Expressing This Understanding In the World

A woman asks about how to stay in being in light of global issues and climate change. She also asks what Rupert’s take on global issues is. Rupert suggests that in terms of personal practice, we must always go back to our being. Then we go out in the world and act from the understanding that we share our being and are motivated by what speaks to us personally. Conflict is only possible when there is a belief in separation. Our role is to take this understanding out into our lives and express it.

A man who is a politician for the Norwegian Green Party makes the statement that so many in world affairs come from fear and he tries to convince people to come from love, but he's not sure about his approach. Rupert suggests that love is deeper than fear. They only fear the loss of what they love.

A man asks about validating and embracing his emotions, which he fears is stopping him from going deeper. Rupert suggests going all the way back to your being and then embracing your emotions from there.

Rupert returns to the question of how to deal with difficult world affairs in response to a politician’s question. He suggests that it's necessary to convince them to come from love which is more powerful and more effective than fear. And that can only be done in such a way as to avoid resistance and therefore controversy. It is important to see through the illusion of separation before any of these issues can be properly addressed. Rupert then speaks of his reaction to the death of Queen Elizabeth and the polarised reaction he experienced when he created a YouTube video on the subject.

A man who is a healer asks about the subject-object nature of the work that he does. Rupert suggests that as a result of the interaction with a healer, that person's being shines. The healer is not sending healing, nor giving them anything they don’t have. It is more like an unveiling of the being that they already are. But we have to talk about it, so we use the subject-object language, the healer and the healed.

A woman asks about silence and shares her prior understanding of what it was in relation to the separate self. Rupert responds that her previous understanding of silence was 'no sound' whereas what he's speaking of is the 'silence behind the silence'. The separate self doesn't really dissolve. It is like saying the snake dissolved when there was never anything there but a rope. It is a lack of clear seeing, not the dissolution of the ego or separate self.

A woman relays her experience of coming to the understanding, saying that some things have changed but, unlike others, she is not experiencing love. Rupert suggests that her understanding has sent out the invitation, and the understanding unfolds for each of us in a unique way.

A man describes his frustration with talking about non-duality with friends who find it hard to see that their essential nature is peace. Rupert suggests it might be best not to tell others that their true nature is peace as it might provoke resistance. You can't tell others how they are or should be or feel, but you can ask them a question, such as 'What is it that feels?'. This would open, rather than close, doors. Rupert also gives some examples of how to speak of this understanding.

A father asks if there is a way to introduce this thinking to his teenage daughter. Rupert asks if she ever asks about these matters and says that he needs to go ‘into her camp’ and speak her language when she does ask.

A woman asks where the questions and answers are coming from. Rupert responds that to be honest, he doesn't know what is going on at gatherings. It's always new and changing. He can’t give a satisfactory answer and suggests we leave it unexplained as the mind cannot understand.

A woman asks how the orange-coloured glasses metaphor applies to our ideas about climate change. Rupert responds that all human beings interpret what they see and so reality is limited by the finite mind. The world is always knowing through thinking and perceiving, through orange-coloured glasses – even with realisation. All perception is veiled. In regard to climate change, we express this understanding to the best of our ability.

A man asks about ‘mixing’ the progressive and direct paths as even after recognition there is an unfolding. Rupert first explains the differences in these approaches. However, sometimes the Direct Path can lead to spiritual bypassing in some. We may bypass feelings, thoughts, and beliefs, but we face them again when we turn back around. This is embodiment but not a requirement for the recognition of our true nature.

A woman asks about her various practices and her experiences with all of them. She asks if her reactions had to do with samskaras. Rupert responds that samskaras are not just energies that are physically stored but can also be beliefs – any experience that gets stored and stuck. They are deep-seated, hidden patterns which bubble up and release into the open space of awareness, which can cause a physical reaction. There can also be an energetic release but no visible expression. It's generally a good sign; don't worry about them.

A woman asks about the path of devotion and whether it fits in the Direct Path. Rupert responds that devotion is the highest practice of the Direct Path, as devotion to God is great and no agenda exists with the ego. Rupert also speaks of mantra meditation as a spiritual practice.

A man comments on his struggle to understand Rupert’s meditation on the monarchy on the day of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral. Rupert says that when he speaks of the Queen, he is not speaking of a person but a function whose purpose is to represent eternal values, the absolute. The purpose of the person who temporarily holds that position is to model those values; how well they do that is up for debate. The monarchy is a representation of the eternal.

A man asks about the quality of meeting in-person versus online and asks about Rupert’s intention regarding gatherings. Rupert says that he was initially sceptical of sharing the teaching online. However, his experience has shown him otherwise. That said, we must admit there is a difference when together in person. Rupert then shares that he wants to expand both types of gatherings. In-person, he keeps the retreats to 150 people and has an intention of find a home in the UK. At the same, he wants to develop online meetings where there is no limit to the numbers of people who can engage that way, as inexpensively and as widely as possible.

