095. Rupert Spira

Rupert SpiraFrom an early age Rupert Spira was deeply interested in the nature of reality. For twenty years he studied the teachings of P.D.Ouspensky, J.Krishnamurti, Rumi, Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Robert Adams, until he met his teacher, Francis Lucille, in 1996. Francis introduced Rupert to the teachings of Jean Klein and Atmanada Krishnamenon and, more importantly, directly indicated to him the true nature of experience.

His two books, The Transparency of Things, (sub-titled Contemplating the Nature of Experience), and Presence, in two volumes (The Art of Peace and Happiness and The Intimacy of All Experience), are a profound exploration of the non-dual nature of experience.

Rupert’s YouTube Channel. Interviews can be listened to here and watched here.

Rupert lives in UK and holds regular meetings and retreats in Europe and USA.

For all further information see http://www.rupertspira.com.

Interview recorded 11/6/2011.

Video and audio below. Audio also available as a Podcast.

43 thoughts on “095. Rupert Spira

  1. Further if objects of awareness turned out to be none other than awareness itself, then you would find yourself as those objects looking back at awareness again this is not how it is in reality.
    For instance if a brick is none other than awareness then you would find yourself as a brick knowing yourself from the awareness being a brick. It is not like this, is it?!

  2. So, going back to the original proposition, that the mind finds awareness having not being able to find the object.
    This is clearly untenable.
    Emptiness is found.
    That is not awareness looking back at itself.
    It is emptiness.
    If awareness were looking back at itself you would have two awareness looking at each other. How rediculous.

  3. Also this idea of ‘a finite mind’ and an ‘infinite mind,’ is kind of clumsy.
    Rupert should just call it conception.
    The mind does not become finite in order to know somelthing or know another finite object.
    The mind does not even rise as the self in order to know or conceive.
    The self is conceived and objects of awareness are conceived in the same way, not simultaneously.
    Conceptions are mistakenly assumed to be, ‘me seeing that.’ The me doesn’t see, awareness sees and the seen is not known simultaneously with that ‘I’ mistakenly assumed seer.
    The mind goes from one to the other and assumes the ‘I is seeing.’
    These objects of awareness are just arising and falling in accordance with karmic predispositions.
    The fact that you cannot ultimately separate an object of awareness from that which is aware of it does not mean the object is mind or is awareness.
    Objects of awareness are not aware they are thus not mind – not aware.

Leave a Reply