Great dialogue. One seems trapped in self, I awareness. The other seems to be both self and non-self.

Well, I am not enlightened and I appreciate both these teachers, but I have to say that Almaas seems much more phenomenological here (I'm just telling you what I've experienced) and Spira much more aggressive and ideological--trying to corner Almaas with words into agreeing to certain concepts. I like that Almaas accepts the fact of a void from which even awareness might arise. This seems to me more like what Zen says--"out of the void, leap wooden lambs" as one modern Zen poet put it--and more comfortable with an ineradicable mystery. The idea that we can't be aware of anything without awareness--as Spira asserts--doesn't seem to quite tally with the fact that while we aren't aware during deep sleep, we still seem to have some awareness of it having occurred, because we become aware, after the fact, of the absence of consciousness, including dreams. What strikes me the most here is how attached Spira seems to be to concepts and words--as if they could really nail down the absolute truth, which every great mystical tradition says is a false idea. Words and concepts only point toward--they never embody--the truth.

I feel Interviewer is cutting into the conversation to soon bevor they get to work it out. Such interesting conversation cut to short.

Having listened to the whole interview, I'm rather amused by a sage like mr Almaas not allowing his error being found out by Rupert in the middle of their time together. After that his tone becomes more assertive and egoic. Taking my hat off to the woman who is conducting the interview, for trying to save his face. My amusement is for someone like that, needing to have his face saved. Fie, mr Almaas!

By all the criticism, I must say, Rupert explains it very well, especially at the end where he takes the analogy of the moon borrowing his light from the sun to illunimate the earth. Also a great conversation between both. Of course everybody has his own opinion, even after deep awakening.

Seems like a big part of the misunderstanding is about individual conciousness. Almaas is saying that it is not the same thing as mind, its not the ego and what we might see as the false self. ”It is always through our individual consciousness that we know the mystery, even when we experience ourselves as its vastness, its expanse, its luminosity. It is our experience, not somebody else’s. In other words, this perception is happening through a particular individual consciousness, even though we recognize ourselves as this empty vastness. This demonstrates the implicit presence of individual consciousness, of the individual soul”.

Where was the sound man? I am maxed out and it's still faint.

What I hear Almaas saying is that while there is a fundamental ground of reality, it is actually no more or less real than the phenomenon that arise from the substance of that fundamental ground. Thus, all of it needs to be addressed as forms of reality, including an individual consciousness which is not merely illusion.

@DiamondApproach

3 жыл бұрын

Individual consciousness is not illusion as there is no awareness or consciousness without a witnessing consciousness. The content of the awareness or consciousness can be more or less illusion or delusion depending on the levels of obscurtation.

@teahorseguitarstraps1856

3 жыл бұрын

@@DiamondApproach Really well said. Thanks for the clarification!

Why so low sound ???

It was a lot of fun to see these two great teachers challenging one another’s perspectives, as that isn’t an occurrence I have often seen before. I resonated more with Hameed’s all encompassing perspective, which includes the possibility that awareness itself can dissolve into something more fundamental, which aligns with Nisargadatta’s teachings as well as the Law of One teachings. I’m excited to spend more time meditating in the heart of awareness to see if that dissolving becomes my experience as well.

I rather hear Spira talk of his private experience than hearing his external analysis. Their discussion gets stuck in concepts sometimes. Thanks for sharing this.

@bornuponawave

3 жыл бұрын

“Stuck in concepts”? Rupert was discussing the experience of being aware. The pure knowing of experience. Almaas was the one who was stuck in concepts. What he talked about was not an analysis. He was pointing to the awareness with which you are aware of you experience. Look at their body language. Rupert was upright, forward and engaged the other guy was sitting back and leaning away with legs crossed....a reflection of his inner mental attitude towards the conversation. He had his mind made up.

@rickdeckard1075

2 жыл бұрын

@@bornuponawave spiras viewpoint makes experience irrelevant, he uses his viewpoint to "solve" emotional and mental problems by dissolving the entire self and sensation of self, he throws the baby out with the bathwater and says "problem solved"

@bornuponawave

2 жыл бұрын

@@rickdeckard1075 no….that’s no what he’s doing at all. Try listening again.

