Do Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira disagree?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2022
- Rupert Spira & Bernardo Kastrup discuss the finer nuances of where they may disagree in their metaphysical models of reality.
An excerpt from a 5-week course with Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira.
For the full discussion visit • Bernardo Kastrup & Rup...
To join the next course please visit www.adventuresinawareness.com/
If you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:
Patreon: / adventuresinawareness
In the UK: pay.gocardless.com/AL00048KYK...
One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com/paypalme/adven...
Banner art by / jadewade
I am so addicted to this subject that I spend almost every drop of my free time to this!! Aside from showering and eating!!! 🤣
Understandable when you get into it. Fascinating. Open minded to acceptance of self and other. ….
Mo
J? Hmm mnt muffin
7th
Lll)l)ll
L😊janwag6856
It's a wonderfull conversation, because Rupert and Bernardo are really friends!
Bernardo is speaking of Drishtii-Shristi-Vada which eventually reveals itself as Ajātivāda which is where Rupert is speaking from in the beginning. Both are true, and as you can see towards the end, they begin to agree as Bernardo is lead there. through compassionate understanding....so beautiful to watch , thank you for this!
Namaste 🕉️🙏❤️
Thanks for the extra perspective! Much appreciated
Why does Rupert always talk about John Smith playing King Lear? I know from first hand accounts that John Smith wasn't a classical actor. He never played Shakespeare. He had minor roles in two fifties films - The Baffled Lady and Reach Into The Crevice. He only really came into his own in 60's horror films in the Mallet films - a pathetic copy of Hammer. He starred in Dracula Gets Caught Short and The Zombies Are Really Winding Me Up. He felt a loss of direction in his career and tried to commit suicide by swallowing a giant fur ball. Sadly he was unsuccessful.
Luckily his fortunes changed when he met the exotic actress Tara Masalata on the set of the rather lame comedy film Pardon My French. He felt her up and they married. They seemed like the glamorous couple. She owned an ocelot and he would drink cider out of a watering can. But sadly their fairy tale romance was not to last. Tara was known to have a voracious sexual appetite and felt unsatisfied by John Smith - it's rumoured that he once started a forest fire when he used a magnifying glass to show his wife his penis and the glare of the sun accidentally set fire to some bracken.
Chastened he settled back into work and appeared in the classic movies that he's known for. Despite being diagnosed with distemper he continued to work. In the late 60's and early 70's he starred in 7 Mallet films. PS, You're Dead. Murder Sandwich. Search For The Penguin. Whistle Up My Bum. High Jinx. A Rissole Too Far and then his Tour de France the immortal classic, The Man Who Strangled Himself.
After the heady success, with the world at his feet, John Smith suffered a cardigan arrest when he was stopped by the police for stealing knitwear from Debenhams. In his defence he pleaded not that guilty. He was sentenced to 30 minutes in jail.
His career in ruins, with his life destroyed, he found solace in the simple things - throwing stones at people's windows, making papier mache images of his neighbours indulging in indecent acts, wearing overcoats in warm weather and writing letters to officials in local councils about minor rules concerning crown green bowling.
All in all I think you've done him a disssssservice. King Lear is a twerp. John Smith is the best.
I have one of the stones on my alter!
Not many people know about those!
Oh my dear brothers, how I love you guys. Thank you so much for being there for all of us.
Bernardo is a brilliant communicator- he’s extraordinary and I feel so grateful for his interviews and for the Essentia foundation
I love these two together!
I came to write that as well! Such wonderful beings!!! ♥️
Thank you for this video!
In my limited ability to understand and after listening to many hours of both Bernardo and Rupert, I still feel there's a difference here. Bernardo seems to believe that Consciousness needs us, with our meta-cognition, to become aware of its blind spontaneous movement (causing pain from the human perspective), so it can "evolve", but is that what Rupert is saying?
I've heard Rupert saying that God needs us to experience the world, but not that God needs us to evolve.... are these the same...? I hope one of them sees this question and can address it sometime.
