Rupert Spira on Sam Harris Podcast

[Mason Riggle]

@Carl-Richard sure. Are they any 'different'? Any 'difference' can only be known relatively (through duality). 

Oneness means Absolute/Relative is just an imaginary duality which can be transcended by understanding they are the same thing (hence conflating the twoness, into oneness). 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Carl-Richard sure. Are they any 'different'? Any 'difference' can only be known relatively (through duality). 

Oneness means Absolute/Relative is just an imaginary duality which can be transcended by understanding they are the same thing (hence conflating the twoness, into oneness). 

If you really understood the implications of what you're saying, you wouldn't keep getting lost like this. Non-dual verbal diarrhea is not a sign of being awake. Word salad is not a virtue.

[Mannyb]

13 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Mannyb I doubt Sam entertains the idea that he is a character in someone else's dream. He is pretty adamant that the self is an illusion, without making any claims about 'who' is the Illustrator. 

His point is- if there's no 'materialism', then there is no 'you' or 'me' who can be 'convinced' of anything.  

Without being lost in the dream, there are no characters in the dream. 

His point is wrong because it concludes materialism to be true just because of the apparent illusion. 

[VeganAwake]

42 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

“But yes, one seamless ocean and all apparent things like currents within the ocean.” Rupert Spira

Ajata Project

Welcome

An Empty Answer

You want me to “say more” about nothingness. Could anything be more paradoxical for the reader than to try to understand “nothing”?

Why? Because most people start from the conviction that there is something which does exist; if nothing more, at least “me”.

So, you will not likely appreciate nothingness unless you have come to realization through advaita. At least we will, then, begin without the assumption that a “me” really exists.

But even for the realized advatin, there will almost certainly be a presumption that “something” exists in the realm of reality. Even “reality”.

Advaita points to ajata, and ajata is about nothingness, or emptiness. The Diamond Sutra of Buddhism, points exclusively to it. Hui Neng, the Sixth Chinese Patriarch, declares flatly: ‘There is nothing from the start.” These sources, among others, set your foot on the path, but recognize that most people are then going to immediately be lost.

I have written clearly about advaita, and several have understood what I’ve said. I have spoken, to some of these, about what lies beyond the “Absolute,” and a couple have understood. So I will try to explain it, as best I can.

The “ultimate condition” (if any) is nothingness, the complete “absence” of anything—no thing, of any possible description.

The (approximate) comprehension of this would be to conceive of “emptiness”, as the emptiness of which not anything could be emptied; pure unassociated emptiness, and not even an emptiness which is within some imagined boundaries.

The word “void” could be applied; but this “actuality” is not void of something—in any positive sense.

So the nothingness of which we speak is totally empty, free of any subtlety which could even be envisioned.

Hence there is not anything “within” it that can be subject to any kind of movement, or even change.

Not anything can “come from” nothingness, nor “return” to it. It is not the “origin” of anything.

In fact, it could not be applicable to say that it exists, or does not exist. Thus we can’t say that this is the “beginning” condition or the “ending” condition. At best, we could say that (if it were “existent”) it would be the ever-present condition.

Yet, it is not an abstraction: its presence is “eternal”.

“In” its presence are supposed creatures, and the world and universe they seem to inhabit. But all of these supposed things are “in” nothingness. They have not appeared from nothingness, or out of nothingness, or because of nothingness. In fact, they have not actually “appeared”, except as nothingness.

The creatures take their reality, their “existence”, for granted; and thus also the reality or existence of the world and its universe—not knowing that they are nothing.

The assumption is: ‘There was a time when I didn’t exist, a time when I existed, and a time when I will no longer exist”. But there are no such times. Not anything has ever “existed”, from the standpoint of nothingness. In nothingness, there is no “time”.

What makes this so difficult to understand, is that because we say that “I have existed”, we conclude that there is some thing. And indeed we look around and say there are other things, such as a world or a universe.

But the presumption that there was a time when I did not exist (or do; or will not exist) is false: no arising, abiding or decaying exists in nothingness. In other words, not anything “happens” in nothingness.

