Conversation with Hameed Ali (A. H. Almaas) and Rupert Spira
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2013
- This conversation was recorded at the Science and Nonduality 2013 conference in San Jose, California.
Exploring the Nature of Consciousness and Perception - Conversation with Hameed Ali (A. H. Almaas) and Rupert Spira -moderated by Zaya Benazzo
A.H. Almaas is the pen name of A. Hameed Ali, the creator of the Diamond Approach to Self Realization. The Diamond Approach is a contemporary teaching that developed within the context of awareness of both ancient spiritual teachings and modern depth psychological theories. Almaas has authored several books about spiritual realization, including The Diamond Heart series, The Pearl Beyond Price, The Void, The Unfolding Now and The Point of Existence. His last book is The Power of Divine Eros: The Illuminating Force of Love in Everyday Life co-authored with Karen Johnson. He founded the Ridhwan School, an inner work school devoted to the realization of True Nature.
Rupert Spira from an early age was deeply interested in the nature of reality. At the age of seventeen he learnt to meditate, and began studying and practicing the teachings of the classical Advaita Vedanta tradition under the guidance of Dr. Francis Roles and Shantananda Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of the north of India, which he continued for the next for twenty years. During this time he immersed himself in the teachings of P.D.Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Rumi, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta and Robert Adams, until he met his teacher, Francis Lucille, in 1997. Francis introduced Rupert to the Direct Path teachings of Atmanada Krishnamenon, Jean Klein and the tantric tradition of Kashmir Shaivism, and, more importantly, directly indicated to him the true nature of experience. Rupert is the author of three books, The Transparency of Things; Presence, in two volumes, subtitled The Art of Peace and Happiness and The Intimacy of All Experience (2012); and the latest one is a collection of sayings -- The Ashes of Love -- are a profound exploration of the non-dual nature of experience.
The tones of voices tell us alot. Ignoring the content, the energy of Ruperts voice is "I know".... the energy of Hammed is "I am curious".... very powerful exchange.
Yes.
From a place of deep respect for both Rupert Spira and Hameed Ali, here's my take on this fascinating conversation. My main conclusion is that Rupert is much more limited in his teaching than Hameed, but therefore also much easier to understand. Therefore, you can't say that one teacher is "better" than the other. I think both offer a very valuable contribution to the collective awakening that is going on right now in our culture.
I discovered Rupert a few years ago through his youtube videos, and I found them really powerful and compelling. His teaching is clear-cut and, in my experience, fundamentally true. But after watching many of his videos I soon lost interest. I felt that he was repeating the same thing over and over.
I think Hameed's teaching simply goes deeper than Spira's. He is not talking about nuances or relative phenomena, but about the manifestations of true nature. From the comments on this page, I can see that many listeners didn't get at all what Hameed was saying. That's not surprising, it's really not easy to understand Hameed's teaching. It took me a long time and effort to begin to do so. Rupert's approach is like a sudden click that happens in your mind, a "aha" moment that stays with you for ever (that's the "direct approach", I guess). Hameed's is rather like learning a whole new language. It takes years! But it's totally worth it, and it opens up a whole universe of exploration that none of us can possibly exhaust in this lifetime.
I don't think Rupert himself understands what Hameed is trying to say in this conversation. That seems quite clear to me. Hammed perfectly understands and shares Rupert's point of view, but Rupert doesn't seem to get the very subtle but also very fundamental and important distinctions that Hameed is making. Especially the one that Hameed was trying to explain at the end, just when Zaya interrupted them: the distinction between individual consciousness and separate consciousness.
I will dare to try to explain this here, because I believe I understand where Hameed was going: there is an intermediate level that Rupert is missing in his view of consciousness. Rupert only sees pure consciousness or awareness, on one hand, and separate consciousness (or ego-consciousness) on the other. Hameed sees another "level" between the two: individual consciousness, which is not separate from pure consciousness and is not based on any illusion of separateness, the way that ego-consciousness is. A good example would be the consciousness of the Buddha, or of Ramana Maharshi, or any other awakened human being. Those beings do recognize themselves as pure awareness, as the one true nature, but at the same time they recognize their individuality. Buddha is not the same as Ramana Maharshi. They are different individuals. And that's not an illusion. Both Buddha and Ramana Maharshi know that they are the one true nature, they have awakened from the illusion of the separate self, but they still experience their individuality. In other words, pure awareness manifests itself as different individuals. Therefore, there is an inherent value and preciousness in each individual. Individual beings are not illusions. We can therefore value and honor our own individuality.
All this is just my own humble understanding of this deep topic, of course.
I will only add that I think Hameed's main purpose in these conversations with other spiritual teachers is to show that we should never cling to any one realization as the ultimate and final truth, forcing our minds to stay within its limits and disregarding all other views of reality (and maybe even our own experiences that don't fit into it). That can only lead to a kind of fundamentalism. As you can clearly see on the comments on this page (or anywhere else), human egos love feeling that they are right and all others are wrong. To keep an open mind and engage in a never-ending, open-ended exploration of our experience (which is a manifestation of true nature, which is absolutely limitless) is the only way to avoid that.
"True Individuality"
I went to the same Advaita Vedanta based school as Rupert for many years and was locked in the non dual view as being the ultimate, really only truth, I was and am grateful for what was discovered in this but I've since begun to realise that this view is partial, and very much appreciate A H Almaas and his open exploration and also what other approaches have revealed.
David Finlayson you’re a dumbass
beautifully expressed. yes often nondual teachers seem to confuse ego mechanism seperate consciousness with the individual unique lenses that beingsness uses to manifest itself as
@@momin4811 Such eloquence, how much of Almaas's work have you read or seen, what part of what I have said do you disagree with and why, I'm capable of being a dumbass, I am also the awareness that dumbass is appearing in. There are a multitude of ways of looking at this, Almaas includes Rupert's view and many others, I used to see the non dual view that Rupert espouses as the ultimate and refer to others saying it was limited as being deluded. I dropped into the embodiment of that view for a period and have since seen its limitation. There is no end point or final understanding don't be so quick to make rash judgements or draw conclusions, just because something rattles your belief system.
Brilliant conversation! I always wanted to hear a nondual teacher explain how pure awareness can have realizations if not through an individual consciousness that is not an illusion but an organ of pure awareness. Often the nondual teachings tragically dismiss the reality and preciousness of individual consciousness and of relationship. I love the way Hameed points this out, and his teaching of the Pearl and the capacity of pure awareness to become personal.
In my view, Hameed is one of the most realized and mature human beings living in our times, exactly because he never states he's "finished" or knows all there is to know. His appreciation of the mystery and availability to explore and discover, to truly be in the unknown, touches me deeply.
Very helpful, thank you.
What i did, i just skipped all Hammed's parts and only listened to Rupert's
+admirercp: Very open-minded of you . . .
