I've Just Been Born from the media Freedom Is Our Birthright

A man asks about the origin of free will and volition. Rupert suggests that we all feel we have freedom to choose, but we also feel that there is a limit to that. We feel intuitively that freedom is our birthright because of our true nature’s freedom, but our minds limit that freedom, so there is a mixture. When making a decision, we do our best to invoke our primordial freedom.

A woman asks about how the mind survives the death of the body. Rupert suggests that the body is an appearance of a bundle of experiences of the mind – thoughts, feelings and so on. Your first-person mind appears to a second-person point of view as a body. Rupert then borrows Bernardo Kastrup's whirlpool analogy to further clarify.

A man asks two questions: why is there a difference between the ease of perception and the complexity of the body’s perceiving faculties and the world? And why aren't we aware of these inner processes? Rupert suggests that there is correlation between the content of the experience and the body and world, just as there is a complex correlation between a map and the landscape.

A man asks about the theory of evolution and time in the consciousness-only model. Rupert suggests the analogy of reading a novel. The entire content is simultaneously available, but a human mind can only access that content page by page. Evolution is the mind’s interpretation, consistent with its limitations, of something that doesn't take place in time.

A man asks what Rupert means by a vertical dimension of reality. Rupert uses the analogy of the book: imagine all the words remain, but the separate pages of the novel disappear. The words are just in a space. Now we remove the space. What happens to the words? They collapse into a dimensionless point, but the entire novel is there.

A man comments on how he can write about non-duality but has a resistance to talking about it. Rupert suggests that he speaks about it when he plays music; that is his language. It can take time to have the courage to say what we really want to say clearly. The community that has come up around the teaching also helps.

A woman wonders how Rupert would tell her ten-year old grandson about non-duality. Rupert suggests that he would have to know something about the boy to answer the question. If he were into quantum physics, he’d use one analogy; with another kind of boy, he might appeal emotionally. Rupert uses the analogy of being lost in the forest; we need to find them where they are to lead them from the forest.

A woman shares that she dreams of Rupert offering information. Rupert suggests it is the deeper layers of her own mind, her own innate intelligence, that corresponded to a question that you asked. Of course, this is the intelligence that we all share. The understanding is pure intelligence; the teaching is the expression of it.

A woman who said ‘I'm a loner’ wants to correct herself. She is open and wants to express that as a statement and a commitment.

A woman asks if she steals away her child’s being when she disciplines him. Rupert suggests that it is sometimes important to correct children and sometimes best to let them make their own mistakes, but correcting children does not steal their being. We want to see our children as who they innately are.

A man asks about how to refute solipsism when just using experience, not belief. Rupert suggests that first we must acknowledge that our own finite mind is limited. That alone should convince the mind that its knowledge is limited, so how could it make an absolute truth. Then the mind has to account for all the others who don't have an internal experience (according to solipsism) that behave in certain ways.

A man asks if this is a virtual reality, is it possible that there is another one. Rupert suggests that if there were another one then both realities would have to be contained within one medium and that medium would have to be more real than either of the two virtual realities. However, there could be other minds in reality that are configured in a different way, minds that don't intersect with our own. For instance, angels.

A man asks about the ladder of love. Rupert suggests that he thinks of it top down. Consider that love is one of the names we give to the unity of reality, the collapse of distance or difference between you and the other. It isn't just a feeling; we are experiencing reality. However, that love can express itself in many ways: truth, friendship, intimacy and so on. There is only the love of reality, but expressed differently.

A man asks if after the whirlpool dissipates, ripples will reform downstream. Rupert suggests that is consistent with the idea of reincarnation. After a while those residual ripples may be disbanded during a lifetime and not reform later.

A man logically approaches time and space and the consciousness-only model. Rupert agrees with him.

A man asks about awareness being intelligence. Rupert suggests that it is awareness that is intelligence; a mind can be intelligent.

A man comments on the centrality of proof. Rupert suggests that for some people proof is not required, but there are some minds that require rational analysis. There is room for those kinds of minds – that follow lines of reasoning – in this approach.

