How Does Consciousness Veil Itself?

A woman asks how it's possible for awareness to veil itself with itself.
This clip has been taken from Rupert's retreat at the Mercy Center in Spring 2019. To watch the full video, please follow the link below.
non-duality.rupertspira.com/w...
--
ACCESS FULL VIDEO ARCHIVE
You can watch or listen to 1000s of hours of teachings, guided meditations and answers in Rupert's full video archive here:
▸ rupertspira.com/subscriptions
--
RETREATS (Weekend, 5-day, 7-day)
Rupert holds regular retreats, roughly once per month, either in-person and online. Many in-person retreats can also be attended from the comfort of your home via livestream.
ONLINE RETREAT SCHEDULE
▸ rupertspira.com/events/retrea...
IN-PERSON RETREATS SCHEDULE (Also available to Join Online via Live Stream)
▸ UK rupertspira.com/event/locatio...
▸ US rupertspira.com/event/locatio...
--
WEEKLY WEBINARS (2 hours)
Rupert's webinars take place most Sunday and Thursday evenings, from 4pm UK time. In the first twenty to thirty minutes, Rupert leads a spontaneous meditation. The remaining time is open for attendees to discuss their questions with Rupert. Attendance is By Donation.
WEEKLY WEBINAR SCHEDULE
▸ rupertspira.com/events/webinar
--
FREE CONTENT, EVENTS & NEW RELEASES
To be notified of free content, events (online and in-person), books and other new releases, please sign up to Rupert's free newsletter:
rupertspira.com/free-newsletter
--
BROWSE RUPERT’S BOOKS
▸ rupertspira.com/store
--
LISTEN TO RUPERT’S PODCAST
▸ iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
▸ Libsyn: rupertspira.libsyn.com/
▸ Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/6z1GN...
--
JOIN RUPERT’S FACEBOOK GROUP
▸ / rupertspiracommunity
--
FOLLOW RUPERT ON MEDIUM
/ rupert_spira
--
SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS
▸ Website: rupertspira.com
▸ Instagram: / rupertspira_
▸ Facebook: / rupertspira
▸ Twitter: / rupertspira
▸ Tiktok: / rupertspira_
--
SUBSCRIBE TO RUPERT’S KZbin
▸ kzbin.info...
--
#rupertspira #nonduality #happiness #natureofreality #consciousness #awareness #meditation #guidedmeditation

[@simonhitchenk9]

I have heard Rupert comment before how awareness is peace, love, but to hear it explained at the end was brilliant. Space cannot disturb space, that which is infinite lacks nothing

[@egzonkrasniqi8773]

This was powerful and transforming. Thank you❤️

[@WWS322]

I saw your video on having no resistance to bad feelings. I was in a mental institution and felt the most extreme case of schizophrenia. I had no resistance to my feeling and felt considerably better. I still did not feel good but it was much better!

[@jeanjacqueslundi3502]

That's awesome to hear Justin. Another "panacea" for any problems we may face of our mind is love. dont underestimate the transformative and healing power of showing yourself love, care, kindness gentleness and non-judgement. Big hug! Take care

[@WWS322]

I wonder about how responsible I am for my illness. I feel like I caused it with my incredible self indulgence as a youth and my disregard for the warnings I got. Heredity only played a small role in becoming mentally ill. I suppose I should think about what I can do now. Now I have to take action, self help us not going to do it.

[@jeanjacqueslundi3502]

@@WWS322 for me all mental illness is really emotional disease. Which only emotional nurturance can solve. As cheesy as it sounds that's what id focus on. And if you go with any being that hás any wisdom Alive or dead....their method would involving relaxing the nervous system, opening the heart , practicing inner peace. If there are practices that facilitate that great. Just treat yourself as you would a helpless Child in pain....bringing it back to its feet. Love yourself into health.

[@sarahtaylor4205]

such brilliance a gift to humanity thank you so much RUpert i do hope to get back to the uk someday and attend a retreat, from nz

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

After studying Bernardo Kastrup's Idealism this becames as clear as pure water!

[@ivad_here]

Read the afterword of Rupert's book - the nature of consciousness. Mind blowing. Almost to the point of ... just read the afterword, don't read the book!!!! ... but read the book. It's incredible.

[@innerlight617]

Ah Bernardo,a real gem !! i am a top fan.

[@InesAzaiez]

Great to meet another fan of Bernardo :) and its actually through him that I discovery Rupert! Now reflecting back, Rupert’s way of explaining things is much easier and clearer to me than Bernardô’s :) Enjoy the journey!

[@TissaUnderscore]

It’s weird how it is so obvious yet so difficult to see

[@guidedmeditation2396]

One of the most powerful concepts that a student of enlightenment needs to know is "Consciousness Objectifies Itself".

[@bigfletch8]

The mind is a unit of seeking; always within itself also, and it consistsj of time and space. This is why, as " I" opens up, confusion (con-fusion) comes about. As with the physical body, you (the owner), becomes aware of what it needs to stay balanced. Once the I opens, inbalance had done its job, but one can easily slip back...but invariably temporarily , a temporary reminder of the illusion of mind ,time and space.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@hawkkim1974]

Everything is an activity of awareness or consciousness and this knowing is always present. And the activities seem to be mostly dependent on who you, consciousness, believe you are. Reality is we don't know what we are and there is no evidence that this consciousness is separate, limited, and dependent on this body. This has been the core of the teaching I've learned so far over the years. So simple but so difficult to grasp fully. Also so easily forgotten. Soon I'll forget again and a lot of personal activities will arise. But this knowing will be seeing them silently. Thanks.

[@pinkprism826]

Mind blowing, thank you Rupert 💜👏

[@Aum_shantishantishanti111]

Cutting straight to the heart of the matter ? , he’s literally making my day , lol ... Im a little depressed and sad and it’s all ok cause everything is perfection.

[@litao3679]

🕊️💛🙏

[@rosshealea]

You know it! Lol

[@bigfletch8]

It takes such experiences to wake up to our innate creativity, then we create meaningfully. The creator created creators...so create from joy and beauty. Be a vanGough without all the trauma that can go with it as in his case.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@luizfbw]

it's so sharp clear, this video is one of the best's, it took me a while to be able to see it clearly in the easiness as he expresses it. There is shift to see the there are no shifts, changes or evolution being necessary to realize truth, peace and happiness. It has always been here in the same condition forever.

[@SaleemRanaAuthor]

There is no way anyone could explain awareness more clearly.

[@StarLink85]

Not true...

[@guidedmeditation2396]

One very powerful and hard to grasp aspect of knowing, and how the world of the "I" operates is to understand that there is no time, just a series of nows that your awareness or knowing chooses to be aware of in a sequence. It also explains how and why your higher self knows your past, present and future.

[@robertwajdaii5370]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@devanshudesperado]

Best summary of the advaita teaching. Thank you so much

[@I-Am-Aware]

Another wonderful presentation. Thank you so much, Rupert. I feel truly indebted to you for sharing your insights.

[@nathaliecollin8257]

Beautiful teaching! Thank you so much 🙏

[@dr.susheelkhemariya8966]

Bahut.bahut.gretitude.Abhar.wonderful.understanding.Dr.Rpretspira.bahut.bahut.dhanyabad.thanks.

[@rajeevsandhir]

Crystal clear! Ever so grateful Rupert 🙏 Despite 'knowing ' one remains pivoted to temporary existence. Taking lot of 'time' for this pivot to shift permanently to all there is!

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@poetsrear]

What an awesome exchange. She's golden!!

[@yanakord1078]

That's so knowledgable 👍 very valuable, I would say the precious information. Thank you, Rupert, for Wisdom that is shining through you ❤️

[@hayatezzaldin7286]

This video is very useful beyond word Thank you very much Rupert ❤️

[@pilargarcia6724]

Alucinantemente claro!!!! Muchísimas gracias

[@StarLink85]

De nada...

