There Is Not Nothing; There Is Experience

[@ganjaextravaganza]

one of the great and much under recognised true masters of our time.

[@davidhollyfield5148]

I love the way Rupert speaks of this with such elegant precision, without bringing in any cultural reference or 'new agey' ideas to clutter the purity of the teaching.

[@kekfuszal]

Grow up.

[@mellowbirds4777]

No Rupert you are wrong

[@zain4019]

david hollyfield By new-agry, do you mean chakras, energy and frequency? Because that is all too real. Take some psychedelics sometime.

[@not_melkor]

I’m not sure he is not recognized. He is probably the most popular contemporary advaita teacher and probably has much bigger reach than even Sri Ramana. (Thanks to the internet and the accessibility )

[@yeesirnwong3778]

Thanks Rupert

[@davidhollyfield5148]

I love the way Rupert speaks of this with such elegant precision, without bringing in any cultural reference or 'new agey' ideas to clutter the purity of the teaching.

[@KAALNEMI59]

Exactly,lord Buddha refuted the word ATMAN because that reality (self)is indescribable n this(description) something is the biggest n smallest hindrance of self realisation (enlightenment). Great Rupert Sir. ❤️❤️ Sri Ramana,U and Jk really de-dogamatized(simplified ) the Self realisation process n separated it from the hinge of organized religions❤️❤️❤️

[@RPKGameVids]

I'm not religious but I find these videos very relaxing and theraputic.

[@kekfuszal]

RPKVids It will pass

[@vvv2k12]

This is not religion

[@tonyheng9167]

There cannot be an image without a screen to display it; but there can be a screen without image displayed on it, hence awareness / consciousness (the screen) comes first before images. Just like everything cannot exist in the absence of space but space can exist in the absence of objects. In fact, objects MUST exist within space. The pure, open space is the light of awareness.

[@kekfuszal]

The screen is an image too.

[@nazrinbeatz]

@@kekfuszal the screen is the just a metaphor for a finite mind to relate.

[@gireeshneroth7127]

You are Consciousness first before you are you as a separate self. It is true you verses false you. False you do not exist.

[@drygordspellweaver8761]

This is a fallacious way of reducing a complex system of interdependency. If you change the body chemistry you can alter the state of consciousness. Thus clearly the metaphor of a screen doesn’t apply because altering an image doesn’t change the screen.

[@xLUNAPODx]

@@drygordspellweaver8761 What is this "state of consciousness" that you can alter?

[@iknownothing0]

By the way this guy is just Great !!!!👍

[@annesparfumyoga]

Such beautifull way to start the Weekend, thanks very much for sharing. With Love...

[@Iamthatknows]

"God is at Home, It's we who have gone out for a walk" ~ Meister Eckhart.

[@mariekuijkenhistoricallyaw2598]

I love this man

[@goranscekic4979]

A true master he is Thank you master Rupert Spira.

[@kekfuszal]

Grow up, man.

[@marcellusdelemos736]

Amazing how well you can explain things, truly from the heart.

[@RPKGameVids]

He's saying some really interesting stuff.

[@SeanJepson7]

The houses metaphor is sensational 🙂

[@nav3324]

so clear and beautiful. thanks!

[@malibeli1215]

So great conversation! Thanks

[@williamcallahan5218]

"I" is a Door" Philip Renard I’ Is a Door: The Essence of Advaita as taught by Ramana Maharshi, Atmananda & Nisargadatta Maharaj is a great little book.

[@Nonconceptuality]

I completely agree with Rupert. "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness" instantly falls to either dualism or nihilism. There is an Absolute. It is necessary (for mind to settle and be satiated) to name this Absolute, and THEN tell consciousness that this Absolute cannot be conceptualized (as does Vedanta and Taoism).

[@kekfuszal]

Good for you. And then what?

[@zeratulofaiur2589]

Sir, I cannot express my gratitude enough. Your talks made things click for me few months ago. I think the problem is, or at least was for me, we get stuck so much on details of the definitions. Definitions are like points on a paper, and we have to see the paper in order to understand.

