Some thoughts on the logic of 'Heaven would be boring' arguments

Well, Max, if that is all you can say it is hardly useful to those of us who are trying to grapple with the problems he appears to address. In other words, hardly worth saying. 


I have not yet formed a stable opinion about his teaching other than it seems to gel with what others have taught, be they of eastern or mystical traditions or western spiritual visionaries such as Tolle or Timothy Leary. I’ve never had a visionary experience but I feel it incumbent on me to afford those who have, or claim to have, the respect of listening to what they have learned from their experience. 

I don’t think that the NDE evidence is necessarily at odds with what Spira is saying other than, perhaps, the dissolution of the personality. He seems to be saying that this happens at, or shortly after physical death (after a sojourn in the bardo). That goes against most of what I have read over the many years of researching mediumistic, channeled and NDE evidence. He would claim, I think, that the NDE describes the bardo but I have always understood that enlightenment, if it is what he is leading us towards In his teaching, comes as a natural consequence of completing the reincarnational cycle. This is where my angst lies right now. What do I believe?

We had a discussion about Rupert Spira a while back, Dave.  If you are sympathetic towards him, that's perfectly okay but my question would be..why is he qualified to make statements about what happens after death ? And I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious about that particular point.

I would wonder then, why NDEers generally report that messages and knowings they remember receiving from the Light or other spiritual beings don't say anything about an upcoming dissolution if they don't go back. It seems to me it's a special rationalization to assume this is because these spiritual beings either are deliberately deceiving, or ignorant, or illusory. No hint of this in the accounts, and it's counter-intuitive. It seems to me that it is much more likely that on this, Spira's teaching and certain spiritual traditions are based on human imagination.

A better understanding would be that there is a partial truth in it - the human personality remains, but but as a part of a vastly greater soul being that encompasses very many former personalities. In the transformation the human personality's consciousness progressively opens up to this higher reality of its true existence as a soul being, but in the process never truly loses itself. Presumably, mediumistic communications and deep NDEs only explore the very beginning stages of this process, obviously truncated in the case of the NDEers.

I think the crux of the Spira view is non-duality but I'm not sure how far he takes this - all the way to solipsism? I will need to listen to more of his talks but the idea seems to be that there is no separation between the observed and the observer, between, in other words, the ND Experiencer and the encountered beings, be they beings of light or deceased relatives. All is illusion of separation. I kind of go with that but I'm not really grasping its full implications. Trying to project our limited understanding of reality based upon this physical experience is just not going to cut it when it comes to the larger reality of which we can only be aware through some form of enlightenment. At least, that's what is starting to become apparent to me at the moment.

With regard to the @Mediochre "outsourcing responsibility" comment, I'm not sure who that is aimed at but I have not read anything, nor do I believe anything that would deny that I am responsible for my actions, wellbeing (or otherwise) and beliefs. Perhaps the comment was addressed to the thread subject rather than the immediately preceding posts?

We had a discussion about Rupert Spira a while back, Dave.  If you are sympathetic towards him, that's perfectly okay but my question would be..why is he qualified to make statements about what happens after death ? And I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious about that particular point.

I'm not saying that he is qualified. I'm saying that he teaches a philosophy that is derived from other traditions (Advaita) and visionary experiences and that these views are worth listening to, even if I disagree. I can't sit back and assure myself that I have it all figured out when clearly I am beset by doubts. I have to look at other views and see what they have to offer. Perhaps one will help clarify another even though they might seem, on the surface, to be contradictory.

I'm not saying that he is qualified. I'm saying that he teaches a philosophy that is derived from other traditions (Advaita) and visionary experiences and that these views are worth listening to, even if I disagree. I can't sit back and assure myself that I have it all figured out when clearly I am beset by doubts. I have to look at other views and see what they have to offer. Perhaps one will help clarify another even though they might seem, on the surface, to be contradictory.

Thanks, but what are his qualifications to teach? Honestly, I don't think he's got anymore qualifications to "preach" than you or me or Stan. This is the bit I don't get, maybe I'm not making myself very clear.

Thanks, but what are his qualifications to teach? Honestly, I don't think he's got anymore qualifications to "preach" than you or me or Stan. This is the bit I don't get, maybe I'm not making myself very clear.

None that I can see. Does he need qualifications other than having people willing to listen? Clearly he has come to a point where he feels that he can share his experiences and the worldview that arises from them.

Maybe it is me that is not being clear, Tim. I don't follow gurus or prophets or preachers. I may listen to what they have to say but I decide how much of that I am willing to consider. I'm assuming that goes for the people in his audience too. He's not a cult leader recruiting followers. I have a very limited understanding of eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism so to listen to something that gets to the very root of not only those religions but all major religions and many spiritual philosophies is something I welcome even though I might end up rejecting a lot of it.

Correct me if I'm getting you wrong but you seem to be hung up on the apparent disagreement between his view and that of NDE survivors and you assert that the NDE survivors are qualified to describe the afterlife because they have been there while Spira has not. I would suggest that there are other ways to discover the larger reality that includes our spiritual nature which, I also believe, is non-dual. So I came to Spira eventually in my search to discover the nature of non-duality. I've read what Bernardo Kastrup (incidentally, he is a good friend of Spira) and others have had to say on idealism and non-duality so Spira just happens to be another voice in the mix. I'm not even sure that there is a discrepancy between the NDE stories and his larger reality - perhaps it is a just matter of perspective. I don't know, I have lots of doubts but I'm trying to understand.

