Creation Is Always Only Your Self

You are the infinite and, out of your freedom, you have seemingly fragmented yourself into the subject-object relationship. Through numerous perceiving subjects, you experience yourself as a multiplicity of objects and others – the world. This is not imposed upon you nor done from ignorance; you do it out of love, to bring forth the manifestation latent within yourself. The subject-object relationship is the mechanism by which you birth manifestation – not a mistake, but a loving sacrifice that comes with a price. From each separate subject’s perspective, you are veiled, creating a state of longing. Each person thinks they desire objects, relationships, or experiences, but truly longs only for you. You leave traces of yourself – love, beauty, peace, joy – throughout creation, drawing everyone back to yourself. Like a mother who births herself to manifest inner love externally, creation seems separate but remains always only your self.

Can you confirm the awareness stages: human doing (disconnected), human being (recognising inner being), being human (connecting more with being), and being being? And what's the purpose of being human? Rupert says: ‘Yes, first we're lost in doing, then we notice we’re human beings, then we notice we’re just being. The purpose of being human is perspective – to allow the infinite to perceive itself in the form of the world. But why? It’s an overflowing of love, for no reason, like asking an artist why they create. You cannot put the creativity of the infinite into the finite mind’s narrow ideas of cause and effect. From the infinite's perspective, there's no purpose in manifesting, but once contracted into a person, there's desire to create, find companionship, meaning – all ways the infinite draws the finite back to itself through human experience.’

Do objects hold energy based on their previous owners, or is that just a perspective held by the current owner? Rupert says: ‘Objects can hold a certain energy . . . they also contain the energy of what has gone into the make of them . . . Under the consciousness-only model, where an object is an appearance of an activity of mind, there’s nothing to suggest why the activity of an individual mind, namely someone praying in a church, could not have an effect on the broader medium of mind that is expressing itself as the cathedral . . . If thousands of people have spent time singing and praying in that church, then the walls absorb the vibrational frequencies of our devotions and return that to the perceiver.’

What is the relationship between the brain and consciousness? Rupert says: ‘The brain is what the activity of a localised consciousness looks like from the perspective of a second person point of view . . . The world is what the activity of infinite consciousness looks like from our localised point of view. And the brain is what a localised consciousness looks like from our point of view . . . The body is that portion of the soul that is discernible to the five senses.’

Could you offer a non-dual interpretation of John 3:16, often used to reinforce separateness? Rupert says: ‘The meditation this morning was a nice commentary on that verse that you, the infinite, out of love, consented to become an individual. The son consented to become the individual . . . The individual “I”, and the “I” in each individual, is the same “I”, it’s the Christ principle in everybody . . . Jesus knew that. And when he spoke of “nobody comes to the Father except through me”, he didn’t mean through “me as a person” . . . It’s through “me who I am”. Everyone comes to the Father, to the infinite, through the “I am”.’

How can comparing memories from different time periods reveal the unchanging quality of being? Rupert says: ‘If you take off all the perceptions, what remains equal in these two memories is a feeling of being there . . . When you were a five-year-old boy on the beach, you had this feeling of being myself. And when you were a ten-year-old boy . . . and now you have the feeling of being . . . It’s this feeling, just the ordinary, intimate, regular feeling of being . . . If you go deeply into the feeling of being that this knowledge of yourself, this recognition of yourself as the infinite, as god’s being becomes clear.’

How does writing fiction relate to the expression of spiritual understanding, particularly when it requires maintaining words rather than dropping them? Rupert says: ‘It’s not different. It’s just a different medium . . . Remember, when Cézanne was asked why he painted, he said, it’s to give people a taste of nature’s eternity . . . What you experience is the intelligence that appears as, or is expressed as, the object . . . You are trying to do it with words . . . You want your readers to see the way, not what you think, but the way you think. You want to take your reader to the origin of your storytelling, which is the understanding that we share here.’

How does one integrate the intense experience of being into the complexity of human emotions and developmental traumas? Rupert says: ‘It takes time . . . And it’s a never ending process . . . Our faculties of thinking, feeling, acting, perceiving, and relating. For years we have all thought, felt, acted, perceived, and related on behalf of the separate, the temporary, finite, separate self . . . Now, as a result of this exploration . . . we’ve recognised the being that we truly are . . . But then you have to go back out into the world and infuse your human faculties . . . and you have to upgrade them.’