Almaas has so much clarity! He expresses the process and embodiment of Being Awareness. Such a compassionate and nuanced expression of what it means to be human on a spiritual path of unfolding. Rupert talks as if his direct realisation is all we need, but in my experience it is just the beginning. I would have liked Zaya to ask them both why they feel their particular approach is important and what they feel the merits and limitations (if they think there are any) are as compared to the other’s approach. That might have opened up and clarified the conversation more.

Its obvious,rupert explained it with clarity,consciousness or awareness is fundamental,therefore the mind/body is just secondary,illusory or just have borrowed existence,Almaas is contradicting himself,he is saying he gets it that consciousness is fundamental but he is saying that awareness is fundamental,but awareness needed perception to know itself, how can awareness which is fundamental depends on a secondary thing likd perception?i think Almaas has to have a more concrete way of explaining it.when he said that other person observed him that he disappeared when he had the experience of nothingness and everythingness ,it is a phenomena,it is a visual experience of somebody else,which can actually happen in observable physical reality,but it doesnt explain the dependence of awareness on secondary existence like the body mind.I think he should elaborate it more.when a teacher explain things which makes you feel more confused,most of the time the teacher doesnt know whats going on too.

@haj1155

3 жыл бұрын

Pure awareness does not include knowing. For knowing there needs to be consciousness. This may be part of the issue as many people equate awareness and consciousness. Almaas discriminates them. Consciousness is dependent on awareness, but awareness is not dependent on consciousness, Consciousness can be understood as knowing and being coemergent. In pure awareness, what Almaas refers to as nonconceptual reality, there is awareness of forms but no knowing of them, no concepts or names to go with them. This includes no knowing of an individual unit of awareness - the one perceiving. It's interesting to note that everyone discussing such things is doing so with the assistance of a body - it's organs of perception and it's mental processing capacities. Everything we know has been reported via a body. What's really going on? Can we know or articulate it without the body?

No. Moon isn't needed for awareness to know itself. Rupert, why did you say "yes" to that. ?

A H Allme

The One and the Many are co-emergent and perfectly Unified without any contradiction between Unitary consciousness and the individuation and realization of Souls, each of which has a unique personal essence. Advaita Vedanta is solipsism and is lopsided emphasis on the One to the exclusion and de-valuing of the many. At least some forms of Vedanta take this lopsided view. Other schools recognize the Soul and its eternal nature.

"Awareness is" and "I am"--Spira says they have the same meaning. Almaas says those two claims are not the same. Philosophically, there is no logical reason to conclude the two sentences are identical. Experientially, Spira claims they are; but, experientially, Almaas says, they aren't.

@DiamondApproach

2 жыл бұрын

Almass is pointing to nonconceptual awareness - awareness without knowing. I AM includes knowing thus awareness with pure consciousness.

@ 46 super 👌 Hameed ji is talking abt being aware of the moderator as well as being aware of Ramana Maharshi...not as a puerile thought..but as real as the moderator by stretching his awareness into time...truly transcending time and space .

Rupert is very enthusiastic and is at the edge of his seat trying to explain Reality to the other person who is so relaxed scratching his ears confident of his views about reality.

@bornuponawave

3 жыл бұрын

He was relaxed and confident. His body language was leaning back and away with leg crossed. Subconsciously trying to move away from the conversation. I could see how Almaas was was stuck in conceptual thinking while Spira was talking about our direct experience. The awareness with which all experiences arise.

@nastied

3 жыл бұрын

They are just different personalities. Actually both tried to be open

@mlovidius

3 жыл бұрын

IMO, Almaas had a defensive body posture, he is lost in his conceptualizations, needed to be right about his elaborate theories. Almaas' work dissects a topic to such a degree he kills its inherent life.

Spira was patiently helping this guy along, but it seemed like Almaad had his mind made up. I could tell Spira was really trying to help him understand. Even the woman was trying to help him understand what Rupert was trying to point out.

@nastied

3 жыл бұрын

Almaas got it 40 years ago, dont worry

@bornuponawave

3 жыл бұрын

@@nastied what do you mean? there’s nothing to get.

