher, "Speak to us of Teaching."
And he said:
No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of our knowledge.
The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness.
If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.
The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.
The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it.
And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither.
For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.
And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth.
When Rupert said, "Treat everything as God's infinite being," I thought of Walt Whitman's words from Song of Myself:
" I hear and behold God in every object....
I see something of God each hour of the twenty-four,
and each moment, then,
In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass."
keep up Rick.
Your problem Rick here is that Rupert gives you some practical exercises to do in the moment approached with fresh mind but you instead of doing that, instantly go back to your accumulated knowledge and ideas. I can clearly see that you don't even do what Rupert asks you to do, you immediately jump back to your database in your head and try to find an answer there
JechtNH On the contrary, I feel Rick is being himself and rather naughty - which is delightful...
I don't value people who mould themselves into the perfect student for a certain teacher, a 'yes person, but who THEREFORE probably LEARN less!
Julian Bates That's not what I meant at all. Yes his attitude is great in general and he is an honest seeker and good interviewer, but I explained why he had such difficulty seeing what Rupert is pointing at. Rupert wanted to make Rick experience what he was talking about and to speak from this experience, in the very moment. All that Rupert wanted from him is to not respond with all the accumulated ideas he had about the phenomena, Rupert wanted him to respond from pure experiencing in that particular moment without going back to accumulated knowledge. Rick has a lot of intellectual knowledge of the Self/Consciousness and he tries to respond with that knowledge. Rupert wants him not to speak from mind gathered knowledge, but to experience it on his own. To use a metaphor, Rick here is like a guy who knows everything about swimming, how to behave in water, how water feels like etc. only from reading books and listening to others. Rupert wants him not to speak these ideas, he wants him to get into water, experience it himself
JechtNH And I will say to you that again he did respond with his authenticity in that moment, in the mood he was in - almost deliberately staying outside what Rupert commanded at first - perhaps demonstrating his fear/reluctance to do what Rupert was saying. He is also a go-between between Rupert and what viewers may be having difficulty with! I say let Rick be himself and evolve into this awareness - as he himself implied, rather than take the Guru's instruction in front of many people! I am not sure your reading was quite what was going on - that he was merely responding from his 'database'.
Rick is well-aware of Rupert's insistence on one's own awareness - the 'I am aware' bit, but I liked the slight tension, and I imagine Rupert did as well, and I would suggest, Rupert appreciated what he was doing.
I know Rick well from his interviews and like it that he never feels subservient to all he interviews. He did behave himself more in the last half! ;)
This is my impression of fit all - having known them both via this media :)
Julian Bates People seem to assume that 46 years of dedicated spiritual practice hasn't resulted in much for me. As an interviewer, I don't feel it is appropriate to dwell much on my own experience.
Well, when I get to see them, I love what you make available to us... not only the person you are interviewing, but also - as my point above alludes to, we value your input being you, equally. I do, anyway.
Perhaps your experience/wisdom is intuited by what and how you respond to who you are interviewing - even if it is not purely your direct experience...
I just felt you were being yourself in this interview... It was Alive!... I remember what teachers do indeed say - that they prefer the sincere person, rather than the one who knows 'all the answers' - but does not necessarily respond form their experience.
As to the knowledge/insight/etc. we have, it is not always necessary to put it into words... Can anything like that be 'objectified', or put out there... Maybe when we least expect it
. Thanks anyway, Rick!
P.S. I have to admit - the bit on 'there is just God's Infinite Being'' really blew me away, - because I was open to this at that time,
============================.
Dear Rick: Love your interviews! Thank you! I sensed you struggling w/what Rupert was attempting to lead you to...May I suggest you check out the brainoptimization.com website & the Psychology of Consciousness with Emphasis on Non-Duality course (Awakening Protocol)..I'm in the 2nd month of the 5 month course and the organism ("I") is Awake and in the process of embodying the Awakening---excellent course for those of us wanting to go beyond metaphysics (which wasn't working for me in real life). Just a suggestion...
Oh man, I love Rick Archer! He is the Spiritual Everyman, the Classic Seeker who, with many years of spiritual experiences behind him, seems to find it impossible to drop his developed intellectual stance and mental distance from what Rupert is talking about or trying to explicate here because Rick seems to only want confirmation of what he already knows... When Mr Archer uses quotes from The Gita, etc, trying to intellectually relate with or comment on what Rupert is saying, it seems to promote (apparently unbeknownst to him) exactly the opposite effect - it keeps him locked into his preconceived understanding. In doing this instinct tells me that he will never cross "the line drawn in the sand" his mind has drawn till he lets go of his mind/rigid mental stance. And so there will have to be more and more interviews... which is undoubtable what his mind wants!! LOL!
