Rupert Spira

The essential discovery of all the great spiritual traditions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Sufism, Kashmir Shaivism and Judaism, is that experience is not divided into a perceiving subject, an entity known as ‘I,’ and a perceived object, world or other.

The apparent separate entity and the apparent separate, independent world or other are understood to be concepts that are superimposed onto the reality of experience.

If we look for this Reality, for the essential ingredient in every experience of the mind, body and world, we find Consciousness or Awareness, a Knowing Presence that we intimately and directly know to be our own Being, and that is experienced simply as ‘I am.’

This understanding, sometimes referred to as Non-Duality or Advaita, lies at the core of all these traditions and although it cannot be expressed directly, teachers, sages, mystics and poets use the language of their culture to point towards this Reality.

This non-conceptual or experiential Reality or Knowingess, although in fact always present, embedded in all experience, is veiled in most cases by beliefs. The primal belief, upon which all others are based, is that Consciousness or Awareness is located in and/or as the body.

With this fundamental mistake we shrink ourselves into a separate entity that resides in and as the body. That is, Consciousness seems to contract into a tiny, vulnerable entity and, as a result, the peace and happiness that are inherent in our true nature, in Consciousness, are veiled and seem therefore to be lost. This is the beginning of the search for happiness.

Consciousness seems to contract into a separate entity that we know and feel to be ‘I,’ and the world (including all others) simultaneously seems to become outside, separate, other, ‘not me.’

Although this division of experience never actually takes place, it is a powerful illusion that seems to divide the Oneness of experience into two separate things. With this apparent division suffering is born.

In most cases a friend or teacher is required to point out this fundamental mistake, and through association with him or her, through the sharing of Being in conversation, meditation, contemplation, silence, self-enquiry, investigation, exploration and simply spending time together in silence and in normal everyday activities, the dense web of beliefs and feelings that comprise the knot of separation is dissolved.

This is sometimes called Awakening. It is the awakening of Presence, Consciousness, Awareness to its own Being as the Reality of all things.

In my case, it was my friend and teacher Francis Lucille, who pointed out this clear seeing of the nature of experience. However, there were many others, mostly from the Advaita or Non-Dual tradition, that prepared the way for this meeting in the heart: Ramana Maharshi, Robert Adams, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jean Klein, Atmananda Krishnamenon, Wei Wu Wei, Rumi, Hafiz, Meister Eckhart, Irene Tweedie, Da Free John, Krishnamurti, Shantanada Saraswati, Francis Roles and Ouspensky.

Francis Lucille introduced me to the Direct Path, which is not really a path. It is the clear seeing that Consciousness is simultaneously the witness and the substance of all experience, the one Reality that gives seeming existence to the mind, body and world.

The first true glimpse of this is sometimes known as Enlightenment or Awakening, although in almost all cases the habitual tendencies of the mind and the body reappear and apparently veil this Knowingness again.

The subsequent establishment in this understanding, sometimes known as Self-realisation, is not a process towards a goal. It is a re-orchestration of the body, mind and world that comes from understanding, rather than going towards it. Enlightenment is instantaneous. Self-Realisation takes time.

Enlightenment could be said to be the deep understanding that there is no separate entity located inside the body experiencing the world and all others outside and separate from itself.

Self-realisation could be said to be the re-absorption of the mind, body and world into this Knowing Presence from which they proceed, and from which they were in fact never for a moment separate.

It is a re-orchestration of the mind, body and world in line with our understanding that it is this Knowing Presence that takes the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving and, as a result, seems to become a mind a body and a world, but in fact never becomes anything other than it already eternally is.

There is only Presence taking the shape of the totality of our experience from moment to moment.

Dear Rupert,

Lately, I’ve seen clearly that the sense of continuity is given by Awareness alone. And is it correct to say that the “me ness” of every thought, sensation, feeling, perception, is the I of Awareness? And yet, the question is about the deeper layers of feelings in the body in which the imaginary self hides itself. When I explore a feeling, that is, I face it, I can see clearly that it is nothing but a sensation, if I don’t attached any story to it.
So what is it to be done to go more deeper in this exploration of the feeling? Let me take, for instance, a feeling of sadness. Without any story attached to it, it is only a sensation, known by Awareness. But, how can I uproot the sense of separation hidden in that feeling ?

Many thanks in advance for your answer.

Love,

Linda

Dear Linda,

Yes, the ‘me-ness’ of every thought, sensation, feeling and perception, is the I of Awareness. That is, the knowing with which all thoughts, sensations, feelings and perceptions are known belongs to your self, Awareness. In fact, that knowing is your self. And as all that is known of any thought, sensation, feeling or perception is just the knowing of them, therefore all that is known is your self, Awareness.

