Rupert Spira & Rupert Sheldrake: The Nature of Consciousness
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Rupert Spira is an international teacher of the Advaita Vedanta direct path method, author of several books, including "Being Aware of Being Aware" and "The Nature of Consciousness: Essays on the Unity of Mind and Matter". He hosts retreats in Europe and the US, as well as weekly webinars. He's also a notable ceramic artist.
non-duality.ru...
Dr Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, is a biologist and author best known for his hypothesis of morphic resonance. At Cambridge University he worked in developmental biology as a Fellow of Clare College. He was Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics and From 2005 to 2010 was Director of the Perrott-Warrick project, Cambridge.
www.sheldrake.org
by Rupert Sheldrake
Ways to Go Beyond And Why They Work
www.sheldrake....
Edited by Sebastian Penraeth
Mr.Sheldrake, from your talks I understood how I am a part of the whole.
Mr.Spira, from your talks I understood how I am the whole.
I can't thank the universe enough for bringing two of my favourite people together. It would be really interesting if you both could do a talk on Morphic Resonance 🙏
Well, it has basically to do with wave-length,
but also about ability and experience.
It was some monkeys on a island who find out of washing their roots in a stream, so they avoided sand that destroyed their toots, the young was quick to learn it, the old didn't care.
Then some other monkeys on another isolated island adopted this ability.
They had basically the same abilities and experience, and also individuals on this level, live with group-consciousness, and this is the telepathic nature that the idea could be transferred without physical contact.
There is many examples, the periodic tablet, was also thought from three different person, three different places on Earth, about the same period. Just to give a little idea.
Rupert Spira is unquestionably the only spiritual guide whose stance or position via the Direct Path resonates with me completely. Attending one of his retreats was a truly profound experience!
The level of Rupert in this video is very nearly overwhelming :)
😂
Rupert Sheldrake is the only one making sense in this discussion. Spiro wanders through the swamp of confusion and nonsense.
@@dianablackman4528 You find Sheldrake's viewing reality in the complex terms of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as making sense? I would propose that you find Spira nonsensical simply because his nondual philosophy is so new to you. In my case, being familiar with Spira's teachings, I find them in accord with my own experience in life: our commonsense experience of conscious awareness is, for me, an individual instantiation of the divine and universal consciousness, the only consciousness that exists.
By 15:01 Spira has worked hard to help Sheldrake find that they agree after all, even after Sheldrake's insistence on a Godhead represented by the complex of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Can forging such a common view be nonsensical? I think it takes a great deal of sense to forge such an agreement on the principles of reality.
On the other hand, Sheldrake believes that plants and the Sun are conscious (he says so). Does this really make sense to you, while the simplicity of Spira's belief in one consciousness (the nondual philosophy) does not?
Spira says that God (or the universal consciousness) is the source of all forms, and comes before all forms, and then Sheldrake says he believes something very similar. Is Spira speaking nonsense? I think not, and neither does Sheldrake.
Spira goes on to say that the light of consciousness shines in everybody's mind as awareness, and Sheldrake agrees. Is this nonsense? Sheldrake says, "it's a wonderful vision". Why does Sheldrake say that?
The example of John Smith, the actor, who gets lost in his role as King Lear, being led back to reality by his friend backstage is the process of "coming home" to knowledge of who we are, a knowledge called "self realization". Is this metaphor nonsense? I think not. I think it is very helpful to understand how we got lost, got trapped in illusions and suffering, and can find ourselves again. This is precious knowledge in our time of stress, selfishness, searching, suffering, and war all over the world. Spira's message (along with many others) is a message of solution and hope. What does Sheldrake offer? "Morphic resonance", a supposed explanation of supernormal events and experiences (although he does not discuss that major view in this interview). Does morphic resonance help solve the problems of our time? I think not.
If you still maintain that Sheldrake makes sense but Spira does not, I would be very interested in some details. Exactly in what ways would you demonstrate or illustrate that belief? Is it just that Spira stutters a bit now and again? Or can you provide any evidence for your opinion? Please give examples of Spira's nonsense and confusion so they can be discussed.
I think this was a great meeting of minds, in which Spira tried to help Sheldrake to see a simpler view of reality. Such attempts are to be praised in this time of stress and conflict.
@@dianablackman4528 You are certainly entitled to your view. However, I can say that what Spira said made perfect sense to me and, as I approach the home stretch in my life, I have come to exactly the same conclusion about the nature of reality. That said, I also admire Rupert Sheldrake greatly and, as he acknowledges (to his own surprise?) in this wonderful discussion, his Christian perspective on the nature of reality does not differ significantly from that of Spira.
@@david203 Your question about Morphic resonance is important and possibly needs to be couched with greater sincerity. Is it not possible that Consciousness intends that we learn the language of consciousness. That healing the human mind may include a better understanding of morphogenetic resonance. We seem to be generating ever more dangerous and violent vibrations in all cultures, as though there will be no consequences from such heedlessness. One could belittle the effectiveness of monks or one can be thankful for all souls in redemptive practice. Our 'practical' sciences have been devastating in so many ways and the stubborn human insistence that reality is mechanistic is not bringing forth much hope. Rupert Sheldrake is trying to fathom and put people in touch with a language which is common to everything. In the words of Spira this is what love is about, that is how the god/consiousness reconnects.
