I really appreciated the dream analogy in this video. In a dream, we don't see through eyes, although it seems like we are. In a dream, the first person character is no more aware than any of the others. How is the "real world" any different? Mind blown 🤯
Found the whirpool compilation :) what a great use of a channel Alan.. have you ever wondered why is it that the laws of nature never ever change? Is it possible that the experience of this universe governed by its laws is one deep seated belief? Just asking alomg... happy new year man xx
Another diamond, Alan. ...did Rupert say the reason our minds focus on 1 'thing' only is cos awareness is experiencing/being that single experience? !..
Hazel Goodman. The present perception is all there is. Perception morphs and changes timelessly. If you "look out" at perception and simultaneously "look back" at yourself you will only find perception which is known.
Alan Neachell thank you v much, Alan. I just listened to Rupert talk to a child about time and then read yr reply. Those two perceptions create a much enlarged view
I get thrown with these characters in Ruperts examples. I wasn’t around the day he explained the choice of these names- but it’s always the same: Mary is always falling asleep in London and wakes up as Jane who is always in Paris. She always has the same friend named David. That is unless he is talking about John Smith who i believes falls asleep in NY waking as a king named Lear. It sounds to me like Mary is infinite consciousness and Jane and David are the localizations (personalizations). Is this correct? I’d appreciate it is someone would clarify. It sounds like infinite consciousness is also John Smith and the localization is King Lear. What throws me is why John Smith? What is the significance of using the NAME “John Smith” as infinite consciousness? Why not just call it GOD? GOD (supreme consciousness) falls asleep to itself and asumes the identity of the appearance of a “Jane”. I keep a look out for the video where he spells it out- his analogy so I can be sure I’m on track with these very same characters I’ve been hearing about for years but I never come across that video. Any clarification would be a relief, thank you.
You're right on track 😊 he has dropped Mary and Jane but has kept John Smith and king Lear. John Smith is who you really are, king Lear is the imagined individual.
I am familiar with the music at the beginning but the name escapes me, I'd appreciate it if someone could let me know, thanks and thanks so much for the videos :)
@@maryjomyers3094 we don't, and dream having bodies to discover that. Happiness is found if we wake up from this dream 🎉💎 how happy don't you feel when you find something back that you had lost? How much more happiness will you feel when you find yourself back that wasn't even lost, only in dream? ☀️💗
If I understand correctly Rupert is saying that there is ONE awareness or consciousness. That the world, objects, matter is a “coloring” of consciousness. That there are no separate beings but only the “appearance” of such. My question is about what happens after the body dies. Traditionally, there has been so much talk, stories and dogma about what happens to a “soul” after death. There are countless NDE stories- all implying a continuation of the “spirit” or “soul”. Is all of this fairy tales? I’m confused about how far this “individual” appearance goes. Some NDE’s claim they see family members after death. So what is a soul anyway in context to what Rupert is saying? Rupert speaks so softly and compassionately but man is it radical! Does any one know what Rupert says of these things?
Nde would be an appearance in consciousness, made of consciousness. Only awareness/consciousness is aware and you are that, so an apparent Individual is just a localised activity pattern of consciousness. I'm going to post a compilation on Rupert's definition of mind next week. It gives several models to explain what I've said above.
Alan Neachell Thank you for your reply, Alan. I will look for this videos next week. Its strange to me that with all that is written and talked about over so long that there is such ignorance of something so fundamental. So mind bending it is, that is there is no me there is no one else either, but a play of consciousness. On another note- it has come to my attention news about the YT Guru Mooji who apparently is not all he presented himself to be. I don’t know if you have seen that there are many allegations of the typical fallen guru pattern; sexual impropriety, abuse, etc. I was listening to Mooji around 2010 and I felt he was “the real deal”. At that time he was much less known and worked with smaller groups of people. It has been a real blow to hear some rather serious allegations. Is shocking because I opened and believed and took to heart the things he taught. It would be worse now, with Rupert, if I were to find out that he was misrepresenting himself. Though I don’t understand everything Rupert talks about- he really seems that he would not ever be subject to the vanities or the “fallen” guru thing. He seems impeccable. Which is why it would more than just hurt. The thing is someone like me- completely on the outside looking in. Rupert comes off as pure as it gets but how would I really know. It does look as though Rupert works with relatively smaller groups and the median age of the students appear to be older that those of Mooji. The real mind bender is comprehending that both Mooji and Rupert are appearances in consciousness and not “people”. It s all so counter intuitive.
