Expansion Beyond the Limits of the Body from the media There Is Only One Undifferentiated Reality

A man asks about how a realised person behaves as he attempts to clarify perceived discrepancies in different teachings. Rupert suggests that there is a responsibility when speaking on behalf of the truth. Actions have to be in line with words. When one understands and feels that everyone and everything shares our being, we act from that place. And just like we continue to feed our bodies, we continue to feed our minds, but that isn’t a ‘discipline’ in the typical sense. We do it from love, not from imposing something from the outside.

A woman wonders if the drive or the motivation to act and do, dissipates with realisation. She describes the desire to 'just chill'. Rupert responds that the same faculties for acting exist, but they are now used in the service of love and truth rather than the separate self. Is the desire to chill masquerading as peace? Perhaps go out into the world to share this understanding using your skills. You don't need to be clear about the motivation or what to do but allow the universe to respond.

A man asks Rupert how he knows that happiness is the nature of our being and that it is shared. Rupert suggests that he knows this by exploring the nature of being and he knows that being is shared by the quality of the experience that we all experience at the retreat – the love and friendship. Rupert talks about how we hear the teaching, and we know that it’s true, and it is the mind that catches up later.

A man asks about Rupert’s use of the word blasphemy. Rupert suggests that his use of the word is a play on how it is usually used, which would be to say that ‘we are God’ which would be considered blasphemous. What Rupert is suggesting is that if we set ourselves apart from God, then God is not God. To assert oneself as a separate self is a denial of God, which is blasphemy.

A man asks if there is a leap of faith in non-duality. Rupert clarifies that love and understanding takes place in the heart when the mind comes to an end. Faith is not belief but is based on the deep recognition of something that we already know that has not yet come into focus. We know it without knowing it.

A woman whose father recently died, asks about the difference between life and death. When does localised consciousness become localised and delocalised? Rupert suggests that we imagine a universal space without limits. Now put on a virtual reality headset, like ‘putting on’ the finite mind at birth. There is then the perception of localisation in that virtual world. From the consciousness-only point of view, there is no particular localisation similar to having a dream. In a sense, we are never really born and never really died. Her father is eternal being.

A woman asks if consciousness is learning anything when it localises as a separate self. Rupert responds that it isn't learning anything about its nature, like the screen behind the movie never changes. Its objective knowledge is changing, but the subjective knowledge never changes.

A man refers to the shift when Rupert says, ‘Go to the “I am”’ and how it doesn’t last long before subtle objects of experience appear. Where is the distinction between the ‘I am’ and the ‘I am’ that experiences? Rupert suggests that the distinction between the ‘I am’ and the objects begins with the belief that the objects are real in their own right. That belief creates the distinction. Rupert uses the screen and movie metaphor to elaborate. There is only one undifferentiated reality.

A man asks about the difference between finite and infinite mind, and memory. Rupert suggests we imagine a container called time that houses all our experiences. We think time creates our memories; it's the other way around. Memory creates time. Universal consciousness localises its view and experiences a group of objects at the one time. All the objects of the universe seem to be stored in space. This localisation is a kind of forgetting of all experience beyond the localised perspective. Time and space are not inherent in reality but are the inevitable result of consciousness localising itself in a finite mind. It is how consciousness experiences reality through the localised finite mind. Space and time are like the orange-tinted glasses of the finite mind.

A man asks for an explanation for how the space in our room is the same space in all rooms. Is it due to the limits of the finite mind? Rupert suggests that that would only be true if there was no perception. Sense perceptions are the windows for inside the room and outside the room, or the world.

A woman asks if Rupert is stablised in being, where there is no place and time. Rupert replies almost all the time. She then asks if there was a moment when that happened. Rupert says that there wasn’t. The stabilisation in being grows and continues to grow. He clarifies that he still experiences space and time in the same way, as would the Buddha.

A man asks a question about vegetarianism after watching a movie on the sentience of plant life. He now wonders if he's causing suffering for plants. Rupert responds that he is a vegetarian, but he does eat plants, and hopes God will forgive him if he's causing any suffering.

A man talks about his meditation experiences as being with effort versus letting it happen. Rupert suggests that he is subtly objectifying being. A camera takes a picture of something that is not itself, not of itself. You can’t look at your eyes. You are trying to look at being and see its qualities, which isn’t possible. Even if you wanted to let go, you can’t let go of it. When do we stop seeing the rope as a snake? What is it that brings the snake to an end? When you see it as a rope. This is the winding down of the great search.

A man asks about what makes him want to search. Rupert suggests that as a concession to the separate self, we search in the ‘right’ place. The concession, over the years, gets more narrow and direct. If there is an impulse to search, search in the right place – your being.

A man asks if stabilisation is also a kind of searching or efforting. Rupert responds that the difference in stabilisation doesn't come from a sense of lack. It’s not a part of the great search.

A man asks if the certainty of universal consciousness is necessary for establishment. Rupert responds that there are two aspects to realisation – one, peace and happiness are the nature of our being, and two, we share that being with everyone and everyone. These two aspects are the essence of all great spiritual traditions. If you recognise that peace is your nature, there is no need to search for anything. The recognition of our shared being is a feeling that we demonstrate in our daily lives.

A man says it is hard to reconcile that he is peace; he doesn't identify with it even when being aware of being aware. Rupert asks him what the nature is of his being right now; is he aware of his being directly? Is it agitated? He leads the man in self-enquiry to discover the unmoving nature of his being behind all experience regardless of whatever experience he is having. Remove all experience, what remains?

