Episode 36: Jamie Robson

Hi Rupert, how are you? Hi Simon, good to see you again, very well, thanks. Good, lovely to see you two. Jamie, how are you? Good, thank you. Nice to meet you both.

Lovely to meet you two. Um so I better start actually by introducing myself. So my name is Simon Mundy and I'm really just here as a layman of sorts to facilitate a conversation between Rupert, who I'm sure all of you who are listening are very familiar with, and Jamie, who I'm sure some of you are familiar with, but perhaps not quite as many.

So the best place to start really is an introduction to you if that's all right, Jamie. So Let's start by digging into your story and how you arrived here with your interest both in acting but non-dualism, how very much you're interested in Rupert's work in particular. But let's start way back when when you were a wee lad, raised in a small country village by your father, you've told me previously that you were a bit of a loner and film was your companion.

Yes, so I I I grew up with my dad. He raised me and uh circumstances were such that I I I did spend quite a lot of time alone and a a a companion, as you say, was film and television and cinema. It was a source of Adventure, information, culture, and education. I didn't enjoy school. I didn't do terribly well at school. So I did glean a lot from uh film and television. It was a a a source of companionship and comfort and uh uh optimism.

I've read that you spent a lot of time at your local video shop. Were you its most frequent visitor? Yeah, I'd say so. There was a little uh shop in the village called Music and Movies and uh I developed a friendship with the owner, but it had this really old musty smell and these old VHS cassettes and so I just go in and

fill my arms or fill a bag and he'd let me borrow stuff or r higher rent stuff that maybe was older than I was at the time. So yeah, I saw a lot of very diverse spectrum of film. And quite old films, classics, some foreign films. And yeah, it was uh a little Aladdin's cave for me. So even at that point did you have a hunch that acting and film was where you wanted to go? No, no, not at all. No, I I left school early. Uh

Again, with next to no education, I was working on a building site one day and stared out into the void and wondered what the hell I'm gonna do with my life. And uh the only thing that was a constant source of pleasure and enjoyment was film and television. So I thought maybe I'll be a a a filmmaker. So I scraped and cheated my way into a a college in Glasgow to study i film making. But uh

Several months in I realised it wasn't for me. And in a new city, in a new s environment, I became more aware of facets of myself that I wanted to polish.

So you say uh facets of yourself that you wanted to polish. Is that another way of sort of saying that you there was a certain amount of internal disquiet and you were looking for answers about reasons for why you felt a certain way, insecurity, anxiety, etcetera? Yeah, nothing overtly unique to myself, but yeah, just uh

quite an apparent social anxiety, you know, maybe some emotional blockages from childhood. Just a a feeling of not fully baked, like n just you know, n looking back, a lack of metacognition and uh a number of coping mechanisms and I'd sort of dabbled in solutions earlier, you know, I'd explored yoga and judo and read books of meditation, but it was all local. My dad would drive me to a judo class in the next village. I would go to the library and find books on yoga or meditation.

But when I was in Glasgow and I tried filmmaking and it didn't work, that's when I threw myself into for ten years and travelled the world. And then I I focused on going to learn with different teachers and masters and different disciplines from martial arts, spiritual systems, meditation techniques, Tai Chi, Qigong, uh meeting various people, Sufis, From the mountains of Costa Rica to the jungles of Borneo. And there was always a dissatisfaction.

And so you say you spent the best part of a decade studying Tai Chi to martial arts to yoga to I mean, you name it, you've done it, right? Yes, studying breathing techniques with Russian breathmasters and Learning things from former Svetnats members, the Versian military, Qigong, Tai Chi, other martial arts, various spiritual disciplines, Buddhism, Taoism, and uh and uh later slightly more less discuss things like uh hesychasm from Christian mysticism and uh Sufism.

Are you familiar with all of those things, Rupert? Oh yes, I'm sure it is. I'm familiar with the later things, not some of the more esoteric martial arts, but but but yes, Hesychasm and that kind of thing, yes. Yes. Okay. Jamie, when did you come across or become immersed in or become interested in non duality specifically? Lee.

Although of course when you look back you realise that the term the Tao can be replaced with God or nature or awareness. Um again a lot of that understanding is thanks to Rupert but um I could if I could interrupt Jimmy, you you you're not old enough to say you came across non duality late.

Okay, that's good. Okay, I'll accept that. But yeah, it it was later. Like I said, looking back, perhaps I was aware of ingredients through other sort of filters, but what attracted me is the sort of less cultural baggage.

I was often put off by the cultural bells and whistles or confused and then subsequently put off by cultural bells and whistles that need to maybe learn an ancient language or follow a particular uh ceremonial protocol or to dismiss other approaches just because this one's quite defensive.

It's an i ironic now when you read the I watched an interview with Rupert recently and uh is it Shantenos Shantenas Sabini? Sabadini. Yeah. Who seems a lovely man and uh the classic the the Dao that can be described is not the Tao or

It's ironic that people get attached to the word Taoism or or the bells and whistles around it. So yeah, no, I was really struck with non dualism and and then I started to kind of look at different sources of information and that's how I eventually found Just a little side note, something I think quite reassuring, and a lot of people will be able to relate to you on this front, is that struggling to some degree with a bit of insecurity, dissatisfaction, malaise, whatever it is, and all its forms

can end up being a gift because it can often lead us to the spiritual path. And that's what happened with you. Rupert I want to ask you, was your own spiritual quest was it born of any internal disquiet for you? Yes, v v v very much so, although not it wasn't um any particular um situation or or circumstance. But but but yes, it was really born of the of the desire to um find a a a source of lasting peace and happiness.

It it but came uh uh c fairly early on in my my early twenties, although I had been on a spiritual path for some years before this, but Really b b by the age of twenty one or twenty two it had become completely clear to me that to to invest One's desire for peace and happiness in anything objective w was destined for failure and disappointment. And so th this question, in what can we find happiness, where does happiness lie? What is the source of happiness?

this formulated itself in my mind quite quite early on. Wasn't there a case of having your heart broken that was quite foundational? Yes, I think that was That that was really the event if I was to attribute although as I say I had been I had learnt to meditate and I was studying the classical at Vitam teaching for some five years or so before this during my

really from my mid teens onwards. But it was y it was yes, when a a relationship the first ever real relationship that that I had in in i in in my um my naivety, I thought we were just going to, you know, have four children and live happily ever after together. And it was when that relationship came very abruptly and suddenly to an end that th that I was just faced with this. just stark fact that I had invested my entire happiness i in in

i in the objective content of experience in in in this case a relationship. And it uh finished on the phone in a two minute phone call. And I of course as I said, I had projected this relationship really forward for the rest of my life. and and my my future happiness w was w was kind of crafted around my vision for this relationship. And it just uh ended so abruptly that I was just left staring this this this stark

in the face. You you have allowed your happiness to be to be dependent on, in this case, on someone, and this relationship it can just end in a moment. In my case it was a a two-minute phone call. And that this was although I'd been deeply interested in these matters, I had already learnt mantra meditation, as I say, I was exploring the the non dual teaching in the classical Advaita.

Vedanta tradition, but this was this this incident really injected intensity and passion into something that was already a a deep interest. Yeah.

You say often that most of the people, if not all of the people there, are brought there because of a search for lasting happiness. Almost all people. Two questions. One, what is the nature of reality? And the second, how may I find lasting peace and happiness? I used to say that twenty percent came through the first channel, which is more philosophical, what is the nature of reality? There's and the eighty percent come through the second, which is more

uh driven but by feeling, by emotion. How can I be happy? How can I find lasting happiness? I I think now after writing and speaking about these matters for twelve years or so, I would say ninety percent of through some feeling of dissatisfaction, some feeling of suffering. uh some feeling as you say o of of disquiet and say five percent m ph philosophically what is the nature of reality?

