The Unreality of Oneness
- Duration: Video: 1 hour, 56 minutes, and 5 seconds / Audio: 1 hour, 56 minutes, and 5 seconds
- Recorded on: Aug 22, 2023
- Event: Ten Day Retreat at Castello di Titignano – August 2023
A woman asks about death. Rupert suggests that in our prevailing materialist paradigm, the body – thought to be made of matter – generates the mind. From this perspective, consciousness ends with the death of the body. Rupert suggests that consciousness, which is primary, localises itself in us. The body is localised consciousness; everything that is unlocalised is what we see as the world. Death is the delocalisation of consciousness.
A man asks about dying before dying and whether this is something that happens just once. Rupert suggests that occasionally it happens just once, but for most of us there is a process. Usually after an experience of our true nature, the separate self re-establishes itself, but it is never the same. When we’ve had this glimpse, we are haunted by it to find a pathway back to our true nature.
A man asks Rupert about his advice on food and what we eat. Rupert recites a Rilke poem and then says ‘that’s the kind of food we should eat’.
A woman asks about the idea of actions having consequences. Rupert clarifies that if we come from oneness, then we have no attachment to the outcome. Rupert says that our actions do have an effect in the world, and we shouldn’t use the non-dual understanding to say that what we do doesn’t matter. If our actions come from love – the understanding of the unity of being – they will be an expression of that.
A man asks about oneness as a concept. Rupert suggests that it is only necessary to speak of oneness for someone who believes there are more than one thing. To such a person, we must say that reality is one. For one who doesn’t believe in duality, it is not necessary to speak of oneness. This is why the ancient sages spoke of not-two, rather than one.
A man asks about the unreality of oneness. Rupert suggests that he often says one thing, and then in the next breath, says something that denies it. To know that ‘God knows nothing but is everything’ was one thing, but then there is something beyond that. God is no thing; we start with reality and stay there.
A man talks about the limits of his understanding as he still feels himself to be the body. Rupert leads him in an enquiry that explores his being from the perspective of a newborn, exploring the ‘I am’. Rupert suggests that the man’s silence was the most eloquent answer he could give. Our minds just can’t believe the evidence of our experience.
A man shares his near-death experience and asks about how to be present during the dying process. Rupert suggests that the fear he felt is a natural response of the mind. What is important is to not be without fear but to know yourself as awareness. Fear is what awareness is aware of. Remain established in your true nature. The best preparation for that is to stand as awareness in our awakened life.
A man asks about how different localisations perceive the same object. Rupert suggests that a particular aspect of God’s mind is perceived by two people in a similar way precisely because they are perceiving the same aspect of God’s mind and because they share the same type of perceiving faculties. If a dog was perceiving this same aspect of God, it would perceive it according to its faculties.
Rupert plays with the idea of what an alien might be. Not someone that comes from some other place and time, but someone with a different kind of mind that perceives the same reality in a totally different way.
A woman shares her experience of being the ‘I’, which feels empty, versus her sense of communing with what she calls her ‘sacred friends’, which doesn’t feel empty. Rupert suggests that the ‘I’ that knows or perceives is itself empty. If it were not, there would be no room in it for its knowledge or perceptions. If the room were not empty, there would be no space for all that is in it. Consciousness is empty of objects but filled with being and love.
A woman references something Rupert said earlier: ‘We cannot be what we know, and we cannot know what we are.’ Rupert responds that if everything we experience is the face of God and yet at the same time when we experience suffering – in ourself or in others – we are moved to relieve it, the desire to do so is not a failure of our understanding. Rupert affirms that the new language of non-duality will be all verbs; no nouns.
A man asks about the role of discipline when it comes to habits that pull us away from being. Rupert suggests that once we’ve seen that objects and substances don’t bring us the happiness we long for, we become mindful of these habits. Discipline that comes from this understanding helps us to overcome our conditioning.