Haha!@@QED_
I found Hamid to be more original and Spira to be more predicable - but the main point is this - they are not the authority so its not a question of who is right - you are the final authority - to become independent in the teachers dispensation is vital - until then its either abdication at best - it infantile at worst - so both their positions are true for them and your realisation needs to be true for you - have the confidence to draw your unique truth
Well Hameed and many others have experienced directly things that Rupert’s model doesnt explain. So we know it’s incorrect. Has great value but ultimately missing some things; he clings too hard to it. I wouldnt say they are equally correct when one is well defined and ultimately disconfirmed.
Experience is not equal to understanding. Just because you experience something doesn't mean you understand what is happening. Hameed offers only a conceptualized (through mind) understanding of his experience, while Rupert points you to the truth of your experience. If you want a good story, listen to Hameed, but if you want liberation, listen to Rupert.
That’s a spot on observation if there ever was one,
Pure gold! I have never, ever in my experience, seen such a calm argument!
Excellent dialogue/debate
Nisargadatta clearly says that the "Absolute" doesn't know that It Is. The "i am", or the sense of being, appears later.
It becomes clear at 36:00 that Rupert Spira's spiritual journey has only taken him to the point where he is aware of himself as awareness and therefore his entire teaching comes from this reference point, all his arguments also lead back to this place and he tries to fit and understand everything from this perspective.
It is also clear that Hameed's spiritual journey is both richer, deeper, more profound, more encompassing, wider and incorporates many of the 'final' realisations of the traditions, such as the Satchitananda of the Hindu teachings, the Shunyata of the Buddhists etc. He mentions in some of his interviews that each point of reality is complete unto itself and so there is a sense of finality, which is why for example for some Buddhists Emptiness is the 'final' goal of their tradition. It is a complete realisation unto itself, but there is still more to go, reality still continues to unfold if we allow it to. Hameed's teaching point to this fact, that there is indeed no end point to the spiritual journey, it is a continual unfoldment but that most teachings up to this point have their final goal which the founder of that tradition realised and then they stop there and go no further.
Very good analysis.
yes. can definitely understand everything Hameed is saying. He is brilliant. He is very subtle, not easy for everyone to grasp this. Rupert is fantastic, seems has reached the end.
As Hameed refers to Nonbeing, and even beyond. it cannot be made sense of by the mind but is crystal clear if he is heard with the heart. He is rather amazing, like nonduality and aware of being aware is childsplay and a given.
Agree.
Absolutely , not many people are able to understand Hameed. Rupert is just repetitive of his certainity of how everything works. If he is open and curious perhaps he can go deeper.
I'm glad you have a deeper understanding of when Hameed is offering here. As a long time student of his school, I appreciate when other get him. When this particular teaching becomes embodied in oneself, which it has to me, I delight in others getting a taste of it...
Big fan of Rupert for years, but have to admit that Hameed seems to clearly point out to me something very visceral, that Rupert is trying to reconcile in his mind which is actually a paradox of truth, which cannot be reconciled mentally that there is pure awareness and we are always that, and that we are also an individual that has its own distinct sensations and experiences. Adyashanti also talks about these two paradoxical simultaneous expressions of truth. Like I said love Rupert, he is more clear and more eloquent than a seemingly bumbling Hameed, but think Hameed is quietly very established and introducing a lot of realisations that most teachers out of deference to most students' lack of knowledge don't even talk about.
The absolut of no-qualities whatsoever is talked about by Mooji, Adyashanti, traditional buddhism, as the godhead by Meister Eckhart, etc. There seem to be me many aspects of the truth. Knowing oneself always as pure awareness meeting itself, is true, and always verifiable, but that seems to be only one experience of the truth. Many teachers talk about establishing oneself in one aspect of the truth and thinking its final, but its not. Nisargadatta also mentioned this when he died, people asked if his first enlightenment realisation was it or was there more? He said there was more so much more.
Think about it, does it resonate with you deeply, that you are pure awareness meeting itself always, that's it? Does it deeply ring true to you? Isn't there a magical individuality that also exists that is non-conceptual and not based in an ego-ic identity that has its own integrity?
+jasper161616
"Many teachers talk about establishing oneself in one aspect of the truth
and thinking its final, but its not. Nisargadatta also mentioned this
when he died, people asked if his first enlightenment realisation was it
or was there more? He said there was more so much more."
Yes, absolutely. Maximum potentiality, everything is possible in infinity. We can never know who we are, only what we are not. The ultimate Subject can never be an object of knowledge, because it is knowing itself. In other words, to realize myself as pure awareness doesn't mean I dont acknowledge the possibility of there being different states, feelings, dimensions within consciousness than those I am familiar with. Advaita merely points to the realization that what we are fundamentally is not that which can be perceived, that which is coming and going in our experience, but that which perceives, the Unchangeable, that which has no beginning nor end. What is there to stop at when we realize that? Now we can fully appreciate, celebrate and explore life! :D
"Think about it, does it resonate with you deeply, that you are pure
awareness meeting itself always, that's it? Does it deeply ring true to
you? Isn'there a magical individuality that also exists that is
non-conceptual and not based in an ego-ic identity that has its own
integrity?"
That's exactly what awareness meeting itself is like. When I'm conceptualising myself as being awareness, meeting myself as awareness everywhere, I'm moving away from what is actually happening, my actual experience by dividing the totality of the experience into an inside me and an outside world. When I'm fully here and now, there is just awareness, no division whatsoever. The expressions of life all have their homeground in life, in consciousnes, but they are not exactly the same. The difference is that the expressions of consciousness, objects within our awareness, are dependent on consciousness, they are not self-luminous, whereas conciousness exists by and of itself, independently from another source.The magic individuality you are speaking of is the same awareness, indivuated in the same way as mountain peaks on a continent. Every drop is unique yet also the ocean (I'm sure you're familiar with these analogies), that is the paradox that can be understood through Being, but not through thought. The person, the doer of actions, the thinker of thoughts, is the illusion in the sense that thought, a (useful) function of consciousness can distort reality by claiming the totality of the organism, by regarding itself not merely as an extension but as essential.
The individual shows up in perception itself which is known by awareness. That individual could itself by a part of the perception just as a character in a video game is known by the viewer of the game and not an individual consciousness in the character itself. To say that awareness itself is an individual seems to be an abstraction.
Hameed was wrapped up in his ego the entire interview. It's no wonder his explanations were mediocre at best.
Hameed really didn't like Rupert uncovering the weakness in his description of the apparent experience of no being.
Well said!
I don't believe that Hameed had any significant spiritual experiences. And it is more than obvious that his only intention is to earn money by playing a spiritual teacher. Even his basic communication skills are very poor. He didn't say one authentic sentence in his entire speech...... but he knows how to provoke people by accusing them of saying the opposite of what they actually said. The guy is full of shit.
@@borodinmakarevic7958 Read Hameed's books and you might feel differently. It's true he's not a compelling speaker, but I find his books to be deeply insightful. However I'm not sure where you can say he "provokes people". I think he is simply an extremely rational person who wants to get at the heart of the problem.
