Being Is Unchanged by Experience

Being is the common factor in all experience. The screen always remains the transparent screen. Being always remains transparent, colourless, qualityless being. The fact of simply being doesn't share any of the personal qualities of experience. There are numerous thoughts, feelings, perceptions, but being is impersonal, singular, indivisible. To personalise being is blasphemy. Impersonal being is infinite, God's being. Disentangle yourself from experience. This simple awareness of being is the highest form of meditation or prayer. Being is what we are, not what we do. The experience of simply being is our natural condition. Everything is just naturally, effortlessly, simply being. Simply being never asks, ‘What's next?’ It simply goes on being, unchanged my experience.

A man who has been studying Nisargadatta asks about the absence of the body-mind and being. Rupert suggests that if there was no being the absolute would not be. Being is prior to any formulation of ‘I am’, which is in the mind but refers to being. 'I' is the name being gives itself. If consciousness creates being then we would have to say that consciousness exists in the absence of being.

A man asks whether it’s necessary for being to localise. Rupert suggests that no, the screen doesn't need the movie. In fact, being never really localises itself. When we dream of London we don’t leave the streets of Paris where we are. We have to be open to the fact that there are other kinds of minds, like angels.

A woman who cannot feel her being as infinite says she finds it annoying. Rupert suggests not being waylaid by the term 'infinite' as it merely means ‘not finite’. He leads her in self-enquiry. There are no qualities to discover in our being, therefore, without limits, it is infinite. The aliveness of being is the perfume of our being in a body-mind, not being itself.

A woman asks about the feeling of expansion that happens during meditation. She describes the realisation that everything is made of peace when her son was in an accident. Rupert suggests that our being begins to lose the limitations with which it identifies, and the content of our experience begins to fade, so it seems or feels as if it expands.

A man asks if the localisation of the body-mind is just an appearance. Rupert suggests he wouldn't say ‘just an appearance’. It is an appearance, and illusion, if by illusion we mean that it is real but not what it appears to be.

What is the difference between localising, the separate personal me and the soul? Rupert suggests that the localisation is a function of consciousness, like a dream character walking on the streets of Paris is a function of our mind. The ego, or separate self, is the belief that there really is a person walking on the streets of Paris.

A woman says she is like a yoyo, going back and forth from the freedom of the sky to the clouds. Rupert responds that the appearance of clouds are not problematic. The sky never complains or is affected and goes on being the open sky. Thoughts are not a problem; the problem is allowing ourself to become entangled in and defined by them. The same is true of feelings. Experience has no power over us unless we give it power. Feeling we've done something wrong or bad is personalising impersonal being.

A man mentions solipsism and asks, “What if I am creating everything? Is it all just my dream?’ Rupert suggests that this is, in fact, all a dream, but not of a finite mind but of infinite consciousness.

A man asks ‘How do I know I exist?’ Rupert suggests we know we exist because we, the one infinite reality, is and knows being or consciousness. Therefore simply by being, we, the one infinite reality, know ourself just by being ourself without self reflection.

A woman says she is drawn to these teachings but feels she needs an experience of being everyone and everything. Rupert responds that we don't need any more experience. Simply cease personalising being. 'I want to feel I am everyone and everything' is personalising being. Simpy stay with being and it begins to reveal itself to us; we find ourself more open. Go to your being and see that it doesn't share the limitations that thought gives experience.

A man asks about gaining clarity on different pathways. Rupert suggests that we think, feel and perceive and have pathways for thinking and feeling – the path of knowledge and the path of devotion. But when we approach reality through perception, as an artist does, we call it beauty. The idea is to explore reality through all three in a balanced way.

A woman shares her experience, when listening to an interview with Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert, of melting. She thanks him for the experience. Rupert thanks her for her words.

A man, who is a dancer, asks about whether some types of music can have a negative effect. Rupert suggests that where the music comes from in a musician tends to be where the music takes us. It’s the same with words. This doesn't mean that a dancer shouldn't dance to music that is inspired by negativity, because through the dancing the dancer can redeem it.

A woman asks about the relationship between morality and freedom of choice – if we don't have a choice, why the ideas of good or bad, right or wrong? Rupert uses the Mary and Jane analogy of the dreamer and dreamt. Mary's dreams and morals are a mixture of the qualities of her essential being plus temporal and cultural conditioning. Some people choose almost completely from the qualities of their true nature; others choose almost always from conditioned being, which allows them to behave in unjust ways. Ultimately, there is no choice – to have or not have a choice.

A man, who is involved in a local ashram, shares some frustrations. Rupert suggests that his frustrations are justified. In traditional Advaita, often the conditioning of the body-mind is deeply affected by culture, which is conditioned and limited. Through your experience with the spiritual leaders at the ashram, you are probably getting a mix of genuine insight and cultural/personal conditioning.

What role does suffering play in coming to this understanding? Rupert replies that suffering is to the mind what pain is to the body. It's an alarm bell that something needs attention, that is, our understanding of who we are. Suffering tells us we've allowed being to be personalised by experience. See it as a call from being telling us we've lost ourself in experience urging us to come home.

A woman, who lost her son at age twenty-two, asks about mediumship to connect with her son. Rupert suggests that he has no experience with it, but much of it is likely imagination, though not all. We must be open to the fact that some minds in the waking state may be so porous that they are able to connect with other minds.

