Prayer Is Practicing the Presence of God from the media Make Awareness Your Home and Be at Peace

In this meditation, we allow your experience to be exactly as it is without attempting to change it in any way. We are more interested in the fact of being aware than in what we are aware of. The fact of being aware is what we essentially are. It is the one element of our experience that never disappears. It is as such the only element of experience that qualifies as ‘I’. The fact of being aware is one with all experience but is not implicated by any experience. The fact of being aware cannot be changed or harmed by any particular experience and therefore has no need to defend itself from any experience. It is, as such, wide open without resistance to all experience. The fact of being aware, or awareness itself, never resists any experience and never seeks any experience. Thus, it is always at peace or at rest in the now. Therefore, if we make the fact of being aware, or awareness itself, our home, we will always be at peace.

A woman references a quote of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and asks for insight into his use of the term ‘I am’. She also asks about Nisargadatta’s smoking habit, which continued after the recognition. Habits start from a sense of lack, which briefly comes to an end. The mind then remembers that the sense of lack briefly disappeared. In this way, addiction builds up. If in time, the sense of lack comes to an end because we’ve recognised the nature of our being, the addiction frequently comes to an end, but sometimes it doesn't. It is purely a physical habit, like breathing. Rupert refers back to Nisargadatta’s use of the term ‘I am’ and says that when he uses the term, he refers to the mind, but that he uses the phrase’ I am’ as Ramana Maharshi did.

Do other people have their own 'bubble of consciousness' or separate package of experience, and how do I know anybody else's experience? Rupert responds that assuming there is only your own separate consciousness is solipsism. The experience of perception through the localised perspective is a window to what is outside one's own experience.

A woman who found Rupert’s teaching two days ago says she has been filled with relief but still has a question. She asks, after years of abuse by her father where the happiness in her heart was obscured, whether it is possible to be in touch with happiness no matter the circumstance. Rupert responds that, in theory, you can because peace is our nature. Even while going through difficult circumstances, we are always our self. However, in practice, when experience is so severe, the sun in our heart is obscured or eclipsed. Then you hear something that resonates with you so deeply that the words find their way through the darkness and touches the sun at our heart. This gives us access, a pathway, back there. Rupert suggests that she return there until it becomes the place she lives. And he reassures her that if he were to experience trauma like this, he is certain he would lose touch with his true nature from time to time.

A man describes going into a panic of extreme resistance and so he abandoned all spiritual practice due to a fear of death. Rupert responds that it is the nature of awareness to be without resistance, so there is no need to replace non-resistant practice for the resistance. Resistanceless-ness is already present; it is not something we become. He suggests having no agenda with our resistance; we don’t change the content of our mind.

A woman asks about the statement that attention never leaves awareness. Rupert says that attention is an activity of awareness in which it directs its knowing towards an object. Using the dream metaphor, when we fall asleep and dream of moving through the streets of Oxford, all the activity of the dream character’s mind takes place in the dreamer’s mind. Likewise, whatever we give our attention to takes place within the field of consciousness. Our attention moves through a medium. What is that medium? Consciousness.

A question is asked about peace, happiness and love, and if they are non-objective experiences. Rupert replies that we mistake the expansive feeling of the body as the experience, but the experience does not really take place in the body. For instance, winning the lottery is the experience of the absence of needing to think about, strive for or work for money that has occupied the mind years. That activity of the mind comes to an abrupt end. It is not winning the lottery that creates the happiness but the absence of that activity and the shining of our true nature.

A woman asks if when Rupert uses words like emptiness, awareness and ‘I am’, if it okay if she replaces those words with ‘God’? Rupert says that he is speaking of God, whose nature is love, when he uses those words and confesses he would talk about God all the time but recognises that the word ‘God’ has many connotations and negative associations. The ‘I’ is the name that whatever knows itself gives to itself. The first thing that ‘I’ knows of itself is ‘I am’. What is it that knows itself? Whatever it is must be conscious – that is the only quality it must have. The knowledge, ‘I am’, is consciousness's knowledge of itself. How did Moses define God in the bible? As ‘I am’. God is infinite aware being aware of itself.