@@borodinmakarevic7958 Absolutely right. If I recall correctly he played the same bullshit on Adyashanti too
Hameed Ali is not making any sense........i am not saying Rupert is correct....but when Rupert talks he makes sense and his words have meaning......Ali just say words.
Seems that Hameed is trying to defend himself. The impression of Rupert is more of a trying to reveal what is blocking Hameed from being totally free from believing in his concepts.
Very refreshing the see two people disagree without becoming angry at each other. Namaste
It feels like the only reason Hameed challenges Rupert is to prove something as if his understanding is greater, but I see Rupert asking Hameed similar to when Ashtavakra was asking the King about his experience :p Rupert's understanding is pure and he is an undoubtedly wonderful Sage, thankyou for your simplicity...
Gamer Watch
Yes, and it almost feels like it descends into an ego thing with him which it shouldn’t at all.
Rupert your words are the song in my heart of Knowing! Thank you for your gift to speak with so much Truth and clarity! I come to tears at times.(ps I loved your retreats in Connecticut. Please include us in the future if all possible!) Peace...
I love Rupert's test of what is Reality:
1. Cannot appear and disappear
2. Cannot change from A to B
3. It is known by itself and is not dependent on something external to it.
Also, Rupert's question: What is it that gives experience its reality?... Consciousness gives every experience its reality.
Great presentation.
Magdi Badawy from a duality perspective [which i acknowledge, is not acceptable to advaita] this definition is not valid.
In my experience change is very much a reality in itself as an objective phenomenon of the cotidian. Everyone witnesses it on their own body-mind and on that of others and of nature, even if advaita calls the world and its changes 'illusion'. Me changing , in this body-mind form, is known to my self which is the Self as manifestation in the form of this self. is this body-mind a reality?! of course it is, even if it is not quite me but part of me. Advaita teaching has a tendency to become too academic/philosophical and non practical if the reality of the body-mind is negated. An aloof consciousness that can be experienced only occasionally [although the 'text' says it can't be experienced as it always is] is not something practical in a world where the seven billion people step on each others' toes in the day to day struggle for existence. It may be practical for monks, teachers that make a living out of it and for the occasional person that is enlightened by grace.
btw- 1 is just an aspect of 2 [disappearance-appearance is change= from existing to not existing];
Dan eM
By definition a reality that is changing is an oxymoron.
Indeed, the world body mind impression is real: It is a real impression. Like a young child who has the impression that has an imaginary friend that they talk to. This imaginary friend-impression is real, in a relative sense.
Similarly, the world body mind are real impressions that we experience as perceptions, bodily sensations and thoughts.
Advaita is the most practical teaching since it invites you to direct presence and out of an imagined duality. Most if not all of our non practical behavior comes from our emotional states that imagine a sense of lack and a false sense of need. It is from that imagined duality that we behave in non-practical ways.
But once we let go of the imagined separation, we find ourselves in presence and clarity, void of the imagined clouds of the separate-me and separate others.
Once we perceive directly our inter and intra connectivity, there is a heightened awareness of our impact onto the whole and there is a greater sensitivity and care.
Advaita that negates the dream impressions is a confused form of advaita that is taught (or understood) incorrectly.
Non duality does not deny the dream. It denies ignorance, which is the belief and feeling that consciousness is limited to a personal body mind ... leading to the impression of separate realities.
Magdi Badawy
so you say that my experience is oxymoronic because my reality is changing continuously? i would have taken that personally if my ego were active; fortunately seems to be asleep at this time...
if "the world body mind are real impressions that we experience as perceptions, bodily sensations and thoughts" then where is the oxymoroness in saying that continuous change is a reality ['real impression' as you put it] that is experienced by the body-mind?! Is there anything that you perceive as not changing/permanent in the world other than change?!
I am not saying that advaita is not practical but that some teachings have the tendency to detach themselves from the reality of the body-mind and stay aloof in the realm of academical concepts- e.g. why does it matter whether forgetting is caused by the mind or by awareness as long as it does occur [in one of his recent postings Rupert suggests that is a manifestation of awareness but stops here without addressing what matters- how to deal with it]. Academic discussions are just a nice way of passing time if they don't support the reality of this life.
Despite my efforts to live out of the body-mind and not separated [what you call 'imagined duality'], i can't help noticing that the rest of the world that chooses to live in duality collides with my body and mind on a daily basis, leaving bumps and bruises and memories of pain... in one word- unhappiness.
If someone throws a stone at you and it collides with your head, how do you perceive "inter and intra connectivity"?
I guess we have all arrived here because of the pain of duality, seeking a way out of suffering.
Awareness cannot experience the world other than by becoming manifested. In this manifested form, all i perceive is constantly changing- day to night, the weather, seasons, people and nature, time, space, my thoughts, moods and feelings... i also only can perceive peace and joy in the body-mind, not as Awareness which only can perceive itself. I will have the Eternity to stay as Awareness, right now i would like to enjoy life as practical awareness of ever changing things. i value the teaching that helps me enjoy life in the 'no mind zone' [although i don't feel i need to stay loyal to any teaching, dual or non~] but leave the academic discussions to those who have an interest in collecting ideas
Dan eM
Dear Dan,
Oxymoron simply means a contradictory terms. An example of an oxymoron is the statement: My mother is a virgin.
That is an oxymoron.
The statement: A changing reality is an oxymoron since reality is permanent and unchanging.
Thus the term changing reality strikes me to be an oxymoron, a contradiction.
Your reality is not changing continuously since there is no such thing as 'me' reality.
Reality is absolute.
~~~ ~~~
You are correct in saying that a 'real impression' is an oxymoron. All impressions are borrowed.
For example, the impression that the moon is shining is borrowed from the real shining of the sun. Thus the shine of the moon is not the real shine while the sunshine is the real shine. The moon reflects the sunshine.
As of your question: 'Is there anything that you perceive as not changing/permanent in the world other than change?", the answer is yes. That that truly perceives (awareness/consciousness) and that I know myself to be is unchanging. I know myself as that.
Consciousness, awareness is not perceived as a phenomenal perception. It is a direct knowingness.
The unhappiness you experience will continue as long as the personal identification is maintained. If accidentally a stone hits me on the head, I most likely will go Ouch and seek medical treatment. Why add a 'me'? Why engage in thought about 'look what happened to me or why is this happening to me?
Suffering is not a stone hitting me in the head. It is believing that I am a mortal body mind. Believing that consciousness is personal and limited. It is psychological.
Yes, awareness experiences the world out of itself. But awareness also knows itself, in the absence of a world, body mind.
Joy is not perceived in the body mind. It is known directly and is (as well) celebrated in the world, body mind. The world can be a celebration and I am in full agreement about enjoying the world body mind, but is it possible to truly enjoy while under the mirage of separation and selfhood?
That is the question.
