The Reality of Space Is Perception from the media Intelligence and Non-Duality

A woman asks about manifestation, questioning whether it happens as the nature of consciousness rather than through will or planning. Rupert confirms that consciousness has no master plan for manifestation – it’s simply its nature to manifest potential in form, like dreams arise naturally in the mind. When the woman asks if consciousness is helpless to creation, Rupert describes consciousness as a ‘jazz musician’ improvising rather than a controlling power outside creation, while remaining unaffected by it.

A classical musician shares his profound shift experienced during the retreat – observing thoughts from a greater distance with increased clarity, feeling more identified with being rather than thought. Rupert confirms this as taking a step back from thoughts, identifying as consciousness and becoming less affected by thought content. The man expresses not wanting to return to happiness triggered by external events. Rupert clarifies it’s the same happiness, now recognised as independent of circumstances.

A woman asks about intelligence from a non-dual understanding. Rupert explains that intelligence without content is pure consciousness. When mediated through a transparent mind, it becomes true knowledge; when filtered through a mind dominated by separation, it becomes distorted into falsity, ignorance, and injustice. The quality of knowledge depends on the clarity of the medium through which intelligence flows.

A woman enquires about the non-dual path of devotion within the new paradigm, prompted by reflections on synchronicities. Rupert explains synchronicities as reminders of the constant connection between inner life and outside world – consciousness dividing itself into subject and object. He clarifies that devotion and knowledge are the same path in different language, with ultimate devotion being complete surrender of any notion of being a separate entity, recognising only infinite consciousness.

A man describes experiencing gagging sensations during meditation when approaching a state of consciousness previously experienced years ago. Rupert explains this as the sense of separation feeling threatened by the man’s investigation – producing visceral, bodily fear responses to psychological ‘death.’ He advises either ignoring mild reactions or honouring stronger ones by pausing, allowing the response to settle before continuing, noting these reactions typically diminish with time as resistance weakens.

A woman seeks clarification on experiencing awe while understanding non-duality, expressing conflict between seeing consciousness through the portal of ‘I am’ as beautiful divine creation versus ‘the original sin’ of separation. Rupert explains awe as the highest state of the finite mind – the correct relationship to the infinite – rather than a concession to lower understanding. He affirms creation as an emanation of the divine rather than a mistake, encouraging the woman to honour this perspective.

A woman seeks clarification between consciousness and being conscious, questioning how we determine what is conscious. Rupert challenges the presumption that we as persons are conscious, explaining that only consciousness is conscious, seeing through human faculties. He uses the analogy of Mary dreaming she’s Jane in Paris – everything in the dream is equally Mary’s mind, though only Jane appears conscious because she’s the localised point through which Mary perceives.

A man references Rupert’s statement that ‘you can’t awaken if you’re a seeker, but you can’t awaken unless you’re a seeker’, requesting clarification. Rupert explains that what we seek cannot be an object of search but must be found at its origin. The search itself must be undermined – all people seek happiness, first through objects and activities, later through spiritual practices. Only when exhausted by both paths does one turn around to discover true nature directly.

A man asks whether the ‘knowing of knowing’ is itself an appearance to be transcended into isness. Rupert clarifies that knowing of knowing is consciousness’s knowledge of its own being. It seems to come and go only because it’s intermittently veiled by experience, like blue sky appearing as patches between clouds. The man’s confusion stems from experiencing knowing as alternating with mind states, but this is only appearance – being is the ever-present background sometimes concealed, sometimes revealed.

A woman expresses confusion among terms like ‘being aware’, ‘awareness’ and ‘I am’, noting they evoke different feelings, with being felt more bodily while awareness seems different. Rupert acknowledges these terms have different flavours but are used synonymously, often chosen intuitively for their evocative quality. He guides the woman through an exploration of being via ‘I am’, revealing its unchanging, silent quality beyond emotional turbulence, offering this as refuge from difficult feelings.

A man observes that during states of love, joy and awe, the mind knows it is consciousness yet maintains slight identification, asking if this represents a unification where ego accepts consciousness as true self. Rupert firmly rejects this, stating consciousness knows nothing of ego, which exists only from its own illusory perspective. Just as the actor John Smith remains himself throughout his performance as King Lear, consciousness remains untouched by ego’s temporary drama.