Should I pursue dancing even if my previous teacher discouraged it, and should I continue with channeling and mediumship? Rupert says: ‘I would encourage you to dance your heart out . . . I wouldn’t spend your energies trying to channel these past energies or spirits . . . You want to spend your time doing is channeling being, your being . . . Channel being; not some distant being, the being that is the very nature of your self now.’

How do we respond to triggering behaviours in others and in ourselves when striving for compassion? Rupert says: ‘The Dalai Lama’s friend didn’t have compassion for his torturers because he felt the same capacity to torture in himself – that’s not what he was referring to – he felt compassion for his torturers because he felt that behind their thoughts and behaviours, ugly as they were, he was the same being that they are . . . I’m interested in seeing through the behaviours that you find irritating, whether or not you have those behaviours in yourself.’

Is having a big ego bad? Should we make it smaller through meditation? Rupert says: ‘The ego is the seemingly separate being . . . It’s not a mistake. It’s not bad, it’s not wrong. It’s a natural stage of development . . . In a healthy society, it should just be a stage that we pass through . . . The fact that you can see it in yourself and say it, share it in a group like this is very healthy . . . All you are going to lose is the feeling of being a temporary finite self and the sorrow and conflict that accompany it. Everything else, you’ll retain.’

How does your experience of reincarnation compare to the whirlpool analogy? Rupert says: ‘What we essentially are does not evolve with as our bodies and minds evolved . . . Even if there were successive incarnations, the being that seemed to be incarnate in each of them would not itself have evolved . . . A so-called past life would just be the way that your particular headset interprets your experience . . . Time is just a model. Time is just a model that the mind uses to make sense of its experience.’

How do I manage the transition period from ego to being regarding the environment I’ve constructed? Rupert says: ‘There are really two possibilities for our work, our environment, our home, and our relationships . . . One is that they have the capacity to expand, to accommodate this understanding . . . The other possibility is that they can’t . . . Your understanding has grown. You have a bigger vision of life, and it will be intolerable to you to try and squeeze that into something that is confined and small . . . If it doesn’t evolve, it will crack and there’ll be tears, and you’ll end up separating.’

You are the infinite and, out of your freedom, you have seemingly fragmented yourself into the subject-object relationship. Through numerous perceiving subjects, you experience yourself as a multiplicity of objects and others – the world. This is not imposed upon you nor done from ignorance; you do it out of love, to bring forth the manifestation latent within yourself. The subject-object relationship is the mechanism by which you birth manifestation – not a mistake, but a loving sacrifice that comes with a price. From each separate subject’s perspective, you are veiled, creating a state of longing. Each person thinks they desire objects, relationships, or experiences, but truly longs only for you. You leave traces of yourself – love, beauty, peace, joy – throughout creation, drawing everyone back to yourself. Like a mother who births herself to manifest inner love externally, creation seems separate but remains always only your self.

Can you confirm the awareness stages: human doing (disconnected), human being (recognising inner being), being human (connecting more with being), and being being? And what's the purpose of being human? Rupert says: ‘Yes, first we're lost in doing, then we notice we’re human beings, then we notice we’re just being. The purpose of being human is perspective – to allow the infinite to perceive itself in the form of the world. But why? It’s an overflowing of love, for no reason, like asking an artist why they create. You cannot put the creativity of the infinite into the finite mind’s narrow ideas of cause and effect. From the infinite's perspective, there's no purpose in manifesting, but once contracted into a person, there's desire to create, find companionship, meaning – all ways the infinite draws the finite back to itself through human experience.’

Do objects hold energy based on their previous owners, or is that just a perspective held by the current owner? Rupert says: ‘Objects can hold a certain energy . . . they also contain the energy of what has gone into the make of them . . . Under the consciousness-only model, where an object is an appearance of an activity of mind, there’s nothing to suggest why the activity of an individual mind, namely someone praying in a church, could not have an effect on the broader medium of mind that is expressing itself as the cathedral . . . If thousands of people have spent time singing and praying in that church, then the walls absorb the vibrational frequencies of our devotions and return that to the perceiver.’

What is the relationship between the brain and consciousness? Rupert says: ‘The brain is what the activity of a localised consciousness looks like from the perspective of a second person point of view . . . The world is what the activity of infinite consciousness looks like from our localised point of view. And the brain is what a localised consciousness looks like from our point of view . . . The body is that portion of the soul that is discernible to the five senses.’