And yes, you are correct to say that feelings in the body are neutral sensations accompanied by a story that revolves around an imaginary inside self.

The desire to uproot or get rid of the sense of separation hidden in a feeling such as sadness, is itself a feeling that is based on a subtle resistance. It is a resistance to the feeling of sadness. In other words, it is a resistance to resistance. In this way, the sense of separation is perpetuated by trying to get rid of the sense of separation.

So what is to be done? Do not make the sense of separation into a problem that needs to be solved. We cannot understand something we we are trying to get rid of.

If separation were real, we would have to get rid of it. However, separation is an illusion. Attempting to get rid of an illusion only asserts its apparent reality, thereby strengthening it.

So what needs to be done to an illusion? Simply to see it clearly as such. In this clear seeing the illusion may or may not disappear immediately but in either case its power over us diminishes and gradually dissolves.

So do not go after the sense of separation. Rather, allow it to come to you, gradually revealing itself in all its depth and complexity. Welcome every face of its appearance with love, as a mother would a troublesome child.

To begin with the investigative mind explores the sense of separation in a proactive way, seeking it out with the sharp tool of reason. However, once the illusion of separation has been revealed for what it is, the investigation gives way to a more contemplative approach in which the subtler layers of separation that have been hiding undetected in the body for so long are gradually revealed and in time dissolved in the loving and contemplative presence of Awareness.

Imagine a dirty dish cloth. To begin with we may put it in the washing machine and this will remove ninety per cent of the stains. However, there remains a small amount of dirt that is ingrained in the fabric of the cloth and that does not come out even after several washes. What to do? We run a tub of warm soapy water and immerse the cloth in it. Gradually and imperceptibly the deeper layers of ingrained dirt are dissolved effortlessly.

That is how these deeper layers of apparent separation are dissolved out of the body. We simply abide as this Aware Presence allowing layer upon layer of separation to be revealed in our loving contemplation. No longer met with the normal attempts to relieve or get rid of them, these feelings gradually come out of the woodwork, so to speak, like creatures at the bottom of a well gradually waking up when the sun is above them at midday. These feelings respond to our loving contemplation like a sort of invitation, rising to the surface when the sun of Awareness shines on them.

So simply abide as this Aware Presence welcoming layer upon layer of feeling, being very sensitive to the old impulse to get rid of them, feeling/understanding this impulse itself as one such residue of separation.

Allow these feelings to come to you; don’t go towards them. Don’t become their accomplice by trying to uproot or get rid of them. This may require courage and love. The old impulse to get rid of these uncomfortable feelings is so strong. Remain gently but resolutely your self, the self. Separation cannot stand the bright but gentle light of our own dispassionate contemplation. Apparent separation thrives on our resistance to or agenda with it and it is for this reason that so many years of spiritual practice often seems successful at first but in the long run fails to bring about the peace for which we long.

So, no more uprooting! Just loving contemplation interspersed with the bright light of investigation from time to time whenever the water in the well gets murky.

With love,

Rupert

The Known, the Knower and Knowing

From the Known to the Knower

Thought considers Me to be a separate self, born into a world, moving around in space and time and destined one day to disappear. As such thought considers Me an object, a mixture of thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions, sharing their limits and destiny.

In this way thought overlooks My essential nature and considers Me a body/mind - a man or woman, tall, short, hungry, sad, happy, intelligent, twenty five years old, etc. - that knows or experiences objects, others and the world. However, one simple look at experience shows that I know the body/mind just as I know the world. I am the Knower of experience; the body/mind is known.

Qualities of the Knower

I know thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions but am not Myself made out of thought, feeling, sensation or perception and am therefore said to be empty, silent, transparent. I am present and aware and therefore known as Awareness.

As such, thought likens Me to open, empty space in which all appearances arise. Like physical space I am not affected by what does or doesn’t take place within Me and, therefore, peace is My nature. Peace is not a quality of Myself; it is Myself, ever-present under all circumstances.

Like empty space I have no agenda with appearances. It makes no difference to Me whether the mind is silent or not, whether the body is young, old, healthy or not, nor what is happening in the world. I allow all appearances unconditionally and impartially.

Thought likes and dislikes but I neither like nor dislike these likes and dislikes. Thought resists and seeks but I neither resist nor seek the end of resistance or seeking. Being empty, I do even not know resistance and am, therefore, causeless happiness itself.

Like empty space, I do not share the qualities nor the destiny of the objects that appear within Me; I do not move and change when they move and change; I do not appear nor disappear when they appear or disappear; I am not born and do not die. The body and mind are always on a journey but I never undertake the journey with them. They journey through Me but I never journey in them. I am the unchanging and ever-present Knower of all that is known.

