BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

A: This Now, when you are empty of all positions and without inferences, there is no trouble. This is [being at] my Fathers feet, unassociated Presence. Now if you exchange this for any notion, no matter how good it sounds to you (it might sound like if I say this, it would be the most impressive thing I can ever say) no matter how good the notion sounds to you, you don’t leave my Father’s feet for that notion.

Q: Okay, shall I tell you where I …

A: This is the notion.

Q: No, no, eehhh.

A: Listen, listen [Chuckling]

Q: Aaah, okay, okay.

A: No, you have to listen. Right now, you have no trouble till you invent it with your next notion. This right Now is your Unassociated Presence. This is my Father’s feet. I’m explaining to you very clearly. Now don’t exchange this for any gift; like Nachiketa who said ‘No’ to Yamraj when he was offered everything that the universe had to offer. Don’t exchange it for any idea about Self; whether you’re confused, not confused, whether you’ve got it, not got it, whether the witness is a joke, whether Ashtavakra is talking nonsense…, forget all of it.

Q: Fine, Father.

A: Don’t pick it up. This is what it means to stay at my Father’s feet.

Q: Thank you, Father. I don’t know whom to open up to, whom to ask. I have nobody else other than you, hahaha.

A: Yes, now don’t pick up this notion. Stay at my Father’s feet.

Q: Fine, Father, I got it. I mean, not really ‘got it’ for the mind. I was craving for two months to be in Bangalore and suffering, but now there is no suffering.

A: There is no suffering at my Father’s feet.

Q: [Blah, blah, blah]

A: Actually, this is for all of us. This is what satsang is. Don’t exchange the Satguru for any notion about yourself, even if it is the most glorious notion you can think of. I said the ego will present very well-dressed thoughts, the holiest concepts…, ‘beyond Ashtavakra’ we want to go. [Chuckles] Forget that one. That is the trickster.

Don’t exchange my Father’s feet for any notion about yourself. I’m telling you, it will be a very bad bargain that you will make.

Q: [Rambling about some event, on and on and on]

A: This is the habit. The ‘me’ comes back so fast and my Father’s feet are forgotten. Then you …. [giving examples of what was being rambled on about]

Q: [Speaking Hindi, rambling on]

A: I’m going to send a poster to you which says ‘Don’t pick this up’. [Chuckles]

Q: I’m very thankful, Father. You are so patient with me; the whole sangha is so patient with me. Thank you so much.

A: You might feel like I’m being harsh with you, or something like this ….

Q: No, no, no, no, no, no….

A: …but the pointing is for everyone. This is the root of satsang. This is the root of satsang. Your unassociated Presence is the Satguru; this is my Father’s feet. Don’t exchange it for the holiest idea; no matter what it might be.

We said it in a different way at the start if satsang; we are saying it in a different way at the end of satsang but the pointing is the same. We’ve indulged this voice, this mind, for too long; this non-existent ‘me’ for too long.

Now, just rest at my Father’s feet. All of you.

Q: In a synchronistic way, Jesh posted a quote of yours yesterday which said: ‘Only that exists on that which there is attention.’ It’s a stunning quote. Not just the thought, but the feeling that came up for me is ‘Okay, what is attention?’ You said: ‘Only that exists on which there is attention.’ And the next point of inquiry is: ‘What is this extraordinary quality of attention?’

I remembered a quote that Rupert Spira mentioned that’s stunning also and I wanted you to also comment on it. He said that: ‘Attention is Awareness when turned towards an object.’ And the next feeling that came up is ‘That’s amazing’ then ‘What is Awareness when it turns upon itself?’ I wanted to just drop that into the field; and whatever you wanted to respond would be amazing. Thank you.

A: First, to clarify the first quote: ‘Only that exists that has your attention.’ So, clearly here we are speaking about our phenomenal experience. Can we say that there is a road outside this room? Not conclusively; only because we might hear some sound from the road. So, because attention is on that we can say there is something there; the rest is just a presumption. In that way, the first quote is meant: Only that exists, in this phenomenal play, which seems to have our attention.