Much Love.
i think that an oxymoronic proposition, reflects on the author of it [i don't want to insist; i understand you didn't mean to offend...]
well, that's the problem with communication using written words- the message gets distorted and nuances are lost...
So there's the reality of the sun which is the absolute but there's also the reality of the moon that is relative. As i mentioned, Awareness gives birth to the form [the unmanifested becomes manifested to experience both the Self and the world] but once in existence the form uses its ability to perceive and report back to Awareness in its own way- there's more than one moon [in fact there's seven billion moons each one with its personal awareness- Hameed emphasizes on this personal aspect which seemed not to be really accepted by Rupert]. The moon takes its light from the sun but the sun needs the moon to experience the world and the moon uses this light not as mere reflection but adds something personal to it- its own way of perceiving. A relative reality is still a reality regardless of the cause that produces it, i.e. whether i live an illusion due to separation, from my perspective this illusion is very much real, much more real than yours, not to mention painful [despite the fact that i might be wrong from your perspective as regards my understanding of things].
Pain is a reality [be it illusory from your perspective] that trumps the absolute reality at least for the duration of the pain [and i am not thinking of something like a mild headache here...], even if i agree with the theory of illusion. i don't think we share the same experience regarding suffering. If a stone hits my head my first reaction is not to contemplate that the pain i feel is because of my belief that i am separate from the stone. i can chew on these concepts and practice on changing my conditioning of the mind when i am pain free but don't tell me while in pain that my pain is not real and give me the causal theory of it.
as for the last bit i actually agree with Rupert [in one of his video postings] that Awareness does and can not know the world by itself. The Self can only know itSelf. Then, peace and joy arise from awareness but can only be perceived by the body-mind; according to Rupert, the Self/awareness is lacking any quality, has no needs or wants, gives and receives nothing... it just is.
i agree, it is not possible to enjoy life in its entirety as a separate ego but then i don't have to feel one with everything when i enjoy a good meal and a cold beer... i prefer to stay as taste buds only at times like this.
There's a time for everything- what matters to me in the end is enjoyment of life and not loyalty to an idea or another; whatever is appropriate and works at a certain moment.
Cheers!
One can always say that their experience goes beyond another's experience by referring to a supposedly authoritative ancient text, which is what Hameed seems to be doing. I can feel him squirming in his chair, in his ego, with clenched fists locked one over the other, that he is insisting on a point he has never actually experienced for himself; whereas, I sense the energy and presence of Spira as an extension of his actual experience.
Roy S
Exactly which was my same “experience” when attending Rupert’s latest retreat in Burlingame, Calif.
No. Hameed has clearly experienced cessation. So have I. Rupert doesnt want that to be true.
Nobody compares to rupert. The best
Rupert knocked him out with arguments based on pure experience that anyone can access to at any moment. Looking at Almaas one can notice a strong Ego defence mechanism clinging for its dear life using any concepts he could get hold of from his dusty theory book. I hope Almaas has learned something from this exchange.
+Dmitry Batir: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA (!) OMG -- HAHAHAHAHA (!)
Let’s HOPE Almere learned something!
Its your projection of Almaas ,not everyone's reality. He totally makes sense to me.
I see it the opposite. All ego and “I know!” with Rupert, and a relaxed curiosity and humility with Almaas.
Take a shot every time they say awareness... Rest in peace.
The word awareness points to a constant but when language disappears and the experience of mind is absence, dissolving with it all sense of experience, there is nothing left to say about experience or non-experience or awareness or non-awareness.
I totally agree with you Rafael and that's where we start to have problems trying to describe things beyond description.
What Hameed is saying that in body consciousness is aware of being aware which means he exists but he also knows that he exists. While in pure being you only exist and there is no sense of I or better, you exist but you don't know that you exist.
Very grateful to see these two friendly-debating the fine points of nonduality, simply exquisite. Seems to be the ancient Buddhist debate of shentong/rangtong. Hope to see a part 2...btw Conan should get a chance to mediate.
the way Rupert explains his ideas is genius.
"Cessation of perception and feeling" is explained in the Buddha's teachings, and is considered to be one of the highest attainments. www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
Yes! Rupert is only half baked, and wants everything to fit his narrow view, so he misses out on a lot.
"The wise man counts nothing as his own. When at some time and place some miracle is attributed to some person, he will not establish any causal links between events and people, nor will he allow any conclusions to be drawn. " - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj from I Am That p 237
Hameed cannot answer Ruperts questions because he is still in duality. He still has further to go. He would learn more if he listened to Rupert and follow his line of questions and queries.
Awareness has two faces; awareness cannot claim non-being; non-being manifesting awareness; what would recognize the awareness of non-being... "we can go back and forth about this because there have been debates about this in history..." or "we might be talking about the same thing in a different language" lol
I have experienced both. First, non-being is not the same as cessation. Cessation is time passing with no experience at all. The only way to identify it is that there is lost time. I dont know but my belief is that cessation is time with me as consciousness in The Absolute beyond time and beyond being and non-being.
Non-being is awareness of “The absence”. (Whereas the Absolute is the absence of presence and the “absence of absence” as Jean Klein says). Awareness still IS and is being, thats why it can be aware, but what it is being aware OF is absence.
I have this experience of cessation as well: Niroda or Fruition, which is exactly as Hameed describes and is that which is prior to awareness or consciousness. This is referenced in both Vedic and Buddhist texts.
@Lorey Hobbs: To start with: past experiences of 'cessation' or any other past experiences have no relevance to 'what is.' When people come up with past experiences chances are their awareness of 'What Is' may be lacking. My opinion is that we should never prove our current degree of insight by quoting past experiences. Most people have had seeming blackouts, and that doesn't mean that therefore such people have any substantial insights afterwards. The term 'prior to consciousness' (Nisargadatta) can be misunderstood. Sailor Bob would interpret this as 'Prior to the I-thought.'
Yes me too Lorey. Good point. We must be able to explain our experiences not just this exact moment. That would mean we cannot bring up what we know from the dream state, deep sleep, cessation experiences, or anything but this one moment. That would be silly.
How do you know that you didn't just momentarily fall asleep or pass out?
From what I can see, it seems that Hameed has an "additional" experience that Rupert does not have--the so-called experience of "cessation". Rupert pressed Hameed to give evidence of that being possible. I think that Hameed saying that experiencing cessation changed his consciousness in new ways afterwards (thus pointing to its reality) is enough to warrant some serious interest. More possibilities of consciousness is awesome! I'd like to find out...
It can be difficult to hold a meaningful conversation between people who use language in different ways. For example, for one, "cognition" or "knowing of something" refers to processes that happen in the mind, but not in pure awareness. For the other, these words seem to refer to characteristics of pure Awareness itself. For one, the mind is a product of awareness, and perhaps for the other, awareness may be a product of the mind. Such differences in definitions makes discussion fruitless and frustrating, stumbling over meanings without a clear understanding that words are being used differently.
The differences in definition we observe here are not just arbitrary differences, not just random or individual choices of language. They proceed from differences of experience and therefore the understanding that emerges from those differences of experience.