From the Knower to Knowing

However, by thinking of Me as the Knower or the witnessing space in which all appearances arise, thought is imagining Me separate from appearances. In fact, I am more like a screen, one with and intimately pervading the image that appears on it. In fact, the image doesn’t appear on nor is it pervaded by the screen. There is no independent image present to be ‘one with’ or ‘pervaded by’ the screen. Only the screen is truly present. The screen is the appearing image. ‘Image’ is another name for screen.

Likewise, although the body, mind and world seem to exist in their own right, they owe their apparent reality to Me alone. ‘Body,’ ‘mind’ and ‘world’ are just the names and forms that thought gives to Me when I have been overlooked.

The character in a movie is only real from the viewpoint of one of the characters. The image is only real, as such, from the illusory viewpoint of the image. From the true and only viewpoint of the screen, only the screen is truly present and real. There is no real character there; there is only the screen.

Likewise, I am all that is truly present and known in all experience. All that is known of the body, mind and world is the knowing of them and I am that Knowing. It is only thought that abstracts a ‘knower’ and a ‘known,’ from the seamless intimacy of Knowing or Experiencing. However, the body, mind and world are never known or experienced as such. So we cannot say there is the knowing ‘of them,’ but rather that there is only Knowing. I am not the knowing that pervades all experience; I am the Knowing that is all experience.

Just as, relatively speaking, we do not see objects, we see only modulations of the sun’s light, so in reality we do not know objects as such, we know only modulations of Knowing. Only Knowing is truly known and it is Knowing that knows Knowing. I am and know Myself alone. This absence of distance, otherness or separation is love. True knowledge and love are identical.

The Imaginary Separate Self

It is thought that superimposes a subject and an object upon the seamless intimacy of experience thereby seemingly veiling the peace, happiness and love that lie ever-present and always available at its heart. With this apparent veiling, I seem to be lost or forgotten and, as a result, an imaginary self, made of Myself plus the belief that I share the qualities and destiny of appearances, comes into apparent existence. This imaginary inside self is always on a mission to regain the experience of peace, happiness and love that seems to have been lost when My nature is apparently veiled.

To this end the imaginary inside self undertakes a great adventure in the imaginary outside world, in time and space, without realizing that these are its own creations. Like the character in a movie who travels the world looking for the screen, the imaginary self travels the world seeking peace in circumstances, happiness in objects and love in relationships, without realizing that it is already made of the stuff for which it is in search. I am already the love with which I am longed for.

Frustrated by the inevitable failure of its search, the imaginary inside self devises all kinds of strategies such as stilling the mind, disciplining the body and shunning the world, in the hopes that I will be revealed as a result.

In time, the activity of seeking and resisting that is the separate self may, through exhaustion, frustration or intelligence, come to an end and, as a result, the peace of My true nature shines for a timeless moment as it truly is. This dissolution of the activity of seeking and resisting is the unveiling of My presence.

In fact, even that is not true. I am eternally as I am, independent of what thoughts and feelings do or say, never truly veiled by the activity of seeking and resisting. In fact, I never cease to be aware of Myself and, therefore, never really become aware of a separate self, let alone an object, other or world, as such. Therefore, the separate self is only a separate self from the imaginary viewpoint of a separate self.

From My viewpoint, which is the only real viewpoint (and which is not really a point of view) there is never any real veiling or forgetting of Myself. The entire adventure of the separate self takes place in a bubble of thought and feeling whilst all the while I am at rest in and as Myself.

Like the wave that reaches the shore and, ceasing to be wave, is revealed as ocean, so the seeking/resisting thought comes to an end and, losing its name and form, stands revealed as Myself alone. It doesn’t become Myself; it is always only that, just as wave is always only ocean. Only its temporary name and form seemed to make it something other than ocean. The fuel of all desire is already the happiness for which it seeks.

Love and Freedom

Like the moth that longs for the flame but cannot experience it, so all the separate self’s activities are designed to find Me alone, but I am the one thing it cannot know or have. The only way the separate self can know Me is to die, just as the moth can only know the flame by dying in it. That death is the experience of love, the dissolution of self and other.

However, for the flame, there is only the flame; for water there is only water; for Myself, there is only Myself. Veiling, forgetting, searching and finding are for the self that thought images Me to be, never for Myself, the true and only self that is. Whatever the limited qualities of the body and mind that thought superimposes on Me, I stand eternally free, untouched but intimately touching all seeming things, lending them My reality, thereby giving them seeming existence.