“We” are nothing, the “world” is nothing, the “universe” is nothing. In nothingness, there is neither existence nor nonexistence. There is only nothing.

From the standpoint of nothingness, no questions can arise. We can not ask for, nor expect, an explanation: not anything ever happens, in nothingness.

The value of this understanding is that not anything really matters. Even understanding this does not matter. All is emptiness. That is the “empty” answer.

The scriptures speak of one who is in sahaja samadhi as having “no mind” or an “empty mind”. It is this appreciation of nothingness that is referred to.

 

- Ajata Project (Robert Wolfe)

[Mason Riggle]

@Carl-Richard you're here participating.

Either you're alone, talking to yourself..

Or there's a you, and a me who you are talking to. 

'You' can't convince 'me' it's the former without believing it's the latter. 

[Mannyb]

4 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Carl-Richard you're here participating.

Either you're alone, talking to yourself..

Or there's a you, and a me who you are talking to. 

'You' can't convince 'me' it's the former without believing it's the latter. 

It’s not either or, it’s both, your mind can’t understand it, that’s why it resists that possibility, so does Sam Harris’ mind.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Mannyb

[Mason Riggle]

@Mannyb it only concludes that materialism must be true, for any notion of it being true or false to mean anything. 

The conversation between characters in a dream only has meaning for those characters within the dream.  

If one awakens from the dream, one will laugh at itself for thinking the dream (and characters within it) was real. 

[Mason Riggle]

@Mannyb both implies duality. They are the same thing, which is why it doesn't matter which it is. There is no 'which it is', as Spira claims. 

[Mannyb]

6 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Mannyb it only concludes that materialism must be true, for any notion of it being true or false to mean anything. 

The conversation between characters in a dream only has meaning for those characters within the dream.  

If one awakens from the dream, one will laugh at itself for thinking the dream (and characters within it) was real. 

That conclusion does not reflect true understanding. Materialism is not true because no one has ever found a thing called matter, and no one ever could. That is true honesty, and leads to understanding. And that has already happened for some of us (perhaps including yourself, although it doesn’t seem that way), but definitely not for Sam.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Mannyb

[Mason Riggle]

2 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

And that has already happened for some of us (perhaps including yourself, although it doesn’t seem that way), but definitely not for Sam.

if you think Sam is real, then you haven't awakened from the dream where he's a character. 

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Carl-Richard you're here participating.

Either you're alone, talking to yourself..

Or there's a you, and a me who you are talking to. 

'You' can't convince 'me' it's the former without believing it's the latter. 

I can type anything and I'll get a non-dual deepity back. I guess I've found a woke sentence generator 

Try to write anything else than non-dual bs. If you can't, you have a mind virus. This is not awakening.

[Mannyb]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

if you think Sam is real, then you haven't awakened from the dream where he's a character. 

Well, sorry to break it to you, but he is real and his reality is that of being a dreamed character.

[Mason Riggle]

@Carl-Richard are your words 'non-dual'? 

[Mason Riggle]

@Mannyb if you think Sam is real (material), you are just as lost in materialism as Sam. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Carl-Richard are your words 'non-dual'? 

NO!  Neither are yours or anybody. We're talking right now. Talk, talk, talk. It ain't it, so stop this nonsense already.

[Mason Riggle]

@Carl-Richard you first. Wake up! ?

[VeganAwake]

46 minutes ago, Natasha said:

Indeed 

it can be recognized that the dream character in the dream story places an overlay over top of reality and operates from that self-centered perspective.

When this starts becoming recognized it can be quite funny and or shocking...

This Is essentially Eckhart Tolle's entire teaching squeezed into a few sentences

Also not saying that this recognition has not occurred there ❤

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by VeganAwake

[Mannyb]

3 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Mannyb if you think Sam is real (material), you are just as lost in materialism as Sam. 

Real does not imply material! That’s the whole point of Rupert’s consciousness only model.

[SamueLSD]

On 05/02/2021 at 1:37 PM, Nahm said:

“Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that can not be an illusion.”

-“Sam Harris”

 

 I thought he was admitting he was wrong as he said that, but nope.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Carl-Richard you first. Wake up! ?

"Talk, talk, it's only talk."