A woman asks about how to stay in being in light of global issues and climate change. She also asks what Rupert’s take on global issues is. Rupert suggests that in terms of personal practice, we must always go back to our being. Then we go out in the world and act from the understanding that we share our being and are motivated by what speaks to us personally. Conflict is only possible when there is a belief in separation. Our role is to take this understanding out into our lives and express it.

A man who is a politician for the Norwegian Green Party makes the statement that so many in world affairs come from fear and he tries to convince people to come from love, but he's not sure about his approach. Rupert suggests that love is deeper than fear. They only fear the loss of what they love.

A man asks about validating and embracing his emotions, which he fears is stopping him from going deeper. Rupert suggests going all the way back to your being and then embracing your emotions from there.

Rupert returns to the question of how to deal with difficult world affairs in response to a politician’s question. He suggests that it's necessary to convince them to come from love which is more powerful and more effective than fear. And that can only be done in such a way as to avoid resistance and therefore controversy. It is important to see through the illusion of separation before any of these issues can be properly addressed. Rupert then speaks of his reaction to the death of Queen Elizabeth and the polarised reaction he experienced when he created a YouTube video on the subject.

A man who is a healer asks about the subject-object nature of the work that he does. Rupert suggests that as a result of the interaction with a healer, that person's being shines. The healer is not sending healing, nor giving them anything they don’t have. It is more like an unveiling of the being that they already are. But we have to talk about it, so we use the subject-object language, the healer and the healed.

A woman asks about silence and shares her prior understanding of what it was in relation to the separate self. Rupert responds that her previous understanding of silence was 'no sound' whereas what he's speaking of is the 'silence behind the silence'. The separate self doesn't really dissolve. It is like saying the snake dissolved when there was never anything there but a rope. It is a lack of clear seeing, not the dissolution of the ego or separate self.

A woman relays her experience of coming to the understanding, saying that some things have changed but, unlike others, she is not experiencing love. Rupert suggests that her understanding has sent out the invitation, and the understanding unfolds for each of us in a unique way.

A man describes his frustration with talking about non-duality with friends who find it hard to see that their essential nature is peace. Rupert suggests it might be best not to tell others that their true nature is peace as it might provoke resistance. You can't tell others how they are or should be or feel, but you can ask them a question, such as 'What is it that feels?'. This would open, rather than close, doors. Rupert also gives some examples of how to speak of this understanding.

A father asks if there is a way to introduce this thinking to his teenage daughter. Rupert asks if she ever asks about these matters and says that he needs to go ‘into her camp’ and speak her language when she does ask.

A woman asks where the questions and answers are coming from. Rupert responds that to be honest, he doesn't know what is going on at gatherings. It's always new and changing. He can’t give a satisfactory answer and suggests we leave it unexplained as the mind cannot understand.

A woman asks how the orange-coloured glasses metaphor applies to our ideas about climate change. Rupert responds that all human beings interpret what they see and so reality is limited by the finite mind. The world is always knowing through thinking and perceiving, through orange-coloured glasses – even with realisation. All perception is veiled. In regard to climate change, we express this understanding to the best of our ability.

A man asks about ‘mixing’ the progressive and direct paths as even after recognition there is an unfolding. Rupert first explains the differences in these approaches. However, sometimes the Direct Path can lead to spiritual bypassing in some. We may bypass feelings, thoughts, and beliefs, but we face them again when we turn back around. This is embodiment but not a requirement for the recognition of our true nature.

A woman asks about her various practices and her experiences with all of them. She asks if her reactions had to do with samskaras. Rupert responds that samskaras are not just energies that are physically stored but can also be beliefs – any experience that gets stored and stuck. They are deep-seated, hidden patterns which bubble up and release into the open space of awareness, which can cause a physical reaction. There can also be an energetic release but no visible expression. It's generally a good sign; don't worry about them.

A woman asks about the path of devotion and whether it fits in the Direct Path. Rupert responds that devotion is the highest practice of the Direct Path, as devotion to God is great and no agenda exists with the ego. Rupert also speaks of mantra meditation as a spiritual practice.

A man comments on his struggle to understand Rupert’s meditation on the monarchy on the day of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral. Rupert says that when he speaks of the Queen, he is not speaking of a person but a function whose purpose is to represent eternal values, the absolute. The purpose of the person who temporarily holds that position is to model those values; how well they do that is up for debate. The monarchy is a representation of the eternal.

A man asks about the quality of meeting in-person versus online and asks about Rupert’s intention regarding gatherings. Rupert says that he was initially sceptical of sharing the teaching online. However, his experience has shown him otherwise. That said, we must admit there is a difference when together in person. Rupert then shares that he wants to expand both types of gatherings. In-person, he keeps the retreats to 150 people and has an intention of find a home in the UK. At the same, he wants to develop online meetings where there is no limit to the numbers of people who can engage that way, as inexpensively and as widely as possible.