What a beautiful exchange,Rick & Rupert.Very gentle explanation with extremely loving words.This interviews echoes Ellie's Roozdar interview by its clarity and sincerity.Thank You.
Love how gently he expressed his lack of interest in theory. He didn't have to be condescending or critical. Rather he just states it has no value in discerning awareness for him.
I walk around all day without seeing my face, but I see you all!!! I'm glad I finally paid attention. The meaning of this for each human mind is unique. Only this direct observation is exactly the same. This direct observation is where all religions and spiritual systems arise.
Thanks Rick for these videos.I came across them by chance and can't believe my good fortune.I am steadily working my way through them and they have been so helpful.This video with Rupert Spira may have been the most beneficial one for me.I can't get over the guy's insight and ability to articulate that which is virtually inexpressible.What an advanced being he is.I tried to send a small donation the other day but it would not accept my phone number(saying it was an invalid no.).Thanks again.
Dear Rick. this interview and the one with Francis Lucille are really helpful to those who MADE it and still in the process of stabilisation. They clarify many things.-thanks again-Ramana
Absolutely pure genius - How close can one come to pure Nirvana? Possibly as close as Rupert takes us here. Thank you I will hold what's said and let that take me finding it so real.
I'm grateful to be watching and hearing this. I appreciate awareness, encouragement, kindness. (And I become self-conscious in commenting as it reveals my separateness!)
Enlightenment means to realize the very moment, excluding remnants of the idea that there is something outside the experience. Rupert is really there. I mean, here. He's totally in the present experience, recognizing that reality is a projection of his on being. On Krishnamurti's words: To be a light for oneself. Thanks both for this interview.
What a beautiful exchange! There were moments when I thought Rupert might break my brain :) but loved the way knowing and not-knowing sort of made peace by the end of the interview. As Rick suggested, reading Rupert's book and digesting it "line by line," in a contemplative way, is probably the easiest way to take in these ideas.
Thanks for greatly thought provoking interview. This is a truely kingly science. My pranaams to both of you. I wish you a happy and healthy life to reach your goals.
I adore Rupert for his genuine Advaitic understanding and for his eloquence in conveying it to others in plain english without using eastern terminology like Maya, Avidya, Brahman, Sat Chit, Ananda, etc... However in this particular interview, I think Rupert has been a little facetious in dealing with the important question raised by Rick on how is it possible for the enlightened individual to interact with the world while still abiding in the Advaitic attainment. Rupert prefers to put forth his concept of "flowering and blossoming" of personality due to the enlightenment. This if I am not mistaken, is contrary to what Advait tradition teaches and seems to me an individualistic choice made by Rupert who seems to have developed an attachment to live and enjoy his enlightened state in the body-mind complex called Rupert. In taking that stance, Rupert seems to be betraying a sort of attachment that he might have unknowingly developed to his enlightened body-mind experience and his desire to continue having it and telling others about it. The traditional Advait teaching avers that after a person/yogi attains to the the final or seventh stage (saptam bhumika) of enlightenment, the purpose of his body is over and it inevitably shall drop off within a specified number of days and the liberated attain to "videha mukti" permanent bodily cessation. I am sure Rupert knows that part of the Advait theory but chose to ignore it while propounding his own simplistic and satisfying version of personality "blossoming and flowering". Rick instead put it as it is supposed to be in the teaching which says that he body-mind of an enlightened person does its interaction in the world through the means of partial ignorance "Lesh Avidya". This interaction is said to be absolutely minimal and there is nothing romantic about it. Peace !
I observed that in many interviews Rick puts questions keeping in mind the kind of doubts arise to a normal seeker although he is clear about many questions. But in this interview, towards the end, the questions appeared to be for his personal clarification also. Truly great interview
I have only recently come across non duality and have been struggling with the concept. Having listened to various talks on the subject I was no closer to the understanding of it on a mental basis. Whenever I try to experience it I understand, however my mind can't get it's head around it. (hehe, if that makes and sense), until this interview. I love the honesty of Rick, who is struggling like me to understand the concept. This I think is my mind which is trying to get it's head around it.. Whenever I let that go and just try to feel it, it's somewhat clearer. This is by far the BEST video I have ever seen and now my goto.. Going to have to watch this a lot of times.. Love it!
Self realisation can NEVER be understood on a mental level, it's a BECOMING! To know the Self is to become the Self! Sahaja yoga is different from other yogas because it starts with Self realisation! Instead of that being an unobtainable goal of a false practice/ritual! Www(.)freemeditation (.com)
This is the best interview I have seen so far! But I feel there must be an objective physical reality that Rupert Spira views are base upon that could be understood by physics! Such a theory would not belittle his ideas, but would help to explain the experience of non-duality! Can the unity and oneness that the mystic see and feels in meditation be explained by physics?
Hi Rick, I find what Rupert says at the 32:00 mark is one of the most poignant responses I have heard. "At very best, these arguments are going to be convincing intellectually, at best....I don't want to discuss ideas with you Rick, let's talk about experience." I think this comment points the way through the hold that the intellect puts on the consciousness of many seekers. Great interview. Thank you again!
Rick: there's no society, there are no human beings. there's no agreement. There's experience (you). And there's no distance between you and experience. Think about that... NO DISTANCE.
What Rupert says around 47:00 about how the teachings should be closer and closer and easier and easier is SO TRUE. Lester Levenson(HIGHLY recommended) teaches in this sort of way. And that's when I really "got it(experienced it.)" It's so easy it gets overlooked, and thinking it's far off may be the exact reason why you never get it/experience it. And by "experience it" I don't mean something that comes and then goes, I mean something that comes and you can stay with it for as long as you want. I think attitude is the most important thing when it comes to enlightenment. Attitude ultimately becomes your reality. How do you see the world? How do you perceive it? Do you see yourself as separate, or do you make a small effort(because that's all that's needed) to see everything/everybody as yourself? That's also how you overcome "the mind." Not through analogies such as "the ocean" analogy that the Rick brought up. I am not bashing him, I am just speaking from my own experience. I mean, the ocean analogy is nothing more than words/images in the mind, we are trying to drop the mind/go beyond it. Which words/images don't do, unless maybe it's a mantra or something. Methods are how you drop it. Such as stillness and focusing on certain things, or looking/perceiving the world in a certain way(this is my favorite technique) and seems to be all that's needed.