+Alicea Sarawati: if you don't relate to or trust Rupert, who do you believe is a real Teacher?
Alicea Saraswati No need to apologize, Alicea. Since you were so strong in your condemnation of Mr Spira I thought perhaps you had something specific you were promoting from your own experience. But judging by your answer this appears not to be the case... And now I'M sorry back at you if it seems that you (and others reading my initial post) might think I was "condemning" Mr Archer. Quite the contrary. I love Rick A for the boldness (or is it hubris?) with which he sticks to his apparent beliefs which, if they are really honest and admit it, most "spiritual seekers" also essentially believe: that they are separate entities/realities that need to reason their way into "Enlightenment" or Higher Reality using their mind as the tool... which is sorta like attempting to work on a fine piece of electronics with a sledgehammer...
Alicea Saraswati Dear Alicea.
Thank you for your beautiful, intensive and very genuine reply to my earlier post. I think your queries are right on and a exposition of what so many of us have and do go thru if we are serious and thoughtful about matters of The Spirit and Authentic Self. And I want to say right off that I too have had many of these same questions/doubts before (and possibly will again) about the "concepts", motives and integrity of various characters in the "Neo Adavita" group, including the ones you mention. And, at the risk of disappointing you if you're spoiling for an argument/good conflict over their teachings, I also have to admit upfront that I have been around the "Spiritual Culture" and this sort of thing long enough to know that all I know for certain is what I have experienced myself. And what I've experienced in my study of Adavita Vedanta/Juana Yoga/Whatever over the last 6 years or so is nothing short of a renaissance of Spirit in my life. From the moment I stumbled upon (almost literally) Tolle's Power of Now, which I found distilled the fundamental "idea" or kernel of all the Buddhist and Hindu scripture I'd read over many years ("which seems to be quite common for centuries or much more if we only look at the history of mysticism" as you say) and made it truly understandable/accessible/laid bare to me for the first time ever, I have been drawn ever deeper into the question of who/what I really am and what am I doing here and now?.. Listening to hours of downloaded audio of E.T. (the Extraterrestrial! ;-)) from his retreats ("in beautiful clubs for holidaymakers" - love that!) I gleaned many of his sources, the origins of some of his ideas, and then pursued them: books and videos on/by Nissargadatta, Sri Ramana, etc etc etc. This then lead me to the websites (including one run by a gentleman also in this stream of commentary on the above video - Chris Hebard) which featured several "contemporary" teachers, one of whom was/is Mr. Spira. And I have to also admit that I found his speeches compelling and revealing of the Truth as I intuited it (tho that said I have seen a video or two of his on TH-cam where I felt his pedantry showed a tad too excessively, to the point of what's the point, Rupert?)... But anyway, The Point for me is that it's NOT a solipsistic, "feel good technique" at all that is being put forth by Mr Spira and that most (if not all) of the folks you mention as "Charlatans" are (I believe) genuine and authentic in their concern and feelings for their work and humankind. However, as we are all human beings and as such not perfect (which Mr Spira has admitted himself on one occasion) and have to speak to "others" thru this persona, the human body/mind and as such ego will rear it's head, with the attendant fears, desires, missteps etc etc...
But to get to what you really seem to be wanting from me: what do I believe is the truth of this "Neo Advaita" and the true use of the mind in spiritual practice? Again, I can/will only speak of my experience but ever since I had my "ah-HA" with ET's work I have been in and out of feeling (and therefore understanding) The Bliss (which I now understand as an early, elemental stage of "Awakening") and seeing that thru this "stateless state" one can indeed "...radically change or annihilate the mind and teach a spiritual path that can help others". However, I should add that one never should attempt to annihilate the mind as it's really like trying to chew your own hand off! The mind is a terrific instrument (which is what it's real function is) and is really your best ally once you stop putting it's whims and whining ahead of your own True Desire (for God Realization, to quote a source ;-)).
Anyway, that is what I feel. And as far as charging for spiritual teaching is concerned (a Big Deal Discussion in spiritual circles) I would add that it's only necessary if you think it is. There are many "free" resources for study, as I know you know, and therefore to condemn someone for charging is to really reveal one's own issues with money/energy exchange. As Jesus (incidentally a teacher ET helped me finally understand and "reconcile" with) supposedly said in Matthew 7:3 about the sawdust in another believers eye, I don't want to ignore the log in my own!
