Commentary on Rupert Spira’s Interview: Nonduality, Consciousness, and Free Will

Tracking Wisdom

Episode 34

Commentary on Rupert Spira’s Interview: Nonduality, Consciousness, and Free Will

Recorded - 08/04/25

DESCRIPTION

The profound discourse presented in this episode centers around a compelling interview with Rupert Spira, wherein he elucidates the non-dual nature of consciousness, positing that the only true reality is consciousness itself, devoid of material existence. This episode meticulously navigates the intricate themes of creation and manifestation, challenging the listener to reconsider their perceptions of reality through the lens of perennial wisdom. We engage in a thoughtful examination of Spira's insights, contemplating the implications of viewing our material world as merely an illusion shaped by consciousness. The dialogue further explores the boundaries of perception and the essence of experience, inviting us to recognize the interconnectedness of all existence beyond the confines of individual identity. Ultimately, we aim to distill these sophisticated teachings into accessible reflections, fostering a deeper understanding of our shared human experience.

Takeaways:

• The podcast delves deeply into the essence of consciousness, positing that true reality transcends material existence and is fundamentally rooted in awareness alone.
• Rupert Spira's teachings emphasize the illusion of separateness, suggesting that all perceived objects are interconnected manifestations of a singular consciousness.
• The discussion highlights the distinction between experiential learning and mere intellectual understanding, advocating for a profound engagement with one's own consciousness.
• The metaphor of dreams is employed to illustrate the nature of reality, wherein waking life is likened to a dream, challenging our conventional notions of existence and emphasizing the importance of present awareness.

Episode Resources

• "You were never born & You will never die" Rupert Spira PROVES how life is a dream you're imagining - Amira Aurora & Aryaan Aurora

If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,

consider showing your support to help make this content possible.

Review us on Podchaser

Leave a Review

We are grateful for your gifts.

Support with a Tip

Have a discussion topic idea or show feedback? Use the Suggestion Box link below!

Suggestion Box

ETH Studio Website

Tracking Wisdom Reflections (Substack)

Social Media:

Facebook

Instagram

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
You're listening to theTracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring
the universal truths that wesee woven through culture, consciousness
and the human experience.
Good morning, everybody, andwelcome back to another episode of

(00:25):
the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
I'm Ryan.
I'm Peter.
And today we are talking aboutInterview with Rupert Spira.
And this took place on underthe Tree with Amir and Ariane, which
is a YouTube channel.
And the show will be linked inthe description.
We're going to respond andcomment on Rupert's points that were

(00:48):
discussed through the episode.
And there's a number six orseven different themes that were
discussed.
And so we're going to pick upand share what we took away and how
it aligns with ourunderstanding of perennial wisdom
and the topics that we've been discussing.

(01:09):
Anything before we start thatyou want to say, I think it's going
to.
Be a little recursive.
Ryan said before we started,made the comment to me that like
a lot of this stuff we'vealready said before, but I mean,
it is a little bit recursivebecause we've already heard him talk
to Hoffman.
It's kind of like they'vealready said everything in a way,
but it's all about expressingand re.

(01:32):
Expressing these things indifferent ways.
So even for ourselves, we'reclarifying our own understanding
of what we're learning byrepetition and reformulation.
And so we.
Yeah, yeah, no, I agree.
And I think that thisdiscussion surfaced a few metaphors

(01:55):
and discussion details that Ihadn't specifically heard, at least
in the way he described it.
Like when he was talking withDonald Hoffman, I think these ideas
were discussed and described,but there's some nuances to the way
he described some of thethings here that I found quite interesting.

(02:15):
And I personally findalignment and affinity with Rupert
as a non dual teacher.
He just aligns with me and Iappreciate his teaching style.
I appreciate the way hecommunicates these ideas.
These are not easy ideas totalk about.
And he's very patient andarticulate and detailed in the way

(02:37):
that he presents them.
That's something I've alwaysvery much appreciated with him.
My first experience to orexposure to him as a teacher was.
What was that called?
There's the three.
Do you remember what that was called?
It was like a summit.
And there were teachers,Adyashanti, him, and I forget the
other one.

(02:57):
And I found of the three, Iconnected right with the way Rupert
was discussing these things.
More so since then I've been.
I've had an affinity.
And then of course, when wefound his discussions with Donald
Hoffman that only kind ofreinforced the whole idea because
they had a very complimentary, complimentary.

(03:18):
And yes, that it was greathaving Donald Hoffman from the scientific
lens and Rupert from the moremetaphysical lens, but they were
literally agreeing the entiretime from both sides, which was.
It was just very satisfyingconversation to listen to.

(03:42):
And I guess I want to digressfor a moment into Meta.
The.
Just comment on what I saidabout what we're learning, because
I said something about whatwe're learning.
And I want to clarify that theobjective here isn't to memorize,
and it's not like, oh, I wantto understand what he said and dissected.

(04:04):
We're talking aboutexperiential learning.
And when we talk about ouralignment with these teachers, it's
that we recognize that theyare speaking the truth that we know.
Right.
As opposed to we're trying toreceive the truth from them.
And so if you don't findyourself in that place, you're very

(04:27):
welcome to continue to consumeand listen and read and explore all
this, but, you know, Godforbid anyone sitting, taking notes
on our podcast and trying to.
Right.
You know what I mean?
I. I just wanted to name that,I guess partly because I'm working
with Hasan in college who'sactually studying, and it's like,

(04:48):
oh, I don't want people tothink we're trying to learn the stuff
that people are saying that'snot we're talking about.
So if you're not a longtimelistener and you're just coming in
cold, I didn't want to leavethat lying there.
That's a great point.
And of course, as we've saidpreviously, and even Rupert in this
conversation described none ofthese teachings, none of the descriptions

(05:10):
are absolute truth.
They are pointers, they're descriptions.
They are attemptedarticulations of experience and of
a fundamental nature that isby definition elusive to this material
form, this individuated experience.

(05:31):
Right.
The discussion with languageand mouths and.
Air and sound and thelimitations of intellection with.
Not to say people areunintelligent, but the intellection
isn't the way to understandingand experience.
Right.
And I think that gets.
We'll get into that.

