Synchronicity: All Minds Connected from the media The Connectedness of Minds

A man would like Rupert’s opinion of his understanding that everything that exists is, at an absolute level, an expression of consciousness. But human beings are characterised by having a mind that is able to create the sense of a separate self but can also ‘turn around’ and recognise themselves as awareness. Animals have a mind but seem not to have these abilities. Plants even less so. And other physical objects simply cannot know themselves as consciousness. Rupert doesn’t necessarily agree but offers an analogy to explain the singular nature of consciousness: Take empty physical space and add the quality of awareness to it. Then, imagine the space could place this room upon itself. Prior to doing so, there is one indivisible whole, but with appearance of the room there seems to be two spaces – inside the room and outside of it. These spaces are finite, no longer infinite. Imagine that the room space has five windows, each with a label – seeing, hearing, touching, etc. – and these are the portals through which this small finite space sees the world. The building containing the room is enclosed in thinking and perceiving. When the room looks at the vast outer space it doesn’t seen formless infinite space, it sees ‘the world’, a finite space. This world appears to the room through the limits of the room’s ability to perceive.

A woman asks about the distinction between a human mind and another type, such as her dog’s mind. Rupert replies that the awareness with which your dog is aware of its experience is the same awareness with which we are aware of our experience. But the dog’s mind is configured differently, so when it looks at the same world as us the same reality appears differently. But actually, it is just God shining in the human mind as the knowledge ‘I am’ and in the dog’s mind as the knowledge ‘I am’.

A woman asks Rupert, regarding the expression ‘I am’, if he could only choose one word, would it be ‘I’ or ‘am’? At first, Rupert chooses ‘I’, while the woman chooses ‘am’. Rupert says he likes the economy of ‘I’, and that in conversation people will likely begin all their expressions about self with ‘I’ rather than ‘am’, but he can see how a legitimate case can be made for the verb, especially in languages other than English.

A man asks about the illusion of time and whether the events of our lives actually happened or if, referring to the Mary and Jane analogy, they were akin to the events in Jane’s experience – all just happening in the dreamer Mary’s mind. Rupert says that for us to say that the other events of our lives never actually happened, we also have to say that this current event is not happening. But if we agree that it is happening but that its reality is something other than it appears, then we would apply that same perspective to the events of the past; those events must be of the same sort of reality as the current event is, even though we may not understand fully what that reality is.

A man says that during this morning’s meditation, it dawned on him that there’s no person, no separate self to be found. And if there’s no person in him, then there’s no person in anybody else. Rupert agrees and asks, when this sense of separation collapses, what do we call that? Love. They further discuss how with someone with whom we are in intimate relationship, this feeling is sometimes obscured. Rupert suggests this is because the feeling of ‘no separation’ is temporarily obscured by the many details of the history we may have with this partner.

What is the ‘soul’, not from a religious standpoint? It’s different from mind, but what is it when I say something like, ‘my soul lives in South Africa’? Rupert responds that there is more to our mind than the top layer of thoughts and perceptions. But there is a deeper part of your mind that resonates with things, places. ‘Soul’ is the religious name for this deepest layer of our mind. You could likely substitute the word ‘heart’. But yes it is still an aspect of the finite mind. They further discuss how artists, such as Beethoven in the morning’s music meditation, are expressing from this depth of mind, maybe even the collective mind, and this is sharing with humanity from what we might call ‘soul’.

A man who has been experiencing prolonged public shame in relation to a business matter, which triggered deeper shame from childhood memories. It seems to be leading to serious physical pain around his heart. He feels a vulnerability around mortality and doesn’t know if he should quit this project, which he also loves very deeply. Rupert encourages him to, in his imagination, try on the idea of leaving the community he’s created and see if he feels either a sense of liberation or a strong feeling that this would not be the right thing for him to do. If it’s the latter, then to consider that when people try to bring something strongly creative into the world, forces arise often to try and shut it down. Ultimately, if it makes sense to keep going, you will see this resistance as opportunities to keep digging deeper to the place inside that is not affected by the criticism. You have to live for some time with the question about continuing, and the answer emerges gradually.

A woman asks, if beauty is the collapse of subject–object created through perception, is the understanding of profound truth the collapse of subject–object created through the mind? Rupert says this is absolutely right. He goes on to explain how the process of understanding is always the same, irrespective of the content of what’s being understood.

A woman asks if there is a difference between things created in nature and things created by the human mind. Rupert replies that the difference is that something created in nature is not first filtered through a human mind. Although, of course, it is perceived through a human mind. Also, that which is created through the filter of a human mind will retain an imprint of, or reflect the quality of, the mind that created it. We love encountering things in nature because they are untainted by coming into fruition through a mind. Ultimately, however, everything comes from the same place.

A woman asks Rupert to explain the ‘collective unconscious’. He does so using an analogy: Visualise a completely still ocean. This represents infinite consciousness. Now imagine it shudders out ripples, which have a form but haven’t yet separated into waves. As they diversify into waves and currents – individual entities – each of these particular forms still retain and share the influence or presence of the original shudder.

A woman asks for advice on integrating non-dual understanding into her job, which involves unifying work teams. Rupert encourages her to keep impregnating her work with the understanding, but to use the common terms that the various teams will comprehend.

