The Nature of Consciousness | Rupert Spira & Rupert Sheldrake

Hello, I'm Rupert Sheldrake and I'm here with another Rupert, so this is really a sort of Rupert Square dialogue with Rupert Spira, who teaches meditation and talks about the nature of consciousness. It's a subject to which he's devoted many years of study and practice. So, Rupert, I wanted to ask you how you see this view of consciousness you have, which I'd identify as an idealist philosophy of consciousness, relating to the tradition of Western idealist philosophy, or maybe you don't see it as related. Yes, I think if we go all the way back to Parmenides, Parmenides believed that there was a single, unchanging, infinite reality from which everyone and everything derived their apparently independent existence. And I think exactly the same way, that if you were then to ask me, what is the nature of this single, infinite, and unchanging reality, I would say it was consciousness. Well, that's very simple, straightforward, definitionally raises more questions perhaps than it answers, but wonderfully clear, thank you. Another philosopher who's putting forward a very similar view today is Bernardo Kastrup. Would you say that your views and his are fairly in agreement? Yes, Bernardo is a friend of mine. Bernardo and I think our conclusions are very similar. We've come to them through two very different channels. As you know, I was educated in the Vedantic and Kashmir Shaivite tradition. Bernardo has come to this through science and Western philosophy. But Bernardo, like myself, believes that there is a single reality whose nature is consciousness, and that what we perceive as the physical universe is what the activity of that consciousness looks like from a localized perspective. And that, again, is my view, I arrived at this through the analogy with what takes place during a dream. When we have a dream at night, we dream a dreamed world within our own mind, but we cannot directly perceive the dreamed world from our mind. In order to perceive the dreamed world, we have to localize ourself, we have to enter into our own imagination as the character in the dream, from whose perspective, the activity of our own mind appears as an outside world. And I would suggest that this gives us a very good model for the ultimate dreamer, infinite consciousness, whose activity is the universe. In other words, I would suggest that the universe is ultimately the activity of consciousness, not an entity made out of matter, but it appears in a classical way, it appears to be made out of matter, only from the perspective of a localized mind within that world. In other words, from the point of view of each of our minds. I see. Would this then be similar to the philosophy of Berkeley, who's probably the English philosopher, Irish philosopher, who came closest to this in the history of our philosophy? The idea where the dreamer of the world is God, the classic thing is, if it's all in the mind, then is the tree there when you're not looking at it? And then his answer is, well, the entire natural world is in the mind of God, and they're sustained by the divine consciousness. Is it similar to that, what you're saying? I think there are similarities, but there are also differences. It's, I, I would suggest that it's not that the tree exists, when it's not being perceived in another mind, it's that the tree as we perceive it now, is now the activity of God's mind, if we're going to use religious language, I would say God was the traditional term for the infinite, indivisible whole, infinite consciousness, that what we perceive as the tree now is, it's not that it exists in God's mind, when our finite mind is not perceiving it, it is rather that it is now the activity of God's mind or the activity of consciousness. But it appears as a discrete object made out of matter when perceived by a finite mind or a localized perspective. So there are similarities, but it's not quite the same as, as, as Bantling. I see, but the, the, the reason this whole philosophy is so counterintuitive for most people, I mean, including me, you know, raised as a scientist, is that the normal view we have is an autonomous physical world. Now, I can, I can see how one could say, well, if the mind of God is sustaining the, the stars, the planets, the galaxies, even when we're not looking at them, there's a sense in which the whole of nature has an ongoing continuity. That would, that would be more the Barclay view. But you're saying that it's not like that. It's, it's only proposing that they're all there when you're not looking at them is just an unnecessary assumption. This might, might sound very radical to you. It's not only that I think they're not there when we're not looking at them. I don't think they're really there in the way we think that they are when we are looking at them. In other words, when we look out at the world, when we look at these trees, they seem to be there independent of consciousness, they seem to have their own discrete independent existence made out of stuff that is outside consciousness, that that's a definition of matter that which exists outside consciousness. I don't think that even now they are there in that way. I think there is some I'm not suggesting that the world is not real. I think the world is very real. So this is a misunderstanding that is often you often find in the Vedantic approach, the world is dismissed as being unreal. I think the world is very real. But it's reality, when investigated is found to be consciousness, not matter. So the world is an illusion. There's very, there's often a misunderstanding between something that is an illusion, and something that is not real. And I think it's very understandable why this is so because when, when we dream of, say, a Caribbean beach at night, that the Caribbean beach is both an illusion and not real. However, I would suggest that in this context, an illusion is something that is real, but it's just not what it appears to be. So I think the world is very real. In fact, I don't think there's anything that is not real, that the world is very real, but it's reality is ultimately as consciousness, not not dead, inert stuff called matter, which is believed to not only exist outside consciousness, but is then believed to