How Would You Define 'Universe'? from the media The Sky Doesn’t Follow the Clouds

A man talks about thoughts that come with a presumption of a separate self and wonders if there is a chain of causation. Rupert affirms that many thoughts arise on behalf of the separate self. The important thing is not to try to crush the thoughts, but to investigate the ‘I’ on whose behalf they arise. If that one was found to be illusory, in time thoughts associated with that begin to die down. We never find the hurt self; we find the true and only self.

A man asks if effortless peace comes when both the mind and the body quiet down. Rupert suggests that that is when we first notice it, but then in time it remains present during the activities of the mind and body. At first, we tend to notice it in the absence of those activities.

A woman asks if the universe appears in awareness, is known and made of awareness, and yet is not awareness itself. Rupert affirms that it is not itself aware. She then asks if the universe is an object with a beginning and an end. Rupert suggests that if we can see that there is such a thing as a universe, then yes. Anything that arises, arises in being, as being. Anything that is a temporary name and form of being. There is just aware being, modulating itself in the form of the universe, appearing as such without ever ceasing to be itself.

A woman references the idea that the world wouldn’t manifest unless it was perceived. Rupert suggests that the world wouldn't appear. Its reality would still be present, but it wouldn’t have an appearance because there would be nothing to perceive it. He is not suggesting that all there is to the universe is the content of our finite minds; that is solipsism. The reality of the universe exists prior to and independent of its being perceived, but when it is perceived, the limits of that finite mind confer an appearance on that reality.

A man says that he has a silent question that goes unasked but is already answered. Rupert suggests that the silent question is an impulse that is reaching for the truth but is so fine that it can’t be formulated in the mind. The answer is of the same nature, so it can’t be formulated in the mind. An unformulated question in the mind can only be met by an unformulated answer. That’s what takes place in the meditations. The mind will always reduce the understanding and make an image that is a pale reflection of the original understanding.

A woman talks about her family members who are creative but not interested in non-duality. Rupert suggests that if they aren’t interested in non-duality then just go to where they are. There is nothing missing. If they ask you a question, then respond. Otherwise, just be with them. Stand in being.

A woman references the statement that gratitude is the highest state of the separate self. Rupert suggests that this comment does not imply that if the separate self goes, then gratitude also goes. King Lear experiences gratitude, but what he is really experiencing is the love that is the true nature of John Smith. He doesn’t feel, ‘I am that love’. The best he can feel is gratitude for it, because there seems to be a distance between the two. Gratitude is just one of the manifestations of this river of love.

A woman says that the retreat has taken away a lot of her stability, but she doesn’t want to give up. Rupert says that he knows it doesn’t feel this way to her, but her understanding is deepening. You are letting go of a lesser understanding, which generates nostalgia. There is less there for the mind to claim, so it is feeling insecure. He references Meister Eckhart's quote of praying to God to rid him of God, his limited understanding of God.

A man asks what Rupert learned from clay and creating pottery. Rupert responds that it was like his apprenticeship in these matters. He describes his pottery teacher as a cantankerous Zen master. What he learned was not direct but takes place below the rational mind, so it's difficult to formulate what was learned.

A man asks about being in nature without creating objects in his mind like a tree, a mountain. It’s just sound and light. Rupert suggests that the human mind consists of thinking and perceiving. Perceiving gives it form, thinking gives it a name. You are still experiencing the world through perception. If you take away the name, then the world loses a degree of its veiling capacity.

A woman references a holographic theory of the world. Rupert suggests that an object – snow – is the potentiality and our perceiving it renders it in form. Something ‘out there’ does not exist in the way it seems to exist when we perceive it, but its reality is there. Its reality is not ‘out there’ because time and space are a part of the filter of perception. The conceptual mind can't go there. Thinking about it will push your mind to its limit, and then it will lie down.

A woman references Rupert saying that there is no such thing as spiritual experience and asks if it is then equally true to say that all experience is spiritual experience. Rupert suggests that it is true, you can equally argue the opposite.

A woman asks why awareness would limit itself to experience creation. Rupert suggests that it doesn’t really limit itself, it localises itself. Mary localises herself as Jane within her mind, but her mind stays the same. Awareness does this for no reason. The best we can say is that it is awareness's nature to do so. The mind doesn't like that; it looks for cause and effect.