Being is the common factor in all experience. The screen always remains the transparent screen. Being always remains transparent, colourless, qualityless being. The fact of simply being doesn't share any of the personal qualities of experience. There are numerous thoughts, feelings, perceptions, but being is impersonal, singular, indivisible. To personalise being is blasphemy. Impersonal being is infinite, God's being. Disentangle yourself from experience. This simple awareness of being is the highest form of meditation or prayer. Being is what we are, not what we do. The experience of simply being is our natural condition. Everything is just naturally, effortlessly, simply being. Simply being never asks, ‘What's next?’ It simply goes on being, unchanged my experience.

A man who has been studying Nisargadatta asks about the absence of the body-mind and being. Rupert suggests that if there was no being the absolute would not be. Being is prior to any formulation of ‘I am’, which is in the mind but refers to being. 'I' is the name being gives itself. If consciousness creates being then we would have to say that consciousness exists in the absence of being.

A man asks whether it’s necessary for being to localise. Rupert suggests that no, the screen doesn't need the movie. In fact, being never really localises itself. When we dream of London we don’t leave the streets of Paris where we are. We have to be open to the fact that there are other kinds of minds, like angels.

A woman who cannot feel her being as infinite says she finds it annoying. Rupert suggests not being waylaid by the term 'infinite' as it merely means ‘not finite’. He leads her in self-enquiry. There are no qualities to discover in our being, therefore, without limits, it is infinite. The aliveness of being is the perfume of our being in a body-mind, not being itself.

A woman asks about the feeling of expansion that happens during meditation. She describes the realisation that everything is made of peace when her son was in an accident. Rupert suggests that our being begins to lose the limitations with which it identifies, and the content of our experience begins to fade, so it seems or feels as if it expands.

A man asks if the localisation of the body-mind is just an appearance. Rupert suggests he wouldn't say ‘just an appearance’. It is an appearance, and illusion, if by illusion we mean that it is real but not what it appears to be.

What is the difference between localising, the separate personal me and the soul? Rupert suggests that the localisation is a function of consciousness, like a dream character walking on the streets of Paris is a function of our mind. The ego, or separate self, is the belief that there really is a person walking on the streets of Paris.

A woman says she is like a yoyo, going back and forth from the freedom of the sky to the clouds. Rupert responds that the appearance of clouds are not problematic. The sky never complains or is affected and goes on being the open sky. Thoughts are not a problem; the problem is allowing ourself to become entangled in and defined by them. The same is true of feelings. Experience has no power over us unless we give it power. Feeling we've done something wrong or bad is personalising impersonal being.

A man mentions solipsism and asks, “What if I am creating everything? Is it all just my dream?’ Rupert suggests that this is, in fact, all a dream, but not of a finite mind but of infinite consciousness.

A man asks ‘How do I know I exist?’ Rupert suggests we know we exist because we, the one infinite reality, is and knows being or consciousness. Therefore simply by being, we, the one infinite reality, know ourself just by being ourself without self reflection.

A woman says she is drawn to these teachings but feels she needs an experience of being everyone and everything. Rupert responds that we don't need any more experience. Simply cease personalising being. 'I want to feel I am everyone and everything' is personalising being. Simpy stay with being and it begins to reveal itself to us; we find ourself more open. Go to your being and see that it doesn't share the limitations that thought gives experience.

A man asks about gaining clarity on different pathways. Rupert suggests that we think, feel and perceive and have pathways for thinking and feeling – the path of knowledge and the path of devotion. But when we approach reality through perception, as an artist does, we call it beauty. The idea is to explore reality through all three in a balanced way.

A woman shares her experience, when listening to an interview with Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert, of melting. She thanks him for the experience. Rupert thanks her for her words.

A man, who is a dancer, asks about whether some types of music can have a negative effect. Rupert suggests that where the music comes from in a musician tends to be where the music takes us. It’s the same with words. This doesn't mean that a dancer shouldn't dance to music that is inspired by negativity, because through the dancing the dancer can redeem it.

A woman asks about the relationship between morality and freedom of choice – if we don't have a choice, why the ideas of good or bad, right or wrong? Rupert uses the Mary and Jane analogy of the dreamer and dreamt. Mary's dreams and morals are a mixture of the qualities of her essential being plus temporal and cultural conditioning. Some people choose almost completely from the qualities of their true nature; others choose almost always from conditioned being, which allows them to behave in unjust ways. Ultimately, there is no choice – to have or not have a choice.

A man, who is involved in a local ashram, shares some frustrations. Rupert suggests that his frustrations are justified. In traditional Advaita, often the conditioning of the body-mind is deeply affected by culture, which is conditioned and limited. Through your experience with the spiritual leaders at the ashram, you are probably getting a mix of genuine insight and cultural/personal conditioning.

What role does suffering play in coming to this understanding? Rupert replies that suffering is to the mind what pain is to the body. It's an alarm bell that something needs attention, that is, our understanding of who we are. Suffering tells us we've allowed being to be personalised by experience. See it as a call from being telling us we've lost ourself in experience urging us to come home.

A woman, who lost her son at age twenty-two, asks about mediumship to connect with her son. Rupert suggests that he has no experience with it, but much of it is likely imagination, though not all. We must be open to the fact that some minds in the waking state may be so porous that they are able to connect with other minds.