give rise to consciousness. Yes, well, I certainly agree with you about that. I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm materialist view sees the world as made up of matter, inert, or at least inanimate, non conscious matter, which has evolved through the whole history of the universe, and then he comes to consciousness in an unexplained way inside complex brains. Yes, I mean, that's the common view that we've all been brought up with. Yeah. I mean, I myself don't take that view. I see it in a, I'm a Christian. And so I see the as Trinitarian. And the how I understand the Holy Trinity is that there's a ground of consciousness, which may be unvarying, you know, the, the, the ground of being the father of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity is rather like sat in Sat Chit Ananda in the Hindu view. And the so the ground of being is the is the consciousness which underlies all things, being and consciousness go together. Yes, then Chit is what the Hindus would call names and forms number Rupa. And or in the Christian Trinity is the logos, which is really like the platonic realm of forms or ideas. And their names and forms because, on the one hand, they're constructs in our minds, when we name a tree that we have a kind of template of a tree in our minds or ideal form of a tree, or at least memory of previous trees, which enables us to identify the form of a tree as a tree, not a bush or a wheel or bicycle, it's clearly a tree when we identify. So there's, but it's also a correspondence with forms that exist in the natural world, that in the platonic doctrine, the forms are reflections of eternal archetypes, which are part of the divine mind. Yes, the Christian version is more dynamic, because instead of just having a divine mind, it gives rise to forms that are reflected in the world. The third part of the Holy Trinity is the spirit, which is a moving principle, wind, breath, air, and is and is manifested in the physical world as energy, what scientists would call energy. So the energy of things is what gives them reality, and at least to actuality and the ability to act on other things, the form the energy takes is, in modern science, is given by fields which organize energy into vibratory patterns, and those have a common source in the divine mind. So then when I look at a tree, then I see it as a manifestation of a kind of organizing field with its roots in some kind of logos with energy flowing through it, whose ultimate source may be a conscious mind. It's a kind of panentheistic view that God is in nature and nature is in God, rather than an idea that somehow the forms and the energy of things which give them their actuality are illusions, they're actually part of the divine nature. Yes. So now that must differ from what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure how. So the ground of being that you first mentioned, what is everything's relation to that? Because anything that there is, is. Yes. Be it a thought, a galaxy, a tree, whatever there is, is. So existence or isness is the common factor of absolutely everything. That's right. And being the common factor of everything, it cannot be limited to anything, and it must therefore be unlimited. Yes. Or infinite, that infinite being. Yes. Which I would suggest is what is traditionally referred to as God. In the Holy Trinity, it's God the Father. Or God the Father, the Godhead. Well, the Godhead in Eckhart is beyond the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is a model of how God interfaces with the world. But beyond that is something beyond all our conceiving, the Godhead, which is prior to differentiation into the Holy Trinity. Okay, so can we talk about that? Yes. If God is that which, if the Godhead is the ultimate, or the absolute, that which differentiates itself into the Holy Trinity, and then into Yes. What is the nature, or what is the relationship between everyone and everything with this ultimate or absolute reality? Well, this absolute or ultimate reality is the ground of the being of everything that is. And is there anything that is, anything that exists, is there anything that is apart from that, or ultimately something other than that? No. There's anything other than that ever come into existence? No. So I would say that everything is within or grounded in this ultimate being. And presumably made of it, if we can use that phrase, because there's nothing else in it, other than itself. Yes. Out of which it could be made. That's right. And in that sense, you and I, although we have a, we formulated in very different ways, that that understanding we share, it's the understanding that is expressed in the Bhagavad Gita, that that which is never ceases to be and that which is not never comes into existence, that everything that everything that is, is a manifestation of that, but the isness, the reality of everything that is, is ultimately traced back to this single, infinite and indivisible reality or whole. Yes, I think I do. That is more or less what I think. We seem to agree on that. Well, I'm so pleased we found something, we do actually, that it does sound very different at first. But I would say, you see, in the biblical account in Genesis is sort of somewhat ambiguous, but in the theological reflections on the creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and, you know, serious theologians and the Christian tradition, Thomas came to the conclusion that creation is creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, that the divine creation of the universe is out of nothing. In other words, that it must be out of God, because there's nothing else it could be from. So it's all grounded in the divine being. It's not an independent source of being somewhere out there. And it's therefore must all be grounded in the divine being. Yes, yes. Yes. I feel that the divine being is, is the very is imminent in and as everything it is the very business of everything. But it also transcends or doesn't transcend, but it is prior to any form. So it is imminent in and as all forms, but it itself has no inherent form. And it is for that reason that it is possible to assume the shape of all possible form forms because it itself is is formless. So it's both imminent and transcendent. Well, I