It is upon Me that thought superimposes the witness and the witnessed, and then further invests My witnessing presence with the qualities and destiny of a body/mind, thereby downgrading Me to a separate self. But all the while, I stand naked and alone never actually being, knowing or loving anything other than My eternally free self.

For thought there are three possibilities for the self – to be the known, the Knower or pure Knowing; to be a person, a witness or pure Awareness; to be something, nothing or everything. However, I never truly am or know anything other than Myself.

Rupert Spira January 2012

This article by Rupert Spira was first published in the Dutch Nonduality magazine “Inzicht” (year 2012, issue # 1). It is reprinted by permission, all rights reserved. Website: www.inzicht.org

Hi Rupert,

I hope you get this message. My name is Chris over 25 years ago after a number of years of searching I had a very powerful realisation experience with left me with a knowing that what I was searching for was always within me. It was one of those magic moments where I understood that all the searching outside myself was to no avail and discovering that ”enlightenment” was already within and always was.

For about six weeks after that morning I was at peace and felt the simple joy of being.

As time becomes more removed from that moment I feel I have fallen back into old patterns of unhappiness and separateness, even though I have created a wonderful life for myself with enough money not to have to work ,and a wonderful wife whom I love and loves me . It seems I have lost that inner knowing that I found over 25 years ago.

Recently I discovered your teaching on conscious TV and since then through your book. The transparent self and video that you made with Chris Herbert on stillness speaks.com.

When I first did one of your exercises. It brought me back to my original realisation all that time ago and I understood the truth of what you were saying.

Except there was one thought that appears in the mind that continues to see myself as a separate entity. When I was doing your exercise I recognised that everything that appeared to be outside of me was in fact being experienced from the single place within me, which is consciousness. That is, that even other people are appearing within this Consciousness but the feeling of separation still existed and the thought that I as this Consciousness must be different to another person, because I do not experience their thoughts, feelings, perceptions or sensations and that intellectually I know they have completely different experiences.

We know that other people have a different experience of Consciousness. This seems to appear to me as separate consciousnesses in the one Consciousness.

This thought keeps stopping me from seeming to go deeper and I was wondering if you could say anything about this to help me gain a clearer understanding of what is.

Kind regards,

Chris

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your email and my apologies for delaying to respond.

It is true that ‘you’ cannot know the thought that ‘I’ am having. In other words all thoughts are limited. However, as a result of this observation we make the irrational assumption that the Awareness that knows ‘your’ thought and the Awareness that knows ‘my’ thought must also be limited. This is like saying that, because a person in Australia cannot see a person in the UK, therefore the two people must exist in different physical spaces. In other words, we make the presumption that Awareness shares the limitations of what it is aware of.

We cannot prove with the mind that Awareness is not limited but we can, with the mind, explore all the apparent evidence that suggests that it is limited. As a result of this experiential exploration we come to realise that there is no real evidence for the idea that Awareness is located or limited and realise, therefore, that this idea is simply a belief. It is the religion to which the vast majority of humanity subscribe without knowing it. That is as far as the mind can go. In other words, the mind simply cannot know anything about Awareness, even though it is made out of it, just as the character in the movie cannot know anything about the screen.

Now that you have seen that the mind cannot tell you anything about Awareness, explore your own intimate experience of Awareness. You are aware that ‘I am.’ What is it that is aware that I am? It is obviously I, Awareness, that am aware that I am. The ‘I’ that I am is the same ‘I’ that is aware that I am. In other words, in the simple recognition that I am, Awareness is aware of its own being. In other words, the simple knowing of our own being is the experience of Awareness being aware of itself. This is the simple, most obvious, ever-present fact of experience.

Now, referring only to your direct experience of your self, Awareness – its experience of itself – ask your self if you find any limit there. Does Awareness have any knowledge of a limit in itself? Does it know itself as having an age, nationality, weight, gender, size, colour, shape etc? Does it ever experience itself appearing or disappearing, being born or dying, coming, going, moving, evolving or changing? If the answer to any of these questions is ‘yes,’ then you are mistaking yourself for some kind of an object, or rather, thought is mistaking you, Awareness, for some kind of an object such as a thought, feeling or sensation.

Keep going back to your experience of your self - Awareness’ experience of itself (which is not any kind of objective knowledge) - and ascertain for yourself that your own experience of yourself is simply that you are ever-present and without limits or location, that you cannot be disturbed and are therefore peace itself, that there is no lack in you, nor the slightest impulse to avoid the now and you are therefore happiness itself, and that you are utterly intimately one with all appearances and are thus love itself, in which there is no room for ‘otherness,’ distance or separation.