The trinity as Rupert understands it is not esoteric or convoluted; it is clearly manifest throughout nature and is present in our shared bonds. Both men found tremendous overlap by delving past the formal language. peace to you.
“Love is the natural condition of all experience before thought has divided it into a multiplicity and diversity of objects, selves and others." -- Rupert Spira
I align with Spira, that we're one being clothed in a variety - an array of beingness, expressing shared beingness, love, a relationship that undulates like breath, a movement like a symphony, like the ebb and tide of the ocean, a dance of life. I felt that religion was too small via a NDE in 1970, and quit the church. My feeling of connection grew.
I loved this conversation; I wish more people would attempt to work out the problem of the One and the many.
One Conciousness Infinite dimensions. Each time a 'King Lear' finds his way back home. A new fully realised dimension of Consciousness earns its place in Infinity.
@@in2net I have no clue what they are talking about either. It's the subject matter. It could go on for years, as there is no definitive answer. It is the "isness" of everything. I sometimes feel the same way as I listen to people to explain physics. I doubt I could formulate a valid critique as there is a lot I don't understand. How do we know these things?
That isn't possible, a fruitless exercise in navel gazing. The ant doesn't know of the farmer on whose land he builds the ants nest, it isn't necessary either, the nest will be built and will function without this knowledge.
Excellent listen, lads! As A.W. says: "You are IT and IT IS you." The issue becomes we are always *both* human and being. There is no unity without duality. That's the mystery. Ram Dass said: "We're all just walking each other home." Ain't it grand? Ho ho, hee hee, hahaha
🎉
I view these two Ruperts as two really splendid human beings. I'm therefore delighted by this conversation. As a bonus, they both speak such beautiful English 🙂
"There is a single reality whose nature is consciousness. What we perceive as the physical universe is what the activity of that consciousness looks like from a localised perspective.
The analogy with what takes place during a dream: when we have a dream at night, we dream a dreamed world within our own mind but we cannot directly perceive the dreamed world from our mind. In order to perceive the dreamed world, we have to localise ourselves, we have to enter into our imagination as the character in the dream from whose perspective the activity of our own mind appears as an outside world. This gives us a very good model for the ultimate dreamer, infinite consciousness, whose activity is the universe".
Thank you, your explanation is very clear too' 🙏
I need to say it's not me. I just thought these statements were so well articulated by Rupert Spira that I wrote them down and pasted them here. I should have made that clear.
My English is nearly there but never there, I understood nearly most of what Rupert Spira said, but you wrote it down made me see it even clearer. I am born buddhist, meditation and practise awareness in daily life. But Rupert Spira's talk always made me awake and understand much deeper level of awareness that we should be looking for or aware of.. Thanks to him. 🙏😊
Your comment is way more true than all they say! Take out the word " mind" and replace it by mental space and it will be scratchings perfection
I listened to and really enjoyed your short film here, last week. I listened a couple of times actually, to try to understand it, as I'm not familiar with some of its concepts. I was drawn to the section where Rupert spoke of looking back at who you were. And then looking back further and then further. It caused me to think of a friend who has been struggling with depression for a while. He's been saying he can't find himself and doesn't even know who he is anymore. He is seeking 'professional' help, I just don't seem to be able to say anything right so try to say as little as possible. So anyway, I sent him a link to this, hoping it may trigger something helpful within him. And he liked it!
Seems I did the right thing.
Small steps.
Thank you
.
U are a good friend.
I would actually love to hear a continuation of this discussion. I had the feeling that both of you just got started. There is so much to learn from both of you, so please consider that. Many thanks!
Whaaaat?!! My two favorite Ruperts!! Together?! I honestly follow and love you both!!!
I was thinking I need to check Rubert.. Both Spira and Sheldrake, well it turned out you just made a video together!
I've been subscribed to both Ruperts for a long time, so it was such a pleasure to hear both talking together. I hope to hear more in the future, especially enjoyable in this age of isolation. Thank you very much for the video!
Oh, excellent! Sheldrake is a brilliant guy, so out-of-the-box in his thinking. Watched a lot of McKenna/Sheldrake talks. Thank you, RSpira, for this very interesting chat. I would enjoy hearing more of this sort of presentation. I've learned a lot from you over the past couple years, and when I’m trying to explain something to somebody, I very frequently forward one of your videos to them. You're one of my main go-to people. 😊
What rupert said at the end about reading his book was so nice
Kiahlight which Rupert
He means when sheldrake said his book would be out soon and spira said he looked forward to reading it. Spira is a very kind humble soul but both are gems.
I felt like I was listening to a conversation where we were at the edge language struggling to create context. Both you guys are brilliant. Love it.
. . . . how wonderful to listen to two great thinkers speaking on the most important subject of all, that of the very nature of consciousness - if we don’t have an accurate understanding of this, what hope is there to understand anything that is only appearing in consciousness.
Rupert Spira's lucidity matches that of Spinoza or Adi Shankara. Stupendous!
Beautiful dialog. You are both revealing the same understanding of the infinite, eternal truth! Your minds are formulating this in slightly different ways, but the understanding is ultimately the same. Thank you for the joy of listening.
This sounds to me like the start of a series of conversations between you and Rupert Spira :-) I remember how impressed I was when I read "The Presence of the Past" thirty years ago. And I follow Rupert Spira. A continuation of your exchange would be great !
