This one does it for me. I don't see a clearer, simpler way of illustrating what we are doing than an actor playing a role. It seems to be exactly what we are doing. Wow!!!!

12.15 onwards are absolute Vedanta teachings ...the highest spiritual finding is said here. Thanks 🙏 to you Dear Man

He beautifully and insightfully gets at the essential reality of the concept of the oneness of humanity, of what it is; the reality that we are the waves of one ocean, the leaves of one tree.

There is something that is aware of experience! Whatever you are, you are a miracle.

'the ordinary sense of being which each of us feel when we say I' is the most important part

The imagined I is the thoughts, feelings and emotions created from experiences. The Higher self is the one aware of all those things because it is always there

So beautifully put into words! Thank you...clear as pure water:)

‘Two birds of beautiful plumage, comrades, inseparable, born of the selfsame tree. One eats the bittersweet fruit of life. The other watches without eating.’ - The Upanishads The role we play in life as bodies walking the earth is subject to duality, pleasure and pain. Each role is consistent within itself, like King Lear. Yet is always merely a useful story. The physical body is made of impersonal and constantly changing elements. To be a person, you must identify with what is impermanent. It’s possible to step outside this role anytime and watch the whole show as awareness.

All localizations of consciousness (i.e. "minds") are essentially characters in a divine play.

Explained beautifully

If we remove all our thoughts all our concepts all our knowledge acquired through education all our ideologies all our memories and keep only and only in our present experience The only thing that will remain is the “I” feeling The sense of being or better said the consciousness of our existence. This consciousness of our own existence is the only one thing that is the same for all 7 million of us This is our irreducible Self with capital “S” that is shared with all of us That is what we are. And this recognition is the fountain of love and peace.

@10:58 The “I” in each of us is God’s presence”.

The questioner is becoming bogged down in concepts! It’s much simpler than he’s making it.

brilliant

"Love is an experience of our shared being." That makes so much sense to me.

Saying "the imaginary separate self" is in my view the most apt designation of this because that particular self is a contrived entity and as such only arises as something imagined or conjured up. Eckhardt Tolle also used the expression the "phantom self" which is no different.

“ Succeeding to learn, there is no failure, failing to celebrate, there is no success.” ( Vian Den Groot, Tao of Lao-Tzu, 2019 )

OMG. Shared being!

rupert as pointed and sharp as always...good one

Wow i never heard that one and it makes so much sense. Who i am in the play of life ? I am the one that's not appearing in it.

Yes, if I say just "I" or "I am" -- then the essential referent is eternal, infinite, non-phenomenal pure Awareness. But these words are used conventionally in a whole variety of ways that do not point (at least immediately and obviously) to Awareness. For instance: "I am hungry." Here, the "I" refers to a human body, which can feel hunger. Does Awareness *as such* ever feel hungry? Or: "I am confused." Here, the "I" refers to a human mind, which can be confused. Does Awareness *as such* ever experience confusion? Or: "I am sad." Here, the "I" refers to a human body-mind, which can experience emotions such as sadness, fear, anger, etc. Is Awareness *as such* ever sad, fearful or angry? Or even: "I have a dinged left rear taillight." Here, "I" refers to my car, which has a broken taillight. Does Awareness *as such* ever break its taillight? Just saying that in our day-to-day living, the word "I" is used in all kinds of different (and mostly functional) ways.

where can I find this John smith, King lear retelling?

The answer to the question of "who" is the I will always be unsatisfactory as it implies a nominalized personhood and would have to involve yet another I! A way more interesting and mind-bending question is WHAT is the "I" as in: "what" exactly is an (any) "I" if it is not a person?

Apparently separate self (temperoray limitations of consciousness REAL SELF).

Be not deceived. You shall know them by their Fruit. The Fruit is Love, Peace, Joy, Kindness, Goodness, Compassion (Passion for All), Beauty, Creativity, Lucidity, Communication, Connection, Communion, with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life. They treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give to their dearest closest friend, without any sense of division or separation, and without any bias or prejudice. Moreover, they are Totally Free of fear, anxiety, sorrow, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice, in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Enlightenment does not take time. It is not of time. It is not the result of time or the things of time. It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet. It is not the result of any chemical. It is not the result of any process. There is no path to it. It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.