A man asks about destiny and about manifesting from being. Rupert suggests that we do have free will – the freedom of consciousness – and the mind has that freedom at its disposal. So how do we use the freedom we have been given? In love and understanding or in the fears and desires that characterise the separate self. In whose service do we use our freedom?
A woman asks about death. Rupert suggests that in our prevailing materialist paradigm, the body – thought to be made of matter – generates the mind. From this perspective, consciousness ends with the death of the body. Rupert suggests that consciousness, which is primary, localises itself in us. The body is localised consciousness; everything that is unlocalised is what we see as the world. Death is the delocalisation of consciousness.
A man asks about dying before dying and whether this is something that happens just once. Rupert suggests that occasionally it happens just once, but for most of us there is a process. Usually after an experience of our true nature, the separate self re-establishes itself, but it is never the same. When we’ve had this glimpse, we are haunted by it to find a pathway back to our true nature.
A man asks Rupert about his advice on food and what we eat. Rupert recites a Rilke poem and then says ‘that’s the kind of food we should eat’.
A woman asks about the idea of actions having consequences. Rupert clarifies that if we come from oneness, then we have no attachment to the outcome. Rupert says that our actions do have an effect in the world, and we shouldn’t use the non-dual understanding to say that what we do doesn’t matter. If our actions come from love – the understanding of the unity of being – they will be an expression of that.
A man asks about oneness as a concept. Rupert suggests that it is only necessary to speak of oneness for someone who believes there are more than one thing. To such a person, we must say that reality is one. For one who doesn’t believe in duality, it is not necessary to speak of oneness. This is why the ancient sages spoke of not-two, rather than one.
A man asks about the unreality of oneness. Rupert suggests that he often says one thing, and then in the next breath, says something that denies it. To know that ‘God knows nothing but is everything’ was one thing, but then there is something beyond that. God is no thing; we start with reality and stay there.
A man talks about the limits of his understanding as he still feels himself to be the body. Rupert leads him in an enquiry that explores his being from the perspective of a newborn, exploring the ‘I am’. Rupert suggests that the man’s silence was the most eloquent answer he could give. Our minds just can’t believe the evidence of our experience.
A man shares his near-death experience and asks about how to be present during the dying process. Rupert suggests that the fear he felt is a natural response of the mind. What is important is to not be without fear but to know yourself as awareness. Fear is what awareness is aware of. Remain established in your true nature. The best preparation for that is to stand as awareness in our awakened life.
A man asks about how different localisations perceive the same object. Rupert suggests that a particular aspect of God’s mind is perceived by two people in a similar way precisely because they are perceiving the same aspect of God’s mind and because they share the same type of perceiving faculties. If a dog was perceiving this same aspect of God, it would perceive it according to its faculties.
Rupert plays with the idea of what an alien might be. Not someone that comes from some other place and time, but someone with a different kind of mind that perceives the same reality in a totally different way.
A woman shares her experience of being the ‘I’, which feels empty, versus her sense of communing with what she calls her ‘sacred friends’, which doesn’t feel empty. Rupert suggests that the ‘I’ that knows or perceives is itself empty. If it were not, there would be no room in it for its knowledge or perceptions. If the room were not empty, there would be no space for all that is in it. Consciousness is empty of objects but filled with being and love.
A woman references something Rupert said earlier: ‘We cannot be what we know, and we cannot know what we are.’ Rupert responds that if everything we experience is the face of God and yet at the same time when we experience suffering – in ourself or in others – we are moved to relieve it, the desire to do so is not a failure of our understanding. Rupert affirms that the new language of non-duality will be all verbs; no nouns.
A man asks about the role of discipline when it comes to habits that pull us away from being. Rupert suggests that once we’ve seen that objects and substances don’t bring us the happiness we long for, we become mindful of these habits. Discipline that comes from this understanding helps us to overcome our conditioning.
A man asks about destiny and about manifesting from being. Rupert suggests that we do have free will – the freedom of consciousness – and the mind has that freedom at its disposal. So how do we use the freedom we have been given? In love and understanding or in the fears and desires that characterise the separate self. In whose service do we use our freedom?