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.

40 thoughts on “095. Rupert Spira

  1. Mr. Spira offers some lovely observations. At the same time, he is prone to offering a tone that is contrarian or hyper where instead simple quite clarification will do quite fine.

  2. this is one of the clearest expressions of true nature i’ve had the pleasure of experiencing.

    rupert’s skillful explanation of the non-separation between “experiencer” and “experience” has really helped me bridge the gap between the concept of non-duality and the living, intimate experience of it.

  3. If I remember correctly, Rick’s ingenuousness had Rupert on the back foot and he didn’t like it. His party trick didn’t work on Rick and I could sense a tad of irritation in Rupert’s voice as he tried to bully Rick into submission.

  4. Thanks for a fantastic interview, Rick. I found Rupert’s presentation style to be really clear. One thing missing for me was an explanation of what has motivated him to move away from ceramics and into teaching.

  5. I agree with Marcus’ comment, Richard Langs teachings based on Douglas Hardings “headless method” compliment the teaching of Rupert Spira and can assist in developing insight into what Rupert is saying.

  6. I loved this interview. When you asked about why the world has this global view of looking at similar things ,i.e. stopping at traffic lights etc… It brought to mind in ” the bleep” the discovery of Christopher Columbus ,where his ships were on the horizon and because the people had never seen ships before -they couldn’t see them! until the chief started to look and after a time he could see them and as they trusted him- they too started to see the same.

  7. I love Rupert Spira’s other videos and I think he is one of the best at explaining non-duality in practical terms. But I agree, he did seem kind of hyper and almost anxious during the interview with Rick

  8. Perhaps the best interview here. Such clarification of reality, the stages in realization, and the different approaches to non-duality teaching. Wonderful.

  9. 1 hour – 5 minutes in – things got interesting – what he does not attend to IMHO – is how this “awakened insight” stands up to potential unfamiliar intensification – there is almost no awakening that is an endpoint – and there is almost always very intense shadow material waiting in the dark to test the validity and strength of that awakening – for want of a better way of putting it- the awakened heart ultimately has to encounter the archetypal grief- terror – desire for power – manipulative trickiness – dishonesty – lust etc etc – and awareness has to navigate this territory – on an ongoing basis – to be truly authentic – so for me – high quality pointing out instruction – but overall a little bit too clean cut to be comprehensive – these guys all need peers to watch their back – loners are in a weak position me thinks.

  10. Just watched and listened to this interview with Rupert on Evolutionary_Mystic Post and found your site. Thank you. Very clear teaching out of what looks separate and is not separate; awareness itself, belongs to no one..

  11. At about 30mins it is claimed that all is found is that awareness finds itself. when having cut to the essence of any object.
    This is not the case.
    What is found is emptiness. The emptiness of objectification. This is not the mind finding or knowing itself.

  12. In the same way that a knife cannot cut itself, a light does not illuminate itself, water does not wet itself, a flame does not burn itself, darkness does not obscure itself, the mind cannot and does not know itself directly.
    Knowing is always and only in relation to a known. If there is no known there is no knowing. no mind and know awareness.
    The fact that awareness is continually operating does not make it more substantial, existent, independent, ultimately abiding or the final mode of being discoverable, when it’s objects know, are found to be empty of how they first appear to a sentient being.
    If awareness were not aware of anything it would not be aware. It would no longer exists which would render the being or person non existent.

    You are mistaking emptiness for mind.
    This mistake is made all over the place. on batgap interviews.

    Sorry but I had to point it out

  13. I’m going to give one example because I don’t think people are going to get what I wrote above.

    If light illuminates itself, it follows that light is unilluminated there by not being light. Why? Because it has the character of requiring or being subject to illumination there by not being light!
    I hope you get that!

  14. I should also add that this guy is by far the most lucid and down to earth character I have seen in this quasi hindu advaita arena. He is very sharp and really terrific at what he does. This is what inspired me to bother to write.

    First class! Thanks so much to you all. _/\_

  15. Here I go again in my attempt to raise the level of discussion and enquiry.

    At 1:08 the amazing and wonderful Rupert basically states that I a not this or that, but I am awareness.

    I tell you this ~ You are no more that ‘awareness’ than you are the body, thoughts, feelings, description or self. Awareness does not exist independently of all that.
    The idea that awareness is some how more real and findable beyond such constituents is as erroneous as claiming to be the fixed sense of self of ones body or any momentary object of awareness.
    These are all interdependent.
    That is what is meant by emptiness. It’s NOT that one thing is more existent than others.

  16. He then goes on to explain how site and feeling are inseparable from awareness. If this is the case then his nullification of objects of awareness would also nullify awareness. Yet he claims awareness remains beyond all these things but is also none other than these things. This is untenable.
    It also does not reflect reality or the way things function. Even thought it is quite impressive.

  17. 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?!

Leave a Reply