So yes, I think almost everyone's uh spiritual uh search is initiated by the desire to find lasting happiness. And most people don't seek lasting happiness un unless they are miserable, unless they are unhappy, unless they have unless they have tried for a number of years to find happiness. in the world. That's why a lot of people It's actually changing I think now. But let's say at least until recently why a lot of people came to the non dual

approach f fairly late. Most of us tried everything else first. Objects, substances, activities, special states of mind, relationships. And when all of these things failed, um often enough, then we get to the position that the that the prodigal son was in. We we we we've tried everything, nothing there's nothing else on offer in in the world, and that leads us either to despair

as it does in some cases, or it causes us to to turn around or a chance meeting or we we come across a book and we we we get um introduced to this approach. And it is for this reason that The Shankarya, my first teacher, he used to tell a a story which you probably both know. um heard me uh speak of before the uh one of his um disciples, a woman called Kunti, who had one prayer in life. Lord, please give me some adversity, because it is only in adversity that I remember you.

Uh and that is of course spoken in religious language, but if we were tr to translate that into Contemporary terms uh um in response to your question, Simon, is it not some form of disquiet that brings us to this to this understanding? Yes, that that the

Uh we we could say that I I'm not sure that we would pray for some form of suffering, but but certainly that when we are suffering, it is only when we are suffering that we are motivated to ask the deeper questions of life. What is this all about? It is not just about providing pleasure for the senses. What am I really here for? What's the meaning of love? How can I really be happy? And for the vast majority of us, suffering causes us to ask

There's something reassuring then, is there not about that fact that suffering can actually ultimately lead to happiness? Yes, reassuring i if we are uh fortunate enough at that moment to come in contact with someone or something that helps us to use our suffering. positive, creative way, n namely to to begin to explore. Uh wh who is it that suffers when I say I am miserable instead of getting deeply involved in the misery to explore but but who

Who am I? Who is the self that is suffering? That I'm always if I'm not lonely, I'm upset, and if I'm not upset, I'm tired, and if I'm not tired, I'm exercis Who Who is this one that always stands at the heart of my suffering? So yes, i if we're lucky enough.

uh d during our suffering to meet someone or something that helps us to orientate ourselves with respect to our suffering in in a positive, creative way. Because if we don't, Unless of course it happens spontaneously, which very, very occasionally does happen, but for a lot of people that that don't come across this possibility, suffering can can just lead to to despair.

So y you use the word luck and fortune. On the one hand, obviously it can propel you to be like I have to find an answer whereas another might be to either wallow in it or like you say be stuck in despair. Is that luck? No, Simon. I'm just using common parlance to to to

to to to find a word for for something really that that we don't understand. Why is it that uh two people um, two siblings, for for instance, brought up in the same family, the same parents, the same circumstance, the same education. the same background and so on. But b both suffer more or less equally. One of them becomes deeply interested i in uh spiritual matters, um begins to investigate the nature of their self, m s engages in some

form of meditation or practice and another becomes a dru drug addict and and lives in despair. How can we account for this without building a whole model of past lives and and so when I say luck and fortune i it it's really just a A mystery. finds themselves passionately interested in these matters, and another person who is possibly brought up by parents who who are deeply interested in these matters has no interest in them at all. We don't really understand.

It's very interesting the word suffering, because obviously as Rupert teaches often, it's the result of resistance.

The suffering is a resistance to r random thoughts and feelings. And there's sometimes a risk of someone trying to control thoughts or feelings, or suppress thoughts or feelings, or change thoughts or feelings. rather than to, as Rupert often teaches, to to welcome them or surrender to them or to recognize or legitimize them. So when the energy of resistance is pulled out of the equation

If not none, then there's far less suffering as a result. So yeah, it's interesting if we take the conversation towards creativity. And uh what I thought your question earlier, that's why maybe I was rambling uh or vague was Is there a benefit in having trauma or difficulty or challenges in life?

Is it a necessity or a benefit in regards to becoming a creative person or an artist? Again, Rupert often talks about it's not about going away to a cave and disappearing in a sort of non-dualistic bliss.

It's about to use my own language crudely, it's about sort of sorting yourself out and then coming back like the the famous Zen Ox drawings, coming back to the village with the hands open to to come back down from the mountain and w of more uh uh usefulness in in in society or in your family at least.

So again it's not necessarily to remove the the activity of thoughts or feelings because especially as an actor I need to engage with them in a way I'm paid to go into the into the gutter of of the human experience and and I'm paid to temporarily identify with things that maybe in my own personal life, if I'm sat in the sofa or going for a walk along the river. I'll let go of in order to abide in what uh is described as awareness.

Both your stories in fact, because there is a little parallel. Jamie, you spent ten years galavancing round the globe, studying with various masters, but you came back and you didn't feel like you'd quite cracked it. And the same is true of you, Rupert. I know that obviously you spent a long time doing meditation with the study society, etc. etc. And then the key moment for you, Rupert, as I'm sure anyone who follows your work knows, is obviously when you met your teacher, Francis Lucille.

And that's when you were able from that point to make this teaching your own. Whereas for you, Jamie, the key moment actually for you was when you acted. Yeah. Yeah, so I I've got a very close friend Peter Marsden, uh who's a filmmaker, a very talented one, and because I was quite physical and had a background in boxing and martial arts, whatever He'd asked me to come on to a music video that he was directing.

And uh it was predominantly just doing some pad work, some bag work, some shadow boxing and generally generally trying to look like a boxer. But there was quite a budget and the the musician was quite well known and there was other actors involved, so there was some pressure there.

On the last day there was a scene where Peter had just turned around and said, Well, Okay, so this is the scene where your coach is murdered and you have to be upset, you know, you might need to cry or indulge your emotions or you have to Go and attend to him and then he dies and uh you're really upset and you you have to do this and do that. And you ha basically I had to ask.

And I could feel everything that I thought I had come to grips with through previous attempts, you know, martial arts, spirituality, religious disciplines. esoteric, mystical practises. Gawd. I was back to completely naked and vulnerable and at the mercy of... these energies which have uh impeded me in in some shape or form. And uh At that moment, I knew I was facing my real opponent. I was immediately aware of my sort of psychological front line, the battlefield. And uh

For some reason, I think because I didn't want to embarrass myself or let Pete down, I I'd stepped off the cliff and I I'd I I committed to the scene and uh it went well. Pete was pleased and I was hooked, addicted immediately. I realized that was my path, acting. It became not out of a need for fame or fortune. There's far quicker ways to get famous or rich.

It was out of a selfish need. This was the process of which I would find relief from the things that hold me back or burden me or make life a bit more difficult than it needs to be. And that was it. So so there was there was something about Peter's invitation that both provoked uh a resistance in you.

But also gave you the opportunity to, as you say, jump off the cliff, go, go, go, go through that resistance and and and live and act from a place that was not dictated by it. Exactly. That must have been totally liberated. E exactly. Immediately and with That that your resistance didn't have power over you unless you colluded with it. But in this moment because as you say you didn't want to let Peter down, you you you didn't collude with it. You you pushed through it and then you were in this

open space of acting where where your resistance was not dictating to you. And that's accompanied by such joy because you are liberated from the resistance, which is the activity of the ego. So in that moment you you were living, even though you were acting, you you were acting miserable, you were in joy, even though you were acting miserable because you were liberated from the tyranny of resistance, which means the tyranny of the ego in yourself.

Jamie, what would have happened, do you think, if you'd been asked to or been told that they wanted you to act that morning as opposed to just before you actually did it? I'd have made some excuse, I'd have uh told a white lie, I'd have done everything I could.