[@dyadanimation8415]

In Zen Buddhism, it is sometimes said that negatives are 'parasitic' upon the positives. In other words, Non-Being implies Being. In fact, literally applying or adding a non builds upon the positive form.

[@jeremyaxelrad6241]

Dyad Animation yes, but what is being?

[@dyadanimation8415]

+Jeremy Axelrad Hello!

[@dyadanimation8415]

+Jeremy Axelrad I don't know.

[@jeremyaxelrad6241]

Dyad Animation I know, right?! ^^

[@Shazbut0191]

Teachings like that of non-being are meant to first draw awareness to the idea of being and then to transcend it. If you take a concept and remove everything that it isn't, the concept can't stand. A lot of spiritual language in my experience is meant as an antidote in this way - in this case an antidote to the belief in being - and not as a universal truth.

[@lindamckenzie1537]

This is great, but the volume is too low.

[@kekfuszal]

And then what?

[@doriesse824]

Rupert, I wonder if someday you could give a talk on Gnosticism, the way you have included Buddhism in this one.

[@Knaeben]

Emptiness in Buddhism does mean that an object has no independent existence. It is mutually co-arising with everything else in the world and is free of any qualities we impute into it.

[@shadowman45810]

When Buddha spoke of no self he was talking about the ego that most people relate to and identify as.

[@wattaura7621]

The word for the whole or (your) God is 'source'.

[@TheSryn1]

What about the consciousness of water in line with Masaru Emoto's works? The response of water to consciousness is then grounded in our consciousness?

[@jonathannadeau6218]

I’ve studied Buddhism for a long time and the answer is that some Buddhism agrees with Rupert and some Buddhism disagrees. There’s many interpretation of anatman in Buddhism in general and innumerable interpretations of shunyata in Tibetan Buddhism.

[@jonathannadeau6218]

The right answer is probably that the Buddhists who speak from experience agree with Rupert but those who doesn’t speak from experience, undoubtedly the majority, disagree.

[@alisonsalter8352]

@@jonathannadeau6218 i'm interested in this. Could you say more please? Do you mean those who only understand the doctrine intellectually rather than feeling it deeply in the heart in experience?

[@alisonsalter8352]

@@jonathannadeau6218 i got a notification of a reply but there's nothing here!

[@lindamckenzie1537]

'Can We Equate Emptiness With Advaita?' 3-Part series by Greg Goode found on the Stillness Speaks website. (Sorry You Tube wont let me post the link. Doing so makes the comment invisible to all but me).

[@sandhyamaltby4703]

Linda McKenzie

[@innerlight617]

Excellent talk! Totally agree with what is said about panpsychism.16.43 Just read this article www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-universal-nature-mind/ And came to the video again,what Rupert is saying it is so clear to me..so clear!

[@eva9539]

what you discribe at min 19 is exactly what is happening now with transhumanism. they would like to change the human in artificial intelligence. please rupert could you make a video with this topic.

[@rosa-boom-nonduality]

💗

[@iknownothing0]

Ok guys I admit it (I) create everything and give it my self by paying attention to whatever I fancy. My cars window wipers drive me crazy when I curse at them fro my heart they stop moving.! Try it ,give some consciousness around . Just don't give your attention to politicians 😎

[@markbrad123]

Zen(see Shinzen) agrees with Advaita - the great Void. However, other Buddhists just think it is a changing set of sense aggregates with no actual fixed existence of persona(unfindable) and don't acknowledge space/energy unity. Quantum Physics indicates a unified Quantum Field.

[@Martynfrd]

Language is the first step in the distortion of reality.