Could you offer a non-dual interpretation of John 3:16, often used to reinforce separateness? Rupert says: ‘The meditation this morning was a nice commentary on that verse that you, the infinite, out of love, consented to become an individual. The son consented to become the individual . . . The individual “I”, and the “I” in each individual, is the same “I”, it’s the Christ principle in everybody . . . Jesus knew that. And when he spoke of “nobody comes to the Father except through me”, he didn’t mean through “me as a person” . . . It’s through “me who I am”. Everyone comes to the Father, to the infinite, through the “I am”.’

How can comparing memories from different time periods reveal the unchanging quality of being? Rupert says: ‘If you take off all the perceptions, what remains equal in these two memories is a feeling of being there . . . When you were a five-year-old boy on the beach, you had this feeling of being myself. And when you were a ten-year-old boy . . . and now you have the feeling of being . . . It’s this feeling, just the ordinary, intimate, regular feeling of being . . . If you go deeply into the feeling of being that this knowledge of yourself, this recognition of yourself as the infinite, as god’s being becomes clear.’

How does writing fiction relate to the expression of spiritual understanding, particularly when it requires maintaining words rather than dropping them? Rupert says: ‘It’s not different. It’s just a different medium . . . Remember, when Cézanne was asked why he painted, he said, it’s to give people a taste of nature’s eternity . . . What you experience is the intelligence that appears as, or is expressed as, the object . . . You are trying to do it with words . . . You want your readers to see the way, not what you think, but the way you think. You want to take your reader to the origin of your storytelling, which is the understanding that we share here.’

How does one integrate the intense experience of being into the complexity of human emotions and developmental traumas? Rupert says: ‘It takes time . . . And it’s a never ending process . . . Our faculties of thinking, feeling, acting, perceiving, and relating. For years we have all thought, felt, acted, perceived, and related on behalf of the separate, the temporary, finite, separate self . . . Now, as a result of this exploration . . . we’ve recognised the being that we truly are . . . But then you have to go back out into the world and infuse your human faculties . . . and you have to upgrade them.’

Should I pursue dancing even if my previous teacher discouraged it, and should I continue with channeling and mediumship? Rupert says: ‘I would encourage you to dance your heart out . . . I wouldn’t spend your energies trying to channel these past energies or spirits . . . You want to spend your time doing is channeling being, your being . . . Channel being; not some distant being, the being that is the very nature of your self now.’

How do we respond to triggering behaviours in others and in ourselves when striving for compassion? Rupert says: ‘The Dalai Lama’s friend didn’t have compassion for his torturers because he felt the same capacity to torture in himself – that’s not what he was referring to – he felt compassion for his torturers because he felt that behind their thoughts and behaviours, ugly as they were, he was the same being that they are . . . I’m interested in seeing through the behaviours that you find irritating, whether or not you have those behaviours in yourself.’

Is having a big ego bad? Should we make it smaller through meditation? Rupert says: ‘The ego is the seemingly separate being . . . It’s not a mistake. It’s not bad, it’s not wrong. It’s a natural stage of development . . . In a healthy society, it should just be a stage that we pass through . . . The fact that you can see it in yourself and say it, share it in a group like this is very healthy . . . All you are going to lose is the feeling of being a temporary finite self and the sorrow and conflict that accompany it. Everything else, you’ll retain.’

How does your experience of reincarnation compare to the whirlpool analogy? Rupert says: ‘What we essentially are does not evolve with as our bodies and minds evolved . . . Even if there were successive incarnations, the being that seemed to be incarnate in each of them would not itself have evolved . . . A so-called past life would just be the way that your particular headset interprets your experience . . . Time is just a model. Time is just a model that the mind uses to make sense of its experience.’

How do I manage the transition period from ego to being regarding the environment I’ve constructed? Rupert says: ‘There are really two possibilities for our work, our environment, our home, and our relationships . . . One is that they have the capacity to expand, to accommodate this understanding . . . The other possibility is that they can’t . . . Your understanding has grown. You have a bigger vision of life, and it will be intolerable to you to try and squeeze that into something that is confined and small . . . If it doesn’t evolve, it will crack and there’ll be tears, and you’ll end up separating.’