Can Universal Consciousness learn? Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira

Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira discuss whether universal consciousness does or can learn anything from the experiences we have in this life? For example, an awareness of its capabilities, or the knowing of what it would feel like not to be itself.

“I personally am convinced that nature has a telos, and it has to do with explicit self-awareness” - Bernardo Kastrup

The purpose we all feel in whatever we are striving for, I think it is the impulse in us to revert to our natural state” - Rupert Spira

An excerpt from a 5-week course with Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira.

If you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:

[MagdiNonDuality]

The journey is a sort of journey in consciousness but it is not a journey of consciousness. In other words, consciousness is not taking a journey whereby it goes from state A to state B.
The journey is an illusory arising within consciousness and in fact it is the play of consciousness from itself to itself.

[leandrosilvagoncalves]

Thanks for posting! These guys are so wise! The world really needs thinkers liking them

[elisabethhgelid]

The child shines . May it remind us of the love that we forever is.

[grzegkania]

A beautiful exchange of a few thoughts.

[MagdiNonDuality]

Consciousness potential to create is inherent to itself given creativity without consciousness has no significance. Thus the creative journey that consciousness conceives and perceives does not in essence add anything to consciousness.
It is like having a glass of wine and experiencing the taste and light headedness of this experience. This experience doesn’t in essence add anything or remove anything from your essential being.

[eugenei]

So consciousness in its each individuated alter goes through three phases:
1. Essential knowledge of itself with no manifestation activity
2. Manifestation activity unaware/ignorant of the essential knowledge of its nature
3. Rediscovering the essential knowledge while retaining the manifestation activity, in which case the manifestation activity becomes non-deluded about its essential nature (the Buddhists call it "enlightened activity")

[bejdavies]

This is actually a very interesting and difficult question. I feel like any non-essential understanding would have to be mental in nature and so not really a part of the universal Self. But I also feel like experience exists purely so that the Self gains something it needs to be what it is. Perhaps what it gains is reflexivity, in such a sense that the Self is creating itself via the inversion of its awareness over time.

[valentinmalinov]

I believe that the purpose of each personal consciousness is to bring to the primary source the experience of our unique personality unrestricted and given a free choice of actions and experience. Do we will preserve our consciousness or will unite again with the primary source I cannot answer, but my best guess is that anything with value will be preserved in its unique form. I hope that you understand what this means!

[praveenvarma]

Thank you so much... to do all the thinking for us!🙏

[sunisagotirat]

wow!..its so deep.., but I touched it.., it was pure.., in innocence..that I had long forgotten.🥰💖

[nbenda]

Bernardo, it's a challenge to unattached from mind, I agree with you, still.... pure Consciousness is not mind, and even not mind like
....

[gracev]

Good to see you having fun, Bernardo!!🎸🤩 PS I doubt the big bang theory too. Gonna watch your video. 🌈💕🧘‍♀️🎇💖🐦 Grace Victoria Burleson

[_eddiecole]

1:30 well what can be objectively distinguished? ....or Subjectively? How are u defining objective?

[jimpiekarski]

There seems to be a cosmic mind that learns. For instance, the mind responsible for the incredible diversity of Nature and for learning in the area of evolution.

[yearOldYogiAspirant]

Just belief: I think from life to life it is reifining and "going somewhere", but in that there's a bigger arch that will be over and it's a hard reset. Or maybe because it's infinite it can infinitly refine and surprise "us" with infinite novelty

[loveudon]

At the end of the day it's just two guys speculating on the unfathomable

[greensleeves]

I think both of those positioins are problematic. If consciousness just "went back" to an undifferentiated state, and if that were possible, the universe and life would entirely be zombies except in real time, which frankly doesn't make sense. Rendering existence nonfunctional to itself doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, I don't think it is particularly likely that existence "learns as it goes". This imagines existence itself somehow moving in, or subject to, one or another kind of timeline, which is no less problematic than Spira's stance. The solution, imo, is that consciouisness (in the big picture at least) never "goes back". Existence is what we might think of as an eternal, resonant "I-Thou" expression, with "I" here representing what we call consciousness, and "thou" representing life or the world. Consciousness cannot exist without context (the world) and context cananot exist without consciousness, so it is an eternal co-dependence. I don't think either of these two gentlemens' solutions are actually workable.

[edwardtagg]

Stupid question... Because time is an illusion, the process can never go back to only itself. God is integral with its expression, but never dependant on it. Its one of those spiritual enlightenment paradoxes that there never was actually a beginning formless state, because time and space is maya. Everything is happening in the eternal now. There is no where to go to. Only ego asks these questions. The state of the formless is ever perfect, and does not benefit or require anything from experience. Its a formless game of itself playing at tricking itself into expression for fun and joy, but none of it is actually necessary.

[gracev]

🎶Hi, don't You think consciousness doesn't learn say new nuances about say, music? As a song is perfected it builds upon itself, and learns new information. ??... I don't know?🔥🌈🎶🎇💖

[Stefanwhatever]

I'm with Bernardo here. The outright denial of spiritual evolution is probably the major philosophical flaw in non-dualism.