[@punk4034]

Whole process of vedanta is only to overcome ignorance. From the point of view of pure self :-there is no ignorance but our (seperate self's) point of view it's we as limited individuals, we want to realize our unlimited self... We are trying to overcome our limitation by realizing that... Question is... does it requires the mind? To know unlimited consciousness to know itself??In the Gospel of Sri ramakrishna :he says :-why should I always look at the mirror, people will think im mad.. Consciousness does not need to look at its face in the mirror all the time ;if it wants.. It can Consciousness looking at its face in the mirror is this little person (seperate self) and this little universe... It's your reflection in the mirror of maya But sometimes you put the mirror of maya aside and you are YOU It may look like void from seperate self's point of view but from its point of view :-its infinityIn waking state we are aware of subject and objects.. Here is consciousness projecting a universe out and being aware of various forms... Using its powers to see and hear.. And smell touch and think and feel.. Enjoy and suffer... And in dream also something similar happens.. But there is another state.. Where consciousness exists without knowing itself as an object.. That's deep sleep. Some what analogously consciousness can perfectly well exists without knowing itself.. It doesn't need to..~Sarvapriyananda swamy

[@johncasarino5627]

Buddhism, much like materialism always confuses the contents of consciousness with consciousness itself.

[@tslow1829]

Was there a mistake in his last statement towards the very end ..”there is no such independently existing thing call a screen.”? Did he mean “image” instead of “screen”. Help, thanks. The screen is pure Awareness so it must exist, right?

[@Ravi0195]

Yes, you are right. There is just Consciousness out of which imges take form. The only essence is the Consciousness and everything else derives from it.

[@hgracern]

Concsiouness experiences on behalf of the Self/Absolute? Have l understood rightly?

[@bradstephan7886]

'Consciousness', the 'Self', the 'Absolute' are all one and the same.

[@kekfuszal]

Brad Stephan wow, man!

[@iamessence6268]

Thank you my question is. Can we say that when we have a near death experience or out of body experience, we are out of the body?. Are we really out of the body?.

[@hinduhistory1407]

No

[@williamcallahan5218]

Invisible One in the absolute sense there is no one, no birth or death. no experience. there is only experiencing and on one is doing it. so the body is an appearance, it is a collection of causes and conditions, functions and memes but it is not a separate discrete personal thing. the idea of a body arises with identity, when a "object" ( a thought that imagines it is a "you") thinks itself to be a subject and it encounters another object a sense of separateness arises. It's only a thought. You are what is aware of thoughts and emotion and perceptions. You are Awareness.

[@jedimind5337]

yes

[@alisonsalter8352]

@@williamcallahan5218 namaste my love 🙏🏽

[@jeremyaxelrad6241]

If we're going to say mind is like space, I think it's important, as many Buddhists suggest, to really consider the nature of space. Apart from any superimposed limitations, beyond any shapes of containment, is there anything "really" there at all? Or is it simply open, groundless, ungraspable, the sheer lack of obstruction or solidity? I think the advaitic perspective articulated here gives space, mind, and experience a bit too much substantiality... Yes, things appear, or at least seem to, but upon investigation there is nothing there! This goes not just for so-called material objects, but for all experience and awareness itself. No solid ground, no "isness", "presence," "self", or "reality" can ever be found. It's right to say "there is not nothing," but to say there "is" experience is too much. Paradoxically, experience is neither the same as nor different from nothing.

[@dyadanimation8415]

What you're saying here would not have allowed for you to have written this post. Nor could we be responding to it. Emptiness in Zen Buddhism implies: to be filled. This means that Pure Mind or Emptiness contains All. So, a flower contains the entire universe except for the one thing it lacks...actual independent absolute other self as flower. This is the final name or label we give to the Phenomena we see but cannot pin it down to be eternally a "flower." The final word we apply to Objects never sticks, it slides off. Just different languages tells us this. Just sounds expressing perceptions. All nouns or Objects can be expressed as Verbs: There's not a cup, there's cupping. One Great Happening until we chop it up with words. Even cause and effect are based on a 'thing' we call an event. Depending on now long you decide the event is determines where you will see cause and effect, start and finish...beginning and end. I mean, if there ever was a Bing Bang, it must still be Big Banging Now!