(05:52):
Okay, cool.
So this conversation happenedwith Ariana, I think.
Is her name Aurora or.
No, I'm sorry, Amira Arora.
And.
And the first topic that wasbrought up was the non dual nature
of consciousness, the non dualunderstanding of reality.

(06:13):
Shall we start there?
Yeah, yeah.
The idea that Rupert expressesis that reality has nothing to do
with material existence, thatit is just consciousness.
The Only thing that isultimately real is consciousness.
That there is no universe ofseparate objects and things and there's

(06:35):
no other world or higher realmof separate objects and things.
There's just consciousness,which is a completely.
Uniform unity, a wholeness initself formless.
Which we can't really.
It's very hard to talk aboutbecause it's very much the opposite

(07:00):
of our everyday experience ofair quotes.
Reality, the real world, whatwe know is the real world is not
reality.
And it's very different fromwhat this ultimate reality is.
It's almost, you could almostsay it's direct opposites.
Like the fundamentalcharacteristic of this formless whole

(07:24):
is awareness.
Right.
Basically, the thing thatdefines it from nothingness would
be that it has full awareness.
As we've discussed previously.
And since not everybody haslistened to everything, I think it's
always worth rehashing that inultimate awareness in the Singularity,

(07:46):
there is awareness but no experience.
The illusion of separatenessthat comes into experience is that
without other, withoutseparation, without object and subject,
there's no experience of anything.
Yes.
I think I'm going to findmyself constantly second guessing

(08:08):
what I say because when I saythat reality and material existence
are opposites.
I have a friend who's verywise and very awake.
In our last conversation, wewere discussing the ultimate reality.
We were discussing reality ingeneral and she cautioned me against
focusing on ultimate reality.

(08:28):
So she picked up a rock andsaid, this is real and this is a
very valuable lesson.
I knew what she meant, thatcreation is real.
Creation is valuable.
We shouldn't minimize it andsay, oh, it's the opposite of reality.
I, I think that comment comingfrom me was an effort to de.

(08:50):
Emphasize our attachment tomaterial existence.
And I think I just want tomake that clear.
It's, it's.
I don't want to denigratematerial existence because I, I wear
my seatbelt because I enjoymaterial existence, you know?
Yeah.
Well, in fairness, Rupert alsohad the same tug of war when he had

(09:11):
this discussion with the hostthat he felt it important to bring
the disclaimer thatmisunderstanding this characteristic
is ripe for now.
I'm misleading.
Exactly.
And it can indicate a nihilistic.
Exactly.
Perspective, but it's not.

(09:32):
And that's what he was tryingto be very clear of.
And I think that's also whatyou were just cautioning against.
That even in this discussionwith Rupert, he made very specific
reference to this subject.
Object.
Experience is real.
It's not nothing.

(09:53):
I guess what I was reactingto, the reason that I said it the
way I Did was because of thecommonly expressed idea that if you
can't prove it, it's not real,or if it's not scientifically proven,
it's not real, or if I can'tsee it and touch it, it's not real.
If I can't measure it, it'snot real.
And that's a very gravemistake if your interest is in kind

(10:20):
of having a complete understanding.
And so I think I was justusing an expression meant to undermine
that perspective.
And I think we're going to getinto a lot of this in more detail.
But yeah, definitely thediscussions of emptiness and the
non reality of materialexistence are dangerous.

(10:43):
If you extrapolate them from amaterialist point of view and say,
oh, well, then that means xyz,because you're doing that by saying
that means this.
You're in a causal mode, whichis not part of that ultimate reality
that we're talking about.

(11:03):
You're acting within thematerial existence context as if
it wasn't real, which is dangerous.
It's just as Hoffman says.
You're saying, oh, the trashicon's not real.
So I can dump all my work intothe trash icon and permanently delete
and we'll have no effect.
It's like, no, it'll have avery deleterious effect.
It's just that it's not aliteral trash can.

(11:25):
Right.
And so the material worldisn't literally real or absolutely
real.
It is real within its owncontext, and we are all real within
this context.
There's just more beyond that.
And so when I think theimplication is we don't have to insist
that the end of our materialexistence is the end of everything.

(11:49):
And that's.
We have to balance those two.
Right?
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
So he discusses and describeshow the fundamental nature of everything,
the only true reality beingthis one whole, perfect, formless,
aware essence.
How does creation andmanifestation and the separation

(12:13):
that we experience, how doesthat happen?
What is the process by whichthat is.
And he describes that creation.
He used creation andmanifestation interchangeably.
And he actually seem to favormanifestation, which is interesting
to me only because I tend tofavor creation over manifestation.

(12:34):
And I don't think it really matters.
I think he.
This is me going out on alimb, I think, because he's trying
to articulate that this is aapparent process.
So I was.
I was harking, as you'reworking this out, I'm harking back
to Hoffman and Tom Campbell aswell, who use a term that Spiro does

(12:55):
not use, which is virtualreality or Simulation.
Simulation, right, Simulation.
Hoffman calls it an interfacebecause he doesn't like the implications
of some of the simulation talk.
Right.
Campbell talks aboutsimulation because everything is

(13:16):
just data.
And if you have data and youcan calculate things based on rules,
then you can simulate anything.
And.
And that's what our reality is.
And so that's whatmanifestation or creation is.
It's just calculation of datawithin a set of rules.
And I like that it can pullCampbell into this.

(13:36):
And it's completely consistentwith what Rupert.
Is doing and Hoffman.
And there's definitely strongalignment between both, I call it
perspectives because it's aspiritual metaphysical versus, like
a scientific approach, whichwhen spirit.
When Rupert talks about it.

