while listening to this, I am reminded of the quote in the beginning of A Course in Miracles - "Nothing real can be threatened, Nothing unreal exists, Herein lies the peace of God".
The opening words to A Course in Miracles (ACIM) are a direct reflection of the teaching in the Bhagavad Gita which states, “That which is, never ceases to be; that which is not, never comes into existence.”
Byron Katie says: "You can either believe a thought, or investigate it. There is no other option." Now I understand this. Everytime I investigate a (stressful) thought, I change my limited knowledge, because my ego/separeted self has limited my pure knowledge. Thank you Rupert Spira and I love how thoughtful you are, answering these questions!
Deeply profound. "... ponder the implications of what you have just discovered ..." indeed, sir. Thank you. Grateful that Consciousness modulates your apparent form.
Great!! Thoughts are an appearance in the same empty space of awareness where the sound of a passing car appear. That means that if you give the same careless attention to the thoughts that you give to the passing car, the separate self will dye by starvation.
Rupert has a deep insight and he tries to explain in more sensible way. Mind is like a child and it will take all things literally it is said. There are two types of observation , one is controlled and other is free.In controlled observation means one is living in a house where all members are fighting and one is trying to observe these members and trying not to participate or not to choose any one of them . In free observation he understood one thing that this house exists because he is member of house and when he does not exist means house too. Mind learns how to control its reaction if any thought appear on screen and it is not a free observation. Problem is not in screen or what appears on it or just not to react with what appears on screen but problem is that, this screen and play on screen appear because you are there.
The thoughts appear in the mental space in the same way that objects appear in the physical space. Awareness is beyond physical and mental space. Awareness doesn't assume any form. The mental substance becomes thought or image. Awareness remains ever as it is, changeless and immovable. Awareness also cannot experience (perceive) directly thoughts, feelings , objects. The buddhi by the light of awareness that reflects on it, is the perceiver. Neither the awareness by itself not the buddhi by it self have the capacity to perceive. The (apparent) union of awareness with buddhi makes.percetion possible. When the egoic mind and the ego itself dissolves by practice and constant meditation in the silent space of awareness then the buddhi becomes identical with awareness, becomes an enlightened buddhi, and the human being with the enlightened buddhi is called a Buddha.
So if single pure awareness is choosing everything through all the human beings ,and is all knowing ,why this lady(awareness) is asking questions to rupert(same awareness) ??
@@robbiejohal93 The lady is apparently asking Rupert the question from her separate awarenessto Rupert's separate one. But, non-dualistically, their apparently separate awarenessess are really one n the same contiguous and a shared pure awareness because a good anwser lays hidden in and always borne out of a question.. the question n answer being one n the same, occurring within a shared consciousness.
What you are talking about is just naming the same substance of reality into thousand. It's not non duality. You are trying to understand reality trough duality. Rupert is talking about consciousness only model. And you are taking his teaching, dividing into thousands and then mixing them together after a non-existing separate self dissepears. Can you see what you so called Ego is trying to do to here? :)
One of the every good question asked. The one who speaks in you is me(Bhagwat Geeta). who says its my body.Body are soul are same but appear separate due to the illusion of time.You know when the GOD came as a being? He came NOW. he came now in your mind as a being.
No, the analogy holds. What you call text is nothing more than colors that our minds interpret as text. the screen itself is neutral and can display all its color range. That’s all. The rest is interpreted by our minds.
Neuroscientists and psychologists have long assumed individual decisions are made by intention in the brain by what they call executive function. But no scientist has ever found such a function or even evidence of it in the brain. A few but growing number are admitting it is not there and it’s time to find another source of thoughts and the conclusion is in universal awareness - meaning Rupert’s explanation is consistent with where science is being led.
Omg!!! I was SO excited at the implications that *I* discovered from his explanation even I was stunned and her casualness! Then I remembered a time I might have done that also. Different paths yehawwwwwww!! :)
3:43 causelessness of consciousness reflects in causelessness of arising a thought In similar fashion as eternity reflected as time and limitlessness reflects in space. Just wanted to write it down as this came across in my mind while hearing this.
