This is what Jean Klein is also saying. “There is not a controller, because the controller has the same nature as the controlled. It is the subject which maintains the object. But when the subject is no longer relative, when it becomes the ultimate subject, then there is no more fuel for the object, and there is a fusion between the observer and the observed. It is the controller which maintains the object. Suppose there is fear in your body. The moment you, as the subject, try to calm the fear or give some justification for it, you contribute to it. That is why the controller belongs to the controlled. But when the observer relaxes in pure observing, he loses his qualification as a subject and vanishes in the observing. And as the object no longer has an accomplice for maintaining its fear, it dissolves. Then there is no longer an observer and something observed.” - Jean Klein, “Living Truth”
@unkdaved10 жыл бұрын
The most marvelously clear teaching I have ever heard.
@nathanjones40657 жыл бұрын
try traditional Vedanta also
@michaelmcclure33836 жыл бұрын
Nathan Jones apparently Rupert was involved in traditional vedanta for 20 years.
@johntao595910 жыл бұрын
Rupert Spira is an excellent teacher, very clear and understandable explanations and instructions.
@grahams16093 жыл бұрын
What appears to help reach the witness stage is the deep realisation of impermanence, and that you are always present, timeless, infinite, watching. Throughout supposed time since birth and when death occurs to the body you are always right here. Now! Now! Now! Watching peacefully.
@Ellutube129 жыл бұрын
I can't thank you enough for this clarification. I've read quite some books on it and your explanation just gave me an AHA moment. Love
@geneedgerton44823 жыл бұрын
Rupert explains these simple, but so complicated truths with such ease. I marvel at him. I am grateful for him.
@WillDanceAlone2U5 жыл бұрын
Powerful, laser-cutting, clear knowing. This man's clarity! This much love is very rare. Words are hard to express, so I won't try. Thank you much for posting.
@dakota10148 жыл бұрын
How do you know your ready to leave the witnessing stage and go to the second stage of being the space in which all objects of perception appear? I'm guessing it's when it's effortless for you to abide in presence and not identify with your thoughts and you can't remember the last time you had mistaken for a thought and forgot you were the witnessing presence in the background ?
@QED_3 жыл бұрын
@Dakota: It can be a little confusing, since one can subdivide the stages to even more than three. But here Spira is calling the second stage the Witness stage -- when objects appear IN awareness. The third stage is when objects appear AS awareness.
@arilohr5641 Жыл бұрын
i think it’s a bit more messy than that. remember that the distinction between these two ‘states’ - witnessing and engaging - is an intellectualization of raw experience that doesn’t fit in boxes so easily (although sometimes i wish it did!)
@costcoexecutivemember5 ай бұрын
The idea that there is a you that is ready falls away and there is just that which always has been The you is never ready, as it’s never actually there. The falling away just apparently happens after enough practice or for whatever reason.
@Misslotusification5 жыл бұрын
The 3 stages: Identify / witness / engage. The body-mind (the separate self) is the cluster of thoughts, feelings and sensations.
@bikeboy66744 жыл бұрын
Thankyou for this straight-to-the-heart-of-the-matter teaching. So concise and lucid. The most meaningful youtube lesson I've ever watched 🙏🏽 🙏
@jaytrivedi78744 жыл бұрын
I am so glad I came across this video as I am at the halfway stage right now. Thanks Rupert 😁
@advadhuta4 жыл бұрын
Astonishingly clear. The clearest communication of the non-dual path I have ever found.
@Alex-yc8qy7 жыл бұрын
The witnessing stage may be a "half way stage" but it sure feels spectacular! It appears the teachers here always poo poo the students experience, they never say "great" even tho witnessing is an intermediate stage you have achieved something most people never will.
@QED_3 жыл бұрын
@Alex: In one-on-one, private teaching . . . a teacher can customize the teaching for how the student will receive it. In group "lectures" like this . . . they have to address multiple things at the same time to avoid any one individual getting the wrong idea.
