The Enneagram and Non-Duality from the media Everything Is Fine
A woman asks about the enneagram as it relates to non-duality. Rupert responds that he doesn't know that much about it but remarks that it seems like an intelligent system, helpful for understanding impersonal patterns of behaviour. However, it is not a tool for the discovery of one's true nature.
- Duration: 5 minutes and 53 seconds
- Recorded on: Jun 5, 2023
- Event: Seven Day Retreat at The Vedanta – 3rd to 10th June 2023
A woman asks about how a live versus dead body relates to being. Rupert relays his expression, ‘Being is in everything, everything is in being’. The first part of the expression is a concession that there are things; the second part is also a concession to things, but at least those things live in being. There can only be a relationship between two things. There are no beings; there is only being.
Rupert imagines what future retreats would be like thirty years from now, when he's in his nineties. He imagines there will be no more questions.
A woman references love in the context of solitude and asks Rupert to speak to the beingness in his relationship. Rupert says that he considers his partner as the first face of God in his life and treats her as such.
A woman asks about the enneagram as it relates to non-duality. Rupert responds that he doesn't know that much about it but remarks that it seems like an intelligent system, helpful for understanding impersonal patterns of behaviour. However, it is not a tool for the discovery of one's true nature.
A woman asks if we have to stop being fascinated with our life to abide in being. Rupert replies that we abide in being regardless. In some traditions, one has to purify the mind for years before going to true nature; in the Direct Path, we go straight there.
A man asks about a statement that Rupert made, 'Consciousness doesn't know the past', which surprises him to think that God doesn't know his past. Rupert responds that not only does God not know his past, God knows nothing of you. God knows only itself. In response to the question about being a part of God, Rupert responds that there are no parts, no divisions.
A man says he doesn't understand the statement that God doesn't know your past, or us, because God is all and therefore knows all. Rupert speaks of the finite mind that refracts experience creating the appearance of multiplicity and diversity. The one experience that does not distort or refract is the awareness of being.
A man asks if being doesn’t know us directly, then where is the meaning in life. Rupert suggests that the meaning of life for an apparent individual is to live every aspect of life in a way that is consistent with and an expression of the understanding that there is only one. That is a mind in service of reality.
A man asks about the finite mind and its capacity to read other finite minds, such as siddhis. Rupert responds that if your finite mind expands beyond its current limitations, it may be possible to read the contents of another finite mind. Regarding the Akashic records, Rupert responds that knowing stored memories of other minds is possible, but these siddhis have absolutely nothing to do with understanding one's true nature.
A woman, who forgets her being in the drama of life, asks about a practical way to remember being. Rupert suggests leaving notes on the mirror, car dash or screensaver until our minds are slowly reconditioned. We become what we think about. Our bodies depend on the food we eat; our minds depend on what we feed them.
A man references a metaphor Rupert used about the moon, which helped him understand that everything is fine. He asks how to maintain this understanding. Rupert suggests that there might be a residue from past conditioning that he has to get out of the way. He quotes Balyani, 'Whosoever knows himself knows their Lord'. He didn't say whosoever annihilates himself. ‘Everything is fine’ comes from the absence of the ego.
A man asks if being doesn’t know us directly, then how does being leap from oneness to localisation. Rupert asks if he would agree that all possible dreams are contained now in potential in his mind. Can you access them now in this waking state? You have to fall asleep to the wholeness of your mind. The mind must overlook itself to dream a dream.
A man wonders if dementia affects one’s development in being. Rupert suggests that it depends on where one’s identity is invested. If it is in the mind, one might feel diminished by the mind’s decline. But if one is more established in being, then losing cognitive abilities simply allows being to shine.
A woman asks about how a live versus dead body relates to being. Rupert relays his expression, ‘Being is in everything, everything is in being’. The first part of the expression is a concession that there are things; the second part is also a concession to things, but at least those things live in being. There can only be a relationship between two things. There are no beings; there is only being.
Rupert imagines what future retreats would be like thirty years from now, when he's in his nineties. He imagines there will be no more questions.
A woman references love in the context of solitude and asks Rupert to speak to the beingness in his relationship. Rupert says that he considers his partner as the first face of God in his life and treats her as such.
A woman asks about the enneagram as it relates to non-duality. Rupert responds that he doesn't know that much about it but remarks that it seems like an intelligent system, helpful for understanding impersonal patterns of behaviour. However, it is not a tool for the discovery of one's true nature.
A woman asks if we have to stop being fascinated with our life to abide in being. Rupert replies that we abide in being regardless. In some traditions, one has to purify the mind for years before going to true nature; in the Direct Path, we go straight there.
A man asks about a statement that Rupert made, 'Consciousness doesn't know the past', which surprises him to think that God doesn't know his past. Rupert responds that not only does God not know his past, God knows nothing of you. God knows only itself. In response to the question about being a part of God, Rupert responds that there are no parts, no divisions.
A man says he doesn't understand the statement that God doesn't know your past, or us, because God is all and therefore knows all. Rupert speaks of the finite mind that refracts experience creating the appearance of multiplicity and diversity. The one experience that does not distort or refract is the awareness of being.
A man asks if being doesn’t know us directly, then where is the meaning in life. Rupert suggests that the meaning of life for an apparent individual is to live every aspect of life in a way that is consistent with and an expression of the understanding that there is only one. That is a mind in service of reality.
A man asks about the finite mind and its capacity to read other finite minds, such as siddhis. Rupert responds that if your finite mind expands beyond its current limitations, it may be possible to read the contents of another finite mind. Regarding the Akashic records, Rupert responds that knowing stored memories of other minds is possible, but these siddhis have absolutely nothing to do with understanding one's true nature.
A woman, who forgets her being in the drama of life, asks about a practical way to remember being. Rupert suggests leaving notes on the mirror, car dash or screensaver until our minds are slowly reconditioned. We become what we think about. Our bodies depend on the food we eat; our minds depend on what we feed them.
A man references a metaphor Rupert used about the moon, which helped him understand that everything is fine. He asks how to maintain this understanding. Rupert suggests that there might be a residue from past conditioning that he has to get out of the way. He quotes Balyani, 'Whosoever knows himself knows their Lord'. He didn't say whosoever annihilates himself. ‘Everything is fine’ comes from the absence of the ego.
A man asks if being doesn’t know us directly, then how does being leap from oneness to localisation. Rupert asks if he would agree that all possible dreams are contained now in potential in his mind. Can you access them now in this waking state? You have to fall asleep to the wholeness of your mind. The mind must overlook itself to dream a dream.
A man wonders if dementia affects one’s development in being. Rupert suggests that it depends on where one’s identity is invested. If it is in the mind, one might feel diminished by the mind’s decline. But if one is more established in being, then losing cognitive abilities simply allows being to shine.