Minahh Thank you for your question on my blog, I am going to attach a blog I wrote on the subject. Basically, if there was a time where time did not exist then that time is real time and what we perceive as time is actually an illusion. According to Shivastus Solomonicus, all humans have finite capacity, because if they had infinite capacity they would be the universe in which case the perception of time would cease to exist and we would sens ourself only as godself, alone, ALL ONE. According to Shivastus, "Reality" was created by separating god self from god self, the false sense of self the ego, is one self, but the True Self, the Super-ego is ONE SELF. Patrick John Coleman thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/response-to-scientific-american-a-matter-of-time/
Minahh and this is a video that explains it from the perspective of Jewish Mysticism, it is a unique perspective by Rabbi Ba'al Shivah and I haven't heard this from any other source. th-cam.com/video/yq8kdN5V018/w-d-xo.html
Joxua Luxor I have often played with words ... like alone ... all one (being one of them) . Universe .... one poem. One of my favorite words is atonement ... at one ment. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ment I used to write things that came to me and sometimes look at it. For example .... mankind is a one .... infinite Consciousness/God ... is 0 .... it is rather binary (and I am not a math wizard by any stretch of imagination). Art, yes, math, not so much. But ones are finite and 0 (which I call Zed) is infinite. Does it mean anything ... don't know. Just a thought. It would a very boring existence if one has no one to play with ... or love ... or just interact in a myriad of ways.
Joxua Luxor I will look at it. Thank you for sharing ... your time and your mind. Time for us mortals is a commodity that is irreplaceable and therefor truly priceless.
Rupert says here that the subjective manifestation of Consciousness (Mind) is ultimately an expression of love and the only way Consciousness can experience its own nature. Perhaps he talked about it outside of this clip, but I would like to hear him talk about why then the need to be free of the objective Mind existence to Awaken to our real existence as Pure Consciousness.
saidas108 Objective mind is not separate from Pure consciousness. When pure consciousness apparently becomes a thought it is mind. On screen (pure consciousness) only the image (thought=mind) appears. Pure consciousness is not displaced by image or vice versa. Awakening is not required for Pure awareness. The mind that wants to awaken should understand that the so-called thoughts are nothing but pure awareness. All there is pure awareness only. The mind, thinking that it is separate from Pure awareness wants to wake up to Pure awareness. There is rope. In the twilight, you mistake it to be a snake. There is no change in the rope at all. you (the mind) mistakenly thought it to be rope. When the guru throws light on the mistaken snake, you realise that it is rope only. All along the rope (pure consciousness) remains rope only. Thus when mind recognises thoughts, and objects in the transactional world, awakened mind carries on transactions with the perfect understanding that all these thoughts and objects are nothing but pure awareness, that is, himself. The ignorant man thinks them to be real and takes all pleasures and pains arising therefrom
MyParasar I understand this, but keep in mind that Rupert isn't speaking to a roomful of Awakened people nor is this video intended for those who are. What I'm pointing out is what he says from 6:04-6:45 - that the objectifying of Pure Consciousness (infinite Mind) as a finite mind is a natural expression of itself (Love) in order to experience itself. Rupert and all other non dual teachers teach "returning" to the state of infinite Mind/Pure Consciousness. I'm merely point out the seeming contradiction that if the infinite mind is a natural expression of Love from infinite Mind, then why teach or strive for a way out of it?
saidas108 I could see that I have deviated from your question and what I wrote does not answer your question. I think what you are asking is why the objective mind should seek to awaken to real existence. I think this is a question to be answered by every seeker to himself. So long as one is happy with the world and reconciles himself to the situation no problem and no seeking. The story starts when one wants to know the reality behind everything- who I am? what is the world ? is it created by God ? if so why? and How?. In the east, it is mostly to be free from the cycle of births and deaths. If one has many strong desires and dies without fulfilling them, he has to take another body to fulfill them. Somewhere the question starts how to put an end to this -then the seeking starts.
MyParasar Closer. I get why personally but I just don't get the seemingly paradoxical statement Rupert makes. Put very simply from what he says, the objective mind is created by the infinite Mind to know Itself and is done as an expression of it's own love. He (and others) teach how to be free of the objective mind which is the seeming paradox. This is clear as I can make it.
The sense of objectivity is just the belief of a mind in matter. There is never a mind in matter. The brain doesn't have a mind in it. An apparent world is projected billions of times a second as a movie is projected on a screen. Nothing on the screen is moving about independently. It is indivisible. So, objectivity is always the lie.