So then, what is attention? And this quote is also very nice, what Rupert said. From what I understood, he said: ‘Attention is nothing but Awareness turned towards an object.’

Fundamentally, what we are doing is that we are exploring the nature of this attention. Now many times, the clue for you is that: The Self is without qualities and attributes. The real Self, the greater Self, is without qualities and attributes.

Now, in our phenomenal play, there is one (we can say) thing (but it’s not a thing) …, one thing that comes close to this, which is attention. Because when I say ‘What is the color of your attention?’ you cannot say. And yet, it is not the Self. It is an aspect of the Self. Why? Because Awareness is so beyond this limitation of any sort, whereas attention is not.

So, if all of us were to un-mute our mic and to start speaking, you would not have the attention to hear everyone. That’s why parents with many children are very tired [Chuckling] because all the children are asking for their attention, for all their time. Now, if you are interacting, and then you start interacting [pointing to someone] then you start interacting [pointing to someone else] then we cannot give this quantity of this unlimited type of attention. You see that attention runs out very quickly. But we can never say that about Awareness.

So, the real distinction between the Self (Awareness and attention is that attention is like the phenomenal play of Awareness. Everything is. But a very, very intimate phenomenal play of Awareness is this attention. Because you cannot find any quality to attention, except that it seems to run out.

You can never run out of Awareness.

But you can run out of attention.

So, yes, ‘When it is turned towards an object’ …, it is a nice way of explaining, it’s not bad. It’s a funny play; whether attention actually turns or whether it’s the object on the screen which changes. This is a nice contemplation for us.

What we can really say is that attention doesn’t seem to play (in our unlimited way) in this phenomenal play and only that we can perceive. We cannot perceive without attention. Perception works in coordination with attention. It’s like Being uses attention to taste this phenomenal world, to taste the phenomenal function. That’s where all these primal contemplations come from, isn’t it? What is that one famous one? ‘If the tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?’ Nobody else is in the forest; when the tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Also, scientific experiments like Schrodinger’s cat. The cat is in the box, there is no observer of it. Is there now a cat? Or isn’t there? So, all of this is an experiment about this. What is the observing quality in this phenomenal realm? The power of perceiving operates on this power of attention.

So, this is attention. Now, how far can attention go? We can bring attention to the outer-seeming world, we can give attention to the body sensations, we can bring attention to these inner-seeming perceptions like thoughts, memories, imagination; attention can go there. And then we can say, ‘Ultimately, keep your attention on your Being. Rest with the sense of Being.’ To even this we can say, ‘Yes, I’m keeping my attention on my Presence.’ And some might say it’s natural for it to rest there and some might say it seems like a force. But it is still part of the objective play, ultimately.

Now when you say, ‘What is prior to this Being? What is aware of even this Beingness?’ can we truly that say it is attention? Although in words sometimes you might say it, but can we truly, truly say that it our attention that is going, prior to Being? Actually, it is like the cessation of the functioning of attention. It’s like a spring is completely pulled back, a spring was stopping at all these different levels and then we say, ‘Okay what is prior to even existence?’

This Self-discovery…, Awareness which is Self-Aware, is not subject to attention. It is just that attention is divested from everything else so it can feel like attention came here. But in the realm of the Pure Self, there is not even attention.

So, Being uses attention to come to this discovery ‘I Am that I Am’. But as Being is coming to the recognition of its own Source, even the play of attention stops there. So, although we can say in satsang, ‘Turn your attention completely inwards to that which is prior to your existence’ actually you will find that it is a pointing to divest your attention from everything else. And there, as you are coming to the non-phenomenal recognition, you will not find the play of even this quality called attention. It is part of the functioning of the Self in its dynamic aspect (which is Being) and Being works in coordination with attention to perceive, to taste this phenomenal existence of Itself.

[Silence]

I know that some of these things are very subtle; for the mind they are completely abstract. But as you are tasting all of this for yourself, you will see that:

Yes, the discovery is made of the Source of even Beingness, where Being comes from.

My attention does not go beyond my Being.