@dorarebelo6734 жыл бұрын
Precisely. And here is where one can get stuck in the middle. People can stick with some new age ideas simply because of ego (by ego I mean, the sense that one has to be better than, superior than the other). S/he ‘has to’ know it better, her teacher ‘has to’ be superior, her techniques ‘have to’ be more effective and so forth. Ego plays a major role in separation. The person places herself in a box without realizing it. By holding on to the new age status quo, s/he can’t see that s/he is the one setting the limits…that s/he is preventing herself from moving forward with the exploration. The ‘spiritual status quo’ seems to represent some kind safe haven - ironically.
@JannikBoRasmussen4 жыл бұрын
@dora rebelo Good point I think. And you might get self-conscious about how advanced you are to be able to maintain an aloof witness position - while the ego is flourishing, being bigger than ever 😀
@dorarebelo6734 жыл бұрын
@@JannikBoRasmussen By ego I mean the 'desire to be better than' the other, only. To make it clear, I am not referring to the ego as defined in Psychology such as the psychological component of the personality that is represented by our conscious decision-making process. Ego can be defined in many ways. When I personally use this word I refer to the personality trait that separates. The simple fact that you can 'see' a situation does not make you want to destroy the people involved, does it? Your ability to see what is going on is positive, is it not? It means that you can discern what is important from what is deceiving, trivial or plain vanity. And this ability to discern has nothing to do with desiring an object or not - you either see what is going on or you don't. What is your definition of ego? Now I am curious...
@dorarebelo6734 жыл бұрын
I see that you probably have a background in Psychology. The desire 'to be better than, more important than..." comes from a deep sense of inferiority and lack; otherwise it would not happen, would it? A war is unconsciously declared against the other while one can keep nurturing the new-age idea that her/his meditation practices are keeping them peacefully grounded. On the other hand, it becomes problematic for those of us who do not usually feel, think and act that way. Consequently, for those of us who do not want to be a part of the drama, the need to control the other or shut him/her down becomes intolerable. That kind of behavior goes against our natural interests and prevents us from moving forward with the exploration of life.
@dorarebelo6734 жыл бұрын
Just like the instinct of mating and survival in a physical level, there is a natural psycho-emotional instinct that leads us to look for those who can reciprocate in similar energy level and keep stimulating and inspiring us. It is more attractive to be around those whom we can understand and therefore make us fell that we belong. The motivation to be around people has to come from an honest state of heart and mind. If we don't have the openness and/or humility and/or maturity to take in what the other is, it is best to respect them by leaving them alone and look for those who are more compatible with us otherwise we will live in a perpetual state of war no matter how much we train to meditate and/or intellectualize spirituality and life overall.
@darlenerough2978 Жыл бұрын
What a clear explanation. My next step is to listen to the How Do We Explore the Nature of Consciousness video. Love how these videos bring more and more clarity as I listen to each one. Thank you for sharing.
@gitakrishnakharel966410 жыл бұрын
mr.Spira ! My great respectful bowing,for your ,direct experience Expressed in this clip I experienced what you have expressed but I Was in a deep feeling of some ones confirmation who is really an experience er of non duality who can disclose this. And I got this clip and agin I humbly express my gratitude to THAT.
@andreanatalini16545 жыл бұрын
I really thank to this man, to this Master
@CactusLand4 жыл бұрын
Fantastic explanation, thank you Rupert.
@anujkumar-dk2ud3 жыл бұрын
Life changer....sir🙏🙏
@ruthshivani5 жыл бұрын
Thanku 🙏🏽
@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496 Жыл бұрын
Oh….my gosh. So, the timing of this is perfection. Carl Jung talks about coincidences. There’s no coincidence here. I needed this as I sit here with a horrific depression, trying to use non-duality as a method to deal with it What’s interesting is I’ve discovered that I quite rather enjoy suffering. There’s some aspect of me that enjoys suffering. It’s baffling, but it is, it exists.
