Rupert Spira - Enlightenment, Happiness & Non-Duality | Modern Wisdom Podcast 349

1. 0:00 – 0:25

   Intro

   1. RSRupert Spira0:00

      Everything that you are aware of is constantly changing, but that which is aware of it remains consistently present throughout all changing experience. In fact, that aware presence that we refer to when we say I is the only element of experience that never changes. (wind blows)

   2. CWChris Williamson0:23

      I actually want to start

2. 0:25 – 4:34

   Defining Enlightenment

   1. CWChris Williamson0:25

      at the end, to perhaps give us an idea of where we're heading. How do you define enlightenment?

   2. RSRupert Spira0:36

      I would suggest that enlightenment is, um, a rather exotic term that has, um, acquired all sorts of, um, uh, e- e- exotic and superfluous meanings for people. But that it really refers to something very simple, and well within everybody's grasp. And, and it is, uh, simply this. The recognition of the nature of one's essential being, or self.

   3. CWChris Williamson1:12

      So it's innately linked to some sort of truth.

   4. RSRupert Spira1:15

      It, y- you, we could say it is, it is the truth about what we essentially are. Now, when I say, "What we essentially are," I mean, that aspect of ourselves that i- i- never disappears, cannot be taken away from us, is, is inherent or integral to us. So for instance, uh, the current conversation that you and I are having is not inherent in us. It, it started a few minutes ago, and it will come to an end. It's not part of our essential being. And, and indeed, no thought that we have ever had is essential to us. All thoughts appear, they exist briefly, and they vanish. Likewise, our feelings how ever, uh, however intimate or deep a feeling may be, it is still something that is added to us, it lasts a while, and then it vanishes. The same is true of any relationship or activity. So if one were to imagine removing everything from our self that is not essential to us, what would remain would be what I refer to as our essential irreducible self or being. The recognition of its nature is what is referred to in the religious and spiritual traditions as enlightenment or awakening.

   5. CWChris Williamson2:43

      So it feels a lot like that is casting off rather than learning more. It feels-

   6. RSRupert Spira2:48

      Absolutely.

   7. CWChris Williamson2:48

      ... it feels like we need to get rid as opposed to acquire.

   8. RSRupert Spira2:52

      Well, it's actually not even necessary to get rid of anything. It, it, it is simply necessary to see clearly that all those elements of our experience, uh, namely thoughts, feelings, activities, relationships, sensations and perceptions are not essential to us. We don't actually have to get rid of them, or change them, or discipline them. We just have to realize they're not essential to us. The, the, um, analogy that I sometimes use to illustrate this is the analogy of the, the screen and the image. That no image, no movie is essential to the screen. If you closed down all your programs, your emails, your iPhotos, your notes, your YouTube clips, your Word documents, you closed down all the programs that you have running through the day, w- what, what remains? What, what can't you close down? You even remove your screensaver, which is not essential. It seems to be there always, but actually, it's not essential to the, uh, to the screen. What, what remains? Just the transparent empty screen. So yes, it's a similar process. It, it's a process of, um, removing from one self rather than adding to oneself.

   9. CWChris Williamson4:10

      But it's removing presumptions. I think what you're highlighting there is the fact that these things don't necessarily need removing, because they were almost never there in the first place.

   10. RSRupert Spira4:19

       Yes. W- what you're actually right. What we're actually removing is the belief that any of these elements of experience define or limit us.

   11. CWChris Williamson4:32

       Given that approach,

3. 4:34 – 7:55

   Our Past Selves

   1. CWChris Williamson4:34

      what does it mean to say that you, Rupert, are the same Rupert that was Rupert 20 years ago? Or that I, Chris, am the same Chris that was Chris 20 years ago, or will be in 20 years' time.

   2. RSRupert Spira4:48

      Okay. Okay. Well, can we start by not going as far back as 20 years? Can we start with, let's start with two minutes.

   3. CWChris Williamson4:58

      Okay.

   4. RSRupert Spira4:58

      Two minutes ago. And, and we'll go to 20 years, but, but let's start, let's look closer to home. So let me rephrase your question. What, what does it mean to suggest that Chris is the same Chris now that he was two minutes ago? Well, the thoughts that you, Chris, are having now are not the same as the thoughts you were having two minutes ago. The, the feelings, if indeed there are any feelings are present, are not exactly the same. Your bodily sensations, the sensation of the air on your skin, the sensation of your hand on your mug, the sensation of your legs on your chair, they're not exactly the same as they were two minutes ago. The sound of my voice, the content of our conversation, the sight of your room, none of these are exactly the same as they were two minutes ago. They've all changed, evolved, appeared, disappeared. But there is one element of your experience that is present now...... knowing or being aware of the content of your current experience that was present two minutes ago, knowing or being aware of whatever it was that you were experiencing then. And that is what you refer to when you say, "I." So now you say, "I am listening to your voice. I am experiencing thoughts. I am feeling my legs on the chair." The sounds, the thoughts, the sensations on the chair, these all come and go, but the I that knows them is the same I that knew or was aware of your experience two minutes ago, two days ago, two years ago, 20 years ago, or when you were a two-year-old boy. In other words, when you were a two-year-old boy, you knew or were aware of your experience. Uh, the feeling of being in your mother's arm, the- the sight, the- the- the sound of your parents, the sight of your room or the garden or- or you were having experiences and you were aware of your experience as a two-year-old boy, as a 10-year-old boy, as a 20-year-old young man, et cetera. All, everything that you are aware of is constantly changing, but that which is aware of it remains consistently present throughout all changing experience. In fact, that aware presence that we refer to when we say I is the only element of experience that never changes. It is our essential, irreducible self, the one element of our experience that cannot be removed or separated from us.