[@moonglow6639]

Only this moment is real, everything else is imagination..

[@sylvesterigidigba2936]

True

[@aurelienyonrac]

Yes but only if it is true for you when you say it. Otherwise it is just the sound of an eco. A ghost. Cheers

[@cmarkd1]

So is this moment 🤔

[@oneofthepeoplehere]

By "everything else" what are you referring to?

[@guywhoisnotbob]

@@cmarkd1 same eternal moment.

[@luis55ful]

Just great. Thanks

[@susiefay4062]

Thank you for everything.

[@zillamir8624]

Wonderful ❤️ thank you 🙏

[@anbukkarasimanoharan775]

Thank you Rupert.

[@LauriPoldre]

Thank you!

[@kevy1yt]

Damn how do you do this Rupert? You always explain this Stuff so well! It helps me so much.

[@droge192]

We all know this. But most of us have buried it deep down, in order to reinforce and strengthen the addictive nature of the illusory separate self.

[@lilyisshakti]

Thank you 🙏

[@jerryk3280]

All you are is Everything.

[@Shane7492]

And no thing.

[@kahntree1029]

controversially expansive .. mind blowing. Amazing. Namaste

[@pinkprism826]

My mind has been so quiet since watching this. 💜💜💜

[@taraclover4783]

Thank y❣u

[@mansuralimirani4186]

Very good thank you so much

[@carmenrasmussen4666]

thank you , magnefencet explaination,

[@VirendraSingh-iu2nc]

Very nice👍👏🌹.

[@guidedmeditation2396]

One very eye opening program I saw on Netflix a few years ago is BRAIN GAMES which shows you how your brain manufactures your reality. Nothing helps you go from believing to "KNOWING" like experiencing your own mind and eyes in action as they stitch together your reality. 99.9% of the people who watch the show might think it is cool or interesting but students of enlightenment who ponder our existence on a deeper level as we see in this video will be mesmerized. All the talks of screens and veils is real. The physical world really is like a 4-D screen.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@Marvana8]

Thanks

[@solomit1]

Very interesting

[@aurelienyonrac]

Answer before watching the video: Consciousness veil and unveil it self through a process called grief. First there is the identification with how things are. Then there is a rapid change, a contraction or an expansion. That can only happen if we compare the present with the past or an unmet expectation of the present (vs alternate reality) or a projection into the future. Past can gives you sadness. Future can give you anxiety. Alternate reality gives you denial. All projection is an alternate reality. It is useful. When used to your benefit other people s benefit and the univers s benefit. And harmful when not. Any way the grief process is the process of expansion, you don't necessarily see ut in the midst of the battle. But at the surrendering stage it is obvious. Warning: Surrendering might feel like the recognition of utter and complete failure. Good courage. It was all worth it. All is well that end well. 😘

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The difference between knowledge and wisdom is suffering. Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@iamallthatiiz3055]

Fantastic. So the veil doesn’t actually exist. Our misunderstanding of ourselves as small and separate keeps us from becoming what we already are. So beautifully explained

[@konnektlive]

Where the "misunderstanding" comes from? What's the origin of "misunderstanding"? Also, WHY we have misunderstood ourselves in the first place to begin with? ... These fancy talking by Rupert seems dandy and cool and classy, but it's just all on the surface. Deep down it's a lazy/modern approach to the traditional wisdom. I don't say that to trigger anything or anyone, just my own experience as a local living among actual Vedantins, Sufis and mystics for the past 30 years. Western interpretations and approach usually just gets the concepts and overly anthropomorphise them to make a formula out of it for success. Reality though, does not care about your interpretation of it, why? because it's that, YOUR interpretation of it, and never the actual reality.

[@iamallthatiiz3055]

Ok but it’s no doubt a useful place to start as a westerner isn’t it ? Or are westerners not worthy of such pure teachings from actual vedantists?

[@konnektlive]

​@@iamallthatiiz3055 I never implied what you are saying nor my intention was ever anything even remotely related to what you are saying... It's actually pretty sad and perhaps even strange that you took what I said in such an overly negative way. I simply mean that there are so many problems, both philosophically, practically, and even spiritually when it comes to Rupert's favourite formula. He simply thinks he solved the mystery of consciousness, the mystery of life and mystery of existence by assuming all these concepts. He emphasises on 'knowing' but what knowing means? Is not knowing an anthropocentric concept to begin with? Is not knowing a concept in the language that has no real meaning when we go beyond language and it's hefty symbols? We don't really KNOW nor we don't not KNOW. Even the very word 'experience' is a term that only has meaning in the language when we look at it objectively in the context of language, but beyond language and the realm of thinking (thinking in impossible without language btw - try to think for a second without language), even 'experience' has no meaning whatsoever. We are what we are, and what we are 'experiencing' and the actuality of life and human knowledge is always limited by nature. Yes the reality is non-dual simply because 'The One' as Plotinus for example puts it stands beyond being itself, which makes it an ineffable reality beyond imagination, concepts, thought, ideas and even consciousness itself. Absolute Reality or Parabrahman, Godhead, Ein Sof or whatever other anchor name you wanna attach to it, simply is NETI NETI (not this not that - an ancient Indian negative theological practice of negation). Does not matter how hard one tries, one cannot KNOW or COMPREHEND the absolute reality as Absolute Reality stands beyond knowledge, beyond any epistemology, beyond being itself and beyond language, period. Rupert's way of teaching is interesting, but very limited, and frankly very narrowminded and takes the mystery out of what is by nature the unknowable mystery. His method is a bit cheesy in some parts and may seem classy and cool but is not really profound for the most part. Good luck asking him the WHYs, like why there is MIND to begin with? Why the so-called pure consciousness felt the need! to manifest as all these diversities? When did the pure consciousness decided to do so? If it's beyond time and if it's infinite, he might say this is a beginning-less process! But then how can ANYTHING, anything tangible, real, experiential and knowable be infinite to begin with? Why the Absolute Reality (of what he likes to call pure consciousness) manifests himself or veils himself if you will as all of these? ... I asked these questions multiple times in many different occasions and he never responded. I still kept all my messages that I asked not only of him but other people like him and never got any response in return. I can definitely copy them here again if needed, as in those comments I articulated my deep explanations with references to the actual literature with enough examples that I think would be enough to represent my problems with such overly superficial approaches.

[@iamallthatiiz3055]

To be honest what your saying makes sense. It’s an eternal mystery indeed. Sorry for the confusion. ❤️

[@nocosa]

@@iamallthatiiz3055 where are Westerners and easterness? Just in the mind...

[@lindaj71]

As Candice O’Denver says, “Wow, wow and wow!”

[@nikhileshchitnis]

❤️🙏

[@treemonster-xy7in44]

Sqidward's laugh from Spongebob at 19:20 lol 😄 well I thought so! Very interesting talk though with the analogies 🏞🏕🖥🕯

[@organist1982]

That DID kinda sound like Squidward!

[@chooselife903]

However there are so many things we don’t know. Yet they exist. The inner you who sees the self and reflects is the soul. The real self. The idea of being the knower is quite an interesting idea.

[@No-self_No-problem]

🙏

[@carlavela7106]

💙🙏

[@frebrea]

Mr Rupert Spira Knowing is of those things which are 'apart' from me; including my body which is not 'I/me', my emotions and my thoughts. But Being is different than knowing up to the point of not being able to know what we really are. Or do you know what you are?

[@Shane7492]

Semantics. He's referring to 'knowing' the same way you're referring to 'being'. We all know what we are. We are only ever our Self, because you can never be anything other than your Self - I AM.

