How Consciousness Can Reach Toward Something from the media Love Is the Street Name For God
A woman enquires how consciousness can stretch towards something when consciousness is all there is to an object. Rupert uses the analogy of Mary and Jane to illustrate that the knowing with which Jane on the streets of Paris, representing the finite mind, experiences her environment is actually Mary asleep in Garrison, who symbolises infinite consciousness. In a subject–object relationship, there is always perceived distance between subject and object, necessitating a stretching of attention. The idea of stretching attention concedes to the apparent reality of the subject and object relationship.
- Duration: 9 minutes and 3 seconds
- Recorded on: Mar 25, 2024
- Event: Seven-Day Retreat at Garrison Institute – 22 to 29 March 2024
A man expresses his deep gratitude for Rupert and enquires about his experiences when leading a meditation or answering questions. He shares that it is very straightforward: he comes in the morning and feels he has nothing more to say. Then, like a landscape slowly emerging from the morning mist, a verbal form enters his mind, and he speaks it out. He confesses he doesn’t know where it comes from.
A man expresses his gratitude and queries about the goal of attention. Rupert responds by clarifying that what he is discussing cannot be a goal of attention, as attention is always directed towards an object. Just as a rubber band needs to be stretched between two points, attention requires two points as well: the subject and objects. We can pay attention to everything except the self.
A woman asks about the concepts of luminosity and luminousness. Rupert seizes this chance to introduce his new meditation app called ‘Luminous.’ He explains that he adopted this term from the attribute of light. For instance, if there were no sunlight, there would be complete darkness; sunlight renders the earth knowable. Similarly, without consciousness, no experiences could occur; consciousness is the illuminating or knowing factor.
A woman enquires how consciousness can stretch towards something when consciousness is all there is to an object. Rupert uses the analogy of Mary and Jane to illustrate that the knowing with which Jane on the streets of Paris, representing the finite mind, experiences her environment is actually Mary asleep in Garrison, who symbolises infinite consciousness. In a subject–object relationship, there is always perceived distance between subject and object, necessitating a stretching of attention. The idea of stretching attention concedes to the apparent reality of the subject and object relationship.
A man reads a couplet from Rumi: ‘The lover’s ailment is separate from all other ailments; love is the secret to the mysteries of the divine’, and asks what is love? Rupert replies that love is the shining of God’s presence in our hearts. Love is not an emotion; it is the nature of being that shines when all our obscuring feelings subside. Love is ever-shining; it is the street name for God.
A woman shares that when she feels her being, it arises in her back, on the left side, or over there. Rupert guides her in self-enquiry, asking her to imagine that she is a newborn infant experiencing the world for the first time, with no memory to refer back to. He asks her to describe her being. Being does not take place in any dimension; the word ‘infinite’ means having no dimensions. Being is infinite, eternal.
A man asks for a comment on creativity in connection with awareness. Rupert says that the mind works to a certain extent like a computer or ChatGPT; it has a vast storage of data to which it can refer. Whenever it does so, it reorganises it and presents it as a new idea. Thought is an extension of the past on the horizontal plane. However, there can be a vertical intervention in the mind that interrupts the horizontal stream of thoughts. This comes from beyond time and memory; that is creativity. When something new comes to the mind, it comes directly from awareness, the source of the mind.
A woman enquires about Rupert’s humility and whether understanding protects him from the ego. Rupert says that he is capable of making mistakes and, as soon as he acknowledges them, he apologises. He doesn’t feel that the teaching is in danger and that he has to do something consciously to protect it. He is surrounded by beautiful people, and even if he takes on something that is not in integrity, he can rely on his friends to keep him grounded.
A man asks about the ego. Rupert responds that he doesn’t talk about the ego because, why talk about that which is not real? Why not talk about what we truly are? Thoughts, feelings, actions, and behaviours tend to lag behind our self-recognition. One can have a genuine recognition of one’s true nature, and there can still be old habits of thinking, feeling, acting, and relating that have not yet been upgraded to the new understanding. The process of realignment is never-ending.
A man, raised in the Hindu tradition, has read the Bhagavad Gita, whose opening lines state that ignorance is the cause of all misery. He challenges the idea that if the teachings reach a wider audience, they could become corrupted. Instead, he argues that because the teachings alleviate suffering and misery, they should be accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford them. Rupert expresses his gratitude for these insights and suggests he would rewrite the opening line of the Bhagavad Gita to say that the true self is the cause of all happiness. This reflects the same understanding but presents it in a positive way, aiming to uplift rather than suppress the ego.
A woman asks if we can open a conduit that enables us to live this understanding all the time. Rupert responds that this is exactly what we are doing here: we are opening a conduit, inviting inspiration, allowing our minds to be informed by the luminosity and peace that are the nature of awareness. It is the surrendering of the mind to consciousness, the surrendering of the heart to God.
A man asks about the meaning of emptiness. Rupert enquires how he would describe the room if all objects and people were removed from where they are currently seated. He questions whether this emptiness was created when all the people and objects left, or if it is in the nature of space to be empty. If the room was naturally full, there would be no space for people and objects in it. The word ‘empty’ is borrowed from our experience of physical space and applied to the experience of awareness prior to the arising of experience.