4. 7:55 – 11:19

   What is Awareness?

   1. RSRupert Spira7:55

   2. CWChris Williamson7:55

      Why are you pirouetting around the word awareness? Is there a reason to avoid using awareness as a word?

   3. RSRupert Spira8:06

      Mm, no. Th- um, I wasn't aware that I was-

   4. CWChris Williamson8:10

      Oh, no. (laughs)

   5. RSRupert Spira8:11

      ... um, pirouetting around it. Because, uh, uh, i- if I, uh, mmm, you see, Chris, I'm- I'm not sure who's listening to this conversation. I don't want to presume anything. Of course, if I were having a private conversation with- with you, I would use the word awareness freely because I know, uh, I- I don't know you well, but from what I know of you, I know that you understand, that we both share our understanding of the word awareness. Now, some people, uh, the- the word awareness, they- they've, they may have heard of it once or twice, but they've never thought of it. It doesn't relate to something in their experience. However, if I were to say to s- to, uh, f- uh, let me give you an example. If I were to walk now out onto the, onto the High Street and say to someone, "Do you know what awareness is?" They- they would look, they would look puzzled. "Wh- wh- what do you mean? Do I, do I..." No. If I was to say to the same person, "Are you aware of your experience?" They would just say yes.

   6. CWChris Williamson9:22

      I understand.

   7. RSRupert Spira9:23

      So the- the- that's the... I don't even remember now exactly how I phrased my answer to your question, but it was, uh, you see, having these conversations, I want to do my best not to present any linguistic, uh, barriers or to provoke objections or resistance, and just trying to make this easy, accessible, experiential, and everybody knows what I mean when I ask the question, "Are you aware of your thoughts? Are you, uh, d- do you perceive the sight of your room? Do you know your feelings?" Everybody knows exactly what I mean by knowing or being aware of their experience. But now coming back to your question about the word awareness, we could say that that which is aware of our experience, the common name for it, the name that we give to it is I. I know my thoughts. I am aware of my feelings. I, uh, I perceive the world. But, uh, uh, uh, we could also call it awareness or consciousness. That which is aware of our experience is consciousness or awareness. Now, the down... Just one thing to add to that, the downside of saying, referring to it as a- awareness, awareness being a noun tends to suggest that what we are referring to, that which is aware of our experience, is some kind of an object. And that is the, that is the pitfall or the downside of using the word awareness. Everything that we are aware of is some kind of an object, some kind of a thing. But awareness itself, that which knows or is aware of our experience, is not any kind of an object. So we have to understand that when we use the word awareness. We don't, I don't mean to imply that it is some kind of a s- a subtle thing.

5. 11:19 – 19:12

   The Nature of Happiness

   1. RSRupert Spira11:20

   2. CWChris Williamson11:20

      How does what we've gone through so far relate to non-dualism at large? Or if it doesn't at all, then can you give us an introduction to non-dualism?

   3. RSRupert Spira11:29

      Yeah. Uh, it, no, it does relate to it very directly. The- the non-dual understanding, or the perennial philosophy as it's sometimes referred to, is the, is the understanding that really underlies all the world's great, uh, religious, uh, spiritual, and philosophic, s- philosophical traditions. And if we were to distill the non-dual understanding, however it may be expressed in these different traditions, if we were to distill the essence of that understanding, uh, uh, we could describe it in two simple phrases. Firstly-The nature of our being or self is happiness itself, and we share our being with everyone and everything. So the- these are the two core understandings that, that really are the essence of the non-dual tradition in whatever, uh, cultural context that understanding has been expressed. The, the expression of course, is very different in each case depending on the time and the place in which it was expressed, but the understanding that was being expressed was always the same, is always the same, and it is namely that happiness is the nature of our self or being and that we share our being with everyone and everything.

   4. CWChris Williamson12:57

      Why would happiness be the substrate that we grow out of? Why not another emotion?

   5. RSRupert Spira13:07

      It's just that, that's the way it is. (laughs) It's just, it, if, if you were to, um, uh, th- that, can we try a little, uh, a little, uh, a little experiment to- to try to illustrate?

   6. CWChris Williamson13:22

      Absolutely.

   7. RSRupert Spira13:23

      Uh, because then we will, um, s- make this very experiential, and not just philosophical. I- if I were to ask you, Chris, to describe as best you can that which is aware of your experience, so I'm not asking you to describe your experience, your thoughts, your feelings, your sensations, your perceptions, if I were to ask you to describe that which is aware of your experience, in other words, your essential self or being, what, what would you say?

   8. CWChris Williamson13:58

      Thinking of words like insight, center.

   9. RSRupert Spira14:05

      It's the center of your self, yes, it's the essence of your self. Try to describe its, can you try to find words that would describe its, its qualities? I- if, if we could.

   10. CWChris Williamson14:16

       Open.

   11. RSRupert Spira14:17

       Yeah, open, completely open like a, uh, like, like an open space of a room, simply-

   12. CWChris Williamson14:22

       Aperture.

