Awakening Is Consciousness Liberating

A man questions the notion of personal responsibility for thoughts, citing Rupert’s book The Light of Pure Knowing and expressing relief at finding an alternative perspective. Through Socratic questioning, Rupert guides the man to recognise that if we cannot control our thoughts (evidenced by our inability to eliminate negative ones), we cannot be responsible for them. He explains how practice enables one to respond differently to triggering situations – not by controlling thoughts but by returning to one’s true nature instead of reacting habitually.

A woman expresses confusion about awareness and emotions, noting a tendency to shame or prevent feelings using spiritual concepts. When Rupert advocates being with being rather than feelings, the woman objects, believing emotions dissolve when felt and expressed. Rupert suggests emotions feed on attention, comparing them to neighbours – why spend time with difficult feelings when peace is available? While acknowledging the woman’s approach may work for them, he offers the tantric alternative: bringing feelings so close they lose separate existence, dissolving into peace.

A woman thanks Rupert for recent meditations, then enquires about balancing awareness of infinite being with navigating the material world, particularly when witnessing others’ suffering. She wonders how to reconcile shining love while feeling compassion for those still experiencing separation. Rupert advises maintaining internal connection with being’s peace while externally expressing this understanding through one’s particular faculties, talents and community. He affirms each person can discover their unique way to channel this love and understanding.

A woman asks about spontaneous or instant healing. Rupert responds by directing attention straight back to being, explaining that one’s true nature is already whole – without sickness, disease or sorrow. When the woman clarifies they meant physical conditions being healed instantly, Rupert acknowledges he doesn’t have specific knowledge about this phenomenon.

A man describes a 40-year rejection of the Christian God concept, followed by spiritual seeking through Vipassana meditation. Recently, he has experienced an intense yearning for relationship with God that conflicts with their understanding of non-dual teachings. Rupert explains that longing for God necessarily maintains separation and is ultimately limiting. While acknowledging this longing as beautiful compared to rejection, he suggests it must eventually be replaced by recognition that one’s being is God’s being.

A woman asks about mental illness and its relationship to separation, drawing from personal family experience. Rupert clarifies that all finite minds experience apparent separation, but mental illness and sense of separation aren’t directly correlated. He notes some conditions, like autism, may involve less filtering and thus less sense of separation, while some ‘normal’ minds have deeper separation. He adds that this understanding requires strength to integrate and isn’t appropriate for everyone.

A woman expresses appreciation for Rupert’s explanation of Vedantic versus Tantric approaches, noting how resting in being sometimes leads to being penetrating into one’s humanity. Rupert corrects a misconception that his teaching is purely Vedantic, explaining that over years his approach has evolved to synthesise both traditions along with Christian mysticism and Sufism. The woman describes how awareness pressing into experiences can dissolve separation, bringing compassionate insight without spiritual bypassing.

A woman references a previous discussion about tables and consciousness, describing how after initially feeling upset about not reaching mutual understanding with Rupert, they found peace by recognising truth exists independent of agreement. She then noticed Rupert later articulated their perspective perfectly. The woman asks whether this represents outpicturing of inner states and why, if consciousness is one, awakening in one mind doesn’t awaken all minds. Rupert explains awakening is consciousness liberating from apparent confines, not minds awakening.

A man describes experiencing unexpected sorrow and mourning after a morning meditation and seeks to understand this experience. Rupert suggests two possibilities: either personal mourning for the imminent demise of the man’s previous self and past struggles, or an impersonal sorrow felt on behalf of humanity’s suffering – or possibly a mixture of both. The man acknowledges feeling gratitude for sharing that space with others and expresses hope that everyone feels his love throughout the retreat.

A woman enquires about what might underlie deep sleep, noting that sometimes in meditation the sense of ‘I am’ disappears completely. Rupert explains how considering deep sleep as a ‘state’ leads to positing something behind it, but if we start with pure consciousness as our primary experience, there are no states. From consciousness’s perspective, there’s only itself – it never ceases being itself to enter states. The apparent states exist only from the mind’s perspective.