W if I on paper and it you wouldn't think I was drawn to acting. Like I said, uh I grew up with Some degree of social anxiety, a relative loner, not not a necessarily a quiet a weird mix of introvert and extrovert, which perhaps everyone is, but Just not an overtly outgoing or gregarious or the type of person that you'd think all the things that perhaps challenged me if on paper were like well that's acting's not his path. But I realize now that I tend to go towards what's difficult. Like

Instead of going toward what's easy, like I had a fear of confrontation. I was bullied when I was younger. had a subsequent fear of confrontation and perhaps violence. So what did I do? I learned martial arts, you know. So acting was the same. I realized that on paper I would be a terrible actor because I'm self conscious and sub social anxiety and uh

you know, I'm not known, have no background in being bravura or or or or gregarious. So I'll become an actor and it'll heal me. It'll become my spiritual path, my spiritual process. Yes. A quote of yours, uh I'm doing it from memory here. Acting is the greatest catharsis, the greatest spiritual process. Was that your quote, Jim? Yeah.

Like I wouldn't speak on behalf of other people, but for me, yeah, because um it's a chance to both fully immerse yourself in the human experience but at the same time through a sort of metacognition step back from it, you know, so there's very much an on and off, you know, you we can get technical later, but there's a sort of starting from a position of awareness and then drawing lots of circles to use a Rupert analogy. And then finishing in a you know, a p a place of awareness.

Just a final thing before we leap into my discomfort zone around art and acting specifically, another similarity between the two of you I've noticed is Jamie, you have embraced the fact that you're not professionally trained as it were as an actor. No. first time it's been said live. It was a dirty secret for a long time because I worried that I'd be judged as incapable or not deserving or not worthy in certain circles.

Rupert, for you as well, you are a teacher. I know you don't call yourself that, but that's how a lot of people see you. You don't have a a qualification in non duality on your uh the wall of your study in Oxford. Because we live in a time where the importance of having letters after your name or a qualification or whatever you've done your three years, you've done radar, whatever it may be, it's held in such high

stock. Yet here we are with two of you. Rupert as someone who is a spiritual teacher of the very highest caliber. And Jamie someone whose acting career is absolutely starting to soar. Yet actually neither of you have any formal qualifications. Y yes, well I don't know that there are any such qualifications in i in my field. It's not something that you can train.

formally for and and and get a certificate. Although although there there is a a kind of informal apprenticeship that I certainly did for many, many years, for thirty years, thirty five years before I ever wrote or said a word about

these matters, but it was not in any way a formal training and certainly didn't lead to any kind of formal qualification. But you're right, some and even now, as you say, uh I'm I would never refer to myself as a teacher, other people refer to me as that and I I I understand why, but but I've never had the desire to to be a teacher, nor do I really consider what I'm doing now.

as teaching. But you're right about the lack of formal qualification. In fact a a very well respected, well known um academic journal commissioned me recently to write a a paper on on consciousness, on the on the nature of personal identity and and consciousness. So so I I wrote the paper and it was rejected For on on two grounds. One, that I don't have the requisite formal qualifications, and two, that I don't have a a a large body of work behind me.

Well, of course I I wrote back very politely to the editor, Why did you commission the article in the first place? You knew you knew, you know, who who I am, what I do, i i if you require. all your writers to have a PhD in philosophy, if you think that that's what qualifies them to to understand the nature of consciousness, then or or and if you don't consider

seven or eight books and ten ten years or thirty five years of in actually forty five years now of intense study, introspection on these matters. If you don't consider that s sufficient qualification w why did you commission the article to to begin with? So I I don't come across this in in in the world that I tend to.

operating but but as soon as I go just at one step out that anyway towards academia, then I'm just simply not qualified. Why? Because I don't have a PhD in philosophy. As if a PhD in philosophy couldn't tell you anything whatsoever about the nature of consciousness. Yes. And I think this is my point. People are obsessed with things like PhDs and which school you've been to. But in my experience, speaking to some psychologists or whatever it may be, it can be somewhat limiting actually.

I was just interested to what degree you think perhaps there is an overemphasis on those type of things. I think with regards to drama school, which I I I don't want to sound derogatory about, obviously it's a respected and old institution, but many actors are capable despite their training, not because of their training. And there is a risk of them being like a jelly mould.

If you're lucky enough to formulate your own process in any creative pursuit, you're more likely to retain what makes you unique.

But it for me it was a big thing to to say publicly. So I I I think I know the interview you're referencing, uh, Simon, and that was the first time I'd said that I hadn't been trained that I was self taught because I was I was terrified of being, oh, don't cast him or don't take him seriously or he's never gonna go beyond a certain point'cause he's not obviously I'm well past that now. Rupert, do you have a take on that and what Jamie just said there about jelly moulding in particular?

I see exactly why Jamie mentioned this in relation to drama school and But I think in the field that I'm the field of non duality, there's no formal schooling, there are no programmes, or of course th there there are traditions, the Buddhist tradition, the Zen tradition, the the Kashmir tradition and and so on. And each one has their associated practices, uh, language, etcetera.

But I don't think that they produce people that that are of a certain mould in the same way that someone going through a particular training at at drama school has gone through all the same exercises, the same voice coaching. I I I don't think that's the the case with non duality. Of course you could uh to a certain extent you could say there are there's a certain mindset that comes with the traditions.

in my tradition, as you know, that the I use the word I or self, God. I use these words these terms very freely. Uh in the Buddhist tradition they don't like the word I or self. Um, nothing wrong with either of those two two perspectives, but there's either of those two uses of of language, but each tradition or lineage has its own particular uh idiosyncrasies and and and but I don't think the traditions churn out a kind of standard product, a standard type of person or

But do you think and sorry to labor the point here, but that society's obsession to some degree with qualifications or pieces of paper or you've come from this school, you've learnt this way of thinking, etcetera. means that we're missing out to some degree on a portion of wisdom that society could benefit from. I do, uh but I don't want to uh um

I don't want to imply that that qualifications are therefore not valid. Of of course they are. You know, neither of us would want to go to um a doctor or a dentist. Um uh who did not have the the the appropriate qualifications and had not gone through the training and had had not been tested. by the system to ensure that that their theoretical knowledge w w was actually informing their practical application of it. So th there is a a a a very real need for qualifications testing.

But at the same time, yes, academia is a very it's a very narrow mindset. And it's difficult for for for new radical ideas to penetrate that mindset. It's a very well fortified mindset. It has its own kind of internal logic that it uses to defend its own parameters and makes it impervious. to outside ideas. I I was talking uh I I won't mention any names, but but certainly you, Simon, perhaps both of you have heard this interview with with with a well known public um speaker.

uh a and um uh a a popular podcaster and and and um influencer. And I I was s basically s suggesting to him this this consciousness only model, the I the idea that basically consciousness is is the ultimate reality, which is not, as you both well know, a new idea.

It was at least three thousand years older, if not older. And at one stage in in the um he was trained as a needless to say, a a philosopher, a neuroscientist, and he said to me at one stage, Rupert, where do you get your highfalutin ideas from? His very well reasoned, well reasoned within a very narrow field, his very well-reasoned argument was just impervious. She just could it blinded him to another possibility that maybe consciousness was not a product of matter.

I and could just possibly be the the ultimate reality. He just just could not see it. And and not only that, he was he was dismissive, y almost disdainful. I mean, you know. is what he asked me how where do you get your highfalutin ideas from? And that was a you know, this was a public talk. He knew that tens of thousands of people were getting here and it was a kind of public put down. He w he was sort of you know, he was mocking.

and th was bringing well reasoned what he considered to be real well reasoned arguments, but well reasoned arguments chosen from a very narrow field and it's a pretty impervious war.

The problem o is often one of nuance or lack of. As he said, there are some qualifications and and certificates and uh educational institutes which are essential, such as a brain surgeon or a dentist. But beyond that, surprisingly people that are have quite a staunch grip on the value of a certificate They fail to just check outside those boundaries in case there's a bigger story or a different story. So, for example, a lot of drama school material is based on the work of Stanislav.

