The intricacy, complexity, simplicity, and interconnectedness of this understanding, expressed with such thoroughness and clarity, is transporting. Resonant. Quieting. Grounding. Transparent. Luminous.
The most important video for a non-dualist. As a non dualist I stopped at Idealism, Realism & Solipsism. I wish I had found this video earlier, yet, I can't fully express my gratitude now that I have found this video.
What an excellent presentation of the apparent opposition of two metaphysical positions and how well Rupert integrates them with respect to the non dualist perspective. What I will specifically take away is the insight that materialism sits at a similarly extreme edge of the realist spectrum as does solipsism on the idealist. Unfortunately, whilst solipsism is rightly disregarded, materialism has been embraced as the dominant paradigm for far too long
Damn Rupe! That was a whopper of a talk. I had to stay deeply focused and stop and rewind a few times to allow my feeble mind to comprehend "Rupert speak" but I think I made it all the way through and it was a great one! 👏👏👏👏👏
Amazing. Everything we need to know about philosophy is In this video. Real teacher who knows the Truth makes this Truth crystal clear and comprehensible in simple words to the audience. Amazing!
Such interesting similarities to the idea of mind in the Kyabalion. Learning about all these various expressions of truth by so many over history is really something. What a joy it is to be on this journey of finding yourself. Thanks for your insight Rupert. 🙏
Refuting Solipsism is also a play of thoughts. You can not prove that other minds exists, and it is definitely contrary to experience. There is One Awareness aware of one small mind.
You lost me Rupert! However, there are some shorter videos which are related to this one and are simpler to follow. This one worth a second and third listen.Thank you.
Isn't it quantum physics goes under materialism by definition? If I have understood corretly it is. Matter consists atoms and atoms consists smaller particles. Quantum physics define that particles appear FROM something. What is that something? Quantum field theory suggest that there is unified field underneath everything. For me it does pointing to the same direction what Rupert says in the video, right? Materialism has came closer and I believe continues coming to closer to the reality described as non-duality. Source, wikipedia: With the advent of quantum physics, some scientists believed the concept of matter had merely changed, while others believed the conventional position could no longer be maintained. Werner Heisenberg said, "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…atoms are not things."
My understanding is that conceptualizing anything doesn't get one closer to the truth. I too struggle with this as many of the great enlightened masters seem to advocate for a view that denies reality to all things except ones own being (even if ultimately this isn't the truth, this practice can get one there).
Quite mind-blowing when you think of it deeply! Most complicated stuff expressed beautifully! If reality is One single, indivisible whole and finite minds are localized points of that same Infinite Consciousness then doesn't it almost appear like a game It is playing with itself? Also, if each finite mind is a localized agency of the Infinite Mind then, each viewpoint, no matter how distorted it may appear, must be correct in its own position. This understanding immediately takes away the need to justify, control, convert the other, right? How foolish it is to force an opinion! ...but then at what point does everything reconcile as one or it doesn't at all? Does it simply end with the understanding that multiplicity is only appearing so...so let it be and enjoy the difference? There has to be an ah-ha moment somewhere.
It seems that solipsism is the natural inference to draw from idealism, and realism as an alternative requires a leap of faith, and more importantly logic. This is why solipsism is so compelling. How do we start to identify ourselves and our experiences with “Mind”rather than localised mind so we can escape the vicious circle of extreme skeptical doubt and solipsism?
If our realty in this world is a dream of the Mind, what is our responsibility in this dream world? Is it in our choice? Do we have really a personal role?
God realization is the experience of the ground of all being, referred to as satori in Buddhism and moksha in Hinduism. If you haven't had the experience of the self, I can understand why you might reject the solipsistic aspects of these traditions. However, I believe that the true non-dual teachings, as preached by the sages, clearly embody a form of metaphysical solipsism. Even Kashmiri Shaivism, which Rupert follows, teaches that in the deepest reality, there is only one apparent reality at any given time. If someone has a good argument against what I am stating here, I am open to hearing it.
Hello. I attended some of Krishnamurti’s talks in Los Angeles and Ojai. I read all his books and understand on an intellectual level at least what he was saying. I have not experienced a revolution in consciousness where the I disappears. Any thoughts on road blocks?