Excellent conversation, it's great to hear two persons I admire so much talking about this subject that I love.
I tend to disagree with both. I'd say that awareness not only is the same in everything, but I intuit it's actually EASIER for awareness to recognize itself in the trees, insects, and the Sun. Because these beings' perception is not veiled by a strongly distorted self image like that which we human beings build for ourselves.
Everytime I get in full contact with another being in nature (even rocks), I tend to be plunged immediately into deep awareness. These beings are not only aware, by they're great teachers.
Trying to shut down inward awareness (attention to currently perceived state of consciousness) and focusing on being a conduit for "slower" moving consciousness (i.e plants/rocks/nuts/water...) is most available natural (literally) expansive experience. However, I would argue that it is so expansive exactly because it really ISN'T our awareness while in that state of communion. You are accessing a missing part of universal consciousness that wouldn't be accessible if you persisted on projecting your awareness on whatever you are "uploading".
It greatly aids in an attempt to at least slow down the forced models of "our" reality that are based on instruments(either essentially binary or limited sensory) that we've come to rely on completely - making us the most alienated being in nature.
@@Agaryunaer I see your point and I agree with almost everything. But you seem to have understood something I didn't say. I mean I didn't say it's MY awareness being projected onto other forms of existence, nor did I say that it's "my" awareness while in that state of communion. I wouldn't even agree with a distinction such as "my awareness" or "their awareness". Rather I said verbatim that "awareness is the same in everything". And I state literally: these beings are aware.
What I could try to describe, according to my perception, is that awareness is always the same, and the forms of existence are doing different degrees of filtration of it. And I tend to believe that the human filter is one of the most restrictive of all beings on Earth. That's probably the reason why I am so deeply plunged into a deep state of awareness when I set a connection with these beings. I probably leave behind "my" own conditioning and "my" processes of filtering, and once I keep in touch with their state of being, with their filter being way more expanded and permissive, I become able to experience awareness in a state much more close to its purity, much less filtered and hence clearer and natural.
You say those beings are missing parts of universal consciousness. I'd say that their process of filtration is quite reduced, and ours is huge. So we ourselves are creating, thanks to our inherited conditioning, missing parts of universal consciousness. We're filtering what could be freely available for us to perceive in the world. And the rocks, plants, animals are our windows to help us retrieve those missing parts. That's why I literally say that they're great teachers.
Rogério Lupo well said in yr original comment and follow up. To commune with nature! we have to get ‘out’ into it as often as possible. Breath, wind, fresh air. Thanks.
I've listen to you pair for many years and to finally hears you's together is beautifull .... thank you :)
I love listening to these two gentlemen individually, great to hear them having a conversation; I would like to hear more
Consciousness is an emergent phenomena, synergetic, and without language we, like animals, would have awareness but not be conscious and have no ego. The complexity of the language determines the level of consciousness.
So Human language is the highest achievement of Nature? Sad that!
@@marklampo8164 Language is a gift from the Gods.
Wow, I am amazed to find myself having imagined very similar conclusions to what Spira is describing. Fascinating.
Two Ruperts, representing all of humanity sharing the source in media of language which in itself is a limitation, as well as clearly seeing the roots of bondage through which the enquiry is rising.
Having watched young Rupert the scientist getting entangled with Krishnamurti, and here in conversation has inspired me to wonder if there could ever be a connection to the source as long as we are deeply rooted in any "Belief" format. As the story goes, follow the line to which we are tethered, though the length may make you wary; once you arrive at the hook, you may then be freed from "Belief" to become oneness!
Vanilla or chocolate ice cream ?......doesn't matter, its all one to me.
Its Grace which made me hear this ...gratitude to life ...
Ruperts🙏❤Thanks for sharing, great conversations.
I just want to share my understanding why in some spiritual teachings the world being an illusion or nonexistent. I believe the world we see before awakening is projected in our individual minds with limited activities and views. As Jesus said, if our answers would be "yes" or "no" and stayed in the NOW, I believe the world we assume exists right now wouldn't exist.
Matthew 5:37
"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one."
When we look at a tree, body, plant, ... with our distorted mind, pre existing information are different from those who see them as energy/ vibration.
Nonetheless, somewhat I believe the projected world exists as illusion, but through renewing our mind, we can see a different world (pure love experience, judgment and guilt free).
Romans 12:2
"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will."
Thank you. Love you
Such a great discussion, is only possible with seeking individuals. They have the ability to listen, and respond, without persuasion, not trying to win. They win. They win, with increased knowledge, respect, and most likely they both have gained a new friend.
Very clear and articulate and importantly insightful.
The illusion as ‘real’ as R Spira said is worthy of deep consideration and reflection. When King Lear is onstage he must play the part. He ‘is’ and there is no two ways about it. The experience that dims our fundamental nature is therefore real and must be respected. We must play our parts.
Society is an amalgamation of parts (all of us single beings living out or through our experiences AND responsibilities to that experience).
The tragedy of Lear is our tragedy. The brilliance of the mind that wrote it is our brilliance in experience.
Let us transcend to the immanent.
My 2 favourite Ruperts!
