Infinite Awareness/Conciousness

as this subject has become quite interesting on another thread i thought i'd open a new one here so members can talk a bit more on the subject without de-railing the other one.

i'm hoping the lovely Lotus will add some good content to this as i'm still relatively new to the subject

but i thought i would kickstart things with this video

As if mult-iworlds, parallel universes, time travel, holographic universe theories weren't tough enough to digest, give this one a try, " awareness/consciousness " from Rupert Spira's interpretation. Very interesting and really makes you think from within.

i find the more i listen to him.... part of me wants to just question and disagree....... but i cant... i just cant disagree with what he says lol

Thanks, Night. I never watched this video from Rupert so I checked and, wow, it was just added. Thanks for a very nice surprise.

This is yet another important and beautiful thread, and one that may last for long with us. "The lovely Lotus," however, can't really do much, on here or anywhere, without the lovely Rodan, the lovely Kazoo, the lovely Roosevelt—all lovelies indeed Posay, Adi, Bunny, Ivy, etc. Not to mention the ones I sincerely miss—Mara, Matt, NS, Lunar, ....; and not to mention, of course, the lovely Night and lovely Armine. I really hope we'll always keep in touch here and get to really meet each other. Gandhi once said, "We have to love one another. To love one another, we have to know one another. To know one another, we have to meet one another." So if that all turned out to be just a place to meet and know and hopefully love one another, that would be perfect, great, wonderful; much more meaningful and valuable than a crowded wall on which mere strangers pass and each write their words and no one's really reading or listening to anyone else.


What Rupert's dealing with in this video is a bit controversial, perhaps even a bit philosophical. Even in the East or India itself, the cradle of this awesome wisdom, teachers and sages are not really in full agreement about particularly this point. (If this is anyone's first meeting with Mr. Spira, I therefore suggest that they rather start with any of his other videos, and there are literally hundreds on YouTube).

...................................

The problem in brief is as follows: Let's call God "Brahman." This is actually more than God in the sense of the "Lord." This is the supreme, infinite "presence" beyond all, unknown and even unknowable by the intellect or mind.

On the other hand, what we usually refer to as "God within" is "Atman." (We may roughly say that Atman is the "soul," since we usually refer to the soul as the divine part or component of man).

Now our "reference" or "compass," the most ancient scripture ever on this planet, says: "Atman IS Brahman." Several questions therefore were heavily debated over the years (or the millennia to be precise). For example: Does each one of us have an Atman, or is it one Atman for all? Another question, again for example, inquires: Is Atman, who's indeed Brahman, deluded into believing that s/he's just a human entity (jiva)? Yet another asks: Atman might not be deluded really, but is he confined or imprisoned in the body-mind construct?

Obviously, because "Atman IS Brahman," the problem is not really to find the answer to any of these questions as it is the "consequences" of such an answer. (How can the "Supreme," Brahman himself be deluded, or confined, for example?)


In India, there are about six different systems, models, or schools of thought, that answer all such questions. One of these schools, the one most common and stable today (and most rational, logical and consistent in my opinion) is the "Advaita" school, Sanskrit for Oneness or precisely "Non-Duality" This is where Rupert, and I, along with such great and famous mystics as Maharshi and Nisargadatta, actually came from.

It's worth mentioning here that particularly Advaita, of all other Hindu schools, is the closest to Buddhism, which gave them both much more weight through the ages and thus both today are that prominent in our modern thought and literature. More importantly, they're both perfectly compatible and in total agreement with science and the latest of our scientific findings.

Now, after this hopefully adequate introduction, what's Rupert really saying here? Let's delve into more details next time. Again thanks Night, also thanks Rodan, take care my friends and have a beautiful day. ♥

yes i should have put one of his other videos up for people to watch if they haven't seen him before, i think i got excited as this is a question i've been pondering myself since learning about this subject.. and hey presto he posted it on facebook today

of course everyones contributions are great, i mentioned you in particular as you introduced him to us initially so i know you're a fountain of knowledge on him... and i'm well.. still in a stage where i love it and i get it and agree.. but it still leaves a lot of ego/illusory-self denial if that makes sense?

this has helped me immensely though, especially with any past hurt and pain.. understanding its not real and it doesnt exist, and knowing everything is one and not seperated, life is a lot more peaceful in general and i tend not to stress as much as i used to, so i'm very grateful for that

but yeah i think this could turn into a really good discussion, and i hope to learn a lot from it

I'm currently absorbing his video, " The New Science of Consciousness " ( by Rupert Spira ) It's about 45 minutes long. It's on Youtube.

Not sure if it's a good starter video to Mr. Spira's thoughts, but, I'm getting meaning from it, by playing it over and over, pausing on the points I need to understand.