If we consider All to be Consciousness, how can you say the 100 people are only the appearance of the limited mind. It is the experience of consciousness. Just as a dream I might have is a real dream experience so too are the people around me real. Even if they are only the consciousness within Mary's dream they are still real...just as a wave in the water or the whirlpool in the river have no substance outside of the water..they are still real activities in the water. Am I off in this understanding?
Apparent minds are real as mind activities. We never find an actual thing called a mind. Everything is an appearance or colouring of consciousness. There are no distinct 'things'.
Dear Alan, I have a question for you. In the early part of this video R is talking about the analogy of Mary (consciousness) having a dream of Jane who is in Paris meeting in a cafe with her friend. I’m understanding that ultimately there is no separate Jane or her friend- it is all an appearance of consciousness. There IS no independent world. Right? Ok. Then Rupert goes back to our reference to the world as the “matter” model which has “run its course”. Then he says “all you have to do is read the paper and see that it doesn’t work” and then he makes a reference to our “world culture” again, under the “matter model” is coming to an end. Alan, this is confusing as heck. On the one hand “there is no world apart from consciousness” so then how can R make a reference to a “world culture” as if it actually exists on its own with its own dysfunctional trajectory (due to its predominant “matter first model”)? It sounds dramatically contradictory. If we are all one consciousness and in reality outside of time and space- then there is no “world culture” coming to and end of the “matter model” for that implies time. R speaks that there IS NO TIME. Is this clear what I am asking? He implies there is no world and then makes reference to it as if it is there! Please help me understand this apparent contradiction! Just as I am beginning to understand this is like a hard slap in the face hearing R refer to the world in terms of TIME. Thank so much!
The manifest world operates as a mind projection. The apparent rules of matter are actually patterns of mind. When this is not understood we believe in the matter model and the subject/ object illusion is born! The mind made world can even seem to evolve, hence the whirlpool metaphor. All is consciousness. Mind and all it's ideas and apparent appearances are consciousness only. Hope this helps 🙏
Alan, so when R speaks about our civilization passing away- he is speaking of it in terms like a dream that AS A DREAM “appears” to have a trajectory in time?
So then in the dream of time if the “world” were to “evolve” and adopt the “consciousness only” model life her would “appear” to change for the “better”? Again, I thank you for all your responses. It’s a great treasure, all your video compilations.
@@alanneachell9092 ok then...seems to me kastrup has much deeper understanding of monistic idealism than rupert. but of course rupert's focus is more on spirituality whereas bernardo's is more on ontology.
@@zorashoes6482 whatever brings us to clarity is great. I would however say that it's essential to realize in ourselves the nature of that which we are. I believe Bernardo did that via mushrooms and Rupert did it by constant repetition of being aware. It works in different ways for different people. All good 😊
I love Rupert’s teachings. Ty so much for caring about all of us having time with him. You’re awesome
Thanks Deborah
I agree with many others here. I find your compilations to be especially helpful. I'm very grateful.
munkymind. Thank you.
I really appreciated the dream analogy in this video.
In a dream, we don't see through eyes, although it seems like we are. In a dream, the first person character is no more aware than any of the others.
How is the "real world" any different? Mind blown 🤯
Oh what a spin were in! So good to remember the I! Alan, Thank you for these “snapshots”
Dear Alan, All i can say is you are really great.
Wow!!!! thank you for the Video;a precious Jewel!!!!!!
Wow he makes it so clear. 🙏🏻🙏🏻
merci Alan ! je suis tellement passionnée par Rupert que je regarde les videos avec le dictionnaire en permanence ! quel sport !
Pat Ly You're welcome 🙏
Thanks for yet another enriching video Alan.
Welcome
Thank you so much!!!! Rupert and Alan....
Mind-blowing 💖
😊🙏
Alan... yeah... you do a fine job of picking the great ones.
