Click to receive updates
How did the Universe come into Existence?
How did the Universe come into Existence?
This is another absolutely brilliant dialogue with Rupert Spira. If you have not done so, we reccomend you get our interview with him, as he gently unfolds step by step how to investigate the Truth in your direct experience of what is said here. You can get acopy of Rupert's video and book by clicking here.
Direct experience must be the sole test of reality.
This being true, then, every presumption or conclusion should be subjected to the examination of our direct experience to validate it.
For instance, let's examine the presumption that the universe existed before our experience of it. What evidence would there be of such a universe?
Question:
"When I was a child, I used to think, when in bed before sleeping,
'how is it possible that the Universe has come into existence?'"
Let us look first of all at this 'universe' that is considered to have come
into existence. The 'universe' is normally considered to be an infinitely
vast whole which we, as separate perceiving entities, perceive partially and intermittently.
This 'universe' is considered to have existed before any of these apparently perceiving entities were present to perceive it. That is, it is considered
to have existed before perception was possible and even when so called
perceiving entities had appeared in this universe it is still considered to
exist when it is not being perceived.
In fact this 'universe' is considered to have given birth, at a certain
stage of its evolution, to the Consciousness with which it is known or
perceived. However, it is believed to have existed prior to the birth of
this Consciousness. In other words the 'universe' is considered to exist
prior to and independently of Consciousness.
However, this universe that is conceived to have existed prior to
Consciousness, has never been experienced. Perceptions are experienced and
subsequently thought strings together in imagination an infinite number of
such perceptions and creates out of them 'the universe.' However, such a
'universe' exists only in imagination. It is a presumption.
Now let us look first of all at the validity of this fundamental
presumption. What evidence is there for such a universe? Has it ever been
experienced? Could it ever be experienced?
If we agree to begin with that experience must be the test of reality, then
every presumption or thought model must be subjected to the scrutiny of
experience in order to be validated.
So, has anyone ever experienced the universe as it is conceived? We can
bring this investigation much closer by taking any simple object such as the
table in our room and ask the same questions about it:
There is a perception of the table. If there are several people in the room,
there will be several perceptions of the table. From these perceptions we
build a model of a 'whole table,' 'the thing in itself' that is considered
to be the sum total of all possible perceptions, that exists independently
of its being perceived and cannot by definition ever be perceived in its
imagined totality.
Has anyone ever experienced such a table? Have you ever experienced such a
table? Could you? Could anyone?
The answer is obviously 'No.' It is fundamental to see the truth of this
simple and startling fact of experience: no one has ever or could ever
experienced an object, an other, a world, a universe as it is normally
considered to exist or conceived to be.
The universe as such is imagined. This is not a proof that such a universe
does not exist, but it is a proof that there is no evidence that it does.
*****
So, it does not make sense to ask questions about a universe that we have
never experienced. It is like asking questions about a pink elephant.
Having said that, asking questions about what we SEEM to experience is good
because if we pursue them thoroughly, they lead us to what we IS
experienced.
So let us now come closer to the truth of our experience:
Imagine an everyday occurrence such as walking into your kitchen, making a
cup of tea and leaving again.
Our normal view is that we, as an entity located in and as the body, enter
the kitchen which was there prior to our entering it, unexperienced so to
speak. When we leave the kitchen, we imagine that it remains as it was prior
to our entering it, that is, unexperienced.
Let us look more closely: the kitchen neither conceives nor perceives itself
to be 'a kitchen.' Both conceiving and perceiving are faculties of the mind.
Therefore in the absence of mind, the kitchen cannot exist either as a
concept or a percept.
So, when it is neither conceived or perceived, in what form could it exist?
To exist it must have a form. However in the absence of mind, that 'form'
cannot be a perception, that is, it cannot be a sight, a sound, a smell, a
sensation or a taste.
In other words, conception and perception are faculties or qualities of
mind. They are not faculties of the kitchen. It is the mind that conceives
of a 'kitchen' and gives 'it' its name and it is the mind that perceives and
gives 'it' its form.
Now what is this 'it' independent of the mind? What are its qualities?
