There’s No Why to Creation

In deep sleep, is there still consciousness present, or does consciousness temporarily cease to exist during that state? Rupert says: ‘Deep sleep is not the absence of consciousness but rather consciousness divested of all objective content. When we say we were not aware in deep sleep, we’re speaking from the perspective of the waking-state mind, which has no memory of objects from deep sleep. However, consciousness itself remains present, knowing its own being directly. If consciousness were truly absent in deep sleep, you couldn’t report upon it when you wake. The experience “I slept peacefully” is consciousness’s report of its own presence throughout deep sleep. What’s absent is not consciousness itself but rather the content of experience – thoughts, sensations, perceptions. Consciousness remains, shining as pure being.’

If there’s no separate self and everything is consciousness, how do we understand personal responsibility and moral choice in everyday life? Rupert says: ‘The recognition that there’s no separate self doesn’t negate the appearance of individual agency or the need for moral discernment. Within the dream of manifestation, choices are made, actions have consequences, and responsibility functions perfectly well at the relative level. The finite mind makes choices – “Would you like tea or coffee?” However, the finite mind isn’t an independently existing entity; it’s the activity of consciousness itself. When we say there’s no separate self, we’re not denying the appearance of individuality but revealing its true nature. Personal responsibility operates at the level of the person; the understanding of non-duality operates at the level of being. Both are valid within their respective contexts.’

If our true nature is always present and we’re already that which we seek, why does awakening or recognition seem so difficult to achieve? Rupert says: ‘The difficulty isn’t in becoming what we essentially are – that’s impossible since we already are it. The difficulty lies in the mind’s habits of attention. For most of our lives, attention has been exclusively focused on the content of experience, losing itself in thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions. As a result, being seems to recede into the background. The so-called difficulty is simply the effort required to disentangle attention from its habitual absorption in content and allow it to rest in being. It’s not that being is difficult to find; it’s that we’re looking in the wrong direction. Once we understand where to look – or rather, that we need simply to be – the recognition is immediate and effortless.’

"You speak of the Pathless Path where there’s nothing to do, yet you also suggest practices. How do I understand the role of practice in this teaching? Rupert says: ‘On the Pathless Path, there’s ultimately nothing to do because you already are what you’re seeking. However, [suggesting a practice] is a compassionate concession to the one who believes they’re not yet that. If you find yourself lost in the content of experience, believing yourself to be a separate self, then practice serves to extricate you from that entanglement. Think of it as removing the obstacles that seem to obscure your true nature rather than acquiring something new. The practices – self-enquiry, meditation, contemplation – are scaffolding that can eventually be discarded once the building is complete. They’re like thorns used to remove thorns. Once attention is established in being, practice naturally falls away because there’s no one left to practise.’"

"You say that love is the nature of being, but I often don’t feel loving. How can love be my essential nature when I experience its opposite? Rupert says: ‘Love isn’t a feeling that comes and goes; it’s the very nature of being. What we call the feeling of love is actually the dissolution of the apparent separation between subject and object – between yourself and another person, or yourself and an experience. When that separation collapses, being recognises itself, and this recognition is what we experience as love. When you say you don’t feel loving, you’re experiencing the apparent separation that the finite mind superimposes on reality. But this doesn’t negate love as your essential nature. Just as the sun continues shining behind the clouds, love – which is being’s recognition of its own unity – remains present even when obscured by thoughts and feelings of separation. Love isn’t something you need to generate; it’s what you are.’"

"How does consciousness know itself without there being a subject-object relationship, which seems necessary for all knowing? Rupert says: ‘You’re absolutely right that all objective knowing takes place in subject-object relationship. However, consciousness’s knowing of itself doesn’t take place in subject-object relationship. Consider the sun: it illuminates the moon in subject-object relationship – the sun is the subject, the moon is the object. But the sun’s illumination of itself doesn’t take place in subject-object relationship. The sun illuminates itself simply by being itself. It’s self-luminous. Likewise, consciousness knows or illuminates everything in subject-object relationship, but it knows itself simply by being itself. It’s self-knowing or self-aware. This is what we mean when we say being is aware of itself. There’s no separation between the knowing and the being – they’re one and the same.’"