Rupert sees and teaches a clear philosophy of what it is like to experience what pure awareness experiences--this is a simple experience of light, peace, happiness, completeness, all seen as "awareness" or "witnessing". Because of the lack of content or objects in pure awareness, it can in some discussion contexts be represented by the word "emptiness" (although it is always experienced as a feeling of fullness). Rupert sees all other apparent experience or existence as the internal vibration or manifestation of awareness, as of images on a screen, and hence as illusion. To express this in very practical terms, Rupert experiences and remembers awareness throughout dreaming and sleeping. In contrast, like most people, Hameed seems to experience awareness only during the waking and some modified waking states ("gaps"), but does not experience awareness during sleep or dreaming. (I'm inferring this difference from their conversation, as I have no prior knowledge of Hameed.)
This and other differences in actual experiences, due to differences in growth of consciousness or states of the nervous system (or we could say due to differences in patterns of deeply-held belief) imply that definitions of experiential words and phrases will tend to show differences resulting from the differences in the nature of their personal experiences. A person intimate with pure awareness and a person who does not yet experience pure awareness intimately naturally have a different way of understanding and communicating their philosophy of life.
For example, Hameed can conceive of an awareness that can "see" a gap of awareness, a consciousness that can perceive a state of nothingness. Rupert finds such a state impossible, since if consciousness can perceive, there is no nothingness. Frankly, Rupert thinks and speaks precisely, due to the clarity of his own consciousness, whereas Hameed thinks in mixed concepts, where awareness and thinking (among other pairs of words) are not completely distinct terms.
Since it is impossible for Rupert and Hameed to agree on a common and precise language for discussing such subjective terms as awareness, thinking, perceiving, sensing, and cognizing (much less already ambiguous words like "I" and "self"), it is impossible for them to have a simple conversation in which they agree with each other, even about matters which for them are not controversial in the least.
My belief is that formal discussions about nonduality will always be plagued by this possibility of poor communication due to differences in experiences and definitions, even though the actual teachings of such people may be perfectly understandable and helpful to their followers, helping them to end their seeking for peace and happiness and reach a fulfilled state of self-realization.
Rupert really spoke clear and simple ( as far as words allow) about awareness. I really Like the way he transports the message so direct and clear. :-)
He always does. He articulates non-dualism like no one else.
Well it’s easy to be clear and simple when your model is overly simple, incorrect, and misses important nuances.
Such as?@@ibperson7765
I think Hameed may be pointing to a fundamental aspect of the Absolute that he felt was vital to the discussion, but also the source of all paradox surrounding this Subject. I sense he is trying to describe an aspect of absolute freedom that only Absolute Absence can birth. To be or not to be ? That is the question . To be and to not be. That is Freedom.
To recognize and acknowledge the individual consciousness is a very subtle and profound emerging wisdom of our contemporary dialogue and inquiry. It has been important and necessary to establish the non-dual aspect of reality and our understanding of it as we move forward in our endeavor to know ourselves, reality, and divinity. Without recognizing the truth of the individual consciousness we limit a certain human development that is our ultimate possibility and also do not develop or receive the eyes which are able to perceive a greater reality that includes and goes beyond the ever present and very popular "Now"!
Hameed Ali appears to be totally trapped in thoughts
Interesting discussion, particularly the question:
What is it that knows non -experience? or what is it that knows the absence of awareness? What is it that knows the absence of consciousness?
How can awareness witness its own absence?
What is it that is conscious of the absence of consciousness?
It is clear to me that consciousness is eternal and no-consciousness is just a thought.
I would submit these as answers to your questions:
What is it that knows non-experience? - Awareness. It "knows" non-experience but not non-existence because it is eternal and never "not exists".
What is it that knows the absence of awareness? - Awareness is never absent as it is eternal. The seeming absence is just having no memory of it as in deep sleep when the mind (not Awareness) is absent. It is the mind that remembers.
How can awareness witness its own absence? - It can't because it is never absent.
What is it that is conscious of the absence of consciousness? - More accurately worded I think as "seeming" absence of consciousness as again, Awareness is eternal and therefore never absent.
saidas108 Your reply to my comment resonates.
saidas108
The only problem with using the word "I" is that Hameed identifies it with the separate self (as exemplified in his phrase "awareness is not the self (the "I" being "the self")), therefore creating a linguistic problem (for himself).
so enjoyed this ! TY
This is a priceless conversation. It goes so deep into what is experienced.
Rupert is a bit of a poet and also uses analogy and logic a lot.
Hameed is more of a scientist and goes for precision in describing his experiences.
I found both of them to be talking ultimately about the same experience, from slightly different angles and using slightly different terminology.
The analytical and depth oriented will probably find Hameed's teachings more relatable. The more intuitive might find Rupert's views observations simpler and more relatable.
The ‘I am’ is a thought, while awareness is not a thought; there is
no ‘I am aware’ in awareness. Consciousness is an attribute while
awareness is not, one can be aware of being conscious, but not
conscious of awareness. God is the totality of consciousness, but
awareness is beyond all - being as well as non-being. (Nisargadatta)
This was amazing!!!!
Very stimulating intellectual conversation. it left me with a feeling of perhaps there is something yet to be explored by the both of them since they are not entirely identifying with the other :) they are like like two sides of a coin that meet only at the rim... just my observation. however i am no expert just a beginner and have a lot to learn and experience.
i would have appreciated better sound not to undermine mine gratitude for having, recording and posting this wonderful discussion.
Separate 'me's are illusions but individual focuses are the real extensions of awareness. Almaas is pointing to something much deeper , towards the expansion of awareness. so much to explore. very fascinating. i dont know anything is a beautiful place to be. yet it all resonates. complimentary paradoxes.
Hameed wanted Rupert to admit or recognize that there is indeed a self--the individual person, albeit not "separate"--that is a manifestation of Being and necessary instrument of perception. Being expresses itself through these individuals (us), and the individual has the sensory apparatus to perceive and the mind to interpret and articulate. Non-dualist or Vendantic approach seems to deny the perceiving self except as an illusion. As Hameed said early on, it is not something to be "reconciled" with Being or Nothingness, because it is part of it.
The sun-moon analogy breaks down (as analogies always do, which Rupert acknowledged). Maybe it breaks down because words are not adequate at some point. To have the sun reflect on the moon, we still need a moon (self).
These two men are pretty intellectual; it would be interesting to hear two heart-centered teachers talk of same. Would they dig in and debate in this way?
I've become aware recently that there are very interesting approaches through the body taught by Rupert's wife, Ellen Emmet, and it's hugely refreshing to experience this same 'thing' without the rational approach. The body is also encoded for this, and the lawyerly approach is like watching some kind of golf game in comparison!
+Andrew C. That's what we are, pure Being, expressed as these mind-body organisms. Where does Advaita deny the perceiving self? In fact, it shows it to be the very source of all experience. The perceiver is the perceived. It is just the idea of being a separate self, and it's entire structural belief, that is just that, an idea, an illusion within consciousness.