👋🙏

e e cummings one of the great poets of all time always used the small i

If there wasn't language, what would thoughts consist of? Or would thoughts exist at all?

To say our thoughts and feelings are not shared is to conclude that they arise in, and are located in, an individual body/mind, but this never exists. Everything is generated in and by the one false consciousness, and it is only belief that this sense testimony occurs within the apparent body/mind.

At the last breathe of life no one knows what happens, rest is a mental concept

A conscious awareness is a note of vibration in the fullness of Creator’s eternal voice In this world this awareness has an identity named “I”. The identity functions through the physical laws and creates “mind”: the place where I observe the physical world through sensory inputs. In the mind, I develop a set of guidelines and rules that have helped me successfully navigate the physical life. It is informed by interactions and culture, family, friends, and society. I call that “ego” self. It is impulses and habits and thoughtless reactions, and often is at least partially stuck in childhood. It is selfish, and mainly concerned with biological survival and success, but it can extend concern to family and friends. It is shaped with ideologies and ideas and will feel attacked if the ideas are challenged. Ego establishes patterns of behavior: What to do when I feel threatened, how to act in sadness, how to manipulate my environment to meet goals, and frequently what the goals even are...to be successful means being rich, or having a certain car, or being attractive, or being famous, or being respected. Ego drives the physical/material life unless the conscious awareness of I steps in and becomes the active agent. But it is not automatic: you can, in your mind, say, “I choose not to measure my success by wealth, but by happiness,” and ego will still inject a shot of jealousy or envy of the dream home that your friend just bought. You have to examine ego and understand what is driving it. Why does it cause envy, why does it fear failure, etc...You have to face those formative experiences and rewrite them. Example: I am angry because my dog ignores me when I call. Anger is an expression of fear. I fear being disrespected, and I fear that my disobedient dog could be injured, and I fear not having control. The only valid fear is over the risk of injury to the dog...this is fixed by investing my time in training the dog better. The disrespect I trace back to my childhood when everyone laughed at me...I address this by understanding that it did not actually harm me, and that I could have joined in the laughter, but since I was hurt, I forgive. The fear of not having control is a biggie...I understand that I have no control over anything except my own reactions to life and I forgive myself for thinking I should have more control. You can think of ego like a program on a computer...it can be rewritten to align with consciousness awareness...throw out the old code that is the baggage of life. My new code is: Love. Express love through respecting free will, being kind, forgiving self and others, not passing judgements, refusing to bend to fear, elevating truth, and trusting in love to guide me. I am training my ego to adopt this new operating program.

if love & friendship is a shared experience of being, then what is hate, jealousy or anything similar? "I" usually feel disconnected when I'm around such things.

Some people are just not good at understanding metaphors. A metaphor is NOT a model. It is a way to understand without rationalizing it. So if you start projecting the metaphor on all kinds of things, as if it were a model, you get lost. This questioner seems to be lost. If you don't get out the metaphor that the separate self is just a role and not a real self, and that this role-self doesn't really exist, better move on and find another way to understand 😊

Gettin way too bogged down in language and metaphors in this one.. questioner needs to state his question clearly, and I’m not sure if he really has one?

The separate self and the I , who speaking explaining the I and separate self .

One cannot understand with philosophy,only by direct experience ,philosophy comes from mind ,from thinking ,which is going on here in this discussion, truth is beyond thinking ,beyond the thought of I. You cannot know the taste of honey unless you have some,and when you do, you cannot explain the experience to someone else ,no matter how many metaphors you use all you end up with is a headache... Mind is just a bundle of thoughts,you cannot be at peace unless you have peace of mind, no thoughts ,no you ,no I , there is no I......I is ego....... and that peace may come about spontaneously, known as Peak experience or through deep meditation or Grace ,as it says in the Bible."The peace that passes all understanding." "A taste of honey tasting much sweeter than wine." Mind will never understand it, because there is no mind! be of no mind then you will know there's no you , no I to know anything ! you may have great worldly knowledge,even a degree, but that has nothing to do with the reality of Being .Did Jesus ,Krishna, Buddha have a degree ? no, but they knew the eternal truth of Being..all your worldly knowledge dies with the body so there's no need to be proud of that.....