would say I would say I would think something very similar to that, actually. Because, you see, the I lived two years in India in the ashram of Father B. Griffith, Benedictine monk who had an Indian style ashram in Tamil Nadu. And in English, it was called the ashram of the Holy Trinity. In Indian languages, it was called Sat Chit Ananda ashram. And Father B. made it very clear that this, that he saw a very clear relationship between Sat Chit Ananda, being, consciousness, bliss, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with the Son as the Logos, not just Jesus of Nazareth, obviously. And the Creed makes it very clear, the Nicene Creed, through him, all things were made. It's the idea of a cosmic principle of form, and more limited existence. That's why it's the Son rather than the Father. The Father has a wider existence than the Son, which comes forth from the Father. And in other words, a prior existence, not necessarily in time, because we're talking about things which don't have to be necessarily in a chronological time. But there's a priority in the Holy Trinity of the being principle. And the first way in which God reveals himself in the biblical account is to Moses and the burning bush, where he says, I am who I am, or I am that I am. So that's conscious being in the present is the definition of the ultimate source. Yes. And the knowledge I am, shines in everybody's mind, everybody without exception, whether they are interested in these matters or not. Yes. However, intelligent or unintelligent, however, healthy or sick, whatever the condition of anyone's experience, everyone without exception can say, I am. In most cases, the knowledge I am or the feeling of being is qualified by experience is mixed with our experience. Yes. So most people don't feel the pure I am they feel I am 45 or 65 years old, I am a man or a woman. So but the basic I am divested of all the qualities that it derives from experience from our thoughts, feelings, history, and everything that basic I am, I would suggest is, is that is God's presence. That in other words, God, God is the very self of all selves. He's that which shines in us as the knowledge I, or I am once that being has been divested of all the limitations it acquires from experience. Yes, that is how that is how close God's, it's not that God's presence is close to us, because there is no us, no individual self, for God's presence to be close to, I would suggest that the only self there is, is the self of God, pure being, and that the human being the person is an apparent limitation is a clothing of God's infinite being clothed in temporary experience. Yes, not just human beings, but everything, not just human being, but absolutely, yes, yes, yes. As such, you could say God's, God's presence shines in the human being as the knowledge I am, and it shines in the world as the knowledge it is the isness of things and the amness of selves is the same infinite being. Yes, well, then there, then presumably, there are different levels of awareness of this I amness, I mean, presumably, all animals have some, they all have some kind of awareness, maybe plants have a kind of awareness, maybe stars have a kind of awareness, but if they do, then all of them, the basis of that awareness would be this divine I am. Yes, I don't think, I don't think plants, stars or plants or animals or, or even human beings have awareness, I don't think awareness or consciousness is an attribute of any kind of entity, be it a star, a rock or a human being. And it awareness has everything else, no thing has awareness, I see awareness or consciousness as the, the very, the very primary element, if we can call it an element, it's not an attribute of something, everything else is an attribute of it. So for instance, I don't think human beings have consciousness or are conscious, I think only consciousness is conscious, only awareness is aware. Okay, well, I get that. But then if we say that only awareness is aware, then this divine awareness is aware through the whole of the universe and the whole of nature. So in that sense, is omniscient. Yes, but that doesn't mean that everything that appears in nature is conscious. Oh, no, for instance, now, if we take on, if we take a mind, an individual mind, individual mind is a conscious field. And thoughts and sensations appear in that mind. Yes. And everything that appears in that mind is obviously made of that mind. But a thought or a sensation is not itself conscious. No, it's, it's made of consciousness. But it's not itself conscious. So for the same reason, the tree and the rock and the star appears in consciousness, I would suggest is made ultimately of consciousness, but it's not itself conscious. Well, it might be I'm writing an essay at the moment called is the sun conscious, where I'm arguing that the sun is conscious. Okay, well, I look forward to the essay, because I would suggest that only that no thing that the consciousness is not an attribute of anyone or anything that only consciousness is conscious. But the in us, it comes to where we can become conscious of our being, or aware of our being, then could not the sun do something similar? I would suggest not, because it's not that we as human beings become conscious of our being. Consciousness is like the sun, it is self luminous, the sun is always illuminating itself. Consciousness is like that it always knows itself. But its knowledge of itself is mixed with its knowledge of other things, thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc. And as a result, its knowledge of itself is dimmed or in darkened by experience. And although ever, although it never, its knowledge of itself is never completely eclipsed, it is obscured by its knowledge of other things. And that is why in other words, when consciousness becomes mixed with experience, its knowledge of itself is dimmed and the return journey, consciousness, what is called prayer or meditation is when consciousness divests itself of all the limitations that it has acquired from experience and shines brightly again. But it doesn't actually, it's like when the clouds part, that the brightness of the sun becomes evident, it was always there, it was always shining, it was always illuminating itself. So again, consciousness is