A man asks about the origin of free will and volition. Rupert suggests that we all feel we have freedom to choose, but we also feel that there is a limit to that. We feel intuitively that freedom is our birthright because of our true nature’s freedom, but our minds limit that freedom, so there is a mixture. When making a decision, we do our best to invoke our primordial freedom.

A woman asks about how the mind survives the death of the body. Rupert suggests that the body is an appearance of a bundle of experiences of the mind – thoughts, feelings and so on. Your first-person mind appears to a second-person point of view as a body. Rupert then borrows Bernardo Kastrup's whirlpool analogy to further clarify.

A man asks two questions: why is there a difference between the ease of perception and the complexity of the body’s perceiving faculties and the world? And why aren't we aware of these inner processes? Rupert suggests that there is correlation between the content of the experience and the body and world, just as there is a complex correlation between a map and the landscape.

A man asks about the theory of evolution and time in the consciousness-only model. Rupert suggests the analogy of reading a novel. The entire content is simultaneously available, but a human mind can only access that content page by page. Evolution is the mind’s interpretation, consistent with its limitations, of something that doesn't take place in time.

A man asks what Rupert means by a vertical dimension of reality. Rupert uses the analogy of the book: imagine all the words remain, but the separate pages of the novel disappear. The words are just in a space. Now we remove the space. What happens to the words? They collapse into a dimensionless point, but the entire novel is there.

A man comments on how he can write about non-duality but has a resistance to talking about it. Rupert suggests that he speaks about it when he plays music; that is his language. It can take time to have the courage to say what we really want to say clearly. The community that has come up around the teaching also helps.

A woman wonders how Rupert would tell her ten-year old grandson about non-duality. Rupert suggests that he would have to know something about the boy to answer the question. If he were into quantum physics, he’d use one analogy; with another kind of boy, he might appeal emotionally. Rupert uses the analogy of being lost in the forest; we need to find them where they are to lead them from the forest.

A woman shares that she dreams of Rupert offering information. Rupert suggests it is the deeper layers of her own mind, her own innate intelligence, that corresponded to a question that you asked. Of course, this is the intelligence that we all share. The understanding is pure intelligence; the teaching is the expression of it.

A woman who said ‘I'm a loner’ wants to correct herself. She is open and wants to express that as a statement and a commitment.

A woman asks if she steals away her child’s being when she disciplines him. Rupert suggests that it is sometimes important to correct children and sometimes best to let them make their own mistakes, but correcting children does not steal their being. We want to see our children as who they innately are.

A man asks about how to refute solipsism when just using experience, not belief. Rupert suggests that first we must acknowledge that our own finite mind is limited. That alone should convince the mind that its knowledge is limited, so how could it make an absolute truth. Then the mind has to account for all the others who don't have an internal experience (according to solipsism) that behave in certain ways.

A man asks if this is a virtual reality, is it possible that there is another one. Rupert suggests that if there were another one then both realities would have to be contained within one medium and that medium would have to be more real than either of the two virtual realities. However, there could be other minds in reality that are configured in a different way, minds that don't intersect with our own. For instance, angels.

A man asks about the ladder of love. Rupert suggests that he thinks of it top down. Consider that love is one of the names we give to the unity of reality, the collapse of distance or difference between you and the other. It isn't just a feeling; we are experiencing reality. However, that love can express itself in many ways: truth, friendship, intimacy and so on. There is only the love of reality, but expressed differently.

A man asks if after the whirlpool dissipates, ripples will reform downstream. Rupert suggests that is consistent with the idea of reincarnation. After a while those residual ripples may be disbanded during a lifetime and not reform later.

A man logically approaches time and space and the consciousness-only model. Rupert agrees with him.

A man asks about awareness being intelligence. Rupert suggests that it is awareness that is intelligence; a mind can be intelligent.

A man comments on the centrality of proof. Rupert suggests that for some people proof is not required, but there are some minds that require rational analysis. There is room for those kinds of minds – that follow lines of reasoning – in this approach.