Consciousness Entirely Pervades the Body from the media We Are Inherently Happy
A man wonders about the connection between non-dual understanding of consciousness and the embodied feeling of being in the body. Are they the same? Rupert explains that consciousness isn’t an experience confined to the body; it encompasses all of the body’s experiences. Everything we perceive as the body is essentially the knowing of it. Sensation is simply sensing, and sensing is just knowing. Consciousness entirely pervades the body.
- Duration: 9 minutes and 10 seconds
- Recorded on: Apr 17, 2024
- Event: Webinar – Wednesday, 17 April
Meditation is like coming back to the peace and comfort of home after a long, hard day’s work. In meditation, we come back to our self after being exclusively involved with the drama of experience – thoughts and feelings on the inside; events, circumstances, activities and relationships in the outside world. As we deeply sink into our being, it loses all the qualities it derived from experience – agitation of thoughts, sorrow of feelings, stress of circumstances – revealing its nature of peace and sufficiency. At first, disentangling from experience may take effort. Meditation can be that effort. But once we arrive in the home of our being, there’s nothing else to do. Instead of an action, meditation is just understood and felt to be our natural condition, what we essentially are. Don’t try to stop, change, or discipline thoughts and feelings. Just don’t feed them with your attention. Deprived of attention, they will subside.
A woman wonders if the infinite lacks ego and whether God is unaware of our suffering. Rupert explains that the infinite only knows itself directly, and any understanding of the finite world arises through the finite mind. This perspective creates the duality of good and evil. In the infinite’s self-awareness, there is no separation, a condition the finite mind perceives as love.
A man ponders whether anything can exist before consciousness. Rupert clarifies that since consciousness is essential for experience, nothing can precede it. He suggests that in constructing a model of reality, it is practical to begin with what is known. Whatever reality is, we are experiencing it. Experiencing something unreal is impossible; therefore, what we are experiencing now must be real.
A man questions doership – did he choose to ask about this, or did it just happen? Rupert suggests exploring the nature of the ‘I’ that supposedly chooses. He emphasises the crucial enquiry: what do we refer to when we say ‘I’? Can this ‘I’ truly select its actions? He then proposes to the man an experiment, choosing only happy thoughts for a week.
A woman considers who it is that decides whether to return to being or to engage in thinking. Rupert says that this profound question can lead us to our true nature. He prompts contemplation: What is this ‘I’ that makes the choice? Such enquiries are a form of meditation in themselves.
A man wonders about the connection between non-dual understanding of consciousness and the embodied feeling of being in the body. Are they the same? Rupert explains that consciousness isn’t an experience confined to the body; it encompasses all of the body’s experiences. Everything we perceive as the body is essentially the knowing of it. Sensation is simply sensing, and sensing is just knowing. Consciousness entirely pervades the body.
In the dialogue on enlightenment and self-realisation, Rupert shares that siddhis (unusual powers or abilities) may accompany the recognition of our true nature. He emphasises that for him, however, the most remarkable signs are imperturbable peace, causeless joy and unconditional love. These, he believes, are the highest siddhis.
A woman asks if the concept of karma is real and true, considering our human existence. Rupert suggests that karma relates to the finite mind but not to pure being or consciousness. He notes that our current actions can influence future ones, and that it is possible our present experience is influenced by the past. However, consciousness itself is beyond karma.
A man seeks guidance on how to use Rupert’s archive constructively. Rupert suggests that the best approach is to take a retreat and watch all the sessions of that retreat in chronological order. This way, the meditations and conversations flow seamlessly into one another.
In a discussion on morality, Kant’s idea of treating humanity as an end in itself is raised. Can compassionate relations exist without non-dual understanding? Rupert observes that many who are unaware of non-duality still feel deep compassion for others. This arises from recognising our shared being at the deepest level. Understanding isn’t necessary; feeling is.
A woman raises the concept of the duality of being and non-being. Rupert responds that non-being cannot exist. Being is the unformulated ground, essence or nature of reality, while existence is what emerges with form from this ground. He likens existence to a movie and being to the screen. The movie, in essence, doesn’t truly stand out from the screen; it only appears to.
A man asks how to conquer the desire for awakening, questioning if it’s just another trick of the mind. Rupert explains that this desire stems from our lifelong pursuit of happiness through acquiring worldly things. But awakening isn’t about acquiring objects; it’s about understanding the nature of the subject. It cannot be acquired or found. The key to conquering desire is realising that our true nature is already free from it – we are inherently happy.