Rupert Spira is different from most of others. He knows the subject of conscousness, and, he is a bit controversial to other teachers, if we can call him a teacher.


Lotus quoted: " Now, after this hopefully adequate introduction, what's Rupert really saying here? Let's delve into more details next time."

If you are referring to the video in this thread,.......

I will have to listen to it a few times.  I'll give some input, later, on what I think of how Rupert is saying.

i quite like this video

Rupert Spira quote @ 6:30 : there is a choosing thought, but there is no chooser ".

A concept I have a hard time with, and, it made me go back and relisten to the video clip, " Going to the heart of an emotion ", post # 61 in the " Letting go and detachment" thread.

Is Rupert saying there is no " I " ? No ego?

I thought I caught in one of his videos the " finite I " was the " I " the ego part of us as individuals?

I think I do understand what infinite consciousness is, and it's purpose. Maybe Rupert is saying awareness, which is infinite consciousness, working through us as individuals?

It has me confused.

i hope i'm correct, Lotus please say if i'm not

the only 'I' Is the infinite I of awareness.... there is no i with the ego, its an illusion

And that is how I think Rupert is explaining it.

In the example Rupert gave in that other video, on Post # 61, " Going to the Heart of an Emotion ", that's what he's saying.

I do understand what he's telling her is how to take that hurtful feeling, and let it pass through awareness, just like when someone says " " Oh, what a nice day it is ".

It does go against what I've always though.

I've always believed we have a conscious mind ( ego the mind, human side of us ) and there is the subconscious mind, with what can be called a " gatekeeper " a barrier to filter out information.

The " ego " is what " feels ". It's just what I've always believe, and, though is mainstream belief.

Night Eyes quoted: " i hope i'm correct, Lotus please say if i'm not

the only 'I' Is the infinite I of awareness.... there is no i with the ego, its an illusion "

This is how I think Rupert is explaining what the " I " is.

He does use the term " finite I " on occasion, and, that is what I'd like to know what he's referring to, when he mentions " finite I ".

I do think he's saying there is only consciousness, but, when we try to put physical qualities on consciousness, we then need to separate them.

There is " infinite consciousness ", and, there is consciousness, which I think is the physical, the finite I.

I will understand it better as I keep reading and listening to his information.

Night Eyes wrote:i hope i'm correct, Lotus please say if i'm not

the only 'I' Is the infinite I of awareness.... there is no i with the ego, its an illusion

Hi Night (and everyone) and sorry for my late response. I'll be back in… 12 hours. So roughly for now, and for our "intellect," I'd agree with you. This is how we can intellectually put it in the beginning: the ego (the sense of individual, separate self) is an illusion and the only real "I" or Self is that of Awareness, or Consciousness. However, your "experience" especially if you practice meditation will soon change. You'll begin to internally realize a very deep connection between you and everything. A step further, you'll see yourself in everything. Somehow you are "in" everything.

When you have this "feeling," or "experience," or "realization" (and it doesn't take much time by the way) your sense of "self" will necessarily fade out. At least, it won't be as present or apparent as it might be today. Primarily, for a self to exist, there must be an-other. But since there is really no other; since somehow everyone and everything is now "you" and is indeed "one," a sense of "self" won't arise anymore, or at least, not as frequently. (And ironically you'll be more "sensitive" to life in its various forms—some even develop the ability of communicating with animals. Our friend Love&Light here, and hopefully this is not a secret, can communicate with plants by the way, although she took a different route, apparently).

So yes, there is no "I" as a separate self, that's for sure. ALL different schools with no exception fully agree on this one. What remains, however, is a matter of experience, and is beyond words, and that's why the seemingly disagree. (For Buddha for example, it's the "void" or "emptiness" of Nirvana: There is only "knowing" but no "knower;" only seeing but no seer; only Awareness but no "self" whatsoever to attribute this awareness to. For our Rupert and the Advaitins in general, there remains the only true Self, of Infinite Awareness).

yes this is something i seem to not be able to do consistently, is feel it deeper than intellectually, i did have some fleeting moments especially when you pointed me to certain online places.. but i've not stayed there.. is that how its meant to be?

i have shifted and i do feel a sense of oneness with everything, i dont feel AS seperated.. think its seems moreso with people and animals rather than inanimate things

although if i'm honest i did overdose on rupert videos so i have taken a break lately!

p.s the word 'i' is only used as the terminology is sooo hard once you get into this, language hasn't really been designed to discuss these things has it!

rodan wrote:Night Eyes quoted: " i hope i'm correct, Lotus please say if i'm not

the only 'I' Is the infinite I of awareness.... there is no i with the ego, its an illusion "

This is how I think Rupert is explaining what the " I " is.

