Vedantic and Tantric Approaches to Romantic Breakup from the media Peace and Happiness Is the Nature of Our Being
A man who recently underwent a breakup asks about the Tantric and Vedantic approaches. Rupert suggests that he can try both approaches. In the Vedantic approach, we leave experience alone and go back to being. We have no agenda with the movie; we just see the screen. The ‘I am’ is always at peace. In the Tantric approach, we don’t take refuge in our being but instead fully embrace the upset. Both lead to the same conclusion: peace and quiet joy.
- Duration: 8 minutes and 27 seconds
- Recorded on: Nov 27, 2022
- Event: Webinar – Sunday 27th November
All spiritual and religious practices and pathways lead to this: simply be. Simply being is our primary experience, which remains present throughout our lives but is normally obscured by the content of experience. For that one, simply being may seem, to begin with, to be something that we have to do, in which case we should do it. We will have to extricate our self from the content of experience and come back to the fact of simply being. As we reside there as that, it will become clear that simply being is what we are, not what we do. If we are looking for something that is not present now then we’re not looking for being, we're looking for an object of experience. That desire cannot lead to lasting peace and happiness. What we really seek to derive from every desire is the peace that is the nature of simply being.
A woman talks about her longing to share the teaching and asks about how to take action without an agenda. Rupert suggests that the action that comes from love is not seeking love. It is seeking to express, communicate, share. It is giving. Action that comes from happiness and love is how that love and happiness shares itself. Do so in the unique way specific to your body-mind.
A man says he's felt a lot of peace lately, but now feels a degree of procrastination as he no longer has a path and is grasping for a practice rather than just being in order to clear out suffering. Rupert responds to go ahead and simply be. Don't let the ego appropriate this understanding in regards to habits and such.
A man who recently underwent a breakup asks about the Tantric and Vedantic approaches. Rupert suggests that he can try both approaches. In the Vedantic approach, we leave experience alone and go back to being. We have no agenda with the movie; we just see the screen. The ‘I am’ is always at peace. In the Tantric approach, we don’t take refuge in our being but instead fully embrace the upset. Both lead to the same conclusion: peace and quiet joy.
A man asks if our essential nature is both highly intimate and unknown. Rupert responds that being is unknown to the mind but known to itself. He says if you can say 'I am' then you are experiencing being and so is known to you. The 'I' that 'I am' is the same 'I', the same being. Our being is not new, but we may get lost in experience and then come back to being feels new in contrast with the content of experience.
A woman asks about what mind is. Rupert says that the finite mind by itself is not the separate self or ego, which is the belief that what I am is limited to the finite mind. It is possible to have a finite mind without having a sense of separation, but such a mind still thinks, feels, perceives, etc. The ego is one small aspect of the mind. Thinking is fine; what is important is on whose behalf do thoughts arise.
A man, who shares that he fell in love with the practice of the presence of God, asks how to practise it as a teacher of young children in a chaotic classroom. Rupert suggests remembering that all the children are God's being. His job is to help them realise that using the language and activity of the children and the classroom, no matter how difficult the child or the behaviour.
A man asks Rupert to dissect the habit of mind to hope for peace and happiness in the future. Rupert says we were all conditioned to believe that happiness is something acquired in the future. There are two possibilities: everything has failed to deliver happiness but we keep on going thinking we will find the right thing – that is the path that most people choose – or the other is to get the message that happiness cannot be delivered by objective experience and that our sense of ourself comes from being.
A man asks, ‘What is my being?’ Rupert asks, ‘When you use the word ‘I’ what are you referring to?’ The man says that he doesn’t know. Rupert suggests that when we look for being, we can’t see anything. We go silent. If asked to describe his thoughts or feelings, he’d have lots to say. When we look for being there is nothing objective there to describe. That is being.
A man asks about Nirvikalpa Samadhi and how it relates to the waking and dreaming states and the knowing of being. Rupert responds that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is like seeing the screen in between clips, identifying with nothing. Sahaja Samadhi is seeing the screen during the movie and identifying with nothing. The ego is the identification with something. To sleep knowingly would be Nirvikalpa. Meditation is like falling asleep whilst staying awake. In deep sleep there is only the knowing of being.
A man, who read a short poem, asks if when we are directed to be knowingly aware, is that awareness being aware of itself. Rupert says yes, and then adds, in reference to the poem, that being is imperturbable and cannot be disturbed.
A woman asks if it is possible to be aware of awareness and objects at the same time. Rupert responds it is like being aware of the screen and the movie at the same time. Eventually, the awareness of being pervades the content of experience. This is Sahaja Samadhi.
A man relays his understanding of being as distinct from experience. Rupert suggests that the ‘I’ is the ever-present screen in all experience. If there were nothing connecting all experience, then experience would just be disconnected fragments. I am this.
A man, who says he is in a difficult relationship, asks about if setting boundaries and then just being is enough. Rupert suggests that more than simply being is required. It is valid to attend to the needs of the relationship. Set a boundary that is informed by love and understanding, but they will likely elicit resistance in your partner. Don’t shy away from that resistance.