A woman enquires about Rupert’s teaching that meditation is ‘saying yes to everything’, asking how this inner stance supports perceiving beingness. Rupert explains consciousness says yes indiscriminately to all experience, like a screen accepting every scene in a movie without discrimination. While characters in the movie choose what to accept or reject, consciousness cannot say no. The woman can practise saying yes until realising this is already consciousness’s nature.

A man references the parable of the prodigal son, questioning why the returning son received a celebration while the faithful son who stayed home did not. Rupert explains this using non-dual understanding: the son who returns experiences temporary ecstasy and bliss (the ‘party’) because of stark contrast with prior suffering. The son who never left experiences peace as his normal state without excitement because he hasn’t experienced the contrast. Both eventually settle into the same natural state of being at home.

A woman asks why consciousness would leave its state of happiness to manifest as the world and why we must forget our origin. Rupert explains manifestation is simply consciousness’s nature, requiring no motivation. In fully giving itself to creation, consciousness temporarily overlooks its happiness, becoming apparently separate and suffering as a result. This creates the universal longing at the heart of all desire – ultimately the longing to return home to infinite being.

A man questions how will fits into the non-dual framework, noting that thoughts about actions seem distinct from the actions themselves. Rupert uses the analogy of a contracted rubber ball seeking to return to equilibrium – consciousness contracted in a finite mind creates tension seeking resolution. This impulse manifests as will in various forms (desire for happiness, enlightenment, etc.). He explains that all actions, including bodily movements, are ultimately activities of consciousness expressing through different modalities.

A woman describes decades of feeling stuck on their spiritual path by believing progress required attaining formless samadhi states like those described in accounts of great sages. Despite experiencing bliss and energy currents, she felt inadequate without these complete absorptions. Rupert questions samadhi’s value, suggesting it often creates more intense longing and nostalgia, while missing that the ultimate samadhi is direct recognition of that to which ‘I am’ refers – our ever-present true nature.

A woman, who primarily practises Tibetan Buddhism, asks how the Buddhist concept of progressive stages of awakening (bhumis) relates to Direct Path teachings. Rupert explains these aren’t actual levels of awakening but decreasing degrees of obscuration. Using the sun analogy, he notes awareness always shines with the same brightness – like the sun – but the mind turns away from it to varying degrees. What appears as progressive awakening is simply the mind’s decreasing power to conceal awareness’s ever-present light.

A woman asks about manifestation, questioning whether it happens as the nature of consciousness rather than through will or planning. Rupert confirms that consciousness has no master plan for manifestation – it’s simply its nature to manifest potential in form, like dreams arise naturally in the mind. When the woman asks if consciousness is helpless to creation, Rupert describes consciousness as a ‘jazz musician’ improvising rather than a controlling power outside creation, while remaining unaffected by it.

A classical musician shares his profound shift experienced during the retreat – observing thoughts from a greater distance with increased clarity, feeling more identified with being rather than thought. Rupert confirms this as taking a step back from thoughts, identifying as consciousness and becoming less affected by thought content. The man expresses not wanting to return to happiness triggered by external events. Rupert clarifies it’s the same happiness, now recognised as independent of circumstances.

A woman asks about intelligence from a non-dual understanding. Rupert explains that intelligence without content is pure consciousness. When mediated through a transparent mind, it becomes true knowledge; when filtered through a mind dominated by separation, it becomes distorted into falsity, ignorance, and injustice. The quality of knowledge depends on the clarity of the medium through which intelligence flows.

A woman enquires about the non-dual path of devotion within the new paradigm, prompted by reflections on synchronicities. Rupert explains synchronicities as reminders of the constant connection between inner life and outside world – consciousness dividing itself into subject and object. He clarifies that devotion and knowledge are the same path in different language, with ultimate devotion being complete surrender of any notion of being a separate entity, recognising only infinite consciousness.

A man describes experiencing gagging sensations during meditation when approaching a state of consciousness previously experienced years ago. Rupert explains this as the sense of separation feeling threatened by the man’s investigation – producing visceral, bodily fear responses to psychological ‘death.’ He advises either ignoring mild reactions or honouring stronger ones by pausing, allowing the response to settle before continuing, noting these reactions typically diminish with time as resistance weakens.

A woman seeks clarification on experiencing awe while understanding non-duality, expressing conflict between seeing consciousness through the portal of ‘I am’ as beautiful divine creation versus ‘the original sin’ of separation. Rupert explains awe as the highest state of the finite mind – the correct relationship to the infinite – rather than a concession to lower understanding. He affirms creation as an emanation of the divine rather than a mistake, encouraging the woman to honour this perspective.