Having discovered this, start to live a life at all levels of experience (thoughts, feelings, perceptions, activities and relationships) that is in line with this discovery. Be open to the possibility that the Awareness with which all people and animals are aware of anything is the very same Awareness with you are aware of these words right now. Treat people and animals as such, that is, as your very own self.

But don’t limit this to people and animals. All we know of the world is the knowing of it. In other words, we do not know a world as such, we only know knowing; that is, we only know Awareness. But what is it that knows Awareness? Awareness is all that knows anything….in other words, everything, all seeming things, are only Awareness knowing itself.

Therefore, treat people, animals, objects and the world, not as people, animals, objects or a world but as they truly are, made out of pure Awareness alone, made out of your Self alone.

Everyone and everything loves to be treated as they truly are, so people, animals, objects and the world will all respond to you and let you know that you are treating them properly! In what form will this response come? An intellectual understanding? No! It comes in a far more convincing way. What would truly convince us that we are on the right tract? Obviously the realisation of thing we most value in life would be such a confimation….and what is that? Happiness, peace and love! That is how the universe responds to being treated as it truly is and that is the confirmation that our ideas, feelings, perceptions, activities and relationships are in line with reality.

With love,

Rupert

Hi Rupert,

How do I decide and ask you something about my real nature using this body? And the fact I’m using the body says that I am the body. In my experience I am this body interacting with the impulses that appear. The apperance of the body being the only thing in my experience which moves with the thoughts and the continuous experience of it, pushes me to know myself as it. I am aware that there is a contradiction when I say I identify myself with this body but I can’t help the contradiction although it is obvious that the body is an object. It seems like the hero of the story.

On the other hand when I listen to you or read your book I sense that what I call ‘me’ depends on the Consciousness which knows the seeing, feeling, smelling, hearing, tasting etc. but still I know myself as Efe and act through him. I feel stuck.

Love from Istanbul,

Efe

Dear Efe,

E: How do I decide and ask you something about my real nature using this body?

R: All decisions simply appear unsolicited, like the weather or the sound of traffic. Nobody – that is, no separate inside entity – chooses them.

E: And the fact I’m using the body says that I am the body.

R: On the contrary, the fact that you are using the body implies that you are not the body but rather the one that is using it, just as when you use your car, you are the one that uses it (relatively speaking) not the car that is used.

E: In my experience, I am this body interacting with the impulses that appear.

R: In my experience, I am the one that is aware of both the body (in the form of sensations and perceptions) and the impulses that dictate its movements (such as thoughts and feelings).

E: The appearance of the body being the only thing in my experience which moves with the thoughts and the continuous experience of it, pushes me to know myself as it.

R: Your reasoning is good in that you see that only something that is continuously experienced can legitimately qualify as your self. However, you believe that your body is continuously experienced. It is not! Only Awareness is continuously present (in fact, it is not continuously present in time but rather ever present now) and continuously experienced. It is ‘continuously’ aware of itself.

E: I am aware that there is a contradiction when I say I identify myself with this body but I can’t help the contradiction although it is obvious that the body is an object.

R: Perfect….you are aware of a contradiction….just remain knowingly that aware one. You say ‘I identify myself….’ However, ‘I’ Awareness does no such thing. It is thought that identifies your self, Awareness, with a limitation (such as a body or a mind). In other words, it is thought, not Awareness, that does the identifying although, of course, that thought is itself made only of Awareness. Simply see that what thought tells you about your self is not true; it is based on imagination, not experience. Look at your experience clearly and simply and live the implications of what you find there.

Yes, the mind cannot help the contradiction….it has been conditioned to believe all these ideas. Just let thought do what it has been conditioned to do but don’t allow your self to be seemingly overcome by it. Remain gently but resolutely your self – in fact, you have never been and could never be anything other than this unlimited presence of Awareness so to be that knowingly is the easiest thing in the world. In time the mind will follow suit.

E: It seems like [the body is] the hero of the story.

R: The hero of the story is the one that survives all the vicissitudes of life, the one that never fears death, the one that looks on all seeming things with equality, the one that is eternally anchored in love and truth – that one is your self, Awareness, never an individual entity.

E: On the other hand when I listen to you or read your book I sense that what I call ‘me’ depends on the Consciousness which knows the seeing, feeling, smelling, hearing, tasting etc. but still I know myself as Efe and act through him. I feel stuck.

R: Are the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ different? Do you now two different selves? ‘I listen….,’ ‘I sense…..,’ I call…..,’ ‘I know myself…’ Who is this ‘I’ and who is the ‘myself’ that is known? Efe is the name that is given to that one. Rupert is another of its names. Table, car, chair, house…are all more of its names. One being, ten thousand names.

