Always Awake Whether Awake or Dreaming from the media Beyond Both Existence and Non-Existence
A man describes experiencing clear subject-object distinction in dreams but more seamless awareness while awake. Rupert questions this perceived difference, suggesting dream experiences feel equally real during dreaming as waking states do while awake. He emphasises that regardless of perceived differences between states, what’s important is recognising the unchanging awareness that knows both states without itself transitioning between them – always fully awake, whether perceiving dream content, waking world, or resting alone in deep sleep.
- Duration: 12 minutes and 5 seconds
- Recorded on: Mar 26, 2025
- Event: Seven-Day Retreat at Garrison Institute, 21–28 March 2025
A woman references Rupert’s YouTube video discussing Ian McGilchrist’s concept that ‘relationship precedes relata’ (things), asking about this primary relationship through which we manifest. Rupert explains manifestation occurs at the interface between finite and infinite – consciousness localises as a point of view to perceive itself as universe. The woman describes experiencing this understanding as a profound connection – like being ‘the eyes and ears of God’ – that evoked a sense of original love, awe and wonder.
A man asks how to discern truth in a seemingly post-truth world. Rupert directs attention to what remains untouched by both external and internal happenings – the aspect of experience not mediated through the finite mind. He explains that any truth discovered through sense perception will always be relative and shifting. He describes the knowledge ‘I am’ as a portal through which we pass from mind into the reality of pure being.
A man begins asking about yoga meditations and their relationship to ‘remaining as being’, noting differences in depth of experience. When asked to clarify the specific question, he acknowledges needing to reassess and formulate a clearer enquiry for another time.
A woman explores Rupert’s book discussion of ‘empty, spacious awareness’ as a concession to the mind. Rupert explains that describing consciousness as ‘vast’ counters the belief it’s tiny and located in the head – a thorn removing another thorn. Even descriptions like ‘infinite’ are concessions, valid only in reference to finite things. From consciousness’s perspective, there are no finite objects to compare against, so it would simply express ‘I am’ without qualifications about dimensions or location.
A woman asks about Rupert’s meditation phrase ‘the passing away of existence and the passing away of that passing away.’ Rupert confirms this is identical to Jean Klein’s ‘absence of absence’ – referring to seeing beyond both objects and their absence. Using the analogy of a woman noticing a missing painting while a visitor sees only the wall, he explains this points to perceiving the presence of reality beyond both existence and non-existence.
A man asks how to teach if every teaching is a concession. Rupert outlines different degrees of concession in spiritual teaching: making no concessions would mean complete silence; showing up implies something to do; speaking provides guidance. He explains teachers occupy different positions – some remain ‘higher up the mountain’ while others come fully into the ‘marketplace’ – all valid expressions of the same understanding, serving different needs at different points on the journey.
A man describes experiencing clear subject-object distinction in dreams but more seamless awareness while awake. Rupert questions this perceived difference, suggesting dream experiences feel equally real during dreaming as waking states do while awake. He emphasises that regardless of perceived differences between states, what’s important is recognising the unchanging awareness that knows both states without itself transitioning between them – always fully awake, whether perceiving dream content, waking world, or resting alone in deep sleep.
A woman asks whether consciousness is part of, a function of, or the same as being. Through experiential enquiry, Rupert guides her to compare the experience that enables saying ‘I am’ with the experience that enables saying ‘I am aware,’ demonstrating they point to the same reality. He explains that while different words (consciousness, awareness, being, God) have different flavours and evoke different responses, they all refer to the same flavourless reality – using varied terminology to accommodate different people’s preferences and resistances.
A woman asks whether one can have the felt experience of falling back into awareness without recognising it as one’s true identity. Rupert confirms this happens frequently – many people experience their true nature without formulating it conceptually. He suggests naming these experiences is valuable, as without proper interpretation, the ‘free samples’ nature provides are often overlooked. Through direct questioning, Rupert demonstrates that the woman isn’t cut off from this experience, showing how simple recognition can be with regular practice.
A man enquires whether choices exist. Rupert replies that there are choices but no chooser, exploring how this applies when working with children. He explains that responding from one’s true nature sometimes requires firmness, especially with children who need boundaries. The man asks about reward systems for good behaviour; Rupert cautions against excessive reliance on external incentives, suggesting children ideally develop intrinsic motivation rather than seeking transaction-based approval.
A man references a recorded exchange where Rupert encouraged continued artistic creation despite never fully ‘arriving.’ The man questions whether desires must result in suffering, noting personal experiences of enjoyment through creative pursuits. Rupert clarifies that unfulfilled longing is suffering, while fulfilled desires bring happiness by temporarily stopping the seeking mind. The error lies in believing happiness comes from objects rather than recognising it as our true nature shining when seeking momentarily ceases.
A man questions why awareness of awareness is experienced in meditation but seemingly absent in deep sleep. Rupert explains that in deep sleep, one experiences ‘being awareness’ without objects, which the mind later misinterprets as a blank state. He notes the peaceful quality of deep sleep proves it isn’t truly blank or boring – rather, it is pure awareness shining alone. Through questioning, Rupert helps the man recognise that awareness knows itself directly, not through subject-object relationship.