All the best and love to you Alicea! I hope this is helpful/what you were asking about...
D
Alicea Saraswati ... after rereading my last entry to you I realized that, over-long as it was, it was missing a real comment on your two main points: what good is all this "Neo Advaita" stuff to the problems of the world and isn't it just avoiding the world's problems by learning to be falsely "positive" and blissful all the time? By just putting a Sunshine Bandaid on the gross shit going down on the Planet? What good is the fucking Bliss anyway?"... And to this I say that yes, it could indeed appear to "make people more egocentric, selfish and completely apathetic with their insane 'positive thinking'" as you say and perhaps some are going that way. But I don't feel that is real message here nor is it my experience, which actually has me MUCH more empathetic/sympathetic and respectful of ALL people and their beliefs/concepts because another name for the Bliss (Happiness or the "uncaused Joy beyond good and bad") is acceptance of the way things are, right now, not letting things annoy me or "have" to be other than they are. This makes me much more capable of "doing good" in the world, for anybody who embraces this approach to life. This makes making "peace" with life (and all the creatures in it) so much more possible. And this is truly the Power of Now. The Now isn't a moment it's the space the moment takes place in, if that makes any sense (when you really get down to the nitty gritty of this stuff Alicea it gets harder to verbalize because ALL LANGUAGE IS OF THE MIND)...
And this brings me to the second thing you wrote about which is: "But sincerely, what else do you have if not the mind to practice the so-called 'direct path'"? Alicea, it is, again, hard to talk about things that are not of the mind with the mind but the best I can say is that the "practice" of being "direct" is to be on another wave-length, so to speak, than the mind and to discover (and therefore trust) that there is an intelligence, so to speak, that is much larger than the mind, that speaks to all of us thru our intuition, "in our deepest self", that anyone can develop the "skill" of listening to and that teaches and leads us. I believe it is this "Source" that all great Wisdom Teachers throughout time have "tuned" into (for lack of better words for it) and used as the source of their teachings. And because it is actually beyond the individual it also can seem to come out of fools, "Charlatans" and unusual sources at times... Does this make sense to you? I'm very sorry for my lack of eloquence on this Alicea but my heart is really trying to make this clear to you, to give you an sense of what I see in these teachers....
peace, D
David Dollase You expressed it very eloquently, thank you very much.
Alicea Saraswati Happy new year to you too. I enjoy reading your comments, btw :) Thank you for putting effort and time for it. I like understanding different ideas and thoughts on this subject.
Beautiful... :-)
i do not understand why Rick is being attacked for acting in a way that most of us do. When confronted with something new, or that doesn't fit out current view of the world, it is natural to refer back to our conceptual "comfort zone". I find myself doing it all the time. I suspect that is why so many of us are still "searching"!
1:27:00: Rick tries very hard and very persistently to make Rupert agree with him and to say what Rick is saying and finally Rupert obliges :-)
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
No offense to Rick at all, a great interviewer giving tons of topics for people to feed on... but I feel that
Rick just didn't understand the point Rupert was trying to express: that consciousness is all there is. There is nothing other than consciousness. Everything is an experience
of consciousness. The meta physical stuff Rick was trying to talk about is completely irrelevant because the only reality of meta physics exists in
consciousness...If there were something outside of consciousness, you
wouldn't know about it (which means it wouldn't exist for you), because all you are/know is consciousness.
+danielconditioning I get that consciousness is all there is. See my talk at the SAND conference the next year, which Rupert attended: batgap.com/rick-archer-science-nonduality-conference/. As I recall, the point I was trying to bring out is that since consciousness is all there is, the self-interacting dynamics of consciousness must be responsible for apparent physical creation.
do you understand this in your own experience or is it just a belief or conceptual thing?
Own experience. I've been meditating for 48 years. That's what it's for. But experience and understanding can always be clearer.
what kind of meditation/practice do you do? Any recommendations? Also, the reason why people experience consciousness to be everything, from my understanding, is because they realize that there is no self and therefore no separate entity called a subject. Since there is no subject, you can't really say there are any objects either (which rupert explains well). This concludes to the realization that everything must be one thing, and since we clearly only know our subjective experience, we can say that everything is consciousness. I've done a lot of meditation and still have no experiential understanding of it. Do you need to have a complete realization that there is no self to understand this by experience? What is your experience of reality and how does your experience show you that everything is consciousness. .Sorry for the long question.
