There Is No Being Separate From God's Being from the media Who Understands?
A woman describes her experience as her namesake, and the being behind it all. She feels as if God designates our selves to experience what is experienced, and that the true identity is remembered at death. She also describes a near-death experience of being forced back into the body, in which she felt like three beings. Rupert suggests that it is merely an idea that there is her individual being and God's being. It's a misunderstanding because there is no being separate from God's being, or even just a part of God's being. There is just God's being.
- Duration: 13 minutes and 54 seconds
- Recorded on: Oct 28, 2023
- Event: Seven Day Retreat at Mercy Center, CA – 22nd to 29th October
A man who is new to non-duality, says he understands that trying to understand this teaching with the mind is fruitless. Does that mean that there is a leap to be made at some point to belief? If not, if it's experiential rather than a belief, then how do you know when you're there? Rupert responds that the conclusion might be that it's not possible to know reality, which is logical. But there is more to experience than objects such as thoughts, feelings and so on. Rupert guides him in self-enquiry to an experiential understanding.
A woman, who has been diagnosed as bipolar, has had some levelling off since getting on medication. She speaks of getting to a very familiar and reassuring place during meditation, which feels like déjà vu. Rupert responds that it's your being, which has been with you all along. It's your primary experience. You've been there many times; that's why it feels like déjà vu.
A man asks, what is the purpose of my life? Rupert responds that there are two purposes. The first is to discover who you really are, the fact of your being. And the second is to recognise the nature of your being. That is the source of peace and happiness that everyone seeks.
A woman speaks of a group in Boston that has been together about forty years, and it is the sister school of the school where Rupert started. She asks what she can take back from this retreat to this group that is following many paths up the mountain? Rupert suggests that all you can take is your love and your understanding. Many people may not be at this level of understanding, at the top of the mountain.
A woman says she feels like she is two, a character and the one who is trying to get rid of the character. Rupert responds that there are not two, they are the same. The one that is aware is not trying to get rid of the seeming other character. There is nothing to get rid of; right now you are this pure, pristine and peaceful being.
A man references the line that 'there is no duality and no non-duality', and he asks if this is what Rupert means by beyond the mountaintop. He also asks, 'How do I get off the mountain?' Rupert replies that non-duality only means something in reference to duality. Non-duality is the thorn that removes duality. You can't get there; you are there.
A man describes the way his life has changed since the last retreat. In particular, his need to be liked has been replaced with an underlying peace. He says that he had the feeling that Rupert loved him but didn't like him. He asks if what he needed was not to need Rupert's approval. Rupert responds that his interpretations are way off. He apologises for the feeling of not being liked. He says, 'I love you, and I like you very much.'
A woman discusses the propensity to abide in a transcendent, peaceful place that, when too much time is spent there, leads to detachment from the world. She asks if the deep, dark uncomfortable places of her life are part of this understanding. Rupert says that in early days, he used to think that one hung out in a kind of detached, aloof state. But that is in contrast to being completely involved in the content of experience. It is legitimate, initially, to stand back, to disengage from the world. What we are does transcend experience but experience is also imminent within awareness. You allow experience to come back, and you return fully into experience.
A woman speaks of floating in peace during meditation and she has the impulse to let go of everything in her life. She feels like a shapeless something which is easy on retreat. Rupert suggests just stay floating in it. That's why we have retreat, to make it easy. It's like a musician practicing scales and how he or she utilises that when they perform, or in this instance, when you go out into life. There's no need to think how do I do anything, just let what happens in retreat inform your life.
A woman describes an experience she had in meditation whereby she realised that there is a good place to go, but which she cannot go to when she is holding onto another person or experience. Rupert responds that that's beautiful, and you can go back to that insight.
A woman asks about a comment Rupert made about sorrow, and just letting it float there. Rupert responds 'yes' just let it float there.
A woman describes her experience as her namesake, and the being behind it all. She feels as if God designates our selves to experience what is experienced, and that the true identity is remembered at death. She also describes a near-death experience of being forced back into the body, in which she felt like three beings. Rupert suggests that it is merely an idea that there is her individual being and God's being. It's a misunderstanding because there is no being separate from God's being, or even just a part of God's being. There is just God's being.
A man asks, how does zero become one, or how does nothing become something? How to get unstuck on this question? Rupert responds that the one never really becomes two. The only reason the word 'one' is used is as a concession to those who believe there are two. We use the thorn of oneness to remove the thorn of twoness. Ultimately there are neither, which is why the term 'non-duality' is used to describe what it is not. Turn around in the other direction and ask, 'Who wants to know the answer to the "why" question?' in order to dissolve the question.
A question is asked about the futility of asking the 'why' question and how not to be tempted towards nihilism. Rupert elaborates that this understanding doesn't result in nihilism. It's not nothing; it's not two. It's not a void. It may be empty of objective contents, but it is, in fact, plenitude and fullness. In this understanding, you end up in joy, not nihilism.
Is free will illusory? Rupert responds that it's illusory but it seems to exist. The deeper question is not 'is there free will?' but 'is there a separate self to have free will?' Does King Lear have free will?
Without free will, what is our role? Rupert responds that it is to live as if you have free will and use it in service of love and understanding.