A woman asks if writing is a lesser art than painting or music because it uses words, which are labels and thoughts. Rupert shares a passage of William Wordsworth and says that words are just as powerful as music or painting.

When we say become aware of our breath, we all become aware of our breath. But in fact we were already aware of our breath, just subtlety. When I say, ‘be aware of being’ the same thing happens. We were, in fact, always aware of being but because it is so subtle we are not aware that we are aware. Being is always aware of itself. Sometimes we use subtle objects, like the breath, to lead us to step back to our being.

A man asks about how to handle the sense of separation when it comes up. Rupert suggests that when he notices it he can say, ‘I am feeling separate’ and can then emphasise the ‘I am’ or emphasise the feeling. Normally we emphasise the feeling at the expense of the ‘I am’. Don’t do anything to the feeling. The separate self likes it when we get busy with it, either trying to fulfil it or get rid of it. The separate self cannot stand abiding in being.

A man references the idea of letting the mind wrestle with things until it winds itself down, citing his Zen training. Rupert suggests that engaging the intellect in that way is not necessary. That answer was for someone else. There are different minds. All approaches are valid.

A man shares that he feels inner chaos ranging from expansiveness to physical disarray over the course of the retreat. Rupert suggests that the meditations are generating this flow of experiences in you. Don’t fight them or turn away from them. You could feel yourself as the space of awareness in which they arise. Resistanceless, open empty space. These are intense clouds moving through that space. The sky doesn’t follow the clouds.

A man who is translating ‘I Am’ into Chinese, asks about how ‘being’ is a non-compound word. Rupert says that being is one, so it is not composed of two things. Ideally, if you want to find a word that evokes what it is, you want to somehow use the word to directly indicate its meaning. If it were two things, it could be reduced further. One thing cannot be further reduced. The irreducible oneness of being. Whatever word(s) is used should evoke, not describe.

A man asks for clarity around the words ‘existence’, ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’. Reality is that which cannot disappear. Rupert suggests that he is overthinking it, and that he will end up with a product of his mind, not his being.

A man talks about thoughts that come with a presumption of a separate self and wonders if there is a chain of causation. Rupert affirms that many thoughts arise on behalf of the separate self. The important thing is not to try to crush the thoughts, but to investigate the ‘I’ on whose behalf they arise. If that one was found to be illusory, in time thoughts associated with that begin to die down. We never find the hurt self; we find the true and only self.

A man asks if effortless peace comes when both the mind and the body quiet down. Rupert suggests that that is when we first notice it, but then in time it remains present during the activities of the mind and body. At first, we tend to notice it in the absence of those activities.

A woman asks if the universe appears in awareness, is known and made of awareness, and yet is not awareness itself. Rupert affirms that it is not itself aware. She then asks if the universe is an object with a beginning and an end. Rupert suggests that if we can see that there is such a thing as a universe, then yes. Anything that arises, arises in being, as being. Anything that is a temporary name and form of being. There is just aware being, modulating itself in the form of the universe, appearing as such without ever ceasing to be itself.

A woman references the idea that the world wouldn’t manifest unless it was perceived. Rupert suggests that the world wouldn't appear. Its reality would still be present, but it wouldn’t have an appearance because there would be nothing to perceive it. He is not suggesting that all there is to the universe is the content of our finite minds; that is solipsism. The reality of the universe exists prior to and independent of its being perceived, but when it is perceived, the limits of that finite mind confer an appearance on that reality.

A man says that he has a silent question that goes unasked but is already answered. Rupert suggests that the silent question is an impulse that is reaching for the truth but is so fine that it can’t be formulated in the mind. The answer is of the same nature, so it can’t be formulated in the mind. An unformulated question in the mind can only be met by an unformulated answer. That’s what takes place in the meditations. The mind will always reduce the understanding and make an image that is a pale reflection of the original understanding.

A woman talks about her family members who are creative but not interested in non-duality. Rupert suggests that if they aren’t interested in non-duality then just go to where they are. There is nothing missing. If they ask you a question, then respond. Otherwise, just be with them. Stand in being.