A man asks about how a realised person behaves as he attempts to clarify perceived discrepancies in different teachings. Rupert suggests that there is a responsibility when speaking on behalf of the truth. Actions have to be in line with words. When one understands and feels that everyone and everything shares our being, we act from that place. And just like we continue to feed our bodies, we continue to feed our minds, but that isn’t a ‘discipline’ in the typical sense. We do it from love, not from imposing something from the outside.

A woman wonders if the drive or the motivation to act and do, dissipates with realisation. She describes the desire to 'just chill'. Rupert responds that the same faculties for acting exist, but they are now used in the service of love and truth rather than the separate self. Is the desire to chill masquerading as peace? Perhaps go out into the world to share this understanding using your skills. You don't need to be clear about the motivation or what to do but allow the universe to respond.

A man asks Rupert how he knows that happiness is the nature of our being and that it is shared. Rupert suggests that he knows this by exploring the nature of being and he knows that being is shared by the quality of the experience that we all experience at the retreat – the love and friendship. Rupert talks about how we hear the teaching, and we know that it’s true, and it is the mind that catches up later.

A man asks about Rupert’s use of the word blasphemy. Rupert suggests that his use of the word is a play on how it is usually used, which would be to say that ‘we are God’ which would be considered blasphemous. What Rupert is suggesting is that if we set ourselves apart from God, then God is not God. To assert oneself as a separate self is a denial of God, which is blasphemy.

A man asks if there is a leap of faith in non-duality. Rupert clarifies that love and understanding takes place in the heart when the mind comes to an end. Faith is not belief but is based on the deep recognition of something that we already know that has not yet come into focus. We know it without knowing it.

A woman whose father recently died, asks about the difference between life and death. When does localised consciousness become localised and delocalised? Rupert suggests that we imagine a universal space without limits. Now put on a virtual reality headset, like ‘putting on’ the finite mind at birth. There is then the perception of localisation in that virtual world. From the consciousness-only point of view, there is no particular localisation similar to having a dream. In a sense, we are never really born and never really died. Her father is eternal being.

A woman asks if consciousness is learning anything when it localises as a separate self. Rupert responds that it isn't learning anything about its nature, like the screen behind the movie never changes. Its objective knowledge is changing, but the subjective knowledge never changes.

A man refers to the shift when Rupert says, ‘Go to the “I am”’ and how it doesn’t last long before subtle objects of experience appear. Where is the distinction between the ‘I am’ and the ‘I am’ that experiences? Rupert suggests that the distinction between the ‘I am’ and the objects begins with the belief that the objects are real in their own right. That belief creates the distinction. Rupert uses the screen and movie metaphor to elaborate. There is only one undifferentiated reality.

A man asks about the difference between finite and infinite mind, and memory. Rupert suggests we imagine a container called time that houses all our experiences. We think time creates our memories; it's the other way around. Memory creates time. Universal consciousness localises its view and experiences a group of objects at the one time. All the objects of the universe seem to be stored in space. This localisation is a kind of forgetting of all experience beyond the localised perspective. Time and space are not inherent in reality but are the inevitable result of consciousness localising itself in a finite mind. It is how consciousness experiences reality through the localised finite mind. Space and time are like the orange-tinted glasses of the finite mind.

A man asks for an explanation for how the space in our room is the same space in all rooms. Is it due to the limits of the finite mind? Rupert suggests that that would only be true if there was no perception. Sense perceptions are the windows for inside the room and outside the room, or the world.

A woman asks if Rupert is stablised in being, where there is no place and time. Rupert replies almost all the time. She then asks if there was a moment when that happened. Rupert says that there wasn’t. The stabilisation in being grows and continues to grow. He clarifies that he still experiences space and time in the same way, as would the Buddha.

A man asks a question about vegetarianism after watching a movie on the sentience of plant life. He now wonders if he's causing suffering for plants. Rupert responds that he is a vegetarian, but he does eat plants, and hopes God will forgive him if he's causing any suffering.

A man talks about his meditation experiences as being with effort versus letting it happen. Rupert suggests that he is subtly objectifying being. A camera takes a picture of something that is not itself, not of itself. You can’t look at your eyes. You are trying to look at being and see its qualities, which isn’t possible. Even if you wanted to let go, you can’t let go of it. When do we stop seeing the rope as a snake? What is it that brings the snake to an end? When you see it as a rope. This is the winding down of the great search.

A man asks about what makes him want to search. Rupert suggests that as a concession to the separate self, we search in the ‘right’ place. The concession, over the years, gets more narrow and direct. If there is an impulse to search, search in the right place – your being.

A man asks if stabilisation is also a kind of searching or efforting. Rupert responds that the difference in stabilisation doesn't come from a sense of lack. It’s not a part of the great search.

A man asks if the certainty of universal consciousness is necessary for establishment. Rupert responds that there are two aspects to realisation – one, peace and happiness are the nature of our being, and two, we share that being with everyone and everyone. These two aspects are the essence of all great spiritual traditions. If you recognise that peace is your nature, there is no need to search for anything. The recognition of our shared being is a feeling that we demonstrate in our daily lives.

A man says it is hard to reconcile that he is peace; he doesn't identify with it even when being aware of being aware. Rupert asks him what the nature is of his being right now; is he aware of his being directly? Is it agitated? He leads the man in self-enquiry to discover the unmoving nature of his being behind all experience regardless of whatever experience he is having. Remove all experience, what remains?