No, language is essential for correct understanding! Using dualistic terms ad nauseam, reinforces the very concepts that must be rejected. Don't "trust" the ego to "understand". Try simply referring to the "belief" in a separate self. It's only a couple of extra words. Reinforce the metaphysical facts with correct terms. It is actually disconcerting to repeatedly hear these references to a separate self. Again, language is essential for clearly communicating, especially with something like this. The "ego" grasps at every possible belief it can to hold onto to its fictional selfhood. It is only belief that is being addressed. What else could possibly be being taught? There is no person/entity. There is a subtle belief here that there is somehow an actual human self that merely has to translate the shorthand term into what it knows is really correct. No such self exists. It is, in fact, just a "program" that runs, not a self.

At last, I think I get it.

In the investigation of the self, would the question be less confusing if it were 'What am I?' Rather than 'Who am I'?

when comes to ,, who is the I,, tibetan meditation masters says that on enlightened level ,, I,, resemble aware space.

Does awareness and consciousness are the same in Rupert’s dictionary? Cuz I see him switching between the two as they are both the same!

If we can never know what reality is and consciousness is fundamental, isn't thinking about it a waste of our time on earth?

The questioner is caught up in the word I and he doesn’t understand that we can still say “I felt this.” or “I did that.” We live in the world of form where the “apparent self” still operates and does what it needs to do. However when you become aware of pure consciousness you understand that this “I” who does this or feels that, is only a limited I and is not the whole I. The I that exists and functions in the world of form is necessary for us to display our unique selves and try to align the inner self with the outer world of form. This is what creates an amazing, full, life experience in the “dream world”.However if we believe that “I” is all there is and we don’t understand that the mind/body is not who we really are, then we will suffer because we believe we are lacking something, when in fact we are complete already. Nothing the mind body can do will give us lasting or permanent serenity and joy. It’s only in understanding the I behind it ( pure conscious awareness) that we will have bliss. When we can operate in the world of form and know we are the “screen” or pure consciousness we are no longer on the pain pleasure roller coaster. We have a peace that has no end no matter what is happening in the world of form. We don’t mind what happens because we know whether it’s “tragedy” or “comedy” it’s “not real”, it’s only a play and we are characters who aren’t really being diminished or added to by what happens. The only thing that is real is what never changes and that is pure awareness behind everything or infinite consciousness.

Don't understand how the shared being only displays itself in minds. Why isn't it just randomly across everything?

What does "I" refer to? Is there someone or something seeing through these eyes? Is there someone or something typing these words or is the typing just happening spontaneously?

Ty Rupert!💜🙏

Behind the scenery of Life, the Stuff-side, and the consciousness, is the Very Same 'I', We are all the very same 'I'. The 'I' is Eternal, it have always been Here and Now, the 'I' is the Only real 'Steady Point', behind the Motion-Ocean, which is pure motion. So, We are the Very Same 'I', the reason why We dont feel or see this, is because, We all have our very own eternal consciousness. The 'I' is identical with Eternity, and the Living behind the Being. Even that the 'I' is of immaterial nature, have never been seen, it has the most objective status in existence.

the problem is never in the words

This is what is also described in Bhagavat-Gita, Chapter 9 verses 4 and 5. But I presume another layer between infinite conscious and the ego of our biological nature. This would have to be referred to as the individual soul. The Bhagavat-Gita speaks of the 'Super soul' (Paramatma) and the 'Individual soul'. Our ego that we consider to be who we are, is a concept of our biological brain. If an individual soul is present, I can imagine there is a weighting factor, or a judgement, after our biological incarnation. Maybe God wants to preserve limited incarnations that proved to be more or less succesful. I can also imagine that the criteria for succesfulness are very different from the ego's criteria on this. I would like to know what you think about this. (individual soul described in Bhagavat- Gita, Chapter 13 verse 28)

All attempt thru words....., actions, illustrations or whatever it may be, do not seem to give fraction of an inch of the " ? "

why not call the separate self; the character role

"I" is a fiction of the mind. There is no "I". Such personalization is a fiction in thought.

I have a simple question I am awareness which was the mind and body but when we have intense pain in body at that time to be a watcher becomes impossible and we identify with body and want pain to disappear what is the solution whyit happen s Dr Bhavesh

When he says our shared being, did he meant the universe? Is this universe this being he talked about?