Well Stanislavsky never taught acting. His principles were applied sporadically as a director of theatre. But he never taught acting. He did once go to Paris and allowed people to watch him direct. I think that's where Stella Adler met him in his later life. But he never taught acting. And a lot of actors are associated with the Russian system from Stanislavsky or the subsequent American spin-off called the method, and it is used as a an obstacle course. over two or three year period.

But if you actually ask a lot of actors, do they actually use any of it when it comes to the crunch? The answer's no, and this is what I like about Rupert's teaching. both allow you to indulge a vast landscape of Information. But at the same time, whenever you s put the book down because you want to practice, you know how to do it.

There's always a summary, there's there's a constant conclusion, consolidation. Effectively what what Rupert teaches could be written on the back of a stamp and that is made apparent. And that means that you can easily transition between theory and practice. And it's the same as an actor. Act there are actors that have a sort of metaphysical, pseudo-spiritual interpretation of the process. can sometimes go off, can float off into the atmosphere

If you're a busy working actor, it has to be applicable like that. You get a call sheet at nine o'clock at night in your hotel, or tomorrow we're gonna shoot scenes XYZ. You have the scenes, you read them the dialogue, you read the scenes. You're collected the next morning at six AM. You're on set with a coffee, saying hello to people, catching up with friends. Uh the director wants you to do makeup, costume, uh a rehearsal and you're in, you're on, you're acting.

you can't like be too ceremonial or s too ritualistic or too specific in your requirements because you're not gonna work if you if you're a busy, consistent and for me that's what really impresses me with uh Rupert approach to it as a teacher is I always feel that I know what to do. It's why you've got to be careful before you make your bed or or or plant your flag because if you do it without you doing your research.

uh and you get sort of protective over it, you could be trapped inside something that's insufficient. And it's why I'm glad that it took me a while to find Rupert and that I found I I developed my own process as an actor because otherwise I might be a staunch defendant of Stanislavsky or the method or other approaches. Uh rather than being constantly open. I'm glad you say that, Jamie, the the close relation between the theory and the and the practice. And I think the the reason for that.

Is because that the theory or the or the lines of reasoning that I speak or write about, they're not drawn from abstract thought, from other lines of reasoning. They're drawn from experience. In fact, this was the answer I gave to this. Gentleman who asked me where do you get your high volutant ideas from? I said for a combination of um introspection and reason.

So all the the theory, for want of a better word, if you take the um the book The Nature of Consciousness, w which is there's quite a lot of r reasoning in it, but the reasoning comes direct from experience. It doesn't come because I've read some philosopher and I'm arguing with him or addressing a an objection that some the the the reasoning it's what um at Monando Christian Menon referred to as higher reasoning, by which he meant reasoning that that is derived directly from experience.

rather than reasoning that comes from other lines of abstract reasoning. So I I'm very happy to hear, Jamie, that that when you read even even a book that may be or a passage that that may be a line of reasoning, that it's very close. to your actual experience. Yes.

This cabinet here from Stanislavski to David Mamet to Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and blah blah blah. And none of it And what I decided to do was analyse my experience as an actor. So in my early experiences, what is it that I struggle with? What For me acting is about a removal of impediments, not about I I didn't find answers in other people's So I try to break down okay what are the Right, uh ready? And then an act.

That's such an ugly transition from a beautiful state of naturalism into some sort of performance. I I aspire to sliding seamlessly into the net You know, if I'm talking to a gaffer here with a cup of coffee and someone says, You're on, Jamie, I can just put the cup down, turn and start doing like we do in life. Like if my better half walks in right now, I'll just deal with that. Or if the camera goes off.

Seamless transitions from one moment to the next. So I invented this word. I think it's not in the dictionary. Maybe it's in the dictionary, but non-restructuring. So I non restructure. I don't want to restructure before the scene. I'm sat here chilled, either closing my eyes or reading a book or drinking a coffee. Maybe I'm on my mark, so um it's a scene at a table.

Cameras there, there's another cast member there, we're chatting about the weather, and then the director's in and out checking things. And finally they'll say action and I'll just carry on. I won't act we gotta go? Are we gonna are we gonna okay one second. Okay, ready. Like no, that's not for what I aspire to as an actor, because I don't want to be like that as a human.

I feel exactly the same way about what I do. If you were to tell me, Okay, in two minutes time, Rupert, you're addressing an audience of a thousand people. If you told me I was doing it in twenty seconds time. I would just go, Okay, that's fine. Just slide into it exactly as you say. I would just go from having a conversation with you two to Okay, it's a thousand people. there wouldn't really be a transition. It would just be an extension of what I'm doing all the time. Yeah.

In one way when you're talking to two friends, you'll do it another way when you're talking to a thousand people that you never met before. But but it's the same It's the same quality all the s all the time. Nothing really changes. There's no performance. I think, you know, in both what Jamie and I are doing, there's a certain amount you can train for in Jamie in your world though there are there are techniques and everything.

uh obviously in in my world I you know you can study, you can learn the scriptures, etc. But but it's really th in in a way that that that's what we learn on a horizontal plane, but really to do well what we're both doing, and it really goes for any art form. Yes, you have to study on a horizontal level, but it it's really the depth. That informs what you do. Simon you know this in sports as well, but in the arts, you can be brilliant.

technically you can study a great deal. That doesn't necessarily make you very good at what you do. There's this it in the it's the depth you bring and depth that that really qualifies what you do and and that is what as an actor, tha that's what is really communicated. And and that I don't think you can

I don't think you can train for that. It it's the depth of your understanding, your your deep humanity that you bring to bear on every part you play, and that's what has the power to communicate something to your audience. And I think it's exactly the same in what I do as well. If if you know I I I could read all of Ramana Mahashi and Atmananda and and be able to recite it all. That that would not qualify me to be good at

Doing what I'm doing. I think this is true in but it's especially true in the arts, what we're speaking of. It's really them the depth. Yeah. That informs whatever it is one has has learnt and studied on a horizontal.

When you say the depth, do you mean the degree to which you make it your own? The degree to which you fully live it yourself? I think it's partly that, but it's also one's one's understanding, one's sensitivity that informs in acting informs the role you play. thinking, Jamie, of you having to act.

the feeling of sorrow where y where your coach I think you said your coach had just died or been murdered. Now anybody can fake a feeling of sorrow, but how are you going to really communicate the depth of that experience wordlessly? to an audience. Okay, you probably learn at acting school how to cry when you don't particularly feel like

that that will just produce a good or mediocre performance. But if you're going to touch people's hearts, you've got to be able to do more than just turn on the tears when you're feeling sad or quote Ramana Mahashi in response to that. It it's got to Yn yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n. That people...

So it it's this depth and experience and understanding that is required to really touch people's hearts. That can't be learned. For me, what you're discussing there is guiding the audience through a transition from one of passive sympathy Two active empathy. Exactly. Yes. Yes. Um because some actors that maybe I I don't rate that much do pride themselves in something at being able to cry on cue. But first of all, it's not true. You're just making your eyes water effectively.

But also the human experience and the the exchange of humanity between people, c language, cor communication is so complex. Nuanced from body language to micro expressions to breath pattern to interaction with the environment. You've got to respect the audience. Everyone has a firm grasp of communication and If you want to really move the audience towards something similar to a state of awe, then it's not necessarily about indulging emotions, it's about battling emotions.

If you watch me indulge. an emotion right now and I'm crying and I'm blowing my nose and and like there is an element of embarrassment because you would say, Oh God, Jamie, okay, do you want us to like um pause and maybe do this tomorrow or whatever? Where if I told you a story about a family member who helped raise me, and uh my voice starts to crack and I I resist I I Fight back tears rather than squeeze out tears.

