Does Awareness Have Intention? from the media Letting Go of the Beloved

What is the different between the neti-neti process and the everyday process of falling asleep at night? Rupert suggests it’s the same process, but we remain awake. We don’t really immerse ourself in the river of being, we are that river of being, but normally there is a limit attached to it. When we fall asleep at night we let go of thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions. Meditation is falling asleep whilst remaining awake.

A man asks about how recognising our being translates into our daily life, especially in difficult relationships. Rupert suggests that most relationship are based on the assumption that we are separate entities. When we recognise the true nature of our being, there are two recognitions: one is peace, the other is our shared being. The latter recognition has a profound effect on the quality of the relationship. It doesn’t mean there are no conflicts, but the way you explore disagreements change.

A woman, who references the meditation, asks about the love and the longing. Rupert responds that in dualistic devotion, there is ourself and God, and God considered to be at a distance from ourself. Thus, we stand as a separate subject. It's necessary in the early stages, but in the latter stages of devotion if we are maintaining ourself apart and separate from God, it is 'blasphemy.' At some point, we let go and realise that God is the very being of ourself, that aware being is God's knowledge of itself in our self.

A man asks about non-duality and the nature of relationships with the departed. Rupert suggests that each of our minds are localisations of the one single consciousness. Therefore, each of our minds is precipitated within the same field and are localisations of that field, so they are in touch with each other. There's nothing to suggest that after the death of the body, the individual mind does not carry on in some form. Because all minds are connected with each other, just like all the waves in an ocean are connected with each other, some kind of continuity of experience or communication may be possible.

A woman describes the experience of 'the I feeling the I' and the immediate sense of non-duality. Rupert responds that the 'I' is not a feeling; it is what is aware of the feeling – there is no objective experience. It is the only knowledge that doesn't take place in subject–object relationship. There's no distinction between that which knows and that which is known.

A man, whose mother raised him Catholic, has since left the church but is still searching. He asks about Padre Pio, the miracle worker, whom his mother uses as an objection to non-duality which she has a hard time accepting. Rupert responds that miracles are possible and suggests that he can’t assuage or convert his mother to non-duality. The understanding can be found at the heart of the Catholic religion. Find what you have in common, and demonstrate the desire for peace on the inside and love on the outside.

A woman asks how to carry grace and the 'I am' in everyday life. Rupert responds that everyday life is an appearance of the unity, the one reality. There is no need to make a distinction between the two.

A man asks what God’s being is beyond being. Rupert says that the phrase ‘God’s being’ is another name for infinite consciousness. The reality of those appearances is one. God shines in us. It's all the same being.

‘What is reactivity', a man asks. Rupert says that if you respond from a finite self, it is emotional reactivity. if your response comes from the felt sense of oneness with whatever you are responding or reacting to, then it is simply a response.

A woman asks about the connection of the teachings with the breath which feels to her like a direct connection with God. Rupert responds that it is the most transparent, silent experience we have. Meister Eckhart says there is nothing in creation so like God but silence. The breath would be second only to silence as God in form.

A man asks about whether it is necessary to create a separate self in order to grow up. Rupert suggests that we do have to reject our parents to develop a sense of a finite self. We move from dependence on parents to independence from them in adolescence. However, most adults don’t go beyond this rebellion. We support independence whilst demonstrating this felt sense of shared being.

A woman asks about the second stage – exploring the nature of awareness – and whether it is necessary to recognise the qualities. Rupert suggests it happens at the same time, recognising the qualities of awareness and integrating them into your everyday life. He leads her in self-enquiry to discover these innate qualities.

A man who just had a cancerous tumour removed and has a year to live asks, ‘With the time I have left, how can I deepen my practice?’ Rupert suggests two things: one, sink more and more deeply into the fact of being, abide in and as being; and two, devote your outer activities to expressing the nature of your being.

A woman who works with traumatised, abused women, asks how to share the concept of shared being which many find offensive. Rupert responds that to recognise the perpetrator as having the same being is too big a step for many to take. He suggests directing them to the possibility that there is a part of them that has never been hurt or harmed, perhaps using gentle self-enquiry about their feelings.

A first-year medical student, who talks about the pressures and how much he has to use his mind, asks how he can access his being and whether it would shatter his world. Rupert suggests that your world will be upgraded with this understanding, not destroyed by it. What will be shattered is your belief that the world is made out of something dead and inert. As a result, the world will cease to veil its reality and shine with it. Likewise, your mind will be upgraded, not diminished.

A woman asks about what difference the understanding of God makes in everyday life. Rupert responds that nothing changes the nature of the screen, our true nature. God's being doesn't change, but ultimately the understanding does chang our everyday life and relationships greatly.