By nature there are things of our selves that function automatically by the instictive intelligence, and things of our selves that we must train in order to develop the capacity to use them voluntary. So we can for example,, to learn to play tennis skillfully. The mind is also something we can train as we wish and make it do or not do what we like. If we don't train the mind then the mind becomes the master instead of being a servant. So, of course we can have control of our thoughts if we train our mind seriously for a long time. We can choose what kind of thoughts we will entertain and what not. We can also root out the kind the thinking patterns we don't want and program our subconscious mind to think only what we want. We can be the king of our mind.
Where/what is the origin of your thoughts? It is the "field" of Being. This correlates to what Einstein said: "The Field is the governing agency of the Particle." If we substitute Brahman/Source-Singularity for Field, and the Jivatman/ego-Mind for Particle, the answer is simple. IOW, the individual is not the generator or agency responsible for the creation of any thought, speech, or action.
if you are thinking them then you can easily stop them.Can you stop your thoughts? If not then you have no control over that "I am" you're talking about.
18:04 : if I would have named what my thoughts are made of I would have said: Memories / Expectations / Activities I can do while I’m on the couch while have the least “trouble” (it’s 11pm). Could you please respond to my response to your question ? ---- 2nd question: Are we just a neural node (in a vast neural network), picking a thought/action to should be done for the greater purpose for which the neural network was created? - as the neural node, we can’t access the information about the ask from the neural network. (IMHO) Please care to comment. P.S.: Love your videos. Thank you.
@Sunil Magesh Memories / Expectations / Activities are the content of the thoughts. But what is the substance of the thought itself? ( the content of the Record is music, the substance of the Record is Vinyl) We are a sort of a neural node I think? But not that connects from outside space. But it connects to an inside space.No words are broadcast there! That network transmits only Pure Beingness. Youre Awareness itself is being transmitted from inside... projected out Maybe this is answers your question? ? ( :
Also you hint at "Connecting" to something else "Neural network" to find the action that should be done for the greater good.... What you see as the Intelligent Network is "Your own Self" that you dont recognize as yourself
Actually it is the other way around. Your emotions always come from a thought. If you think about it, it makes sense. You think of something and that makes you smile, or curious, or irritated and so on. The order of things is: think, feel, act, have.
When he says, ""If you think you are a separate self, then I'm speaking to that separate self", who or what is he referring to as "you"? Who is the "you" that thinks they are separate (or not separate)?
If Consciousness is the "You" he is speaking to, why would it think it is a separate self? Consciousness is All-Knowing, so what would be the reason for thinking it doesn't know better?
The separate self is the mind-body complex thinking that it is the real being and not just a collection of thoughts & emotions. It is not the consciousness that thinks it is a separate self.
According to Rupert, there is no mind-body complex except as an illusion. He says he uses that concept as a concession to illustrate a point, so how could it be generating thoughts of its own? And in another video, he said "If consciousness mistakenly thinks it's a separate self...", so he is saying it can do that. How could it do that if it is Pure Knowing? I think Rupert occasionally contradicts himself, and I'm trying to sort it out to see if it can make sense..
Hi Lavender. Regarding: "There is no mind-body complex except as an illusion. He says he uses that concept as a concession to illustrate a point, so how could it be generating thoughts of its own?" Perhaps this quote from Rupert might be helpful: "However, no matter how deeply Consciousness identifies itself with a fragment of its own making, no matter how deep the ignorance and the subsequent thoughts, feelings and activities that are generated by this ignorance, no matter how successfully Consciousness conceals its own nature from itself, its memory of itself is always deeper than its forgetting." Regarding: "I think Rupert occasionally contradicts himself, and I'm trying to sort it out to see if it can make sense." Seeming contradictions from a truly self-realized teacher are always due to either misunderstanding on the part of the student or pedagogical reasons on the part of the teacher. //Kind Regards.
Flowers are a lovely organic being to have anywhere in close proximity. OR Someone in his crew decides it would be nice OR The idea spontaneously presented itself to him and he went with it OR The flowers are gaining ground, soon they will (and probably already do) rule the earth. OR This mind doesn't know the answer OR the answer is unknowable to anyone
He got caught out by the first question. The inconsistency was pointed out but he responded as if there was no problem. Rupert would be a great poker player.