(13:56):
Right.
Which those two perspectiveshave traditionally been in conflict
or opposition to each other ondefining and describing ultimate
reality.
Right.
And part of the contributionsHoffman and Campbell make is they
offer us a familiar technicallanguage that gives a good framework

(14:17):
for talking about what Rupertis saying in.
In a much less technical language.
He's expressing himselfentirely in metaphor.
And Hoffman and Campbell aresaying we can put mathematical rigor
around this and let thatinform our language around it.
And so their language is moreof that scientific technical language,

(14:41):
which I'm habitually morecomfortable with.
I'm now I'm completelycomfortable with Rupert's language.
Like, he talks and I'm justlike, yes, absolutely.
But I think what we're tryingto do is bridge for the listener
who's less familiar with this stuff.
If this helps.
I mean, hopefully it can help.
One thing I found reallyinteresting in the way he described

(15:05):
the ultimate was if youimagined infinite space and you were
to put a wall up, it wouldn'tdivide anything, that there'd be
nothing for it to segregate,which I thought was an interesting
way to illustrate this conceptof the vastness and infinite nature

(15:30):
of ultimate reality.
So.
So here's another thing I'llbring in from Campbell.
Campbell uses the termphysical material reality and non
physical material reality.
And so this, this distinction,Distinction, it's not a distinction
that Rupert is making.
It's an apparent distinctionthat people want to ask about is

(15:55):
this distinction betweenmaterial reality and consciousness.
And so the question initiatingwas this was how does consciousness
create material realityseparate from itself?
And the answer is it doesn't.
It?
Apparently he says it's anapparent process, and it's not.

(16:17):
I'm kind of falling back tothe simulation model.
But again, we have to bereally cautious with this analogy
because it's easy to break theanalogy and over interpret it.
So, you know, when you havevideo game in a computer.
The world of the video gameisn't separate from the computer.
The computer hasn't separated itself.

(16:38):
Right.
Now where I was finding myselfgetting caught was that in terms
of a computer, I was going tosay, oh, it's all just electrons.
But in terms of a literalcomputer, electricity is separate
from the physical hardware ofthe computer.
And that's where in part, theanalogy breaks down.

(17:00):
Because we're not saying, oh,there's another hardware outside
of.
It's like no consciousness isthe computer and it is self contained,
right?
It's not hardware and softwareand electricity, which when you think
of a computer, you have tohave those separate things.
The nature of consciousnessis, well, as Campbell says, is to

(17:22):
compute, it's to handle data.
And by doing that, it cancreate a reality as if it's a computer.
So we have a virtual worldcreated by a computer.
It's not separate fromcomputer, it's not exactly part of
the computer.
His point is thatconsciousness seems to divide itself

(17:43):
into something separate, whichis something that we've talked about
before, the divine separatingitself from itself so that it can
have experience.
Right?
Except that it's not a literal separation.
It'S not a real separation.
That's where I'd like to go toCampbell again and saying, it's just

(18:04):
creating a set of rules.
It's just a set of rules.
And within the set of rulesyou have experience, right?
Because the rules define experience.
And with no rules, noexperience, since.
We'Re on computers and this isgoing to be even more geeky than
what you were saying, but itwas what I was thinking when I heard

(18:25):
this.
And this is trying toanalogize this everything and separateness
in one concept that everybodystruggles and gives different illustrations
for.
And for me, it waspartitioning the memory in a hard
drive where that is all stillthe hard drive.
There's no actual walls,there's not a different hard drive.

(18:48):
But that you can createvirtual, simulated.
Walls, you're assigninglocations of memory too.
And that was kind of theimagery that I was getting when I
was listening to this.
That reality doesn't actuallybreak itself into pieces, but it

(19:09):
creates these perspectives isoften how I've seen it.
These micro partitions thatare virtual partitions.
It's not really, in essence apartition there, but it's able to
create rules, like you said,that allows for a unique experience,
but it's a defined series offaculties and sensors and data collection

(19:33):
that presents a unique pictureof experience from that location.
And as Rupert had Mentioned inthat if you were to imagine ultimate
reality looking at a tree, itwould see every possible perspective
at once, all laid on top ofeach other in a dark mess of.

(19:58):
It would just be black ornothing discernible.
But that when you can takejust the one perspective, you actually
get an image and experience ofthe object.
And if you take multipleexperiences, you get different images
of those and differentopportunities to experience the same

(20:19):
object from different ways.
Right.
So in order to have theexperience, you have to have perception.
In order to have perception,you have to have perspective or a,
I think, as Rupert calls alocalized self.
So this apparent subdivisionof capital C, unitary consciousness

(20:42):
is just a localization withina set of rules that allows the occurrence
of perception.
And then by that perceptionthere's experience.
Without doing that,consciousness doesn't have any way
of having an experience orknowing anything except of any awareness.
Awareness of anything exceptof I'm aware.

(21:04):
Yep.
So a significant part of thisinterview was Rupert discussing this
concept from the metaphor of dream.
So we've been talking aboutdreams and I felt like this was interesting
that we all dream so it's.
It's accessible that when you dream.

(21:24):
And he used specifically thestreets of London in your dream,
the streets of London don'tactually materialize physically.
And in reality, it's all inyour mind.
It's a construct in your mind.
And you go to the streets ofLondon by localizing yourself in
that space.

(21:45):
And when you're there, itappears as if the awareness or the
perception is located behindyour eyes.
It's as if you have a body inLondon and that body has eyes.
And you're seeing thingsthrough those eyes.
Eyes.
And you're seeing London inyour dream through the eyes of that
body in the dream.

(22:05):
Right.
But then he goes on to say, ofcourse, your awareness and you're
not seeing through those eyesbecause that brain and those eyes
don't exist.
They're just creations of yourown awareness, creating the dream
that you're seeing.
And that's the way we exist,is that we have awareness through

(22:27):
our eyes and associated withour brains, but it doesn't actually
exist, or at least it's notcreated by our brains.
Our brains are part of theexperience that the awareness has
created.
Well, and he was discussingwaking up from the dream and recognizing
that that wasn't real.

(22:48):
Right.
But while you're in it, exceptwhen you're having a lucid dream,
it seems very real.
And then made the jump tothat's like what happens with ultimate
consciousness, which goes to,I Mean, there is a thing, I'm not
super familiar with thelanguage around it of like the idea
of the dreamer that were partof the dream or dream thing.

(23:12):
I'm thinking about thephilosopher dreaming.
He's a butterfly.
Yeah, that's not specificallywhat I was thinking.
As far as I understand,there's like a philosophical, spiritual
metaphor that we are afunction of a dream of the dreamer.
My God.
Dream.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And that's essentially whatRupert described.

(23:33):
But he didn't specifically.
You're right in thatphilosophy, but the way he described
it was very specificallysaying that like, when we dream and
like how the dream itself isnot a real material form, but exists
to house a location ofperception and experience.