I learned Transcendental Meditation when I was 18 (1968) and taught it for 25 years. No longer in the TM movement, but I still do a variation of it. As its name implies, it resulted in transcendental "experience" from day one. Some traditions call that no self. Some call it Self. Anyway, through daily practice the "experience" gets integrated. I put it in quotes because it's not an experience involving objects, as are other experiences. I know that there are people whose experience is clearer than mine, but I have an abiding sense that I'm everywhere, I'm nowhere, and I'm right here. Does that make sense? It doesn't depend upon my thinking about it.
*Roughly a 1.9 on the new -3 to +3 scale. Disclaimers at the end of the comment.*
This is a very good interview ! The 0.1 below the 2.0 is due to the BS flag I called regarding 1:12:00, see my other comment below.
_About the rating: anything below and including 0 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative + 2 - 2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 ratings as a matter of principle._
*General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
I don't agree with your low rating for this interview.
All one needs to find out who one really is, is in this interview.
No unnecessary belief systems in Spira's teaching. To me this is probably the closest that one can come to pure Truth.
Sebastian Taeggi _"your low rating for this interview"_ *What are you smoking ? I find this interview to be of exceptionally high value !* The 1.9 is only 0.1 points below the highest possible rating of 2.0 short of original cosmological revelations, and that subtraction is due to the false claim I commented on in the other commentary. I am not reposting the _About_ and *Disclaimer* sections of a rating for no reason because all these idiots who keep projecting their false assumptions about my ratings without asking first. But your blindness seems to be exceptionally extreme among them as you keep projecting further still even though I explicitly refuted them in the rating. You are a good example for what I have observed over the decades: the so called "spiritual" crowd seems to be exceptionally base, uneducated, arrogant, stupid and mean spirited, particularly since they like to mask the disgusting expression of their low character with all kinds of sweet and spiritual sounding platitudes.
well, true - I didn't know you and I only commented based on your comparison with the rating you give to Francis Bennett (2.0) and to Harri Alto (2.5 if I am not wrong, your highest).
Just this one reaction to my comment shows me that you are spmeone I don't need to connect with, though.
Enjoy your bitterness.
Sebastian Taeggi _"I didn't know you and I only commented based on your comparison with the rating you give to Francis"_ I didn't do that at all. It's just that you are totally immune to facts, such as my descritpions of my ratings you are obsessed reacting to, ignore what others actually say and waste their time trying to insult them. You don't need to connect with me ? Oh what a loss =:) Then stop it already and get a life.
That was fun.
Dear Rupert can you do this process of attention during deep sleep ? Of course not.
Why? Because the Conscious mind (buddhi) is sleeping deeply.
Attention is the reflected Consciousness in the buddhi. When the mind (manas ) remains without an object the buddhi (which is only consciousness in motion) 'takes the form' (words are limited) of consciousness. There is not in and out in this experience because consciousness is beyond space and time, forms and sensations..
No one has any evidence that consciousness is not present during sleep. Indeed, falling asleep is very enjoyable because as the outside world fades away, consciousness remains. What ceases is the mind, including memory. Without memory, we can't remember what sleep was really like--that we were aware the whole time. It is only our beliefs that tell us lies about reality. Our experience is always reliable. Most of us choose to accept beliefs and the products of the mind. That is what keeps us suffering.
David Spector The point we are we talking about s that when you are sleeping deeply you are not conscious of this bliss. It doesn't matter if the consciousness is awake. Your conscious mind is asleep and therefore you are not enjoying the bliss of deep sleep consciously.
***** That was the exact point I addressed. Did you read my last comment?. Your belief that we are not conscious of bliss during sleep has not a shred of evidence, and, in fact, after the shift called self-realization, this bliss is finally remembered. There is no difference between consciousness, awareness, bliss, peace, freedom, love, or happiness. They are eventually seen as synonyms for pure, absolute, spacious awareness. That is ultimately all there is, as verified by our own experience, even prior to self-awareness. That is what Rupert is saying. I'd explain further, but I'm not sure what you are missing. Rupert speaks so clearly...