But as it is divested from everything else,

I find that the recognition of this Absolute is empty of all qualities;

Even something which is such a transparent quality like attention is not there.

[Silence]

Shanti said something beautiful, she’s saying, ‘Here it could seem that perception is the flood light and attention is the spotlight of Awareness, where more focus is put on the object of perception. When it is turned back on itself then all other objects no longer exist. And Self alone exists. Just coming here as an analogy.’

Very beautiful. So, we See that when we go beyond Being, then even this play of attention is not there. Like in the deep sleep state, we are not paying attention to the No-thing; only the No-thing Self is there.

[Silence]

In fact, these experiments with attention are very beautiful. And as you start noticing the quality of attention you will see that, as sleep is coming, that with which a lot of attention could have been given to a book or to movie or something like that, when sleep is coming, you find that you don’t have that attention to give to it anymore. It seems like it is just withdrawing from the seeming-outward phenomena and just going to rest within. So, as this objective reality is vanishing, you see that it is attention which is actually withdrawing; that is why it is vanishing.

Like you said ‘When this spotlight is there, it seems to always be shining on something objective. And when the spotlight seems to run out of battery [Chuckling] or seems to run out of power, then the world of objective appearances seems to vanish, it seems to dissolve.

(Contemplation on the Ashtavakra Gita Chapter 20, Verse 14)

~ ~ ~

[20.14] Janaka said, “Where is existence or non-existence? Where is Unity or duality? Nothing emanates from me. No more can be said.”

Q: But when it says ‘Nothing emanates from Awareness’ it’s not emanating from the mind. It’s something; I mean it’s not some-thing, but it does emanate.

A: The appearance is just an appearance. Nothing actually emerges. So, once you see that there is no snake; once it is seen, you see it only as a rope. Once you See that you are the Self alone, then all of this is Seen just as an appearance. It’s not real. So, when you say it’s not real, can you say something really emanates? Nothing actually emanates. It was just a seeing, an appearance.

So, it’s like, okay, there’s a rope. You’re seeing a snake. Did the snake appear and then it went away? So, in the same way, this world is an appearance; same as the snake. It never really appeared. Nothing really emanated. It was seen. The dynamic aspect, as we call it, actually we have to say that even all of this maya, illusion, never really happened

We don’t talk like this in Satsang every day, because then we can get into a sort of conceptual denial of the appearance. But we are now looking at the last verse, saying ‘If I am truly the unchanging, then can the changing truly ever have happened? Is any of this True? What is the Reality of it?’ This is the distinction between the Real and the unreal, the rope and the snake (which is the most popular example in Vedanta). Then we start to See. Although it might appear to be that all of us are here having this conversation, in Reality only Awareness IS.

So, where is the snake when it appears? Where is the water in the mirage that appears? And yet it can be perceived as if it is. But does it have a tangible reality? So, it appears as an appearance. But if it is just an appearance, what came? Nothing actually. An appearance is not real. If something real emanated from me, then I would say ‘Yes, this is how it was. There was this play of two-ness. Now we go back to this One.’ But if it is just an illusion, an appearance, what really emanated out of Awareness?

Q: It does emanate.

A: It only appears to have emanated. Can you put it like that? The snake only appears to have come and once we see it in its true light, we see that there is no snake; there is only a rope. So, from the perspective of Awareness, what really happened? In the coming of the waking state, in the coming of the sense of existence, what really happened? That’s what they’re saying. Nothing really happened; it’s just a play of appearances. So, if you want to say that a non-real appearance seemed to have been perceived, you can say it like that. [Chuckles] Because even this conversation can only happen in that ‘seeming’.

Q: You can’t really deny this, like right now; these words.

A: Yes, but the nature of this, as real or unreal (if the definition of real is clear; that the unchanging is real, which the Sage defines right in the beginning) then what would say about this?

Q: It’s not true.

A: It’s not true. So, if it is not real, can you say that it really emanated? Just an appearance.

Q: So, when you said that it doesn’t really emanate, I mean, it does emanate out of this Presence. I mean, it just comes.