35.5k viewers, 104 comments (at the time of writing). That amazes me in itself. This is such a unique topic that requires discussion and yet the discussion in terms of comments is quite small. Great video btw.
Two lovely, sane beings talking of these 'things'... Both being themselves, & declaring where they're really at... A lot of truth within warmth Also -loved Rupert's free-expression regarding Individuality... This is my experience emphatically (& 'individuality' as such a bad press, in the 'advaita ideology', the mind's 'this is what-it-is!)... Individuality IS... (-when the conditions are there for that freedom)... Also am interested in Rick's insistence that 'isn't the world real though as well' - since we all respond to and about the world's specifics... I also find this quite interesting, and strange-an-area)
every year, up to the last year, coming back to teaching has revealed something new that i did not capture before, yet i was convinced i fully get it back then. Now I have reached a state where it doesnt matter how many times i listen to it, I always get the same material out, AND i can predict what the interviewee will say next to 100% accuracy and never have a "BUT" come up, b/c i fully understand it. So this should offer you a guidestone if you truly get something vs THINKING that you getit
I have listened to the 60 min to 90 min. portion of this repeatedly...It really changed my perception on experience. Am very grateful... "There are no things Rick...In fact there is no room" WOW! It is mind blowing...In a good way...Not like Tony Parsons. (he, he) Just Kidding...
One of the exercises in a meditation CD by Stephen Wolinsky(a regular instructor at the Science & Non Dualty Conference) is to experience that oneself and that which is perceived consist of the same substance.
Just brilliant... I've meditated on the slavery of the "We Are One" concept and found the other side of the coin with this paradox... Thank you for confirming ME/US ;)
Excellent explanation given by Rupert at 1:29:44 in the sense that "one size doesn't fit all" which is to say that the neo Advaita approach could be meaningless to some and that for instance there's an important role with the "I am" meditation endorsed by Nisargadatta.
Rick is so sweet the way he always tries to get his interviewees to say that so-called .'spiritual practices' are necessary. "Has my Guru persuaded me to waste the last 40 years of my life?" ...Very possibly, Rick: very possibly. But then again, maybe not. Why don't you try giving them up and then you'll have your answer?
Silence/Space are universal. Silence/Space is the foundation. Silence/Space is not overlooked more than it is the ground of all manifestation. Direct perception training will easily clear this up for any human being that is interested.
@glenemma1 Thanks. You tried to send a donation by going to batgap.com and clicking on the donate button? That's a PayPal link. I wasn't aware that it requested a phone number.
Understanding and realization are concepts. Anything that is done is THIS. Understanding and realization are appearances in THIS. I am THIS, anything I do is THIS. Knowing is THIS, NOT Knowing is THIS.
The experiential part could be achieved dissolving the residues in the body. Rupert has a great yoga meditations that aims to that. Sorry for my english
The subject of 'objects-consciousness' is very well explained in the first sloka of 'saddarsanam' of Bhagavan Ramana.. This was explained in detail by acharya Sada.You can listen here in tube at 'Sadajis talk on Saddarsanam in Washington, DC in May 2009 - Part1 to 5
@seabeeixix99 The difference between understanding this (which I do) and living it experientially is like the difference between reading a menu and eating a meal. A lot of people mistake understanding for realization.
I keep finding more and more folks, like Rupert, who are saying that "awareness was there first" (before time and space). And even many physicists, like Planck at the beginning of quantum theory ("I regard consciousness as fundamental"), and now others, like Goswani, are saying the same thing. The worldwide paradigm shift is happening before our eyes, which apparently began with the Eastern religions thousands of years ago.
dear BATGP... What you have said is very profound... it is very true as i belong to this group my self, Understand it 100% but not living it. Here is what I have noticed in your Tony Parsons' interview though... If at any point you have a "BUT" come up, where you try to ask BUT what about this and that, it obviously by definition means that you dont truly get what the other person is trying to say. So while you THINK you Understand it, it is only partial understanding. Every year , up to the
@BuddhaAtTheGasPump ,yes it did.It (or Visa)required a few things including address,phone number etc.and I couldn't finalise transaction.It may not have recognised Australian number.
Yeah undoubtedly (I'm sure there are many intelligent dualists and nondualists...) My gripe is - all to often many nondualists come across as if they are simply parrotting a "this is it, be here now" dogma as the be all and end all of "the path".
Yep, I've seen it happen in pretty much all traditions, streams, practices, etc. I'm not against nondualism, its formed the core of my thinking/approach to so many things for a long time. Maybe I've just been exposed to a disproportionate number of dogmatists on that particular scene...
@marsiloficino Actually, I don't really know. I haven't studied them in depth. That's just a point I picked up from my former teacher, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I know that academics tend to think of the 6 systems as competitors, but MMY saw them as different approaches to the same Truth, each appropriate to a particular stage of one's progress. I'm not qualified to argue the point one way or the other.
We have invested too much in the separate self as our true identity. And it has become an attachment very hard to relinquished as if getting rid of life itself.
I appreciate that we all experience reality different to a degree however we must all see objects the same. Take a photo for example. We all see exactly the same image
but i want to say that i did make a pause and later you do that.you were very open at the end...i think thats the best part about the interview..because i also dont understand all that .i know all the concepts like you do but i dont understand them in depth . In many interviews people dont go into depths...its important that we "experience" it and not "know the concepts"...i hope i see more interviews like that.
