Is the Buddha's Enlightenment Different? from the media Our True Nature Is the Only Certainty

A man, who goes by two different names, asks Rupert if he has a question for him. Rupert says ask yourself from time to time, ‘What is my real name?’

A woman asks how the personality fits in with infinite consciousness and the ego. Rupert suggests that the way he uses personality or individuality refers to the unique condition of our minds and bodies. What are our mind and bodies in service of? Ego or true nature? The personality is not synonymous with the ego. Ultimately the ego diminishes and the personality flourishes as we recognise our true nature.

A woman shares that she became emotional during the morning meditation. Rupert suggests that he draws a distinction between ‘there is sadness’ and ‘I am sad’ only to help us look for the ‘I’, which we never find.

A man asks Rupert about a passage from the Shankaracharya. Rupert interprets the self is one, being without form, umoving, and never changes. At this first stage, the self is that with which all experience is known, like the sun. The light of pure knowing. If we are caught up in the discriminating intellect, we haven’t taken a step back and established ourself. The sun doesn't discriminate; it shines on all. The intellect makes judgment, good, bad. When we do step back into awareness, this has a side effect on the activity of our mind.

A man says that when Rupert says to close your eyes and imagine yourself as a new-born infant with no memory of a body, he can't shake the image of the body. Rupert suggests we experience the body with our thoughts, images, sensations and perceptions, and then suggests the sensation is the actual experience of the body.

A man says that when Rupert says, ‘Be that blank space of awareness and look at your thoughts’, he never sees a thought arising because it has already been thought. Rupert suggests there is a truth to what he is saying, because no such thing as ‘a thought’ truly arises. The stuff that thought is made of is continually present and doesn't arrive.

A man says he is less content with insights he has and is curious if it’s a gap between his understanding and an old belief system. Rupert suggests that almost all our certainties are false. When we begin our search, we are certain about a lot of things. This process undermines what we are certain about, with one exception: the nature of our being.

A man wonders if when he invokes peace, is it the same as abiding in the ‘I am’. Rupert suggests that you can't invoke peace because you are using your memory. You would be referring to a past state of mind. Peace is only now.

A man shares a story of experiencing psychic phenomena. Rupert refers to the Mary and Jane metaphor. From Jane’s point of view, there is mind and matter, therefore, matter could not transmit knowledge to her mind. From Mary’s point of view, there is no distinction between mind and matter. It is a seamless indivisible field all made out of Mary’s mind, so everything communicates with everything.

A man asks Rupert if he still has an apparent separate self. Rupert says it can still be triggered in him. Then he asks how Rupert distinguishes between different kinds of love. Rupert says he doesn't. Love is one. Love is not an emotion or feeling that varies in intensity. It is like the sun, it can be more or less obscured.

Is this a self-leading journey or is it better to have a teacher? Rupert says that we start with the exploration into the ‘I’ and the recognition of our true nature. Everything else after that is realignment. There are two ways to do that: formally, as in meditation when we add layers of experience without leaving awareness, and the less formal part is the rest of our lives. This realignment takes place deeply in the way we feel and relate. The idea of a teacher is an old idea. Think of friendship. If you think you have a teacher, you will always think of yourself as limited.

A man relays his experience in meditation, which he experienced as bland. No love. Rupert suggests that when he says ‘happiness’ he doesn't mean an ecstatic feeling. It’s quiet joy or peace. Don't expect an exotic experience. The man says the non-dual approach feels dry. Rupert quips that when we turn back towards experience, ‘It gets wetter’.

A man relays a fantasy that a microscope made stronger and stronger would go deeper and deeper, and there would be no point at which a body begins. He says that he is perplexed that the spiritual and scientific communities don't converge more. Rupert suggests that at some point we see that what we are looking at is limited by what we are looking through. If you look at white snow through orange-tinted glasses, the snow will appear orange. Reality appears in accordance with the perceiver, in this case, the finite mind. As such, science will never discover reality. Sooner or later, we have to ask, ‘What is the nature of the perceiver?’

A man wonders about Rupert’s comment about the veiling of consciousness and answers his own question about thinking on behalf of the ego when the ego doesn't exist. Rupert elaborates that there is no thinker, but there are thoughts that arise either in service of the ego or of awareness. All thoughts, ultimately, come from awareness. Some are filtered through the belief in separation.

A woman shares that she struggles as a mother because her son is unhappy and caught up in separation. Rupert suggests this is a time for self-compassion. A mother, by definition, feels her children’s suffering as her own. This is not a failure of your spiritual maturity. It’s part of being a mother.

A man asks about the shift from the Vedantic to Tantric path and says, after tasting the Tantric, he can't go back to the Vedantic stance. Rupert suggests he doesn't have to. That is the first step to draw attention to the presence of awareness, but then it is necessary to collapse the two. He uses the image and screen analogy to elucidate.