That stirs something in us. You know, have you ever seen a man being interviewed in the news when his house is burned down and maybe something someone's died in the in the fire? And he's trying to keep on a a brave face and he's trying to you know, hold back the tears in order to do this interview with the it's it moves you far more than someone indulging emotions. And um that's a paradox. But paradox again is part of what we're talking about.

Oh too, that's uh very fascinating because clearly acting is an art and I would describe you both as artists. Rupert obviously you were a potter and I would not describe myself as one. So it's slightly acting, I would say, as I've said to Jamie on numerous conversations goes over my head. But What you've just said there actually really resonates with me a lot. But following on from that theme, Rupert, what makes a good acting performance as far as you're concerned?

First thing I want to say, Simon, is that the first time we have to do that. I don't think you should deny the the artist in yourself. You know, you spent a lot of time interviewing people. And and I'm sure you've also watched Lousy Inter listen to Lousy Interviewers. I consider i interviewing is is a it it's an art.

You you you had two people i in front of you. You and I know each other a little bit, Simon uh uh Simon, but you didn't know neither of us knew you, Jamie. I know you've had a few comb conversations, but we we uh we don't know each other well. Let's put it like like that. And yet you want to have a conversation that that does you don't don't want to just talk about where we were born and where we went to school. To draw something out of our heart.

You can't learn that at journalism school or that's a a real art. Where to intervene, where to step back, the very pertinent question, not too personal but a little I mean the It's an art form, Simon. What what what d don't don't say oh you two are artists and I'm not an artist and uh I would say you you are an artist and like like all

art forms. They can be refined and refined and refined and it's really the depth of our sensitivity that refines our art form. All all three of us, we're we're reasonably eloquent, we're articulate and everything but but that's so we don't need to go to voice school, but it's the depth of our understanding and sensitivity and empathy that that is going to really polish our three respective art forms. Anyway, sorry, that that was a

That's a very kind thing to say, Rupert. I just want to express my gratitude'cause I'd never I'd never thought of it in those terms, you know. I just sort of think of art as Whether it be pottery or painting or acting, those kind of things. I'd never thought of it in those terms.

Yeah, just one other thing to say about that. I I understand why you say that, Simon, because you're you're you're you're a genuinely humble person. But you have to be careful about being self-deprecating, because i if you say, Oh, what I do is not I Then what you do won't be able. So you know, we limit our ourselves with the ideas we have about ourselves.

So and I I don't mean to suggest you should go around saying you you you're a great artist, but yes, of course there's a natural humility that many people feel we don't like to put ourselves up and and and that isn't inverted egotism. It it's genuine humility. But at the same time We should be careful not to have limiting ideas about ourselves, because we will limit ourselves. Sorry, I've now forgotten what your question was.

My c my actually my my question just was what makes for you, following on from what Jamie was saying? What makes for you a good acting performance? What do you think constitutes a really great actor or actress? I think a great actor or actress is able to take you to a place in yourself. that you weren't able to go on your own. Not just to.

To press your button and re evoke the childhood wound, uh the upset you caused when your relationship fell apart. No no, I'm not I don't mean to criticize that that that's a valid thing to do. A good actor can do that. But a great actor or a great actress. I think their purpose is the role they serve, like like any great artist.

in society is to take us to a place in ourselves w which is in ourself, but that we were not able to get to on our own. That's the service a great actor or actress or or indeed artist does, a g a great musician. does for humanity. Um and I went this weekend to hear um Imogen Cooper.

playing uh the Beethoven Diabelli variations, which he wrote right at the end of his life in a in a in a local church here, s solo piano. And it's just the power, the power of that music and and the power the way she played it and the way she involved the audience, it was just breathtaking. She just it's like she just carried us into the heart of the music and it was

Awesome. And I mean awesome in the in the real say it was it was it was powerful and awesome and poignant and and it was just immensely powerful and and it takes a great artist to be able to do that. Mm. So that's what I feel the role of a of a really good actor or or actress. Which reminds me of a comment that you I've heard you say quite a few times, which is that and correct me if I get it wrong. I'm quoting Cezanne.

that um although what we're actually looking at, the changing face of nature, so although what we're looking at all the time is is is continually changing. And all a painter has is his or her paints. The purpose of art is not just to reproduce the changing face of nature, it is in his words, to give us a taste of nature's eternity, that which doesn't change. in nature, that which is eternal, that which underlies

the appearance, which of course that nature's eternity, we are of course a part of nature. So nature's eternity is our true self, the reality of ourself. So it is, in Cezanne's language, the purpose of his painting was to take us to to that aspect of ourself that is eternal. And his role as a painter was to take the viewer there, because they couldn't go there by themselves. That was his role to take them there. And the same as the role as a of an actor or an actress. Of an interviewer.

Simon, your role is to gently guide the two people talking to a place where they perhaps wouldn't get if they were just on their own talk. You have to be sensitive, you have to adjust your homeopathic intervention. should somehow facilitate the conversation that perhaps Jamie and I wouldn't have on our own together.

We would no doubt have a very i interesting, lively conversation, but but but we might not manage to just So yes, that's the role of art in the broadest sense of of the word in Cezanne's phrase to give us a little bit of a little bit of a little Uh to give the viewer, the hearer, the listener, the seer, the taster, the smaller, whoever it is, a taste of nature's eternity.

Have you got anything to or how do you relate to that quote of Cezanne's Th there's a there's a a quote which seems to be regurgitated through the ages. I think Picasso said art is a lie that tells the truth or something along those lines. And uh Albert Camus said uh the poet is a liar who tells the truth. I mean I've no idea, I wouldn't want to State what I think is a great performance So why don't you tell us what you think the quotes that you've just shared then, w what do they mean to you?

There is a lie, you know, I I'm saying words that were given to me in the form of a script. I am assuming a different name, a different way of walking or a different costume. I'm uh indulging impulses or processes that are maybe not natural to the identity of Jamie. So there is an element Uh you could argue I guess from a non dualistic perspective, or swapping one lie for another, one lowercase T truth for another. So that's the false side of it, the rogue.

But the truth part is uh my experience within that moment, it's a bit like the use of non hyphen meditation or non hyphen effort, you know, from It's non-acting is what I strive for. Sure there's some moments where I have to act, opening a door as a pickup or a filler between two bigger, longer scenes, sure. But For me, acting is those moments where I am in a state of being rather than a state of doing.

And uh I really am experiencing whatever comes to me in that scene, in that take. I'm trying to achieve something real and um that's truth. That's as real as it can get. There's no there's no performance there. That non acting that Jamie said there, Rupert, that reminds me of what you say in terms of it's a non practice. Self abidance is a non practice. Yes. is what we are, n not what we do. We can't practice.

You know, um Jamie, you never rehearse being Jamie. You rehearse being uh um King Lear or Julius Caesar or whoever you're you're you're playing, but you don't rehearse Being Jamie because relatively speaking, you are Jamie. It doesn't need any rehearsal. So being what we are is not something we have to practice. most of us practice most of the time without realizing it, being what we are not.

Uh and uh so for one who has spent two, three, four, five decades practising, albeit inadvertently, what they are not, namely the ego or separate self. It seems to begin with to require an effort. to return to what we are. That effort that we seem to have to make, the effort that the the apparently separate self or ego seems to have to make, i is an effort that that we have to make. We have to do it.

We seem to have to do it. And then when this recognition, even it's just this glimpse of of what we essentially are, then that comes with it the recognition, oh, what I am is is what I am. It's not what I do, it's not something I have to practice. So then the effort gives way to effortlessness, doing gives way to being.

Yeah. Two things there, one on a lower level, one on a higher that'll maybe take us elsewhere. The terms often used character or role. I I'm very particular about how they're used because For me there is no character. It it doesn't really exist. Like even a well written, well researched played over the centuries like uh King Lear.