I didn't mean this to be a discussion on Spira - his video was just incidental though significant in the influences on my thinking of late. Just to clarify something I mentioned earlier, however, it is clear that Spira is not a solipsist.

https://youtu.be/ZPThfgCX5lo

None that I can see. Does he need qualifications other than having people willing to listen? Clearly he has come to a point where he feels that he can share his experiences and the worldview that arises from them.

Maybe it is me that is not being clear, Tim. I don't follow gurus or prophets or preachers. I may listen to what they have to say but I decide how much of that I am willing to consider. I'm assuming that goes for the people in his audience too. He's not a cult leader recruiting followers. I have a very limited understanding of eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism so to listen to something that gets to the very root of not only those religions but all major religions and many spiritual philosophies is something I welcome even though I might end up rejecting a lot of it.

Correct me if I'm getting you wrong but you seem to be hung up on the apparent disagreement between his view and that of NDE survivors and you assert that the NDE survivors are qualified to describe the afterlife because they have been there while Spira has not. I would suggest that there are other ways to discover the larger reality that includes our spiritual nature which, I also believe, is non-dual. So I came to Spira eventually in my search to discover the nature of non-duality. I've read what Bernardo Kastrup (incidentally, he is a good friend of Spira) and others have had to say on idealism and non-duality so Spira just happens to be another voice in the mix. I'm not even sure that there is a discrepancy between the NDE stories and his larger reality - perhaps it is a just matter of perspective. I don't know, I have lots of doubts but I'm trying to understand.

Well not hung up on it but the bolded sentence above is (mostly) fair comment. I do think people who have actually died (or experienced death) are in a far better position to tell us what actually happens and what awaits us. 

Of course I take the point there are other ways to discover/experience what's beyond these physical boundaries, deep meditation/mind altering potions/ fasting etc and all the various disciplines that have evolved, but when you talk to someone who's been documented to have died, I think that takes some beating, personally. It's one of the reasons why I'm content to accept that there is a continuation of something of ourselves.

EDIT : I didn't answer this "Does he need qualifications other than having people willing to listen?

A case could be made either way. By qualifications, I'm meaning something special about him that couldn't be reproduced by just anyone. 

I think the crux of the Spira view is non-duality but I'm not sure how far he takes this - all the way to solipsism? I will need to listen to more of his talks but the idea seems to be that there is no separation between the observed and the observer, between, in other words, the ND Experiencer and the encountered beings, be they beings of light or deceased relatives. All is illusion of separation. I kind of go with that but I'm not really grasping its full implications. Trying to project our limited understanding of reality based upon this physical experience is just not going to cut it when it comes to the larger reality of which we can only be aware through some form of enlightenment. At least, that's what is starting to become apparent to me at the moment.

With regard to the @Mediochre "outsourcing responsibility" comment, I'm not sure who that is aimed at but I have not read anything, nor do I believe anything that would deny that I am responsible for my actions, wellbeing (or otherwise) and beliefs. Perhaps the comment was addressed to the thread subject rather than the immediately preceding posts?

This New Age-speak is very hard or impossible to really understand. If there really is absolutely no separation between beings, there is no separation between things either. Then all is one. But for structure to exist there must be separation between the different parts, so this monistic "thing" could have no structure. Complexity requires structure, so this monistic "thing" would have no complexity. But we know consciousness exists and is complex. So it looks as if these words about "no separation" aren't very tenable.

I think the crux of the Spira view is non-duality but I'm not sure how far he takes this - all the way to solipsism? I will need to listen to more of his talks but the idea seems to be that there is no separation between the observed and the observer, between, in other words, the ND Experiencer and the encountered beings, be they beings of light or deceased relatives. All is illusion of separation. I kind of go with that but I'm not really grasping its full implications. Trying to project our limited understanding of reality based upon this physical experience is just not going to cut it when it comes to the larger reality of which we can only be aware through some form of enlightenment. At least, that's what is starting to become apparent to me at the moment.

With regard to the @Mediochre "outsourcing responsibility" comment, I'm not sure who that is aimed at but I have not read anything, nor do I believe anything that would deny that I am responsible for my actions, wellbeing (or otherwise) and beliefs. Perhaps the comment was addressed to the thread subject rather than the immediately preceding posts?

Yeah it was the thread subject.

This New Age-speak is very hard or impossible to really understand. 

"New Age-speak"? Non-duality, the illusion of separation, etc., - whatever words we use - is not new. It is fundamental to some of the most ancient philosophies. A quick look at Wikipedia will confirm that:

While the term "nondualism" is derived from Advaita Vedanta, descriptions of nondual consciousness can be found within Hinduism (Turiya, sahaja), Buddhism (emptiness, pariniṣpanna, nature of mind, rigpa), Islam (Wahdat al Wujud, Fanaa, and Haqiqah) and western Christian and neo-Platonic traditions (henosis, mystical union).

I think it is a little arrogant to dismiss something as merely "New Age-speak" because you find it impossible to understand. That suggests that you consider anything you can't understand as not worthy of consideration.

I am now remembering why my prolonged absence was probably a good idea.