It seems to me that the main difference lies in Sheldrake’s separation of form from energy. Form is really patterned activity, and activity is energy so the division to me at least appears unnecessary.
hi Rupert Sheldrake. long time admirer here... you really should interview Tom Campbell, the scientist.... he has a youtube channel. great explanation of consciousness. worked with Robert Monroe back in the day
Well he would surely disagree with Rupert Spira on many levels. Their views teachings and models are quite different to say the least, not to mention the language that they use. I'm afraid Rupert Spira doesn't know anything about astral projection and is in fact incapable of doing it. And of course Tom would teach him that time is fundamental to existence which all these "only now" new age guys tend to deny lol. So it likely would be a conversation of two people talking passed each other using a very different language and models and not very fruitful.
a wonderful discussion! Rupert Spira outlines perfectly the nature of the unknowable nature of consciousness! Excellent! Thank you Rupert S for hosting such a enquiry.
Great talk, thank you. No matter where your path takes you It all comes back to one. One God, One universe, one you, one me and we are all that. So we can be at peace and not pieces. Peace.🙏
Gods are man made its 2020 not bronze age Palestine
@@tanseygreen291 when I say God, I am refering to the intelligent creative power that is the universe, that has brought about you and I. You are not a separate individual, you are the whole universe expressing itself as you. If you prefer you can limit yourself to being an individual but that is an illusion. Time to wake up?🙏
🍀💗🍀
Thank you for feeding my mind, RupertSQUARED.
Wonderful dialogue - please do more!......you both seamed to be unlocking so many commonalities as you went. There is obviously more common ground to discover and much more to discuss that really homes in and works from the crest of both of your bodies of work at their present stage - what a fantastic insightful discussion to hear. loved it.
So excited for this!
Do we find us in the fabric of awareness? I view all things as conscious energy but these inanimate particles play on our perceptions.
I have been a student of Rupert S. I feel that when he says that Consciousness is dimmed in individual consciousness…and when he says that, in his John Smith / King Lear analogy that there is no separate self, ie, no “King Lear” …that the individual has to divest himself of individual mind to experience “go back to” the true reality of undifferentiated consciousness…this negates the whole evolutionary process and the emergence in the separate self toward more emergent perspectives. The perspective that Rupert S. puts forward to us individuated humans…as a teacher in his Retreats, is received in our individual minds …and these concepts can evolve our world view…We bring our experience, understanding, our perspective to his teachings and decide for ourselves if they “land” with us. If they do, then we can decide to meditate, adopt practices that will nurture this viewpoint…so as a separate self, we decide what “feels good” to us. In contrast, Rupert’s view makes our human experience into an impediment to higher consciousness…where, ie., the evolutionary model, that of the evolving separate self as soul or psyche, …I feel that the separate self as being foundational in the evolutionary process feel is a very plausible competing narrative. Rupert S. Negates the significance of the separate self..and any evolutionary model. I feel when he has said, to reference back to his John Smith analogy…that there “is no King Lear” …or there is no separate self…leaves me with a question like, “ What about evolution?” or…”What is the place of human experience in all this?” or, “What’s the point of all this?”
But please understand that I am not negating the concept of the undifferentiated field of consciousness…the “divine ground of Being.” I think if we have experiences that draw us toward an interest in such things, that evolving individuality is what we are, and what we have, to bring us to our journey towards ever widening perspectives….
Two absolute gentlemen. Can we have more please
Spira is the definition of "the Truth shall set you free."
Wow my 2 favorite Ruperts in one conversation.
Rupert squared but also RS squared! What a great conversation in these times ❤
Really enjoyed the Twopert having previously enjoyed you both individually.
Wonderful conversation! I think Mr Sheldrake might want to reconsider the tangent of his book! Mr Spira's view is more primary, more open and direct and Mr Sheldrake's is a little more limited by his beliefs and a little resistant, but what Mr Spira suggests is a lot to take in, and maybe, with time, Mr Sheldrake will consider it further. I hope there is another conversation with these two gentlemen in the future.
The Maharishi explains all this in his great work of philosophy and metaphysics:
“Commentary On The First Six Chapters Of The Baghdad Gita”
He answers all the questions and explains how and why everything happens, and how any individual can benefit from understanding these things
Ahh, my two favourite Ruperts together in one place. Can’t wait to watch this....
These fellows are intellectualizing , the point is embodiment and that is beyond language or concept . Be still and know .
diálogo incrível, maravilhoso crossover de ruperts!
An interesting discussion from 2 thinkers with a platform. Certainly as Mr Sheldrake correctly states Mr Spira’s ideology raises more questions than answers yet the evidence to me at least points in the idealists direction. There certainly is enough evidence to posit consciousness survives death. There is enough evidence to question material existence being fundamental. It is unlikely however Mr Spira is close to explaining / defining ‘God’ nonetheless he is IMO nearer the mark than any alternative I am currently aware of. It is in the absence of science being able to explain existence valid for thinkers to bounce off previous philosophers and it is pleasing to see contemporary work by Bernado Kastrop. It is my hope for a remarriage of science and philosophy as science sees its limits.
My sense was Rupert Spira was in his head, needing to dominate this conversation. Whereas Rupert Sheldrake was grounded in faith love trust and I felt a certainty him.
Utterly amazing! Many thanks Rupert and Rupert.🏅🏅
Nothing loses me faster than when discussing the depths of consciousness or all that is and someone mentions Christianity or the religion. Rupert Spira is a teacher of true conventional learning. This world has had enough dumbing down through the power entities that have dictated our well being. We have been damaged enough and now through people like Rupert Spira, Elkhart Tolle, Bob Campbell and Uell S Anderson we can unlearn the harmful ideology’s that have hindered our loving progress.