@noelryan649710 жыл бұрын
If I am in a depression and are identify with it, I suffer it, but if I can see that I am not the body mind but pure consciousness does suffering end. It's hard to look out from your physical body and not be identify with it and all that goes with it even with the intellectual understanding that I am consciousness it is not 100% proof and so more like a belief
@synesthesia25110 жыл бұрын
notice, that regardless of "understanding" this, one will always have subtle assumptions of "Free Will", the idea that they can USE this information to the Ego's benefit... aka Duality
@saidas10810 жыл бұрын
In a word, yes. The first of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths is that the world (body-mind) is suffering. The second describes how/why it is experienced (separate self identification). The third is the describes our true nature (Pure Consciousness). The fourth is the path (Self-Inquiry) that leads to the cessation of suffering. In essence, this is what Advaita Vedanta/Rupert teaches. As far as this being a belief rather than actual experience, this is because we have completely identified with the illusory separate self (second Noble Truth). A deranged person may think he is King George and completely identifies himself as such, but that doesn't mean he is. If asked to consider himself differently, he will be unable to do so unless there is some intervention like professional help/meds if you catch my drift. You believe yourself to be a certain person who suffers and so it is until there is some intervention (Self-inquiry) to help you see otherwise and when the former misidentification ceases, the new belief (you as Pure Consciousness) becomes actual experience. It takes time my friend. We don't stop identifying as King George with just a couple of visits to the doctor. :) Btw, if you are personally suffering from depression, I would like to suggest listening to Ekhart Tolle's discussion on the "pain body"; it's available here on YT. It is a very effective way of dealing with and possibly even ultimately ridding oneself of depression with non-dual teachings as it did with me.
@noelryan649710 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@jameswoodhouse18432 жыл бұрын
I find this contradictory. I can see that stage 2 is different to stage 1. But how is stage 3 different to stage 1? You’re just back to where you started
@dkrahangdale78523 жыл бұрын
Thanks
@meenanaidoo7142 жыл бұрын
Thank You🙂
@annavirovlansky21449 жыл бұрын
thank you so much)))big hug!
@NoRaengs99Ай бұрын
I am in that half way, and I don’t know or feel further steps..
@luisalbelda675 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@Sashas-mom2 жыл бұрын
Does anyone with experience understand this comment that is willing to respond without being facetious or patronizing? This designation of POV he is discussing is such a deep mystery for me that I only get these glimpses of aha moments. But I sense the “answer” to my current “question” is being described. Still, trying to understand it and explain it to myself is dizzying and I seriously wonder if it’s harmful to my sanity. So, is it wise to continue and try to understand or do you stop driving yourself crazy and hope it is revealed? I can’t be the first person to have this question. 😊
@ssoma1512 жыл бұрын
This is only clear to those that are ready to revive it
@K4113B41134 жыл бұрын
How do we go beyond that halfway point? Any pointers would be appreciated
@QED_3 жыл бұрын
@K4113B4113: You're asking about moving from stage 2 (in which objects appear IN awareness) to stage 3 (where objects appear AS awareness). Moving to stage 3 is about "de-constructing" our ideas about the "reality" of objects and how perception works. Here's an example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/poC7qqB3a79qi80
@dorarebelo6734 жыл бұрын
Indeed.
@alexandermarieb41243 жыл бұрын
Does the feeling of “I am thoughts, feelings, and body-mind” show up as data within awareness? So is identification also just a sensation/feeling to be had?
@im74014 жыл бұрын
Great question !
@carlavela71064 жыл бұрын
Gracias ☺ 💖
@andreasrylander Жыл бұрын
Great summary indeed. :)
@unknownstar39425 ай бұрын
Pl add caption
@AlexanderDanje10 жыл бұрын
Thank you. Very, very helpful.
@simonjones612810 жыл бұрын
♥ rupert
@realmckoy11436 жыл бұрын
But if the third stage is to realise that the body mind is made out of awareness and I am awareness then doesnt that mean that the body mind is me?