What we know about them is relatively little compared to what we know about our neighbour. You don't know what King Lear had for breakfast on Wednesday. So you have a role. If you think of a coin on one side of the coin is the actor. And the other side of the coin is the role. And when you spin the coin you create the illusion of character That's how I see it, and that's how I use the words.

You said they're no characters, only roles. I mean that's the essence of what you teach in some ways, Rupert, no? Yes, no um Ultimately no no individual people, only activity. And going even further, no discrete, independently existing objects or entities, ultimately that the universe is not a collection of objects. It is the activity of consciousness. In in other words, really that i in the new language of non duality there would be no nouns. It would all be verbs.

The one reality interacting with itself, appearing as the universe. To a localized perspective. So the universe, as we know it, a multiplicity and diversity of discrete objects, only seeming such from a temporary and local point of view, uh the object only being an object in relation to a localized subject. But but that is just a temporary

Crystallizing, not even a crystallization, it is just a a a temporary moment in the the activity uh uh of the whole. So at no point in time do any real discrete subjects or objects come into existence with their own discrete and independent existence. It's all the interplay of one seamless interacting uh one seems reality interacting with itself and appearing as a multiplicity and diversity, but never actually being. Ultimately, there are activities, not characteristics.

Just to flip it a little bit, we've talked a lot about acting, but Rupert, you were a potter and a a distinguished one for a long time before your calling to make bowls out of words became so pronounced and and you were so in demand that you had to let it go. What is the relationship, in your opinion, between pottery as an art and non dualism? And please explain the bowls out of words thing as well, please. Oh yeah, I mentioned this to Jamie and he was intrigued when I said it. All right. Story.

And um apologies to to to um to our listeners who have heard it before'cause I think I wrote about it in the forward of a of a recent book. Anyway, so Jamie, uh I for many years, twenty five, th thirty years, made pots and and increasingly just bowls. And over the years the bowls got larger and finer and more and more open. I was stretching the material more and more and more and and indeed very often the bowls would would collapse. You imagine m making a shape like this is quite a a vertical

A a deep vertical bowl is quite a stable shape. But the more the wider it becomes, the more it tends towards flat and open, the more the force of gravity will tend to collapse. So the bowls would get Wider, larger, finer, more and more above. And at the same time I was originally with a needle, in fact not just a needle, but a sharpened needle. I would sharpen a needle.

in order to get a a slight burr on the point of the needle so that it wasn't just a a point, it was a slightly rough point. And then w with that rough point I would incise line. Literally a millimeter or so apart on bowls. It would take me several days, eight, nine, ten days, to draw these very fine lines all over these large bowls which which were undulating in shape because they were collapsing. And then one day when I

drawing these lines, the idea came to me, why don't you start writing? Just start writing. Instead of drawing lines, start writing. It was a small step from a drawing a line to writing. So then this was the advent of the poem bowls. So then I would these very large bowls I would write Poems all over them in a kind of small illegible script again they take several days to do.

So there was this process of writing poems, words on bowls, and I wanted the bowls to get larger, more open, uh wider, more more transparent, lighter. And then this idea came to me and I was just it just was one of those ideas that came to me unsolicited. It wasn't a it wasn't the extension of a previous line of things. It just just came out of nowhere. And it was just I wish I could make Bowls just out of words.

As the the bowls in my w they they were over the years they they started very earthy and heavy as and they became more and more and more transparent. I'd taken the bowls really as far as I could take them. They could not they couldn't have been larger. More open, finer, and with when then writing words and there was just this idea I'd l I'd like the bowl to evaporate completely and just

I wish I could find a medium where I didn't even require the clay. I could just write make bolds, transparent bowl forms out of what so I had this thought. Out of the blue And then I just carried on working. But within two years I had stumbled from Making pause.

And I had started speaking about these matters, giving meditations And really the meditations I realized it was some time, two, three, four years later, that I look back on this instant in my studio and I this thought had come to me, I want to make bowls out of words, that I realized actually that's what These guided meditations are that they are they are bowls out of words, that the physical substance has evaporated, and that now there's just these. these forms out of words. So that was them.

Can I add a similar experience? I used to be quite guilty of being so preoccupied as an actor with. other challenges and obstacles that I was sometimes guilty of not fully absorbing the text, the script, the dialogue, and perhaps during a take stumble because I hadn't fully absorbed the text, the dialogue. And as I became freer and freer as an actor and clearer of my process, which became more and more simple. our respect for the writing.

And to such a point where I eventually wrote a note in my notebook, which was let the words do the acting. So, you know, if someone's taken a great deal of time to write and redraft and rewrite and redraft and finally lock in a script with dialogue That is a form of magic. The same way if I say apple, there's some an apple in your consciousness now, a red apple, with a bite out of it, you see that to some extent. Like words are magic.

And um there's a Russian cinematic technique called the Kulushov effect. And and basically they have someone's face. And then they'll cut to a crying baby or they'll cut to a beautiful woman or they'll cut to a big sumptuous meal and then they'll cut back to the plain face and you'll swear blind the face has changed. But it's you superimposing your own reaction onto this blank canvas of the the blank face. That along with this greater respect for the writing

caused me to arrive at this place where I wrote let the act let the words do the acting. It doesn't mean I can't sometimes rise to great heights and be bravura and and really try and bring the house down, but at the same time you can sometimes Step back a little and let the words do the acting. And and and it it feels very similar to what happened with your bowls. Absolutely, absolutely, yeah.

Yes. Uh you've said, haven't you, Jamie, that when you act you want to reveal in people something in them that perhaps they were not even aware of themselves. Yeah, I don't know if I could s may be make such a bold claim I just want to celebrate the currency of sincerity and vulnerability. That's all. If I can stand there in an a in a way do nothing, which is much harder than you'd think, you know, to do to do nothing,'cause we do a lot to protect, to prevent, to preserve, to

present. But if I can really celebrate the currency of humility and sincerity and viscerality and vulnerability. Even if you're playing a r a Roman general, you know, that's where there's the beauty of paradox, where I have to command the troops or Convince the Senate, but at the same time, I'm terrified that they go against my plans, my family will be murdered. That's paradox. And when an audience member sees that.

It makes the audience member of Voyeur and we're celebrating the the drama of life and the the complexity of the human experience, you know. Yes. So it so that was very highfalutin. But the answer is maybe I'm I'm not trying to highlight to people what they maybe don't know. Ma if that happens, great. But I'm certainly trying to just be as sincere as possible and because that for me is a form of currency. And I try and use that currency in life.

within the boundaries, the confines of the circumstance or society, I'll try and be sincere. So I'm not embarrassed or shy. you know, if there is some anxiety or shyness or uncertainty. And ironically, however, when you when you go towards, as Rupert teaches, the two options go back and go forward. When you go towards the obstacle and welcome it, legitimize it, embrace it, if if you take the opponent into the clinch, you look around and it's gone, you know.

I was taken out on Friday night by a couple of friends and someone said something that uh really stuck with me. Actually I wrote it down. I thought I'll pass it off as my own in a in an up And he said something like It's about getting secure with your insecurity. Does that resonate with what you're just saying there? Roles like Burns, th we're were hoping to do a a film about Robert Burns, which I know would interest Rupert from a poetic perspective. Really

you know, was a self made man, a self educated man to some extent, from a very humble background, but rose through the echelons of society in his lifetime. He was on a stamp in Russia shortly after his death, he was translated into Chinese. He And um I'm not saying that Burns was secure with his insecurity, but that turmoil of him partly trying to celebrate himself but at the same time almost presenting himself, it's a fascinating what role to play.