From Rupert's interview on Conscious TV: "There is really no such thing as theoretical understanding. There is either understanding or there is belief. . . . Understanding is never theoretical. In fact understanding doesn't take place in the mind. Either we understand, which means we have seen in our own experience that there is no separate inside self, or we believe that that is true because we have read it [etc.]"
It seems to me that it is obvious that there is no "other" to our experience, and that our entire experience occurs within ourselves. HOWEVER, this does not explain anything about life, suffering, or death. Despite that there is no "other", what is that which is conceptualized by thought? How can there even be conceptualizing if there is no other? Example, If I walk up to and touch a tree in the forest, obviously the only thing i KNOW about it is my internal experience of it. The sight, touch, sound of wind through the leaves etc. But how am I conceptualizing it as a tree, and not mistaking it for something else? How am I conceptualizing the ground as the ground, and the sky as the sky? it seems to me that in order for things to appear different, even if they are only conceptualized by thought, that they must have some quality about them that IS different. And why do we have feelings about what we are conceptualizing? These feelings are automatic and intuitive. When we see a baby crying, it's not simply a baby crying but an intuitive response wells up. Sure this can become somewhat clouded by conditioning over time, but none the less there is a human, innate response to this child. In the end, It seems to me that this "style" of enlightenment is ultimately a trick played by the mind. And a very good trick at that. It explains our experience and makes perfect sense. But it does not explain why we intuitively feel the suffering of others. It does not explain why we have desire to act out of compassion or love. It does not explain anything about the world, it only explains our personal experience. In non-duality, there must be duality, which is extremely paradoxical but ultimately I think must be true. True, our personal experience is all we can know, but one of the most profound spiritual truths is that when we listen to and learn a spiritual truth, it is not an acquisition of knowledge, but a reminder of what we already know. And this spiritual truth does NOT remind me of what I already know. Instead it becomes a series of mental gymnastics where I try to fit my experience into my experience (haha).
The impression I’m getting is that Rupert’s view is closely related to solipsism in the respect that all is “object-less” with “Awareness-known-experience” being objective “reality”. Exclusion of “object” allows Awareness-known-experience to be the only real thing (i.e. reality). This view seems to be saying “experiencing” (which has to be everything) is illusion.
Hi Rick, I can understand your difficulty in getting totally what Rupert was pointing to regarding objects being everything. Once you understand that we live in a mental universe, and there is no matter at all. Everything is consciousness or a thought like in a dream. When we dream what is everything made of? Are not they made out of consciousness or thought? Like a movie everything is made out of the same light and color projected on the screen. Matter is an illusion, created by the mind.**
Rick Archer Here's the way I conceptually explain it, Rick. Perhaps this will help you see what you're trying to get at with your deeper questions here. 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 (such is its fundamentally shapeless 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' is one in an infinite series of such bangs, and 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'))))) : )
beautiful thank you I have understood why I find myself still acting in old ways when I have seen this is not personal, if that makes sense. Any way thanks
Alternatively, you can say everything seemingly "out there" is like the reflections in a mirror. They're of course, empty and ever changing but the mirror itself is analogous to pure awareness or consciousness which is the substratum of it all.
Surely there is something good in the point that Enlightenment is not exotic but is the most familiar, is not far away, etc. And yet the Buddhists talk of twelve or so levels of enlightenment, and I think there is a good point in that too. For we can feel "this is it" in some final sense, when there is something evolutionary going on in consciousness. That is not simply from the view of the separate self. How do you know there are not levels of awareness beyond the simple clarity that you have right now? Yes, our sense of an object is not separate from our experience of awareness. But there is still some distinction between the formless, unchanging presence of Consciousness and the ever-changing content and form. It is not some ultimate duality, but it is a Mystery. It is the Mystery that I want to champion, and short of that, there are so many, even conflicting ways of using reason to support this or that position. And what is that but a subtler use of the mind to create positions? As I see it, no one is above the Mystery. No one is going to advance an argument or teaching that will make the Mystery vanish. We can foster clarity, and there is some good in that, but we err if we worship it as our god. That to me is idolatry, falling short of the Mystery. By honoring the Mystery, you will never try to grasp a position or your current awareness as the final answer, because you will recognize there is always some Unknowing there.
yep. aswell, rupert refers to the 'seperate self' and 'awareness' but doesn't mention what andrew cohen refers to as the evolutionary self. i think he's leaving something out there. what do you think rick? i love these interviews bro :)
59:40 => As Paul Hedderman says: "It is bondage OF self". Bondage is only an obstacle that must be overcome by strenuous spiritual practices FROM the FALSE perspective of a separate self.
Well, sure, because everything perceived IS perceived purely through the senses and influenced by thought which ONLY makes perception a mind derived phenomenon. Hence, what is perceived as "outside" one is fundamentally "inside" oneself(including one's own body). And in this sense, as Nisargadatta said(not that one needs such a quote)"it's all an illusion."
Interesting when he says stuff that we call matter - is just a concept - this is actually being proven by - quantum physics. And the more we look at matter with microscopes - it is showing nothing is there - meaning empty space
Well that's interesting. How perceptions differ. Let's just say that I've see about 20 or so of Rick's interviews and I've never seen him seemingly so unable to grasp a "concept". Perhaps squirm is the wrong word but the bit in particular that struck me was when Rick held up his cup but just couldn't seem to get the point Rupert was making. They went back and forth on that one for quite some time.
+Piers Mackeown I totally get the concept, and have for decades. It's just not my living experience yet. When I see the cup, I don't see it in terms of the Self, as some do. But I've had glimpses of that.
Wow , Top grade argument, I have only my experience to go by, so my experience is all, Almost laughable, If the interviewer smacked him on the face with the cup he would quickly discover FREE WILL. Free will=Ego=Sin(Original)=Slavery. The will of the creator is the only reason to Be.