David Spector What I say its not my belief, its my actual experience, that is to say, during my deep sleep I have no experience of anything. Rubert speaks so clearly, and I speak very clearly too. Also I´m not missing anything, you think that I´m missing something. When the ´I´ falls , bliss is experienced without a break , when the ´I´ is present, people fall in deep sleep to find little rest
***** What constitutes an "actual experience" depends on the state of consciousness. In deep sleep, there is no experience, for the mind (thinking, feeling, remembering, sensing, and perceiving) does not function.
Thus, there is no relative experience during deep sleep. This leaves awareness free to enjoy and experience itself without the usual veiling that occurs during the waking state.
Thus, the same awareness that we experience during waking and dreaming states is also experienced during deep sleep, according to Rupert.The only difference is that in deep sleep there is no veiling due to the illusory separate self (the ego).
Since there is no veiling, there is no obstruction to the bliss of full awareness.
You say you have no actual experience of anything during deep sleep. You are correct. But awareness is not a thing, it is not an object. It is the foundation of all experience, not an experience itself. Experiences are modulations within awareness. They are not separate from awareness, although they can seem to be due to our beliefs as a separate self (prior to awakening).
This is the explanation for your apparent experience of nothingness during deep sleep: what you remember is nothingness, because your mind was not active. There seemed to be simply a gap in time, since it requires the activity of the limited mind to measure time within the unlimited field of awareness. It is impossible to remember the full value of awareness that we experience during deep sleep until after self-realization (awakening), because our memory does not continue intact until then.
This is an explanation of the apparently contradictory nature of deep sleep.
You seem to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and even some of the Sanskrit terms relating to it. Why is Rupert's description of deep sleep not clear to you? At this point I have stated his position, as I understand it, several times. Our discussion needs to stop now. I can only recommend that you watch some of Rupert's videos on deep sleep at TH-cam, as I have, so you can hear these concepts directly from Rupert. Best of luck in listening and understanding. You can always return here and comment further if you have new points to make.
Rick does some great interviews, but it seemed at every turn he interrupted Rupert with some metaphor or analogy. It would be nice to hear Rick speak from his truth instead of what he has read. If Rick allowed each guest to communicate their truth instead of it being compared to a revered and enlightened masters quote it would make the interview more applicable to our personal lives. As long as there are enlightened masters and regular unenlightened beings (duality) we will have seekers.
Yes, L Cc, I believe you hit the nail on the head, so to speak. That is why Mr Spira tried to stop him from constantly quoting the Gita during the interview, because he could see that Mr Archer was just spouting what he had already learned from books and from his intellect and it all seemed rather remote and even like Mr Archer was bored... What Mr Spira appeared to be doing, to my ears, was to try bringing Mr Archer into a direct experience of his authentic "self" but, as he has usually done in any of the 10 or so interviews I've seen him give before, Mr Archer chooses to stay within his "ego shell" and not come out and "play". He even gets defensive about Mr Spira quoting an author later in the interview because he can't see that what Mr Spira is doing is different from what he was doing, ie: is not some rote quote. But Mr Spira steps back from what he was driving at and says Mr Archer is right about complaining but I think he is just being kind...
I invite everyone who likes Rupert's teachings to check out a short text called "The Present" on TruthContest. It shares many truths with his teachings and explains spirituality very simple, based on science and in line with actual experience. Very interesting text for every person on spiritual journey. Enjoy :)
rupert switch your word to presence awareness is only available in presence HAN SOLO here and now all is one the mind is always in suffering in past or future guilt or fear god is only available in the present his presence will save us from the past future
worrier god GOD is now and unconditional LOVE FOR EVRYONE WHICH BRINGS PEACE AND JOY AND NONJUDGEMENTAL LOVE FOR ALL
I understand that consciousness is aware of itself as pure being and that it exists even in deep sleep, but for sometime now when consciousness arises as attention it is focuses on depression and thoughts of anxiety which makes my sentient existence difficult to deal with. I know there is in reality no little me and that only the source is real but can what arises out of it be changed.
Mae rik Maybe. But what can surely be changed is you - your attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, perspective(s). Not saying I have any grand answers - or even that such things exist. Since everything is relative - at least in the illusive world in which most believe - then there's no one answer that works for everyone on anything. All one can say is, "It depends..."
What I found helpful, tho, was to quit identifying with the physical so much, with the body-mind aspect of being. Knowing we're consciousness - whether called spirit or soul or Source or what have you - by identifying with that your perspective changes. It's amazing, how everything else changes with that shift - how it flips your whole reality, eventually (if you stick with it).
