Rupert Spira on Sam Harris Podcast

[Moksha]

7 minutes ago, Willie said:

Of course not, you were simply unaware of it for a bit. Perhaps this is just a limitation of English. There are 2 very different concepts being conveyed using very similar words.

True, and I think it's why Sam Harris was confused. Rupert Spira understood the difference between brain awareness and ultimate Consciousness. Someone could be in a coma, and yet still be resplendent as Consciousness.

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Willie said:

Hmmmmm...to be conscious is to be aware. Going under anesthesia for surgery makes one unconscious, or unaware. I can see what is meant by Consciousness=reality(or God, Love, infinity, etc.) however. It just seems like a silly argument of semantics.

Anesthesia removes the "contents" of consciousness: sensations, perceptions, time, space, objects, concepts etc.. Those are all "changing" aspects of reality. Consciousness is unchanging. It cannot be moved/removed/changed. Again, normie tiny brain vs. big brain definition.

[Natasha]

52 minutes ago, Moksha said:

Synchronicity, my bday was this week 

Have a happy Birthday! 

[Willie]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Anesthesia removes the "contents" of consciousness: sensations, perceptions, time, space, objects, concepts etc.. Those are all "changing" aspects of reality. Consciousness is unchanging. It cannot be moved/removed/changed. Again, normie tiny brain vs. big brain definition.

Agreed. Could also be an example of content versus structure.

[andyjohnsonman]

This is really good i'd to hear the full episode if its available somewhere.

[Moksha]

@Natasha Thank you! 

[Nahm]

“Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that can not be an illusion.”

-“Sam Harris”

 

[Ry4n]

@4:40 had me like DAAAMMMNNN  wasn't expecting Rupert to start criticising science like that

[Carl-Richard]

34 minutes ago, Ry4n said:

@4:40 had me like DAAAMMMNNN  wasn't expecting Rupert to start criticising science like that

He has always been saying that. That riff about materialism having no proof is a consistent part of his repertoire. Sam seems to concede that their disagreement is merely a semantic difference, but he still wants to use this convoluted materialist language and doesn't see the primacy of consciousness in establishing so-called 3rd person, intersubjective, empirical, scientific truths. He somehow wants to separate all that from consciousness, but it's impossible.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

I could only stand to listen until 2:57, at which point Sam revealed the crux of his materialist delusion.

The duality between mind and brain is one of the biggest delusions in this work. If you insist on believing that duality, you're fucked. You will never realize God.

[Preety_India]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The duality between mind and brain is one of

How can mind and brain be same? 

 

[Joel3102]

What the fuck! That is a crossover I never expected 

[Mel B]

@mandyjw link to listen to jim newman and sam harris. https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/waking-up-jim-newman/ 

great conversation!

if you can’t afford the subscription, sam gives his subscription away for free.

[Raptorsin7]

@Mel B Yeah that was my favorite of his non-duality convos. It turned me into a fan of Jim Newman haha

[Space]

@Mel B I listened to this one the other night as well. @Leo Gura you gotta check this one out that Mel B linked.

I actually enjoy listening to Sam Harris, but these kinds of interviews just illuminate Sam's misunderstanding and close-mindedness. This one with Jim Newman is even harder to listen to than the one with Rupert. Jim just runs circles around Sam. 

I think one of the main things that Sam doesn't get is that Jim is clearly in a radically different state of consciousness, which simply cannot be understood or conceptualised. Sam thinks that they are both 'at the same level' and so he thinks their inability to agree or come to a conclusion is a pedantic matter or just a difference in terminology. 

For anyone else who doesn't know, you can access all of Sam's podcasts for free.

[Joel3102]

Jesus, Sam Harris and Jim Newman is a crossover I expected even less. How do they even have a comprehensible conversation, they’re from different universes 

[Air]

Actually Sam appears to have a more correct epistemological position and an open-mind that Rupert. The latter is clearly an idealist, while Harris is taking an agnostic careful position.

[Joel3102]

@Air that is an interesting point. Sam’s position is that we don’t know whether idealism or materialism is true 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Space said:

Sam thinks that they are both 'at the same level' and so he thinks their inability to agree or come to a conclusion is a pedantic matter or just a difference in terminology.

Hence why I stress that there are many degrees of awakening. Otherwise you get stuff like this.

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Sam’s position is that we don’t know whether idealism or materialism is true

And our point is that Sam is God.

Lol

The mistake Sam is making is that he's actually KNOWING that we cannot know. This is not not-knowing, this is knowing. And false knowing at that. If he truly didn't know he would be open to the idea that he could definitively know that materialism is false. But he believes this to be impossible, which is just a lack of imagination on his part.

Sam confuses his inability to imagine how one could know whether idealism or materialism is true with the actual ability to do so. Just because he can't imagine it, doesn't mean it cannot be done. Classic epistemic mistake.