[@lukesanthony]

70% correct

[@visagedelayla1]

Master blaster💜❤🤍💖💫🦋

[@ossjan1]

🌹🙏🌹

[@SoyOtroTu]

So... Am I Nothing? Am I EVERYTHING? Am I I, The One? Am I THE Field of All Possibilities where Zero plus Infinite equals One? In such a case, my equation and Symbol to describe the nature of reality and my Self would be the following: 0+∞=1 I am already contemplating my Symbol on a daily basis and I enjoy it a lot. Like It?

[@user-ul4cn2vg8h]

Beutifull. So clever . As if "Aritmetic is prior to numbers " ... but still one may say " we the people ( the mind ) invented Aritmetic". Hence, how can i be sure that it is not the case that my Mind is fooling me again to 'know' that there is nothing but knowing (Pre-Assuming we should not trust our mind ) ? Well..still.. it seems ( to me) that your analysis can not be refuted ! Thx. Beutifull.

[@SabiazothPsyche]

The "knowing" is not an activity, but an instinctive capacity, that requires no awareness whatsoever for it to function fully. Just like a bird that just know how to build a nest in the absence of awareness.

[@fateneem6782]

🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏

[@jitendivgi2761]

This is why the physicist Erwin Schrödinger said that consciouness is singular and indivisible. In saying so he echoed the great Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza and his Indian spiritual ancestor, Shankaracharya!

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@konnektlive]

Well, as I said before in couple of other comments, Rupert's approach towards the Absolute Reality and what he wants/needs it to be, is frankly a bit superficial. There are countless philosophical, scientific and epistemological problems with the way he tries to imply the meaning of the word 'knowing'. Long story short as this is perhaps not the best place to discuss these incredibly profound topics in depth, I would just briefly mention a couple of such problems to begin with. 1. What is the nature of 'knowing'? By asking that question I'm not necessarily after a reductionistic explanation or rather description of 'knowing', but really I'm curious about the very nature of what we label in language as knowing. Knowing in the language (as a medium of mind/thought really simply because thinking is impossible without language - good luck trying to think for a second without utilising a form of language) is a term we use and it refers to something else which is 'experience'. One could argue forever about which one is prior to another, or if neither or both of them are real. However, my point here is not that; my point here is to ask a fundamental question that may seem paradoxically goes even beyond the 'knowing' capacity of the questioner who is asking the question: do we know what knowing is? How can the stuff of knowing realise the origin of knowing itself by simply knowing it? In other words, ontologically speaking and in this approach we are inherently nothing but manifestations or appearances in the 'knowing' from 'knowing' and nothing but 'knowing'. Then logically speaking, attempting to realise the very origin of knowing, we can never fully realise it simply because we can never step “out” of the system of knowing, period. Add to that the fact that it would be extremely egotistical to believe that because our ultimate point of realisation leads to the 'knowing' itself, therefore knowing must be the most ultimate point of reality there is, which obviously is at best a mere speculation (which mind you as Rupert claims is the stuff of mind, not consciousness), and secondly, by merely assuming that the way we 'know' and the way we define 'knowing' and the way we experience 'knowing' which is in fact overly anthropocentric and limited to our limited mediums of knowing, and hence also limited epistemologies that follows it. 2. Knowing by definition, the way we anthropocentrically define it, even if we accept that it's the only medium of direct experience (knowing in its pure definition can perhaps be the most direct experience there is and experience can be defined as the most direct knowing there is) cannot again by definition be the ultimate reality, simply because absolute ultimate reality as Plotinus beautifully states "stands beyond being", beyond language, beyond any mentality, any concept and idea and imagination. Hence, ultimate reality again by nature stands beyond even 'knowing' and 'consciousness' and if you will can perhaps (for the lack of better term) be metaphorically likened to the very essential so-called container of 'knowing' or 'consciousness' BUT is way beyond the stuff in the container. But perhaps because direct knowing and direct knowledge (e.g. taste of strawberry)for us is perhaps the most profound level or state of realisation, we perhaps subconsciously have this tendency to reduce the ultimate absolute reality as well to the so-called 'pure consciousness' or 'pure knowing' which is of course overly anthropocentric and frankly very egotistical as well. 3. Knowing is always a relative term, and by elevating it and utilising it out of context where it does not belong we cannot suddenly change or modify its meaning the in any way to fit our way of thinking or agenda. By that I mean that knowing has only meaning where there is not-knowing or non-knowing, and if pure knowing or pure consciousness has a reality it cannot again by definition be called knowing to begin with! In fact, instead of pure knowing or pure consciousness we can call pure non-knowing, pure unconsciousness and it would do the same job indeed. If we attempt to elevate any of these purely anthropocentric notions or concepts out of their dichotomous context into a non-dual context they right away lose their meaning and can be substituted with literally ANY other term easily. ------- Finally I wanted to mention that it seems Rupert miraculously demystified the mystery of existence, consciousness, life and humanity by claiming that fundamentally speaking everything essentially if of the nature of 'knowing' including humans, animals, objects and so on and so forth and that by simply knowing that they are pure knowing we will remember our true nature which is pure knowing! Well, there are numerous problems with such approach that goes way beyond the scope of this youtube comment section, but I guess Rupert as an already enlightened individual! does not need to be reminded of the dangers of egocentrism and pride. On the other hand, also nobody asks the inevitable questions of why the so-called 'pure knowing' felt the need or urged to manifest in the first place? Why does it manifests or appears as diversities or infinite manifestations in the first place? And please don't bring about yet another anthropocentric reasoning and justifying this question by saying that because absolute reality NEEDS an 'other' to be able to either 'experience' or become conscious of itself! This is one of those absolutely naive, overly anthropocentric and incredibly narrow-minded and quite frankly egocentric responses that wants or needs to reduce everything to our level of understanding without considering the repercussions and further philosophical problems that it causes. After all we should not forget the ancient Indian teaching of Neti Neti which literally means Not this Not that! that simply means nothing, absolute not-a-thing or concept or explanation fundamentally speaking can explain or describe the ineffable nature of ultimate absolute reality, period.

[@philkelly8097]

Hello, if you find Rupert so lacking why are you here? You seem to have a love of this type of teaching and knowledge of it, do you share your own experience in classes or zoom ? Just curious 🤔 best wishes

[@droge192]

I suspect you may be getting caught up with sematics and dictionary definition. There are no perfect words when discussing such matters because words are just finite symbols, pointing to ineffible ideas.

[@anbukkarasimanoharan775]

Reality is beyond Cause and Effect. Hence there should be no question of why there is manifestation in the first place. There is no manifestation when speaking from the point of Reality. The manifestation is neither Real nor Unreal, like mirage, which is an illusory appearance. It is called Maya in Advaita Philosophy.

[@karnpooni4281]

😍😍😍😍😍😍

[@steve6674]

How does this all fit in with the worship of God? I have followed a more progressive path, Shiva and the Divine mother in all her forms, for me I believe God can be both personal and impersonal. The Direct path has made me question where I'm going and now I feel so confused and lost without direction! Surely i shouldn't just turn away from what I have been practicing? What are we really bowing down to and praying to, is it our true self? Can anyone recommend any forum or platform to discuss such things?

[@droge192]

Devotion can be comforting, but it is an undeniably *dualistic* activity. Where you create any idea of God that is separate to yourself, you create suffering. Separation *is* suffering. Expressions like Shiva and the Divine Mother are expressions of *qualities* of the divine. But you - yes you, sitting there! - you're also a quality of the divine. And you have no less value than any other quality. Everything is a quality of the divine. There is nothing wrong with praying, as long as the intent is pure. But from an exploratory perspective, there is no-one separate from your true self to pray to. You are Divine Mother, expressing herself as Steve. PS... The orange in your fruit bowl is also Divine Mother too. ;o)

[@steve6674]

@@droge192 Helllo : ) I understand what you're saying, but the self can be reached in this way. Look at many of the saints from Hinduism, for instance Ramakrishna. He believed in both personal and impersonal idea of God and in fact found his way to the ultimate through other religion's too. The self has been reached through all religion's. I think that is why it all gets so confusing. We find ourselves asking and searching, I have no Guru or teacher. Predominantly I read and practice and stumble along the way. I must admit, most of time at the moment I feel a bit lost. Who do you follow, what do you choose? So many paths....