always knowing itself. And it is only consciousness that can be conscious of consciousness, only awareness knows, and it's always aware of it. Its nature is self-awareness, it cannot not know itself in the same way that the sun cannot not illuminate itself. It's just that its knowledge of itself is mixed with and as a result obscured by experience. So I don't feel in other words, it's not a human being that recognizes their being, or an animal or a sun, it's always consciousness. Consciousness is aware of itself. And then it forgets itself, or it loses itself in experience. And therefore it seems to have to come back to itself and know itself again. But it's never the human being that knows the experience of consciousness, it's always consciousness that has that experience. Well, could consciousness have that experience in the sun or in a non-human animal? Or do you think that this ability is confined to humans? No, you see, I don't think it's something... Can I give you another example? Imagine an actor, John Smith, who plays the part of King Lear. What is King Lear? Just a series of thoughts and perceptions, let's say, that John Smith assumes. So John Smith assumes a series of perceptions, and to all intents and purposes becomes King Lear. And imagine that John Smith were to forget that he was the actor, John Smith, and really believe and feel that he is now King Lear. And he's miserable, as a result. And he's so... John Smith is so identified with the role of King Lear that at the end of the play, he forgets to revert to John Smith. So when his friend comes backstage to congratulate him, he finds him miserable. And he says to him, �Oh, that was wonderful. Why are you miserable?� And so King Lear then relates his experience with his daughter's memory. And his friend says, �No, don't be silly. You're not miserable, because you're miserable, because you've forgotten who you are. Who are you really?� And King Lear says, �Well, I'm the King of England. I'm the father of three daughters.� �Oh, no, no, no, no, no.� His friend says, �No, you're not any of those. What were you before you were the King of England? Who were you before you were a father of three daughters? Who were you before you?� And in this way, his friend is teaching King Lear to trace his way back to his essential self. And at some point, there is this recognition, I am John Smith. That recognition, the recognition, I am John Smith, doesn't take place in King Lear's life. It has nothing to do with King Lear's life. So now to relate that to your question, when the human being, when each of us asks themselves the question, �Who am I really?� and we trace our way back, �I haven't always been 58 years old. I haven't always been married. I haven't always been a father. We go back to what is essential.� At some point, there is this recognition of our naked being. That recognition has got nothing to do with being a person. I would suggest that does not take place in a person. At that moment, we cease to be a person, and we are revealed as infinite consciousness. So I don't think the recognition of awareness takes place in a person, or in an animal, or in a plant, or in the sun, or in anything. Well, I can see that you could put it that way, but the fact is that it does happen, some humans undergo this process, and you wouldn't be teaching about it if you didn't think people could. This could happen in or through human beings. So my question is, could something similar happen in or through non-human beings, even though it's consciousness becoming aware of itself, rather than someone having consciousness? Yes. If we accept the possibility, or consider the possibility that all experience everything there is, is consciousness clothed in name and form? Remember what William Blake said, �Every bird that cuts the airy way is an immense world of delight, enclosed by the five senses.� So if we consider everything and everyone ultimately this, what Blake called, an immense world of delight, consciousness of being, and that everything and everyone is a clothing of consciousness in name and form, then yes, in any of those experiences, consciousness could, in any of its own experiences, however it was manifesting itself, consciousness could divest itself of name and form and recognize itself. I see. Well, it's a wonderful vision, and it helps one look at the natural world differently. I mean, do you find that this changes your view of the natural world, or just of your own? No, no, it changes my view of everything, and I find this more and more. As I get older, I find that experience loses its capacity to veil its reality. So more and more, I feel that everyone and everything is this same shared being, and that the multiplicity and diversity of objects and selves, that its capacity to veil that shared being becomes more and more transparent as I get older. So it makes me feel connected to everyone. I think that's what the experience of love is, the experience that we share our being. And I think the experience of beauty is exactly the same experience, but in relation to objects or nature, that we share our being. And yes, it has a very real impact in my life, yes. Well, I also find that my own way of interpreting these things has a very similar effect on my life too. So it may be that ultimately, we're not saying things that are very different, we're putting them in different ways, but… Yes, I don't feel, from what I know of you, I don't feel that we're saying something very different. We come at it through different ways, what we've been doing. You've come through more through the scientific channel than I have. So our interpretation of Satchitananda is slightly different. But those are all kind of intermediary differences, which ultimately I don't think are very that significant. But I feel that we, from what you said, I feel that we share a fundamental understanding. It's very good to arrive at that conclusion. I'm sure we could talk a lot more about the nature of nature, and perhaps we will. But this is perhaps enough for an opening conversation. Very nice to have this first conversation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rupert, and I look forward to your essay on the sun. I'll read it with great interest and an open mind. Thank you. Thank you.