The 3D part is hugely important, so I'm not saying to ignore or trash it - but some time spent on shifting perspective in the midst of it all is great fun - and ultimately useful. I guess it just depends on what you're after. ;-)
~♥~
Harshness nor arrogance was meant.
If there be no rush nor urgency then all is well
Yes ,in Infinite patience we will Recognize What we already are
My study for years did not bring me closer to the Truth
Just simply recognizing that i did not know
Opened the path to faith n doing as the Guru said.
Someone says: "Just look at this simple fact of being aware". The other guy 'understands': "There are small practical steps one can take towards realizing the true self." Ehm yes, but what was really meant was: "Just look and see that you are awareness." The self is always realized in the consciousness of individual existence. It is, however, obscured by the very thoughts that 'reveal' it. It's as if the moon is saying to itself that one day it may shine like the sun, once it has got rid of the moonlight! It would be right and completely missing the point at the same time! Its very own 'moonlight' IS sunlight. The self is closer by than you think.
❤❤❤❤❤🌞
ONENESS - It can be argued and possibly, even proven that the Consciousness is potentially ONE.
Unconsciousness is undeniably one ...(as well as none)... ...without needing any argument or proving.
Unconsciousness is the end of all differentiations.
I guess Rupert needs to always do his teaching thing. No room for two-way conversation or even being interviewed
Dear Rick you are aware that you are aware (during the waking state if you are not lost in forgetfulness) and this is self evintent but you cannot say the same thing during deep sleep, because the conscious mind is sleeping. This is the proof that awareness cannot be aware of itself without the aid of the conscious mind.
Yet I could offer you many quotes from awakened people who say that pure awareness is not lost during sleep, or even under anesthesia.
Rick Archer
If they have this experience is because the mind in them which is different from the brain is not sleeping. In fact when they are aware of their sleeping this is meditation. Conscious sleeping is meditation. This answer I had also by a Swami in the ashram of Swami Sivanada at rishikesh India.
*****
Is it the mind that's not sleeping, or is it that pure consciousness is awake to itself, while mind, senses, and body sleep? After all, the Gita says "the Self realizes itself by itself."
Rick Archer
Hello Rick, Mind and consciousness are not two different things. Pure mind is Consciousness and Consciousness in motion mixed with forms is Mind. If we consider Mind and Consciousness as two different things we acept duality as a reality.
Baghavand gita says the truth. But Gita says also in 18 chapters how the devotee of truth will realize the truth and how will purify his mind. As you already know, words are limited and when we speak or think about one thing or topic all other aspects of the same thing are not mentioned because the mind can think and speak one thing every time.
For these reason the sacred texts and the sayings of great masters can (and have been) be misunderstood if we have not a comprehensive overview of the teaching.
I tell you only one more thing. If the Self realizes itself by itself without the aid of a pure buddhi then why the Self is not realized by itself in the millions of earthlings who have impure minds?
Do you thing that all earthlings are at the level of Buddha, Christ, Krishna etc.? I do not think so.
The play of Maya is uncoprehensible and all teachings especially the advaita do not focus the how and the why of Maya but how to free ourselves from the Maya. It is very simple but very difficult at the same time because MAya is so seductive.
Thank you for this oppurtunity we have to speak about the truth and enjoy the unity of life and spirit
Atman
One more point is that if buddhi is not necessary to realize the Self then all animals (which haven't buddhi) are Self-realized. Moreover all humans no matter the state of their mind (criminals, prostitutes, thieves, liers, greedy, brutal, violent people etc. ) are also self-realized because the Self in them does not need their mind in order to be conscious of Itself.
Finally all those who did and all those who do sadhana nowadays in order to purify their mind and realize the Self by selfenquiry or meditation lost or lose their time because the Self in them is already realized.
Is this true?
Does Consciousness needs a mind and body to know itself?
First task is to... ...accurately and fully describe consciousness. What is that definition?
The 'I also is not always present in our daily experience if we mean as 'I the ego. Most of the time is, but there are moments that it is not. How often happens this dependes on the purity of mind.
The 'I (ego) it is not the knower. The knower is the buddhi and the buddhi knows thanks to the light of consciousness that reflects on it. Of course finally the ultime knower is the consciousness because the buddhi cannot know without the light of consciousness and the buddhi as I said is Consciousnessin in motion.