Thanks Rick for playing devils advocate this is much more useful than agreement.The nondual position seems to ignore or profoundly downplay this immensely complex interactive biological system that is life and instead sums up life as a singularity of awareness.Which I can appreciate but wonder if such a position is practical in world of challenge.If I'm a cloistered monk sure. I may be the dog barking yes but the dog biting my leg will be a harder sell? Instead of Both And... it sounds like just Both which denies the dynamism of challenge and interaction.
Think i am in a similar place to Rick. What is the block/is causing the block which stops Rick (and me for that matter) seeing the object as not a real object but as part of the same awareness in which it is perceived? Can this be teased out/broken down at all? Is there something that can be identified?
Simon Woods Sathya Sai Baba used to demonstrate hundreds of thousands of times that material objects can be materialised out of "thin air" also to be dematerialised,plus objects could be changed from one thing to another, example, a leaf into a plum, sand into a book, a large rock into sugar candy,materialising warm Indian food hot from the oven semi liquid from downturned hands pouring enough for 25 people,changing water into petrol, transmigrating objects from anywere (teleporting) Himself appearing in peoples homes anywhere in the world and disappearing....manifesting a vertical rainbow in the sky..... it goes on and on every day throughout his life. plus other things to numerous to mention.He used say simply "All is God" or Consciousness.He proves solid matter is materialised Consciousness, its a mystery to the human mind and cannot be understood, why hurt our tiny minds ?.Of course some accused him of trickery and other things but they were deluded egos.......check out book" Sai Baba Man of Miracles" by Howard Murphet US version is better than the Indian one but dearer.Or "The holy man and the Psychiatrist" by Samuel H Sandweiss MD. US version best.He said in part in a message "You as body mind or soul are a dream,but what you really are is existance, knowledge Bliss, You are the God of this Universe,you are creating the whole Universe and drawing it in".Sathya Sai Baba was regarded as an Avatar,God in human form,he passed away in 2011 and is said to reincarnate in about 8 years.Now if all the above doesn't get you curious then you are not serious about Spirituality.Actually I like Rupert but find him too intellectual to understand, anyway can we really understand the grandure of the Universe with the mind? No way, don't bother.
***** lol, magical powers are not impressive, and it is maya, because it is cultivated, it is in time, it will fill a person with pride, a "spiritual" person does not care at all about it. it becomes boring and suffering to think about or have magical powers.
Babas powers were natural to him, not magical or trickery,not cultivated like a Siddha,he was born with them and only used them to awaken deeply ego centered people to the mystery that is God being everywhere,they were his" calling cards "to attract certain people so that they would listen to his real message of selfless service, love and peace to all.Not all seekers need to see these things, as fascinating as they are. Baba said he paid no personal attention to these powers which he demonstrated all his 80 odd years.Sometimes he would materialise medicine, surgical instruments and even perform the operation! no stage magician can do this,most objects were religious in nature to help the aspirents sadhana. A Siddha Yogi has very limited powers in comparison to Babas, only lasting a short time and were earned through severe concentration. Totally different thing. Best do a research on Baba before making comments please.
This dude the interviewer is not there yet, sad that he thinks he don't gets it, but he himself is it yet he doesn't want to see or hear or know the truth . He screaming does anyone know where my keys are and yet they are right there in hand
@glenemma1 I get donations from Australia and other countries. If you like, I'll put you in touch with a couple of Australians who've donated who might be able to help (you can tell I'm motivated to get those donations. If I get about 15x what I'm getting, I'll be able to make this my full time job.) My email is rick@batgap.com
So, Rupert, along with certain other teachers, feels total confidence in speaking for awareness? If we want to know what awareness is, just ask them? They are alive and GET IT, we are alive and DON"T GET IT? No ifs ands or buts?
49:16 Rick says "Great Point"... I swear I lol'ed! Just get it man, Rupert is not trying to make a point or to explain a concept or even to convince you of anything. He's talking about your very own experience. This is not about rationalizing, this is all about checking your own experience and know the truth for yourself.
"India is exotic, not enlightenment"
One of the best quotes of this show, that explains a lot of things going on.
Just listening to Rupert makes my heart shine with joy... What a treasure...
What a superb awesome interview.
That was the perfect antidote to the headache I got from the Tony Parsons interview ^_^
Great interview all the way around! I am so glad to have the opportunity to see this. Thank you!
Absolutely OUTSTANDING ... One of the most crystalline transmissions I have ever been privileged to participate in. Thank you!
Wow...Rupert Spira is absolutely brilliant.
What a beautiful exchange,Rick & Rupert.Very gentle explanation with extremely loving words.This interviews echoes Ellie's Roozdar interview by its clarity and sincerity.Thank You.
Beautiful interview; one of my favorite. Thanks, Rick.
This is one of the best interviews of Rupert out there. Very, very direct. Thank you!
Thank you Rick and Rupert. One of the best Batgap ever!
I totally enjoyed this. Rupert is one of the clearest teachers...genuine peace.
Excellent interview!!!! I just loved listening to both of you, thank you with loving gratitude!!!
Rupert is one of my favorite guests so far. So much powerful stuff here :)
Fantastic! Thank you Rick and Rupert
Love how gently he expressed his lack of interest in theory. He didn't have to be condescending or critical. Rather he just states it has no value in discerning awareness for him.
same here ^_^
Love this idea Brian of cognitive humility. Would love to interview you on it. Let me know if you could spare a few minutes via skype. Paul
one if not the best interview ever,thank you Rick,your sturburness was the sifter to clarify Rupperts message, very good...
Yeah, I keep coming back to this guy.....profound. ....
One of the best interview on BATGAP, very clear. Thank you both Rupert and Rick. Looking forward the next interview with Rupert :)
EXCELLENT CLARITY! Love it!