@lucasdeoliveira62426 жыл бұрын
I think it's the realization that there is no such thing as a "body mind" separate from awareness, with its own existence. Actually, it is just a very narrow form of awareness, but still awareness. You are the whole awareness, not just the narrow manifestation. The body mind is like a wave in the vast ocean of awareness.
@realmckoy11436 жыл бұрын
@@lucasdeoliveira6242 - but am I the screen or the awareness of the screen?
@anudeeparakkathara55205 жыл бұрын
real mckoy Rupert says, you are the self aware screen.
@matthewking78745 жыл бұрын
awesome message
@eliort4046 жыл бұрын
Wow thats so cool, i adore it❤❤❤
@alxiroi5 жыл бұрын
Woooooooooow :)
@wowdontcare2 жыл бұрын
i don’t understand from 7:46 till the end, if anyone can offer some pointers that would be helpful i’d be grateful :)
@pocahontas561610 жыл бұрын
what flowers are those?
@mogsydog10 жыл бұрын
Lilies :)
@pocahontas561610 жыл бұрын
mogsydog thanks!
@marijke54065 жыл бұрын
The Jiva is the Shiva 🙏
@fur1na__1 Жыл бұрын
butifull
@N8teyrve8 жыл бұрын
Ok. Really clear. Intellectually I understand and experientially I have had glimpses of the witnessing stage. But now how do I stay there long enough to first know the true nature of consciousness (Also how do I do it if mind can't know it then it can only know what it is not and that is the experience yes?) and then if I (that is the awareness true "I") can discover its nature then how do we (this now known knowing of pure consciousness) then reintegrate into this apparent realization that we are all of experience
@LorenzoWilsson8 жыл бұрын
Think this: You have to do NOTHING to be in the witnessing stage. If you tray to still that expeerience, you're engaging with the thought that says "I have to (or I want to) stay there". Try to prerceive that you're also witnessing your WANTING. ;)
@kneza96BG5 жыл бұрын
@@LorenzoWilsson how do you go from witnessing state to recognizing state ( the second part )?
@LorenzoWilsson5 жыл бұрын
@@kneza96BG actuallly you are always in the witnessing stage. There is the witnessing of the recgnition.
@kneza96BG5 жыл бұрын
@@LorenzoWilsson so basically both stages only require you to be the awareness? Nothing else?
@LorenzoWilsson5 жыл бұрын
@@kneza96BG they requires nothing. You, as human mind, requires to understand you real nature.
@mladenkostic59347 жыл бұрын
Bra'o majstore..
@Lawrence.Bennett22 күн бұрын
Witness of the stupidity of isness is not a reason for anything in suffering.
@rik-keymusic1606 жыл бұрын
if you want to speed up the proses you could use some ayahuasca.... :p
@DLBurggraf10 жыл бұрын
I finally achieved the state of boredom.
@DLBurggraf9 жыл бұрын
Reverend Eslam You have no idea what its like to be in a hospital for many months with a stroke unable to speak and to use your the right side of your body.
@Sydebern9 жыл бұрын
John Browne Believing that you really are a human being, or in other words: believing that what you are is truly your mind and your body, is the problem. If you start from there, there is already an assumption. We are not that. We are the awareness that is aware of mind (thoughts/feelings) and of the body (perceptions). Awareness that believes that it is the mind/body can experience boredom. Awareness that doesn't believe anything (and thus is only aware of itself: i am aware that i am aware: I Am that I Am) can not possibly experience boredom or any other kind of suffering.
@d14278 жыл бұрын
+Sydebern sounds good but i don't believe it would be all the same to you whether you were in D Graf's place or just as you are [assuming you're okay]. I mean it is a struggle enough to unglue the mind from the body even from a healthy one in order to be able to abide as the aloof awareness, unless you're one of the few lucky ones that has been blessed to 'just be', free of the mind, the easy way...