Hi Rick Archer and ***** . I would just like to share with you both my take on the metaphysical, cosmological stuff that Rick mentioned in the interview, which I agree may be helpful for some seekers in answering the pesky, nagging questions that they may have about why an apparent universe seems to manifest at all in spite of the absolutely perfect self-sufficience of the infinite, eternal pure awareness that we are. Here's how I would answer that question;
In truth, Reality itself can have no real ultimate 'edge', in any direction at all, in expanse or duration.
The very presence of any conceivable 'absence of Reality' that may intuitively seem to inherently remain boundlessly beyond such an edge would forever ensure, in and of itself, that its own essential condition of 'absolute lack of presence' could NEVER be met. Consequently, this apparent absence is always already encompassed by (and therefore, included 'within') the ever-remaining causeless, boundless presence that is Reality itself, which is, as such, not a 'thing'.
In truth, Reality fundamentally equals 'ZERO'. That is to say, actually, there isn't anything.
Yet, the very 'ISness' of this 'ZERO' inextricably equals 'ONE'.
Being intrinsically infinite and eternal, 'ONE' is forever choicelessly aware of (and is therefore effortlessly experiencing) the eternal infinity that is 'ONE', all the while remaining (due to its fundamentally attributeless nature) absolutely unrequiring of (and thus, completely devoid of) any capacity for the formation of any kind of 'knowledge' of 'itself', or of 'anything else'.
This is the stateless state of 'pure awareness'. It simply 'is', without beginning, ending or edge, always already perfect and complete, and absolutely sufficient unto itself. As such, it remains forever in an unfathomable state of unthreatenable bliss.
This, alone, is 'What Actually 'IS'', 'Here' and 'Now'.
As 'ONE' experiences 'ONE', 'ONE' SEEMS to be 'TWO'. These illusory 'TWO' are 'the seer' and 'the seen'. The seen is fundamentally manifested as the state of 'absolute chaos' (finite, ever-changing and moving form). The seer is fundamentally manifested as the state of 'absolute order' (infinite, ever-changeless and still emptiness).
'From' the eternal interaction between this apparent 'pair', 'Everything' happens, in the ONLY way that it possibly can;
'THIS' way.
In other words, the so-called 'big bang' (which is one in an infinite series of such bangs) can be described as an instantaneous event of pure chaos (the seen) that happens in the infinite field of changeless and orderly emptiness (the seer). When this occurs, the passive 'gaze' of the field causes the event to coherently 'evaporate', unresistingly, via the orderly path of least resistance until it has completely dissolved, and then another bang happens, and so on forever. The evaporation itself (which can ONLY happen perfectly) is the seemingly causal and sequential 'life' of the universe, along with all of its apparently coherent hierarchical structure and physical 'laws'.
Being an evaporation, it doesn't really have any actual 'parts', that are fundamentally different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they seem to be.
Therefore, every'thing', every'one', and every 'event' EVER is actually an 'apparent part' of the forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfurling of this one choiceless effect, which is itself comprised ONLY of the one causeless, unencompassed, self-aware presence that is 'ZERO'.
Ultimately 'Here' and 'Now', without another, forever and ever;
((((('THIS'-EXPERIENCING-'THIS')))))
Where is the attention in answering "Are you aware?" - Heart and the middle of the skull.
The sufi's say that wherever the 'I falls there is the face of god but the 'I and the conscious mind or buddhi are two different things.
When the 'I falls the Buddhi asumes its original state which is Consciousness.
Rupert ask you. What we have to do in order to be conscious that we are conscious? The answer is nothing.
But because we do not do nothing to be conscious we cannot conclude that the buddhi is not necessary to happen this selfknowing.
That is a difficult question, is the measuring mind necessary? The Buddha answer is no Jana without discernment, no Discernment without Jana so both are required. So maybe there is an invisible sub level of cognitive perception in awareness. This could be an instinctual neuro-path in the brain. Don't think source consciousness needs a great deal of mindful noting though - that maybe superfluous and distracting.. It is just maybe accessing an invisible sub level of brain together in the space of awareness. Then again Rupert could be correct but does it really matter-- same type experience of being with differing description.
LOL Rick is being so difficult here
Very frustrating interview at times. Rupert is trying to get down to basics, and Rick is replying with textbook answers, or second guessing the final answer. Rupert looses his train of thought, and we loose the thread of conversation. Good all the same.
Just finished it, thanks Rick, have a beer BuddhaAtTheGasPump *****
That is just Rick being Rick and I for one, am glad that he does what he does, imperfect as it may be. :)
You are being defensive Rick; Just take the position of being the student and listen and try to answer Rupert's questions.