Urghhh wish I never started watching this. Feel sorry for Rupert. This guy 😔
My question for Hameed is how can individual consciousness be experienced with non-being Pure Awareness? Is it possible? Or is he here contradicting himself? Is non-being Cessation only experienced with individual consciousness? Or is it possible for Awareness to be non-local?
I have experienced both. First, non-being is not the same as cessation. Cessation is time passing with no experience at all. The only way to identify it is that there is lost time. I dont know but my belief is that cessation is time with me as consciousness in The Absolute beyond time and beyond being and non-being.
Non-being is “The absence”. (Whereas the Absolute is the absence of presence and the “absence of absence” as Jean Klein says). Awareness still IS and is being, thats why it can be aware, but what it is being aware OF is absence.
Rupert, there is a difference between imaginary self mind made entity that believes in separation AND unique individual consciousness that is unique but knows itself not to be separate from the ONE. Awakened RUPERT is different from hameed and not separate. This is the blind spot that rupert has. Hameed again nailed it. Awareness does not need a separate self to create unqiue selves and individual consciousnesses that are not separate. Its like waves and ocean. Not seperate and unique yet multidimensional. Rupert without knowing is denying his own individuality. Haha. Illusory separate self and individual consciousness are not the same.
Yes this seems to be true about the individual consciousness and the implications this has for the possibilities of our development as human beings. And perhaps there is another consideration going beyond the ethical and developmental aspects of the unique and precious individual (consciousness). I believe the great depth of the Sanatan Dharma or what is popularly known as Hinduism may suggest a further development in consciousness that may not yet be recognized in our current inquiry. In recent years there has been an intensified interest in what is being called Advaita or Advaita Vedanta or generally as 'Non Dualism" and so on. This seems to be an expression for the value of the fundamental fact of our awakening which is very true. What is not apparent or maybe not understood in the current conversation is that "Advaita" is a subset of a much deeper and broader understanding of reality in the Sanatan Dharma. Seems like we have become obsessed with a tree, a very important tree yes, but nonetheless a tree in a greater forest! The ever present and very popular "Now"! In observing the conversation between Rupert and Hameed it seemed Hameed was tracking and understanding Rupert and that Rupert was not quite able to understand the other perspective being offered. It is easy in such a situation to fall into comparing the participants and so on; both Hameed and Rupert are clearly lovers of truth and passionate about their message. We all benefit from such an inquiry and exchange. I think groundwork for further dialogues is being articulated and the relationship between fundamental awakening to the relationship between non-dual realization and our development as human beings, and all of this then extending into what we truly are in our totality and happiness therein beyond self-realization is the territory we are moving into as the exploration continues~~~
If I as an ego says am aware is false and problem but if the awareness says that i am aware is correct. That is why nobody will understand what rupert says!!
The awareness that rupert is talking about is awareness but the awareness that i (ego) have is my awareness!!!
In my opinion, it would be important to pay attention to sound level. It's totally doable on our level of technology. Maybe make some testing before the even of something like that. I understand English rather well on normal volume level, but this I can't. Too many missing words.
At 14:35 it starts to work good, sound affect the meat, obviously.
I understand English rather well, but frankly I didn't understand anything about what they are talking about, I am a jackass, I guess...Let me know, :-)
When Hameed mentioned his experience of non-awareness, I'm pretty sure he is just (unknowingly and adamantly claiming otherwise) referring to the experience of awareness free from concepts, thoughts, feelings, perceptions. To be aware in a state of equanimity.
Oh you are sure. Is it? ;)
According to Spira, Pure Awareness experiences separation and individuality only as a byproduct of the mind. According to Almaas, Pure Awareness is experienced as separation, which is individual (retaining infinite potential).
Interesting. Can you expand on the idea that this experienced separation/individual retains infinite potential?
+shunyotube: Consider your capacity for "attention". Do you experience it WITHIN awareness . . . or as something additional (?) What is behind the capacity to DIRECT awareness (?) The capacity to direct awareness . . . even at awareness itself (? ) Isn't that capacity . . . beyond awareness (?) Isn't its potential beyond awareness (?)
I think they are talking about the same thing, they are just using different languages, which can lead to confusion. Rupert's is the direct path, straight to who we really are (awareness) and then bringing that back to the (seeming) separate world, whereas Hameed approaches through exploring this 'separate' body/mind/world to arrive at the same understanding....that is, all is a modulation of this one awareness. Cool!
I seemed to me that there was a cultural difference - Rupert being a reserved Englishman, perhaps trained not to 'boast' or talk in terms of personal enlightenment as a matter of good practice perhaps, and Hameed coming from a different tradition.
Great discussion....Found Hameed to be very insightful...disappointed interviewer disrupted the flow of conversation twice...Just as it was getting good....quite frustrating
the interviewer should have let almaas speak
Completely agree... she seemed to get uncomfortable with the disagreement and redirect the converstaion. Almass got his point across in the end though it seems. Not sure if Spira appreciated it. Very interesting exchange.
Angelo I think that Almaas emphasizes on the significance of the individual awareness in knowing outside the mind as opposed to Rupert's one undifferentiated awareness, i.e. Almaas sees multiple moons each having its own own way of using the light of the sun. Both agree though that there's one sun only. i find Almaas's approach of giving importance to the individual awareness more practical= awareness needs the individual to know something else besides itself.
What a surprise to the see the writer of so many books-Hamid Ali-crumble in the Dzogchen of Rupert's Direct teaching. Don't you get the impression Ali just doesn't get it? Beware of reading people like him since his actual person and expression does not effortlessly broadcast the livingtruth...
We live in a stressed, ignorant, and warlike world. There is room for many authors, and many teachers, even if some seem more helpful than others.
I agree. How the mind loves to slice and dice and make problems. Funny to see how it happens with these guys too. Kind of confusing
Hannah, It doesn't have to be confusing. View life as having two levels. Level one is impersonal: the level of clear, simple, awareness. This is the observer, who allows everything. Level two is personal: the level of the complex mind. This includes the ego, and serves the idea of the self. In the mind there are always hidden agendas and other such complications and confusions.
Even teachers can have moments when the mind seems to be in control, and statements are confusing, or even not in accord with reality.
But, on the level of the unbounded and impersonal self, the observer, all is simple and perfect.
You can choose what level of life you use for living life, or for interpreting what you observe.
Confusions are temporary. Peace and happiness are eventual and permanent.
Very true!
Knowing only happens in direct experienced.
only and only awareness exist,when awareness introduced by thought call mind/maya.one who directly perceive but no interpretation emerge and no experience of it recorded as memory.