A: But is it similar to the mother giving birth to a child, or is it similar to the appearance of a snake in a rope? This will bring you to one of the most traditional and oldest debates in Advaita Vedanta.

Adi Shankaracharya says that ‘Maya is neither real or unreal. It just appears to be.’ That’s why it is called the unreal. The other path will say that this jiva, this sense existence, is as much Brahman as Brahman itself. So, these are two very traditional approaches to this. Now, either are fine. Whatever appeals to your Heart the most; whatever you feel most intuitively inclined to is completely fine.

Here, ultimately, I have to say that I have to agree with Shankara; to see that Awareness is the True Real and everything else has just been an appearance, just like the illusion of silver in mother-of-pearl, the illusion of a snake in the rope. The illusion that this ever really happened. But truly, I can’t explain it to you. It has to be on the basis of your insight. Whether you feel that Consciousness, this Existence, has some reality is based on how you define Reality and what your intuitive experience is. Because ultimately, the Sage has said ‘Everything that changes, everything that comes and goes, is not real.’

Now, I don’t know if I even want to make this publicly available, but the fact is that, with that definition, even Existence doesn’t stand up to that test (isn’t it?) to that standard. That’s why Maharaj [Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj] was very strong when he said, ‘All of this problem is because of this ‘I Am’ infection. Forget about ‘I Am’. Nothing has ever really happened.’ But it’s very rarely that the Sages (Maharaj, Papaji) have said it like this, that ‘Nothing has ever really happened.’

Now, why I don’t usually share like this in Satsang every day is also that many have picked up this idea that ‘Nothing has ever really happened’. And clearly there’s identification with some limitation which hooks onto the concept that ‘Nothing has ever really happened’ so it can just come about like that. But here, we’re at the fringes of our insight; we’re at the limits of what can be found in this recognition. Once I find MySelf to be this Self, then is it True, in Reality, that something has happened; that time and space were ever real or were they just an appearance?

So, actually, for me, I don’t mind if you say either of these; which is ‘I see that I am this Awareness and within Me is this birth of my child called Consciousness’ or you say ‘I am this Awareness alone…, and this play of Consciousness is just an appearance. There is no I Am ultimately because even that is changing. It comes and goes.’ This I have to leave to you, actually.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.12] Janaka said, “Where is activity or inactivity? Where is liberation or bondage? I am timeless, indivisible. I am Self alone.”

So, “activity or inactivity” is about doership and non-doership. What am I to do or not to do? “Where is liberation or bondage?” So, is Awareness bound? If it is not bound, can it be bound? Can I bring a chain strong enough to bind Awareness? So, the concept of bondage itself does not apply. So, what liberation can I give that which is the unbound? We See that liberation is the discovery that there is no such prison that we want liberation from.

Now, we can understand even this. Because even this, that ‘I need more freedom’ or ‘I need more liberation’ can be picked up as a concept, conceptually in our basket of concepts. We can still retain our limited identity and add to that this concept that ‘I am God, I don’t need freedom’. This conceptually is not enough. It must be a reflection of your true insight about YourSelf. Because all the concepts are shaky. If we keep saying ‘I am God, I am God’ (many times, people have these kinds of things where they start saying ‘I am God, I am God’) it is a tradition that will be replaced by ‘I am in the hospital’. [Laughter in the room] So, if it’s mental, it will be like that. It’s just the identity trying to hold on to some idea of Godliness. And we find that that is actually a very shaky ego because even when life comes in its day-to-day life, then something happens; your mom says something to you, then that whole ‘I am God’ thing goes in two seconds. You’re back to being the daughter again. So, if it is just conceptual and not the result of true realization, the result of true insight, then it’s just another concept. All concepts are changeable, removeable; coming and going. But once you have tasted it for yourself, what You Are, it cannot be replaced.

[20.13] Janaka said, “Where are principles and scriptures? Where is the disciple or teacher? Where is the reason for life? I am boundless, Absolute.”

I say that we have gone beyond all of this and we’ve looked at all of the aspects before.

[20.14] Janaka said, “Where is existence or non-existence? Where is Unity or duality? Nothing emanates from me. No more can be said.”