Lovely interview, thank you!
Rupert's clarity penetrates the subtle, dualistic mental beliefs that can hide within the idea of "paradox." Wonderful.
I walk around all day without seeing my face, but I see you all!!! I'm glad I finally paid attention.
The meaning of this for each human mind is unique. Only this direct observation is exactly the same. This direct observation is where all religions and spiritual systems arise.
Thanks Rick for these videos.I came across them by chance and can't believe my good fortune.I am steadily working my way through them and they have been so helpful.This video with Rupert Spira may have been the most beneficial one for me.I can't get over the guy's insight and ability to articulate that which is virtually inexpressible.What an advanced being he is.I tried to send a small donation the other day but it would not accept my phone number(saying it was an invalid no.).Thanks again.
Dear Rick. this interview and the one with Francis Lucille are really helpful to those who MADE it and still in the process of stabilisation. They clarify many things.-thanks again-Ramana
Great interview Rick and Rupert!
Absolutely pure genius - How close can one come to pure Nirvana?
Possibly as close as Rupert takes us here. Thank you I will hold
what's said and let that take me finding it so real.
There is only one way to find out about awareness, , and that is in awareness itself
Perfect
Excellent thank you!
I'm grateful to be watching and hearing this. I appreciate awareness, encouragement, kindness. (And I become self-conscious in commenting as it reveals my separateness!)
Depends if you realise your merely talking to your Self ;)
a breath of fresh air!
Enlightenment means to realize the very moment, excluding remnants of the idea that there is something outside the experience. Rupert is really there. I mean, here. He's totally in the present experience, recognizing that reality is a projection of his on being. On Krishnamurti's words: To be a light for oneself.
Thanks both for this interview.
What a beautiful exchange! There were moments when I thought Rupert might break my brain :) but loved the way knowing and not-knowing sort of made peace by the end of the interview. As Rick suggested, reading Rupert's book and digesting it "line by line," in a contemplative way, is probably the easiest way to take in these ideas.
Thanks for greatly thought provoking interview. This is a truely kingly science. My pranaams to both of you. I wish you a happy and healthy life to reach your goals.
Fantastic interview.
This interview is fantastic!
I adore Rupert for his genuine Advaitic understanding and for his eloquence in conveying it to others in plain english without using eastern terminology like Maya, Avidya, Brahman, Sat Chit, Ananda, etc... However in this particular interview, I think Rupert has been a little facetious in dealing with the important question raised by Rick on how is it possible for the enlightened individual to interact with the world while still abiding in the Advaitic attainment.
Rupert prefers to put forth his concept of "flowering and blossoming" of personality due to the enlightenment. This if I am not mistaken, is contrary to what Advait tradition teaches and seems to me an individualistic choice made by Rupert who seems to have developed an attachment to live and enjoy his enlightened state in the body-mind complex called Rupert. In taking that stance, Rupert seems to be betraying a sort of attachment that he might have unknowingly developed to his enlightened body-mind experience and his desire to continue having it and telling others about it.
The traditional Advait teaching avers that after a person/yogi attains to the the final or seventh stage (saptam bhumika) of enlightenment, the purpose of his body is over and it inevitably shall drop off within a specified number of days and the liberated attain to "videha mukti" permanent bodily cessation.
I am sure Rupert knows that part of the Advait theory but chose to ignore it while propounding his own simplistic and satisfying version of personality "blossoming and flowering". Rick instead put it as it is supposed to be in the teaching which says that he body-mind of an enlightened person does its interaction in the world through the means of partial ignorance "Lesh Avidya". This interaction is said to be absolutely minimal and there is nothing romantic about it.
Peace !
I observed that in many interviews Rick puts questions keeping in mind the kind of doubts arise to a normal seeker although he is clear about many questions. But in this interview, towards the end, the questions appeared to be for his personal clarification also. Truly great interview
that was amazing, thank you
best batgap I've ever seen
I have only recently come across non duality and have been struggling with the concept.
Having listened to various talks on the subject I was no closer to the understanding of it on a mental basis. Whenever I try to experience it I understand, however my mind can't get it's head around it. (hehe, if that makes and sense), until this interview.
I love the honesty of Rick, who is struggling like me to understand the concept. This I think is my mind which is trying to get it's head around it.. Whenever I let that go and just try to feel it, it's somewhat clearer.
This is by far the BEST video I have ever seen and now my goto.. Going to have to watch this a lot of times.. Love it!
Self realisation can NEVER be understood on a mental level, it's a BECOMING! To know the Self is to become the Self! Sahaja yoga is different from other yogas because it starts with Self realisation! Instead of that being an unobtainable goal of a false practice/ritual! Www(.)freemeditation (.com)
32:00 most important part of the interview. Rick is too focused on ideas, direct experience is where it's at.
Another great interview...
This man is brilliant!
This is the best interview I have seen so far! But I feel there must be an objective physical reality that Rupert Spira views are base upon that could be understood by physics! Such a theory would not belittle his ideas, but would help to explain the experience of non-duality!
Can the unity and oneness that the mystic see and feels in meditation be explained by physics?
Hi Rick, I find what Rupert says at the 32:00 mark is one of the most poignant responses I have heard. "At very best, these arguments are going to be convincing intellectually, at best....I don't want to discuss ideas with you Rick, let's talk about experience."
I think this comment points the way through the hold that the intellect puts on the consciousness of many seekers. Great interview. Thank you again!
Rick: there's no society, there are no human beings. there's no agreement. There's experience (you). And there's no distance between you and experience. Think about that... NO DISTANCE.