That one does not depend on Consciousness. It is Consciousness! And that one is not stuck, although thought may be.

With love,

Rupert

Dear Rupert,

I’m not sure if it’s more important to be watchful of the movement of thoughts, feelings, perceptions throughout the day, or to keep inquiring into whether or not it’s possible to find a separate self – or both.

With love,

Anupam

Dear Anupam,

Both! Either take your stand knowingly as Awareness (I say ‘knowingly’ because we already are Awareness but sometimes seem to forget this) and ‘from there’ or ‘as that’ contemplate the appearances of the mind, body and world, allowing everything to be exactly as it is (Awareness is, in fact, already doing that). Or take a more active approach and investigate the nature of the apparently separate self both at the level of thoughts and feelings.

You can alternate between these two, just doing whichever you are drawn to do in the moment…..passive contemplation or active investigation. In time the latter will give way more and more to the former…..from doing to being.

And then from being to celebrating!

With love,

Rupert

Hi Rupert,

I wanted to understand the quote below from Shri Atmananda.

“The object of knowledge is always in knowledge and knowledge is not affected by the thing known. So there is knowledge and knowledge alone, without reference to the thing known. This is the ultimate Truth or Atma, your real nature.”

Thanks for your help in interpreting in advance.

Love,

Ankit

Dear Ankit,

The apparent objects of the mind, body and world are known. In fact, our only knowledge of a world is the perception of the world. That is, we know our perception of the world rather than the world itself.

However, perception is not divided in to one part (a separate inside self) that perceives and another part (the separate outside object, other or world) that is perceived. There is just perceiving in which both the apparent subject and object are contained as one.

Perceiving and the knowing of perceiving are the same experience. Therefore, all there is in the experience of the world is perceiving, knowing or experiencing. They are synonymous. Perceiving, knowing or experiencing is what Atmananda refers to as ‘knowledge.’ It is all that is ever known.

Perceiving, knowing or experiencing is intimately one with yourself. In fact, it is not ‘one with.’ There are not two things there, in the experience of perceiving, knowing or experiencing, to be ‘one with’ each other. There is just perceiving, knowing or experiencing. It is seamless, without parts, objects or selves, and intimate.

And if we go to the substance of perceiving, knowing or experiencing we find only Awareness; that is, it finds only itself.

That Awareness is what we are. It is the only substance found in all experience. There is nothing outside of that, no ‘thing’ other than itself that actually exists.

All we know is knowledge or knowing and knowing is made of Awareness alone. Or we could say that all that is known is ‘experiencing’ and the only substance present in experiencing is our self, Awareness.

That Awareness pervades experience intimately and, as such, is known as love; it is unaffected by changing names and forms, just as the screen is unaffected by the images that appear on it, although it is their sole substance, and is therefore known as freedom.

Above all, it is our self. If we stand as that, if we stand as pure, seamless intimate, expereincing or knowing, we find no resistance or seeking there. Experiencing never resists itself or seeks to replace itself. That is happiness. That is peace. That is our self.

Live as that.

With love,

Rupert

Dear Thilo,

Thank you for your email. My responses are interwoven in your text.

Dear Rupert,

I’m currently reading the German edition of your Book “The Transparency of Things”. I have one question in my mind, which I even asked Eckhart Tolle but didn’t get an answer. I think he gets to many question to answer them all. May be I have more luck asking you.

If the subject, I, mind/body, makes an experience of an object, which, as you expressed in your book is an illusion, because subject and object are the same pure consciousness, what happens if there is a physical defect preventing this experience.

R: Whatever is experienced, is experienced by consciousness. A so-called normal person, a blind person, a person with Alzheimer’s, a dog, an ant, a bird, a flea…..whatever is known or experienced by each of these creatures is known or experienced by consciousness. In other words, a person does not know; it is known.

If the brain is impaired, thoughts will be affected, but the consciousness that knows the thought remains the same. Consciousness is independent of the condition of the body and mind. Therein lies its innate peace and freedom.

T: For example, a blind person does not see a flower, he or she could not see the beauty of the flower.

R: Beauty cannot be seen. It is that which sees or experiences. The experience of beauty is the transparent recognition of our own being. It is always available, whatever the condition of the body or mind.

T: The visual experience is not possible, but the blind person is consciousness too.

R: You are starting with a model that presumes the independent existence of objects or world and then trying to fit the non-dual understanding into it. It doesn’t fit! You are presuming that there are things such as independent stones and blind people and then trying to imagine that they are both equally consciousness. But there is no such thing as a blind person or a stone as they are normally conceived, that is, as separate individual entities.