(23:58):
And like when we wake up, werealize that that was a dream.
Air quotes A dream.
That this experience, thismaterial form, is like that.
That what we perceive to beseparate and material is an imaginary

(24:20):
construct from the ultimate consciousness.
Right.
I mean, so the tricky thing isthat the whole reason that we're
talking is that we're tryingto communicate with individuals who
are listening to our podcast,and yet we're talking about an ultimate
reality where none of us existas individuals.

(24:44):
So why are we doing that?
Right.
The reason is because thecloser we get to understanding this
ultimate reality, the less wesuffer in our experience.
And as is taught by many teachers.
And so we've come into a lotof this experience and have been

(25:08):
sharing it.
And we know a lot of peoplehaven't had this experience or struggle
to understand the experiencethey are having.
They are having thisexperience, but they don't have a
good friend who says, hey,let's go do a podcast.
So that's what we're talking about.
Like, we love spending timetogether and we like being human,
individual human beings.

(25:29):
But we also recognize and arededicating some effort to deepening
that recognition of the nonseparateness that we have been.
The pursuit of teachers over millennia.
Right, right.
Which is also a big part ofwhat we try to communicate, recognize,

(25:54):
identify our recognition ofthat These various teachers and various
teachings are maps, models,pointers to an ultimate reality.
And in and of themselves, noneof them are right and none of them
are wrong.
It's only whether the teachingdeepens your own experience of reality.

(26:20):
And so one of the things thatI found very exciting about listening
to this interview was therewas a lot of times where it was not
a process of, oh, Rupert'stelling me these things now.
I let, let me hear what Ruperthas to tell me about these things.
It was a oh, my God.

(26:40):
He's naming my experience.
So I've.
I've had some things recentlywhich have been developing, and they
just resonated with that.
Okay, so that was a discussionof how does creation happen, right?
What is the ultimate nature ofreality and how creation, manifestation,

(27:02):
the material form, theindividuated perspectives, so come
out of that.
And so it's not a.
It's not a physical creationof a thing.
It's just kind of thedefinition of a set of rules.
And that creates a reality.
Right?
And humanity has spentcenturies trying to figure out a

(27:23):
lot of the rules and hasfigured out a whole lot of the rules.
And that's what physics andscience is, is a description of a
lot of rules that describereality and improve our ability to
operate within this reality.
The bigger point being thatthat's not all the rules.
And limiting science tomaterial existence will never permit

(27:46):
us to fully understandreality, the ultimate reality.
Ultimate reality.
When you were talking aboutthe rules, there was a couple of
different elements that cametogether for me, which was, number
one, we were talking aboutwith Campbell, his idea of the rule
set, right?
That this, this materialexistence is a rule set of the simulation

(28:09):
interface, however you want todescribe that.
And Rupert was talking abouthow each individuated localization
of consciousness is limited inits understanding to its perspective,
to its location.
And what came to me was,number one, okay, it's bound by the

(28:30):
rules.
But also something that youhave brought up multiple times in
relation to or describingmaterial life is being subject to
conditions, right, that wecan't fully know or understand the
big C consciousness.
Because from this individuatedlocation, we are subject to conditions.

(28:55):
We have rule sets.
We have experiences andlimitations within cognition from
this perspective.
But ultimately, we are not.
We.
We are not I.
There is only the one Iperceiving through.
So I think this is aninteresting point that because we're

(29:15):
incarnated in this brain,we're limited by the limitations
of this brain.
I think there's no questionthat our physical perceptions are
limited by the rule set of the brain.
I'm not completely sure thatour experience of consciousness is
limited.
In fact, I don't think thatour experience of consciousness is

(29:36):
limited by the rule set of the brain.
Or at least maybe this is abetter way of putting it.
It's not limited by thephysical rules, right?
So the material reality iswhat I mean by the physical rules.
I mean understanding that.
I'm not saying that materialreality is.
So I get stuck between sayingit's real and it's not real.

(29:57):
I mean, it's real.
There is a rule set.
The rule set exists full stop.
The rule set does not exist,therefore it's real.
I was just kind of strugglingwith this feeling of contradiction
of talking about reality andnon reality.
And really what we're talkingabout when we say things are not
real, we're talking about theassertion that there is nothing beyond

(30:20):
this physical reality, right?
We're not saying it's unreal.
We're saying we can't be tiedto the idea that this is the only
reality.
This is the only thing thatcan be real.
It's the only thing that'suseful to understand.
It's the only thing that'spossible to know.
Those are false statements.

(30:40):
Real is a hard term to write.
So that's what I'm saying.
I'm saying it's also a falsestatement that this travel mug is
not real, that this physicalexistence is not real.
This is a physical existence.
It's real.
It's just not ultimately real.
It's real within the rule set.
And I think this is really,really important is understanding

(31:01):
the difference betweenlocalized perspective and the possibility
of non localized perspective.
And so I think what I wasstarting to say is that because we're
operating within this ruleset, our localized perspective is
fixed and we can't perceiveanything outside of our localized
perspective.
But I don't think that's truebecause I think that's a lot of what

(31:24):
we have been experiencing isinstances of connecting to awareness
without relying on the ruleset, right?
Without relying on necessarilythe physical brain.
I don't know, we might stillbe in areas where we're going through
the physical brain.
We're just not going throughthe way that our scientific understanding

(31:46):
of the rule set has been defined.
Which is to say, and we alwayscome back to space time.
What we're saying is don't getlocked into the idea of space time
because everything that youcan manipulate that's not even true
any longer.
We keep coming in that thistoo, everything that you can scientifically
manipulate in space time.
It's like, no, we have cellphones, we have quantum tunneling.