[@Utmost373]

☀️💚🐉

[@Jeronimo365]

'There is no spoon.' 🙏

[@Vinodkumar-dy1hv]

Why does consciousness do this activity / or color itself ?

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

He always give a witty arrogant comeback or return question! There is one reason we have come here...desire! Awareness can only be aware of "things" either gross or subtle (feelings, thoughts). Awareness can never be an object of awareness. When awareness becomes objectified it becomes the world! Knowing IS experience! Knowing knows information. That information is in a common field of information. That field of information or data is called the unconscious, it is both personal and collective. If there was nothing else than just knowing to knowing then it would never change in character. But sometimes we know hot, other times cold, another time taste, another time the feeling of a cup in our hands etc. all that is data/signals received from the field of information. So why does it disguise it's self as the world Rupert? Because of latent desire. Where is that latent desire? In the unconscious. Yoga Philosophy calls this unconscious Prakriti! Consciousness appears only when it has content, or information in it, then it conforms to the information. Like a clear crystal takes on the form of the flower placed near it. When the flower is removed we cannot see the very very clear crystal! The ability of consciousness (chiti Shakti) is like that. The unconscious is collective, but consciousness is personal. I do not know your consciousness and you do not know mine. Both the unconscious and the consciousness are two aspects or abilities (shaktis) of the Absolute! The unconscious is the storage, where all the impressions from past actions (karma) is...all the data and habit patterns (archetypes) are. Without something to know (data) there can be NO consciousness. Rupert has made literally millions and millions shoveling bullshit to people. He knows nothing that you may not know just by reading the same or similar books he has.

[@mrnobodyz]

This is the first time I have watched a vid by Rupert and I enjoyed it and will give it some thought. I enjoyed some parts of your comment especially the paragraph about information, karma etc in the unconscious. I should read more books... ha!

[@droge192]

Rupert is unlikley to be upset by your diatribe, because your anger and frustration here is just a story, arising in conscisouness, like everything else. Like the clouds. :o) If you are asking "why" anything happens (eg. why does consciousness veil itself) then you haven't really grasped non-duality yet at all. Lesson one is that there are no 'why' questions because what arises is not dependent on anything. It's not dependent on any past stories. There is no 'value' to anything that arises; which is why Indian teachers, Hindu gurus, The Buddha, etc, etc have been teaching for aeons, not to judge what arises. To be a tree, in a storm. No views. No viewpoints. Where there is a judgement of any kind, there is an illusory separate self in residence. "*I* am *here*, and I don't like *that*, over *there*". That is duality and that is suffering. When people say there is no 'value' to anything, this is often misinterpreted as miserable, nihilstic or pessimistic. But all it really means is that what arises - this - does not 'need' anything. Value is associated with need. Where there is no need, there is no value. And that is freedom, liberation and unconditional love.

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

@@droge192 He may not be upset by it but he sure is stuffing money into his bank account from his retreat business and books published. You would think that with the multiple millions he now has he could put his books on the internet for free now, after all he has enough money to live out ten lifetimes comfortably! But I guess all his money is in consciousness too! Videos like this are only promotions for his retreat business!

[@awarenesszen8321]

If I eat a meal while not paying attention, the meal still gets eaten but there wasn't knowing of it. How can things still happen unconsciously and separate from knowing, if all we ever are is knowing of experience? Awareness seems like focused attention to me.

[@1982klax]

Our finite minds' contents are limited. It is the finite mind that is not aware of the meal being digested because if it's limitation. There's is only Knowing but that doesn't mean that our limited minds can know it all. Some humans claim to able to tap into uncommon (extrasensorial) objective knowedge.

[@jeanjacqueslundi3502]

Spiras teachings have value but they are not the whole enchillada or possible angle on life. Everything described in words is still limited and any OPTINAL slicing of reality. We are powerful souls embodied on Earth, rediscovering out nature as more than what we were taught to believe we are. Absolute statements of ANY kind have a way of invalidating other possible interpretations of consciousness....why by definition are true since all manifestations of God are real and true from their point of view. We are all doing the best we can with language to point to Higher perspectives within the other....mostly to create more freedom - but by definition no One statement will always be true. As literal and logical as it is good to be.....theres also a place for the figurative. In other words what you say is true. Because even if the gentleman above me said its the mind....the mind is still ultimately part of consciousness and therefore of the knowingness. Spira is just pointing to the fact we as consciousness are always there no matter what.but of course "knowing" is still subjective to the human experience.

[@droge192]

So, your localized consciouness (the basis of your illusory, separate self) reduced for a period, yet your meal still gets eaten. This is the point. The seperate self is a constriction of consciousness. So, when your meal "was eaten without you", this is wonderful; for that moment your illusory separate self was dead!

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Call me anything but don't call me late for supper. Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@awarenesszen8321]

How about subconscious negative thoughts? We don't always "know" them but they still operate and influence in the background, as if they are existing outside of knowing/awareness. When you bring mindfulness to them u can detach or change them. Is being fully awake/aware/present/knowing a case of increasing alertness and expanding your field of awareness to include all experience?

[@santiagooviedo5411]

According to this conception of 'consciousness': Everything that happens is 'knowing'. Only 'knowing' occurs. Therefore it refers to everything that 'occurs within consciousness'. That is, beyond that the mind can say, this and that. Is itthat clearly understood? One with the mind understands the world, one's thoughts, we see the form they take, how they come and go. But even when they 'seem to be in the background'. When this happens (which it does), we have to stand in this understanding. What is it? What is it made of? What relation do I have to it? First the obvious: we 'know' that experience. What happens is that there is knowledge about it. That is identical to everything that passes through consciousness. Everything we call the world: plants, rocks, etc. But also about ourselves: bodily sensations, thoughts, emotions, etc. 'First' everything appears in consciousness, it is 'known'. It is the only way you can distinguish 'objects'. They are all known. They appear in something that allows them to be known, that allows them to be experienced. But here the main and unique or essential experience is that they are known. And that is the central thing, because EVERY experience that you can imagine, conceive and even experience in itself is traversed by this very thing, it is KNOWN. Beyond the fact that one then has different experiences with the mind, as you rightly say: I am doing an activity concentrating on something, for example studying, eating, meditating, etc. It never ceases to happen as I said above. For anything that can happen there is always KNOWING. Then one can describe it and make conceptualisations about it and let it take whatever form and colour it takes (happy thoughts, unhappy thoughts, etc.). That is the understanding that is talked about in this video. Then one can with the mind conceptualise and call 'knowing' all that we have as the content of the conceptual knowledge of the mind. And this is where in the part of the video Rupert says: Ok, let's make a concession. For a moment, let's pretend that there are objects and a mind that observes them (in this case it would be, let's observe as if there is a person who realises that there are subconscious negative thoughts), then let's do that exercise of seeing that there is a background space that is aware of all that. And from there analyse what that space is made of and what the content that the space itself knows is made of. Everything is made of the same thing: knowledge. So from there is where Rupert says: we need that concession to be temporary only until we collapse the understanding and can see that there is no separation if we pay close attention to the experience as scrupulous scientists.