T: Further if a person has a brain defect, he could not think over the form of experience, as you did in your book. Everything you wrote down in your book was possible because you have a functioning brain. You have been thinking over the form of experience. You could not have written one note on this if that were not case. Doesn’t this mean the consciousness or the self awareness of consciousness is tied to a functioning brain.

R: The consciousness or the self awareness of consciousness is not tied to a functioning brain. Consciousness knows itself by itself, through itself, in itself and as itself, without the need of a human mind. And its knowing of itself is not something that comes and goes. It knows itself alone, eternally. In other words, the recognition of consciousness has nothing to do with the condition of the mind. It is already the case, even when there is no mind.

T: Imagine a person with Alzheimer, which could not stay in present awareness or even watch their own thoughts arising.

R: There is no question of a ‘normal’ mind or one with Alzheimer ‘staying’ in present awareness. Awareness does not sometimes remain in itself and sometimes leave itself. It is ‘always’ (not always in time but eternally now) ‘in’ itself. It is only thought that imagines consciousness goes in and out or off and on. Likewise, there is no possibility of a person being out of awareness. The only place a person can appear is in awareness.

T: A stone in is essence may be consciousness as every other form appearing in the space. But the stone does not know this, or is not self aware of that fact. I suppose that an animal is not aware that it is pure consciousness in is essence.

R: A stone in is not “in essence, Consciousness.” That is to start with an object, such as a stone, and consider it to be impregnated with consciousness like a sponge is saturated with water. It’s not like that. Nobody has ever experienced a stone, as it is normally conceived, that is, an an object existing independently in its own right. All we know of the stone, and indeed of the world, is perceiving. In fact, even that is not true….all we know is the ‘knowing of perceiving.’ And that knowing is made of consciousness alone. In other words, all that is known is consciousness and it is consciousness that knows itself. There are no objects, as such, to be either permeated or not permeated with consciousness. There is only consciousness.

Whatever is known is known by neither a stone, an animal or a human being. It is consciousness alone that knows. Stones, animals and human beings are known (apparently); they do not know.

T: What is the real relationship between brain, spirit and consciousness, or could one say that the human being with a functional brain is the prerequisite of consciousness being aware of itself?

R: Consciousness doesn’t have relationships. In order to have a relationships there must be two objects (duality). Consciousness does not know duality; it does not even know an object (although, as a half way stage, we may say that consciousness is conscious of objects). The only way consciousness knows an apparent object is by being it, in which case the object ceases to be an object. That is, there is never an object there to begin with. In other words, the way that consciousness knows ‘something’ is in identity, not in relationship. In other words, consciousness doesn’t know objects. Its way of knowing is far more intimate than that. Another name for this kind of knowing is ‘love.’

With warm greetings from Germany

Thilo

Likewise from JFK airport!

Rupert

Dear Rupert,

Weeks will go by for when there seems to be clarity and many moments of seeing that there is “nobody” here - just apparent experiencing of life - a feeling of lightness and ease. I seem to be in cruise control and life just hums along. To be more accurate – there’s not a lot of “control”… just “cruising”!

Then suddenly out of nowhere there comes a tsunami of “me-ness” trying to assert itself, with feelings of intense irritability at people around me - particularly if that “me” feels slighted, ignored, not taken seriously or manipulated in any way. What usually follows is that I see myself judging and behaving rudely to those closest to me. In these moments it seems that I am completely identified with my “self” again. The clarity and peace and calm appear to have gone.

This is mortifying because these are my most treasured and beloved friends.

Could you say something about this?

Love

Anupam

Dear Anupam,

The fact that you see this tsunami of “me-ness” means that you are already, at least to a large extent, free of it. Likewise, the fact that you say “I see myself judging….” means that you already standing as the one who sees rather than the one who judges. It is important that the one that sees the judging doesn’t start judging what it sees, otherwise it ceases being a seer and becomes a judger. So see this tsunami of ‘me-ness’ like you see a tsunami on the TV – with interest but uninvolved.

The ‘I’ that is at the center of this tsunami wants one thing only – your involvement, either by indulging it or trying to get rid of it. That ‘I’ doesn’t really mind whether it is indulged or rejected – it thrives on the attention it receives in both cases. So be sure not to be involved with this separate ‘I’ - neither for nor against.

If you have said or done hurtful things to those nearest to you, simply apologize and let it go. In your heart you know that no one is responsible for doing or saying such things, nor is there an entity on the other side being hurt. However, it is usually not appropriate to say this to them. Just hold this understanding in your heart and apologise when necessary, learn from the lesson and move on, free of guilt, blame or judgment.