WHO would think about WHAT ;)
What Rupert says around 47:00 about how the teachings should be closer and closer and easier and easier is SO TRUE. Lester Levenson(HIGHLY recommended) teaches in this sort of way. And that's when I really "got it(experienced it.)" It's so easy it gets overlooked, and thinking it's far off may be the exact reason why you never get it/experience it. And by "experience it" I don't mean something that comes and then goes, I mean something that comes and you can stay with it for as long as you want. I think attitude is the most important thing when it comes to enlightenment. Attitude ultimately becomes your reality.
How do you see the world? How do you perceive it? Do you see yourself as separate, or do you make a small effort(because that's all that's needed) to see everything/everybody as yourself? That's also how you overcome "the mind." Not through analogies such as "the ocean" analogy that the Rick brought up. I am not bashing him, I am just speaking from my own experience. I mean, the ocean analogy is nothing more than words/images in the mind, we are trying to drop the mind/go beyond it. Which words/images don't do, unless maybe it's a mantra or something. Methods are how you drop it. Such as stillness and focusing on certain things, or looking/perceiving the world in a certain way(this is my favorite technique) and seems to be all that's needed.
35.5k viewers, 104 comments (at the time of writing). That amazes me in itself. This is such a unique topic that requires discussion and yet the discussion in terms of comments is quite small. Great video btw.
maybe there's actually exactly not that much to discuss, because you can't argue with reality (of experience).
Two lovely, sane beings talking of these 'things'...
Both being themselves, & declaring where they're really at...
A lot of truth within warmth
Also -loved Rupert's free-expression regarding Individuality... This is my experience emphatically (& 'individuality' as such a bad press, in the 'advaita ideology', the mind's 'this is what-it-is!)...
Individuality IS... (-when the conditions are there for that freedom)...
Also am interested in Rick's insistence that 'isn't the world real though as well' - since we all respond to and about the world's specifics... I also find this quite interesting, and strange-an-area)
every year, up to the last year, coming back to teaching has revealed something new that i did not capture before, yet i was convinced i fully get it back then. Now I have reached a state where it doesnt matter how many times i listen to it, I always get the same material out, AND i can predict what the interviewee will say next to 100% accuracy and never have a "BUT" come up, b/c i fully understand it. So this should offer you a guidestone if you truly get something vs THINKING that you getit
I have listened to the 60 min to 90 min. portion of this repeatedly...It really changed my perception on experience. Am very grateful...
"There are no things Rick...In fact there is no room"
WOW! It is mind blowing...In a good way...Not like Tony Parsons. (he, he)
Just Kidding...
rock on. Great interview.
One of the exercises in a meditation CD by Stephen Wolinsky(a regular instructor at the Science & Non Dualty Conference) is to experience that oneself and that which is perceived consist of the same substance.
Just brilliant... I've meditated on the slavery of the "We Are One" concept and found the other side of the coin with this paradox... Thank you for confirming ME/US ;)
Excellent explanation given by Rupert at 1:29:44 in the sense that "one size doesn't fit all" which is to say that the neo Advaita approach could be meaningless to some and that for instance there's an important role with the "I am" meditation endorsed by Nisargadatta.
Rick is so sweet the way he always tries to get his interviewees to say that so-called .'spiritual practices' are necessary. "Has my Guru persuaded me to waste the last 40 years of my life?" ...Very possibly, Rick: very possibly. But then again, maybe not. Why don't you try giving them up and then you'll have your answer?
Silence/Space are universal. Silence/Space is the foundation. Silence/Space is not overlooked more than it is the ground of all manifestation. Direct perception training will easily clear this up for any human being that is interested.
@glenemma1 Thanks. You tried to send a donation by going to batgap.com and clicking on the donate button? That's a PayPal link. I wasn't aware that it requested a phone number.
Understanding and realization are concepts. Anything that is done is THIS. Understanding and realization are appearances in THIS. I am THIS, anything I do is THIS. Knowing is THIS, NOT Knowing is THIS.
Go Rupert, you get it!!!
so simple... most miss it.
conceptually simple, experientially most difficult...obviously since 99.9% doesn't get it!
The experiential part could be achieved dissolving the residues in the body. Rupert has a great yoga meditations that aims to that. Sorry for my english
Yes. All words/language/communication is ultimately a "compassionate concession" to duality.
The subject of 'objects-consciousness' is very well explained in the first sloka of 'saddarsanam' of Bhagavan Ramana.. This was explained in detail by acharya Sada.You can listen here in tube at 'Sadajis talk on Saddarsanam in Washington, DC in May 2009 - Part1 to 5
@seabeeixix99 The difference between understanding this (which I do) and living it experientially is like the difference between reading a menu and eating a meal. A lot of people mistake understanding for realization.
I keep finding more and more folks, like Rupert, who are saying that "awareness was there first" (before time and space). And even many physicists, like Planck at the beginning of quantum theory ("I regard consciousness as fundamental"), and now others, like Goswani, are saying the same thing. The worldwide paradigm shift is happening before our eyes, which apparently began with the Eastern religions thousands of years ago.
dear BATGP... What you have said is very profound... it is very true as i belong to this group my self, Understand it 100% but not living it. Here is what I have noticed in your Tony Parsons' interview though... If at any point you have a "BUT" come up, where you try to ask BUT what about this and that, it obviously by definition means that you dont truly get what the other person is trying to say. So while you THINK you Understand it, it is only partial understanding. Every year , up to the
@BuddhaAtTheGasPump ,yes it did.It (or Visa)required a few things including address,phone number etc.and I couldn't finalise transaction.It may not have recognised Australian number.
Wow, a non duality guy who's actually likeable and even quite smart... Who woulda thunk it
Yeah undoubtedly (I'm sure there are many intelligent dualists and nondualists...)
My gripe is - all to often many nondualists come across as if they are simply parrotting a "this is it, be here now" dogma as the be all and end all of "the path".
Yep, I've seen it happen in pretty much all traditions, streams, practices, etc.