A woman references the statement that gratitude is the highest state of the separate self. Rupert suggests that this comment does not imply that if the separate self goes, then gratitude also goes. King Lear experiences gratitude, but what he is really experiencing is the love that is the true nature of John Smith. He doesn’t feel, ‘I am that love’. The best he can feel is gratitude for it, because there seems to be a distance between the two. Gratitude is just one of the manifestations of this river of love.

A woman says that the retreat has taken away a lot of her stability, but she doesn’t want to give up. Rupert says that he knows it doesn’t feel this way to her, but her understanding is deepening. You are letting go of a lesser understanding, which generates nostalgia. There is less there for the mind to claim, so it is feeling insecure. He references Meister Eckhart's quote of praying to God to rid him of God, his limited understanding of God.

A man asks what Rupert learned from clay and creating pottery. Rupert responds that it was like his apprenticeship in these matters. He describes his pottery teacher as a cantankerous Zen master. What he learned was not direct but takes place below the rational mind, so it's difficult to formulate what was learned.

A man asks about being in nature without creating objects in his mind like a tree, a mountain. It’s just sound and light. Rupert suggests that the human mind consists of thinking and perceiving. Perceiving gives it form, thinking gives it a name. You are still experiencing the world through perception. If you take away the name, then the world loses a degree of its veiling capacity.

A woman references a holographic theory of the world. Rupert suggests that an object – snow – is the potentiality and our perceiving it renders it in form. Something ‘out there’ does not exist in the way it seems to exist when we perceive it, but its reality is there. Its reality is not ‘out there’ because time and space are a part of the filter of perception. The conceptual mind can't go there. Thinking about it will push your mind to its limit, and then it will lie down.

A woman references Rupert saying that there is no such thing as spiritual experience and asks if it is then equally true to say that all experience is spiritual experience. Rupert suggests that it is true, you can equally argue the opposite.

A woman asks why awareness would limit itself to experience creation. Rupert suggests that it doesn’t really limit itself, it localises itself. Mary localises herself as Jane within her mind, but her mind stays the same. Awareness does this for no reason. The best we can say is that it is awareness's nature to do so. The mind doesn't like that; it looks for cause and effect.

A woman asks if writing is a lesser art than painting or music because it uses words, which are labels and thoughts. Rupert shares a passage of William Wordsworth and says that words are just as powerful as music or painting.

When we say become aware of our breath, we all become aware of our breath. But in fact we were already aware of our breath, just subtlety. When I say, ‘be aware of being’ the same thing happens. We were, in fact, always aware of being but because it is so subtle we are not aware that we are aware. Being is always aware of itself. Sometimes we use subtle objects, like the breath, to lead us to step back to our being.

A man asks about how to handle the sense of separation when it comes up. Rupert suggests that when he notices it he can say, ‘I am feeling separate’ and can then emphasise the ‘I am’ or emphasise the feeling. Normally we emphasise the feeling at the expense of the ‘I am’. Don’t do anything to the feeling. The separate self likes it when we get busy with it, either trying to fulfil it or get rid of it. The separate self cannot stand abiding in being.

A man references the idea of letting the mind wrestle with things until it winds itself down, citing his Zen training. Rupert suggests that engaging the intellect in that way is not necessary. That answer was for someone else. There are different minds. All approaches are valid.

A man shares that he feels inner chaos ranging from expansiveness to physical disarray over the course of the retreat. Rupert suggests that the meditations are generating this flow of experiences in you. Don’t fight them or turn away from them. You could feel yourself as the space of awareness in which they arise. Resistanceless, open empty space. These are intense clouds moving through that space. The sky doesn’t follow the clouds.

A man who is translating ‘I Am’ into Chinese, asks about how ‘being’ is a non-compound word. Rupert says that being is one, so it is not composed of two things. Ideally, if you want to find a word that evokes what it is, you want to somehow use the word to directly indicate its meaning. If it were two things, it could be reduced further. One thing cannot be further reduced. The irreducible oneness of being. Whatever word(s) is used should evoke, not describe.

A man asks for clarity around the words ‘existence’, ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’. Reality is that which cannot disappear. Rupert suggests that he is overthinking it, and that he will end up with a product of his mind, not his being.