He does use the term " finite I " on occasion, and, that is what I'd like to know what he's referring to, when he mentions " finite I ".

I do think he's saying there is only consciousness, but, when we try to put physical qualities on consciousness, we then need to separate them.

There is " infinite consciousness ", and, there is consciousness, which I think is the physical, the finite I.

I will understand it better as I keep reading and listening to his information.

There are many, various ornaments; each has its own "name" and "form." So they look different from each other. But they're all made of gold. They're all gold. They're essentially one. Similarly, there are so may people, animals, plants and things—each has its own "name and form." They look different from one another, but they are all made of Consciousness. They're all one. Consciousness is all there is.

Thus, either you identify with the "Name and Form," so you think you're a temporary, separate and finite self—"finite I" as Rupert/you say… OR, you realize the truth, that you are indeed Consciousness itself. That you are the very essence of everything. That you are truly everywhere and in everyone. You're not a character in the movie, as you probably think; rather, you are the screen itself, on which everything appears and disappears.

In another famous analogy, you, Consciousness, are an ocean, and everything is just a "temporary" and "finite" ripple or wave that just rises and soon falls again. The world is made of these waves. Every one of us, apparently separate, finite, and different in "Name and Form," is just a wave. This wave, however—rising or falling, manifest or un-manifest—is either way "water," and is either way the ocean. This is more or less the summary of the whole topic. I didn't read everything yet but I guess I'll have more to add soon. Thanks both of you Night and Rodan for this important thread.

@Night Eyes wrote:yes this is something i seem to not be able to do consistently, is feel it deeper than intellectually, i did have some fleeting moments especially when you pointed me to certain online places.. but i've not stayed there.. is that how its meant to be?

i have shifted and i do feel a sense of oneness with everything, i dont feel AS seperated.. think its seems moreso with people and animals rather than inanimate things

although if i'm honest i did overdose on rupert videos so i have taken a break lately!

p.s the word 'i' is only used as the terminology is sooo hard once you get into this, language hasn't really been designed to discuss these things has it!

lol, of course language is a major barrier here, Night. Language can never express this experience because it's simply beyond "mind," thus necessarily beyond "language."

You didn't stay there simply because your mind didn't let you. It'd do everything to get you distracted and always away from this new horizon. Why? Because this is what the mind is for. The mind is the projector of the movie, remember? It's the real magician here. The artist or director ever creating these dazzling scenes and stunning emotional and visual effects. What we're actually talking about here, on the other hand, is the end of the whole movie, or at least the uncovering of all illusions. But this, particularly this, in other words, is the end of the entire "human experiment." The whole human drama—and world and civilization and discovery and science and knowledge and philosophy and art—is but an experiment of illusion.

So be patient ma'am, and always remember why you're doing this in the first place. You're simply getting back your lost paradise. You're going back to the Garden of Eden. You're entering the City of God itself. ♥

Night Eyes quoted: " .....i did overdose on rupert videos so i have taken a break lately! "

Heh heh. I'm kinda doing the same thing right now. Can't watch enough of his videos. I'm not at the " take a break from it " yet, though.

Assuming all things are programmed, that is, everything we experience, " see, feel, hear, taste, smell ", all this is in this program, part of the mechanism to function in it would be a finite I, an ego.

Rupert, among others who follow the way of, well, I don't know what it's called, maybe what Buddha called it, this isn't the right term, " self realization ", that's not it, I guess the modern word would be " experience, realization, awareness,.........when you can be this, you are one with infinite consciousness.

When that is reached, and you are in that state, you are released from ego. From finite I.

Not saying I believe it, just trying to interpret it.

BTW, you don't see many teaches as calm and collected as Rupert. You can tell he's " there " the way he communicates. Sometimes, before he responds, he pauses for a long few seconds.

Compare that to Darrell Anka ( Bashar ).

yes i will be patient with it, i know there's some change in the way i see and deal with things, and it really helps when things are hard or difficult, and i am able to acknowledge that the ego really doesnt like it so will try to prevent it

do you think it's possible though to really reach the 'end of the human experiment'? i find this is a difficult place to stay in especially when others around you and the people you take care of still see themselves as seperate.

the illusion isnt so bad once you see it for what it is, maybe awareness wants to just enjoy it and play in it.. or maybe thats just my ego talking lol

yes Rodan, i think with Rupert because of his calmness he's very easy to understand and follow.. i dont feel confused about anything when i listen to him.

When you think of awareness...............

Am I aware?  Yes, I am aware.  I am aware therefore, I am infinite consciousness.