   13. RSRupert Spira14:23

       ... experiencing whatever appears without prejudice, i- impartial, uh, choiceless, yes, completely open, without resistance. Yes. Can you say more?

   14. CWChris Williamson14:38

       Like an aperture on a camera.

   15. RSRupert Spira14:40

       Yes.

   16. CWChris Williamson14:40

       That allows you to focus in and focus out.

   17. RSRupert Spira14:43

       Yes. You can focus the camera on a single object or the camera can remain unfocused and just take in the entire visual field. The, the presence of awareness, we can focus on the content of our conversation or we can relax our focus and simply be, be aware of, of the entire spectrum o- of our experience without preference or choice. Perfect. Yes. What else?

   18. CWChris Williamson15:07

       Has a texture to it. Sometimes it can feel high fidelity, sometimes it can feel like an old VCR camera.

   19. RSRupert Spira15:20

       Okay.

   20. CWChris Williamson15:21

       So I suppose I would say it's changing as well. There is a, there is a change to it, in its nature and the way that it feels, and the way that I experience it at least.

   21. RSRupert Spira15:30

       Uh, y- you see now I think you're, you're beginning to subtly describe what you are aware of. So take a step back. What is it that is aware of these changes?

   22. CWChris Williamson15:50

       I keep coming back to aperture, openness.

   23. RSRupert Spira15:52

       It's just the openness. It's just this aware openness. So let me ask you a few more specific questions about it. Is there any agitation in it? You, now, your thoughts may be agitated, your, your, uh, uh, you may be in pain in your body, in which case your sense, your sensations will be uncomfortable. There may be a, a crisis on the street outside your apartment or, but, so my question is not about, uh, the agitation in what you are aware of, thoughts, feelings. Is, is, is there any agitation in that which is aware of your experience?

   24. CWChris Williamson16:31

       I would say no.

   25. RSRupert Spira16:32

       Hmm.

   26. CWChris Williamson16:32

       In the same way as a camera simply observes what it's looking at.

   27. RSRupert Spira16:39

       Perfect. The camera never gets a- uh, uh, uh, never gets agitated. It may be, it may be watching a-

   28. CWChris Williamson16:44

       Showing something that is agitating on the lens, yeah, precisely.

   29. RSRupert Spira16:47

       E- e- exactly, but the, but the lens itself is never a- agit- agitated. Now what, what is the common name, uh, from a human perspective for the absence of agitation?

   30. CWChris Williamson16:58

       Peace?
6. 19:12 – 23:10

   Are Peace and Happiness the Same?

   1. RSRupert Spira19:13

   2. CWChris Williamson19:13

      I'm not sure if it's my disposition around the word happiness, and obviously anything linguistic comes with its own baggage, right? Because hap-... My happiness and what it means to me isn't quite the same. It's a very... We need Neuralink, we need T- Elon Musk to hurry up and allow us to just do brain- to- brain communication-

   3. RSRupert Spira19:31

      (laughs) I think, yeah.

   4. CWChris Williamson19:31

      ... so he can dispense with these pesky words.

   5. RSRupert Spira19:33

      Yes. Yes.

   6. CWChris Williamson19:34

      I feel much more comfortable and it makes more sense to me to hear the word peace than it does to hear the word happiness.

   7. RSRupert Spira19:42

      Yes.

   8. CWChris Williamson19:42

      Peace to me feels like what we've talked about, a stripping away of lacks, a stripping away of fixating or suppressing. Happiness to me feels more like there's something in motion.

   9. RSRupert Spira19:52

      Yes. Um, Chris, I think you're, you're absolutely right, and I tend to agree with you. Um, the reason I use the word happiness is because if we were to do a survey of all 7.8 billion people in the world and ask them, "Uh, uh, what is it you want above all else?" Most people would start by giving a list of, um, uh, a relationship, a family, uh, better health, uh, a nice hou- household. You know, th- these kind of things. But then if we were to ask them, "But, but why do you want these things?" Almost everyone would answer, "Because I think they will make me happy." In other words, happiness is the n- the thing that people want, the experience that people want above all else. Most people would, would, would conceptualize that for which they long above all else as happiness. But it could equally be peace, joy, love. Th- these are all synonyms, really. So that, that's why I include the word peace and, and happiness. You're right that, that, uh, uh, a- one of the downsides of using the word happiness is because of the common association that most people have with it, namely that happiness is a fluctuating emotion that alternates with suffering. And so, uh, um... And that is not intended. I would suggest that happiness is not, not really an emotion, in the sense that, that, um, jealousy, hurt, u- um, upset, anger, anxiety, fear are emotions. I would suggest that happiness is, is the ever-present background of all emotions. It's like the blue sky behind the clouds. It's always there. Doesn't mean to say it's always visible, because it's sometimes covered by clouds. But it, but the blue sky and the gray clouds don't alternate with each other. The blue sky is always there. It's sometimes b- seen and it is sometimes obscured. I would suggest that peace or happiness are the nature of ourself, and simply by virtue of the presence that our self is always present. So peace and happiness are always present. But this doesn't mean that it's always felt. Why not? Because it is obscured by the, by the gray clouds of thoughts and feelings.

   10. CWChris Williamson22:21

       It's an analogy that I've been using for a long time, that you are the sky and everything else is just the weather.