So this is a common view, that we are all one consciousness having experience of separateness. Why does this happen? Are we just in a dream that the one consciousness dreams? Is this earth experience we have necessary to experience or does it just happen? Why am I (or we) not aware of an experience as the one at this time? Would that be a standard state of existence or is our current experience more the norm?
Thanks for the video. I would appreciate if dear Rupert Spira emphasis on the most important part of education which is that, the attempt to explain or rather describe in language the nature of ultimate reality will ALWAYS ends in either imperfect descriptions, or in contradictory paradoxes, period. Forgetfulness is a human/animal quality and has absolutely nothing to do with that which stands beyond being itself and is transcendent from all, and yet immanent in all of the appearances/manifestations. I get it that for educational purposes we can rely on qualities and terms that make sense to us intellectually, but it would be absolutely crucial to remind ourselves all the time and while using such terminologies that regardless of how hard we try, the nature of the ultimate reality will still stand beyond language, beyond time, space and all human concepts, ideas, imaginations and mental constructions.
Forgetfulness for example, is a pure anthropocentric quality (mind you, fundamentally speaking, we don't even know how even memories are functioning at the bottom level) and can be experienced individually for people who are limited to notions such as time, space, uncertainty principles of life and are inevitably within the functions of their mind (partly also brain). However, such limitations and pure anthropocentric qualities and experiences CANNOT be applied on THAT which by nature stands beyond the individual beings, minds, time, space and all the phenomenons; and most importantly beyond the limited scope of the canonical point of view of an individual human being. We cannot even begin to understand or realize or even imagine the nature of ultimate reality; so how come we easily & carelessly attribute a mere human quality such as forgetfulness to THAT which transcends all languages, limitations and boundaries? Why not simply admitting to the fact that the nature of ultimate reality whatever it may be, is fundamentally speaking 'mysterious' and ineffable. This realistic approach in my opinion has a much broader and more profound potential for educational purposes as well.
Shankara in his Brahmasutra and his commentaries on the Upanishads and other sources clearly explains that even the terms 'Sat, Chit, Ananda' are fundamentally speaking qualities and states of being that humans can relatively make sense of and understand. However, such qualities and states of being cannot be applied on the nature of reality as it transcends all ideas, concepts and even imaginations of all kinds (and yet paradoxically immanent in all of those as their ultimate source) and is ultimately ineffable and impossible to put into language.
What about music? As a musician, it only lives in the moment and always seeks the authentic. It starts where words fail, and links to the fact that it is based on rhythm and vibration, the building blocks that Sheldrake often refers. Are we but just beginners with this language, perhaps it is far more revealing than we realise and we treat it to superficially, rather than seek more understanding through it. Your use of "all languages" implies music as well, but western civilisation, has I believe, lost contact with the authentic truths that music has to offer, therefore it is often over looked. Have you any thoughts on music?
@@garybranch807 Very interesting that you mentioned music. I'm a working musician as well. As a professional composer, session player and tutor, it was always my personal experience that as you said it yourself music is an ambiguous medium with which one say say a million words by just emphasising on the 'silent' parts within the notes, or by highlighting certain intervals within or without the scales.
...
Yes, that's why as a native non-Westerner I always gravitate towards a kind of fusion music that utilizes other musical systems and structures such as Persian Dastgah, Maqam, or Indian Ragas. I think music or if you will 'harmonized sounds and vibrations' is among the best mediums in our current state of awareness that has so much spiritual potential. The very act of genuine music composing by definition is a selfless act, otherwise one is either consciously or subconsciously copying other people' inspirations, or simply make mechanical/mathematical kinda organized noise that may or may not work but does not have THAT timeless sparkle if you know what I mean.
...
And no music to me is not a language. Far from it. Genuine music is the very context from which languages can be born as an after effect, but music making itself is an ineffable, beyond reason act of creation that fundamentally speaking does not follow any specific rules to begin with. Yes, music theory and knowledge can be helpful indeed, but as a composer by profession I strongly believe music theory and knowledge cannot help people who do not have THAT sparkle within them.
@@konnektlive Thank you for your very worldly view and your view on music as the parent of language. It is sad as a Western Classical musician that much of the richness of the style and form of what the great 16th - 19th Century composers created is lost to modern performance practice and recording. Perhaps some of the problem lies in the tuning, equal temperament is death to creative art, since it does not allow for resonance and dissonance to allow the intervals to speak, both within melodies and lines of music and harmonic flow. These blocks stop the act of creation and place rules and logic above the intuitive and divine, much as the Ruperts refer to with science and other areas of western culture.
It is wonderful to know that musicians such as yourself are allowing music to speak and communicate via all human understanding of musical forms and styles. Wishing you much joy and happiness with your music making.