This is an excerpt from a 5-week course with Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira.
For the full discussion visit ua-cam.com/video/5dRD3vJI3R8/v-deo.html
If you have more questions, or want to dive deeper together, come join the next course - Visit www.adventuresinawareness.com/
Also, if you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:
Patreon: www.patreon.com/adventuresinawareness
In the UK: pay.gocardless.com/flow/RE001YHWMCVNJB4RZFQFCR13VJE709CE
One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com/paypalme/adventuresin
I recall becoming 'self' conscious at age 7. Prior to that i was a conscious child free of selfconsciousness. This happened suddenly. I was rummaging through my messy wardrobe looking for something to wear. But this time it was taking too long and I became irritated. Then the purpose arose. For the first time I was looking for something that would reflect 'me' as 'I' wished to APPEAR to OTHERS. And simultaneously a fleeting sadness arose, I KNEW that something innocent was now lost.
This simply explains the difference that the two speakers referred to and agreed on their non difference.
A BIG THANK YOU for sharing this short but IMMENSELY SIGNIFICANT and right on point discussion!!!!! 🔥🔥
Thanks for listening!
Prior to the thought "I am" there is only pure consciousness knowing itself without thoughts. "I am" is the first thought that arises from pure consciousness and from which everything is made, like "I am this or that": the whole universe of experiences.
Nisargadatta:The absolute is "awareness unaware of itself."
That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or duality. .
"There are no others",is one of the famous quotes of baghavan Sri RAMANA Maharshi
Thank you, Bernardo and Rupert, for this wonderful discussion. Is it not (in actuality), the One (Consciousness / Awareness) discussing Itself through perspectives as human agents, which, in and of themselves, have no actual existence beyond that which is given by the One Substance, via a function of Itself?
Deep gratitude, respect, and love. 🙏🏻
I hope you both can embark on speaking more about what you both think and feel is the SOURCE of awareness and Consciousness. And what are your thoughts about what the qualities are of that source? I like to think the Source of Consciousness is the infinite Mind or I call it Divine Mind. God.
Thanks so much!
Consciousness is pervasive. We 'appropriate' or 'localise' it via our brains. It has no one source, being ubiquitous. It is infinite mentation. I know what you mean when you write, 'infinite Mind' .. However, how would you counter the claim that Muslims make that God is not that? They see God as an entity outside of the universe and that's a bit odd IMHO.
I knew you two would iron things out😀
🤣♥️😊🙏☺😚🤣
Someone asked me recently whether there is a difference between awareness and experience, and I said that experience occurs within awareness. But I realise now that this was a foolish answer. They are the same thing. Experience without awareness makes no sense. Awareness without experience makes no sense. And both of them are the same as knowing, as Rupert uses here. To know is to experience. To experience is to know. To know is to be aware, to be aware is to know.
Well said, thanks 🙏
After studying these perspectives for about 10 years now (along with many others), I am not convinced that the dissociative process ceases at death since, in the now thousands upon thousands of NDEs that are documented in some way (out of the apparent millions that actually happen), there does not seem to be even one example where it ceased. Perhaps at some point in the overall journey it may, but it seems the dissociative state of an individuated consciousness that is aware it is part of the one consciousness persists indefinitely and can “go back and forth” between states as it were. There is other evidence for this in reincarnation cases as well…and in mediumship. Disembodied consciousness is clearly aware that it is part of the one and is no different from that, but is also at the same moment individuated in a dissociative state that is repetitive or persistent for its individuated experiences. There are other possibilities as well, so I am not tied to this one idea.
You may be interested in the essays in the Bigelow Institute's competition for establishing evidence beyond reasonable doubt for the survival of consciousness after permanent physical death:
www.bigelowinstitute.org/index.php/essay-contest/
@@adventuresinawareness - I appreciate the suggestion (a great one), but I've already read them all. 🙂
Thank you very much.
A question!
Although they somehow concluded that there is no difference between their views I’m not sure if this is really the case!