According to the said, consciousness has to forget its original nature to be able to appear as relativity. When you speak about this, using words, describing colours etc, my sense is that you don't compromise the awareness of the original nature. Could one perhaps say that 95% of the original awareness is present while it 'allows' 5% of awareness/consciousness to engage in relative matters? And even those 5% are seen to be nothing but the absolute, thereby this seeing makes even those 5% transparent! My ideal world is consciously anchored in the absolute, and it can enjoy the playground (lila) without forgetting is original nature. So the question is if the forgetting is optional.
And yet I've also heard Rupert say and explain that Pure Consciousness (Awareness/ Love)---- is not aware of the finite, limited world of manifestation-- that the Infinite is not aware of the Finite....... Having difficulty reconciling the 2 ideas...... That, as he says in this video, it is Pure Infinite Consciousness freely giving of itself to take the shape of finite dualistic form and perception............But yet, apparently, is not aware that it is doing so?
Anne Pacur I think Rupert says this about the viewpoint from the finite mind. "Freely giving of itself" doesn't mean "allowing" as in it (Awareness) allowing something other than itself, rather, it is unaffected by whatever appears to be otherwise. The perfect metaphor is the one he uses frequently of a self aware screen that "allows" anything to be displayed on it yet remains completely unaffected by it; it is eternally self aware.
How is it compassionate to continually rehearse the false beliefs we are striving to leave behind? It is clarity and precise language that are compassionate. Anything else adds to confusion.
This makes no sense. The objective is always a misperception; a false way of seeing. How can there be a requirement for Infinite Love to express itself finitely when It doesn't know the finite ? The finite or objective is not an alternative to Reality. It is just a belief. This seems to be reasoning from the illusory point of view; giving a material justification for the picture that is presented. Infinite love, extending Itself infinitely, doesn't need to extend itself finitely. How could it? It may seem to be that this is what is happening, but that is just the appearance, and it "continues" only as long as objectivity is believed. The direction of consciousness is the return to Subjectivity and the abandonment of the illusory belief of minds in matter.
I feel this is one of the really, really good videos on this topic by Rupert Spira. Well done.
Minahh Thank you for your question on my blog, I am going to attach a blog I wrote on the subject. Basically, if there was a time where time did not exist then that time is real time and what we perceive as time is actually an illusion. According to Shivastus Solomonicus, all humans have finite capacity, because if they had infinite capacity they would be the universe in which case the perception of time would cease to exist and we would sens ourself only as godself, alone, ALL ONE. According to Shivastus, "Reality" was created by separating god self from god self, the false sense of self the ego, is one self, but the True Self, the Super-ego is ONE SELF. Patrick John Coleman
thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/response-to-scientific-american-a-matter-of-time/
Minahh and this is a video that explains it from the perspective of Jewish Mysticism, it is a unique perspective by Rabbi Ba'al Shivah and I haven't heard this from any other source. th-cam.com/video/yq8kdN5V018/w-d-xo.html
Joxua Luxor I have often played with words ... like alone ... all one (being one of them) . Universe .... one poem. One of my favorite words is atonement ... at one ment. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ment
I used to write things that came to me and sometimes look at it. For example .... mankind is a one .... infinite Consciousness/God ... is 0 .... it is rather binary (and I am not a math wizard by any stretch of imagination). Art, yes, math, not so much. But ones are finite and 0 (which I call Zed) is infinite. Does it mean anything ... don't know. Just a thought. It would a very boring existence if one has no one to play with ... or love ... or just interact in a myriad of ways.
Joxua Luxor I will look at it. Thank you for sharing ... your time and your mind. Time for us mortals is a commodity that is irreplaceable and therefor truly priceless.
Minahh one of my ascended master teachers says that the word atone comes from adonai and the aten of ancient egypt.
Thank you so very much...
Thank you
Thank you, Rupert.