3 Great Ruperts. Afterall one must not forget the bear.
Hehehe, just not Rupert Murdoch ;)
@@Seanus32 yes! def not him! :O
hahaha, I like it!
lovely episode, both pointing to a similar thing, but one Rupert is making it simple and foundational, and one Rupert needing to add some more layers in :). Great conversation to observe
I largely agree with Rupert with the qualification that I prefer Religious language because it alone confers total Transcendence to That which truly Is. Consciousness is a fair symbol since it allows you to comprehend the Immanent/Transcendent relation in terms of the accessible terminology of appearance/Consciousness. But what is often unemphasized in Vedanta is the essential symbolic nature of 'Consciousness'. Our notion of Consciousness points beyond itself to That which sustains and illuminates the concept. This leads some to get hung up on the terminological nonduality and prevents a capacity to see the Transcendent always everywhere but also always beyond. I have no doubt Rupert has seen Beyond but I think it helps to be flexible with our metaphors and not assume that the symbolic economy of Consciousness/Appearance is somehow more correct (even if, as a matter of fact, it is more readily accessible to secular minded people).
I was just thinking about how I love there’s 2 ruperts who are badass morally mindful souls and among my favorite truth seekers; but then I see this video? So damn grateful. Need this to happen again soon. Maybe include Lawrence Krauss, Chomsky, Steven Greer, Bruce Greyson, PMH Atwater or even vandana shiva or Gabor Mate, would love to see these souls collaborate some dialogue/presence.
This is the second night in a row I have chosen this video to fall asleep with
One cannot see one's face in a handful of sand but when the same sand, silica, is refined into a mirror, it becomes capable of reflecting one's face. Similarly, human intellect when refined (in pure sattva) recognizes itself as non-separate from Infinite Intelligence and resolves in It for good.
Good analogy, just that I am not sure that it resolves for good, but rather transforms into something beyond that we cannot conceive.
forgive me.. but for the rest of my life I could listen to the so called gurus "back and forth". When will we get something solid.. in other words, The Truth. ? plain and clear. thank you.
I agree, they all talk around it. Whatever "it" is.
"it' is you and you and you and me and I and awareness in the eternal now. It, is realizing their is no other only a limited perspective in which to view ourself and thinking it's a seperate person object thought or experience. The dao the godhead the trinity the ego whatever form you choose it's realizing these are all an angle of perception. The truth is that all happens in the now not the past or future awareness is realizing your the dreamer inside of the dream taking a limited view to experience yourself then realizing their is no self. Their is and only ever will be eternal awareness. Time is what eternity looks like when viewed by the mind.
Truth............is the whole topic of the discussion.
A great collaboration. Absolutely love this stuff! ❤️🙏
Great talk. I Guess what ultimately matters regarding this topic, is the recognition if you’re coming from a place of belief or a place of realization. Whether it’s one or the other do we see where we are coming from? What we see does not matter but do we see ? Blessings
I believe what Spira is trying to say around the 7:00 mark is that the energy that composes what we call a tree is always present, but it takes a localized mind to act as a sort of transducer to modulate that energy into the form we recognize as a tree. Mind is responsible for bringing forth definition and quantity in a field of infinite unbound consciousness.
The discussion can be laid out with two analogies:
Most people are maybe used to thinking about the "external world" or reality as being there all the time even when we are not looking - like if you turn on and of your flashlight in the dark, all the objects in the room seem uneffected. Rupert Spira suggests that it works more like a videogame, where there seem to be an objective world but it is only there when we look because it is actually generated by our computer(consciousness).
Greatings from Norway 🇳🇴 ✌️
bravo gentlemen, excellent conversation unpacking the Truth
Are you too related? Great conversation. A pleasure to listen to such well read astute human beings. 🙏
I don't mean to differ with Sheldrake, who I greatly admire, but there is certainly a strong element of trinitarianism in Neoplatonism (Plotinus), at least, and early Gnostic Christianity owes something to this particular tradition...the concept of Holy Wisdom, being the feminine counterpart of the Logos, has direct parallels in The Enneads.
malkovich malkovich? :) great talk as always mr. Sheldrake, thank you.
Wonderful to see this!
lovely. the most conscious conversation starts at 32:36.
Please invite Rupert Grin to do a podcast with the two of you
Frome the primordial Self, It’s like a jump of faith, an explosion of archetypal energy’s in the unknown, trusting a recognition of the love of itself whatever the infinite possibility’s
If I was to ask what is the origin of life in the universe, would that be the same as asking what is the origin of consciousness?
I can easily imagine how simple creatures have evolved strategies that has helped it get food etc and eventually it evolved into creatures that can communicate with each other, I can see how all this could be evolution, even making complex decisions and mathematics etc , but that simple creature who didn't have any self awareness or understanding of anything must have had the spark of life/consciousness , if not then when on the evolutionary path did consciousness start I wonder
excellent. thank you.
How about something like this: everything creates everything else at each "moment" of the "now". Since God cannot create anything which is not itself (infinity cannot be less than infinity), then the only way it can create something which appears to be different to itself is to "focus" (concentrate) on a specific aspect of itself, breathing "life" into it (like a thought which takes on a form and a consciousness, inherited from the creator), and that thought has itself another thought which also creates something with consciousness etc into infinity. In other words, at each present of the "now", everything creates everything else, like mirrors projecting back reality onto one another. The tree "observes" us, we observe the tree, angels or higher dimensional beings observe us, cats observe higher dimensional beings, and so the "now" is actually constantly evolving based on this mutual "observing" where everything observes everything else, thereby consolidating its "apparent" temporary existence. The end goal being that the entire Universe focuses its attention back upon its creator, then it really is like God looking back at him/herself, at which point the Universe collapses back into God as all of the Universe focuses its attention back onto that which created it in the first place, like a thought thinking about that which created it instead of creating other thoughts. In more "sciency" terms, it would be like a singularity (a black hole) which is the Ultimate future, and the black hole just a femtosecond in the "past" right before it "became" that black hole which it already is in the future.
