By Prana Lite 
In this dialogue, Rupert Spira discusses the relationship between non-duality and science, emphasizing that non-duality represents the highest form of science by revealing that consciousness is the fundamental reality, rather than a byproduct of matter. He highlights how paradigm shifts throughout history have required reversals of commonly accepted views, drawing parallels to the current materialist belief that consciousness is generated by the body. Rupert advocates for a broader understanding of consciousness, suggesting that true peace and unity arise when we recognize our true nature beyond the limitations of materialist thinking.
Participant: Hi Rupert. Thanks everyone for a lovely week. This was my first retreat, definitely not my last. My question is about science and non-duality in relation to each other. Yesterday, you said that non-duality is the highest form of science, and I liked your analogy that the expansion of consciousness is like the esoteric version of the Big Bang.
So, my question is: we’re in a paradigm shift, and with every shift, there’s a threshold of people who enable it, whether it’s the Earth revolving around the Sun, civil rights, women’s rights, or any great awakening we’ve had as a species. Can you share your vision of where we’re going in this paradigm shift?
Rupert Spira: Yes, there have been numerous paradigm shifts throughout humanity’s history. We used to think the Earth was flat; we used to think the Sun went around the Earth. And now, we think that matter generates consciousness. When a paradigm shifts, it usually involves a reversal of the prevailing view.
For instance, we thought the Earth was flat because that’s what the senses told us. For many people, it was inconceivable and counterintuitive to think that the Earth was round. Similarly, we thought the Sun traveled around the Earth because, from our vantage point, it appears that way. But in both cases, the truth was a complete reversal of what seemed obvious.
Likewise, today, we assume that consciousness is derived from matter. This belief is rooted in the idea that our sensory perception—what we see, hear, and feel—proves that consciousness is something produced by the body. For example, when we close our eyes, our perception of the world disappears, and when we open them, it reappears. So, it seems natural to conclude that what perceives the world must be tied to the body, to something located just behind the eyes.
However, when we investigate more deeply, we find that the truth is a complete reversal of this perspective. The prevailing belief that consciousness is a byproduct of matter leads us to see ourselves as finite, temporary, and separate beings. This sense of separation gives rise to unhappiness and conflict—both internally and externally. The conflict between individuals, communities, and even nations, as well as our destructive relationship with the planet, all stem from this fundamental assumption.
If left unchecked, these consequences—unhappiness, conflict, and environmental degradation—will eventually lead to destruction. So, my hope is that more people will begin to intuit or understand the deeper truth as the flaws of the materialist paradigm become more evident.
As more and more people—including those in positions of influence, like scientists—begin to question the materialist view, change will become possible. In our culture, scientists are the authority figures most people listen to. A shift at that level, where serious scientists begin to take an interest in these matters, would be crucial. And thankfully, this is beginning to happen.
Participant: Will you team up with them?
Rupert Spira: Yes, of course. I’m happy to speak with anyone, and I’ve already had discussions with scientists at the Science and Non-Duality conference. Some scientists attend these meetings and are open to exploring these ideas. So, yes, I’d be more than happy to engage in that dialogue.
Participant: I found your explanation very interesting. I wonder to what extent dogma is the real problem here. For example, with the belief that the Earth was flat, it seems earlier civilizations might have even known it was round. But the issue arose when the Church took that idea and declared it heresy to say otherwise. Are we now seeing a similar kind of dogmatism in science, where there’s resistance to the ideas you’re presenting?
Rupert Spira: Yes, you’re absolutely right. There is resistance in science, but it’s not the ideas themselves that are problematic. Many scientists are highly intelligent and perfectly capable of understanding the concepts we discuss here. The resistance stems from the fact that many scientists have invested their identity in their materialistic ideas. When those ideas are challenged, it feels like a challenge to their sense of self.
To give up their materialistic beliefs would be like a death of the self-image they’ve built. So, it’s not just about ideas being challenged—it’s about identity. This is why it’s so difficult for some scientists to let go of these beliefs. It’s not just their theories that are at stake; it’s their very sense of self.
Participant: So, in a way, you’re saying there’s not much difference between conventional religion and the prevailing materialist paradigm?
Rupert Spira: Exactly. The belief in a God that exists outside the universe, creating it from afar, is not so different from the materialist view that something outside consciousness—matter—creates everything, including consciousness. Both ideas are rooted in the belief that consciousness is a temporary, finite entity, generated by the body.
In fact, if I had to choose between these two beliefs, I’d prefer the religious one because, at least, religious people are honest about their belief. Materialists, on the other hand, often present their belief as truth, not admitting that it is, in fact, a belief. Both positions, however, are based on the same misconception: that consciousness is limited by the body.
Sooner or later, whether religious or materialist, one must ask: What is the nature of my mind? Without understanding the mind through which we experience everything, we can never truly understand reality. This investigation into the nature of mind is the ultimate science and the highest form of religion.
Participant: So, is it possible to be more specific about what consciousness is?
Rupert Spira: Yes, absolutely. Consciousness is that with which all experience is known, that in which all experience appears, and that out of which all experience is made. In other words, consciousness is the fundamental substance of all reality. It is irreducible—it cannot be reduced to anything else.
While material sciences often arrive at energy as the most basic substance, I would argue that energy is an activity of consciousness. Consciousness itself is prior to energy. So, while I may critique materialist science at times, I don’t mean to suggest that it’s invalid. Material science works within the framework of investigating the world from the perspective of a separate subject. It has its own laws and definitions that apply within that context. But what I’m offering is an expanded view—a consciousness-based model that encompasses and transcends the materialist perspective.
“For most people, experience is so pleasurable or painful that it obscures the simple knowledge of their own being. They get so entangled in their experience that they lose touch with the awareness of being itself.”
Participant: So, materialist science is still valid, but as a special case?
Rupert Spira: Yes, exactly. Materialist science is a special case that holds true within a certain limited view of reality, but the consciousness-only model offers a much broader context, with far greater explanatory power. It can account for many aspects of human experience that materialist science cannot, such as love, peace, happiness, intuition, empathy, and near-death experiences. The materialist model often ignores or dismisses these aspects because they don’t fit into its narrow framework.
Rupert Spira: Our true self is not transformed or enlightened by this investigation into non-duality. There’s no such thing as an “enlightened person.” Figures like Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, or the Buddha were simply ordinary people in whom the light of their being was not obscured by experience. For most people, experience is so pleasurable or painful that it obscures the simple knowledge of their own being. They get so entangled in their experience that they lose touch with the awareness of being itself.
Here, we are simply recognizing the nature of ourselves—the “I” that we refer to when we say, “I am.” This recognition is not something new; it is always known but often obscured by experience. With each glimpse of recognition, the capacity of experience to veil our true nature diminishes. Over time, we become more established in this understanding, and our innate peace becomes more available to us, first in the background and eventually in the foreground of our experience.
This recognition of our true nature then begins to permeate all aspects of our life—our thoughts, feelings, actions, and relationships—aligning them with this deeper understanding of ourselves.