We have no doubt that when the 'kitchen' is experienced, there is SOMETHING
present. There is experience. In other words, whatever the 'kitchen'
actually IS in its own right, divested of those qualities of name and form
that the mind superimpose upon 'it,' is present. Whatever that is, it has no
objective qualities, because all objective qualities are supplied by mind.
In other words, whatever 'it' is, is both non-objective and present. That
is, we can be sure that BEING is present in the experience of the 'kitchen.'
The experience of the 'kitchen' is also, by definition, known, and as all
knowing takes place in Consciousness, we can also be sure that Consciousness
is present in the experience of the 'kitchen.'
Thus we have arrived at the simple conclusion, drawn from our own
experience, that Being and Consciousness are present in the experience of
the 'thing in itself,' whether that thing is a kitchen, a table or a
universe.
We can also go further and observe from experience that the experience of
the 'kitchen,' and indeed all experience, is always only one experience, not
two, and can therefore conclude that Being and Consciousness are one and the
same.
In other words, what IT IS is made fundamentally out of Being/Consciousness.
*****
Now let us keep going.
This Being/Consciousness does not, in our experience, 'come into existence.'
Nobody has ever or could ever experience the appearance of
Being/Consciousness because Being/Consciousness would have to be 'there'
present to witness and therefore claim such an appearance.
Moreover, if we look now at the 'me' that walks into the kitchen' we can
explore it in exactly the same way that we previously explored the
'kitchen.' And if we do so we arrive at the same startling conclusion. That
is, all the apparently objective qualities that we attribute to this 'me'
are supplied by mind. They are not inherent in 'me.' The body does not know
it is a body, let alone a 'me.' Only the mind says so.
In other words, if we divest 'me' of those qualities that are supplied by
mind, that is, thinking, sensing and perceiving, we are left with the same
experience of Being/Consciousness.
In other words, what I AM is made fundamentally out of Being/Consciousness.
*****
In other words we have arrived at the fundamental equation of experience
that IT (the body, object, world, universe or other) IS WHAT I AM.
Now Being/Consciousness is in our experience, which means in its own
experience, ever-present. It cannot nor could it it ever know its own
absence.
So the fundamental substance of the the body, object, world, universe or
other is Being/Consciousness and the particular qualities that seem to
differentiate different objects, bodies, worlds etc from one another are
supplied by mind.
However, in the absence of mind, there is no time or space, both of which
turn out on investigation to be concepts.
Therefore the body, object, world, universe or other cannot be said to have
come INTO existence. From where would they have come? And at what time?
Rather we have seen from experience that the substance of the universe etc.
is Being/Consciousness which is ever-present. And all apparent qualities of
mind arise within this Being/Consciousness. There is nowhere outside of this
Being/Consciousness from which they could have come. And the substance out
of which this mind is made can only be the substance of Being/Consciousness,
just as ice forming in water can only be made of whatever ingredients that
are present in the water.
The only thing that is present in Being/Consciousness is
Being/Consciousness. Therefore it is this very Being/Consciousness that
takes the shape of the mind and from here appears as the multiplicity and
diversity of bodies, people, objects, worlds, universes, particles, others
etc.
However in order for this apparent multiplicity and diversity to seem real
the homogeneous, singular oneness of its real substance
(Being/Consciousness) must be overlooked or forgotten.
In other words, the true nature of Being/Consciousness must be forgotten,
denied, veiled or imagined non-existent, for objects, the world and others
etc. to appear to come into existence.
In short the universe comes into existence (that is, it seems to take on its
own separate reality) at the very moment that our true nature of
Being/Consciousness is forgotten.
And how is Being/Consciousness forgotten if it is ever-present and there is
nothing in its experience besides itself?
The answer is that is it never truly forgotten. However it SEEMS to be. It
seems to forget or veil itself by taking the shape of mind and then, that
apparent mind identifies the 'I' that is inherent in the Being/Consciousness
with one little part of the totality, that is with a body.