(32:07):
Those things don't operatewithin space time.
It's just, it's not widelyknown and discussed that they don't
operate in space time.
Right?
What I'm saying is that ourcommon perception is bounded by the
rule set of space time in our brains.
But we actually have asindividuated consciousnesses as conscious

(32:27):
agents.
In Hoffman's terminology.
As conscious agents, we haveaccess to consciousness.
And so we can potentially steparound the rule set, just like Neo
in the Matrix.
So we're not doing this sothat we can stop bullets.
We're doing it so that we canhave broader understanding and more

(32:49):
unity and connectedness andless suffering that comes from being
completely tied to the ruleset and thinking that the rule set
is all there is, that creates suffering.
By learning to work ourperspective out of that, reduce our
suffering and createopportunities for us to share that

(33:09):
with other people too, reducetheir suffering.
A direct question from thehost was, is there incarnation or
reincarnation?
And pretty much the directanswer was, no, there's not.
Right, well, is there reincarnation?
He goes, no, there's notreincarnation because there is an
incarnation in the first place.
I was thinking from theanalogy or metaphor of the dream

(33:31):
state, is the dream real?
Well, the dream is real.
When you're dreaming as anexperience, is the rock, the road,
the building, the person, isthat ultimately real in the absolute
sense?
We would have to say no,because we wake up and we realize

(33:51):
that that was a figment ofimagination, it was a figment of
illusion.
But that's not to say thatthere's no value in the dream.
There is still a worthiness,there's still an experience.
Which is where I keep goingback to.
Is that the point, themeaningful takeaway of this experience,

(34:13):
this material form of whichwe're analogizing to a dream that
may be imaginary in thatsense, where the things that we interact
with are not physically,literally real and true, but they
are able to be perceived andexperienced, we're always so fixated

(34:36):
on is that I touch this andthis thing.
It's here.
I can feel it, therefore it is.
And I think the point thatRupert was trying to make is that,
yes, we have sensory perception.
We have perceiving facultiesthat can touch and smell and taste
and see, given any pathologythat negates any of those things,

(34:58):
that none of that definesreal, and it is only through that
that we experience.
And so the focus, the forwardthinking focus, the productive focus,
is to maintain the value ofthe experience over the absolute

(35:21):
fundamental nature of thething I'm touching.
Right, right, right.
So I just wanted to try thaton for size as far as trying to touch
on the nuance of real when wetalk about real.
Because when we think of real,we think absolute.
The term, right, you know,insinuates absolute.
The question was, isreincarnation a thing?

(35:43):
And Rupert said he woulddisagree with reincarnation being
real because he disagrees ordoesn't believe that incarnation
is real.
So in order to havereincarnation, you would have to
have had incarnation.
And so what we've beendiscussing is, I think the issue

(36:03):
is that there is nothing toincarnate into, right?
Well, I think it's exactlywhat we've been describing as the
rule set, right?
There isn't a body, it's justa set of rules.
There's no incarnation.
But by extrapolation withinthe rule set, why couldn't we add
the rule set that this entitythat we've defined by this rule set

(36:26):
dies within this rule set andthen is reincarnated?
I think that this actuallypoints exactly to my anecdote story.
I get Rupert's point.
And in fact, I think I agreein a line with the idea that since
there's.
There is no actual separation,there is no individuation to incarnate

(36:48):
something, reincarnation issort of a misnomer of what would
happen.
A few months ago, I was askedif I believed in reincarnation.
The question came unexpectedlyand I froze.
And that was the first thingthat was noticeable to me or remarkable
to me was how frozen I felt inthat moment.

(37:12):
On how to respond to the question.
I even responded to her aftersome silence, that I don't know why
I'm having a hard timeanswering this, and I think this
is a big reason or part of thereason why I felt conflict in trying
to answer the question wasbecause the idea of reincarnation

(37:37):
insinuates a separate soul, aseparate entity that incarnates into
a physical body.
And my perception, myunderstanding of oneness, every individual
location of perception is ofthe same awareness, is of the same

(38:01):
being.
So in that sense, there isreincarnation insofar as the one
awareness continues toexperience through new locations.
But it isn't Ryanreincarnating in a new Joe Schmo
body.
It's that all lives are of thesame awareness.

(38:24):
Joe may have access to theRyan data, right?
It's not that the Ryan data isin a packet, and now that packet
is in Joe and it's notsomewhere else.
It's that the Ryan data ispart of the universal database, and
Joe has access to theuniversal database.
And.
And because of his conditions,the part of the database that he

(38:46):
sees is Ryan bits.
And so he's like, oh, I'mexpressing all this thing that Ryan
and this I think I've touchedon before, as far as past lives and
whatnot.
I had said a moment ago, well,why couldn't there just Be a rule
set that says there is reincarnation.
There could.
Occam's Razor, I think wouldsay, why that's not the like, okay,

(39:08):
so now write out that wholerule set and have it not crash into
other rules and blah blah, blah.
Why not just allow that wehave non physical access to the data
set, which has been suggestedby many.
Well, the Akashic records, Iguess, is really the ultimate, in
a sense version of it.
Yeah.
So what I was going to say isthat the idea of reincarnation and

(39:33):
the idea of all kinds oftraditions of this is my interpretation,
angels and spirits, all theseexperiences are real.
Are all these experiences.
Experience of discreetlydefined things like this is what
an angel is, this is what aspirit is.
This is what I would say.
No, I would say they're allpeople's interpretations of their

(39:56):
own access to, well called thecentral database.
Right.
You have access to data whichdoes not fit within our rule set.
And so it gets interpreted andwe create our own rule sets that
are not that great.
Yeah.
Like they're kind of plausiblewithin our own understanding.

(40:16):
Like, oh, it's an angel.
There's this tradition of angels.
And that's what I'm gonnaadopt as my rule set for describing
this experience.
I'm skeptical of that.
In fact, I would say I'mincredulous of that.
Right.
I think the experience exists,I think, and I think the, the elements
of the experience are real.
I just think theinterpretation of the experience

(40:38):
is based on a rule set that'snot in operation.
And so that's whatreincarnation is.
Right.
Well, what about this and whatabout that?
Yeah, those are all.
Yeah, that's all real.
And it's all the one.
It's all the one.
And it does not fit within physics.
Right.
Although messy.
Again, because quantum physics.

(41:00):
What is quantum physics doing?
Is quantum physics penetratingthe rule set completely and getting
into like the database?
Or is it just.
I think it's another layer,another layer of the rule set which
is more subtle.
Getting into the.
From the software, into theoperating system, machine learning,
you know, all of that.
So there's going to be otherrule sets that we will find that

(41:24):
will continue and they arehierarchical, I guess.
Yes.
Like.
Well, Newtonian physics kindof fits under a hierarchy of.
Well, but hierarchy is anartifact of our current rule set,
correct?
Absolutely.
So the hierarchy might not exist.
True, true.
But I think Rupert does pointto this at some other point in the

(41:47):
talk.
I do like the idea of quantumphysics as accessing another level
as a rule set as long as we'renot tied to one rule set as being.
Well, it's absolutely.
You can't break these rules.
And we find evidence thatbreaks those rules as long as we
allow ourselves not to.
Which is what good science is.
You follow the evidence, youdon't follow the doctrine.