[@awarenesszen8321]

@@santiagooviedo5411 hi Santiago. Thanks for taking the time for clarifying with this detailed response. So basically, things that happen outside of awareness e.g. unconscious thoughts, or a bodily process such as digestion, isn't really happening as such if we don't experience it within clear knowing? Regarding unconscious thinking patterns, is it a case of expanding awareness to include them as well as bodily sensations and the external objects etc. in order to be one with them? I'm just pondering how such things exist if we don't hold them in knowing, and we can feel their influence often without having awareness. Thanks :)

[@santiagooviedo5411]

@@awarenesszen8321 You are welcome! I would like to clarify two things: first, that I personally, as I commented in another comment, do not consider these teachings as 'metaphysically true'. However, what is undeniable is the reality of the experiences. The experiences are real. The exercises, the conceptions generate an effect on experience that is useful. My relationship to these teachings is like the moral of a story. We do not reject the teaching or the application of the teaching just because they are not literally true (because that would be missing the point). So I answer the question anyway because I find the teachings useful. Anyway, this is just my opinion. And secondly, the answer is a bit long, but I think it's worth it: Back to the specific answer: The construction one can make has to be from the experience itself to be able to work with these 'concepts'. These teachings say the following: 1) Let's make a concession to begin with: right now in experience we can be aware that we have thoughts, emotions, bodily sensations, perceptions of the external world (sounds, smells, touch, vision, etc.). The concession is the following: Since we are not used to 'experience' the world (internal and external) from this understanding (being one with the world or being an unlimited consciousness) and we have the understanding 'biased towards the imaginary self'. The mind through memory imposes the habit of thinking and extrapolates the concepts of physical and limited body. Therefore, one 'naturally' from this point of view tends to 'experience' oneself as a separate self that is conscious of its experience. That is the concession as a starting point: Take this as given for the moment and then 'go within, inwards'. What are we? What are we made of? We cannot be essentially thoughts, emotions, sensations, sounds, smells, visions, etc. Because no matter how intense and lasting these experiences are, none of them at any point in our conscious life will last forever. (For example, no matter how sad you feel today, maybe tomorrow or throughout the week you won't feel that way, so it's not permanent) The same with any experience, if we close our eyes 'the external world goes away'. Nothing is permanent in that sense, it is a constant flux. But there is 'something' that is aware of it. 'We are aware of it'. And we know intimately that we cannot individually be any of those 'objects'. So whatever we are, what we know first hand is that we are conscious of that experience. That is the concession (i.e.: We can consider ourselves as separate entities that are conscious of their experience and therefore distinct from the experience itself). But this is the 'first step', or the first of many steps. Then we 'can' further investigate experience and that object/subject gap can be eliminated. Now, why is this a concession, and why is it a concession that can be valid within this teaching? Simple: If we are a self-aware consciousness by definition any object of consciousness is just a manifestation or activity of it REGARDLESS OF WHAT FORM IT TAKES: Whether the experience appears 'voluntary' or not. Then 'no matter what we do' (in terms of our essential nature: it will always be the same principle: a knowing consciousness, or more specifically and directly: knowing knowing knowing, i.e. knowing that knows knowing). 1/2

[@santiagooviedo5411]

@@awarenesszen8321 Now to your question: this teaching does not imply that 'we are the One consciousness ourselves' but rather that we are the set of consciousnesses that form one consciousness, which is 'limited' by taking the form of several separate consciousnesses, but which are in reality one consciousness. So we will then have different manifestations of consciousness 'outside' our content of consciousness. But that does not mean that they are different from that one consciousness. This is because 'we' are aware of the content of consciousness, we are not aware of the content of 'someone else's' consciousness. I experience my thoughts and you experience yours. Everything is made of the same essence, but the manifestation is different. So everything that we know in our experience as occurring apparently outside our mind is a different manifestation only, but it is part of the same essence. On the other hand, according to this teaching, everything we know is knowledge: other minds, objects 'out there': perception, concepts, thoughts, etc.: what is our experience of them? We know them: Therefore, everything that occurs within our experience is knowledge: whether there are objects outside the mind or not we 'don't know' the only thing we 'know' is that our mind somehow in conjunction with visual inputs generates for us a worldview that separates inner from outer experience. But if we look closely at this, what can we see? It is made of knowledge, there is no way for us to know that the mind makes these separations if we don't have contact with this experience, the way we have contact is by having that experience, we have the experience by knowing the experience: do you see the pattern of this teaching? It doesn't matter how subtle the experience is, it doesn't matter how diverse, it doesn't matter if it's something subconscious, negative, happy, abstract, complex, simple, and so on. Everything is traversed by the knowledge of it. The 'only thing' that happens in experience is knowledge: It is different in every object, that is why the mind separates them into chair, table, person, tree, pet, beach, sea, etc. 2/2

[@droge192]

You must have some awareness of an apparantly subconcious thought - otherwise how would you know it was there? Thoughts that appear partially subconscious are just the contents of consciousness, like everything else. There isn't a hidden elaboration of them somewhere. They are just part of the sense of unease, suffered by the illusory separate self.

[@THEHIGHERSELFTEACHINGS]

All things happen for a reason! possibly other than the statements character. maybe sometimes people say things to help people to explore deeper! a statement contradictory to that which we are seeing from master will ironically take us deeper in anew approach other that the original approach? like rupert states, all these things he speaks of are greater or lesser concessions. and somethings need a step down from the truth.

[@DPSAX95]

ok i got it, can I have my awakening now please?

[@sahamal_savu]

Once you go beyond the conceptual understanding of it 😉

[@robin-vt1qj]

Stop

[@droge192]

While there is a 'you', there can be no awakening. Separate selfs do not gain awakening. Awakening is the death of the illusory separate self. Then, there is *only* awakening.

[@DPSAX95]

@@droge192 thanks, conceptually but also to some extent experientially I see it, the character was not there to begin with and is just made up of staff, feelings etc.

[@gireeshneroth7127]

Consciousness according to consciousness minded is what duality is all about. Vasana induced mis-identification.

[@333STONE]

In vanity.

[@shoonyah]

Its one of those days i cannot relate to I.

[@TaxemicFanatic]

Who is the I that wrote the comment?

[@shoonyah]

@@TaxemicFanatic 'i' did

[@TaxemicFanatic]

@@shoonyah the true "I" doesn't require any need to relate to anything.

[@nocosa]

It is like it is. Still you are what you are.

[@droge192]

There are indeed days like this. But they are still the contents of consciousness. They are still perfect and whole too. They feel bad to us because there is still a (illusory) self in there, to attach to the apparant dissatisfaction and suffering. With no-one there to attach to them, these days are just like those days when the wind blows hard, and the clouds move fast. Perfect!

[@ap207]

Then how can we empty that screen?!

[@spectator6129]

What limits us to a single identity rather than solely a collective identity?

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is our soul. All of our souls have black karma and a good practice shows us how to remove this karma......................falun dafa

[@jeffforsythe9514]

We are all unique and precious.

[@zahraabdi8949]

Hafez, the Iranian Sufi poet, says: you are the veil of your true self "consciousness" / Just lift it. تو خود حجاب خودی حافظ از میان برخیز‌

[@ceciliagrantham4689]

Rupert's the kind of guy ud want in ur squad if it went off in the club

[@user-sd3ni4fi9x]

Not easy to follow the delicate logic of his talk.

[@MrJUANMIGUELZAMORA]

The movie is the activity of film proyected by light over the screen, but screen is utterly inactive. Consciousness has no activity at all, like screen is totally inactive.

[@droge192]

You're right. It has no activity at all. Nothing is happening! (This is the cause for joy). There is nothing to be afraid off. No birth and no death. Whilst the screen has no activity it does have an ineffable quality; aliveness, awareness, consiousness, knowing (all the same imperfect synonyms for the same indescribable thing).