@Dean Mitchell Thanks for the feedback. I am wondering after listening to a few of Ruperts talks if he grasped what Krishnamurti was getting at. Krishnamurti was discussing freedom from the Self completely. Recognizing that the thinker and the thought are one, non dual yes...but also freedom from the Self which is made up of the known, the past...a revolution in consciousness which results in freedom from the known and direct perception of reality. Rupert appears to be discussing our Real Self...God Self...etc..which is still the known, the past, etc..it is difficult for most people to see the distinction.
Excellent video! 29.15 .."´this is view of non-dual understanding or perennial philosophy that has existed for over 3000 and is the very backbone of both eastern and western cultures.." That's totally true for eastern culture,but to me ,it is less true for the western one.
I do believe it's an inexorable truth that we can never verify as 'real' anything that is outside of our own mind, and I do think that for psycho-spiritual health, it's important to acknowledge this truth. However, I think it would be hubris, and therefore dangerous, to think oneself to be the only real being and therefore the Supreme Ruler of the Universe...or Omniverse as it were.
If we are a dreamed world, and going back to the example of our dreams, does the existence of the characters in our dreams have any personal importance or personal role? If it's all a dream of consciousness, dreams are also coming and going with no importance to their contant..
Every time i hear Rupert speak on this he starts with the dream analogy and then without any proof whatsoever says that this is a model of our reality, except that consciousness is also dreaming all the other people,animals etc on this planet. Where does he draw the line on what has consciousness' point of view inside consciousness? Does a jellyfish? Is it not somewhat dualistic to say that there is a defined outline of other people that consciousness is seperately animating? Also where is the proof that this is any differerent from a night dream? He always says to trust direct experience but direct experience still can't prove that this reality is any different from a dream at night with one single point of view. Can anyone help prove this? Would be very appreciated
It can’t be proven either way… I can tell you that I also have an experience of seeing etc, but there’s nothing I can do to prove it to you. Further, I have become lucid in dreams and have told others in my dream that I was dreaming them and they laughed and told me I was crazy just like they would in the waking state. And even knowing I was dreaming I still had to operate within the dream as if it were real, as the body and senses still operated and felt real etc… Dream or not, people still reacted to what was said and done by me. I think Neem Karoli Baba said it the best, dream Guru or not… “Better to see everything as God than to try to figure it out”…
For every comment I post, I can point to a, it's been said in a rearrangement of sorts. Same for the Bible. Originality is an /the illusion. "just remove the arrow". 💘 In fact, all is connected & everything moves a thing. In fact, nothing moved & nothing "matter-ed".
So are our thoughts us, or not? Am I my thoughts? I do not choose my thoughts, they simply appear. I can pick which thoughts to give attention to though. How does that work?
@@j2futures500 I'm not sure. From my perspective, both men have contributed to the betterment of countless lives all around the world. I think it may be a bit of a challenge in the beginning for Peterson to wrap his head around the non-dual understanding of Spira, given his Judeo-Christian identity as you say, but in the end, I think he could possibly come away with a deeper understanding of his true essence or self as a being . Or at least be introduced to such level of understanding. My two cents.
I enjoy listening to Rupert and reading his books, but there is this set of questions regarding the non-duality perspective that stops me from truly exploring its line of inquiry. And it is that IF ALL that exists including all that we are is a peaceful eternal awareness, WHO or what is it that gets angry, afraid, happy or agitated and moved in any way? Who "modulates" and colors the ubiquitous eternal consciousness so as to create the effect of us, and why? Why would an all infinite consciousness feel the need to have this activity that Rupert says we are? I just don't get how our existence and the existence of our physical world can be so easily dismissed.
@@sgc5964 Thank you. This is a good recording describing a technique for people with anxiety and or emotional problems. But my question is aimed at the actual ontology of the nonduality perspective. Nondualists seem to be dismissive of the material world, regarding it as an illusion, a lack of true knowledge, but the fact that the material world actually DOES exist in whatever realm they want to put it, does not seem to hold water because there clearly is a world with beings of emotion and thought. So either nondualists ascribe those aspects to the "one consciousness", in which case then the "one consciousness" is not eternally calm, peaceful and joyful, OR there has to be something OTHER than it, which points to more than one. Either way, there is an inconsistency. It is the easiest thing to dismiss any objection saying that's the "thinking mind" as if what THEY claim is not reflecting any thought, and a thinking process. You can't go to a gunfight and say your opponent is only allowed to have a knife, while you can use the gun. That's the same thing here.