A man proposes holding a hypothetical ‘non-dual day’ when everyone on Earth would meditate and rest in awareness, asking whether we would open our eyes to a world of celebration. Rupert suggests that for most people, the glimpse would quickly be eclipsed by habitual patterns, though regular practice might gradually establish humanity in true nature. When the man asks if consciousness might eventually return to pure consciousness without finite minds, Rupert explains that such questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, only undermined.

A man expresses gratitude for Rupert’s teaching coming from silence, then asks about the nature of being, suggesting it might be understood as an event, a giving or granting rather than a static state. The man describes being as unfolding into existence then enfolding back into itself, proposing that the portal of ‘I am’ is where human being touches being. Rupert acknowledges this perspective, affirming he can see what the man is pointing toward through this framework.

A woman suggests Rupert’s teaching could reach more sceptical people if integrated with quantum physics concepts like non-material fields of potential, interconnected particles, and observer effect. The woman proposes Rupert collaborate with scientist friends to create a more scientifically supported presentation of non-dual understanding. She adds that emotions carry important messages and shouldn’t be ignored. Rupert responds that he will consider speaking with his friends Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman.

A woman expresses concern about potentially regressing in understanding, noting difficulty connecting with the morning’s meditation and feeling like the portal to consciousness is shrinking. She wonders if proximity to world events in Washington DC creates a thickness of experience. Rupert reassures her they aren’t regressing; the sorrow they feel is impersonal compassion that emerges when one’s mind is free enough from personal sorrow to feel others’. He explores compassion as entering into others’ experience.

A man asks how to help someone experiencing nihilistic existential crisis after intellectually grasping non-dual understanding. Rupert explains that people often find themselves caught between paradigms – seeing through the illusion of separation enough to question their previous life’s purpose but not yet discovering their new purpose of expressing love and understanding. He suggests this transition period typically resolves when guided by the right influences rather than teachers who collude with feelings of meaninglessness.

A man asks about aligning character development work with nine-year-old children with non-dual understanding, particularly regarding the tension between developing agency versus surrender. Rupert advises emphasising enthusiasm, joy, play and celebration rather than surrender for children. He suggests the first quarter of life should develop a healthy, functional separate self before introducing deeper understanding. The man’s role is to infuse activities with implicit understanding that children absorb vicariously.

A man questions the notion of personal responsibility for thoughts, citing Rupert’s book The Light of Pure Knowing and expressing relief at finding an alternative perspective. Through Socratic questioning, Rupert guides the man to recognise that if we cannot control our thoughts (evidenced by our inability to eliminate negative ones), we cannot be responsible for them. He explains how practice enables one to respond differently to triggering situations – not by controlling thoughts but by returning to one’s true nature instead of reacting habitually.

A woman expresses confusion about awareness and emotions, noting a tendency to shame or prevent feelings using spiritual concepts. When Rupert advocates being with being rather than feelings, the woman objects, believing emotions dissolve when felt and expressed. Rupert suggests emotions feed on attention, comparing them to neighbours – why spend time with difficult feelings when peace is available? While acknowledging the woman’s approach may work for them, he offers the tantric alternative: bringing feelings so close they lose separate existence, dissolving into peace.

A woman thanks Rupert for recent meditations, then enquires about balancing awareness of infinite being with navigating the material world, particularly when witnessing others’ suffering. She wonders how to reconcile shining love while feeling compassion for those still experiencing separation. Rupert advises maintaining internal connection with being’s peace while externally expressing this understanding through one’s particular faculties, talents and community. He affirms each person can discover their unique way to channel this love and understanding.

A woman asks about spontaneous or instant healing. Rupert responds by directing attention straight back to being, explaining that one’s true nature is already whole – without sickness, disease or sorrow. When the woman clarifies they meant physical conditions being healed instantly, Rupert acknowledges he doesn’t have specific knowledge about this phenomenon.

A man describes a 40-year rejection of the Christian God concept, followed by spiritual seeking through Vipassana meditation. Recently, he has experienced an intense yearning for relationship with God that conflicts with their understanding of non-dual teachings. Rupert explains that longing for God necessarily maintains separation and is ultimately limiting. While acknowledging this longing as beautiful compared to rejection, he suggests it must eventually be replaced by recognition that one’s being is God’s being.