"If everything is my consciousness and there’s only one being, does this mean I’m alone? Doesn’t this understanding lead to solipsism? Rupert says: ‘This would be solipsism only if “you” referred to a separate, finite person whose consciousness contains everyone and everything else. But that’s not what we’re suggesting. When we say there’s only one consciousness, we’re not elevating your personal consciousness above others; we’re recognising that the consciousness that’s aware of your experience and the consciousness that’s aware of everyone else’s experience is the same consciousness. It’s not that you contain everyone else; it’s that the being you essentially are is the same being that everyone essentially is. This understanding doesn’t isolate you; it unites you with everyone and everything. You’re not alone as a separate self; you’re alone as the one infinite being that appears as everyone and everything.’"

"If infinite being is complete and perfect in itself, what impulse or necessity causes it to manifest as the finite world? Rupert says: ‘There’s no impulse, necessity or cause. To attribute a cause to manifestation would be to imply that being is incomplete and manifests in order to complete itself. Being doesn’t manifest for any reason or purpose. Manifestation is simply being’s nature, like the sun’s nature is to shine. The sun doesn’t shine in order to achieve something; shining is what the sun is. Likewise, being doesn’t manifest in order to become something or achieve something; manifesting is what being does. We could say it’s the overflow of being’s nature, its spontaneous expression, its love pouring itself out. There’s no why to creation – it’s simply the nature of the infinite to give birth to itself in infinite forms without ever ceasing to be itself.’"

"I often rest in the witness position during meditation, observing my thoughts and feelings. Is this the same as recognising my true nature as awareness? Rupert says: ‘The witness position is a valuable first step, particularly on the Direct Path, but it’s not the final recognition. When you witness your thoughts and feelings, there’s still a subtle subject-object relationship – you as the witness, and thoughts and feelings as the witnessed. This creates an artificial distinction between awareness and its content. The next step is to collapse this distinction and recognise that awareness isn’t separate from experience but pervades it. You don’t stand apart from experience as its witness; you are the intimate presence in which experience appears. The witness position is like stopping at the threshold; the final recognition is to step through the door and see that there’s no separate witness, only the seamless presence of awareness itself.’"

"How does understanding my true nature as infinite being affect my intimate relationships? Should I view my partner differently? Rupert says: ‘The recognition of your true nature doesn’t change your partner; it changes what you see when you look at them. Instead of seeing a separate person with whom you’re in relationship, you recognise the being you share. Love is the recognition of shared being. When the apparent separation between you and your partner dissolves, what remains is the intimacy of being knowing itself. This doesn’t diminish the person; it reveals their true nature. You continue to honour their unique expression, their thoughts and feelings, their personal qualities, but you recognise these as the colouring of the one being you both essentially are. This recognition doesn’t make relationships less personal; it makes them truly intimate because you’re meeting at the level of being rather than merely at the level of appearance.’"

"When difficult emotions like grief or anger arise, should I try to transcend them by resting in awareness, or should I fully feel and process them? Rupert says: ‘You don’t need to choose between these approaches – both have their place. When you say “I am grieving” or “I am angry,” the “I am” is always present, shining in the midst of the emotion. You can emphasise the “I am” rather than the emotion, which doesn’t deny the feeling but prevents you from being completely lost in it. However, this doesn’t mean suppressing or transcending the emotion. You can fully feel it whilst simultaneously remaining in touch with the “I am” that pervades it. Think of it as feeling the emotion whilst standing as the space in which it appears. The space doesn’t reject the emotion, but neither is it disturbed by it. This allows the emotion to move through you naturally without resistance, whilst your essential peace remains untouched.’"