A man asks why would one expression of consciousness be favoured over another, such as punk rock and classical music, since they are both expressions of consciousness. Rupert suggests, without commenting specifically on the value of either form of music, that some music is informed by a sense of separation and other music is informed by unity. Some preferences are established through conditioning and so it is familiar.

A man asks about the value of energetic practices such as Tai chi and kundalini. Rupert responds that there is a value to these energetic practices in bringing the body into the presence and establishment of one's true nature.

A woman wonders if everything is consciousness and we are all the same, then we as humans, as opposed to animals, must be conscious to be aware. Rupert responds that ultimately, we are not human beings, there are no human beings, only being. Only consciousness is conscious. It is not the person that knows. Everything that is not you is unlocalised consciousness.

A man asks about the feeling and experience of oneness. For instance, he does not feel one with his mother, but he doesn't feel separate. Rupert asks him to describe his being and leads him in self-enquiry to help him access this oneness.

'There is freedom but that freedom does not belong to an individual', Rupert responds to a question about free will, thinking and the controlling of thoughts. He elaborates further that our minds are, or course, influenced by suggestion.

A woman says that when we say, ‘I am’, that ‘I am’ is in me and you. So, she asks, ‘What is localised – finite mind or consciousness?’ Rupert asks her to imagine being at a 3D cinema. With glasses on you are totally immersed in the experience. Without the glasses, you just see a fuzzy pattern. In this analogy, you are consciousness sitting in the cinema. The glasses are the activity of thinking and perceiving, which makes you feel you are immersed in the world. You are not in the world; the world is in you. But the finite mind localises you as a bundle of thinking and perceiving. Your body is what the activity of thinking and perceiving looks like from another perspective. To perceive the universe, consciousness must localise itself in order to see itself as the universe.

A woman asks, 'What is the nature of the finite mind?' Rupert responds that the finite mind is the localised activity of infinite consciousness, just as in dream. The universe is a universe – that is, one thing.

A woman who wonders about the idea that no experience affects the consciousness of who we are asks, ‘What about trauma?’ Rupert suggests that we are using different definitions of consciousness: one is as the mind – the movie, where Rupert uses it to mean that which is behind the mind – the screen.

In this meditation, we allow your experience to be exactly as it is without attempting to change it in any way. We are more interested in the fact of being aware than in what we are aware of. The fact of being aware is what we essentially are. It is the one element of our experience that never disappears. It is as such the only element of experience that qualifies as ‘I’. The fact of being aware is one with all experience but is not implicated by any experience. The fact of being aware cannot be changed or harmed by any particular experience and therefore has no need to defend itself from any experience. It is, as such, wide open without resistance to all experience. The fact of being aware, or awareness itself, never resists any experience and never seeks any experience. Thus, it is always at peace or at rest in the now. Therefore, if we make the fact of being aware, or awareness itself, our home, we will always be at peace.

A woman references a quote of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and asks for insight into his use of the term ‘I am’. She also asks about Nisargadatta’s smoking habit, which continued after the recognition. Habits start from a sense of lack, which briefly comes to an end. The mind then remembers that the sense of lack briefly disappeared. In this way, addiction builds up. If in time, the sense of lack comes to an end because we’ve recognised the nature of our being, the addiction frequently comes to an end, but sometimes it doesn't. It is purely a physical habit, like breathing. Rupert refers back to Nisargadatta’s use of the term ‘I am’ and says that when he uses the term, he refers to the mind, but that he uses the phrase’ I am’ as Ramana Maharshi did.

Do other people have their own 'bubble of consciousness' or separate package of experience, and how do I know anybody else's experience? Rupert responds that assuming there is only your own separate consciousness is solipsism. The experience of perception through the localised perspective is a window to what is outside one's own experience.

A woman who found Rupert’s teaching two days ago says she has been filled with relief but still has a question. She asks, after years of abuse by her father where the happiness in her heart was obscured, whether it is possible to be in touch with happiness no matter the circumstance. Rupert responds that, in theory, you can because peace is our nature. Even while going through difficult circumstances, we are always our self. However, in practice, when experience is so severe, the sun in our heart is obscured or eclipsed. Then you hear something that resonates with you so deeply that the words find their way through the darkness and touches the sun at our heart. This gives us access, a pathway, back there. Rupert suggests that she return there until it becomes the place she lives. And he reassures her that if he were to experience trauma like this, he is certain he would lose touch with his true nature from time to time.