Terms like creation, first cause, infinity, beginning, end etc are man made concepts - that's why the Buddhist view of dependent origination and emptiness is very much superior
@@nayanmalig "Superior" is a man made concept.. :-)
@@SpiritualBrainstorm LOL your entire passage is not "sciency" but "crazy"
@@nayanmalig crazy is also a man made concept.. :-P
@@SpiritualBrainstorm So is P
I look forward to hearing more dialogues about this thank you. I see the view on consciousness is all in a means of perspective via an quantum/ metaphysical understanding of consciousness expressed through what was spoken of a shared infinite being at which is timeless. I am that I am experience...
What, in essence, you’re both beating about the bushes, is that, betwixt the unfathomable and fathomable is a prismatic catalyst? For instance, “TheWord” is pure spirit and invisible, or, a frequency. The frequency passed through the catalysing prism and heard itself, and galvanised by the sound of itself it blinked because the purity of white light blinded it?
The way I heard it, from the gaffer, is that when nothing decided to become everything, there was a private conversation climaxing in sublime ecstasy prior to the birth of a family.. it’s beyond the pale attempting to eavesdrop don’t you think?
Or......to cram it all in a nutshell, take your isness out into the sunshine and feel the warmth on your skin....unless it’s raining ~ then you’ll get wet
I think both Ruperts are very eloquent and thoughtful in their positions, and I don't often comment more than once in the same video, but after having thought about this a bit more, I find that I do have an additional issue with what might be termed the Pure Buddhist case. If organisms are simply unbound and undifferentiated consciousness in a "veiled" state (and I am not suggesting they aren't) the question arises as to just how this veiling could have happened. This is where the analogy with the sun begins to break down, I think. The sun does not veil itself, and if the sun is the only real thing, how then could this veiling ever have happened unless it was by specific intent of the source? Indeed, the idea of something "happening," as if by surprise as it were, to that which is itself infinite, free, unbound, and moreover the only true reality, doesn't seem to make much sense. But then this would mean that the world, and hence the veiling, has a kind of purpose, and that purpose is likely something to do with the valuing of *specific experience*. This is the one thing that source could not have without such limitation. It could not know what it was like to be a Russian farmer without having a Russia...and farms. This saves life from the Buddhist trap of being something that simply exists to be "escaped" from, something which I have always found to be its weakest and least convincing feature. Again, it doesn't look to me like spirit, consciousness, or whatever one wants to call it, is primarily involved in a project of escape. If anything, the reverse seems to be true. It has poured itself "into" specific experience...in as many shapes, and in as many different ways as possible. Not only does pure un-differentation fail to give a convincing account of how specific forms and experience arose, it also isn't particularly persuasive on why a return to ground state (undifferentiated) should be considered a worthy goal over life. While the origin state may be re-acquired, unless there is/was some difference from the origin state prior to the journey, then in effect nothing has happened. Unless experience is savourable in some way, which is to say it can abide, losing one's self is entirely equivalent to never having had a self. Something doesn't really gel with me about that. Both the fullness and the emptiness of Being suggest themselves as equally important somehow. The emptiness holds the fullness, supports it, makes it possible. But without the fulness, the world of myriad forms, there is nothing there to support, nothing to experience, nothing to hold. Both sides of the equation seem to me to need each other. The ability to limit, and experience under limitation, may be the very thing, paradoxically, that enables the limitless origin to perceive itself. Even the sun requires the relative darkness to "know" itself as a sun and for the idea of "shining" to make any sense.
Thanks for your time. Have long been a reader of Rupert (Sh)'s books, and quite like some of Rupert (Sp)'s thoughts as well. Let's not assume we have all the answers though. Look forward to more conversations between these two.
Green Sle, I don't know if this is an apt summary of your thoughts but here's my take away: We must first perceive ourselves as limited (empty) in order to appreciate the truth that we are limitless (fully Whole)
I agree that emptiness and fullness are mutually necessary for deep understanding of human consciousness. The problem with people is that the balance is damaged by the making of images that the individual consciousness invents for itself and others as the illusion superimposed over the true undivided state of mind. What now enters the movie screen of our ensuing life is the distortion of like and dislike which limits our perceptions of what happened as the past participle of lived experience. All this distorted and limited thinking is registered in memory and therefore becomes the ground for contradictions, confusion and conflict within and without. The only way to end this conflict etc is to enquire deeply into the image-making process of thought for oneself and see the fact of images as the false substance of the self. As Krishnamurti pointed out the instant seeing of the fact is complete action in and of itself.