A woman, new to non-dual understanding, asks about the soul’s purpose from this perspective, noting personal revelatory experiences of spacious love. Rupert explains that the soul is simply the traditional name for the individual mind, whose secondary purpose is to evolve and grow – but the primary purpose is to know its nature. He describes love as recognising shared being, comparing it to realising the space in different rooms is one space – the recognition that being is one, shared with all people, animals and things.
A woman notes that while resting in awareness has been effortless during the retreat, grief of separation is arising intensely. The woman wonders whether to return to awareness practice or to work with the grief. Rupert explains this grief as natural – as one experiences the peace and sufficiency of true nature, one recognises separation isn’t our natural condition, which evokes grief for humanity’s unnecessary suffering. He advises continuing to return to true nature, as one must be established beyond suffering to effectively help others.
A woman asks how to balance being with active expression, noting a tendency to become unresponsive when deeply in being. Rupert suggests setting aside dedicated times for formal practice, while developing the art of remaining in touch with being during activity – ‘praying without ceasing’. Through direct experiment during their exchange, the woman experiences maintaining connection with being while actively conversing. Rupert encourages viewing difficult interactions as opportunities to strengthen this capacity in challenging circumstances.
A man teaches mindfulness and questions whether guiding practitioners to release thoughts and return to the observer leads to awareness or merely another mind state. Rupert confirms the man is indeed guiding to awareness but explains the difference between mindfulness and non-dual understanding: mindfulness stops at recognising oneself as the witness (still potentially limited), while non-dual exploration goes deeply into the witness itself, passing through the portal into pure consciousness beyond all limitations.
A woman asks how to go beyond the absence of objects in meditation. Rupert points out that the answer is in her question – whatever knows both objects and their absence must be beyond both. He uses the screen/screensaver analogy: the objects are content, their absence is the blank screensaver, and awareness is the screen behind both. When the woman asks if the mind can ever formulate being in this place, Rupert explains the mind wasn’t present there so any claim of ‘being there’ is misappropriation.
A man returns to the topic of memory, asking about its nature and relationship to the illusion of time. Rupert confirms memory is made of consciousness and creates the appearance of time – a necessary mechanism for practical navigation in the world, not a mistake. The man notes the profound impact of realising everything happens in the ‘now’ with no passing time units. Rupert affirms that from the absolute perspective, nothing ever happens, while acknowledging we must live within this paradox.
A woman asks whether King Lear (representing the separate self) experiences a moment of realising ‘I am (the actor) John Smith’ (true identity). Rupert confirms there is such a recognition – the realisation that one isn’t essentially the bundle of thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions but that in which they appear. The woman then formulates a profound self-enquiry question: What is the experience that precedes and enables the ability to say ‘I’? Rupert praises this unique formulation, encouraging her to explore it deeply.
A woman references Rupert’s YouTube video discussing Ian McGilchrist’s concept that ‘relationship precedes relata’ (things), asking about this primary relationship through which we manifest. Rupert explains manifestation occurs at the interface between finite and infinite – consciousness localises as a point of view to perceive itself as universe. The woman describes experiencing this understanding as a profound connection – like being ‘the eyes and ears of God’ – that evoked a sense of original love, awe and wonder.
A man asks how to discern truth in a seemingly post-truth world. Rupert directs attention to what remains untouched by both external and internal happenings – the aspect of experience not mediated through the finite mind. He explains that any truth discovered through sense perception will always be relative and shifting. He describes the knowledge ‘I am’ as a portal through which we pass from mind into the reality of pure being.
A man begins asking about yoga meditations and their relationship to ‘remaining as being’, noting differences in depth of experience. When asked to clarify the specific question, he acknowledges needing to reassess and formulate a clearer enquiry for another time.
A woman explores Rupert’s book discussion of ‘empty, spacious awareness’ as a concession to the mind. Rupert explains that describing consciousness as ‘vast’ counters the belief it’s tiny and located in the head – a thorn removing another thorn. Even descriptions like ‘infinite’ are concessions, valid only in reference to finite things. From consciousness’s perspective, there are no finite objects to compare against, so it would simply express ‘I am’ without qualifications about dimensions or location.
A woman asks about Rupert’s meditation phrase ‘the passing away of existence and the passing away of that passing away.’ Rupert confirms this is identical to Jean Klein’s ‘absence of absence’ – referring to seeing beyond both objects and their absence. Using the analogy of a woman noticing a missing painting while a visitor sees only the wall, he explains this points to perceiving the presence of reality beyond both existence and non-existence.
A man asks how to teach if every teaching is a concession. Rupert outlines different degrees of concession in spiritual teaching: making no concessions would mean complete silence; showing up implies something to do; speaking provides guidance. He explains teachers occupy different positions – some remain ‘higher up the mountain’ while others come fully into the ‘marketplace’ – all valid expressions of the same understanding, serving different needs at different points on the journey.