In other words, Consciousness, as it were, forgets itself, forgets the
Knowing of its own Being and rises instead as the dualising mind, in the
form of the 'I' entity. At this moment, 'everything-I-am-not' springs into
apparent existence as the universe, objects, others or world.
However, the 'I' entity and the universe, objects, others and world etc. are
nothing but this very Being/Consciousness taking the shape of name
(thinking) and form (perceiving) and seeming to be something other than
itself.
*****
So to go back to the example of walking into the kitchen....nobody walks
into a kitchen in time and space....
There is Being/Consciousness. It is this Being/Consciousness that takes the
shape of a sensation called the body which a subsequent thought identifies
as 'I.'
This Being/Consciousness takes the shape of the body, then the walls, then
the floor, then the kitchen, then the kettle, then the water, then the
tea.....on and on. And woven into this constantly seeming morphing of
Being/Consciousness is a train of thought that conceptualises all this
experience as 'me' a body, walking into a kitchen, that was always here, and
makes a cup of tea in a kettle that exists along with everything else
independent of its being known......
But in fact there is just Being/Consciousness, that is, just 'I,' always in
the same place which is a placeless place, always at the same timeless
nowness, taking the shape of sensing, perceiving and thinking.....always
only being itself, never giving birth to anything other than
itself....giving its own substance to every appearance.
'I' body-ing, 'I' wall-ing, 'I' floor-ing, 'I' kitchen-ing, 'I' kettle-ing,
'I' water-ing, 'I' tea-ing, 'I' etc-ing, etc-ing, etc-ing.....
So it is not that the universe, objects, others, the world etc is not real.
Every experience is real but its reality is that of Being/Consciousness. In
other words IT IS WHAT I AM.
****
You say, "Something exists from ever. But this is impossible to my logic...
so nothing exists."
Don't start from logic, start from experience. You are right that nothing
objective, that is, no thought, sensation or perception, has lasted for ever
in your experience.
Nor have you or anyone ever experienced the vast expanse of time that is
conceptualised as 'for ever.' However, you have and do continually
experience your own Being. In fact you have never experienced its absence,
nor could you.
It is your experience that you, Being/Consciousness, are ever-present. That
is, its own Ever-presence is its own intimate experience.
However, in order to interpret its own Ever-presence as the existence of an
independent universe existing 'for ever' in time, Being/Consciousness has
first to seem to forget itself. It does this, as I said before by taking the
shape of dualising mind.
With the arising of dualising mind, the Ever-Presence of Being/Consciousness
seems to be veiled and is replaced by the idea and apparent experience of a
separately existing universe that lasts 'for ever.'
In other words the Ever-presence of Being/Consciousess is appropriated by
mind and conferred upon an imaginary universe that is considered, as a
result, to last 'for ever' in time.
However, it only seems to be veiled from the point of view of the dualising
mind. It is never truly veiled from itself. There is nothing in its own
experience, apart from itself, with which it could make a veil in order to
screen itself from itself. Such a veil would be made only out of itself.
So yes, 'nothing (no thing) exists' if by a 'thing' we mean something
existing in its own right in time and space. However, the substance of all
apparent things, does not exist, but rather IS eternally, that is, not 'for
ever' in time, but always now.
This is what Parmenides meant when he said, "That which is never ceases to
be. That which is not never comes into existence."
*****
You say, "Many times I felt, just for an instant, a sudden vacuum when
concluding that nothing exists. But then I noticed that I was there,
thinking and conscious, so I existed!!!!"
Yes, when we have been invested for decades in the apparent reality of the
separate self and the separate, distant, outside world it can be a
tremendous shock to understand that its SEEMING reality is made only of mind
and lasts only as long as the current thought, image, sensation or
perception lasts, that is, for a moment. However, its REAL reality is made
of Being/Consciousness and is the substantial, homogeneous, ever-present
reality of our experience.
It is as if all the ground has been pulled from under our feet. We grasp for
something solid to hold on to, something known. But we find nothing
objective. It feels like a vacuum.
However, we do not find nothing. We find our Self, Being/Consciousness, the
Isness of things and the Amness of self, the only true security, our real
home.