You also said you're in yourself, you don't want to be awkward with shyness or anything like that and that Not anymore. Maybe I started with that ambition. Okay, so remember the term I used non restructuring? That is an aspirational term. Like I can still feel a an urge to restructure sometimes, but I remind myself of the importance of non-restructure. I don't slide into every scenario seamlessly without some friction. But when I notice the friction, I remind myself, oh

non restructuring or what I nickname ready. So I have a series of a a handful of these terms. There's usually a longer one like non contraction or or non identification. And then have shorter nicknames. So for non restructuring, it's just ready. Just always be ready, you know. But that doesn't mean that that is uh in a state of autopilot. I sometimes have to remind myself, oh you're trying to you're non restructuring, don't just

Uh you got to be careful that you don't become combative with these things. So it's a As Rupert says so often at the end. You can't say, Oh, I'm gonna surrender or welcome this thing in order to get rid of it you know. You just welcome it and uh as Rupert says, ask the question, could I live with this forever? But then ironically, if you look around it it does dissipate. Yeah.

Right, I'm conscious of time, so I'm gonna throw a few quick fires at you. Jamie, you say that self abidance is a key part of acting for you. So your interest in non duality, your interest in what in Rupert's teachings, for example, makes you a better actor. And to what degree, or rather, how does self abidance help in acting? It's a safety valve. So ideally you'd start in a state of relative awareness, in a position of self-abidance, so a blank canvas.

And then y you allow yourself to experience the myriad of things, thoughts, feelings, interactions, props. use, whatever. But at the end of the day or the end of the take or end of the scene to return full circle to some form of awareness, self abidance. It just stops you maybe taking things home. Or coming in with already full pockets, you know. You've talked about the balance between being and doing.

Yeah, it's a sliding scale I'd say, because sometimes you have to do like I said, if it's a if it's a scene where you have to it's a you've done the big scene which was sincere and real, then there's a quick close up of this angle just when you grab the steering wheel You just have to grab the steering wheel and you know act that you've suddenly grabbed the steering wheel. So it's a sliding scale, but uh why I act is because I enjoy having the scale way down towards the the realm of

being. And I think that's what constitutes a great performance, a timeless performance, is when it's more like safari, you're capturing something. You're blurring the boundaries between dramatisation and documentary. regardless of what he's called or calling himself or wearing or being told taught to wear.

you're capturing something sincere. That's real. And I think increasingly with modern society, with social media and less and less person to person interaction to celebrate that or to showcase that is And clearly an important part of acting or any art is creativity, as Rupert said, uh sensitivity. Rupert, what is the relationship then between awareness and those things? Yeah, all those things. Well it is uh awareness of pure sensitivity.

That that's what awareness is. J you you could it's another name for awareness, pure sensitivity, pure open registering, pure open knowing, without the least Of resistance, it is sensitivity. Oh that's nice. A great one. That's worth the podcast in itself. Yeah. That's a cracking line. Yeah, creativity. Creativity um creativity is when something new created, so to speak. Where's when something new comes into the situation. So it is the it is the source.

of creativity. So creativity is not an extension of the past. Let's say it's r relate this to acting. You you may have um rehearsed a scene a hundred times. And to get it absolutely perfect. You're you're you're with your ac your your fellow actors and actresses and you you've all re certain y you've got it. You can you can do it. standing on your head. You've done it so many times. You all know. And then the the performance comes.

And when you act the scene, you have to forget and th the same is true of sports, Simon. I I know you know this is exactly the same. You could you could take training um training session. You can you can train for free kicks and corners and uh hundreds of times. But then i in the moment you have to let go

of the part. You cannot think, okay, we're just gonna do what we've done a hundred times before. That that doesn't work. You have to that has to be so much a part of you that you don't need to think of it. But you have to let it go. Because that's what lets s something new come into the s situation, which you have never rehearsed before, which nobody has ever seen before. And that requires a vertical drop into your being rather than going back in time into your into your knowledge.

It it's a vertical intervention of being in the line of time. And S Simon, I I I know that you've talked to many sports people who you know that there are There are examples of that in sports, inspired moments in sport. And I'm I'm sure in that King Jamie, you you I can well imagine that you act something and afterwards you think, Oh, I've never done that before. Where did that go?

And you don't know where it came. Well it came it didn't come from your past. It didn't come from something you knew. But it didn't come from outside of yourself. Nobody put it into it came from yourself, it came from the depths of yourself, it came from no end.

You've spoken about the vertical dimension before, Rupert, and I had a few people ask me what you meant by that. So this seems like a good opportunity to ask you, what do you mean by that? For people who perhaps can't quite grasp it, and how can one get better access to the vertical dimension or sink into oneself? Let's say we were to ask somebody now, tell us about yourself.

The normal answer, of course, for someone who's not familiar with our language, uh I'm uh I'm a man, I'm a woman, I'm a mother or a father, I'm a I'm a policeman or nurse or a bus driver or a musician or I've m one of three children. O all all of this would be knowledge about ourselves that comes from the past. It's part of the the storyline in time. That's what I call the the horizontal dimension, the this dimension of the our history. But if we said, no, don't tell us about that. Tell us about

who you are prior to any experience that you've ever had, prior to anything that's ever happened to you. There's they're gonna be for a moment there'll be a uh a a moment of frustration of frustration because all they f all someone finds if they look back into their past. Is their experience, what's happened to them. And now we've said, no, don't tell us about what's happened to you, tell us about yourself. Now where are they going to go?

to access their self. They obviously they can't go into the future. The past is no longer a possibility. That's a story about what's happened to them, about what they've experienced. No, we want to know about themselves. So someone who is sensitive and understands and is not defended at that moment, will stop reaching into the past. stop reaching along the horizontal line of time for knowledge about themselves. And at that moment there is the possibility that they will plunge into themselves.

Into the depths of their self now, not the extension. They won't reach back for who they were as a two-year-old child or what their parents did to them. That's what I call the vertical the plunge into the vertical dimension of being, into the depths of ourselves.

I'm glad you said the word frustration there, Rupert, because I've had this conversation a couple of times recently, along these lines of who are you without your story, without all your roles, without all your experiences, etc. And my experience is people do get frustrated. Yes, it's good. That that moment of frustration is a great opportunity. If it is handled sensitively, then that the frustration is really a symptom of the fact that they can't find what they're looking for.

Where they're looking for it in their past experience, in their objective experience. And they realise having exhausted that, that what they're looking for, namely their self, cannot be found there. So for the mind that is looking in the past For their self. That is a moment of frustration. Now, if there is a certain sensitivity in the conversation, the person can just be very subtly reorientated. You give a hint as to the

not really the direction, it's the the directionless direction in which to look. No, don't look in your past, don't look in the future. Who is yourself now? If you when you say the words I am What do you refer to now? And a mind that is not fixed and defended in but a mind that is subtle and open, that that is a great opportunity. So so the the feeling of frustration

Is a great opportunity or sometimes somebody will say, once you said no, no, you're you're not your relationships, you're not your thoughts, you're not your activities. These are all added to you. Who are you prior to all of that? They may say, I don't know. That I don't know is a a great moment of opportunity because it opens the door in the back of the mind. Directionless direction.

something that we are. It invites us to go deeper into ourselves. So that moment of frustration or even the thought, I don't know, is like the threshold. before we begin to sink into our being, rather than reaching for ourselves as a person, as a character, as So on the one hand if someone is to say I don't know that ever slight opening, the door is ever so slightly ajar. If someone is defensive in that situation, would you would you not persist with that line of conversation?

Simon I can't I can't answer that question generally because I don't know. I don't have a a bag full of of stretches. It it depends. Sometimes I would push a bit further. I might say, what you you mean you don't know yourself? No, don't don't be silly. You you know yourself more intimately than you know anything else. You you can't so sometimes I might challenge someone.

when they say I don't know. Somebody else might say I don't know and and I might say, That's the most intelligent thing you've said all afternoon. That that's the m sorry, not the most intelligent, the most accurate thing you said. So it depends. I don't have um

a repertoire of techniques. I'm just open. Do I challenge? Do I question? Do I step back? Do I leave it in silence? But I I don't mean to imply that I work any of that out. It's spontaneous. But Something that you are is is sensitive and you need to to deal with it sensitively. It requires sensitivity, not having a you know, I also must be free of the past. I can't just bring a series of techniques.

