What Is Romantic Love? from the media A Non-Dual View of the Self and the World
What is romantic love, as opposed to friendship? Rupert responds that love is the felt sense of our shared being, and it is impersonal; not based on who we are as people or characters. Whether we like someone has to do with how much the characters resonate. Romantic relationship is a form of friendship that is expressed on more levels than friendship, such as through sexual intimacy, and is not based on a sense of lack. Regardless of the relationship, love is always the same.
- Duration: 13 minutes and 48 seconds
- Recorded on: Jan 14, 2022
- Event: Five Day Retreat at Froyle Park – 14th to 18th January
A question is asked about what is meant by the mind. Rupert responds that mind, in the way he uses the term, is our internal experience, such as thoughts, feelings, and so on. It is the activity of awareness. Our external experience is characterised by our experience of the world, through perception and sensation.
A man asks for the non-dual view on global warming. Rupert responds that if we hold the idea that we share our being with everyone and everything, though it appears as ten thousand things, then underlying that appearance is a single, indivisible whole. Using the screen and image analogy, the screen is one and whole, while the images appear as changeable things. If you go deeply into the experience of those images, one understands the indivisible, unchanging nature of the screen. The implication of this understanding would be to live consistent with this oneness rather than as the appearance of multiplicity and diversity. Love, and do what you will from that love. The world, earth, nature is not separate from what we are.
In response to global concerns, a man asks if consciousness is everything, then is there any reason to worry? Rupert suggests that yes, consciousness is everything, and the screen, or awareness remains the same, however at a relative level it is necessary to pay attention to what takes place in consciousness. We should not assume that it doesn't matter how we behave, such as abuse and exploiting nature. It is valid and necessary to do our best to live the understanding that we share our being with everyone and everything.
A question is asked about 'a sense of being' or 'love' and how that applies to non-sentient things and a belief in separation, which seems to manifest as constant undoing. Rupert responds by using the example of Mary and Jane and the appearance of objects within a dream. When Mary wakes up and realises that, to the dreamer Jane, those objects appear not to be conscious, but Mary realises that they are made up of consciousness but were not conscious themselves. Rupert suggests we take this analogy to the appearance of the world to understand that from the localised point of view there appears to be things, but they are all made of consciousness.
A sense of being is simply the experience of being myself, or the experience 'I am’. Rupert elaborates that everyone has the experience of being, or the knowledge 'I am', but not everyone sees it clearly because it is clouded, or mixed up with, the appearances in experience. Everything experienced is through a thought or perception, but the one unique aspect of our self is the awareness of being, which does not go through, nor is it limited by, the activity of the mind. This being, 'I am' is unlimited.
A man with a four-year-old grandson asks about when the sense of self develops, and what he can do for his grandson. Rupert responds that the child knows 'I am' which is consciousness's knowledge of itself, so he is always consciousness but that becomes qualified by experience. The parent, or grandparent, can hold the knowledge of the child's true nature and hold this in their heart without needing to talk about non-duality. That knowing and holding will be enough.
If the world is all consciousness, why is there manifestation of separation? Rupert responds that it is the nature of consciousness to manifest, and there is no cause, no 'why'. Any cause is in manifestation or the nature of consciousness, so there is no answer to the question 'why' but to undermine the premise of the question.
When does the separate self give up the struggle, and isn't it like a slow suicide of the ego? Rupert replies using the analogy of John Smith and King Lear, suggesting that King Lear lets go, upon the recognition that he is John Smith, who may go on acting but with the awareness of his true nature in place. Rupert leads the participant in self-enquiry to facilitate this recognition.
Why are there natural disasters and diseases, which seem like evil? Rupert responds that the appearance of evil is the ignorance created in the felt separation and the absence of the recognition of our shared being. A natural disaster does not come from this sense of separation and thus, is not evil. He goes on to make a distinction between the death of a child and murder, or actions that come from the felt sense of separation, which is not the case of an earthquake, for instance. There need not be a motivation assumed in such cases. Ascribing such motivation comes from the sense of separation. Death is considered a disaster from the limited point of view of the finite mind.
What is romantic love, as opposed to friendship? Rupert responds that love is the felt sense of our shared being, and it is impersonal; not based on who we are as people or characters. Whether we like someone has to do with how much the characters resonate. Romantic relationship is a form of friendship that is expressed on more levels than friendship, such as through sexual intimacy, and is not based on a sense of lack. Regardless of the relationship, love is always the same.
Rupert describes the way of recognition in response to the question, 'Is it a goal of meditation to get rid of thoughts?' Rupert responds that thinking is a beautiful activity, and that the end of thinking is not a goal. It is not a way of discipline, practice, effort or suppression, though the appearance of thoughts and thinking may change as a natural result of this recognition, without effort.