🤙🤙🤙🤙

Rupert, what are your favorite J.S. Bach compositions?

There one less complicated way to sort out which is which and where You come into play. We all believe that god is one allmighty entity who sits on a cloud nine somewhere outside of everything. And we pray to him and report back to be judged. That belief alone is a wrap, a celophane of ignorance. If you were to see that a physical body contains a brain associated to a more ethereal body of intelligence that we call mind which is a pictureque potrayal of experiences known thanks to consciousness, you realize that consciousness is on top of your entire being. Consciousness is god. It is god that is at the front lines of life, looking at experiences, looking at suffering or bliss, looking at a person (you, me, him, her) and nothing gets by that consciousness. God lives a life first hand and is in the midst of everything. Taking the punches, hearing the mind's prayers, accusations, pleas, complaints etc. Nothing can exist apart from consciousness. And consciousness is all one. It is not you. Not me. It experiences all of that. Ultimately, our lives are a reality because of that which is aware. Only consciousness (god) is that actual reality. That is why god is also called the Father. God (the crown of being, consciousness) is that which experiences everything every given moment. After you come to realize god, you turn around and learn of order, principles and laws of universes as much as you can. That is what you can do to improve the experience of god.. and of course your own

Bon seeks the ‘rainbow body’

I would argue that I or Me are always a thought, and when they do not show up, then there is no me or I, therefore, I disagree with what Rupert said that, "I am always me". There is always awareness, but that´s not in the same way me, which is a thought. That is why we are not consciousness or God. We are thoughts of God. Our awareness of I or any other thought is the experience of ourselves as subjects but God is the cause of that. So it is not the I-thought that is aware of I, but God or awareness that is aware of I-thought and everything else. God is aware of anything I think I am aware of. You cannot be aware of anything while at the same time not having any thoughts whatsoever, so being aware of awareness is the end of ourselves and where God is present. we experience being aware of awareness but is not ourselves, so is the same as saying, we experience God but we are not God. If I is infinite awareness then that awareness should have accordingly a perfect reflection of itself but that is not the case with our I-thought, therefore I or we are not infinite awareness. Yet, God has a perfect reflection of himself, which is called the Logos, or exact image of God, or the fullness of God, He is the mind of God, the knowledge of God, and who became human who we call Jesus.

So basically awareness has sex with itself, tortures itself and kills itself in multiple ways. If that is god's presence, it is kind of wicked.

Nobody has ever changed their physical appearance, or voice or the way they walk etc. no matter what they did do. It’s all just talk. Only in silence when not active does one not express the dna determined structure and it’s dynamic.

I = identity function

i

Do one thing every day that scares you.

Thank you, amazing

,,who,, or ,,what,, is the ,, I,,? - Buddha means,: no- I.

There is no I, no self, when someone tells you, stay with the I, he give you a method and then, our minds become so confused! There is no center! Don't follow anybody

I prefer U.G Krishnamurti explanation.

Why does he charge so exorbitantly for online live streaming seminars though?

I’m sorry, but I don’t find this funny - ‘that is because English is a superior language’... this betrays some of the short-sightedness, if I may say so in all respect due, of your position Mr. Spira. It may well be that other languages are able to say or express with more clarity what English (my native and beloved language) struggles with, or even tends to miss. Perhaps there are other languages more suited to expressing spirituality. For example, even Shakespeare could express Hamlet’s father as no more than a ‘ghost’. What is a ghost but a casting of that which is spiritual into material, visible, form.? Of course Shakespeare may have been speaking to his audience rather than expressing his truest experience, but that in itself says a lot.

Poor analogy to use, not really clarifying. We are not simply playing a character in a play, unless it is a mad character, since we forget that we are acting. Dualism is not the enemy, it is simply a dimensional perspective that Source chose to use to discover new experiences.

WHat's Rupert's take on the election?... I wonder. Sure, he wouldn't have voted for Mr Johnson!? S'bad for progressives, it would seem. But it is all unfolding as it should? Well, that's our climate buggered for sure...

Got to 6:13 and thought, "bullshit". Just because you're adept at switching narratives and contexts in the guise of intellectual adroitness doesn't make you right. In fact it doesn't make you even almost right. This emperor isn't wearing any clothes! 😠