In a conversation about seeing, the question arises: Do we need physical eyes to see? Rupert uses the analogy of Mary asleep in Oxford, dreaming that she is Jane on the streets of Paris. If Rupert were to speak to Jane, she would acknowledge that her eyes are required for seeing. But because Jane is a fictional dream character, she is only presuming to have physical eyes. If she could delve deeper, it would be clear she doesn’t actually possess physical eyes.
Meditation is like coming back to the peace and comfort of home after a long, hard day’s work. In meditation, we come back to our self after being exclusively involved with the drama of experience – thoughts and feelings on the inside; events, circumstances, activities and relationships in the outside world. As we deeply sink into our being, it loses all the qualities it derived from experience – agitation of thoughts, sorrow of feelings, stress of circumstances – revealing its nature of peace and sufficiency. At first, disentangling from experience may take effort. Meditation can be that effort. But once we arrive in the home of our being, there’s nothing else to do. Instead of an action, meditation is just understood and felt to be our natural condition, what we essentially are. Don’t try to stop, change, or discipline thoughts and feelings. Just don’t feed them with your attention. Deprived of attention, they will subside.
A woman wonders if the infinite lacks ego and whether God is unaware of our suffering. Rupert explains that the infinite only knows itself directly, and any understanding of the finite world arises through the finite mind. This perspective creates the duality of good and evil. In the infinite’s self-awareness, there is no separation, a condition the finite mind perceives as love.
A man ponders whether anything can exist before consciousness. Rupert clarifies that since consciousness is essential for experience, nothing can precede it. He suggests that in constructing a model of reality, it is practical to begin with what is known. Whatever reality is, we are experiencing it. Experiencing something unreal is impossible; therefore, what we are experiencing now must be real.
A man questions doership – did he choose to ask about this, or did it just happen? Rupert suggests exploring the nature of the ‘I’ that supposedly chooses. He emphasises the crucial enquiry: what do we refer to when we say ‘I’? Can this ‘I’ truly select its actions? He then proposes to the man an experiment, choosing only happy thoughts for a week.
A woman considers who it is that decides whether to return to being or to engage in thinking. Rupert says that this profound question can lead us to our true nature. He prompts contemplation: What is this ‘I’ that makes the choice? Such enquiries are a form of meditation in themselves.
A man wonders about the connection between non-dual understanding of consciousness and the embodied feeling of being in the body. Are they the same? Rupert explains that consciousness isn’t an experience confined to the body; it encompasses all of the body’s experiences. Everything we perceive as the body is essentially the knowing of it. Sensation is simply sensing, and sensing is just knowing. Consciousness entirely pervades the body.
In the dialogue on enlightenment and self-realisation, Rupert shares that siddhis (unusual powers or abilities) may accompany the recognition of our true nature. He emphasises that for him, however, the most remarkable signs are imperturbable peace, causeless joy and unconditional love. These, he believes, are the highest siddhis.
A woman asks if the concept of karma is real and true, considering our human existence. Rupert suggests that karma relates to the finite mind but not to pure being or consciousness. He notes that our current actions can influence future ones, and that it is possible our present experience is influenced by the past. However, consciousness itself is beyond karma.
A man seeks guidance on how to use Rupert’s archive constructively. Rupert suggests that the best approach is to take a retreat and watch all the sessions of that retreat in chronological order. This way, the meditations and conversations flow seamlessly into one another.
In a discussion on morality, Kant’s idea of treating humanity as an end in itself is raised. Can compassionate relations exist without non-dual understanding? Rupert observes that many who are unaware of non-duality still feel deep compassion for others. This arises from recognising our shared being at the deepest level. Understanding isn’t necessary; feeling is.
A woman raises the concept of the duality of being and non-being. Rupert responds that non-being cannot exist. Being is the unformulated ground, essence or nature of reality, while existence is what emerges with form from this ground. He likens existence to a movie and being to the screen. The movie, in essence, doesn’t truly stand out from the screen; it only appears to.
A man asks how to conquer the desire for awakening, questioning if it’s just another trick of the mind. Rupert explains that this desire stems from our lifelong pursuit of happiness through acquiring worldly things. But awakening isn’t about acquiring objects; it’s about understanding the nature of the subject. It cannot be acquired or found. The key to conquering desire is realising that our true nature is already free from it – we are inherently happy.
In a conversation about seeing, the question arises: Do we need physical eyes to see? Rupert uses the analogy of Mary asleep in Oxford, dreaming that she is Jane on the streets of Paris. If Rupert were to speak to Jane, she would acknowledge that her eyes are required for seeing. But because Jane is a fictional dream character, she is only presuming to have physical eyes. If she could delve deeper, it would be clear she doesn’t actually possess physical eyes.