Oh, ask yourself who am I or on whose behalf does this feeling? No, I can't just respond there's nobody here, there's nothing to do. I can't respond to every question with a pre formulated response. I have to of course I've got forty five years of exploration uh and study behind me, but I need to forget all of that and just be open and sensitive to the conversation.

and to trust what comes up. And if nothing comes up, to trust the silence and not to try to fill the silence with knowledge from the past. And I imagine that that acting is a bit like that. It's what what you said vr very early on in that when your director Peter asked you and you said I threw myself off

Off the ledge. Th there what you're saying really is that I let go of anything that I knew that I was sure of. I was I was in unfamiliar territory and that's what allows the spontaneity, the creativity, and that's when you can be sure that if you act like that or in my case if you speak with someone and and that's an equivalent of course in your world as well, Simon, for you it would be you're going to interview someone, you spend three days preparing a script.

You've got twelve questions lined up. You got and they say something in the first sentence, you just abandon your question. You don't refer to them again because you've got the confidence.

to let go of what you know and that's when the real conversation happens because everybody is in this this openness, this sensitivity. We're not referring to the past. That's when something really creative happens and the audience whether it's the audience at a at a game, at a performance, at a meeting, whatever it is, that the audience then they they feel something they participate in something that is truly creative and magical.

You use the term direction a lot there in that answer. Can I ask a question that may betray a lack of understanding, but regardless? I know you often teach there are uh two primary processes or directions. This idea of uh if you have a s an obstacle, uh something that challenges you, say uh um a physical pain or a difficult emotion. And I think you sometimes say it's the difference in Advaita and uh Tantra.

One option is to lean back and abide as the self. So you're able to label this problem as just another activity of the mind, just another transient thought or or or feeling. So there's the the direction this way, okay. But then another option is to go this way, where you go closer, you pull it towards you, you embrace it, which may inspire the question, Could I live with this forever? And once the answer is yes, uh it seems to

Can those two processes and again apologies if this is a silly question which maybe i is more obvious than I than I've taken the time to think about, could those happen simultaneously? Do they combine into a sort of pathless path or This idea of leaning back, can it be done at the same time as leaning forward? Is in can you does that even make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. Let me just give a um a practical example of what you're referring to, Jamie, for someone that may be listening and might not be able to connect what you've Said which is me. an accurate description, but may not be able to connect it to their their experience. So for instance, let's take a um a feeling, um, I am sad.

So the two approaches that you that you describe, the first approach, which i is more characteristic of the Vedantic approach, we explore the I. When we say I am sad, we ignore the sadness. We just turn away from the sadness. Who is this I or self? Around whom or to whom the feeling of sadness comes. So that's an exploration of ourselves. We turn away from the content of experience, the sadness, towards ourselves. This is the Vedantic approach.

What I sometimes refer to as the tantric approach, which is more inclusive or or embracing of the content of experience, we we tend to neglect the I, the self, and we embrace the sadness, we turn towards the sadness, we welcome it, we bring it close. And if we bring it so close that the zero Absolutely no resistance to it. if we no longer resisted it, there would no longer be any suffering. It would no longer be sadness as such.

So can we do both these uh um and as you mentioned earlier, Jamie, I sometimes illustrate this with the two boxes. In the Vedantic approach, the two boxes go to their respective corners. They they take a a step away from each other. But when they f want safety uh from the heat of the danger in the middle of the m of the match, they collapse onto each other in a climpse. That clinch, that would be the the Vedantic approach. Can you do both?

Simultaneously. Where it's a bit like saying, can you take a step back into your respective corners and at the same time embrace your your opponent. Obviously not literally. Um Take the statement again I feel sad. In the Vedantic approach we explore the I. In the tantric approach we we turn towards the feeling, we turn towards the sadness. I feel sad. Forget the I. Forget the sadness. There is just feeling. There is no self that is feeling it. There is no emotion that is being felt.

There is just pure feeling. That would be the way he had to do both simultaneously. Instead of saying I feel sad. Take away the subject and the object or Just experience feeling. Don't experience the eye, don't experience the sadness, don't step away, don't go towards There is feeling in the world. That would be the equivalent of doing both simultaneously. Collapsing, Rupert. That is reality, isn't it?

Yes, ultimately the the the separate subject of experience and the separate object of experience uh have no independent existence. The reality, pure feeling, well you have to reality we have to reduce pure feeling into knowing because feeling itself is a colouring of knowing, consciousness. In other words, feeling is not always present. But the stuff feeling is made of, pure knowing or consciousness, is reality. and whichever of those three paths you take, you go towards the eye, you go

to pure consciousness. You go outwards towards the content of experience, you end up with consciousness. And you you dispense with the subjects and the object, you go to pure seeing, feeling, seeing, hearing. You go to the essence of that experience, you come to pure knowing. Yes. Whichever of those three pathways you take, you come to reality.

All good. Right, listen, final question, and it's for you, Jamie. You're very familiar with Rupert's metaphors. Is King Lear and John Smith your favourite for obvious reasons? Uh it's certainly one of them. I do like his boxer ones as well. Um uh but yeah, I'd say the King Lear is one of my favorites, if not And you know, how do you think of that as an actor?

In a way there's a le there's an acting lesson in it. It advocates the immersion of oneself in a role to generate the illusion of character, but at the same time highlights the importance of returning to not just Jamie but your true self, yourself, capital S. So in a way it's uh it's a very concise uh and very complete acting lesson. There we go. Anything to add to that, Ruby?

No, that was a very good summary of it. Jamie, was there anything else you wanted to ask about or discuss or explore or Uh no. I mean I I could be tempted to kind of push further with that question about the two directions, but I again I maybe I've not thought about it enough and I'd cringe after realizing that actually it's it's A silly question. But I think it's because what gave rise to it is that

you do seem generally to give equal advocation of both methods. You seem to advocate or support or be in praise of both methods, the tantric, the Vedantic. Backwards, forwards, whatever. So I think what gave rise to the question was, Well what if you combine them? And then initially when I kind of ruminated over that myself, um long walks along the river.

that I've told Simon about. I thought, well, could one be in relative self abidance? There's a semantic puzzle there as well, but could you sort of lean back but at the same time Welcome in. Anyway, it's more of a a linguistic puzzle or

Well I wonder uh um Jamie, you're familiar with the yoga meditations that I that I do. Yes. So in those meditations which are really We explore as you know the experience of the body and the world in those meditations we always start In order to engage with the yoga meditations we have to first have explored who am I?

And we have to have traced our way back through the layers of experience to to and and recognise I am the the open empty space of awareness. And it's really as that space of awareness. In the yoga meditations, we stand as that space and we experience the the body as a as a sensation or a network of sensations appearing in that space.

Which we then Mae'n rhaid i'n gweithio, ac mae'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid So we experience this tension, this knot of sensation, and the sensation is is welcomed. As the welcoming deepens, the sensation dissolves into

the space of awareness. But that in a way, that would be the experiential answer to your question. You explore the That helps. Yes a lot. Yeah. Good. Good. Bingo. Fantastic. Well listen, I just want to say it's been a real pleasure spending time with uh both of you, Jamie. You've been a joy to get to know over the last couple of days and to actually finally see you in the flesh is fantastic. Rupert, always a pleasure.

Thank you very much. And any final words from either of you then? Please go ahead. Simon, first of all, thank you for sharing this conversation with us. Jamie, l lovely to meet you. I know think I'm right in saying you're working on a new film at the moment. I very much look forward to to seeing it and um you know just to seeing how how your career goes in general and let's keep in touch. It's been lovely to to speak and and let's um I hope our paths will cross again. Me too. Lovely to meet you.