   11. RSRupert Spira22:27

       E- e- e- e- exactly. The, the thoughts and feelings w- would be the weather that come and go. But what, what does the s-... What is the sky's attitude towards the weather?

   12. CWChris Williamson22:36

       Indifference.

   13. RSRupert Spira22:37

       No attitude at all. Complete indifferent. The sky doesn't feel that it needs something from the weather. The sky never says, "Oh, what a bea-... It's a... Thank goodness it's a sunny day. J- I can't wait for it to stop raining." (laughs) Oh. No, because the sky feels whole and complete irrespective of what is, what the weather is doing. Uh, awareness is like that. It is... We could call it the blue sky of awareness or the empty space of awareness. Yes.

   14. CWChris Williamson23:03

       So let's use the word happiness, considering it is the, uh, lexical commonality that is most useful.

7. 23:10 – 34:57

   What Impedes Happiness?

   1. RSRupert Spira23:10

      Okay. Yeah.

   2. CWChris Williamson23:10

      What do you think are the most common impediments that people have to attaining happiness? And to kind of just append onto the end of that, given that happiness, in how people define it, might not actually be what they're after, they may be after something closer to peace, but-

   3. RSRupert Spira23:30

      Yeah.

   4. CWChris Williamson23:31

      ... what are the things, in your experience, that get in the way of that?

   5. RSRupert Spira23:36

      W- w- w- whether someone conceives what they long for above all else as, as peace or happiness, I, I would suggest that the one thing that gets in the way of their recognition of it as the very nature of themself is the belief that it can be acquired via objective experience. In other words, in order to be happy, I need to change something about the content of my current experience. My health needs to improve, my financial situation needs to improve, my relationship needs to improve, my finances needs... Something needs to be ch-... I need something, something objective.... a, um, an object, a substance, an activity, a state of mind, a relationship. I need something, and when I get that, whatever it is, then I will be happy. That this, uh, uh, uh, this belief which we have, um, inherited from our culture, and which is almost continually reinforced by our culture, is the main impediment to the recognition that happiness is the, the nature of our being and, and is available to all people at all times.

   6. CWChris Williamson24:56

      I've been reading a Jed McKenna book recently. I was introduced to him by a friend, and I've been very, very impressed. If anyone that's listening wants to read it, uh, it's Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing, I think is the first one in his, in his series. And he talks about releasing the tiller on that, so the tiller being the handle that steers the boat. He talks h- about how a lot of people grip very, very tightly onto this tiller in a desperate attempt to try and steer themselves, and it's really ... It's a beautiful analogy that's made me think a lot as you were talking there about the fact that we presume that by doing better steering or faster steering or more agile steering, that's what's going to get us towards the end goal: peace of mind, happiness.

   7. RSRupert Spira25:41

      Th- that's true, but, but that belief that, that we might steer the boat a bit more carefully, a bit more efficiently, a bit, but ... That belief is, it's not the fundamental belief. There is a, a belief that underlies that, namely that when I acquire a certain experience in the future, then I will be happy. That's the fundamental mistake.

   8. CWChris Williamson26:06

      And holding the tiller is the route to achieving the thing-

   9. RSRupert Spira26:10

      Holding the, holding the tiller-

   10. CWChris Williamson26:11

       Yes.

   11. RSRupert Spira26:11

       ... is, is, is the route, and I may think I do it more eff- if I do it more efficiently, if I, if I hold it tighter, if I, uh ... So that, that, that is a, a secondary belief that, that I'll get to this future happiness quicker if I just improve my techniques of getting there, gripping the tiller s- more strongly. But, but the, the fundamental belief, the primary belief is that happiness, peace and happiness are dependent on the content of experience. That belief is a recipe for disappointment and suffering.

   12. CWChris Williamson26:47

       Does this mean that there is no such objective better state or worse state for somebody to be in?

   13. RSRupert Spira26:53

       Oh. Only-

   14. CWChris Williamson26:53

       Surely suffering and illness and-

   15. RSRupert Spira26:55

       Not at all. Not at all. Th- uh, I don't mean to imply, uh, that it isn't legitimate, uh, to, um, take care of oneself and one's family if one ... has one financially, to educate one's children, to, to take care of oneself, uh, to, to, to, to live in a, in a place that one likes, to have friends. Uh, no, no, I don't mean to imply that that is not legitimate. All I mean to imply is that one should not do any of these things for the sake of finding happiness. But still perfectly okay to have a desire. You had a desire to interview me on this, uh, o- on your podcast. It wasn't to have ... The, the desire wasn't motivated. You, you, you weren't feeling miserable. You didn't think, "Oh, I'm, I must have a conversation with Rupert. I'll feel better." Uh, no. It was you, you were already feeling the, the joy of this understanding, and your desire arose out of that joy, the desire to spread it and to share it. And so, so I'm glad you asked that question because this understanding doesn't in any way imply that it is not legitimate to, uh, take care of oneself and to think about one's future, one's education, to look after one's children, one's, one's health, one's finances, et cetera.

   16. CWChris Williamson28:12

       The motivation for a lot of that comes from the felt lack though, right? We see a state which we believe would make life for perhaps ourselves or those around us better, that it would improve their life or our life-

   17. RSRupert Spira28:29

       Well-

   18. CWChris Williamson28:30

       ... in some wa- in some way.