(42:10):
Right, Right.
Then there's a lot morepotential for progress.
Ah, free will.
So the interviewer askedwhether or not we have free will
because I guess, like, we'renot individual selves.
Right.
She didn't actually qualifythe question, but.
I think that's the implication.
Right.

(42:30):
Do we have free will?
Or maybe it was just a genericquestion because people do ask.
So she specifically qualified,does the embodied perspective have
free will?
Right.
Obviously the ultimate is unbounded.
Right.
And she kind of qualified that.
But then asked if there's freewill within that individuated perspective,

(42:54):
he kind of.
Said it's an odd question,like, well, the reason that the individual
doesn't have free will isbecause the individual isn't something
that can have free will.
It's like it doesn't exist inorder to have free will.
Right.
So.
So his analogy was King Learis not King Lear.
The Shakespearean character.
King Lear has no free will.

(43:16):
He's his character.
Right.
And you don't see him on thestage unless he's played by an actor.
And then the actor has free will.
The actor can do what hewants, but the actor can't know Cordelia.
If the actor wants to knowCordelia, he says the actor's John
Smith.
John Smith has free will, buthe's playing King Lear.

(43:37):
King Lear doesn't have free will.
And if the actor wants to knowCordelia or have a relationship with
Cordelia, he has to play King Lear.
Right.
Because Cordelia is just acharacter in the script.
He can't have a relationshipwith her or know her except as King
Lear.
So he's saying thatconsciousness is expressed as this

(43:58):
entity.
Consciousness is not bound bythe entity, but the entity is bound
by the play.
He didn't say that.
No, he didn't say that.
He just said King Lear doesn'texist to have free will.
Right.
But his corollary in thisdiscussion was that we all have an
inherent love of freedom andsense of freedom and the rightness

(44:21):
of freedom.
And that is because that isour true nature coming through that
we are not actually tied to.
He didn't say.
But the implication is becausewe are not actually tied to our character
parts.
Right.
Which, you know, in the ruleset terminology, we're using within
the rule set, we are limited,but we don't exist only in the rule

(44:42):
set.
Right.
So what I'm coming to termswith is understanding what we mean
by free will.
Exactly.
That's what I was asking.
What does that mean now?
Does it mean unconditional,unruled freedom?
I don't think that that's whatI would be perceiving as having free
will in this experience.

(45:03):
But I think that may be whathe was kind of alluding to.
I have a Buddhist answer.
Go ahead, let's hear it.
Because I was thinking thatwithin our conditioning, we don't
have free will.
Within our conditioning, weare governed by our conditioning.
We do what we're conditionedto do.
Now, that's not an absoluteanswer, because our job is to recondition

(45:25):
our conditioning.
Which is where I feel likethere's will.
Will to me equals choice.
Right.
So the Buddhist answer that Iwas thinking of was that we're not
free from karma.
Right?
Right.
And therefore we do not havefree will because karma will drive
us.
But that's not an absoluteanswer because in Buddhist terms,

(45:47):
because a Buddhist approach isto act without karma.
Right.
Which would translate inBuddhism into, you're not generating
karma and therefore you're notcreating a karmic load that's going
to drive your next action, andthen you're free.
And that is definitely the waythat my teachers have pointed that

(46:09):
we're working towards greater freedom.
Much of what we do is not freewill because we allow ourselves to
be governed by our conditioning.
Sure, constantly.
It doesn't mean it has to bethat way.
But if you allow it to be,then you do not have free will.
Right.
And if you are acting only inaccordance with your conditioning,

(46:31):
which is exceptionally common,it's quite extraordinary that people
act outside of their conditioning.
I think those are what we call saints.
Those are the people who have,I think by definition, I would say
a saint or a holy person or afully awakened one, is free of conditioning,
has free will.
And then I would say everybodyelse has some free will when they

(46:51):
choose to act outside of their conditioning.
But that's a huge gradientwith most of the people in the bell
curve being, you know, almostno free will.
Right.
And making some choices.
And, you know, you know, whenyou've made that good choice, that
was not part of conditioning.
It was, you listened to yourtrue self in a positive way and you

(47:14):
made a choice.
Well, and isn't that the actoractually making that choice through
free will?
That would make sense to me, yes.
That's the actor acting out of character.
Except that, you know, ourcharacters are not as.
Am I on mic, really.
Our characters are not asrigidly defined as a script where
you can read out what's incharacter and what's out of character.

(47:35):
It's just what's familiar andnot familiar in terms of conditioning.
I mean, you could think ofthat as like improv on a set where
they're living within the character.
They're living within theassumptions of how the character
would react and be in that moment.
But it's not scripted.

(47:55):
Right.
Can awareness know itselfwithout the mind?
I really enjoyed this.
So the question was basically,is the mind?
Is this separated perspectiverequired in order for awareness to.
To know itself?
Because to me, to know eludesmore towards experience.
And so, again, we get intomuddy conversation or terms.

(48:19):
But Rupert's teaching is thatthat is essentially the nature of
the true consciousness, andit's the one thing that it can do
on its own, is it is aware of self.
It can't experience itself.
And I think this was a longpart of the discussion.

(48:41):
And I think that at some pointin this, I wrote down.
I am, yes, alluding, ofcourse, to the scriptural Old Testament
statement of God, to Moses asbeing characteristic of that consciousness
by itself, saying, I am.
So, yeah, it's not thatconsciousness localized itself in

(49:01):
order to know itself.
It did it in order to have experience.
Or rather, I mean, I don'tlike the intentionality isn't necessarily
there, that the individuationis necessary for experience but not
for knowledge.
He used another metaphor ofthe paper.
So if you think it's a pieceof paper, just a plain white piece

(49:23):
of paper, there's nothing there.
And then if you take a penciland draw in a dot, you get the scoped
circle.
Did I say square?
You said, okay, well, eitherway, you get that bounded area.
Bounded area.
And I think that goes to thenature of perception which leads
into time, space.