[@tribuneband1965]

Such a soft man

[@sabine6063]

We are only one percent (interstellare) matter, the rest is all knowing

[@tonyrobin3124]

It’s the identification with a personal sense of self that obscures it. It’s nice listening to Rupert and other non dual teachers but honestly - in 99.9% of cases you don’t cut through this without the practice of sitting in upright samadhi. Enough of the talk and the intellectual grasping of truth if you want this then PRACTICE

[@dapc777]

~try this~your eyes are looking out and examining, judging, doubting and knowing this~what the senses are feeling from that to which is external~but that world that you are looking at has no part of what your eyes are truly seeing so only that to which you are looking at are a part of the brain that has been conditioned to be your entire lifetime~now turn your eyes around as to me it took many years that it took to now see who is within and that is really nothing to do with the external world at all~as Jesus said that I am the way, the light and the truth and that is within~once again look outside of you and say what I just wrote~it is not the same~so the looking is the veil~eh?~

[@sandycarter5300]

The one belief in objectivity posits countless imaginary reference points and each supposed reference point is claimed to be a knower/perceiver/experiencer. But the knowing is never going on "locally". That is simply the seeming. The seeming is not the actual fact. Location never exists. Duality can never be, because there is never intelligent matter. There is no mind in apparent "matter", made of atoms which are simply empty space. There is no time or space because the reference point of a walled-off consciousness never exists. This is a universe of energetic data arising from the belief in objectivity. God is the infinite, perfect indivisible Awareness that has never been sliced and diced into subjects and objects.

[@THEHIGHERSELFTEACHINGS]

belief has little to offer derived from other than the only few qualities of manifesting and grade of existential facetes acknowledge in perceptive usage of simply just believing. everything is facetedly intelligence and everything is energetic. awareness is a byproduct of isness.

[@THEHIGHERSELFTEACHINGS]

Actually Sandy:) your very spot on going deeper than the concessional acclimations of my belief. well done any how!

[@markusbieler5384]

Although Rupert has a very positive approach and presence and you cannot help but like him, all this is pure speculation. None of this is verifiable in any possible way. Basically, we and everything around us is supposed to be consciousness--everything is made out of consciousness. The Script-Writer, the script, the characters in it---just everything is consciousness. However 99,9% of the time, this all-pervading consciousness seems to have huge huge trouble realizing the truth about itself. Something that should be very intuitive to consciousness seems to evade consciousness mostly. If another name for consciousness is "knowing", how come consciousness has such a hard time realizing this and instead misidentifies or clings to being the so-called illusiory person? Makes literally no sense but I think that humans, being often times helpless in facing their suffering are ready to accept anything to make them feel better. If you go strictly by your experience RIGHT NOW you'd have to admit that at this very moment you feel that there is an external world with seperate entitiers in it. This is called "ignorance" in nonduality. Consciousness or knowing then, is -at least in this very moment- living in ignorance or fails to realize its true nature. This honestly makes zero sense.

[@santiagooviedo5411]

Of course this is speculation. But there are several ways in which one can interpret this philosophy. First you can take it as a mental exercise and therefore false as a philosophy. The second is not to interpret it as metaphysically true but true at the level of experience. That is the way in which it seems to me one can reasonably assent to it. As a philosophy it is clearly false, clearly there are different objects, there is matter, we need objects to exist, to eat, to reproduce, in short: to be able to live. But on the level of experience it is true that everything is knowledge. The exercises and guided meditations try to lead to the recognition that this experience is real. If one stands from the point of view of experience. Now, that doesn't mean that the intuitions we have about the world, about other people are completely false. It doesn't make sense to me to think that objects don't really exist. For example, on the other hand, there is also nothing mentioned in his books or in his videos about morality. Nothing in his videos has an approach to those issues. So it seems to work when one's whole environment gravitationally revolves around a moral peace. Because in the middle of an armed robbery one cannot say: 'we are all one'. And on the other hand one has the moral intuition that there is right and wrong, however much of a construct or whatever. Hindu philosophers see it as essentially ignorance. One acts that way because one is ignorant of the nature of experience. But I don't think that philosophy covers the honest reality of the matter. There really is evil, it is not just a manifestation of consciousness and ignorance of the peaceful essence of the nature of experience itself (although it is also that, but not only that). Having said all this, and going back to what I said earlier, it is not an illusion to be able to pretend that it is real. I would even say that this happens in other fields of knowledge. Rejecting something because it is metaphysically and philosophically false does not imply that it has no pragmatic benefits. Like analogies in a story. When someone teaches something through a story and tries to give a moral they are not pretending that people think the story is literally true or that people reject the usefulness of the teaching just because it is literally false. I think something similar is going on here. It's not a question of whether we are made of pure consciousness, it's the fact that one can stand in experience and experience that, which is not pretending it's real or playing that it's real while we know it's false and we do it as mere illusion, I don't mean that: I mean that it's true that one from experience itself can actually experience that, therefore you can volitionally choose to accept that part of the experience as a basis and work from there, choosing to suspend some intuition volition volitionally. But that is all. It doesn't seem to me that the approach to the subject has to be black and white, I think there's quite a lot of grey in the area. It's not all or nothing. For me it doesn't have to be: it's either literally true or it's useless rubbish that should be discarded. It seems to me that it has an important utility: in the meantime: because one also lives in the world, and this would be like a 'help' to live in the world. Life goes on and the concerns of life go on, and the goals.

[@markusbieler5384]

@@santiagooviedo5411 I'm not saying that this is useless rubbish at all. I find some aspects of what Rupert and others talk about can be likely experienced or at least seems believable that it could be experienced. I don't however think that any human (be it even Buddha, Maharshi or other awakened ones) have the slightest clue about how this existence (or consciousness) functions at its root or how this world comes exactly into existence. A metaphor comes to mind: Almost anyone can watch, experience and understand a movie (if you understand the language used), but this does not mean that you know where the necessary material came from, where the actors came from, where the script was written or how the movie has been cut and put together. In regards to Advaita it is believable that some had this experience where they have seen the truth, but when some try to explain how this mystery functions it becomes not believable IMO. At some point even teachers who are thought to be wise and who are regularly being asked for advice should have the courage to say: "I don't know. I don't know how consciousness brings everything into existence, I don't know how this process works or how something can come into existence from nothing. I don't know how consciousness veils itself or how it shifts its perspective and forgets all about itself. " I think that would be much closer to the truth. Concerning what you wrote: I'm not sure how much you have concerned yourself with nonduality but in its essence Advaita says: The world is illusory, the person is illusory, all relationships are illusory, there is no meaning, no goals, nothing. There is only consciousness and everything else is dreamlike, illusory, non-existant. I do sense some truth in nonduality despite all that, but it sometimes makes me very depressed and disinterested in life as well.

[@santiagooviedo5411]