A woman seeks clarification between consciousness and being conscious, questioning how we determine what is conscious. Rupert challenges the presumption that we as persons are conscious, explaining that only consciousness is conscious, seeing through human faculties. He uses the analogy of Mary dreaming she’s Jane in Paris – everything in the dream is equally Mary’s mind, though only Jane appears conscious because she’s the localised point through which Mary perceives.

A man references Rupert’s statement that ‘you can’t awaken if you’re a seeker, but you can’t awaken unless you’re a seeker’, requesting clarification. Rupert explains that what we seek cannot be an object of search but must be found at its origin. The search itself must be undermined – all people seek happiness, first through objects and activities, later through spiritual practices. Only when exhausted by both paths does one turn around to discover true nature directly.

A man asks whether the ‘knowing of knowing’ is itself an appearance to be transcended into isness. Rupert clarifies that knowing of knowing is consciousness’s knowledge of its own being. It seems to come and go only because it’s intermittently veiled by experience, like blue sky appearing as patches between clouds. The man’s confusion stems from experiencing knowing as alternating with mind states, but this is only appearance – being is the ever-present background sometimes concealed, sometimes revealed.

A woman expresses confusion among terms like ‘being aware’, ‘awareness’ and ‘I am’, noting they evoke different feelings, with being felt more bodily while awareness seems different. Rupert acknowledges these terms have different flavours but are used synonymously, often chosen intuitively for their evocative quality. He guides the woman through an exploration of being via ‘I am’, revealing its unchanging, silent quality beyond emotional turbulence, offering this as refuge from difficult feelings.

A man observes that during states of love, joy and awe, the mind knows it is consciousness yet maintains slight identification, asking if this represents a unification where ego accepts consciousness as true self. Rupert firmly rejects this, stating consciousness knows nothing of ego, which exists only from its own illusory perspective. Just as the actor John Smith remains himself throughout his performance as King Lear, consciousness remains untouched by ego’s temporary drama.

A woman enquires about Rupert’s teaching that meditation is ‘saying yes to everything’, asking how this inner stance supports perceiving beingness. Rupert explains consciousness says yes indiscriminately to all experience, like a screen accepting every scene in a movie without discrimination. While characters in the movie choose what to accept or reject, consciousness cannot say no. The woman can practise saying yes until realising this is already consciousness’s nature.

A man references the parable of the prodigal son, questioning why the returning son received a celebration while the faithful son who stayed home did not. Rupert explains this using non-dual understanding: the son who returns experiences temporary ecstasy and bliss (the ‘party’) because of stark contrast with prior suffering. The son who never left experiences peace as his normal state without excitement because he hasn’t experienced the contrast. Both eventually settle into the same natural state of being at home.

A woman asks why consciousness would leave its state of happiness to manifest as the world and why we must forget our origin. Rupert explains manifestation is simply consciousness’s nature, requiring no motivation. In fully giving itself to creation, consciousness temporarily overlooks its happiness, becoming apparently separate and suffering as a result. This creates the universal longing at the heart of all desire – ultimately the longing to return home to infinite being.

A man questions how will fits into the non-dual framework, noting that thoughts about actions seem distinct from the actions themselves. Rupert uses the analogy of a contracted rubber ball seeking to return to equilibrium – consciousness contracted in a finite mind creates tension seeking resolution. This impulse manifests as will in various forms (desire for happiness, enlightenment, etc.). He explains that all actions, including bodily movements, are ultimately activities of consciousness expressing through different modalities.

A woman describes decades of feeling stuck on their spiritual path by believing progress required attaining formless samadhi states like those described in accounts of great sages. Despite experiencing bliss and energy currents, she felt inadequate without these complete absorptions. Rupert questions samadhi’s value, suggesting it often creates more intense longing and nostalgia, while missing that the ultimate samadhi is direct recognition of that to which ‘I am’ refers – our ever-present true nature.

A woman, who primarily practises Tibetan Buddhism, asks how the Buddhist concept of progressive stages of awakening (bhumis) relates to Direct Path teachings. Rupert explains these aren’t actual levels of awakening but decreasing degrees of obscuration. Using the sun analogy, he notes awareness always shines with the same brightness – like the sun – but the mind turns away from it to varying degrees. What appears as progressive awakening is simply the mind’s decreasing power to conceal awareness’s ever-present light.