Rupert seems peaceful until "Materialists" get mentioned😮
Rupert says that consiousness doesn't need to do anything to realize it self that is self luminus (It is), but forgets that consciousness has already created this vast universe in order Rupert to realize himself as consciousness.
Maya is so playful indeed.
Consciousness is pure Beingness and not even this. We cannot say nothing about this. It is beyond any mentation.
1:12:00 BS flag: it is not true that in suffering "by definition we are longing for happiness". I would be very pleased to get a reliable promise from God that I will utterly cease to exist forever in any shape of form tomorrow because then my suffering will surely end and no happiness will arise instead. I don't care for happiness at all anymore, I just want suffering to cease.
Soteriologe Are you creating your own suffering?
Jan Martin Ulvåg Can't see how your question - even if I understood it - were relevant to my point above.
Soteriologe That's why you suffer
Soteriologe You are not narcissistic?
Jan Martin Ulvåg Even if that latest red herring were true, it would be totally irrelevant since I didn't approach you unasked and played your guru in as dilettantic a manner as you did. Deal with the issue of *the initial point* instead and please leave me alone until you do. If you do so honestly, you will find there will be nothing to add, *Spira is just plain wrong at that point*. I will repost my last post because it explains why to those without sufficient intelligence to immediately notice it by themselves. Please leave me alone now.
Sathu Sathu Sathu, mind and consciousness always exist because of 5 skandhas and because of 6 receptors. Mind and consciousness always appear and always disappear all the times depend on a focusing.
Ultimately traditional advaita and this so called direct path are one and the same, though the direct path appears to be easily accessible. The difference between separate self and Awareness ( 1.20 to 1.22) are better explained in one of the upanishads with the narration of two birds on the same tree. One bird sitting at the top observing another bird in the lower branches jumpring from branch to branch and ultimately realising that it is it's own self
Rupert is trying to make it as simple as possible, experiential. Rick seems to have problem with the simplicity of this. Everything arises in and AS consciousness. No object has its own existence..
it would be better if he just shared his message instead of trying to make you guess what he wants you to say..
Rupert doesn't want Rick or anyone else for that matter to say anything. What he and other teachers do want is for others to come to their own understandings.
saidas108 yes you are right saidas confusion is better then conclusion.untill we make it our experience the search will go on and on and on.
Rupert when says to you about the space around you and all other things about the nature of consciousness etc. forgets one very simple but very important factor. He is (or exists) in the room as a body Mind (Mind has many levels) entity before any discussion or any talk happen. This is very simple and for this reason is overtaken very easily.
I do this simple question.
If you and Rupert as body mind entities you weren't there who would talk about the nature of consciousness and who would be aware of Consciousness or Existence or anything else?
You see and hear the Rupert because you are there not only as Conssciousness but as body and MInd.
If we take the MInd (which is essentially formless like consciousnees and identical with consciousness) as something separate from consciousness then we acept without to be conscious of it that there is duality.
Whats the difference between Rupert's teaching here and Buddhism , I don't really seem to see any, not on a practical level of understanding awareness.
Anyone who reaches the stage of studying awareness itself, and not the objects surely has to be in some state of samadhi
Rick doesn't seem to experience what Rupert tried to show. It would've have been better interview if Rick didn't have prejudice about Rupert's previous comments. I hope Rick now gets what pure one's pointing.
Rupert is one of those people that obviously has some understanding, yet comes of as so uptight and set in his ways. Not to say he should always seem over joyous, but he does seem way too serious. I know he has some understanding but maybe having a few very basic teachings you repeat to others may not replace an ongoing practice.
Brits don't often emote like Americans. They often come off as dry and cold when they are not. I see Rupert as having a very warm heart but it is subtle. I would also say that he is truth realized IMO and the truth is not an opinion, it is true even when people don't accept it.
i don't think there is such a thing as awareness, i think awareness is just a conceptual sum of .. being aware of something.
So that i don't always have to check that i am aware of every single thing to say that i am aware.
I -for example- check wether am i aware of my feet and therefore i don't have to check if i am aware of my hands and the rest of my body parts and my feelings and so on..
Just in language we admit the existence of awareness by adding "ness" without being actually aware of something, but my experience does not see such a thing as awareness.
1:32:00: Trust experience alone? Like fully trusting our direct first-hand experience of seeing the sun go around the earth every day :-)