A man, who goes by two different names, asks Rupert if he has a question for him. Rupert says ask yourself from time to time, ‘What is my real name?’

A woman asks how the personality fits in with infinite consciousness and the ego. Rupert suggests that the way he uses personality or individuality refers to the unique condition of our minds and bodies. What are our mind and bodies in service of? Ego or true nature? The personality is not synonymous with the ego. Ultimately the ego diminishes and the personality flourishes as we recognise our true nature.

A woman shares that she became emotional during the morning meditation. Rupert suggests that he draws a distinction between ‘there is sadness’ and ‘I am sad’ only to help us look for the ‘I’, which we never find.

A man asks Rupert about a passage from the Shankaracharya. Rupert interprets the self is one, being without form, umoving, and never changes. At this first stage, the self is that with which all experience is known, like the sun. The light of pure knowing. If we are caught up in the discriminating intellect, we haven’t taken a step back and established ourself. The sun doesn't discriminate; it shines on all. The intellect makes judgment, good, bad. When we do step back into awareness, this has a side effect on the activity of our mind.

A man says that when Rupert says to close your eyes and imagine yourself as a new-born infant with no memory of a body, he can't shake the image of the body. Rupert suggests we experience the body with our thoughts, images, sensations and perceptions, and then suggests the sensation is the actual experience of the body.

A man says that when Rupert says, ‘Be that blank space of awareness and look at your thoughts’, he never sees a thought arising because it has already been thought. Rupert suggests there is a truth to what he is saying, because no such thing as ‘a thought’ truly arises. The stuff that thought is made of is continually present and doesn't arrive.

A man says he is less content with insights he has and is curious if it’s a gap between his understanding and an old belief system. Rupert suggests that almost all our certainties are false. When we begin our search, we are certain about a lot of things. This process undermines what we are certain about, with one exception: the nature of our being.

A man wonders if when he invokes peace, is it the same as abiding in the ‘I am’. Rupert suggests that you can't invoke peace because you are using your memory. You would be referring to a past state of mind. Peace is only now.

A man shares a story of experiencing psychic phenomena. Rupert refers to the Mary and Jane metaphor. From Jane’s point of view, there is mind and matter, therefore, matter could not transmit knowledge to her mind. From Mary’s point of view, there is no distinction between mind and matter. It is a seamless indivisible field all made out of Mary’s mind, so everything communicates with everything.

A man asks Rupert if he still has an apparent separate self. Rupert says it can still be triggered in him. Then he asks how Rupert distinguishes between different kinds of love. Rupert says he doesn't. Love is one. Love is not an emotion or feeling that varies in intensity. It is like the sun, it can be more or less obscured.

Is this a self-leading journey or is it better to have a teacher? Rupert says that we start with the exploration into the ‘I’ and the recognition of our true nature. Everything else after that is realignment. There are two ways to do that: formally, as in meditation when we add layers of experience without leaving awareness, and the less formal part is the rest of our lives. This realignment takes place deeply in the way we feel and relate. The idea of a teacher is an old idea. Think of friendship. If you think you have a teacher, you will always think of yourself as limited.

A man relays his experience in meditation, which he experienced as bland. No love. Rupert suggests that when he says ‘happiness’ he doesn't mean an ecstatic feeling. It’s quiet joy or peace. Don't expect an exotic experience. The man says the non-dual approach feels dry. Rupert quips that when we turn back towards experience, ‘It gets wetter’.

A man relays a fantasy that a microscope made stronger and stronger would go deeper and deeper, and there would be no point at which a body begins. He says that he is perplexed that the spiritual and scientific communities don't converge more. Rupert suggests that at some point we see that what we are looking at is limited by what we are looking through. If you look at white snow through orange-tinted glasses, the snow will appear orange. Reality appears in accordance with the perceiver, in this case, the finite mind. As such, science will never discover reality. Sooner or later, we have to ask, ‘What is the nature of the perceiver?’

A man wonders about Rupert’s comment about the veiling of consciousness and answers his own question about thinking on behalf of the ego when the ego doesn't exist. Rupert elaborates that there is no thinker, but there are thoughts that arise either in service of the ego or of awareness. All thoughts, ultimately, come from awareness. Some are filtered through the belief in separation.

A woman shares that she struggles as a mother because her son is unhappy and caught up in separation. Rupert suggests this is a time for self-compassion. A mother, by definition, feels her children’s suffering as her own. This is not a failure of your spiritual maturity. It’s part of being a mother.

A man asks about the shift from the Vedantic to Tantric path and says, after tasting the Tantric, he can't go back to the Vedantic stance. Rupert suggests he doesn't have to. That is the first step to draw attention to the presence of awareness, but then it is necessary to collapse the two. He uses the image and screen analogy to elucidate.