[@jeremyaxelrad6241]

Dyad Animation thanks for your response. That's one way to look at things. One big happening... Although, to say that implies that something is really happening, which to me contradicts the teaching of emptiness. I don't see emptiness as meaning "to be filled". I think, sort of like you said, the term is referring to the emptiness of any inherent existence, the unfindability of things. And not just due to the fact that "things" are delineated from a larger context, like the paper needing the trees and rain and factory, because each of those things, and whatever they seem to add up to, are also empty appearances. It's not just that labels don't stick to objects, it's that when we really look, there aren't any objects to label. They appear as perceptions, and yet these also can't be found- kind of like a mirage of water in the desert. We can appreciate that mind is empty because it has no form whatsoever, and yet, it still seems to give rise to experience- me typing, you reading, etc- all of these appearances, however, are sealed with the emptiness of the mind: ultimately they also can't be found. So no contradiction; the post seems to have been written and read, the Big Bang seems to have happened and still be happening, and it's empty. ;)

[@dyadanimation8415]

+Jeremy Axelrad why not!?!

[@dyadanimation8415]

+Jeremy Axelrad Take care of your NoSelf!

[@klasykapolskiegohh8798]

There is only infinite intelligence and everything happens within it. It's just a dream of the god, nothing but an illustration. Consciousness experiences everything within itself. There is nothing but experiencing

[@nbenda]

There is no difference between Noself in Buddhism and The Self in advaita. Just read Nagarjuna and you will understand.

[@johnbates7597]

I do not understand why you keep saying ALL experience is known. I have non-conscious thoughts all the time that are not known but affect mt knowne. A person grows in awareness, thus awareness has temporal limitations. Most of the mind is not known.

[@hgracern]

John Bates hello John, also we have 'a-priori' silences. I wouldn't call those 'experience', would you, or anyone?

[@michaelmcclure3383]

John Bates so you're aware of having non-conscious thoughts.

[@constipatedbowels3473]

U mistake consciousness wid awareness....!...a drunk person has a different state of consciousness than a completely sober person...but the awareness z still da same...when u talk about a-priori silences (as someone brought it up here),itz not happening in ur awareness,...itz an Inference dat happens in the now in awareness,when u r conscious....let's take a slightly similar case...we never have the experience of deep dreamless sleep,we just have two inconsistent experiences of two different events,pre-sleep and post-awakening,however we hear about our being asleep and infer dat we have slept,...diz testimony by this other person and itz realisation happens in our present awareness while we r "conscious"....!...as for the person who sees us,dey r in waking state of consciousness and dey see our body which dey have identified as us,as sleeping and thus the concept of sleep z created......the world z a beautifully created dream,so consistent in so many ways,dat it have us believe exactly whatever it wants us to believe...!...

[@constipatedbowels3473]

@@WillSelfless Coz it is the "Z"en way of saying things!!!.....

[@williamcallahan5218]

@@michaelmcclure3383 absolutely. a great read to clarify this is "I" is a Door,; The Essence of Advaita by Renard

[@raiseyourvibration1411]

Rupert I’m one of your biggest fans! However, I’m a philosopher and your explanation of some concepts (such as panpsychism) aren’t accurate. I suggest that your arguments as they are, are already quite strong and you don’t need to venture into that philosophical territory. Thanks for all your enlightened words! Aloha!

[@Noct343]

So it is infact one. Our character, our avatar, is no different than the infinite self. As long as we don't carry the baggage or the weight of this self, we can play and wear these masks all we want. Identify, all whilst not identifying at the same time. This is the true nature of the self. I don't know anyone else doing this but me.

[@frederickalschuler4693]

I believe Rupert's system is not in agreement with Buddhist thought. See www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

[@zain4019]

Interesting, thanks for linking that:)

[@balasahebkashid5452]

Only compiled knowledge. No experience. Cut the crap. God bless you

[@l.rongardner2150]

Rupert, in his talks, never moves beyond the ambit of superficial Advaita Vedanta. And he knows next to nothing about other Great Spiritual Traditions. Only clueless neophytes will be impressed by his limited, repetitive, basic Advaita drone.

[@thomaserickson568]

He makes a lot of unsupported faith claims.

[@Mihalych179]

Thanks a lot!!! 👍👍👍👍🔥