A woman asks about mental illness and its relationship to separation, drawing from personal family experience. Rupert clarifies that all finite minds experience apparent separation, but mental illness and sense of separation aren’t directly correlated. He notes some conditions, like autism, may involve less filtering and thus less sense of separation, while some ‘normal’ minds have deeper separation. He adds that this understanding requires strength to integrate and isn’t appropriate for everyone.

A woman expresses appreciation for Rupert’s explanation of Vedantic versus Tantric approaches, noting how resting in being sometimes leads to being penetrating into one’s humanity. Rupert corrects a misconception that his teaching is purely Vedantic, explaining that over years his approach has evolved to synthesise both traditions along with Christian mysticism and Sufism. The woman describes how awareness pressing into experiences can dissolve separation, bringing compassionate insight without spiritual bypassing.

A woman references a previous discussion about tables and consciousness, describing how after initially feeling upset about not reaching mutual understanding with Rupert, they found peace by recognising truth exists independent of agreement. She then noticed Rupert later articulated their perspective perfectly. The woman asks whether this represents outpicturing of inner states and why, if consciousness is one, awakening in one mind doesn’t awaken all minds. Rupert explains awakening is consciousness liberating from apparent confines, not minds awakening.

A man describes experiencing unexpected sorrow and mourning after a morning meditation and seeks to understand this experience. Rupert suggests two possibilities: either personal mourning for the imminent demise of the man’s previous self and past struggles, or an impersonal sorrow felt on behalf of humanity’s suffering – or possibly a mixture of both. The man acknowledges feeling gratitude for sharing that space with others and expresses hope that everyone feels his love throughout the retreat.

A woman enquires about what might underlie deep sleep, noting that sometimes in meditation the sense of ‘I am’ disappears completely. Rupert explains how considering deep sleep as a ‘state’ leads to positing something behind it, but if we start with pure consciousness as our primary experience, there are no states. From consciousness’s perspective, there’s only itself – it never ceases being itself to enter states. The apparent states exist only from the mind’s perspective.

A man proposes holding a hypothetical ‘non-dual day’ when everyone on Earth would meditate and rest in awareness, asking whether we would open our eyes to a world of celebration. Rupert suggests that for most people, the glimpse would quickly be eclipsed by habitual patterns, though regular practice might gradually establish humanity in true nature. When the man asks if consciousness might eventually return to pure consciousness without finite minds, Rupert explains that such questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, only undermined.

A man expresses gratitude for Rupert’s teaching coming from silence, then asks about the nature of being, suggesting it might be understood as an event, a giving or granting rather than a static state. The man describes being as unfolding into existence then enfolding back into itself, proposing that the portal of ‘I am’ is where human being touches being. Rupert acknowledges this perspective, affirming he can see what the man is pointing toward through this framework.

A woman suggests Rupert’s teaching could reach more sceptical people if integrated with quantum physics concepts like non-material fields of potential, interconnected particles, and observer effect. The woman proposes Rupert collaborate with scientist friends to create a more scientifically supported presentation of non-dual understanding. She adds that emotions carry important messages and shouldn’t be ignored. Rupert responds that he will consider speaking with his friends Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman.

A woman expresses concern about potentially regressing in understanding, noting difficulty connecting with the morning’s meditation and feeling like the portal to consciousness is shrinking. She wonders if proximity to world events in Washington DC creates a thickness of experience. Rupert reassures her they aren’t regressing; the sorrow they feel is impersonal compassion that emerges when one’s mind is free enough from personal sorrow to feel others’. He explores compassion as entering into others’ experience.

A man asks how to help someone experiencing nihilistic existential crisis after intellectually grasping non-dual understanding. Rupert explains that people often find themselves caught between paradigms – seeing through the illusion of separation enough to question their previous life’s purpose but not yet discovering their new purpose of expressing love and understanding. He suggests this transition period typically resolves when guided by the right influences rather than teachers who collude with feelings of meaninglessness.

A man asks about aligning character development work with nine-year-old children with non-dual understanding, particularly regarding the tension between developing agency versus surrender. Rupert advises emphasising enthusiasm, joy, play and celebration rather than surrender for children. He suggests the first quarter of life should develop a healthy, functional separate self before introducing deeper understanding. The man’s role is to infuse activities with implicit understanding that children absorb vicariously.