A man asks about the common non-dual teaching that there is no doer. Rupert replies that this statement belongs to the neti-neti approach and is used as a prelude to self-enquiry. Ultimately, there is no individual doer at the helm of our experiences. It is not necessary to discard what we are not to recognise who we are. We go straight to our self.
A man expresses his deep gratitude for Rupert and enquires about his experiences when leading a meditation or answering questions. He shares that it is very straightforward: he comes in the morning and feels he has nothing more to say. Then, like a landscape slowly emerging from the morning mist, a verbal form enters his mind, and he speaks it out. He confesses he doesn’t know where it comes from.
A man expresses his gratitude and queries about the goal of attention. Rupert responds by clarifying that what he is discussing cannot be a goal of attention, as attention is always directed towards an object. Just as a rubber band needs to be stretched between two points, attention requires two points as well: the subject and objects. We can pay attention to everything except the self.
A woman asks about the concepts of luminosity and luminousness. Rupert seizes this chance to introduce his new meditation app called ‘Luminous.’ He explains that he adopted this term from the attribute of light. For instance, if there were no sunlight, there would be complete darkness; sunlight renders the earth knowable. Similarly, without consciousness, no experiences could occur; consciousness is the illuminating or knowing factor.
A woman enquires how consciousness can stretch towards something when consciousness is all there is to an object. Rupert uses the analogy of Mary and Jane to illustrate that the knowing with which Jane on the streets of Paris, representing the finite mind, experiences her environment is actually Mary asleep in Garrison, who symbolises infinite consciousness. In a subject–object relationship, there is always perceived distance between subject and object, necessitating a stretching of attention. The idea of stretching attention concedes to the apparent reality of the subject and object relationship.
A man reads a couplet from Rumi: ‘The lover’s ailment is separate from all other ailments; love is the secret to the mysteries of the divine’, and asks what is love? Rupert replies that love is the shining of God’s presence in our hearts. Love is not an emotion; it is the nature of being that shines when all our obscuring feelings subside. Love is ever-shining; it is the street name for God.
A woman shares that when she feels her being, it arises in her back, on the left side, or over there. Rupert guides her in self-enquiry, asking her to imagine that she is a newborn infant experiencing the world for the first time, with no memory to refer back to. He asks her to describe her being. Being does not take place in any dimension; the word ‘infinite’ means having no dimensions. Being is infinite, eternal.
A man asks for a comment on creativity in connection with awareness. Rupert says that the mind works to a certain extent like a computer or ChatGPT; it has a vast storage of data to which it can refer. Whenever it does so, it reorganises it and presents it as a new idea. Thought is an extension of the past on the horizontal plane. However, there can be a vertical intervention in the mind that interrupts the horizontal stream of thoughts. This comes from beyond time and memory; that is creativity. When something new comes to the mind, it comes directly from awareness, the source of the mind.
A woman enquires about Rupert’s humility and whether understanding protects him from the ego. Rupert says that he is capable of making mistakes and, as soon as he acknowledges them, he apologises. He doesn’t feel that the teaching is in danger and that he has to do something consciously to protect it. He is surrounded by beautiful people, and even if he takes on something that is not in integrity, he can rely on his friends to keep him grounded.
A man asks about the ego. Rupert responds that he doesn’t talk about the ego because, why talk about that which is not real? Why not talk about what we truly are? Thoughts, feelings, actions, and behaviours tend to lag behind our self-recognition. One can have a genuine recognition of one’s true nature, and there can still be old habits of thinking, feeling, acting, and relating that have not yet been upgraded to the new understanding. The process of realignment is never-ending.
A man, raised in the Hindu tradition, has read the Bhagavad Gita, whose opening lines state that ignorance is the cause of all misery. He challenges the idea that if the teachings reach a wider audience, they could become corrupted. Instead, he argues that because the teachings alleviate suffering and misery, they should be accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford them. Rupert expresses his gratitude for these insights and suggests he would rewrite the opening line of the Bhagavad Gita to say that the true self is the cause of all happiness. This reflects the same understanding but presents it in a positive way, aiming to uplift rather than suppress the ego.
A woman asks if we can open a conduit that enables us to live this understanding all the time. Rupert responds that this is exactly what we are doing here: we are opening a conduit, inviting inspiration, allowing our minds to be informed by the luminosity and peace that are the nature of awareness. It is the surrendering of the mind to consciousness, the surrendering of the heart to God.
A man asks about the meaning of emptiness. Rupert enquires how he would describe the room if all objects and people were removed from where they are currently seated. He questions whether this emptiness was created when all the people and objects left, or if it is in the nature of space to be empty. If the room was naturally full, there would be no space for people and objects in it. The word ‘empty’ is borrowed from our experience of physical space and applied to the experience of awareness prior to the arising of experience.
A man asks about the common non-dual teaching that there is no doer. Rupert replies that this statement belongs to the neti-neti approach and is used as a prelude to self-enquiry. Ultimately, there is no individual doer at the helm of our experiences. It is not necessary to discard what we are not to recognise who we are. We go straight to our self.