The Same Being Shining in Each of Us

At this retreat, I can go much deeper in meditation. There’s a state where there’s just the knowing that I exist. Then comes a gap where I don’t notice – and it’s not falling asleep – and after the gap, I notice I exist again. Is this my resistance? Rupert says: ‘Whatever was absent in the gap was not your being. From the point of view of the waking state, deep sleep is like a kind of gap, an empty blank void. That’s what the waking state mind thinks deep sleep is because the waking state mind only knows objects. If you were to ask whatever it is that is present in deep sleep, “what is your experience now?”, it would never say “a blank empty void.” It would say, “I am.” So, the gap you are talking about is what your mind says later on. From the point of view of your mind, it is a gap – void, blank empty nothingness. But from the point of view of your being, it is your presence.’

Yesterday you used the word ‘receptivity’ in talking about the mind. Is this the same as your recent use of ‘openness’ and ‘sensitivity’? Rupert says: ‘Yes. Openness, sensitivity, availability, receptivity – these are all words to evoke the quality of pure being. We’re not so interested in being accurate with language; we’re more interested in being evocative for the mind that’s always wanting to know something, to understand something, to achieve something. The mind turns even enlightenment into something it’s going to get. To counteract that predisposition of the mind, words like “pure being” and “receptivity” evoke the right attitude to place the mind in the right place.’

Earlier you said there’s nothing to change in yourself, you accept yourself, which moved me to tears. But we’re all here to fix ourselves, to grow, to change habits. Although I have started loving myself, there are shameful things I want to change. Rupert says: ‘You are not here to grow, Layla. You’re not here to change. You’re not here to improve yourself. You are here to know who you truly are – that’s it! Shame is something you feel, it’s not what you are. It’s just a feeling you have from time to time. When the feeling of shame (or compassion) are not present, you’re just here. And how liberating that is. If you spend this week coming back to your being, being here, and you really become established in that, when you go home, fewer and fewer experiences retain their seeming power to shame you. You will live this freedom.’

I find deep gratitude, love and joy when I surrender, but when most deeply connected to soul, I don’t feel the full powers of the universe. I struggle to fully identify with being the Father. From my deepest experience, I haven’t been able to fully identify with the fullness of being the Father. Rupert says: ‘Could it be that God is simply being, and that everyone and everything derives its apparent existence from that being? Your being at the deepest level is without limits, in other words, infinite, connected to everything, not separate from anything. What prevents you from considering that to be God’s being? If you think there’s a difference between your being and God’s being, then you are by definition suggesting that God’s being is finite. By setting yourself up as a being apart from God’s being, you are saying God’s being must also be finite. I would suggest that’s blasphemous. Creation is a manifestation and an appearance of that being. God’s being shines in us as our very own being. Our awareness of being is God’s experience of itself.’

I’ve been studying near-death experiences, where people across various cultures describe love, presence, and infinite being that’s cosmic but also personal. In a world where language divides rather than unites, and any word can become a point of contention, how do you use language that transcends division when speaking of these matters? Rupert says: ‘What is the one fact of experience that nobody can argue with? What is the one thing that everybody can say about their self for certain that requires no belief, no education? “I am.” If we wanted to find a common ground, a unifying principle in humanity, what would be the fundamental principle that we could build a society on that everyone would agree on? Everyone’s experience of being, the pure experience of being, is the same. We are the same being. It’s like there’s no difference between the space in this room, the space in a cathedral, the space in a prison cell. All are the same being. Ever-present, unlimited. And that being shines in each of them as their knowledge of their self.’

Regarding your metaphor of the screen and images of the movie that appear on it, is the nature of the illusion determined from our localised perspective or by the screen? Rupert says: ‘I would suggest that our perceiving faculties determine the way in which reality appears. What it is that is appearing to us is beyond the control of a finite mind. That, I would say, is God’s mind, or the activity of infinite consciousness. The universe is God’s idea, but it only looks like a material universe because we view it through the lens of our perceiving faculties. What we view as the universe is an interaction of God’s ideas, the activity of infinite consciousness, and the perceiving mind through which it is perceived. Each of us are like localised perspectives in God’s mind through whose perceiving faculties God perceives itself as the universe.’

I’ve experienced states where the separate self was extremely thin. I’ve heard teachings about complete letting go of the ‘I’ thought, where it doesn’t return. Is this a real state, and how would it fit with the separate self being necessary for an experience of the world? Rupert says: ‘The idea of liberation and enlightenment, awakening, union with God and so on are concessions; legitimate concessions, but nevertheless concessions to the temporary finite self that we seem to be. Here we just dispense with those preparations, and we go straight there. It’s why it’s called the Direct Path. We see who we truly are. We don’t work on who we are not. The very most we do is just turn away or let go of the content of experience. When everything that can be removed from us is removed from us, who we truly are shines by itself. We don’t suddenly become infinite being, we were always that, but previously clothed in experience.’

I understand the concept of direct experience, but isn’t there ultimately an ethical component to life that we have to manifest? After direct realisation, we still have to act in this life, and I’ve seen teachers with profound understanding who still have personality issues. Rupert says: ‘In this approach, this realignment or purification takes place after the recognition of our true nature, or at least during its exploration, but it’s not considered a prerequisite. The change comes from inside as a result of recognising our true nature and its qualities. And then that informs this realignment of our thoughts, feelings, actions and relationships. If you are speaking about these matters and you do or say something that is not consistent with what you say, then you should be very humble and acknowledge it, and apologise if appropriate. Anyone who speaks about these matters, we are all fallible. We are not perfect, and we make mistakes.’

I have a traumatic memory regarding someone that keeps coming back even when I’m quiet in being. What would be your suggestion for dealing with this recurring image? Rupert says: ‘Go to the feeling, bring the feeling very close. Love it, embrace it, bring it close. I’m speaking to you, awareness. I’m saying to the screen, bring the dark image in the movie close to yourself – the screen has no aversion to the dark image, because it knows that it cannot be harmed by it. Awareness has no resistance to the dark or painful feeling. The desire to die and liberation in life – it’s the same thing. It’s not a desire to die physically, it’s the desire for the sense of separation to die in you. Don’t try to love that person – you love their being, not the person, because their being is untouched by whatever they did, just as your being is untouched by whatever they did to you.’

I had a question about the difference between glimpses – what you call the ‘free gift’ – versus what we do in meditation by simply being, because glimpses seem to accompany visual experiences or exotic feelings, which I don’t experience in simple meditation. Rupert says: ‘When, in prayer or meditation, you are just resting in being, that experience is not preceded by anything. Whereas the free gift is a glimpse of your true nature preceded or precipitated by a more powerful experience. In meditation, you are going there consciously. These are much more gentle ways and not so dramatic, ways in which we consciously go back to our true nature rather than waiting for nature to take us back. Just take one step further back. Being is like the space in this room. It cannot be seen, but it is never not experienced.’