A man asks Rupert to describe the relationship between the Christian idea of the soul and non-duality and the finite mind. Rupert suggests that the soul is the finite mind. The separate self is a belief that we are conditioned by, and limited to, that finite mind, which is the activity of infinite consciousness – all thinking, imagining, feeling, sensing, perceiving, and so on. And not just the activity of the mind that we are aware of in the waking state but the activity of the mind that lies beneath the threshold of the waking state mind. The soul would include the entire spectrum of the finite mind, not just that part of the mind that's available to us in the waking state.

A man who underwent chemotherapy, and abided as being during that experience, also had a tremendous fear of death. Rupert suggests we are all dreamt characters in the mind of God. When that dream comes to an end, the reality of our self remains. The appearance comes to an end, but its reality, God’s being, remains. The soul is that part of our minds that continues.

A woman asks about what the purpose of all the suffering is. Rupert responds that suffering is an invitation to return to our true nature. It shows you that you're looking in the wrong place, that happiness cannot be found in experience for the separate self.

A man asks if the ‘I am’ is the absolute. Rupert suggests that the ‘I am’ is a doorway at the back of the finite mind. This doorway has the words ‘I am’ written above it. If the finite mind passes through that doorway, it loses its limitations and stands revealed as infinite being. From infinite being's point of view, when it looks at the doorway, the doorway also has ‘I am’ written above it, but when it passes through the same doorway in the opposite direction it acquires a limit and seems to become the finite mind. The ‘I am’ is a doorway through which the individual passes out of time into eternity, and through which infinite consciousness passes from eternity into time.

A man asks, ‘Where is faith or belief in non-duality?’ Rupert suggests it's only when we have become so accustomed to the belief in separation that we take it for granted. It’s not the belief in God that we should question, it's the belief in separation that we should question, that is, the evidence for separate, discrete, independently existing objects and selves.

A woman says her passion is to live her truth in life as an educator. She finds she is falling asleep during meditation and work, and so she plays the part of the witness and feels space all around her. Rupert thanks her for sharing her experience.

A man who says he can be in awareness still finds he is reactive. Rupert suggests that when you notice this reactivity, just acknowledge it to yourself and partner, and then apologise. After a while, in the middle of the reaction, you’ll realise ‘this is a personal reaction’. Later still, the reaction comes up but you won’t voice it.

What is the different between the neti-neti process and the everyday process of falling asleep at night? Rupert suggests it’s the same process, but we remain awake. We don’t really immerse ourself in the river of being, we are that river of being, but normally there is a limit attached to it. When we fall asleep at night we let go of thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions. Meditation is falling asleep whilst remaining awake.

A man asks about how recognising our being translates into our daily life, especially in difficult relationships. Rupert suggests that most relationship are based on the assumption that we are separate entities. When we recognise the true nature of our being, there are two recognitions: one is peace, the other is our shared being. The latter recognition has a profound effect on the quality of the relationship. It doesn’t mean there are no conflicts, but the way you explore disagreements change.

A woman, who references the meditation, asks about the love and the longing. Rupert responds that in dualistic devotion, there is ourself and God, and God considered to be at a distance from ourself. Thus, we stand as a separate subject. It's necessary in the early stages, but in the latter stages of devotion if we are maintaining ourself apart and separate from God, it is 'blasphemy.' At some point, we let go and realise that God is the very being of ourself, that aware being is God's knowledge of itself in our self.

A man asks about non-duality and the nature of relationships with the departed. Rupert suggests that each of our minds are localisations of the one single consciousness. Therefore, each of our minds is precipitated within the same field and are localisations of that field, so they are in touch with each other. There's nothing to suggest that after the death of the body, the individual mind does not carry on in some form. Because all minds are connected with each other, just like all the waves in an ocean are connected with each other, some kind of continuity of experience or communication may be possible.

A woman describes the experience of 'the I feeling the I' and the immediate sense of non-duality. Rupert responds that the 'I' is not a feeling; it is what is aware of the feeling – there is no objective experience. It is the only knowledge that doesn't take place in subject–object relationship. There's no distinction between that which knows and that which is known.

A man, whose mother raised him Catholic, has since left the church but is still searching. He asks about Padre Pio, the miracle worker, whom his mother uses as an objection to non-duality which she has a hard time accepting. Rupert responds that miracles are possible and suggests that he can’t assuage or convert his mother to non-duality. The understanding can be found at the heart of the Catholic religion. Find what you have in common, and demonstrate the desire for peace on the inside and love on the outside.

A woman asks how to carry grace and the 'I am' in everyday life. Rupert responds that everyday life is an appearance of the unity, the one reality. There is no need to make a distinction between the two.