A man describes experiencing clear subject-object distinction in dreams but more seamless awareness while awake. Rupert questions this perceived difference, suggesting dream experiences feel equally real during dreaming as waking states do while awake. He emphasises that regardless of perceived differences between states, what’s important is recognising the unchanging awareness that knows both states without itself transitioning between them – always fully awake, whether perceiving dream content, waking world, or resting alone in deep sleep.
A woman asks whether consciousness is part of, a function of, or the same as being. Through experiential enquiry, Rupert guides her to compare the experience that enables saying ‘I am’ with the experience that enables saying ‘I am aware,’ demonstrating they point to the same reality. He explains that while different words (consciousness, awareness, being, God) have different flavours and evoke different responses, they all refer to the same flavourless reality – using varied terminology to accommodate different people’s preferences and resistances.
A woman asks whether one can have the felt experience of falling back into awareness without recognising it as one’s true identity. Rupert confirms this happens frequently – many people experience their true nature without formulating it conceptually. He suggests naming these experiences is valuable, as without proper interpretation, the ‘free samples’ nature provides are often overlooked. Through direct questioning, Rupert demonstrates that the woman isn’t cut off from this experience, showing how simple recognition can be with regular practice.
A man enquires whether choices exist. Rupert replies that there are choices but no chooser, exploring how this applies when working with children. He explains that responding from one’s true nature sometimes requires firmness, especially with children who need boundaries. The man asks about reward systems for good behaviour; Rupert cautions against excessive reliance on external incentives, suggesting children ideally develop intrinsic motivation rather than seeking transaction-based approval.
A man references a recorded exchange where Rupert encouraged continued artistic creation despite never fully ‘arriving.’ The man questions whether desires must result in suffering, noting personal experiences of enjoyment through creative pursuits. Rupert clarifies that unfulfilled longing is suffering, while fulfilled desires bring happiness by temporarily stopping the seeking mind. The error lies in believing happiness comes from objects rather than recognising it as our true nature shining when seeking momentarily ceases.
A man questions why awareness of awareness is experienced in meditation but seemingly absent in deep sleep. Rupert explains that in deep sleep, one experiences ‘being awareness’ without objects, which the mind later misinterprets as a blank state. He notes the peaceful quality of deep sleep proves it isn’t truly blank or boring – rather, it is pure awareness shining alone. Through questioning, Rupert helps the man recognise that awareness knows itself directly, not through subject-object relationship.
A woman, new to non-dual understanding, asks about the soul’s purpose from this perspective, noting personal revelatory experiences of spacious love. Rupert explains that the soul is simply the traditional name for the individual mind, whose secondary purpose is to evolve and grow – but the primary purpose is to know its nature. He describes love as recognising shared being, comparing it to realising the space in different rooms is one space – the recognition that being is one, shared with all people, animals and things.
A woman notes that while resting in awareness has been effortless during the retreat, grief of separation is arising intensely. The woman wonders whether to return to awareness practice or to work with the grief. Rupert explains this grief as natural – as one experiences the peace and sufficiency of true nature, one recognises separation isn’t our natural condition, which evokes grief for humanity’s unnecessary suffering. He advises continuing to return to true nature, as one must be established beyond suffering to effectively help others.
A woman asks how to balance being with active expression, noting a tendency to become unresponsive when deeply in being. Rupert suggests setting aside dedicated times for formal practice, while developing the art of remaining in touch with being during activity – ‘praying without ceasing’. Through direct experiment during their exchange, the woman experiences maintaining connection with being while actively conversing. Rupert encourages viewing difficult interactions as opportunities to strengthen this capacity in challenging circumstances.
A man teaches mindfulness and questions whether guiding practitioners to release thoughts and return to the observer leads to awareness or merely another mind state. Rupert confirms the man is indeed guiding to awareness but explains the difference between mindfulness and non-dual understanding: mindfulness stops at recognising oneself as the witness (still potentially limited), while non-dual exploration goes deeply into the witness itself, passing through the portal into pure consciousness beyond all limitations.
A woman asks how to go beyond the absence of objects in meditation. Rupert points out that the answer is in her question – whatever knows both objects and their absence must be beyond both. He uses the screen/screensaver analogy: the objects are content, their absence is the blank screensaver, and awareness is the screen behind both. When the woman asks if the mind can ever formulate being in this place, Rupert explains the mind wasn’t present there so any claim of ‘being there’ is misappropriation.
A man returns to the topic of memory, asking about its nature and relationship to the illusion of time. Rupert confirms memory is made of consciousness and creates the appearance of time – a necessary mechanism for practical navigation in the world, not a mistake. The man notes the profound impact of realising everything happens in the ‘now’ with no passing time units. Rupert affirms that from the absolute perspective, nothing ever happens, while acknowledging we must live within this paradox.
A woman asks whether King Lear (representing the separate self) experiences a moment of realising ‘I am (the actor) John Smith’ (true identity). Rupert confirms there is such a recognition – the realisation that one isn’t essentially the bundle of thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions but that in which they appear. The woman then formulates a profound self-enquiry question: What is the experience that precedes and enables the ability to say ‘I’? Rupert praises this unique formulation, encouraging her to explore it deeply.