A man describes going into a panic of extreme resistance and so he abandoned all spiritual practice due to a fear of death. Rupert responds that it is the nature of awareness to be without resistance, so there is no need to replace non-resistant practice for the resistance. Resistanceless-ness is already present; it is not something we become. He suggests having no agenda with our resistance; we don’t change the content of our mind.

A woman asks about the statement that attention never leaves awareness. Rupert says that attention is an activity of awareness in which it directs its knowing towards an object. Using the dream metaphor, when we fall asleep and dream of moving through the streets of Oxford, all the activity of the dream character’s mind takes place in the dreamer’s mind. Likewise, whatever we give our attention to takes place within the field of consciousness. Our attention moves through a medium. What is that medium? Consciousness.

A question is asked about peace, happiness and love, and if they are non-objective experiences. Rupert replies that we mistake the expansive feeling of the body as the experience, but the experience does not really take place in the body. For instance, winning the lottery is the experience of the absence of needing to think about, strive for or work for money that has occupied the mind years. That activity of the mind comes to an abrupt end. It is not winning the lottery that creates the happiness but the absence of that activity and the shining of our true nature.

A woman asks if when Rupert uses words like emptiness, awareness and ‘I am’, if it okay if she replaces those words with ‘God’? Rupert says that he is speaking of God, whose nature is love, when he uses those words and confesses he would talk about God all the time but recognises that the word ‘God’ has many connotations and negative associations. The ‘I’ is the name that whatever knows itself gives to itself. The first thing that ‘I’ knows of itself is ‘I am’. What is it that knows itself? Whatever it is must be conscious – that is the only quality it must have. The knowledge, ‘I am’, is consciousness's knowledge of itself. How did Moses define God in the bible? As ‘I am’. God is infinite aware being aware of itself.

A man asks why would one expression of consciousness be favoured over another, such as punk rock and classical music, since they are both expressions of consciousness. Rupert suggests, without commenting specifically on the value of either form of music, that some music is informed by a sense of separation and other music is informed by unity. Some preferences are established through conditioning and so it is familiar.

A man asks about the value of energetic practices such as Tai chi and kundalini. Rupert responds that there is a value to these energetic practices in bringing the body into the presence and establishment of one's true nature.

A woman wonders if everything is consciousness and we are all the same, then we as humans, as opposed to animals, must be conscious to be aware. Rupert responds that ultimately, we are not human beings, there are no human beings, only being. Only consciousness is conscious. It is not the person that knows. Everything that is not you is unlocalised consciousness.

A man asks about the feeling and experience of oneness. For instance, he does not feel one with his mother, but he doesn't feel separate. Rupert asks him to describe his being and leads him in self-enquiry to help him access this oneness.

'There is freedom but that freedom does not belong to an individual', Rupert responds to a question about free will, thinking and the controlling of thoughts. He elaborates further that our minds are, or course, influenced by suggestion.

A woman says that when we say, ‘I am’, that ‘I am’ is in me and you. So, she asks, ‘What is localised – finite mind or consciousness?’ Rupert asks her to imagine being at a 3D cinema. With glasses on you are totally immersed in the experience. Without the glasses, you just see a fuzzy pattern. In this analogy, you are consciousness sitting in the cinema. The glasses are the activity of thinking and perceiving, which makes you feel you are immersed in the world. You are not in the world; the world is in you. But the finite mind localises you as a bundle of thinking and perceiving. Your body is what the activity of thinking and perceiving looks like from another perspective. To perceive the universe, consciousness must localise itself in order to see itself as the universe.

A woman asks, 'What is the nature of the finite mind?' Rupert responds that the finite mind is the localised activity of infinite consciousness, just as in dream. The universe is a universe – that is, one thing.

A woman who wonders about the idea that no experience affects the consciousness of who we are asks, ‘What about trauma?’ Rupert suggests that we are using different definitions of consciousness: one is as the mind – the movie, where Rupert uses it to mean that which is behind the mind – the screen.