However, you do not exist. You ARE. To exist means to 'stand out from.' You
do not stand out as an object from anything. You are existence itself from
which all apparent things that seem to exist are made.
It is your Being that gives seeming existence to all apparent objects.
Nothing exists in its own right but Presence IS, and is the ever-present
substance of all seeming things.
*****
This goes to the very heart of the matter. Normally we think that the
existence or being of a thing and the knowing of that thing are two, are
separate.
But they are not. To know a thing is to be that thing. That is
Consciousness' mode of knowing a thing: to be that thing.
It is only the mind that separates Being and Knowing or Being and
Consciousness into two different things. In reality there is no such
separation between the two. In fact they are not two.
The only way to know another is be that other. The only way to know an
object is be that object. The only way to know the kitchen is be the
kitchen. The only way to know the world is be the world.
It is 'I,' Being/ Consciousness, that takes the shape of the thinking,
imagining, sensing and perceiving. It is 'I,' Being/Consciousness, that
takes the shape of a thought that identifies myself with a particular
sensation called the body and in doing so imagines another substance that is
not myself, called matter, out of which everything that is seemingly not
myself, that is, the world, is made.
Consciousness creates the apparent world, object or other, by taking the
shape of the dualising mind and thereby SEEMINGLY forgetting its own Self.
And conversely as Consciousness remembers or recognises its Self the
apparently separate world, object, self or other dissolve.
*****
You say, "My logic says that nothing exists and never existed, but I am here
writing this..." You are right 'nothing exists and never existed' but you
are not here writing this or reading this. YOU, Being/Consciousness, ARE.
You remain eternally unchanging yourself, knowing and being only yourself,
never becoming anything other, such as a thing, object, self or world, but
taking the shape of that which SEEMS to be a thing, object, self or world.
You say, "This contradiction has opened my mind to any possibility."
Yes, why not? Just as all possible words are contained within the twenty six
letters of the alphabet, so all possibilities are contained within
Being/Consciousness. But they are not contained within it like chocolates in
a box. Rather there is only one homogeneous substance which, having no
shape, has the capacity to take all possible shapes, but never at any time
becomes anything other than itself.
You say, "In fact, all phenomena are simple details, what matters is the
substance that is behind them."
Yes, but the substance of all phenomena is not just behind all appearances.
It is in the foreground as well. There is only that. There is only one
homogeneous substance, always itself, always in the same place, that is, in
itself, being only itself, knowing only itself, loving only itself.
You say, "Non-dual teachings look to me resonating with what I just related.
Even the nothingness that is totality at the same time sounds like the
paradox of something uncaused."
Yes, Being/Consciousness is uncaused. There is nothing else present which
could be its cause and nothing else present which it causes.
A cause requires at least two things: a cause and an effect. It also
requires time. We find neither in experience. Multiplicity and time only
come into apparent existence when the reality of our experience is
forgotten.
You ask," Do you, in your consistent openness and enlightenment,
"understand" (or whatever word you use) this paradox? Is it possible to
penetrate this mystery?"
It is not possible to penetrate this mystery with the mind because the mind
is simply the current thought or image. The current thought or image knows
nothing. It is known.
Nor does the mind understand. All understanding takes place beyond the mind.
The mind is simply the formulation of the understanding. It is not the
understanding itself.
Understanding is always the non-objective experience of the Knowing of
Being.
So the mystery can never be understood by the mind. However, you ARE the
mystery. It is too close to you to be known or penetrated.
It is a mystery only for the mind. For itself it is not a mystery. If it
were a mystery it would be somehow unknown or unexperienced. In which case
whatever is being experienced, for instance, the kitchen, the taste of tea
or these words, would be something other than the mystery. But what would
they be made of? There is nothing other than Being/Consciousness out of
which they could be made.
There is the Knowing of Being.
When the dualising mind rises to apparently split this Knowingofbeing into
two apparent things, the experience is know as unhappiness. When the
dualising mind subsides and Knowing tastes again its own Being, the
experience is known as love, happiness, peace, beauty or understanding.
With love,
Rupert
Get Rupert Spira's video Interview with Chris hebard by clicking here.