A man asks who understands? Rupert replies that the one who understands is the one that is aware. As human beings, we think, we feel and we perceive. If reality is approached through thinking, when the thinking process dissolves, we call that understanding. When the feeling dissolves, we call that love. When perception dissolves, we call that beauty. Reality is only referred to as understanding as a concession to the person who feels they exist separately from true being. Understanding doesn't take place in the mind.
A man who is new to non-duality, says he understands that trying to understand this teaching with the mind is fruitless. Does that mean that there is a leap to be made at some point to belief? If not, if it's experiential rather than a belief, then how do you know when you're there? Rupert responds that the conclusion might be that it's not possible to know reality, which is logical. But there is more to experience than objects such as thoughts, feelings and so on. Rupert guides him in self-enquiry to an experiential understanding.
A woman, who has been diagnosed as bipolar, has had some levelling off since getting on medication. She speaks of getting to a very familiar and reassuring place during meditation, which feels like déjà vu. Rupert responds that it's your being, which has been with you all along. It's your primary experience. You've been there many times; that's why it feels like déjà vu.
A man asks, what is the purpose of my life? Rupert responds that there are two purposes. The first is to discover who you really are, the fact of your being. And the second is to recognise the nature of your being. That is the source of peace and happiness that everyone seeks.
A woman speaks of a group in Boston that has been together about forty years, and it is the sister school of the school where Rupert started. She asks what she can take back from this retreat to this group that is following many paths up the mountain? Rupert suggests that all you can take is your love and your understanding. Many people may not be at this level of understanding, at the top of the mountain.
A woman says she feels like she is two, a character and the one who is trying to get rid of the character. Rupert responds that there are not two, they are the same. The one that is aware is not trying to get rid of the seeming other character. There is nothing to get rid of; right now you are this pure, pristine and peaceful being.
A man references the line that 'there is no duality and no non-duality', and he asks if this is what Rupert means by beyond the mountaintop. He also asks, 'How do I get off the mountain?' Rupert replies that non-duality only means something in reference to duality. Non-duality is the thorn that removes duality. You can't get there; you are there.
A man describes the way his life has changed since the last retreat. In particular, his need to be liked has been replaced with an underlying peace. He says that he had the feeling that Rupert loved him but didn't like him. He asks if what he needed was not to need Rupert's approval. Rupert responds that his interpretations are way off. He apologises for the feeling of not being liked. He says, 'I love you, and I like you very much.'
A woman discusses the propensity to abide in a transcendent, peaceful place that, when too much time is spent there, leads to detachment from the world. She asks if the deep, dark uncomfortable places of her life are part of this understanding. Rupert says that in early days, he used to think that one hung out in a kind of detached, aloof state. But that is in contrast to being completely involved in the content of experience. It is legitimate, initially, to stand back, to disengage from the world. What we are does transcend experience but experience is also imminent within awareness. You allow experience to come back, and you return fully into experience.
A woman speaks of floating in peace during meditation and she has the impulse to let go of everything in her life. She feels like a shapeless something which is easy on retreat. Rupert suggests just stay floating in it. That's why we have retreat, to make it easy. It's like a musician practicing scales and how he or she utilises that when they perform, or in this instance, when you go out into life. There's no need to think how do I do anything, just let what happens in retreat inform your life.
A woman describes an experience she had in meditation whereby she realised that there is a good place to go, but which she cannot go to when she is holding onto another person or experience. Rupert responds that that's beautiful, and you can go back to that insight.
A woman asks about a comment Rupert made about sorrow, and just letting it float there. Rupert responds 'yes' just let it float there.
A woman describes her experience as her namesake, and the being behind it all. She feels as if God designates our selves to experience what is experienced, and that the true identity is remembered at death. She also describes a near-death experience of being forced back into the body, in which she felt like three beings. Rupert suggests that it is merely an idea that there is her individual being and God's being. It's a misunderstanding because there is no being separate from God's being, or even just a part of God's being. There is just God's being.
A man asks, how does zero become one, or how does nothing become something? How to get unstuck on this question? Rupert responds that the one never really becomes two. The only reason the word 'one' is used is as a concession to those who believe there are two. We use the thorn of oneness to remove the thorn of twoness. Ultimately there are neither, which is why the term 'non-duality' is used to describe what it is not. Turn around in the other direction and ask, 'Who wants to know the answer to the "why" question?' in order to dissolve the question.
A question is asked about the futility of asking the 'why' question and how not to be tempted towards nihilism. Rupert elaborates that this understanding doesn't result in nihilism. It's not nothing; it's not two. It's not a void. It may be empty of objective contents, but it is, in fact, plenitude and fullness. In this understanding, you end up in joy, not nihilism.
Is free will illusory? Rupert responds that it's illusory but it seems to exist. The deeper question is not 'is there free will?' but 'is there a separate self to have free will?' Does King Lear have free will?
Without free will, what is our role? Rupert responds that it is to live as if you have free will and use it in service of love and understanding.
A man asks who understands? Rupert replies that the one who understands is the one that is aware. As human beings, we think, we feel and we perceive. If reality is approached through thinking, when the thinking process dissolves, we call that understanding. When the feeling dissolves, we call that love. When perception dissolves, we call that beauty. Reality is only referred to as understanding as a concession to the person who feels they exist separately from true being. Understanding doesn't take place in the mind.