@@sgc5964 True that one! That's just the way it works for most of the great apes, clearly for the ones still in the wilderness. But... I'm the speaking kind of ape, the one which has evolved beyond the "natural" stage. It is likely that my ancestors were not happy following the rules of the herd, they deviated, and... Voila! here I am. Thought is to me like roaring to a lion. It defines me. And I can fake it, but I can't make it. I can't be what others think I ought to be.
Solipsism is half-baked. It makes no attempt to explain variety and it takes for granted the view that the person is real, and further, is the source of consciousness, which already is an unproven starting point.
@@oneofthepeoplehere You can have solipsism even if you believe you are conciousness, you as consciousness still only experience one mind and cannot prove the existence of other minds...
If you both agree that consciousness is dimensionless than it is neither finite nor infinite and so you are both right and you are both wrong. Hahaha :) great talk thanks.
Hello. I know this argument is a bit unfair. But what about violence and war? Is the Unity inherently partially violent and at times found destroying parts of itself?
Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change form. So death to the physical body is really meaningless to what you really are. Maybe even a great relief. We know nothing from the human prospective and honestly neither does Rupert. Teaching and teachings are only for Ego’s. Foolishness from the prospective of what you really are
I’m a bit dissapointed. Rupert still does not address the content of solipsism, he only describes it and mentions how unrealistic he finds it, just like he has said before.
Consciousness and the world are necessarily co-eternal. One cannot have consciousness without phenomena (and thus duality) to be conscious of, in the same way that one cannot have a mirror that is not reflecting and yet call it a mirror. So the ground of being would more accurately be called subconscious volition than consciousness, or else the relation between the perceiver and the perceived is irreducible.
16:42 "... When the dreamed character looks inside (their) self (they) find thoughts and feelings, that is they find their mind ..." It is unreasonable to propose a philosophical intellectual understanding of "non duality". Accepting both realism and idealism in an "unified non-dual view", you propose an "infinite consciousness" as a universal base of everything. This "Mind" reification is untenable. Why? Because the universal "Mind" activity as a particular "mind" seeing itself will immediately have a complete insight about its true nature. It could never "overlook its own unified nature" like a dream character. In other words, I can't ever establish a non-dual view in a philosophical system.
Idealism , realism/materialism ,and all other philosophies,, are trapped in the finite mind ,, witch make them just thoughts ,, All above (finite mind) is inside the consciousness/awareness. Like osho said ‘live it , don’t try to understand it) lol
Spira identifies materialism as an extreme perspective but does not recognize this about his own perspective. Notice the slippery language, calling individual experience merely a localized node of the greater consciousness. By this perspective, all beings are the musings of a greater consciousness. All of our love and kindness, our hate and destruction and atrocities would be as movies for an infinite being who is apparently bored.
Why would consciousness want to express itself in a limite way through its finite mind, what's its agenda/purpose and does this understanding of the truth( like Rupert is trying to awake us into) undermine that purpose, besides why would consciousness want to awaken itself in the first place since it's always awake to itself and why did it allow itself to Limite itself...what's this game of consciousness meant to achieve or for....
@@mprado4177 Who gets angry, afraid, etc? We're animals. Natural products of evolution. Some atomic elements bond with each other, some don't. Creation is a multiplicity. Things appear as they do and not differently. Why ask why? The reason you are asking why is because you insist on being special. Instead of asking why people are a certain way, spend time asking why quartz is a certain way. Why the external electron shell of hydrogen is a certain way. Why the experience of color is not the same as the experience of smell. Why a dog acts one way and a beetle acts another way and a tree acts another way and a black hole acts another way. There is nothing to be done about any of these. Nothing. You're not happy, sad, angry, indifferent, or any of the others. The animal is because of how the animal has learned to survive its environment. You're the one who sees it and expresses it, but you are as much outside of it as you are a part of it. But why stop at emotions? Question why a stone behave like a stone and stop being so arrogant.
@@oneofthepeoplehere I am quite "aware" that all earthlings are aninals of one sort or anotehr. That's absolutely irrelevant to my inquiry. The point is that nonduality subscribers make the claim that there is NO EXISTENCE outside of the so-called "consciousness", which is mainly an updated name for what religious people call "god". So if all there is is "consciousness", how come there are aninals? Because that would be something OTHER than ONE.