@__4_9_9__

3 жыл бұрын

I found on the contrary that almaas brings another flavor to the topic, that is exquisite. The distinction between experiencing awareness as I, or perceiving it without an I, is profound. Those two "views" are self sufficient and coexist without diminishing the other one. They are absolute in themselves.

@bornuponawave

3 жыл бұрын

@@__4_9_9__ one is with ego, the other is without ego.

@__4_9_9__

3 жыл бұрын

@@bornuponawave no, that is not what is meant here. Both are experienced without ego

Well, from reading the comments the lines are drawn: Almaas' students say he got it right, Spira's students say he did. If, there is anything to get. right :)

@mlovidius

3 жыл бұрын

Almaas is out of his element, can't he see how defensive he is being in trying to validate his school of thought.

.

Damn that was amazing. For my personal illusory consciousness that is aware of being a personal illusory consciousness times infinity. What a strange loop this reality is, mindfucked I am.

31:16 the man just said that his friend said that he disappeared and Rupert and the moderator were so fixated that they didn't pick up on it!!! He physically disappeared, it seems!! This is a quantum breakthrough!

@quantessenz

10 ай бұрын

No he did not, don't take it too literally. He is talking about an satori where the I dissolves.

Almaaas is defenetly far away from being Awake!

@DavidSumeray_BassGod

Жыл бұрын

Or, you’re too asleep to perceive awakeness

Rupert exists in a specific dimension of spiritual perspective. There is only nonduality. That is the one truth for him, and it trumps all. Almaas is about the fluidity and infinite depth of being, there is no anecdote or quipe to be followed. That is why Rupert does not understand. Almaas is deep. Rupert is superficial. Both are needed for the the people who seek the truth. Great talk!

@mlovidius

3 жыл бұрын

In my experience, it is the other way around, Almaas is superficial and Rupert is deep, apparently deeper than what almaas can grasp. Almaas became defensive in his energy which tells a lot, he needs to be true to his long theories on everything, regardless of their validity.

@rickdeckard1075

2 жыл бұрын

yeah spira's view is very passive, almost solipsistic in a way. almaas wants to be able to have an effect on his environment.

@shanethompson8730

18 күн бұрын

Bingo

With all respect for Almaas; there's no denying though that when he's talking about 'the gap' and the ceasing of awareness, Rupert has the better of him. He has only got circumstantial evidence, 'Karen says' - sorry, it's not good enough. mr Almaas.

Spira sounds truer to me. It's easier and more elegant imo to equate being with awareness. Why make a distinction? Being is being aware. Awareness is.

@haj1155

Жыл бұрын

So, why discriminate anything? Being - Nonbeing.. same, same? What's the difference between being and existence? Awareness is more fundamental than consciousness. Yet consciousness is the ground of knowing not awareness. In nonconceptual, mirror-like awareness there is no knowing of the content of awareness yet there are forms. I'm just saying distinction (discernment, discrimination) is a function of and a service to the evolution of consciousness and awareness. Yes? No?

@mehdimoussaoui1712

Жыл бұрын

@@haj1155 I'm not sure I get what you're saying. You talk about the evolution of awareness/consciousness... In my experience there is no evolution of awareness, only evolution of the content of awareness (i.e the body, the mind, the world,...). But in any case, if you feel that these distinctions are useful and help you make sense of it all then great! In my conception, awareness, consciousness and being are the unchanging field in which experiences take place. But I can totally get that others may have different notions according to their preferences..

@haj1155

Жыл бұрын

@@mehdimoussaoui1712 yes. it's more a matter of curiosity - openness/not-knowing dancing with revelation

Multiple faces of God....E.g. Wilber has the 1-2-3 of God. Maybe it's "non-existence" rather than "non-being". Rupert starts with 1p. Almaas likes to start with 3p. She is essential here, bridging with 2p.

Rupert won. The other guy felt threatened.

@shans4167

4 жыл бұрын

ceeloc no way Rupert felt trapped to me, he reached his end and that is reality, end of the story. Almaas reached his end and it created a new beginning, the story of awareness keeps unfolding, limitless and infinite in its wisdom.