When " thinking " this, you are infinite consciousness.

" I am, that, I am. "

When I come to the self realization that I am not only a part of infinite consciousness, but, I AM infinite consciousness, I become aware.

Now, when you think of an objective.....or anything outside of awareness, you are back to finite, at least a part of you.

You bring time and perception into your being, and, you do so on what it is you are consciously thinking, at that moment.

Being in this state of awareness, I would assume I could focus on that objective.....

stay there, in thought, for a few moments, then, thinking the objective from start to finish, what objective I want to task,... infinite consciousness, would become a part finite, and, if I keep the thought, focus on this finite objective, the task, infinite consciousness would see to it this task is completed.

As I think this, focus on the outcome of the task, it should come into being.

What do you think? Or, am I'm off base, a little.

First I'm sorry I'm not very active in this topic, at least not as I was supposed or expected to be. The reason is that it's been the most or even only topic active recently. I therefore had to rather start a new thread and try creating new spaces for everyone. Our favorite topic, you know, is just not so favorite for most people. Besides, being the only topic active may only give our visitors the impression we're a philosophical group here, or a spiritual society, and both descriptions are not at all accurate as we all know. That was my reason so please excuse me.


Your last post, I'm afraid, was not very clear, Rodan. I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate, so let me just pick up a few lines to comment on separately:

Rodan wrote:Am I aware?  Yes, I am aware.  I am aware therefore, I am infinite consciousness.
When " thinking " this, you are infinite consciousness.

I agree with the first line, as far as I understand it, but I don't agree with the second. When "thinking" this, you're not infinite consciousness. "Thinking" is the job of the mind, and mind is actually the veil between you and who you really are. Therefore it's quite the opposite. We need to rather stop thinking. Just stay AWARE, and keep HERE and NOW. This is where you'll "see your original face" as they say in Zen. Once your mind starts "thinking," you immediately move to either the past or the future. Your Awareness is instantly shifted from the infinite now to the illusory dimensions of time.

For example: I see and hear, taste and smell and feel. I'm aware, of all that's here and now. This is my "real" experience. Now the mind starts thinking, guess what happens? I first "judge": so what I see is now beautiful, or not so beautiful. What I hear is pleasant, or not so pleasant. What I smell is sweet, or not so sweet. etc. So by merely thinking, we begin to move away from reality. We begin to shift from the pure "seeing" of, say, a "rose," to our mental judgments, concepts, theories and stories: "Roses are beautiful," for example.

In other words, we live in our "mind" all the time, not in "reality." We got our reality covered by a very think veil of thoughts constantly created by the mind.

Similarly, who you are? Either you stay here and now, as pure, infinite consciousness, and probably have no language to express who you really are; or just fall in the mind's trap and start "remembering" your "story," which's totally mental, unreal and fake, needless to say: I'm Rodan; I'm xx years old; I live in such-and-such; I know so-and-so; blah blah blah."

But look, just look in your "reality" and "direct experience": is there any Rodan? Isn't it only a "character" in a "story" that you have to "summon" mentally, only when asked for example "who you are?"    


Oh, that was a lot! Please excuse me.. Ok, let me take only this one more line as well:

.......................................

Rodan wrote:As I think this, focus on the outcome of the task, it should come into being.

If by this you mean coming back to the LOA and creation of reality (in the sense of "the world" not in the sense of "truth" as used above), then I guess I agree. What I'd just like to highlight in this context is that, in Neville's method, in The Secret method, in magic itself, we always "think" of our desire, or "visualize" it, while in a state of "trance," an "alpha-wave" state, or "akin to sleep" as Neville put it. Why?

In the common "model" we usually justify this by trying to bypass the "conscious" mind and to "implant" our desire directly into the "subconscious" mind, more present and receptive in such alternative states. From there the subconscious mind, in case there is no resistance, takes it and does the rest.  

That's OK. However in this current model, or understanding, this is not very accurate indeed. The very classification of "conscious" vs. "subconscious" doesn't even exist. So what actually happens is that, in those "trance" states, the mind is simply inactive, so we're back to our original state of Infinite Consciousness. In other words, in those trance states you're no longer Rodan, and because you're no longer Rodan only then you can create a whole new persona—call it again Rodan or give it any other name.

Put another way, Infinite Consciousness, or God to be simpler, puts on the human mask and the "character's" cloths and comes out as Rodan, or Lotus, or Night. None of these characters is real. They are all utter and complete illusions. They therefore cannot themselves create anything. It's God within, or God hidden in these characters, who creates everything. But for this God to create, He must be first found, or revealed. This is exactly why the trance state. It's because in this state, with the withdrawal of the mind, we simply "take off" our current persona's cloths, drop our identity itself, thus have a chance to put on new clothes, "download" a new character, and come out as desired.


