try traditional Vedanta also

Nathan Jones apparently Rupert was involved in traditional vedanta for 20 years.

@Alex: In one-on-one, private teaching . . . a teacher can customize the teaching for how the student will receive it. In group "lectures" like this . . . they have to address multiple things at the same time to avoid any one individual getting the wrong idea.

@Dakota: It can be a little confusing, since one can subdivide the stages to even more than three. But here Spira is calling the second stage the Witness stage -- when objects appear IN awareness. The third stage is when objects appear AS awareness.

i think it’s a bit more messy than that. remember that the distinction between these two ‘states’ - witnessing and engaging - is an intellectualization of raw experience that doesn’t fit in boxes so easily (although sometimes i wish it did!)

The idea that there is a you that is ready falls away and there is just that which always has been The you is never ready, as it’s never actually there. The falling away just apparently happens after enough practice or for whatever reason.

@dora rebelo Good point I think. And you might get self-conscious about how advanced you are to be able to maintain an aloof witness position - while the ego is flourishing, being bigger than ever 😀

@@JannikBoRasmussen By ego I mean the 'desire to be better than' the other, only. To make it clear, I am not referring to the ego as defined in Psychology such as the psychological component of the personality that is represented by our conscious decision-making process. Ego can be defined in many ways. When I personally use this word I refer to the personality trait that separates. The simple fact that you can 'see' a situation does not make you want to destroy the people involved, does it? Your ability to see what is going on is positive, is it not? It means that you can discern what is important from what is deceiving, trivial or plain vanity. And this ability to discern has nothing to do with desiring an object or not - you either see what is going on or you don't. What is your definition of ego? Now I am curious...

I see that you probably have a background in Psychology. The desire 'to be better than, more important than..." comes from a deep sense of inferiority and lack; otherwise it would not happen, would it? A war is unconsciously declared against the other while one can keep nurturing the new-age idea that her/his meditation practices are keeping them peacefully grounded. On the other hand, it becomes problematic for those of us who do not usually feel, think and act that way. Consequently, for those of us who do not want to be a part of the drama, the need to control the other or shut him/her down becomes intolerable. That kind of behavior goes against our natural interests and prevents us from moving forward with the exploration of life.

Just like the instinct of mating and survival in a physical level, there is a natural psycho-emotional instinct that leads us to look for those who can reciprocate in similar energy level and keep stimulating and inspiring us. It is more attractive to be around those whom we can understand and therefore make us fell that we belong. The motivation to be around people has to come from an honest state of heart and mind. If we don't have the openness and/or humility and/or maturity to take in what the other is, it is best to respect them by leaving them alone and look for those who are more compatible with us otherwise we will live in a perpetual state of war no matter how much we train to meditate and/or intellectualize spirituality and life overall.

notice, that regardless of "understanding" this, one will always have subtle assumptions of "Free Will", the idea that they can USE this information to the Ego's benefit... aka Duality

In a word, yes. The first of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths is that the world (body-mind) is suffering. The second describes how/why it is experienced (separate self identification). The third is the describes our true nature (Pure Consciousness). The fourth is the path (Self-Inquiry) that leads to the cessation of suffering. In essence, this is what Advaita Vedanta/Rupert teaches. As far as this being a belief rather than actual experience, this is because we have completely identified with the illusory separate self (second Noble Truth). A deranged person may think he is King George and completely identifies himself as such, but that doesn't mean he is. If asked to consider himself differently, he will be unable to do so unless there is some intervention like professional help/meds if you catch my drift. You believe yourself to be a certain person who suffers and so it is until there is some intervention (Self-inquiry) to help you see otherwise and when the former misidentification ceases, the new belief (you as Pure Consciousness) becomes actual experience. It takes time my friend. We don't stop identifying as King George with just a couple of visits to the doctor. :) Btw, if you are personally suffering from depression, I would like to suggest listening to Ekhart Tolle's discussion on the "pain body"; it's available here on YT. It is a very effective way of dealing with and possibly even ultimately ridding oneself of depression with non-dual teachings as it did with me.

@K4113B4113: You're asking about moving from stage 2 (in which objects appear IN awareness) to stage 3 (where objects appear AS awareness). Moving to stage 3 is about "de-constructing" our ideas about the "reality" of objects and how perception works. Here's an example: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/prWIrNBym8CbhZ8.html

I think it's the realization that there is no such thing as a "body mind" separate from awareness, with its own existence. Actually, it is just a very narrow form of awareness, but still awareness. You are the whole awareness, not just the narrow manifestation. The body mind is like a wave in the vast ocean of awareness.

@@lucasdeoliveira6242 - but am I the screen or the awareness of the screen?

real mckoy Rupert says, you are the self aware screen.

Lilies :)

mogsydog thanks!