Experientially, they are both pointing in the same direction.
consciousness of consciousness. perhaps in a weird way just saying an hello.
perhaps it knows or must know we are its children too
OK, I'm just at the 20 minute mark, but already I am amazed at how differently people perceive this conversation here. My sense is Rupert attempted to put Hameed in the position of being a student. He wanted to guide Hameed to his particular realization of reality, and Hameed is refusing to follow, saying, "Hey, I've already seen that truth, and I think there is more to the story than that." On the other hand, a bunch of commenters seem to think Hameed is utterly confused, or that he is defensive. I don't see the defensiveness at all. I see someone who knows he has a valid point to make. If anything, I see Rupert Spira refusing to even try to understand Hameed's point, as if to say, "If I haven't experienced it, I refuse to discuss it." (edit: I've watched further, and Spira eventually begins to discuss it, but it still feels like he has a need to deny the validity of the experience.) Where's the curiosity? Why not just say, "Oh, I see, so in your experience there is a difference between awareness with an 'I', and awareness without an 'I'. That's not something I've encountered before. Can you tell me more?"
Joshua, as a long time student in the Ridhwan school your perception of Hameed's interaction with Rupert is spot on. It pleases me when someone like you gets it.
Hameed. U are the screen
Semantics... Siddhartha learned from many teachers ('gurus') in his pursuit of enlightenment. In the end he was told that the final answer must come from 'inside' himself. In layman's terms, take all information in with a grain of salt, and then discover your own truth...
The reason Rupert seems locked in is because Hameed is not answering the question nor is he being logical. Awareness by definition cannot just drop away..then it would not be called Awareness. And if it dropped away, then there is no one or anything left to label what remains!! Hameed says he had no experience and no awareness at some point...during that moment of "blank", how does he know it actually happened? If he doesn't experience it, he has no knowing of it.
It does seem that Hamids description of awareness having two faces...1. pure Awarenes 2. Nothingness or darkness is it's own duality. Whereas Rupert's Awareness Aware of itself is a singularity.
Hameed. Talk for so long.said nothing.if you cannot explained simple then maybe he's confused.
+anadi amor: You just want simple explanations, don't you (?) Do you ever wonder how that strong desire for simple explanations affects what you experience (?)
@@QED_ If you cannot explain then its useless.
@@ceeIoc Doesn't an explanation require both a competent explainer . . . and a competent explainee (?) Yes, it does . . .
@@QED_ explainee is not a word. Unless you can explain something to others, it cannot be of use. Kinda defeats the purpose of an interview.
@@ceeIoc You've proved my point . . .
As Sufism says, creation is a MYSTERY within MYSTERY . Therefore man should not even try to understand it. However the teaching of any master is helpful to understand at least a small portion of the truth which could be necessary.
Hameed is a phenomenologist....different way of using language. Rupert is getting away from description though it can't be done in language.
Yet Rupert closed with an analogy, while Hameed tried to lay claim to an experience of nothing--a gap--that he could not 'prove.' I consider his many books, his decades of intelligent inquiry, and the presence of the person himself, and I trust his discovery. (I like Rupert, too.)
Awareness can not be experienced because awareness is itself experiencing itself and entire universe comes out of that.It means awareness itself is experiencing itself objectively. This objectively experiencing is Maya or illusion.
I get Rupert's contention, that Awareness/Consciousness/Knowing is self aware, without cognition; which comes in only through a mind. In that context, there can be an object unknown by a mind, but which does not affect Awareness. However, Awareness knows objects through minds, without which, It knows only Itself!
Towards the end of the conversation, I failed to see why both Rupert and Almaas could not get the fact that when they brought in 'perception', they could not leave out 'mind' in their debate. It is only through a mind, that Awareness perceives objects!
But then, that is my understanding!
I have to admit a partially toward Rupert largely owing to my recent experience at his retreat which was nothing short of profound though I would also give some credit to having read Direct Path books by Greg Goode(which along with Rupert’s You Tube videos) no doubt made me compelled to attend the retreat. Moreover, it seems that Almaas is attempting to come from a place of challenging Rupert as much as expatiating upon his own concepts. Not that those concepts aren’t invalid or worthless.......just that he seems to detract from his own worth as the spokesman for his own ideas.
Oops, meant partially.
Still screwing up, it’s partiality!
27:30 'awareness' emerged from that' oooooooooo look at rupert :((( he knows awareness doesn't emerge
All is one! No contradictions just 2 faces of the same coin. Both great but it could be simpler Truth is simple!
29:00 monism vs dualism.
Ppl who comment on both Rupert n Ahmeed is missing the point.
I love the exchange starting around 15:00. I was surprised Rupert seemed to be clueless about what Hameed was referring to. Not necessarily that his "position" has not evolved to this level of awareness but that he seemed to have never even heard of this. This is clearly the distinction between the seventh and eight oxherding picture as described in Zen. Its the same distinction between conciousness and awareness as described by Nisargadatta. Of course its even harder to talk about than the pure state of "I AM" but this territory has definitely been traversed. Adyashanti is very good at describing it as is Mooji. Still love Rupert's precision in describing perception/conciousness. Great discussion.
❤️ 💕 ❤️
Such a pity that Zaya interrupted them just at the most interesting point! You can't have a serious conversation about this with time constraints...
We are each so sure of what we are so sure of! How could it be any other way? If only we had more (or less) familiarity with that most important book, "The Actual Meanings of All Words And Concepts", part of the "Eventually Already Present" series by the author of such classics as "No Judgment, Damn It!", "I'm Right, You're Sort Of Right!", "Field Guide to The Way Things Definitely Aren't" , "Infinite Perspectives---True Or False?, "Measuring The Infinite--One More Than Whatever You Say!" , "Peace, Love, Truth and Freedom---Behind the Scenes At Fox News", and last but not least, "If I Told You The Way Things Really Are I Would Have to * ( %$@&!!!) You!"
*(Love)
Love
Where can I get these books? I particularly like the sound of "I'm Right, You're Sort Of Right!" :)
Is Rupert clear and consistent? Yes. Is Hameed? No.😊
Hameed's ego felt threatened this entire interview. Kinda the opposite of what a spiritual guru should be.
🙄🙄🙄 Rupert... The point of the friend observing is that time passed and he did not experience that duration. Hence he knows he had some duration of not experiencing anything. He isnt depending on the friend to tell him what he went through. Just as a clock. Rupert missed that basic fact. I have experienced it too. And my body knows time has passed in many subtle little ways. I come back into an ever-so-slightly different body, that has gone through just a bit more sitting. I dont come back into the exact next moment.
The resolution of the “awareness of non-being” is that yes the AWARENESS is being, but what it is aware of is, is the non-beingness. And finally, thats a but of a misnomer anyway. Cessation is the Absolute - beyond being and non-being.
In some schools, individuality dissolves and disappears like a drop into the ocean, which of course is LOGICAL and UNDERSTANDABLE . But in Sufism, individuality always remains and God will be manifested in individuality. In other words, the ocean comes into a drop, which is a MIRACLE and a MYSTERY beyond human logic and understanding. Therefore, Sufism is a very mystical school. In other words mysticism is the essence of Sufism.