(49:44):
I think there's a crossoverhere of this idea of awareness.
Well, I think actually, no, itprobably just jumps immediately over
to time and space, because Ithink that's where that comes from.
So the next question is whatour time and space.
And of course, we've beensaying for quite some time that space
time is merely a condition ofthe rule set.

(50:05):
Right.
It's not the defining natureof being.
And Rupert's way of saying itis that space time is an appearance
that arises from theperception of the human mind.
Right.
Which I like very much.
Yeah.
Because it really breaks downEven the reality of space time at

(50:26):
all.
So the paper analogy was youhave a big blank piece of paper,
you make a little circle on it.
Now, that circle has perception.
And from its perspective, it'slocalized in space.
But in reality, it's just the paper.
Right.
There is no locality.
It's just paper.

(50:48):
And so only because you'velocalized it by bounding it by a
rule set by any kind ofdesignation, now it has a locality.
And because it has locality,space has now been defined.
Right, Right.
That's it.
That's the only reason it's there.
Because there's a localizedperception saying this is here.
Space is still illusorybecause you are always experiencing

(51:12):
space from here.
Yes.
And the only way to experiencethere is no experience.
It's all imagination.
Because by the time I, when Iget there, then I'm here.
Well, but we are interactingand I'm here, and you are there for
five.
Feet away from me, notexperiencing where I am.

(51:33):
Okay, so I am interpretingthat you're over there.
We can perceive that there issomething over there, but we can't
experience being over there.
We can't experience space, andwe can't experience time because
time is always now.
Right, but I can experience orI can perceive that you are not co

(51:53):
localized with me.
Yes.
Which is just a perception.
So in incarnation, theincarnation questions.
And he said, once you drawthat little circle, now you have
a bounded consciousness withinthe vast consciousness.
And you defined a finite mindwithin the infinite mind.
And that boundary is made ofperception, searing hearing.

(52:19):
Oh, my God.
Okay, so this is now.
I'm all right.
So this was a direct experience.
This is one of the things thatreally sparked me.
So he said the boundary ismade of perception, seeing, hearing,
touching, tasting and smelling.
Okay.
And that it is consciousnessitself that arises in the form of
perception.
And in doing so, it seems tocast a boundary in itself and seems

(52:42):
to localize itself.
It then looks out from withinthat boundary through the perceiving
membrane and sees itself therest of the white paper, in a way
consistent with thelimitations of those perceiving faculties.
Right.
And this points to a couple of things.
One is the elephant metaphor,the blind man, the elephant.

(53:02):
And we only perceive a bit ofthe big picture, which is related,
but not precisely.
So justify that for a moment,when we glimpse ultimate reality,
which is what I call havingawakening experiences, we still interpret
that experience through our conditioning.
And because we are still boundby the rule set, or incarnated, if

(53:27):
you want to call it that,although we can access the whole
sheet of paper.
We can't perceive it in itswhole because we're limited by this
boundary.
And so to me, it appears as arope, and to you it appears as the
tree.
Like, that's the way you woulddescribe your experience of the ultimate.
The way I would describe myexperience of the ultimate.

(53:49):
And yet I can still recognize,like, oh, yes, I recognize that you're
looking at the same thing.
You're in contact with thesame thing that I am.
I can recognize that even if Idon't have the same experience.
Right.
So that's one.
And.
And that's something thatcomes to me from this group awareness

(54:10):
exercise where people aredescribing their experience.
And I can recognize sometimes.
Sometimes it's perfectlyaligned with, like, you are naming
exactly what I'm experiencing,which is freaky and great.
But sometimes it's like, huh.
I don't experience it thatway, but I can see that that is an
aspect of it.
Like, I can.

(54:31):
I can recognize it.
So that.
That's one aspect of it.
This boundary consciousness,boundary of perception is the one
that really, because that's mymore recent experience, is coming
out of this deep meditation.
Oh, yeah.
I guess I should.
I should describe it a little bit.
So the technique is acombination of a series of questions

(54:54):
by a teacher named Rastall,who's in the PoK community, and it's
Rastal's deepening technique.
He asks a sequence ofquestions to help you deepen into
potentially progress infundamental well being, awakening,
whatever you want to call it.
Remco is a guy who leads aGae, blending Rostov's questions.

(55:18):
And so that's the practiceI've been doing for some time now.
And he goes through a seriesof questions for a little over an
hour.
And so it's a series.
There's a progression of practice.
It's not just sitting therefor an hour doing a single practice.
There's these subtleprogressions through this series
of questions.
And then at the end, most ofthe time you have your eyes closed.

(55:41):
And at the end, the wholeexercise is around Robin.
The way the group awareness exercises.
The last one is with eyesopen, and you do another round.
I think I've described.
Have I described this here before?
Oh, okay.
What the gae.
No, no, no.
This, this.
Oh, oh, okay.
All right.
So this is something that'sbeen happening, I guess.
When was the last time we were recording?

(56:03):
Yeah, about a month ago.
So four sessions ago, I thinkI had my first novel experience where
I came out.
I was, well, still in themeditation, but in the phase where
you open your eyes.
Just before I had opened myeyes, I had gone very deep.
But now I was connecting withphysical perceptions.

(56:26):
I'm not sure why, because Idon't think it's part of the progression.
But I was there with my eyesclosed, and I was experiencing sound
and sight with closed eyes andtactile sensations.
And I open my eyes and myvisual perception is subtly different
in that I'm seeing form andcolor without distinction or meaning.

(56:49):
There's no labeling, there'sno tree.
There's no keyboard.
There's just lights and colors.
And it's like, wow, this is interesting.
But this time I looked at myimage on the zoom screen and I didn't
recognize.
Was just an image.
Like I was not connecting withmy own image.
Now I'm some of these, becauseI've had three or four of these experiences.

(57:13):
So I might be conflating someof them.
But another one, I think itwas a subsequent one where I was
experiencing the physicalsensations, tactical tactile sensations.
And I opened my eyes and I hadvisual sensation of my body.
But there was that detachment of.

(57:34):
This is really interestingbecause I'm kind of seeking, like,
I'm kind of sinking into itright now.
It's a little freaky that Ican see things in my visual field
as just visual input.
And the boundaries.
Oh, these are separate experiences.
Okay.
So the thing that he describesis that your perceptions of the boundaries,

(57:56):
and that's an experience thatI had before, is that I'm not separate
from the rest of existence,but there's a boundary of physical
perception.
So I can feel my skin and Ican't feel beyond my skin.
But that's not.
No longer perceived as a boundary.