Think this: You have to do NOTHING to be in the witnessing stage. If you tray to still that expeerience, you're engaging with the thought that says "I have to (or I want to) stay there". Try to prerceive that you're also witnessing your WANTING. ;)

@@LorenzoWilsson how do you go from witnessing state to recognizing state ( the second part )?

@@kneza96BG actuallly you are always in the witnessing stage. There is the witnessing of the recgnition.

@@LorenzoWilsson so basically both stages only require you to be the awareness? Nothing else?

@@kneza96BG they requires nothing. You, as human mind, requires to understand you real nature.

Reverend Eslam You have no idea what its like to be in a hospital for many months with a stroke unable to speak and to use your the right side of your body.

John Browne Believing that you really are a human being, or in other words: believing that what you are is truly your mind and your body, is the problem. If you start from there, there is already an assumption. We are not that. We are the awareness that is aware of mind (thoughts/feelings) and of the body (perceptions). Awareness that believes that it is the mind/body can experience boredom. Awareness that doesn't believe anything (and thus is only aware of itself: i am aware that i am aware: I Am that I Am) can not possibly experience boredom or any other kind of suffering.

+Sydebern sounds good but i don't believe it would be all the same to you whether you were in D Graf's place or just as you are [assuming you're okay]. I mean it is a struggle enough to unglue the mind from the body even from a healthy one in order to be able to abide as the aloof awareness, unless you're one of the few lucky ones that has been blessed to 'just be', free of the mind, the easy way...

+D Graf hope you're doing better and are less bored now

+daisilui That was 5 years ago... my speech is better but not perfect. I am able to use my right hand now. I am not bored I have chickens and bees and making marble tables.Thank you for your caring concern.

One can stay conscious of awareness during thought. Thought arises IN awareness. Awareness does never fully become any one thought. If you only are aware between thoughts, you as a separate self (to use Ruperts vocabulary) are totally identified with the thoughts.

nimim. Marko Mikkilä My humble submission Part 1 "One can stay conscious of awareness during thought." Does this mean that during a thought there is a split -one is conscious of thought and also awareness? Is it possible practically? Is it not some thing like 'object being aware of the subject?' ( a figure on the screen cannot be aware of the screen. In fact it is nothing but screen) If we take 'thought' to be an object in awareness, even according to Rupert 'object' is nothing but consciousness/awareness Part 2 -"you as a separate self (to use Rupert's vocabulary) are totally identified with the thoughts." A realised person understands that during thoughts also he is awareness and there is nothing like separate self. Even for a realised person there are gaps between thoughts. The only difference between realised and unrealised is how one reacts to the thoughts. The above is based on my understanding that 'All there is 'Awareness' only. One's pure self ( the knowledge of my existence and being aware of that existence "Sat and Chit" in Sanskrit.) is the subject. To this subject, the whole world including one's intellect consisting of feelings, thoughts. perceptions and the physical body (BMI) is object ( only apparently) In ultimate understanding one realises that even this object ( world and BMI) is nothing but awareness that is sat and chit. A realised person transacts in the world with this perfect understanding without getting perturbed whatever happens and accepting things as they come.

These are now quite subtle distinctions, and maybe we only dress same understanding into different words:-) From 1. "Does this mean that during a thought there is a split -one is conscious of thought and also awareness?" No split. What I mean is, you are indentified as awareness, although you see a thought arsing in you. You never identify with the thought, if you always stay indentified as the perceiving awareness. "...even according to Rupert 'object' is nothing but consciousness/awareness." Yes, he also phrases is like this: Thoughts are occurring in the awareness, they don´t have existence on their own. From 2: "Even for a realised person there are gaps between thoughts." Yes, of course there are, and usually a lot longer ones:-) "The only difference between realised and unrealised is how one reacts to the thoughts." I don´t think reacting is the only difference, or even the most essential difference. I have come to the conclusion that the most essential difference is being identified with the ever-present awareness or not. Even these guys might have reactions. Especially, when it´s a matter of life and death. From the final: "To this subject, the whole world including one's intellect consisting of feelings, thoughts. perceptions and the physical body (BMI) is object" Yes. "In ultimate understanding one realises that even this object ( world and BMI) is nothing but awareness that is sat and chit." Yes, but here we go into metaphysics which is different in different traditions. The sat-chit-ananda-rap comes from the Advaita Vedanta-traditions, and I don´t want to get into metaphysics. At the end of the day, they are matters of belief, or very different conceptualizations to say the least:-)

nimim. Marko Mikkilä I would like to add only one thing.-In advaita vedanta tradition, it is not just 'belief' . One can test it at personal understanding level. The problem is that it is purely subjective understanding. Thanks for the reply

Subjective experience is subjective experience inside and outside any tradition. How you interpret is affected on your cultural background and philosophy you have adopted through tradition or as an adult individual. All religious-philosophical traditions include metaphysics, and part of that can be called belief, in my opinion, inside and outside any tradition, and no tradition is above this:) Peace.