I'm not against nondualism, its formed the core of my thinking/approach to so many things for a long time. Maybe I've just been exposed to a disproportionate number of dogmatists on that particular scene...
@marsiloficino Actually, I don't really know. I haven't studied them in depth. That's just a point I picked up from my former teacher, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I know that academics tend to think of the 6 systems as competitors, but MMY saw them as different approaches to the same Truth, each appropriate to a particular stage of one's progress. I'm not qualified to argue the point one way or the other.
We have invested too much in the separate self as our true identity. And it has become an attachment very hard to relinquished as if getting rid of life itself.
Exactly right about the Vedanta distinction.
I appreciate that we all experience reality different to a degree however we must all see objects the same. Take a photo for example. We all see exactly the same image
but i want to say that i did make a pause and later you do that.you were very open at the end...i think thats the best part about the interview..because i also dont understand all that .i know all the concepts like you do but i dont understand them in depth . In many interviews people dont go into depths...its important that we "experience" it and not "know the concepts"...i hope i see more interviews like that.
From Rupert's interview on Conscious TV:
"There is really no such thing as theoretical understanding. There is either understanding or there is belief. . . . Understanding is never theoretical. In fact understanding doesn't take place in the mind. Either we understand, which means we have seen in our own experience that there is no separate inside self, or we believe that that is true because we have read it [etc.]"
It seems to me that it is obvious that there is no "other" to our experience, and that our entire experience occurs within ourselves.
HOWEVER, this does not explain anything about life, suffering, or death.
Despite that there is no "other", what is that which is conceptualized by thought? How can there even be conceptualizing if there is no other?
Example, If I walk up to and touch a tree in the forest, obviously the only thing i KNOW about it is my internal experience of it. The sight, touch, sound of wind through the leaves etc. But how am I conceptualizing it as a tree, and not mistaking it for something else? How am I conceptualizing the ground as the ground, and the sky as the sky? it seems to me that in order for things to appear different, even if they are only conceptualized by thought, that they must have some quality about them that IS different.
And why do we have feelings about what we are conceptualizing? These feelings are automatic and intuitive. When we see a baby crying, it's not simply a baby crying but an intuitive response wells up. Sure this can become somewhat clouded by conditioning over time, but none the less there is a human, innate response to this child.
In the end, It seems to me that this "style" of enlightenment is ultimately a trick played by the mind. And a very good trick at that. It explains our experience and makes perfect sense. But it does not explain why we intuitively feel the suffering of others. It does not explain why we have desire to act out of compassion or love. It does not explain anything about the world, it only explains our personal experience. In non-duality, there must be duality, which is extremely paradoxical but ultimately I think must be true.
True, our personal experience is all we can know, but one of the most profound spiritual truths is that when we listen to and learn a spiritual truth, it is not an acquisition of knowledge, but a reminder of what we already know. And this spiritual truth does NOT remind me of what I already know. Instead it becomes a series of mental gymnastics where I try to fit my experience into my experience (haha).
The impression I’m getting is that Rupert’s view is closely related to solipsism in the respect that all is “object-less” with “Awareness-known-experience” being objective “reality”. Exclusion of “object” allows Awareness-known-experience to be the only real thing (i.e. reality). This view seems to be saying “experiencing” (which has to be everything) is illusion.
RUPERT SAYS IT PERFECT
As long as we are using language we cannot get out from duality.
Hi Rick, I can understand your difficulty in getting totally what Rupert was pointing to regarding objects being everything. Once you understand that we live in a mental universe, and there is no matter at all. Everything is consciousness or a thought like in a dream. When we dream what is everything made of? Are not they made out of consciousness or thought? Like a movie everything is made out of the same light and color projected on the screen. Matter is an illusion,
created by the mind.**
Rick Archer Here's the way I conceptually explain it, Rick.
Perhaps this will help you see what you're trying to get at with your deeper questions here.
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 (such is its fundamentally shapeless 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' is one in an infinite series of such bangs, and 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')))))
: )
beautiful thank you
I have understood why I find myself still acting in old ways when I have seen this is not personal, if that makes sense. Any way thanks
Alternatively, you can say everything seemingly "out there" is like the reflections in a mirror.
They're of course, empty and ever changing but the mirror itself is analogous to pure awareness or consciousness which is the substratum of it all.
Surely there is something good in the point that Enlightenment is not exotic but is the most familiar, is not far away, etc. And yet the Buddhists talk of twelve or so levels of enlightenment, and I think there is a good point in that too. For we can feel "this is it" in some final sense, when there is something evolutionary going on in consciousness. That is not simply from the view of the separate self. How do you know there are not levels of awareness beyond the simple clarity that you have right now?
Yes, our sense of an object is not separate from our experience of awareness. But there is still some distinction between the formless, unchanging presence of Consciousness and the ever-changing content and form. It is not some ultimate duality, but it is a Mystery. It is the Mystery that I want to champion, and short of that, there are so many, even conflicting ways of using reason to support this or that position. And what is that but a subtler use of the mind to create positions? As I see it, no one is above the Mystery. No one is going to advance an argument or teaching that will make the Mystery vanish. We can foster clarity, and there is some good in that, but we err if we worship it as our god. That to me is idolatry, falling short of the Mystery. By honoring the Mystery, you will never try to grasp a position or your current awareness as the final answer, because you will recognize there is always some Unknowing there.
if you haven't, check out ken wilber. and for me, stopping seeking was a big deal. take an hour and do genpo roshi's big mind, big heart excercise :)
yep.
aswell, rupert refers to the 'seperate self' and 'awareness' but doesn't mention what andrew cohen refers to as the evolutionary self. i think he's leaving something out there. what do you think rick? i love these interviews bro :)
59:40 => As Paul Hedderman says: "It is bondage OF self". Bondage is only an obstacle that must be overcome by strenuous spiritual practices FROM the FALSE perspective of a separate self.