If I’m not wrong, according to Rupert Spira Consciousness “knowingly” and “willingly” assumes the form of the finite minds”.
How does Consciousness (or mind at large) “knowingly” and “willingly” do something if IT is NOT meta-consciously aware?
Hi Reza - this is discussed in the full video, but you can see the relevant part here: ua-cam.com/video/mbyptyV6Ig8/v-deo.html
Hi
I’ll see the full video.
Thank you so much.
I humbly submit that Rupert is trying to express the core principles of Advaita Vedanta. It is obvious from what Bernardo says that advaita Vedanta as he knows it so far resonates with his Idealism . There is one big omission here and that is the very highest teaching in advaita about the nature of the world -that of no creation . It was no less than Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi who essentially said that ' discussing the nature of the world is like discussing the characteristics of the child of a barren woman ' .✌️🕉️
Yes, I looked through the comments and you absolutely nailed it! Bernardo is speaking of Drishtii-Shristi-Vada which eventually reveals itself as Ajātivāda which is where Rupert is speaking from, both are true, and as you can see towards the end, they begin to agree as Bernardo is lead there. So beautiful.. 💝
Namaste 🕉️🙏❤️
In my opinion, I believe that consciousness is paradoxically not aware of itself, in the same way that consciousness cannot know a finite world.it is simply the stuff or the source that consciousness is made of, we are the ones who are aware of it.
I agree with the host. These two are lovely in their conversation.
I LOVE YOU BOTH! AND TOGETHER IS LIKE CAKE! 🎂
Interesting to see Rupert explaining Advaita philosophy.
What would cause self awareness to evolve?
From the UnConscious Hell ❤️
To the Conscious Hell 💚
Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜
Thaaannnk Yooouuu ❤️ 💚 💜
It has been there all along… yes, cosmology and Life; are not separate in existence.
Wow!!! 😃💖
If the ground of all being is not self-aware it must surely be absolved from the infinite suffering in the world, whereas Robert Spira's version must surely recoil in horror from the suffering it has created ?? I probably misunderstand.
I'm sorry, "Rupert' Spira. My poor eyesight.
Host seems to conceive of the universe as something other than himself and ourselves - and, gesturing out and away from himself, refers to an implicitly separate "entity." In such a schema, human consciousness is some weird, perhaps accidental, byproduct (or maybe waste product) of a Universe which exists someplace Out There, apart from human consciousness.
Why do we watch fireworks ?
Beautiful!
Glad to hear this is being appreciated :)
Such differences are worth exploring. Muslims would say that God is all-Knowing (omniscient) .. how would Rupert and Bernardo reply to that? The host as well, @Adventures in Awareness... Consciousness, as the all-pervasive (I call it ubiquitous) existent, if it is that self-aware, must surely know all things as all resides within it. This is my panentheistic stance :)
I think I've got some other videos coming on that, of check out the full discussion where they go into this in more detail... I'll try make a play list also!
@@adventuresinawareness Many thx :)
Self aware ?
Or self realizing ?
Universe mental consciousness has no boundary.... therefore not aware.. only has dissociation!
Could you elaborate?
Let's add to this topic what Sadguru Upasani Baba Maharaj said. He said that Enlightenment is like deep sleep with the exception that while you are not aware of anything in deep sleep you are aware of Infinite Bliss in Enlightenment.
Enliightenment can't be experience.
Not an experience but THE EXPERIENCE as Jnaneshwar Maharaj taught. The EXPERIENCE of Satchidananda.
Bernardo seems illogical to suggest that Mind At Large is not meta-conscious, or aware that it's aware of itself. As Consciousness becomes more and more complex, it makes sense that it is more self aware, not less. I also disagree with him on this point.
If we are dissociated from Mind At Large, how can we be more aware than it is?
Religious traditions will agree with Rupert while others with BK. Is this not an implication & large difference?
Can you clarify which religious traditions agree with which?
Most advaita teachers that I have seen resonate with both equally
The G.O.A.T.s
The opposite is true.
Goofy kids- arguing over nothing (and everything)