   19. RSRupert Spira28:30

       But again, it depends. What do- does the desire, uh, to, um ... Does the desire that arises, does it arise on behalf of a sense of lack? Or for instance, does it arise on behalf of the, um, the safety and the wellbeing of the body? That would be perfectly legitimate. You're, you're sick. You don't just say, "Oh, I'm sick. My happiness is not dependent on the state of my body. I'm not going to do anything about it." No, it's true. Your happiness is not dependent on the state of your body, but it's still appropriate to take care of your body, to, to, to, to feed it or, or, or your, your child if you have a child or someone who is in, in your care. So, um, what I'm suggesting doesn't imply in any way that one doesn't, um, that one doesn't have a, a, a desire, that one isn't motivated to do certain things. It's just that the motivation no longer comes from a sense of lack. Objective experience is no longer seen as the means to find or secure happiness.

   20. CWChris Williamson29:36

       I guess this means that we need to be very careful about what desires we have and where they come from.

   21. RSRupert Spira29:42

       Exactly. Exactly. The only ... Uh, uh, all that's important is to be aware of desires that come from a sense of lack. There are many other reasons that a desire may arise. Uh, uh, a desire may arise, as I just said, on the, on behalf of the safety or the wellbeing of the body. Uh, it, you know, w- a desire may arise from a feeling of happiness, from a feeling of love. You may, you may be feeling, uh, at peace, uh, uh, uh, totally fulfilled. You may call a friend and ask them round for dinner, not because you think your friend is gonna make you happy. Because you're already feeling fulfilled. You just want to share that with your friend. Go, go- or go for a walk or, um. Uh, your desire to, to have this conversation didn't arise-... out of a, a sense of lack. It arose on behalf of your love of truth. That's another reason, um, motive for desires to arise, to, to explore, or express, or to share, or to celebrate truth or reality. That's another legitimate, um, motive for a, a desire, an impulse to do something that doesn't come from the sense of lack. There's only one type of desire that, that, um, diminishes and... uh, uh... as a result of this understanding. Namely, the desire that comes from a feeling of lack and the belief that the object, the substance, the state, the relationship that is acquired will provide happiness for us. That's the only type of desire, or, uh, the only motive of our desire that falls away in the face of this understanding.

   22. CWChris Williamson31:25

       I've got the words gap and fear in my mind as you're talking about that. Um, gap comes from a concept by Ben Hardy where he discusses the difference between gap and gain. So, he says a lot of the time people, when they're driven to do something, they look at a thing that they want, they net off the difference, they subtract the difference, and find that there is a gap between them and it. As opposed to the inverse, which would be, "This is something that would be great for me to do. I am compelled, I am pushed forward as opposed to pulled along," and that's the gain. And then fear, I think... I, I, I keep on talking about it. I'm so adamant that many of the people that are driven to do great things in the world are doing them out of a fear of insufficiency. That if I build the next business, create the next product, get the next million subscribers, whatever it might be, this will fill the hole in me. I am not worthy of love, or compassion, or care, or companionship-

   23. RSRupert Spira32:29

       Yes. Yes.

   24. CWChris Williamson32:30

       ... as I am. And with this, that fear can be dispelled.

   25. RSRupert Spira32:34

       And, and, and of course, as, as we, as we well know, uh, um, getting the next, uh, uh, million or acquiring whatever it was we were, we, we were striving towards does not give us the happiness we long for. That the feeling of emptiness is possibly briefly eclipsed by, by, by the, the acquisition of the million dollars, the, the... or whatever it is. But sooner or later, and usually sooner rather than later, the, the old feeling of lack, the void, the empty feeling comes back up. And now next time round, you need a stronger dose of whatever it was. Uh, another million won't suffice. It's gotta be 10 million (laughs) . It, it's... Or, or, or if it's a substance, or an object, or a... you tend to need more of it to, to give you that same fleeting sense of happiness. And, and it... that, that fleeting happiness, it, it, it lasts for less and less time before the old sense of lack comes up. And sooner or later one gets to a stage where one feels, "I've explored everything. Nothing I found in my life has given me the lasting peace and happiness for which I long. I've tried everything." And that is, um, either a moment of despair for people because there's nowhere else to turn, and, and this often precipitates despair or depression. But in others it can precipitate either spontaneously or at the suggestion of a friend, or reading a book, or watching a YouTube clip. It can trigger this intuition that they have been looking for happiness in the wrong place, and there can be the spun- As a result there can be a, a spontaneous turning around. By turning around I mean a turning around of the mind away from the content of experience, and we begin to investigate what... who I, who I really am prior to my thoughts, feelings, sensations, or perceptions. And this is the, this is the, um, the beginning of the path that leads to the recognition of our true nature and its innate peace and happiness.

8. 34:57 – 37:29

   An Activity to Re-centre

   1. CWChris Williamson34:57

      Do we have an ex- experiment that we might be able to do to help identify what we are at center or identify our awareness in that way?

   2. RSRupert Spira35:08

      Yes. W- we could, um... We could imagine gradually, uh, removing from ourself everything that is temporary or objective in our experience. So just imagine removing your thoughts, and then remove your feelings because a- all... no feeling is permanent. They all come and go. Remove your memories. Remove your aspirations, your hopes. Remove your relationships. However close they may be, no relationship is permanent. It cannot be essentially what we are, so imagine removing your relationship. Remove your activities, whatever activities you may be engaged in. No activity is permanent. Remove the sensations of your body. All sensations come and go. So it is... I sometimes liken it to a process of undressing. We are not taking off our clothes; we are taking off the layers of experience that are not essential to us.And, and just as when we get undressed at night, th- that, we- we reach a stage where we can't take anything else off. It's just our naked body. In this experiment, it's exactly the same. We get to a stage where we can't take off any more layers of experience. We have, in our imagination, removed from ourself everything that can be removed. What remains? Just naked, aware being. And in that one, there is no agitation and no lack. That is the happiness that everybody looks for, nearly always through the acquisition of some kind of objective experience.