A man would like Rupert’s opinion of his understanding that everything that exists is, at an absolute level, an expression of consciousness. But human beings are characterised by having a mind that is able to create the sense of a separate self but can also ‘turn around’ and recognise themselves as awareness. Animals have a mind but seem not to have these abilities. Plants even less so. And other physical objects simply cannot know themselves as consciousness. Rupert doesn’t necessarily agree but offers an analogy to explain the singular nature of consciousness: Take empty physical space and add the quality of awareness to it. Then, imagine the space could place this room upon itself. Prior to doing so, there is one indivisible whole, but with appearance of the room there seems to be two spaces – inside the room and outside of it. These spaces are finite, no longer infinite. Imagine that the room space has five windows, each with a label – seeing, hearing, touching, etc. – and these are the portals through which this small finite space sees the world. The building containing the room is enclosed in thinking and perceiving. When the room looks at the vast outer space it doesn’t seen formless infinite space, it sees ‘the world’, a finite space. This world appears to the room through the limits of the room’s ability to perceive.

A woman asks about the distinction between a human mind and another type, such as her dog’s mind. Rupert replies that the awareness with which your dog is aware of its experience is the same awareness with which we are aware of our experience. But the dog’s mind is configured differently, so when it looks at the same world as us the same reality appears differently. But actually, it is just God shining in the human mind as the knowledge ‘I am’ and in the dog’s mind as the knowledge ‘I am’.

A woman asks Rupert, regarding the expression ‘I am’, if he could only choose one word, would it be ‘I’ or ‘am’? At first, Rupert chooses ‘I’, while the woman chooses ‘am’. Rupert says he likes the economy of ‘I’, and that in conversation people will likely begin all their expressions about self with ‘I’ rather than ‘am’, but he can see how a legitimate case can be made for the verb, especially in languages other than English.

A man asks about the illusion of time and whether the events of our lives actually happened or if, referring to the Mary and Jane analogy, they were akin to the events in Jane’s experience – all just happening in the dreamer Mary’s mind. Rupert says that for us to say that the other events of our lives never actually happened, we also have to say that this current event is not happening. But if we agree that it is happening but that its reality is something other than it appears, then we would apply that same perspective to the events of the past; those events must be of the same sort of reality as the current event is, even though we may not understand fully what that reality is.

A man says that during this morning’s meditation, it dawned on him that there’s no person, no separate self to be found. And if there’s no person in him, then there’s no person in anybody else. Rupert agrees and asks, when this sense of separation collapses, what do we call that? Love. They further discuss how with someone with whom we are in intimate relationship, this feeling is sometimes obscured. Rupert suggests this is because the feeling of ‘no separation’ is temporarily obscured by the many details of the history we may have with this partner.

What is the ‘soul’, not from a religious standpoint? It’s different from mind, but what is it when I say something like, ‘my soul lives in South Africa’? Rupert responds that there is more to our mind than the top layer of thoughts and perceptions. But there is a deeper part of your mind that resonates with things, places. ‘Soul’ is the religious name for this deepest layer of our mind. You could likely substitute the word ‘heart’. But yes it is still an aspect of the finite mind. They further discuss how artists, such as Beethoven in the morning’s music meditation, are expressing from this depth of mind, maybe even the collective mind, and this is sharing with humanity from what we might call ‘soul’.

A man who has been experiencing prolonged public shame in relation to a business matter, which triggered deeper shame from childhood memories. It seems to be leading to serious physical pain around his heart. He feels a vulnerability around mortality and doesn’t know if he should quit this project, which he also loves very deeply. Rupert encourages him to, in his imagination, try on the idea of leaving the community he’s created and see if he feels either a sense of liberation or a strong feeling that this would not be the right thing for him to do. If it’s the latter, then to consider that when people try to bring something strongly creative into the world, forces arise often to try and shut it down. Ultimately, if it makes sense to keep going, you will see this resistance as opportunities to keep digging deeper to the place inside that is not affected by the criticism. You have to live for some time with the question about continuing, and the answer emerges gradually.

A woman asks, if beauty is the collapse of subject–object created through perception, is the understanding of profound truth the collapse of subject–object created through the mind? Rupert says this is absolutely right. He goes on to explain how the process of understanding is always the same, irrespective of the content of what’s being understood.

A woman asks if there is a difference between things created in nature and things created by the human mind. Rupert replies that the difference is that something created in nature is not first filtered through a human mind. Although, of course, it is perceived through a human mind. Also, that which is created through the filter of a human mind will retain an imprint of, or reflect the quality of, the mind that created it. We love encountering things in nature because they are untainted by coming into fruition through a mind. Ultimately, however, everything comes from the same place.

A woman asks Rupert to explain the ‘collective unconscious’. He does so using an analogy: Visualise a completely still ocean. This represents infinite consciousness. Now imagine it shudders out ripples, which have a form but haven’t yet separated into waves. As they diversify into waves and currents – individual entities – each of these particular forms still retain and share the influence or presence of the original shudder.

A woman asks for advice on integrating non-dual understanding into her job, which involves unifying work teams. Rupert encourages her to keep impregnating her work with the understanding, but to use the common terms that the various teams will comprehend.