Amazing, so sad that the world does not embrace the truth :-(
Rupert says here that the subjective manifestation of Consciousness (Mind) is ultimately an expression of love and the only way Consciousness can experience its own nature. Perhaps he talked about it outside of this clip, but I would like to hear him talk about why then the need to be free of the objective Mind existence to Awaken to our real existence as Pure Consciousness.
saidas108 Objective mind is not separate from Pure consciousness. When pure consciousness apparently becomes a thought it is mind. On screen (pure consciousness) only the image (thought=mind) appears. Pure consciousness is not displaced by image or vice versa. Awakening is not required for Pure awareness. The mind that wants to awaken should understand that the so-called thoughts are nothing but pure awareness. All there is pure awareness only. The mind, thinking that it is separate from Pure awareness wants to wake up to Pure awareness. There is rope. In the twilight, you mistake it to be a snake. There is no change in the rope at all. you (the mind) mistakenly thought it to be rope. When the guru throws light on the mistaken snake, you realise that it is rope only. All along the rope (pure consciousness) remains rope only. Thus when mind recognises thoughts, and objects in the transactional world, awakened mind carries on transactions with the perfect understanding that all these thoughts and objects are nothing but pure awareness, that is, himself. The ignorant man thinks them to be real and takes all pleasures and pains arising therefrom
MyParasar I understand this, but keep in mind that Rupert isn't speaking to a roomful of Awakened people nor is this video intended for those who are.
What I'm pointing out is what he says from 6:04-6:45 - that the objectifying of Pure Consciousness (infinite Mind) as a finite mind is a natural expression of itself (Love) in order to experience itself. Rupert and all other non dual teachers teach "returning" to the state of infinite Mind/Pure Consciousness. I'm merely point out the seeming contradiction that if the infinite mind is a natural expression of Love from infinite Mind, then why teach or strive for a way out of it?
saidas108 I could see that I have deviated from your question and what I wrote does not answer your question. I think what you are asking is why the objective mind should seek to awaken to real existence. I think this is a question to be answered by every seeker to himself. So long as one is happy with the world and reconciles himself to the situation no problem and no seeking. The story starts when one wants to know the reality behind everything- who I am? what is the world ? is it created by God ? if so why? and How?. In the east, it is mostly to be free from the cycle of births and deaths. If one has many strong desires and dies without fulfilling them, he has to take another body to fulfill them. Somewhere the question starts how to put an end to this -then the seeking starts.
MyParasar Closer. I get why personally but I just don't get the seemingly paradoxical statement Rupert makes. Put very simply from what he says, the objective mind is created by the infinite Mind to know Itself and is done as an expression of it's own love. He (and others) teach how to be free of the objective mind which is the seeming paradox. This is clear as I can make it.
The sense of objectivity is just the belief
of a mind in matter. There is never a mind in matter. The brain doesn't have a mind in it. An apparent world is projected billions of times a second as a movie is
projected on a screen. Nothing on the
screen is moving about independently.
It is indivisible. So, objectivity is always
the lie.
According to the said, consciousness has to forget its original nature to be able to appear as relativity. When you speak about this, using words, describing colours etc, my sense is that you don't compromise the awareness of the original nature. Could one perhaps say that 95% of the original awareness is present while it 'allows' 5% of awareness/consciousness to engage in relative matters? And even those 5% are seen to be nothing but the absolute, thereby this seeing makes even those 5% transparent! My ideal world is consciously anchored in the absolute, and it can enjoy the playground (lila) without forgetting is original nature. So the question is if the forgetting is optional.
And yet I've also heard Rupert say and explain that Pure Consciousness (Awareness/ Love)---- is not aware of the finite, limited world of manifestation-- that the Infinite is not aware of the Finite....... Having difficulty reconciling the 2 ideas...... That, as he says in this video, it is Pure Infinite Consciousness freely giving of itself to take the shape of finite dualistic form and perception............But yet, apparently, is not aware that it is doing so?
Anne Pacur I think Rupert says this about the viewpoint from the finite mind. "Freely giving of itself" doesn't mean "allowing" as in it (Awareness) allowing something other than itself, rather, it is unaffected by whatever appears to be otherwise. The perfect metaphor is the one he uses frequently of a self aware screen that "allows" anything to be displayed on it yet remains completely unaffected by it; it is eternally self aware.
How is it compassionate to continually rehearse the false beliefs we are striving to leave behind? It is clarity and precise language that
are compassionate. Anything else adds to confusion.
This makes no sense. The objective is always a misperception; a false way of seeing. How can there be a requirement for Infinite
Love to express itself finitely when It doesn't know the finite ? The finite or objective is not an alternative to Reality. It is just a belief.
This seems to be reasoning from the illusory point of view; giving a material justification for the picture that is presented. Infinite love,
extending Itself infinitely, doesn't need to extend itself finitely. How could it? It may seem to be that this is what is happening, but that is
just the appearance, and it "continues" only as long as objectivity is believed. The direction of consciousness is the return to
Subjectivity and the abandonment of the illusory belief of minds in matter.