You and the Buddhist are both right. The veiling has to do with movement of consciousness. However, Consciousness can’t actually move so this movement is just a metaphor. It is like a pond, when the pond is stirred you get the ripples and pools within it. The pond itself is still the same pond only that it appears to be chaotic and this movement is the veil. This movement is caused by desire and will and it expressed as a different state of consciousness, and you experience this as the mind . This is what creates this duality. Consciousness uses this duality to reflect back at itself to know or experience itself like a mirror and this is called Leela, or Divine play. For example, you as the individual self only knows what is being expressed as an idea or concept, which is the veil, you know what peace, love, happiness are, they are conceptualizations created by the mind but ultimately under the filter of the mind they are the light of Consciousness itself, this act of conceptualization is a type of creative play. This knowing and experience of itself is this game of conceptualization then seeking itself, hide and seek is a good analogy. The concepts and ideas of yourself is a way to hide yourself from what you truly are, but because its a game you have to go through a period of seeking yourself by removing the concepts and ideas of yourself, when you have done this you realize you were already what you were looking for, only that you were intentionally hiding behind these ideas. Your life as a farmer is only expression but ultimately it is part of this game of knowing and eventually coming back to what you truly are, it’s like a story that consciousness tells itself about it’s journey to discovering itself, but truly it doesn't need to discover itself or know itself because it is self knowing, but it does this because it can, and it is done out of joy. This is why Buddhist see the objective world as only a means to escape it because it's always about being what you are and not what you aren't, the what you aren't is only a mirror to know or express this game and the goal of this game is always to find what you truly are. What you aren't, which is the world and the individual self, are what comes about through consciousness expression of it’s nature, which is happiness. It is like a Child splashing in the pond of it’s own being, the disturbance of the pond is the result of the child just being itself, or like when the Sun radiates on the earth, the flowers blooms and things happen, but the sun doesn’t directly touch the earth, but it’s light and warmth does, and this causes the world to exist as life happening. This is the same for consciousness, things happen due it’s nature of happiness, and this happiness is a type of self knowing of itself, and this is expressed as a game of seeking itself as a way to know and experience itself conceptually and eventually the realization what it truly is, the objective world that appears are just the ripples or appearances due to the results of this being of itself, just like the flower blooms due to the sun without the sun having to do anything other than be itself, it just happens, but it happens so consciousness can express the joy and happiness of being.
ānanda , thanks for your response re Buddhist perspective. I don’t know what the Buddhist’s teachings are about, but they’re rather complicated to someone brought up in the western world with it’s traditional forms of conditioning which encourages competitive activity as a positive approach to establishing a place for yourself in society. This conditioning reflected in the personal and collective mindset by way of images registered in memory as the content of consciousness forms the screen through which the everyday living is interpreted. Things I like I want to form attachment with as pleasant, whereas things I dislike I want to discard. This is the game for westerners, but the bits that I want to discard psychologically are the opposites of the bits I want to hold on to, the other side of the coin. What is not clear to me when I exercise will as the instrument to carry out my conscious or unconscious intentions is the fact of movement in thought from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’ doesn’t actually remove the disliked content, so it remains as the submerged opposite of the pleasurable notion and still active. Insight into the difference between facts and non-facts alerts one to the truth or falseness of the registration process and may enable clarity of mind by remaining firmly with ‘what is’ psychologically and allow it to ‘flower’ and then dissolve back into the emptiness from which it sprung. This is the first step and the last step that Krishnamurti points to as freedom.
It should be also pointed out that the state of freedom as emerging from silence, acting or not acting, then returning to silence has no characteristic features in and of itself so any description as Joy or happiness is simply the construct of fragmented thinking and therefore it is to no avail. Sorry!,
in2net
According to the analogy 'We' are King Lears. Including Rupert Spira. Your analogy also suggests A King lear is incapable of knowing or being Conscious because knowing and conciousness reside with John Smith who is not apparent in King lear or in a Rupert Spiras world. How then would a Rupert Spira or any of us discover the John Smith that I agree we and everything we perceive around us is made of?
Also in the analogy who in our world represents the friend that 'knows' King Lear is not being himself?
Great conversation!
Thank you for this
Clearly here, two Ruperts do make a right!
Happy you met!
Two of the best minds ... peace to all
looking at you on the cell, and see your eyes moving, reality and true.
PS I’m totally sober!
I love the idea of our connection to higher conciousness but non-duality is overly-speculative and leads to mind games, imo. We are an individual wave in a larger ocean of consciousness and that's enough for me. Anymore is pure philosophizing and overthinking our existence.
I AM.
That's that.
I am this or that and all the rest that follows from that, is just mind stuff that we use to return to a state of mind of just being I am, and just being.
Apparently the unit of measure for morphic resonance is the "rupert".
Wonderful conversation... is there any continuation of this conversation available anywhere?
I would be more comfortable with the word "shadow" or "projection" rather than "illusion." Because illusion does imply a mistaken perception. So in consciousness I would call a tree a projection, and of itself, a shadow, since the qualities of real things as we know them aren't limited to our ability to perceive them.
Had these two mixed up for a bit. This helps. Kind of.
I am aware of consciousness and am conscious of awareness
We all are, even those who believe they are not.
Wow!!! Mind Blowing! 💥😍
It’s my experience that academics struggle more with this concept than an uneducated person. Sheldrake is a welcome exception IMO.
Finally!
I don't understand what is the difference between what Spira says and Barkely except using the term infinite consciousness for God
Beautiful. Thanks, Gents.
I do love our Rupert Sheldrake and his wonderful mind. I shouldn’t even say it but I want to just point out what wonderful gymnastics he has learned to do in order to call himself a “Christian”.. 🤔..
Just admit it Rupert, my friend, you’ll feel so much lighter when you do.
🖖namaste homies
Love you Ruperts