What is the best practice to find our essential nature? Rupert suggests that the question betrays the fact that you are looking for awareness in your external experience when, all along, awareness is what is looking. What is required is relaxing back into awareness, rather than seeking outward for an object of experience, making it more of a letting go rather than a reaching out, like what happens when we are falling asleep.
A question is asked about what is meant by the mind. Rupert responds that mind, in the way he uses the term, is our internal experience, such as thoughts, feelings, and so on. It is the activity of awareness. Our external experience is characterised by our experience of the world, through perception and sensation.
A man asks for the non-dual view on global warming. Rupert responds that if we hold the idea that we share our being with everyone and everything, though it appears as ten thousand things, then underlying that appearance is a single, indivisible whole. Using the screen and image analogy, the screen is one and whole, while the images appear as changeable things. If you go deeply into the experience of those images, one understands the indivisible, unchanging nature of the screen. The implication of this understanding would be to live consistent with this oneness rather than as the appearance of multiplicity and diversity. Love, and do what you will from that love. The world, earth, nature is not separate from what we are.
In response to global concerns, a man asks if consciousness is everything, then is there any reason to worry? Rupert suggests that yes, consciousness is everything, and the screen, or awareness remains the same, however at a relative level it is necessary to pay attention to what takes place in consciousness. We should not assume that it doesn't matter how we behave, such as abuse and exploiting nature. It is valid and necessary to do our best to live the understanding that we share our being with everyone and everything.
A question is asked about 'a sense of being' or 'love' and how that applies to non-sentient things and a belief in separation, which seems to manifest as constant undoing. Rupert responds by using the example of Mary and Jane and the appearance of objects within a dream. When Mary wakes up and realises that, to the dreamer Jane, those objects appear not to be conscious, but Mary realises that they are made up of consciousness but were not conscious themselves. Rupert suggests we take this analogy to the appearance of the world to understand that from the localised point of view there appears to be things, but they are all made of consciousness.
A sense of being is simply the experience of being myself, or the experience 'I am’. Rupert elaborates that everyone has the experience of being, or the knowledge 'I am', but not everyone sees it clearly because it is clouded, or mixed up with, the appearances in experience. Everything experienced is through a thought or perception, but the one unique aspect of our self is the awareness of being, which does not go through, nor is it limited by, the activity of the mind. This being, 'I am' is unlimited.
A man with a four-year-old grandson asks about when the sense of self develops, and what he can do for his grandson. Rupert responds that the child knows 'I am' which is consciousness's knowledge of itself, so he is always consciousness but that becomes qualified by experience. The parent, or grandparent, can hold the knowledge of the child's true nature and hold this in their heart without needing to talk about non-duality. That knowing and holding will be enough.
If the world is all consciousness, why is there manifestation of separation? Rupert responds that it is the nature of consciousness to manifest, and there is no cause, no 'why'. Any cause is in manifestation or the nature of consciousness, so there is no answer to the question 'why' but to undermine the premise of the question.
When does the separate self give up the struggle, and isn't it like a slow suicide of the ego? Rupert replies using the analogy of John Smith and King Lear, suggesting that King Lear lets go, upon the recognition that he is John Smith, who may go on acting but with the awareness of his true nature in place. Rupert leads the participant in self-enquiry to facilitate this recognition.
Why are there natural disasters and diseases, which seem like evil? Rupert responds that the appearance of evil is the ignorance created in the felt separation and the absence of the recognition of our shared being. A natural disaster does not come from this sense of separation and thus, is not evil. He goes on to make a distinction between the death of a child and murder, or actions that come from the felt sense of separation, which is not the case of an earthquake, for instance. There need not be a motivation assumed in such cases. Ascribing such motivation comes from the sense of separation. Death is considered a disaster from the limited point of view of the finite mind.
What is romantic love, as opposed to friendship? Rupert responds that love is the felt sense of our shared being, and it is impersonal; not based on who we are as people or characters. Whether we like someone has to do with how much the characters resonate. Romantic relationship is a form of friendship that is expressed on more levels than friendship, such as through sexual intimacy, and is not based on a sense of lack. Regardless of the relationship, love is always the same.
Rupert describes the way of recognition in response to the question, 'Is it a goal of meditation to get rid of thoughts?' Rupert responds that thinking is a beautiful activity, and that the end of thinking is not a goal. It is not a way of discipline, practice, effort or suppression, though the appearance of thoughts and thinking may change as a natural result of this recognition, without effort.
What is the best practice to find our essential nature? Rupert suggests that the question betrays the fact that you are looking for awareness in your external experience when, all along, awareness is what is looking. What is required is relaxing back into awareness, rather than seeking outward for an object of experience, making it more of a letting go rather than a reaching out, like what happens when we are falling asleep.