(58:18):
So normally we're like, thisis my body and that's outside my
body.
Right.
Because it's outside of my sensory.
My tactile sensory boundaries.
But I had this realizationthat, oh, yeah, that's just a perceived
boundary.
Just like the outline of coloris a perceived boundary between this

(58:41):
object and the surround or thefigure ground.
But this was very real.
This was very.
Like, I was very aware that Icould perceive the boundary of my
skin because I could feel it,but that there wasn't an actual separation.
It was just a perception of perception.

(59:03):
Does that make sense?
An artifaction.
The separation was an artifactof the perception of touch.
Right.
But the really exceptional onewas when I looked at my hand.
So I looked around and I said,oh, there's a shape that I can recognize
as a cup.
And here's a shape I canrecognize as my hand.

(59:23):
Okay.
So I had the visualrecognition first because I was focused
on the visual perception.
Then I focused on the tactile perception.
And I said, oh, there'ssensation distinctly remember, I
did not say the hand, my hand.
I said, maybe.
I did say a hand, but I didn'thave the sense of self when I said

(59:43):
my hand.
It's just the label, my handand the label, the cup, and that,
oh, there's sensationassociated with the hand, and there's
not sensation associated withthe cup.
And there's a clearrecognition of that without saying,
this is me and that's not me.
It was just, I see the handand I see the cup.

(01:00:05):
I can feel the hand.
I can't feel the cup.
And realizing that there'sjust sensation associated with the
hand, as if if I tap thewindow, there would be sound associated
with the window.
It wouldn't make it more me.
Right.
And so that was a remarkable perception.

(01:00:26):
To perceive perception as thisreally weird logic, but to perceive
the perceived boundaries ofperception as merely that, just a
perception, no reality to it,no identification, no identification
with it.
And so I think the one thatreally got me, I remember holding

(01:00:49):
up my hands and laughing.
And I think the image, Seeingmy image and not recognizing it was
a separate one, which was.
I had my eyes open fromminute, and we're doing the round
robin, and I started laughing.
I'm like, oh, I'm staring atmy image.
I didn't recognize it.
That's really weird that Ididn't recognize.
I didn't identify with that image.

(01:01:10):
So this boundary, thisdefinition of the self by the boundary
of perception was exactly whatI. I was like, that's exactly what
happened.
So that's what I want to share.
Cool.
Yeah.
So he went through thisexercise with the interviewer about
time and space, right?

(01:01:31):
That and that there is only now.
There is no.
There's only here and now, andthere's only now.
And there's no past andthere's no future.
There are only.
Those are only imaginations,which it resonated.
Specifically with me because Ihave articulated that in past discussions.
What hit me more was the space one.

(01:01:51):
So I have articulated time,now, and past and future being basically
the way I phrased it, wasliving in memory, in a dream.
Basically, the most frequentexperience that I've observed is
living in a memory in a dreamand completely bypassing the actual

(01:02:16):
real experience of now, whichI tie to mindfulness.
Right.
That the activity ofmindfulness is intended to encourage
us to re engage with andreacquaint ourselves with the current
experience of now, which isthe only real experience, the only
thing that's actually reallyhappening here.

(01:02:36):
And so often we are living inmemory, in a dream, which is not
only illusory, but it createssuffering unnecessarily because we
are either reminiscing onsomething that we've lost or was
traumatic in our past, orwe're afraid of something that might
happen in the future, or we'recoveting something that's going to

(01:02:56):
happen in the future.
And so that was all veryfamiliar to me.
But this idea of space andthat we only experience here, and
that space is also illusorybecause we are perceiving as the
bounded perceiver.
Yes, I can perceive an areathat is not here.
I can observe it, but I can'texperience it.

(01:03:19):
And when I get there, it's here.
And that to me was like, okay,wow, that was.
That one made sense.
I agree.
And I'm, I'm connecting this.
Okay, so, so the note here isspace is how perception modulates
consciousness and time is howthought modulates consciousness.

(01:03:39):
And that resonates with someBuddhist teaching that I've been
familiar with.
It didn't have as much meaningas it does now.
And the reason, I think, foryour comment about being familiar
with time and past and futureis this cultural separation of thought
from perception because wefocus on teachings about thought

(01:04:04):
more.
And so we perceive thought asmore the problem for us.
And so we're taught or we'veheard and people will know, oh, you
know, the past is a dream andthe future is whatever, and the present
is a gift.
Right.
I mean, everyone knows that.
And why is it significant?
Because it's about thought, Right?
Right.
But as you say, space andperception is interesting.

(01:04:28):
And the way I'm connecting tothat in terms of Buddhism is that
we tend to talk about the fivesenses, right?
Sight, sound, taste, touch.
Buddhism adds thought to that grouping.
Okay, so it talks about the,the faculty of sight, of sound.

(01:04:49):
Okay.
Taste, touch, smell, and of thought.
And likewise, I'm morefamiliar with the teachings of thought,
but this space perception.
So first of all, it relates tomy interesting experience or my novel
experience, but also now whenI think about it, it's, oh, space

(01:05:11):
is what separates my sense oftouch from the object because I have
to move, come into contactwith in space to touch it.
Right.
Space is what separates myperception of sight from you because
I can put an object in thespace between us and it will observe
my visual perception of you.

(01:05:33):
Likewise with sound everythingelse and so it's really interesting
to see that teaching and seehow space relates to those five senses
and time relates to thoughtand Rupert ties them together in

(01:05:54):
the same way that Buddha'steaching and this is something that
I think has only come to menow in this conversation.
Like I think at the time I hadsome appreciation for this but now
thinking about space and thesenses is a fresh insight.
Well this is an interestingconversation and I really enjoyed

(01:06:16):
the interview.
I recommend that you watch it.
Rupert is a fascinatingteacher so hope you enjoyed the episode.
Leave us a comment if you haveany thoughts or your own perception
and contemplations on Rupert's teachings.
Join us next time.
Bye.
Thanks Byte.
Thank you for listening to theTracking Wisdom podcast.

(01:06:38):
Join us next time as wecontinue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram and YouTube and
visit www.eth-studio.com formore information and content.
It.