Therefore saints, Yoga and Zen masters, who literally perform stunning miracles all the time such as Sai Baba just for example, have only trained their mind to withdraw at will. They anyway no longer "identify" with their earthly characters. Their God within is therefore present 24/7 without the need to go into a trance state. In the case of saints, especially Christian saints, they may not even be aware of it. They probably take another route of love and devotion to God, so they're extremely humble, and their own identity is already faint, almost dead, because they're always "summoning" God in their consciousness instead of their own personas. As St. Paul put it so eloquently, "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."

Night Eyes wrote:the illusion isnt so bad once you see it for what it is, maybe awareness wants to just enjoy it and play in it.. or maybe thats just my ego talking lol

Most probably your ego talking, ma'am. lol ♥

maybe Lotus lol.. i like my false self, took me ages to start liking it only to find out its an illusion

i just cant help wondering why.... awareness didnt need to veil anything in the first place.. so why did it?

I guess you mean why the "show" in the first place? This is one of the most difficult questions ever, Night. Buddha himself didn't answer such questions. He was once asked a similar question, but instead of providing a direct answer he rather said, something like, "Shot by a deadly arrow, would you first take the arrow out and heal your wound, or would you first find out who shot you and why?"

Basically there are 3 different answers, or major lines of thought:

1. This is the true meaning of the "Fall of Man" as known, or rather as hidden, in Christianity. We're veiled because we "thought" we were "separate" from God, or "chose" to be separate.

2. On the contrary, this is like an "amusement park," or an epic "movie" or grand show; we are veiled to rather "enjoy" this experiment.

3. This is the way it is with no end or beginning. There was no God then came a creation. Rather, both God and Creation, both the Truth and its Dream, or Reflection, are forever together. "Existence" is infinitely both together.

These answers, needless to say, had been heavily debated, and almost all refuted, the reason many finally chose to say that we just can't answer this question, at least not from this level of awareness, or entirely depending on our intellect. It's like Hamlet trying to figure out Shakespeare.


In any case, however, let's look again at your question:

awareness didnt need to veil anything in the first place.. so why did it?

Who's asking this question? Awareness, from Awareness' point of view, is not veiled or hidden. So yes, "he" didn't need it and he didn't do it either. This question therefore is your own question as Night, who mistakenly believes she's Night, and that God in her is veiled or hidden. But this is not true. This is only your own "story" and precisely what your ego wants you to believe in order to survive. God is never hidden or veiled or separate. Your question itself, therefore, derives from an illusion. Expose the illusion, the question is no more. When you raise the veil and open your eyes, you won't find the answer to your question; rather you won't ask the question in the first place. I guess this is what Buddha meant by "remove the arrow and heal first."

hmmmm yes i had a feeling this question would be a difficult one to answer when i asked it.. it seems the same as the age old 'why are we here' question i guess, out of the 3 options i think i would probably accept number 2 or 3 easier than number 1 as i think with number 1 it has undertones of being punished for thinking we're seperate. but why would conciousness punish itself? that would only further add to the seperation.

am i asking from ego?.. i dont know.. its likely i'm asking as night eyes, but it does cause her to keep coming back to this and this is where she gets stuck lol.. ok i get this subject intellectually, i dont disagree with it... but if i'm asking from awareness or ego... awareness made the ego for some reason.. if all there is, is infinite conciousness/awareness... that knows itself and isnt veiled from itself.. nothing else could have created this veil or this separate illusory self.. its the only thing that could have made the choice to do this... therefore maybe its easier for night eyes to think, it does this for enjoyment or some sort of entertainment, maybe an expression of itself

i guess i cant understand why it would want to trick itself

i hope i'm making sense.

sorry i'm not following properly. no, awareness didn't make the ego. there is no ego in the first place, remember? you say "illusory" but still think of it as "real." the ego is but a "thought" in the mind.

if all there is, is infinite conciousness/awareness... that knows itself and isnt veiled from itself.. nothing else could have created this veil or this separate illusory self.. its the only thing that could have made the choice to do this...

exactly. now ask yourself why you're doing this. why do you believe in any of this? why do you believe, for example, you're "Night Eyes"? the "veil" is NOT that you have an ego; the veil is that you THINK you have an ego. so perhaps the key for you is to remember there is no ego in the first place to fight or get rid of or run from. you are already infinite consciousnesses right now and here, right now at this very moment. it takes an instant to see the truth. everything else is but a thought in the mind--including the thought that you are a lady from Wales named Night Eyes.