9. 37:29 – 44:39

   The Essence of Non-Duality

   1. RSRupert Spira37:30

   2. CWChris Williamson37:30

      How does this relate to the non-dual part of the terminology? Does this mean that we are in the world and of the world?

   3. RSRupert Spira37:38

      Okay. The, the, the, wh- when I first, uh, offered a definition of non-duality, I suggested it had, uh, two parts to the understanding. The first, happiness is the nature of our being, and that is the- the- wh- that's where we've, our conversation has been, um, centered, um, up 'til now. The second aspect, which is more specifically, which if, uh, uh, from which the term non-duality comes more specifically, is- is the understanding that we share our being with everyone and everything. In other words, what we essentially are is the same as what everyone and everything essentially is. In other words, there aren't two separate, independent realities or entities in existence. Uh, mind and matter, self and other, God and world. There is a single, uh, indivisible infinite reality from which everyone and everything derives its apparently independent existence. So the first aspect of the non-dual understanding, the nature of our being is happiness, relates to our internal experience. It's just about our own inner life. The second aspect of the non-dual understanding relates to our relationship with others and the world. And it is from this second aspect that the term non-duality comes. That there is a single reality. Uh, it appears as if there are 10,000 things, but that appe- that, uh, that is an appearance of a single reality. Just as when you look at a, a, you watch a football match on the screen, you, uh, you seem to be seeing 10,000 people in the crowd, but really you're looking at one screen. The 10,000 people are an appearance of the single screen, and this, in other words, the screen is the reality of the apparent 10,000 people. So I would suggest that, uh, beneath or behind the appearance of multiplicity and diversity, there is a single unified reality or hole. It's not really behind or beneath. When I say it's behind or beneath, that is a- a concession to be- to- to the belief that appearance of things are independent of this underlying reality. So it's not really true to say that the screen lies behind the movie, but as a concession to one who believes that the landscape in the movie is real, we might, at least to begin with, say, "No, understand that the screen lies behind it." So to begin with, we might make a distinction and- and talk about appearances and their reality, the movie and the screen. But o- of course, the appearances and their reality, the movie, uh, the movie on the screen, are not really two separate things. But the- the former is simply the appearance of the latter. All there is is really the latter. All there is is the screen. It just sometimes appears as a movie. All there is is reality, infinite consciousness or awareness. It sometimes appears to us as a multiplicity and diversity of objects and selves.

   4. CWChris Williamson41:26

      The biggest distinction I think that most people make is that they feel like an actor who is an agent that works within the world as opposed to an extension of the world, right? We feel like there is a- a self behind the eyes, in the head somewhere, tootling about, doing our daily business.

   5. RSRupert Spira41:50

      Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Um, Chris, take the analogy of a dream. When you have a dream at night, and this is a nice illustration of this second aspect of the non-dual understanding, the fact that we share our being with everyone and everything. When you have a dream at night, you- you- you forget that you are dreaming. You overlook, your mind overlooks the fact that it is dreaming, and it imagines a dreamed world within itself. The dreamer's mind imagines a dreamed world. But it doesn't view the dreamed world directly. In order to see the dreamed world, the dreamer's mind localizes itself as a dreamed character. The dreamer's mind seems to become a character in its own dream, and it's only from the perspective of the dreamed character...... that the dreamer's mind is able to perceive what is in fact its own activity as an outside world. Now, from the point of view of the dreamed character, exactly as you say, the dreamed character s- feels, "I am a, an, an, a separate, independently existing agent or self, acting of my own volition, with my own energy, in this world, relating to, uh, uh, objects and others, and, and, uh, th- th- th- that I feel more or less separate from." Now, of course, when we wake up, we realize that sense of separation, of otherness, of being a, a, a, an independently existing person in the dreamed world is a complete illusion. The whole thing was the activity of our own mind, which i- is itself a unified field, albeit a limited one. So in this analogy, I would suggest that, that the dreamer's mind is a microcosm of the universal mind, or infinite consciousness, which is, so to speak, dreaming or imagining the universe within itself. In other words, the universe is the, is the, the mental activity of the one mind, the universal consciousness. But it cannot view that universe directly, because the infinite cannot perceive the finite directly. In order to view its own activity, it must localize itself within its own imagination as an apparently separate subject of experience, from whose perspective it views its own activity as an apparently outside world. So it's a very close analogy, uh, uh, uh, uh, to what takes place a- a- a- a- a- on the level of an individual dream.

   6. CWChris Williamson44:37

      The dream insight's

10. 44:39 – 49:31

    The Finite Mind and Infinity

    1. CWChris Williamson44:39

       really interesting. I don't tend to remember many of them, but it's so weird that you don't have the god's eye view. If this is you, did you ever play Civilization, Sid Meier's Civilization, the game?