Thank you!
Welcome 🙏
Wow!
Thank You Alan !
🙏
Found the whirpool compilation :) what a great use of a channel
Alan.. have you ever wondered why is it that the laws of nature never ever change? Is it possible that the experience of this universe governed by its laws is one deep seated belief? Just asking alomg... happy new year man xx
Another diamond, Alan. ...did Rupert say the reason our minds focus on 1 'thing' only is cos awareness is experiencing/being that single experience? !..
Hazel Goodman. The present perception is all there is. Perception morphs and changes timelessly. If you "look out" at perception and simultaneously "look back" at yourself you will only find perception which is known.
your understanding is very deep Alan. You really put up beautiful compilations of rupert.!!! Very deep and enriching. Please keep posting 😊
Alan Neachell thank you v much, Alan. I just listened to Rupert talk to a child about time and then read yr reply. Those two perceptions create a much enlarged view
Hazel Goodman. Fantastic!
I get thrown with these characters in Ruperts examples. I wasn’t around the day he explained the choice of these names- but it’s always the same: Mary is always falling asleep in London and wakes up as Jane who is always in Paris. She always has the same friend named David. That is unless he is talking about John Smith who i believes falls asleep in NY waking as a king named Lear.
It sounds to me like Mary is infinite consciousness and Jane and David are the localizations (personalizations). Is this correct? I’d appreciate it is someone would clarify.
It sounds like infinite consciousness is also John Smith and the localization is King Lear. What throws me is why John Smith? What is the significance of using the NAME “John Smith” as infinite consciousness? Why not just call it GOD? GOD (supreme consciousness) falls asleep to itself and asumes the identity of the appearance of a “Jane”.
I keep a look out for the video where he spells it out- his analogy so I can be sure I’m on track with these very same characters I’ve been hearing about for years but I never come across that video.
Any clarification would be a relief, thank you.
You're right on track 😊 he has dropped Mary and Jane but has kept John Smith and king Lear. John Smith is who you really are, king Lear is the imagined individual.
I am familiar with the music at the beginning but the name escapes me, I'd appreciate it if someone could let me know, thanks and thanks so much for the videos :)
Thanks for your comments. I can't remember the name of the music, sorry 🙃
Thank you
.🙏
Please let me know if these videos are on cd so that I can listen to them in my car
Betty Ramgulam I put them together myself but if you find a UA-cam downloader you can save them as MP3
Betty Ramgulam . If you have a problem, find me on Facebook and I will arrange to send you the files.
Wonder- full presentations! And I wonder- if I am is always peacefully the same, why do we have bodies?
@@maryjomyers3094 we don't, and dream having bodies to discover that. Happiness is found if we wake up from this dream 🎉💎 how happy don't you feel when you find something back that you had lost? How much more happiness will you feel when you find yourself back that wasn't even lost, only in dream? ☀️💗
If I understand correctly Rupert is saying that there is ONE awareness or consciousness. That the world, objects, matter is a “coloring” of consciousness. That there are no separate beings but only the “appearance” of such.
My question is about what happens after the body dies. Traditionally, there has been so much talk, stories and dogma about what happens to a “soul” after death. There are countless NDE stories- all implying a continuation of the “spirit” or “soul”.
Is all of this fairy tales? I’m confused about how far this “individual” appearance goes. Some NDE’s claim they see family members after death.
So what is a soul anyway in context to what Rupert is saying? Rupert speaks so softly and compassionately but man is it radical!
Does any one know what Rupert says of these things?
Nde would be an appearance in consciousness, made of consciousness.
Only awareness/consciousness is aware and you are that, so an apparent Individual is just a localised activity pattern of consciousness.
I'm going to post a compilation on Rupert's definition of mind next week. It gives several models to explain what I've said above.
Alan Neachell Thank you for your reply, Alan. I will look for this videos next week.
Its strange to me that with all that is written and talked about over so long that there is such ignorance of something so fundamental. So mind bending it is, that is there is no me there is no one else either, but a play of consciousness.
On another note- it has come to my attention news about the YT Guru Mooji who apparently is not all he presented himself to be. I don’t know if you have seen that there are many allegations of the typical fallen guru pattern; sexual impropriety, abuse, etc.