A woman asks about the difference between an intellectual and experiential understanding. Rupert speaks of the experience of being that everyone has, which most people mix up with the content of experience. Being is then limited by this mixing up of the two. Being is what we know before the experience of feeling and the content of experience. There is nothing spiritual about it. The nature of our being is peace now, but it seems to take time for the mind and emotions to heal and for peace to come to the foreground.
All spiritual and religious practices and pathways lead to this: simply be. Simply being is our primary experience, which remains present throughout our lives but is normally obscured by the content of experience. For that one, simply being may seem, to begin with, to be something that we have to do, in which case we should do it. We will have to extricate our self from the content of experience and come back to the fact of simply being. As we reside there as that, it will become clear that simply being is what we are, not what we do. If we are looking for something that is not present now then we’re not looking for being, we're looking for an object of experience. That desire cannot lead to lasting peace and happiness. What we really seek to derive from every desire is the peace that is the nature of simply being.
A woman talks about her longing to share the teaching and asks about how to take action without an agenda. Rupert suggests that the action that comes from love is not seeking love. It is seeking to express, communicate, share. It is giving. Action that comes from happiness and love is how that love and happiness shares itself. Do so in the unique way specific to your body-mind.
A man says he's felt a lot of peace lately, but now feels a degree of procrastination as he no longer has a path and is grasping for a practice rather than just being in order to clear out suffering. Rupert responds to go ahead and simply be. Don't let the ego appropriate this understanding in regards to habits and such.
A man who recently underwent a breakup asks about the Tantric and Vedantic approaches. Rupert suggests that he can try both approaches. In the Vedantic approach, we leave experience alone and go back to being. We have no agenda with the movie; we just see the screen. The ‘I am’ is always at peace. In the Tantric approach, we don’t take refuge in our being but instead fully embrace the upset. Both lead to the same conclusion: peace and quiet joy.
A man asks if our essential nature is both highly intimate and unknown. Rupert responds that being is unknown to the mind but known to itself. He says if you can say 'I am' then you are experiencing being and so is known to you. The 'I' that 'I am' is the same 'I', the same being. Our being is not new, but we may get lost in experience and then come back to being feels new in contrast with the content of experience.
A woman asks about what mind is. Rupert says that the finite mind by itself is not the separate self or ego, which is the belief that what I am is limited to the finite mind. It is possible to have a finite mind without having a sense of separation, but such a mind still thinks, feels, perceives, etc. The ego is one small aspect of the mind. Thinking is fine; what is important is on whose behalf do thoughts arise.
A man, who shares that he fell in love with the practice of the presence of God, asks how to practise it as a teacher of young children in a chaotic classroom. Rupert suggests remembering that all the children are God's being. His job is to help them realise that using the language and activity of the children and the classroom, no matter how difficult the child or the behaviour.
A man asks Rupert to dissect the habit of mind to hope for peace and happiness in the future. Rupert says we were all conditioned to believe that happiness is something acquired in the future. There are two possibilities: everything has failed to deliver happiness but we keep on going thinking we will find the right thing – that is the path that most people choose – or the other is to get the message that happiness cannot be delivered by objective experience and that our sense of ourself comes from being.
A man asks, ‘What is my being?’ Rupert asks, ‘When you use the word ‘I’ what are you referring to?’ The man says that he doesn’t know. Rupert suggests that when we look for being, we can’t see anything. We go silent. If asked to describe his thoughts or feelings, he’d have lots to say. When we look for being there is nothing objective there to describe. That is being.
A man asks about Nirvikalpa Samadhi and how it relates to the waking and dreaming states and the knowing of being. Rupert responds that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is like seeing the screen in between clips, identifying with nothing. Sahaja Samadhi is seeing the screen during the movie and identifying with nothing. The ego is the identification with something. To sleep knowingly would be Nirvikalpa. Meditation is like falling asleep whilst staying awake. In deep sleep there is only the knowing of being.
A man, who read a short poem, asks if when we are directed to be knowingly aware, is that awareness being aware of itself. Rupert says yes, and then adds, in reference to the poem, that being is imperturbable and cannot be disturbed.
A woman asks if it is possible to be aware of awareness and objects at the same time. Rupert responds it is like being aware of the screen and the movie at the same time. Eventually, the awareness of being pervades the content of experience. This is Sahaja Samadhi.
A man relays his understanding of being as distinct from experience. Rupert suggests that the ‘I’ is the ever-present screen in all experience. If there were nothing connecting all experience, then experience would just be disconnected fragments. I am this.
A man, who says he is in a difficult relationship, asks about if setting boundaries and then just being is enough. Rupert suggests that more than simply being is required. It is valid to attend to the needs of the relationship. Set a boundary that is informed by love and understanding, but they will likely elicit resistance in your partner. Don’t shy away from that resistance.
A woman asks about the difference between an intellectual and experiential understanding. Rupert speaks of the experience of being that everyone has, which most people mix up with the content of experience. Being is then limited by this mixing up of the two. Being is what we know before the experience of feeling and the content of experience. There is nothing spiritual about it. The nature of our being is peace now, but it seems to take time for the mind and emotions to heal and for peace to come to the foreground.