@@markusbieler5384 Thanks for replying! Yes, honestly I have read quite a lot. Some teachers talk about how it's not irrelevant what happens to the content of consciousness anyway. That's why Rupert also wrote a book called 'the art of peace and happiness'. Even if deep down 'no-thing really happens': Because experience is real, they don't deny that, they say that our concept about a solid entity is untrue or unsound, but that doesn't imply we can't experience them or interect with. On the other hand it may be all one consciousness. That doesn't detract from the fact that we can act in the world the way we act or the way we can act given the influence of this conception or philosophy. It doesn't matter in a sense how true this philosophy is to a certain extent. The same if you were told that there is no such thing as free will (as this view does and Rupert also says in his videos). Now I don't know what your view on free will is, but the truth about it is one thing, the way we act is quite another. It is true that if you are told that there is no such thing as free will that very statement generates a response in that person: they become depressed, demoralised, etc. However, if it were true, life goes on as usual. People who don't wonder about these things live their lives in the same way regardless of whether free will is true or not. Of course it is really important and relevant to know if we have free will or not (mostly to know what to do with criminals and justice) but otherwise life shouldn't change, nothing in reality changes, it's a play on words, a transformation of belief that has no impact on the physical world. Well, something similar I think is happening here: It may be the case that this philosophy is true: what do we do? Because we can act, or at least we have the illusion that we can act in the world, we have the illusion that we can do things. We can even reject this position or not even consider it (like most people in the world: is their life changed by not knowing this to be true? Not at all). The usefulness of these philosophies is the impact they have on our lives. We can always think that there is no free will and that we have no choice in what we are doing (you reading this and me writing, but what's the point?). On the other hand I understand what they imply, but that's why I was commenting above: I don't think it's a true philosophy. Beyond the experience one can have, I don't think it's true. "It is functional" although I don't understand why it works. Maybe it works by a manipulation of our cognitive and affective faculties. This may be entirely possible and I am inclined to think so. The expression of these doctrines has an effect on us, but I'll stick with the effect because the philosophy for me is probably false, I have no reason to think that it is actually metaphysically true. With respect to the teachers, we are in tune. I think it would be more honest to say that we don't know everything, and that's completely normal. The thing is that a lot of times these philosophies are very rigid (even though they say they are not religious and follow the evidence of science, etc.), "true inspection shows you that this is so". It's completely dogmatic. It is unfalsifiable. You can always rescue that by saying that "we still have to keep exploring, keep searching because we'll get to the truth". What if I have made the experience and with my reasoning and experience I come to something different, can't I claim that doctrine to be false? Isn't it also based on experience? They will say no, which is ironic.

[@markusbieler5384]

@@santiagooviedo5411 If I understand you correctly then you are saying that you find certain aspects of the teaching helpful but you do not take it at face value so to speak. You know , at 13:30 Rupert says that if we stick completely to our experience, like honest scientistst then we only find knowing. But then again if we stick 100% only to our own experience, then (like mentioned in other videos) we end up in sollipsism. In our experience we have no real evidence for other people to have thoughts and feelings. It's only an inference when we assume that others have thoughts, feelings as well. But if you raise that point, then Advaita teachers will tell you that at this point we shouldn't stick to our experience strictly but rather just draw the inference. One conclusion from what Rupert or Advaita says would also be this: Infinite, all-knowing, all-loving consciousness appeared as Djingis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and other tyrants then appeared as millions of soon-to-be-killed-victims and slaughtered them all. Like Consciousness appeared as Hitler, as the Nazis, as the concentration camp, as the jews and killed them all---it was all-knowing, all-loving consciousness that did that and it was an act of unconditional love on top of that. Of course the response from Advaita would be: In reality there was no Hitler, no concentration camp, no jews, no killing but only the appearance of that. I don't know, it gets pretty cynical at some point. If we remain 100% true to the teaching and if there is only the appearance of phenomena etc. if there is no volition (which I even agree on) we really should overthink our approach of prisoning murderers and rapists and criminals etc. ---after all there is no volition. To the murderer or rapist (who is pure all-loving consciousness) the thought (which is made out of pure consciousness) of murdering or raping appears and then the murder or rape (an act of unconditional love) happens. The murderer or rapist just carried out what he was supposed to do and did it in an act of love on top of that.......you get how cynical all that becomes if you go strictly by the teaching?

[@santiagooviedo5411]

@@markusbieler5384 Yes, but we have to untangle or unpack this. Because this is important. At one level it is true that everything can be reduced to knowledge in itself, a perception like a sound, or a thought can also be reduced to being known. Consciousness knows that. But that does not mean that the input we receive is only that. To be known any kind of information or any kind of object has to appear and be known to consciousness. How does consciousness distinguish that vision is vision and that a thought is a thought? To claim that it is an illusion at this point seems to me to be a non-sequitur. Both experiences have in common that they are known and beyond the knowledge we have of them, however different they may be, we cannot have knowledge about the object itself. But why are they different? "Only because the mind imposes that difference". That answer doesn't seem to me to capture the essence of what is going on. Yes, the mind segregates between thought, chair, screen, sky, and so on. But even without attaching those labels, we can "see" the experience of "looking" as colours. Let's forget for a moment that they are colours, because that is a label. But the fact is that with or without a label we see something that is different from a thought or a sound, and there is no way to turn that around. Yes, both and all experiences are known. Now: why make the leap to say that they are made of knowledge? That inference seems improbable to me. All I know of "that object out there" is the knowledge I have of it. Maybe there is no such object, or as Kant would say I have the impression of the object, but not of the object itself because it is impossible to know the object itself. Perfect. But this cannot be a valid inference to think that those objects are made of knowledge. It seems to me a more valid inference to say the following: We cannot know whether there is a world of objects "out there" because the only thing I know of those objects is my knowledge of them. I can have nothing else in experience than knowledge, I can only know knowledge. It is knowing knowing that knowledge. I can find no other element in my conscious experience than my knowledge of it: But that I can find no other "thing" than knowledge. Or, rather: that consciousness cannot know "something" other than knowledge does not mean that this object is made of it. I understand the reference to say: Given that whatever we are is a "thing" that only knows, it knows itself and knows "other things": Given that there is only one experience of knowledge in EVERY single experience of consciousness, it would seem accurate to say: Well, all experience consist in knowledge. But here is the unwarranted leap: All my experience consists of knowledge, or rather all that is in my experience is knowledge. But why think that what is out there is knowledge? True, I cannot know whether it is true or not outside "my head" because all I can extract from my senses is knowledge and not the object itself, but it does not follow that the object is made up of knowledge. That is why I think Kant's critique is important here: If we go by our experience we are only going to find knowledge, but that does not imply that the things we see are made of it. To make the leap that since there is something in common or that the only experience I have is knowledge therefore everything must be made of it seems to me to be a prima face preconception that cannot be derived as necessarily true. In short: if we are indeed true scientists as Rupert postulates, what we are going to find in experience is only knowledge, nothing else can be derived: Does this imply that NECESSARILY the object of experience is made of knowledge? Why think that the object IS MADE OF KNOWLEDGE? Yes, EVERYTHING I can experience is knowledge, so I can say with good justification that: all I have in experience is the knowledge of it, i.e., whether the object out there or in here is made of matter or not is something I cannot know because I only have access to my knowledge of it and I do not know if the object exists beyond my knowledge of it. That seems to me the most immediate and most justifiable conclusion of all experience. The rest is dogma.

[@suzidiamond]

Use a 100% Egyptian cotton sheet for your veil or a nylon pop sock and never ever ever go to a Warsop Vale

[@Buddhishgirl]

I thought we knew nothing... 😅

[@NickBatinaComposer]

Dude, consciousness is pesky af sometimes 😂 some days, meditation is arrestingly captivating, others more like your mother’s finicky purse puppy, strange stuff. The expectation going in affects the ability to turn attention onto attention, and gets real sneaky-like making you think your attention is on it when it is really an imagined fake attention to attention, whew! Y’all are way more articulate, but it’s so silly ya know? It feels like a game almost 😅

[@joajoajb]

This is really not just an incorrect, incomplete, erroneous and faulty way of understanding What Is, but, it's almost silly mistaking the reflecting movement in the form of thought as the Absolute itself. While the minds are busy defining What Is , and exporting every kind of human concepts, interpretations, and perceptions on to What Is, countless life forms show up only to be eaten alive, screaming in pain, from the top of their lungs to absolutely no avail, only to repeat it endlessly ever since time can remember as if something is condemned to eternal nightmares. A man of Christian belief says, all this is nothing but a creation of God, who is nothing other than all loving. A man of non- duality belief says, all is nothing but a creative display of all peaceful, all loving Awareness, Consciouness,which really has absolutely nothing to gain from this madness play, Because it is already inheritantly complete and fulfilled. REALLY? Is it why the Buddha declared "Existence is Suffering"? When the Absolute Truth is misrepresented, something just doesn't sound right to the heart. This usually is an indication of error in the presentation. A great mind of philosophy once stated " The history of life, is the history of suffering". What Rupert calls life may in fact be a process of ignorance , deception and separation from what really is , becoming the very cause of all life forms undergoing endless sufferings. When concerning the Absolute Truth of What Is or The Absolute, we ought to be, and should be very careful until confirmed without errors, not just for ourselves, but for the sake of countless life forms screaming somewhere even at this very moment so as not to add more insults to the sufferings.