"If I’m essentially formless awareness, what is the relationship between this awareness and my physical body? Rupert says: ‘Awareness doesn’t have a relationship with the body; the body is an appearance within awareness. Just as the space in a room doesn’t have a relationship with the objects in the room but rather the objects appear within it, so awareness doesn’t have a relationship with the body – the body appears within it. However, from the perspective of the finite mind, it seems as though awareness is located in and limited by the body. This is like believing the space is contained within the four walls of a room. In reality, awareness pervades the body but isn’t limited by it, just as space fills a room but extends infinitely beyond its walls. The body is like a temporary configuration that awareness assumes without ever ceasing to be infinite.’"

"How do I balance simply being with the practical demands of life that require doing, planning and achieving? Rupert says: ‘Being and doing aren’t in conflict. Being is what you are; doing is what you do. You can engage fully in activity whilst remaining rooted in being. Think of it like this: a river is always flowing – that’s its doing – but the water itself never stops being water. Likewise, you can be fully engaged in planning, achieving and acting whilst the “I am” remains present as the continuous background. Don’t try to stop doing in order to be; simply notice that being is already present in the midst of doing. The art of life is to remain established in the “I am” whilst the content of experience – including all your activities – arises within it. This is what’s meant by being in the world but not of it.’"

"If there’s no enduring self, how do I make sense of memory and the feeling that I’m the same person I was twenty years ago? Rupert says: ‘Memory doesn’t prove the existence of an enduring personal self; it proves the existence of an enduring awareness. When you remember an event from twenty years ago, what remains continuous between then and now? Not your body – every cell has been replaced. Not your thoughts or feelings – they’ve changed countless times. What remains is the awareness that knows the memory now and knew the experience then. This awareness is the true continuity. You’re right that you feel you’re the same self you were twenty years ago, but notice what that self is: it’s the simple experience of being, the “I am”. That hasn’t changed. All the content – your age, circumstances, relationships – has changed, but being remains the same. You’re not the same person; you’re the same being, temporarily clothed in different experiences.’"

"Should spiritual life be spontaneous, or is there a place for discipline and regular practice? Rupert says: ‘For most people, discipline is necessary at the beginning. If attention has spent decades absorbed in the content of experience, it won’t spontaneously rest in being without some initial effort. Regular practice – meditation, self-enquiry, contemplation – establishes new patterns that gradually replace the old habits of seeking happiness in objects and experience. However, as understanding deepens and attention becomes naturally established in being, practice becomes increasingly effortless and spontaneous. You’ll find yourself drawn to being as naturally as you’re currently drawn to thinking. Eventually, discipline dissolves because there’s no longer anyone who needs to discipline themselves. Being simply abides in itself, as itself. So yes, discipline has its place, but it’s a temporary scaffolding, not the final structure.’"

"When you speak of the separate self dissolving or being seen through, I feel afraid, as though I would cease to exist. How do I work with this fear? Rupert says: ‘This fear is natural because the separate self senses its own dissolution. However, notice who is afraid of non-existence. It’s not you, awareness, that fears ceasing to exist – awareness cannot conceive of its own non-existence. It’s the thought “I am a separate self” that fears its dissolution. But this thought isn’t you; it’s an appearance within you. What you truly are cannot be threatened by the dissolution of this thought. In fact, the recognition of your true nature is the opposite of annihilation; it’s the revelation of your immortality. You discover that you never were the temporary, limited self you believed yourself to be. Instead of ceasing to exist, you recognise yourself as that which has never not existed and can never cease to be.’"

"If being is infinite and formless, how can it appear as finite forms without contradicting its infinite nature? Rupert says: ‘Being doesn’t become finite when it appears as finite forms, just as the white paper in a watercolour doesn’t become the landscape painted on it. The forms are like transparent washes of colour that temporarily qualify being without changing its essential nature. Think of water and ice: when water freezes into ice, it acquires a temporary name and form, but its essential nature as H₂O remains unchanged. When the ice melts, nothing is lost – water simply loses a temporary configuration. Likewise, when anything emerges within being, being acquires a temporary name and form without ever ceasing to be infinite. The forms are real as expressions of being, but they don’t limit being any more than waves limit the ocean. Being lends itself to forms without becoming them.’"