Infinite Cannot Know Finite Directly from the media All Is the One, the One Is All
A man refers to Rupert’s statement that universal consciousness doesn’t know anything about us. He uses the analogy of King Lear and John Smith, asking why, although King Lear doesn’t exist, John Smith seems to be aware of what happens to King Lear. Rupert clarifies that the infinite cannot know the finite directly, as it can only perceive through the agency of the finite mind. He shares that, in the same way, when one falls asleep in Las Vegas and dreams about being on the streets of Paris, one doesn’t experience the streets of Paris directly. One creates the streets of Paris within one’s mind and perceives them from the perspective of the person one seems to be in the dream.
- Duration: 13 minutes and 3 seconds
- Recorded on: Oct 21, 2024
- Event: Seven-Day Retreat at Mercy Center – 18 to 25 October 2024
A man seeks clarification, asking if words like ‘I’ or ‘me’ are used only as compassionate concessions to help guide people from identifying as a body to identifying as awareness, but ultimately there is no identity – just that which is not two. Rupert confirms that’s correct. He says if reality were to refer to itself, it would say ‘I,’ because ‘I’ is the name that which knows itself gives to itself. The truest word reality could say about itself is ‘I’.
A man refers to Rupert’s statement that universal consciousness doesn’t know anything about us. He uses the analogy of King Lear and John Smith, asking why, although King Lear doesn’t exist, John Smith seems to be aware of what happens to King Lear. Rupert clarifies that the infinite cannot know the finite directly, as it can only perceive through the agency of the finite mind. He shares that, in the same way, when one falls asleep in Las Vegas and dreams about being on the streets of Paris, one doesn’t experience the streets of Paris directly. One creates the streets of Paris within one’s mind and perceives them from the perspective of the person one seems to be in the dream.
A woman speaks of Papaji’s suggestion that there is a step beyond ‘I am’ and wonders if the infinite saying ‘I am’ implies it is beyond the knowledge ‘I am’. Rupert replies that ‘I am’ is an expression within the finite mind of what the infinite would say about itself if it could speak. The infinite is self-luminous and self-aware. The knowledge ‘I am’ is the first form of the infinite in the finite mind, and these words are a representation in the finite mind of the infinite’s self-luminous nature.
A woman asks if the frequency of mental questioning decreases with more resting in being. Rupert replies that, in his experience, it has. He shares that he has been thinking and reading voraciously about these matters for many years, asking every possible question in the process that Atmananda Krishna Menon called higher reasoning. Over time, these questions were answered for himself, and eventually, he ran out of questions. His mind then came to a natural peace, not through discipline, but as the inevitable consequence of understanding.
A woman shares that she has been abiding in the presence of God more and more, feeling more comfortable and at peace. Rupert points out the distinction between abiding in and abiding as the presence of God. He says the former is like the space in a room saying it abides in the vast space of the universe, whereas the latter is like the space saying it abides as the vast space. There are no finite beings, just as there are no finite spaces in the universe. The experience of one’s being is infinite, and one abides as being, not in being.
A man shares that during meditation earlier that day he realised that awareness as ever-present, peaceful, fulfilled and loving. He asks if there is still something for him to work on. Rupert says that these statements are what the finite mind says about awareness and are legitimate – they counter the belief that awareness is temporary, agitated, sorrowful and separate. The next step is to experience awareness as it is in its own experience of itself, until there is just the pure awareness of being and no other knowledge.
A man asks about two contrasting philosophies. One states that we are Brahman and there is nothing to do, full stop, while Rupert’s teaching suggests that we are Brahman but there is something to do. Rupert says that what there is to do is to recognise that one is Brahman, the infinite being. This recognition leads to the realisation that there is nothing to do. However, one must do whatever is necessary to come to this understanding for oneself, rather than superimposing it as a belief. Otherwise, one would be like a swan on a lake, appearing to do nothing on the surface but doing an awful lot beneath the surface.
A man asks about two sets of statements: one about not being the knower, known and knowing, and the other about not being the doer, done and doing. He resonates more with the first set. Rupert explains the triad: the subject knows the object, and the knowing links them, as in the statement ‘I know you’. What one essentially is, is none of these individual elements. All those elements are the One, but the One is none of them. Rupert encourages the man to stay with the first set if it resonates more.
A man expresses gratitude and shares that, by unexplainable coincidence of the universe, on their way to the retreat centre earlier that day his wife found a new video on YouTube where Rupert answered the question he was going to ask. He shares his reflection on humans living on the surface of the earth, sustained by the sun, and a story of his brother in Africa, witnessing a man’s amazement at seeing an aeroplane for the first time. Rupert thanks him and says he is touched by his sharing.
A woman expresses her experience of grasping at relationships and struggling with a sense of abandonment, especially regarding the changes in Rupert’s schedule. Rupert says that the universe will keep presenting itself to her in the form of people on whom her happiness seems to depend, only to take them away. He says this is the universe’s way of delivering the message: her happiness does not depend on a person.