[@iamallthatiiz3055]

It’s all Lila, the divine play. It looks like pain from an egocentric standpoint but it’s all illusion.

[@joajoajb]

@@iamallthatiiz3055 Thank you for stating your point of view. Yes, in a way one can say it's all illusory, a dream in consciouness . after many years of meditation, contemplation and observation, I have come to fully concur with what the Buddha and Nisargadatta ultimately tried to convey. The way the Absolute Truth is presented by Rupert is not what the Buddha and Nisargadatta ultimately tried to convey till their last breath. The way Rupert and others alike understand consciouness were completely thrown away by the Buddha and Nisargadatta for a good reason. The Buddha and Nisargadatta saw many minds claiming to know the Absolute as consciouness , awareness as Self knowledge ...etc. The Buddha and Nisargadatta both have emphatically negated these kinds of knowledge by stating the Absolute is not that but prior. They made sure that, the Absolute is never something that can be spoken in terms of positive affirmations, definitions simply because, that's what the understanding, and recognition of the Absolute implies. The Buddha's complete honesty in all his observations concerning the manifestation, form existence was what enabled to see the very cause of form existence, and it's endless perpetuation and this very seeing was to recognize the beyond the cause of form existence which is not only absolute freedom but True Existence as It really Is. Nisargadatta also clearly states that The Absolute is not this kind of consciousness that minds claim but prior . The very nature of mind is deceptive down to the core, and without this deception, manifestation cannot take place. Life forms and manifestation are two sides of one coin born of ignorance and deception, for this reason, all life forms undergo endless sufferings till the cause of form existence is clearly seen and recognised. Thank you for sharing your point of view.

[@iamallthatiiz3055]

could you expand on this im very interested in what you mean. Do you mean it’s completely unspeakable because it’s beyond all catorizaton and beyond all concepts?

[@joajoajb]

@@iamallthatiiz3055 sure! Thank you for your sincere interest in What Is or I can say what It is not. It is certainly not the knowledge " I am conscious, or aware which are reflections of human configuration or constructs". It is certainly not forms (color, shape, boundaries...etc. It is certainly not formless knowledge in the sense of form/ formless which are conceptual knowledge of the same coin. It is certainly not the knowledge "universe" nor space nor time , nor non- universe in the sense of universe/ non- universe, time/timeless, space/space-less which are all non- existent as perceived or known. It is certainly not the knowing "I", nor knowingness "I" , It is certainly not an "ing" of any kind such as "Knowing, manifesting, vibrating, fluctuating, existing, or non- existing...etc. Spoken, It is not, conceived, it is not, perceived, it is not. Movement/Non- movement , it is not, It certainly is not conceived, perceived, and it certainly is not something, nothing nor everything. It is THAT which negates all qualities, attributes that are perceivable and conceivable . It is THAT which by it's own nature is Absolute Freedom from the known . That Alone is WHAT IS in and of Itself. Thank you for your sincere interest.

[@sahamal_savu]

I tend to agree with the Buddha as well but what Rupert is saying is still valid on some level. The absolute truth is no-thingness or void of knowing; it's prior to knowing. Some have a difficult time with negative example rather than positive but it does seem clearer when explained in a negating way when we're trying to communicate something so subtle and easy to overlook. Also, the mind created self feels extremely threatened by this as it's seen as an annihilation of everything known which is all that the conceptual mind can cling to. Suffering does pervade all existence but that's a bitter pill to swallow when compared with denial and blissful ignorance. All that said, I think Rupert is helpful in at least pointing beyond the consensus view of many people. Those who wish to go beyond the known are currently only a brave few.

[@user-tv5rf1lu8c]

A stone has no awareness no knowing but exists. The world is not the activity of consciousness as much of it exists without consciousness. What people do with their consciousness is invent stories to explain it which are influenced by culture. Perhaps Rupert is convincing but not necessarily correct.😮😂

[@TheJooberjones]

Not how, but why? God divides itself into pieces then forgets that it did so, then goes driving around town to look at itself in various forms.. only to forget the whole thing and return to the whole. Isn’t god just a schizophrenic unable to stop hallucinating idiotic configurations of nothingness?

[@musicisthelanguageofthecos8266]

Not even close...

[@THEHIGHERSELFTEACHINGS]

@@musicisthelanguageofthecos8266 Even in the moments of despair and failure there is great victory! a lot of my messages get booed also but im not even the one writing it. being reproached just now and knowing it was enlightening for both. only i regurgitate something for a moment and to reallocate the assignment. everything is just fine, i know there is a lot of rebuking thats fine. im only speaking to help people and freedom of speech?

[@sandycarter5300]

That's a perfect description you've given...but that's not God. God/ Divine Mind is wholly indivisible and has never been sliced and diced into subjects and objects. Your perfect description is of the one impersonal belief in objectivity which posits countless imaginary reference points supposed to be awarenesses/ "i's". All that arises from this one impersonal false sense of life is unreal energetic data. Time and space are concepts that arise from this belief. This one belief in subject and object is "the one lie and liar"; the great pretender. All that it makes up is a lie, since the atom will forever be empty space. Our seeming "mission impossible" is to wake up from this insane nightmare. We, as the one false belief, i.e, consciousness in a self delusion, (not at all the Truth of what we are) must return as the prodigal son to our wholeness, which we have never really left, except in imagination. God is not the crazy one. God is not the dreamer of this dream.

[@StarLink85]

Yes and No...

[@StarLink85]

@@sandycarter5300 yes yes... but is this a living experience for you???

[@amanbhal1199]

Just read Geeta....get all your answers. This white guy is a rookie..

[@cotrellwright8697]

Lol. Peoples questions to these enlightened people are so funny. "What is my main purpose" to poop!

[@TRUTHorSTFU]

Word play and riddles are cute but not very useful.

[@violetrose56]

It's very simple,God is the one consciousness,God is the eternal now unfolding perfectly all creation in peace harmony as love,God is love,you can and are only ever absent to God,consciousness , the now moment when you are focused in mind and thought,you are never present in mind or thought therefore are absent to God and unconsciously under the illusion fantasy experiencing a false self creating experiences of false realities such as separation disease fear confusion loss lack limitation rejection dissapointment poverty , focus fully in the now you are dwelling in God's presence,in no mind no thought he floods you with his conscious awareness you are merely the witness to God's glory unfolding creation through you, empty of false self mind thoughts you are then full of God divine awake wholeness oneness love peace harmony with all that is,only in mind do you seek search want need crave desire expect demand , to find a substitute source to replace the absence of God's supply,all mind created projections are fantasy false realities fleeting temporary changing counterfeit sources to pacify satisfy self absorbed selfish self aware self focused false self the epic mind, if you are fully in God fully focused here now in the one only true reality of creation unfolding nothing is missing needed wanted lacking you know wholeness oneness peaceful harmonious love with all creation and there are no illusions or veils as you call them,love is a state of being not a state of mind,get out of your mind and get back to God,you are a point of ficus of conscious awareness here to be the empty vessel for God's divine will to unfold through you his divine plan for your life experience,you are absent only to this in mind or thought the source of false realities and absent of the now God, in kind you will control reject resist manipulate life or outside things people places things to feel safe important alive wanted validated worthy believing you have been abandoned by God,only you ever abandon God,the now by refusing it in your thoughts starve the mind focus here now surrender to creation be empty of the self mind ego serve God not the self allow his will through you watch the magic