@d14278 жыл бұрын
+D Graf hope you're doing better and are less bored now
@DLBurggraf8 жыл бұрын
+daisilui That was 5 years ago... my speech is better but not perfect. I am able to use my right hand now. I am not bored I have chickens and bees and making marble tables.Thank you for your caring concern.
@rpodury10 жыл бұрын
During a thought one is not conscious of awareness. Only after the thought and after reverting to awareness one remembers the thought. Why one is not conscious of awareness during a thought? because awareness itself becomes thought.
@nimim.markomikkila167310 жыл бұрын
One can stay conscious of awareness during thought. Thought arises IN awareness. Awareness does never fully become any one thought. If you only are aware between thoughts, you as a separate self (to use Ruperts vocabulary) are totally identified with the thoughts.
@rpodury10 жыл бұрын
nimim. Marko Mikkilä My humble submission Part 1 "One can stay conscious of awareness during thought." Does this mean that during a thought there is a split -one is conscious of thought and also awareness? Is it possible practically? Is it not some thing like 'object being aware of the subject?' ( a figure on the screen cannot be aware of the screen. In fact it is nothing but screen) If we take 'thought' to be an object in awareness, even according to Rupert 'object' is nothing but consciousness/awareness Part 2 -"you as a separate self (to use Rupert's vocabulary) are totally identified with the thoughts." A realised person understands that during thoughts also he is awareness and there is nothing like separate self. Even for a realised person there are gaps between thoughts. The only difference between realised and unrealised is how one reacts to the thoughts. The above is based on my understanding that 'All there is 'Awareness' only. One's pure self ( the knowledge of my existence and being aware of that existence "Sat and Chit" in Sanskrit.) is the subject. To this subject, the whole world including one's intellect consisting of feelings, thoughts. perceptions and the physical body (BMI) is object ( only apparently) In ultimate understanding one realises that even this object ( world and BMI) is nothing but awareness that is sat and chit. A realised person transacts in the world with this perfect understanding without getting perturbed whatever happens and accepting things as they come.
@nimim.markomikkila16739 жыл бұрын
These are now quite subtle distinctions, and maybe we only dress same understanding into different words:-) From 1. "Does this mean that during a thought there is a split -one is conscious of thought and also awareness?" No split. What I mean is, you are indentified as awareness, although you see a thought arsing in you. You never identify with the thought, if you always stay indentified as the perceiving awareness. "...even according to Rupert 'object' is nothing but consciousness/awareness." Yes, he also phrases is like this: Thoughts are occurring in the awareness, they don´t have existence on their own. From 2: "Even for a realised person there are gaps between thoughts." Yes, of course there are, and usually a lot longer ones:-) "The only difference between realised and unrealised is how one reacts to the thoughts." I don´t think reacting is the only difference, or even the most essential difference. I have come to the conclusion that the most essential difference is being identified with the ever-present awareness or not. Even these guys might have reactions. Especially, when it´s a matter of life and death. From the final: "To this subject, the whole world including one's intellect consisting of feelings, thoughts. perceptions and the physical body (BMI) is object" Yes. "In ultimate understanding one realises that even this object ( world and BMI) is nothing but awareness that is sat and chit." Yes, but here we go into metaphysics which is different in different traditions. The sat-chit-ananda-rap comes from the Advaita Vedanta-traditions, and I don´t want to get into metaphysics. At the end of the day, they are matters of belief, or very different conceptualizations to say the least:-)
@rpodury9 жыл бұрын
nimim. Marko Mikkilä I would like to add only one thing.-In advaita vedanta tradition, it is not just 'belief' . One can test it at personal understanding level. The problem is that it is purely subjective understanding. Thanks for the reply
@nimim.markomikkila16739 жыл бұрын
Subjective experience is subjective experience inside and outside any tradition. How you interpret is affected on your cultural background and philosophy you have adopted through tradition or as an adult individual. All religious-philosophical traditions include metaphysics, and part of that can be called belief, in my opinion, inside and outside any tradition, and no tradition is above this:) Peace.