The state of "No-Experience" is very interesting. As there is "Experience" so too it should be the state of "None-Experience" like in the deep sleep. And that is "Nothingness" . However I think the very "Nothingness" itself or the state of "None-Experience" is a kind of VEIL. Maybe the veil of the mystery.
hameed should keep quiet and listen to.rupert....rupert says it all
Hamed is bullshit guest here lots of talking but nonsense
Mr. Almachopra is just atrociuos... I had to spit this out. I find it impossible to wrap my mind around anything he says. I don't think he even cares if the audience understands what he says or not. Just mumbling nonsense after nonsense... He consistently seems unable to understand Consciousness' unique perspective. He is stuck in the multiplicity of perspective belonging to limited mind. He seems to agree with Rupert on most aspects, and then he continues with "however..." Unbelievable!... I understand this from a lay person, but he is supposed to be an authority... That's why he is on that stage... So I should blame instead those who put him up there... I appreciate Rupert's stoicism...
+Viorel Agocs: You're really a pretty violent sort of person, aren't you (?)
+greenrate I am indeed...
I understand ruperts more clearly🙏
Rupert is right.
Rupert cannot seem to grasp hameed's cessation experience. Ruperts probably needs to be open to know more instead of feeling like he has reached end of it all.
Exactly. Rupert is trying hard to cling to his model in the face of disconfirmation
Ive experienced cessation too
hameed ali's explanations are obscure, phenomeno-logically inconsistent, and incoherent
Perhaps your inability understand him paints him that way in your experience. If you get him then you wil be blown away at the accuracy and preciseness of his ability express the multidimensionality of self.
Deeps ah 100% Hameed is an atomic bomb when you get him.
@@shans4167 obviously you didn't get him😜
So wished the lady moderator stopped inturrpting the digging deeper between the two:-(
No knowing of anything only darkness Hameed? Who is the one that know that? Your experience is from the illusionary self not from the ground of Being the true Self. Peace..
I don't think the user is being contentious, he has a very simple point. For awareness is by knowing and knows by being, If he is being, then he is knowing (he knows). The "he" that doesn't know, or that knows, to which Hameed refers, can only be the separate self. The only knowing it can have of the experience (and the only way he can talk about a non-experience) is trough memory, and not even so, because memory is a fresh experience itself.
No forms are necessary to know anything other than those forms. Forms or objects are not necessary for knowing, knowing is independent of (in the sense of not subordinated to) what it knows, which means it doesn't need to take the form of any object to be itself. It may be that in some experience it doesn't shine through objects, hence you call it "dark", but it's still pure knowing of itself, as emptiness of objects in htat particular case.
In other words, yes it is simple.
Almaas talks about cessation. That is an experience well known for the mystics. It is called rapture or ecstasy. I have had that experience myself once and the filling is of disappearing or falling asleep. There is no feeling nor experience. Rupert apparently doesn't know this and talks in a way that suggests that this can't be possible. I think he was not humble enough to think that maybe it is an experience he didn´t have. Apart from that I like his teachings.
Diamond Guidance brought me here.
Bullshit Detector made me leave..
Peace.
Funny how Hameed brings in new perspectives and how Rupert seems locked-in in elementary elements of non-dual teachings as if they're something new. Ah well.
That is your impression. If you know anything about non-duality, you know that there can be nothing new or old about it. How do you see him being "locked-in"? Do experience non-dualism? I'm not talking about understanding the concept, but actually experiencing it? From your comment I would say no. So perhaps it isn't so "elementary" after all!
saidas108
First, I wrote "seems." I'm not in Rupert's shoes, so how would I know. Second, I understand him taking a stand that is typical to non-duality reachings, which I know quite well. And that's real fine by me. And I understand Hameed as bringing in new elements, new perspectives, which to me is wonderful-I don't see Reality as being a static or fixed thing with no newness, actually quite the contrary. And then, if from a comment you can tell what realization anyone has or hasn't, well, good for you. As for my degree of realization, I have nothing to boast about, it's an ever deepening thing that I've been witnessing since a long time by now, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. I actually feel blessed to be given to remain a student forever.
Indeed. We are all classmates...or even inmates! :)
saidas108
True enough. Lol.
I am not totally certain which new perspective are you refering to, is it to his disappearance act, or to his experience of non-experience (aka " this...darkness surrounding the atoms")? Novel...indeed...even if the only "non" appliable to his argument is the one in nonsense (or the non-experience of sense, perhaps). Funny indeed. Ah, well.
the host understood Rupert more than Hameed did
I can understand and follow Rupert's explanation and thought, but don't have any understanding of Hameed's talk what so ever, This conversation in my opinion exposes Hameed's experience to be fraudulent, Rupert corners him with his questions and Hameed even looked at his watch as he gets uncomfortable.
Why Hameed refers to someone else's experience if they talk about entirely subjective experience?
No. Rupert is obsessed with making his simple model work, even in the face of disconfirmation.
Hameed had experienced non-being and cessation. Rupert has not. Hameed may not argue as well but he knows with the certainty of experience that Rupert is wrong. I have experienced both. First, non-being is not the same as cessation. Cessation is time passing with no experience at all. The only way to identify it is that there is lost time. I dont know but my belief is that cessation is time with me as consciousness in The Absolute beyond time and beyond being and non-being.
Non-being is “The absence”. (Whereas the Absolute is the absence of presence and the “absence of absence” as Jean Klein says). Awareness still IS and is being, thats why it can be aware, but what it is being aware OF is absence.
Maybe that clears some of it up.
@@ibperson7765 what makes you an authority on somebody else's experience? I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
darek marciniak Apparently my ability to employ very basic logic is what has made me and “authority“ on what we have each experienced.
1. Hameed saying he has experienced cessation and describing it well -> made me conclude Hameed has experienced cessation.
2. Rupert being unfamiliar with cessation, unable to relate to it, confused about it, and even suspicious about its validity -> Rupert has not experienced Cessation.
3. Me experiencing Cessation -> Art has experienced Cessation.
This might help ua-cam.com/video/EVbUt6OBTjY/v-deo.html with the various levels. Guys a genius
ua-cam.com/video/EVbUt6OBTjY/v-deo.html
Hameed Ali just keeps pushing to "test" Rupert, when he obviously not only know all the answers but ALSO that Rupert's answers are good and valid. He just comes across as a picky bully. Oh well. At the end of the day, he just doesn't seem to be a pleasant person.
There seems no new discovery in Rupert teaching; it is as if he felt he had reached the ultimatums nothing left to discover. But anyway, great talk, too wide n deep for beginner like me
I think you conclude this because you don't really understand what he is saying. You really have to be familiar with his "teaching" to fully grasp it. When you try to "understand" this with your mind and reasoning, you necessarily prevent that from happening. Rupert fully got what Almaas was saying but I don't think the reverse is so.
Rupert is brilliant.
Handed.keep on pulling your baldhead