I was listening to Mooji around 2010 and I felt he was “the real deal”. At that time he was much less known and worked with smaller groups of people.
It has been a real blow to hear some rather serious allegations. Is shocking because I opened and believed and took to heart the things he taught.
It would be worse now, with Rupert, if I were to find out that he was misrepresenting himself. Though I don’t understand everything Rupert talks about- he really seems that he would not ever be subject to the vanities or the “fallen” guru thing. He seems impeccable. Which is why it would more than just hurt.
The thing is someone like me- completely on the outside looking in. Rupert comes off as pure as it gets but how would I really know. It does look as though Rupert works with relatively smaller groups and the median age of the students appear to be older that those of Mooji.
The real mind bender is comprehending that both Mooji and Rupert are appearances in consciousness and not “people”. It s all so counter intuitive.
If you want to find me on Facebook, we can share more easily.
Alan Neachell are you on Instagram
If we consider All to be Consciousness, how can you say the 100 people are only the appearance of the limited mind. It is the experience of consciousness. Just as a dream I might have is a real dream experience so too are the people around me real. Even if they are only the consciousness within Mary's dream they are still real...just as a wave in the water or the whirlpool in the river have no substance outside of the water..they are still real activities in the water.
Am I off in this understanding?
Apparent minds are real as mind activities. We never find an actual thing called a mind. Everything is an appearance or colouring of consciousness. There are no distinct 'things'.
Dear Alan, I have a question for you. In the early part of this video R is talking about the analogy of Mary (consciousness) having a dream of Jane who is in Paris meeting in a cafe with her friend. I’m understanding that ultimately there is no separate Jane or her friend- it is all an appearance of consciousness. There IS no independent world. Right?
Ok. Then Rupert goes back to our reference to the world as the “matter” model which has “run its course”. Then he says “all you have to do is read the paper and see that it doesn’t work” and then he makes a reference to our “world culture” again, under the “matter model” is coming to an end.
Alan, this is confusing as heck. On the one hand “there is no world apart from consciousness” so then how can R make a reference to a “world culture” as if it actually exists on its own with its own dysfunctional trajectory (due to its predominant “matter first model”)? It sounds dramatically contradictory. If we are all one consciousness and in reality outside of time and space- then there is no “world culture” coming to and end of the “matter model” for that implies time.
R speaks that there IS NO TIME.
Is this clear what I am asking?
He implies there is no world and then makes reference to it as if it is there!
Please help me understand this apparent contradiction!
Just as I am beginning to understand this is like a hard slap in the face hearing R refer to the world in terms of TIME.
Thank so much!
The manifest world operates as a mind projection. The apparent rules of matter are actually patterns of mind.
When this is not understood we believe in the matter model and the subject/ object illusion is born!
The mind made world can even seem to evolve, hence the whirlpool metaphor.
All is consciousness. Mind and all it's ideas and apparent appearances are consciousness only.
Hope this helps 🙏
Alan, so when R speaks about our civilization passing away- he is speaking of it in terms like a dream that AS A DREAM “appears” to have a trajectory in time?
Yes, exactly
From the point of view of mind, the truth seems paradoxical
So then in the dream of time if the “world” were to “evolve” and adopt the “consciousness only” model life her would “appear” to change for the “better”?
Again, I thank you for all your responses. It’s a great treasure, all your video compilations.
This man has some very serious issues.
Can you explain?
why you stole the idea from dr. bernardo kastrup without acknowledging him?
Bernardo and Rupert are friends. He always says he borrowed the whirlpool analogy from him.
The rest is well known terminology. 🙏
@@alanneachell9092 ok then...seems to me kastrup has much deeper understanding of monistic idealism than rupert. but of course rupert's focus is more on spirituality whereas bernardo's is more on ontology.
@@zorashoes6482 whatever brings us to clarity is great. I would however say that it's essential to realize in ourselves the nature of that which we are.
I believe Bernardo did that via mushrooms and Rupert did it by constant repetition of being aware.
It works in different ways for different people. All good 😊
@@alanneachell9092 yes, rupert is more meditator (mindfullnes), kastrup is academic philosopher.