    2. RSRupert Spira44:50

       Yes. (laughs)

    3. CWChris Williamson44:51

       Yeah. So you're sort of this omnipotent, big...

    4. RSRupert Spira44:54

       Right. You're right. You, you don't, you never have the god's eye view. You can lucid dream, in which you know you're dreaming, but even then when you're lucid dreaming, you still perceive the dreamed world from the localized perspective of the dreamed character. It's just that you realize that the whole thing is taking place within your own mind.

    5. CWChris Williamson45:15

       I had a dream a couple of weeks ago where I was kidnapped by Scousers from Liverpool, and they forced me to do their marketing for them.

    6. RSRupert Spira45:22

       (laughs)

    7. CWChris Williamson45:23

       That was, that was how I spent most of an evening apparently, just relaxing, doing some marketing for some people from Liverpool. So why is it, given the fact that this seems quite compelling, why is it that natively, we have such a different experience of reality to this perspective?

    8. RSRupert Spira45:44

       Because we experience reality from the localized and limited perspective of each of our minds, and the, the, our, our finite minds impose their own limitations on everything that they perceive. So the finite mind is like a pair of glasses, or le- let's upgrade the analogy. The finite mind, a human finite mind, which consists of the activities of thinking and perceiving, is like a, a virtual reality headset. We put on the virtual reality headset, and reality, the, the, uh, the, the outside reality appears in accordance with the limitations of the VR headset through which we perceive it. If it is calibrated to work in terms of thinking and perceiving, then the universe that we perceive will appear in accordance with those limitations. But if the VR headset had other faculties, the world w- the reality we perceive as the world would be, would, would appear in accordance with those faculties. It's like, um, did you ever as a, as a child go into a, um, a 3D IMAX cinema?

    9. CWChris Williamson47:00

       Yes.

    10. RSRupert Spira47:01

        Yeah. And you, and you know when, you remember when you... I, I haven't been for, for years now so they're probably, uh, a lot more modern now, but, but you used to go and you'd bege- get, get given a big clunky pair of, of goggles. And you look on the screen, and it's just a regular screen, and all you're seeing on the screen is just a fuzzy pattern. It's just a di- mean, uh, no, a completely abstract, fuzzy, it looks as if a, just like an old-fashioned TV set that's malfunctioning. Then you put on your glasses, and suddenly you're immersed in an ocean in which there are fishes swimming all around you. So the, the, the, the, the VR goggles that you have put on renders what is actually a two-dimensional screen as a three-dimensional environment. And you f- don't feel that you're viewing the two-dimensional screen from the outside. One feels that one is view, participating in the three-dimensional reality, the ocean or whatever it is, from the inside. So the, the, the s- the, the, the structure of the VR goggles that we have put on renders the two-dimensional screen in a way that is consistent with the configuration of the, the goggles. Well, I would suggest that a human mind is like a VR headset that functions in terms of perceiving and thinking. And the, the, the reality we perceive appears in accordance with its limitations. But what I am not suggesting is that all there is to reality is the contents of our own finite mind. That would be solipsism. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there is a reality that is outside each of our finite minds...... but that it appears in accordance with the limitations of the finite mind through which it is perceived. In other words, the world owes its reality to infinite consciousness, but its appearance to the finite mind. Now, what's the relationship between the finite mind and infinite consciousness? The finite mind is simply a localization, or rather an apparent localization, of infinite consciousness, just like the dreamed character is an apparent localization of the dreamer's mind.

    11. CWChris Williamson49:28

        Given the fact that you've worked at this for

11. 49:31 – 55:13

    Lessons Learned from Rupert’s Life

    1. CWChris Williamson49:31

       40 years, maybe more than 40 years now.

    2. RSRupert Spira49:34

       Uh, I, uh, y- yeah, fif- fifty.

    3. CWChris Williamson49:36

       (laughs) .

    4. RSRupert Spira49:36

       I've ... Th- this, uh, I've, I first had this intuition when I was seven or eight years old.

    5. CWChris Williamson49:42

       Cool. A while.

    6. RSRupert Spira49:43

       And so it, it, it's, it's really, I've always had this intuition. It took me a long time, I had to forget this intuition, I had to go out into the world, I had to suffer, I had to trace my way back to my own experience. I had to ... So it's, it, it took a long time for me to, to, to make my early childhood intuition my own actual experience.

    7. CWChris Williamson50:08

       So given the fact that you've worked at it for half a century-

    8. RSRupert Spira50:12

       Yeah.

    9. CWChris Williamson50:12

       ... can you try and describe the distinctions in your experience now? What's it like to be somebody who has worked at this, and worked at this, and worked at this for five decades? Can you talk to the delta between Rupert then and Rupert now in terms of the texture of your mind, the way that you experience things?