A man mentions two videos where Rupert suggested that he doesn’t recommend deep meditation and that there is a mystical access to God that only some people have, and asks what Rupert meant by meditation and access to God. Rupert clarifies that by meditation, he meant not trying to do something with the mind or to cease doing something with the mind, but simply being. He says that the idea of mystical access to God is the opposite of what he teaches, explaining that the pathway to God is the same for everyone.
A man seeks clarification, asking if words like ‘I’ or ‘me’ are used only as compassionate concessions to help guide people from identifying as a body to identifying as awareness, but ultimately there is no identity – just that which is not two. Rupert confirms that’s correct. He says if reality were to refer to itself, it would say ‘I,’ because ‘I’ is the name that which knows itself gives to itself. The truest word reality could say about itself is ‘I’.
A man refers to Rupert’s statement that universal consciousness doesn’t know anything about us. He uses the analogy of King Lear and John Smith, asking why, although King Lear doesn’t exist, John Smith seems to be aware of what happens to King Lear. Rupert clarifies that the infinite cannot know the finite directly, as it can only perceive through the agency of the finite mind. He shares that, in the same way, when one falls asleep in Las Vegas and dreams about being on the streets of Paris, one doesn’t experience the streets of Paris directly. One creates the streets of Paris within one’s mind and perceives them from the perspective of the person one seems to be in the dream.
A woman speaks of Papaji’s suggestion that there is a step beyond ‘I am’ and wonders if the infinite saying ‘I am’ implies it is beyond the knowledge ‘I am’. Rupert replies that ‘I am’ is an expression within the finite mind of what the infinite would say about itself if it could speak. The infinite is self-luminous and self-aware. The knowledge ‘I am’ is the first form of the infinite in the finite mind, and these words are a representation in the finite mind of the infinite’s self-luminous nature.
A woman asks if the frequency of mental questioning decreases with more resting in being. Rupert replies that, in his experience, it has. He shares that he has been thinking and reading voraciously about these matters for many years, asking every possible question in the process that Atmananda Krishna Menon called higher reasoning. Over time, these questions were answered for himself, and eventually, he ran out of questions. His mind then came to a natural peace, not through discipline, but as the inevitable consequence of understanding.
A woman shares that she has been abiding in the presence of God more and more, feeling more comfortable and at peace. Rupert points out the distinction between abiding in and abiding as the presence of God. He says the former is like the space in a room saying it abides in the vast space of the universe, whereas the latter is like the space saying it abides as the vast space. There are no finite beings, just as there are no finite spaces in the universe. The experience of one’s being is infinite, and one abides as being, not in being.
A man shares that during meditation earlier that day he realised that awareness as ever-present, peaceful, fulfilled and loving. He asks if there is still something for him to work on. Rupert says that these statements are what the finite mind says about awareness and are legitimate – they counter the belief that awareness is temporary, agitated, sorrowful and separate. The next step is to experience awareness as it is in its own experience of itself, until there is just the pure awareness of being and no other knowledge.
A man asks about two contrasting philosophies. One states that we are Brahman and there is nothing to do, full stop, while Rupert’s teaching suggests that we are Brahman but there is something to do. Rupert says that what there is to do is to recognise that one is Brahman, the infinite being. This recognition leads to the realisation that there is nothing to do. However, one must do whatever is necessary to come to this understanding for oneself, rather than superimposing it as a belief. Otherwise, one would be like a swan on a lake, appearing to do nothing on the surface but doing an awful lot beneath the surface.
A man asks about two sets of statements: one about not being the knower, known and knowing, and the other about not being the doer, done and doing. He resonates more with the first set. Rupert explains the triad: the subject knows the object, and the knowing links them, as in the statement ‘I know you’. What one essentially is, is none of these individual elements. All those elements are the One, but the One is none of them. Rupert encourages the man to stay with the first set if it resonates more.
A man expresses gratitude and shares that, by unexplainable coincidence of the universe, on their way to the retreat centre earlier that day his wife found a new video on YouTube where Rupert answered the question he was going to ask. He shares his reflection on humans living on the surface of the earth, sustained by the sun, and a story of his brother in Africa, witnessing a man’s amazement at seeing an aeroplane for the first time. Rupert thanks him and says he is touched by his sharing.
A woman expresses her experience of grasping at relationships and struggling with a sense of abandonment, especially regarding the changes in Rupert’s schedule. Rupert says that the universe will keep presenting itself to her in the form of people on whom her happiness seems to depend, only to take them away. He says this is the universe’s way of delivering the message: her happiness does not depend on a person.
A man mentions two videos where Rupert suggested that he doesn’t recommend deep meditation and that there is a mystical access to God that only some people have, and asks what Rupert meant by meditation and access to God. Rupert clarifies that by meditation, he meant not trying to do something with the mind or to cease doing something with the mind, but simply being. He says that the idea of mystical access to God is the opposite of what he teaches, explaining that the pathway to God is the same for everyone.