Well, sure, because everything perceived IS perceived purely through the senses and influenced by thought which ONLY makes perception a mind derived phenomenon. Hence, what is perceived as "outside" one is fundamentally "inside" oneself(including one's own body). And in this sense, as Nisargadatta said(not that one needs such a quote)"it's all an illusion."
Interesting when he says stuff that we call matter - is just a concept - this is actually being proven by - quantum physics. And the more we look at matter with microscopes - it is showing nothing is there - meaning empty space
OK so if you cant see or hear ?
Never seen Rick Archer squirm so much. (Sorry Rick, love your series by the way).
Well that's interesting. How perceptions differ. Let's just say that I've see about 20 or so of Rick's interviews and I've never seen him seemingly so unable to grasp a "concept". Perhaps squirm is the wrong word but the bit in particular that struck me was when Rick held up his cup but just couldn't seem to get the point Rupert was making. They went back and forth on that one for quite some time.
+Piers Mackeown That was around the 1.13.50 mark and there were many other instances besides.
+Piers Mackeown I totally get the concept, and have for decades. It's just not my living experience yet. When I see the cup, I don't see it in terms of the Self, as some do. But I've had glimpses of that.
Like I said. Perceptions differ.
+BuddhaAtTheGasPump you do see the cup in terms of the self, you might not realize that you do but you do.
Wow , Top grade argument, I have only my experience to go by, so my experience is all, Almost laughable, If the interviewer smacked him on the face with the cup he would quickly discover FREE WILL. Free will=Ego=Sin(Original)=Slavery.
The will of the creator is the only reason to Be.
He is teaching as the LIVING WORD- Not as knowledge not lived.
Thanks Rick for playing devils advocate this is much more useful than agreement.The nondual position seems to ignore or profoundly downplay this immensely complex interactive biological system that is life and instead sums up life as a singularity of awareness.Which I can appreciate but wonder if such a position is practical in world of challenge.If I'm a cloistered monk sure. I may be the dog barking yes but the dog biting my leg will be a harder sell? Instead of Both And... it sounds like just Both which denies the dynamism of challenge and interaction.
Think i am in a similar place to Rick. What is the block/is causing the block which stops Rick (and me for that matter) seeing the object as not a real object but as part of the same awareness in which it is perceived? Can this be teased out/broken down at all? Is there something that can be identified?
Simon Woods Sathya Sai Baba used to demonstrate hundreds of thousands of times that material objects can be materialised out of "thin air" also to be dematerialised,plus objects could be changed from one thing to another, example, a leaf into a plum, sand into a book, a large rock into sugar candy,materialising warm Indian food hot from the oven semi liquid from downturned hands pouring enough for 25 people,changing water into petrol, transmigrating objects from anywere (teleporting) Himself appearing in peoples homes anywhere in the world and disappearing....manifesting a vertical rainbow in the sky..... it goes on and on every day throughout his life. plus other things to numerous to mention.He used say simply "All is God" or Consciousness.He proves solid matter is materialised Consciousness, its a mystery to the human mind and cannot be understood, why hurt our tiny minds ?.Of course some accused him of trickery and other things but they were deluded egos.......check out book" Sai Baba Man of Miracles" by Howard Murphet US version is better than the Indian one but dearer.Or "The holy man and the Psychiatrist" by Samuel H Sandweiss MD. US version best.He said in part in a message "You as body mind or soul are a dream,but what you really are is existance, knowledge Bliss, You are the God of this Universe,you are creating the whole Universe and drawing it in".Sathya Sai Baba was regarded as an Avatar,God in human form,he passed away in 2011 and is said to reincarnate in about 8 years.Now if all the above doesn't get you curious then you are not serious about Spirituality.Actually I like Rupert but find him too intellectual to understand, anyway can we really understand the grandure of the Universe with the mind? No way, don't bother.
***** lol
***** lol, magical powers are not impressive, and it is maya, because it is cultivated, it is in time, it will fill a person with pride, a "spiritual" person does not care at all about it. it becomes boring and suffering to think about or have magical powers.
Babas powers were natural to him, not magical or trickery,not cultivated like a Siddha,he was born with them and only used them to awaken deeply ego centered people to the mystery that is God being everywhere,they were his" calling cards "to attract certain people so that they would listen to his real message of selfless service, love and peace to all.Not all seekers need to see these things, as fascinating as they are.
Baba said he paid no personal attention to these powers which he demonstrated all his 80 odd years.Sometimes he would materialise medicine, surgical instruments and even perform the operation! no stage magician can do this,most objects were religious in nature to help the aspirents sadhana.
A Siddha Yogi has very limited powers in comparison to Babas, only lasting a short time and were earned through severe concentration.
Totally different thing.
Best do a research on Baba before making comments please.
***** okay, so what do these miracles mean to you and how do they relate to the issue discussed here?
This dude the interviewer is not there yet, sad that he thinks he don't gets it, but he himself is it yet he doesn't want to see or hear or know the truth . He screaming does anyone know where my keys are and yet they are right there in hand
If Rupert didn't help you just hit up headless.org and relieve yourself of this great riddle!
@glenemma1 I get donations from Australia and other countries. If you like, I'll put you in touch with a couple of Australians who've donated who might be able to help (you can tell I'm motivated to get those donations. If I get about 15x what I'm getting, I'll be able to make this my full time job.) My email is rick@batgap.com
So, Rupert, along with certain other teachers, feels total confidence in speaking for awareness? If we want to know what awareness is, just ask them? They are alive and GET IT, we are alive and DON"T GET IT? No ifs ands or buts?
49:16 Rick says "Great Point"... I swear I lol'ed! Just get it man, Rupert is not trying to make a point or to explain a concept or even to convince you of anything. He's talking about your very own experience.
This is not about rationalizing, this is all about checking your own experience and know the truth for yourself.