    10. RSRupert Spira50:37

        It, it's, it's very simple, Chris, and very ordinary. It's nothing, nothing extraordinary. It's, uh, and ... The, really the, the, the two differences from the Rupert then and the, and the Rupert now are two differences that, that I could, um, speak of in two, in terms of these two aspects of the non-dual understanding. The first is that I have understood clearly that the peace and happiness that I love cannot be derived from objective experience, though I have ceased looking for happiness in objective experience. It is clear to me that happiness, peace, that which I love above all else, is the very nature of myself. So if that innate peace and happiness are eclipsed or veiled, uh, uh, uh, at any stage in my life, the impulse to find it again through objective experience no longer rises. I just go straight back to my being. That's the one, one thing. And the second thing, uh, and this is something that, that deepens. It's not a fixed state or a final state, it's something that deepens, um, in, in time. My, the, the sense that I sh- sh- ... That I share my being with everyone and everything increases. The, uh, the, the, the common, the, the common, um, way we express this felt sense of our shared being in relation to people and animals is, is, is, um, called love, and in relation to objects and nature it's called beauty. That what the experiences of love and beauty are, the collapse of the felt sense of separation. So there is this progressive dissolving of any sense of separation between myself, not just in people but in my people, animals, objects. So there ... In other words, another way of saying that would be that the appearance of multiplicity and diversity becomes, as it were, increasingly transparent. It, it is progressively losing its power to veil its reality, and as a result, our shared reality, the reality we share with everyone and everything, uh, uh, it shines through appearances more and more strongly.

    11. CWChris Williamson53:27

        Does this lead you open to feeling other people's suffering more than you would have done previously?

    12. RSRupert Spira53:34

        It does, Chris. Uh, yes, the extent to which we are empty of the suffering that attends the belief in separation, so we become more and more sensitive to other people's suffering. So if we're, if we're consumed with our own suffering, another way of saying this, if we're consumed with our own personal suffering, there's not much room to be empathetic towards somebody else's, and we only feel somebody else's suffering if it, if it's expressed in, in f- very bold, strong terms. We wouldn't be sensitive to the, to, to the, uh, uh, slightest, the smaller degrees of suffering that many people have. But to the extent that we are empty of our own suffering, so we are sympathetic or empathetic to, uh, the suffering of others, yes.

    13. CWChris Williamson54:26

        Do you find that challenging?

    14. RSRupert Spira54:35

        It's challenging to, um ... It would be challenging to myself as a separate entity, but to the space of awareness, no, it's not challenging. So it depends where I locate myself at the moment I experience. If I feel I'm, I'm a separate self than another-If I'm lost in the sense of separation, then another person's suffering can be challenging. If I'm not only understanding, but by feeling myself to be this aware openness, the sky of awareness, then no, it's not challenging. The weather is never challenging for the sky.

12. 55:13 – 59:10

    Rupert’s Advice to Seekers of Happiness

    1. CWChris Williamson55:13

       Let's say that there's someone who's listening who your avatar earlier on, the person who has tried and looked in different places for happiness, filling it with relationships or experiences or emotions or objective metrics of success, let's say that there's someone to whom that resonates with, simpatico, right? It is-

    2. RSRupert Spira55:34

       Mm-hmm.

    3. CWChris Williamson55:34

       ... completely attuned to- to their experience of life right now. What would you say to them?

    4. RSRupert Spira55:41

       I would say when you feel, uh, suffering, when you feel any- any moment or period of suffering in your life, instead of doing what you normally do, reaching for whatever it is in your particular case, the- the- the fridge, the bottle, and the phone, the- the, uh, et cetera, et cetera, pause, sit down, close your eyes. Instead of going outwards towards the object, the substance, the activity, the relationship, go in the other direction. Ask yourself the question, "But w- who is the one who is suffering? W- not- not what am I feeling, loneliness, sorrow, shame, guilt, fear, but who is the one?" It is- it is I who am feeling upset. It is I who am lonely. It is I who am afraid or... Who is this I? What am I really? So you begin to trace your experience inwards, towards yourself, rather than tracing your suffering, following your suffering outwards towards the object, the substance, the activity, and in this way you trace your way back through the layers of experience until you come to this inherently peaceful presence of awareness, and then you rest there. That is the resolution of your suffering.

    5. CWChris Williamson57:06

       Rupert Spira, ladies and gentlemen. Rupert, if people want to find out some more about your work or delve deeper into non-dualism, where would you send them?

    6. RSRupert Spira57:15

       The first place would be YouTube. I have, um, a ridiculous number of you- YouTube, uh, clips on YouTube, um, 3, 400 I think, so- so there. Uh, g- go to YouTube first, have a look at my channel, explore there. If- if you're interested, go to my website, rupertspira.com. There's a lot more, um, there's a whole archive, uh, of, um, all the meetings that I've, uh, conducted over the last 10 or 12 years. Uh, there are books and- and I do webinars every week, uh, meditation weekends w- where we can have conversations. And so th- that would be the place to go if you're- if you're still interested after you've, um, sampled some clips on YouTube.

    7. CWChris Williamson57:55

       Where would you suggest they begin with your writing? What book?

    8. RSRupert Spira58:01

       I would suggest two books, depending on your inclination. If you're very philosophically minded, you want to delve into the, uh, nature of reality, I would, uh, recommend The Nature of Consciousness. But if you want a- a simple, experiential approach, I would recommend Being Aware of Being Aware or in a couple of weeks' time, a new book coming out called Being Myself. So these- these two books, Being Aware of Being Aware and Being Myself are short, simple, experiential, they're just the- the essential non-dual understanding. If you want something more involved and philosophical, try The Nature of Consciousness.

    9. CWChris Williamson58:43

       I love it. Rupert, thank you so much.

    10. RSRupert Spira58:46

        Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you for asking me. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. I wish you the very best.

    11. CWChris Williamson58:51

        Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that, then press here for a selection of the best clips from the podcast over the last few months. And don't forget to subscribe. It makes me very happy indeed. Peace.

Episode duration: 59:10