If it happens again, thank God in your heart for providing another opportunity for you to see these little remnants of the sense of separation, the old habits of thinking, feeling, acting and relating on behalf of a separate inside self, apologize again if necessary and move on.

Don’t see this as a failure. On the contrary, see it as an opportunity to deepen your understanding and, above all, as a way of really incorporating this understanding in your day to day life.

Above all no guilt, no blame, no judgment – that is just more of the separate self!

Much love,

Rupert

Hi Rupert,

I have a short question for you…how do you conciliate the absolute point of view with the relative one? I mean, does the knowledge that there is no world except visual perceptions or no body except sensations, feelings etc, exclude the possibility of Libya or France, or exclude the possibility of a headache or a cancer (and consider them instead) as purely conceptual? But if I say there is no world, I suggest at the same time that there is a world, if I say there is no Rupert, I suggest that there is a Rupert! My question is: do the the two perspective meet each other or would you say that there is definitely no Rupert or Jérôme?

Thank you for your answer!

Jérôme, sorry, no Jérôme!

Dear Jérôme,

I would not try to reconcile the absolute and relative points of view, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as an absolute point of view. Nor, in fact, is there any such thing as a relative point of view except from the imaginary position of a relative point of view. In other words, the relative is in the view; it doesn’t have a view!

The Absolute is absolute precisely because it doesn’t have a point of view. That is, it doesn’t view things, objects, events etc. from a point or a place. In fact, things are only things, objects are only objects, events are only events, headaches are only headaches, Rupert is only Rupert and Jérôme is only Jérôme from the limited point of view of an imaginary centre of perception, otherwise know as the separate self.

And this, of course, includes the separate self! In other words, the separate self is only a separate self from the imaginary point of view of the separate self! The Absolute, which is just another name for the true and only Self, knows nothing of such apparent things.

You, the Absolute, doesn’t see things, places, people, events etc., as such, because all these – that is, outside objects – are only seen as such from the point of view of an imaginary inside self.

The Absolute is so utterly, intimately one with all these apparent things that it cannot separate itself out from them and know them as ‘something.’ It is so utterly intimate with experience that it cannot know it as something other than itself. That is why ‘I,’ the Absolute, pure intimacy and experience are all synonymous and, ultimately, un-nameable. ‘Love’ is perhaps as close as words come because in love there is not the slightest trace of otherness or separation.

In other words, for the Absolute, which means for your Self, there are no things there in the first place to be utterly intimate with. There are simply ‘not two things’ - a-dvaita.

However, as soon as we try to name what that is, we are back in the world of duality where something is ‘one’ as opposed to ‘two,’ ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing,’ ‘being’ as opposed to ‘not being’ etc. In other words, without the idea of ‘two,’ the idea of ‘one’ cannot stand. No ‘two,’ no ‘one.’

That is why the ancients, in their wisdom and humility, called this Non-Duality rather than Oneness. To say it is ‘not-two’ is more correct than saying it is ‘one,’ although both statements are, ultimately, untrue.

It other words, things, events, objects, France, Libya, headaches, cancer, Rupert and Jérôme etc. are all for the imaginary point of view of the separate entity. In fact, that’s precisely what the separate entity is – a point of view.

For the Absolute or the Self, there is just itself. It is only thought that superimposes selves, objects, people, places etc. onto the raw, intimate, un-nameable, ever-present reality of pure Being.

So back to your questions now: “Do the the two perspective meet each other?” If you insist that there are two things, one, reality and, two, illusion, then the best we can say is that Awareness is all that they share – Awareness is where they meet. It is all they have in common. But that answer is a concession to the belief that there really is a real illusion. Once it is seen that illusion is an illusion, the question no longer makes sense. Only reality remains….this very experience here and now, shining with the light of your own presence alone.

And two, “Would you say that there is definitely no Rupert or Jérôme?” There is no Rupert or Jérôme as they are normally conceived to be, that is, as bodies and minds that have their own reality, independent of Awareness. Such a reality is non-existent. It exists only as the thought that thinks it.

However, there is a reality to every thought, sensation and perception (including those that are normally considered to be ‘Rupert’ or ‘Jérôme’) and that is your Self. In other words, if ‘Rupert’ and ‘Jérôme’ are the names we give to our Self, Awareness, then they refer to that which is real. If they refer to a body and mind that is considered to have its own independent reality, they refer to an illusion.

In fact, the same could be said of all names and nouns: if they refer to objects, people, places and events, they refer, as such, to an illusion. However, if they refer to the reality of the apparent objects, people, places and events, then each of these words is itself one of the many names of the Absolute and, as such, points towards the ever-present reality of all experience, otherwise known as your Self – Jérôme!

With love,

Rupert