A man asks what God’s being is beyond being. Rupert says that the phrase ‘God’s being’ is another name for infinite consciousness. The reality of those appearances is one. God shines in us. It's all the same being.

‘What is reactivity', a man asks. Rupert says that if you respond from a finite self, it is emotional reactivity. if your response comes from the felt sense of oneness with whatever you are responding or reacting to, then it is simply a response.

A woman asks about the connection of the teachings with the breath which feels to her like a direct connection with God. Rupert responds that it is the most transparent, silent experience we have. Meister Eckhart says there is nothing in creation so like God but silence. The breath would be second only to silence as God in form.

A man asks about whether it is necessary to create a separate self in order to grow up. Rupert suggests that we do have to reject our parents to develop a sense of a finite self. We move from dependence on parents to independence from them in adolescence. However, most adults don’t go beyond this rebellion. We support independence whilst demonstrating this felt sense of shared being.

A woman asks about the second stage – exploring the nature of awareness – and whether it is necessary to recognise the qualities. Rupert suggests it happens at the same time, recognising the qualities of awareness and integrating them into your everyday life. He leads her in self-enquiry to discover these innate qualities.

A man who just had a cancerous tumour removed and has a year to live asks, ‘With the time I have left, how can I deepen my practice?’ Rupert suggests two things: one, sink more and more deeply into the fact of being, abide in and as being; and two, devote your outer activities to expressing the nature of your being.

A woman who works with traumatised, abused women, asks how to share the concept of shared being which many find offensive. Rupert responds that to recognise the perpetrator as having the same being is too big a step for many to take. He suggests directing them to the possibility that there is a part of them that has never been hurt or harmed, perhaps using gentle self-enquiry about their feelings.

A first-year medical student, who talks about the pressures and how much he has to use his mind, asks how he can access his being and whether it would shatter his world. Rupert suggests that your world will be upgraded with this understanding, not destroyed by it. What will be shattered is your belief that the world is made out of something dead and inert. As a result, the world will cease to veil its reality and shine with it. Likewise, your mind will be upgraded, not diminished.

A woman asks about what difference the understanding of God makes in everyday life. Rupert responds that nothing changes the nature of the screen, our true nature. God's being doesn't change, but ultimately the understanding does chang our everyday life and relationships greatly.

A man asks Rupert to describe the relationship between the Christian idea of the soul and non-duality and the finite mind. Rupert suggests that the soul is the finite mind. The separate self is a belief that we are conditioned by, and limited to, that finite mind, which is the activity of infinite consciousness – all thinking, imagining, feeling, sensing, perceiving, and so on. And not just the activity of the mind that we are aware of in the waking state but the activity of the mind that lies beneath the threshold of the waking state mind. The soul would include the entire spectrum of the finite mind, not just that part of the mind that's available to us in the waking state.

A man who underwent chemotherapy, and abided as being during that experience, also had a tremendous fear of death. Rupert suggests we are all dreamt characters in the mind of God. When that dream comes to an end, the reality of our self remains. The appearance comes to an end, but its reality, God’s being, remains. The soul is that part of our minds that continues.

A woman asks about what the purpose of all the suffering is. Rupert responds that suffering is an invitation to return to our true nature. It shows you that you're looking in the wrong place, that happiness cannot be found in experience for the separate self.

A man asks if the ‘I am’ is the absolute. Rupert suggests that the ‘I am’ is a doorway at the back of the finite mind. This doorway has the words ‘I am’ written above it. If the finite mind passes through that doorway, it loses its limitations and stands revealed as infinite being. From infinite being's point of view, when it looks at the doorway, the doorway also has ‘I am’ written above it, but when it passes through the same doorway in the opposite direction it acquires a limit and seems to become the finite mind. The ‘I am’ is a doorway through which the individual passes out of time into eternity, and through which infinite consciousness passes from eternity into time.

A man asks, ‘Where is faith or belief in non-duality?’ Rupert suggests it's only when we have become so accustomed to the belief in separation that we take it for granted. It’s not the belief in God that we should question, it's the belief in separation that we should question, that is, the evidence for separate, discrete, independently existing objects and selves.

A woman says her passion is to live her truth in life as an educator. She finds she is falling asleep during meditation and work, and so she plays the part of the witness and feels space all around her. Rupert thanks her for sharing her experience.

A man who says he can be in awareness still finds he is reactive. Rupert suggests that when you notice this reactivity, just acknowledge it to yourself and partner, and then apologise. After a while, in the middle of the reaction, you’ll realise ‘this is a personal reaction’. Later still, the reaction comes up but you won’t voice it.