So, from this, (this is the last verse of the Ashtavakra Gita) beyond existence. Where is existence and non-existence? If I am no-thing, can truly a some-thing emerge? Can truly there be Reality which emerges as an appearance, as a by-product of that which is no-thing. So, that which emerges then has to be only the idea that there is snake, the idea of a snake, but actually there is just the rope. The idea that there is a mirage but there is just a desert. The idea that there is silver but it is just mother-of-pearl. So, this is really saying that nothing has ever really happened.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

From your truest position is there anything that has ever really arisen or dissolved? Such a beautiful contemplation. Now, some of you, in your contemplation (and this has happened for centuries so I don’t feel like it will change) some of you in your contemplation will come to an insight upon which you will make a conclusion like ‘Consciousness is like the waves on the ocean’ which seems like they have the same material reality as the ocean itself. And some of you will come to the conclusion that ‘Consciousness is like the snake in the rope’. It never really happened but appears to have been so.

With either of these, you’re beyond the realm of personhood, you’re beyond the realm of suffering. You’re not identifying with something which is ephemeral, something which is changing. You are finding that ultimate reality; whether you say that ‘Consciousness takes birth and then dissolves back into itself’ or you say ‘It never really appeared, never really happened but appears to have been so’. I’m okay with either of these positions. In fact, it is a beautiful contemplation.

But in this contemplation, you will find that we really clarify for ourself what we mean by ‘Real’.

Do we really agree with the Sage’s definition that ‘Everything that comes and goes is not real?’
If it is unreal, could it ever really have happened? It’s not real. You see?

All of these are ‘next level’ contemplations. What is really Real? What is really Real?

Do we agree with this when I say there are two filters to what is Real?

One is: it must be our direct insight

and

Second is: it must not be changing.
What lives up to these two filters?

It must be our direct insight, our direct experience; and it must not be changing. What lives up to these two filters? Can you say?

Only Awareness, isn’t it?

Only this Absolute, the Self.

So, in these two filters, ultimately even Consciousness does not apply.

That’s why in the last few verses he says, ‘Where is existence? Where is God? I am the Self alone.’

[Quoting from 20.11: Janaka said, “Where is illusion? Where is existence? Where is attachment or non-attachment? Where is person? Where is God? I am Awareness.”]

The simpler approach which we take in Satsang is to say ‘Yes, the dynamic aspect is there. Don’t get into some sort of Advaita denial.’ But at the end, all the Sages have said, ‘Nothing really ever happened.’ … ‘No time, no space, no existence, no non-existence. I’ve always been beyond this. In my reality, there was a seeming-appearance of something. A seeming-appearance of something was there but I saw through it and saw that nothing has even happened’.

So, stay with the question: What is it that I mean by Real?

When I say ‘I’…, what is it that you mean by ‘Real’?

Is there a difference in your definition compared to what the Sage is saying?

Now, if you include something which is changing as also the Real, then you will come to a different conclusion. You will come to the conclusion that everything emanates out of the Real and goes back to the Real.

If you say that ‘That which is changing never really happened’ then you will come to this conclusion that this entire play, all if this, even this play of Consciousness, it is all just an appearance; like the movements of the snake that never was. [Smiling]

In Indian spirituality, very popularly these things are said. ‘Like the seventh son of a woman who never gave birth.’ [Laughing] This is what Yoga Vashishta is pointing to. ‘This world is the third child of a barren woman’ …, they would talk like that. [Chuckling]

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

The FIRST CLUE is: That which is the witness of all things.

Then, all the verses you [the Sangha] have found, like the verse which says:

[1.3] You are not earth, water, fire or air. Nor are you empty space. Liberation is to know yourself as Awareness alone; the Witness of these.

[1.5] You have no caste or duties. You are invisible, unattached, formless. You are the Witness of all things. Be happy.

Then the favorite one:

[1.7] You are the solitary witness of all that is, forever free.

[1.12] You are Self; the Solitary Witness. You are perfect, all-pervading, One.

[2.3] Seeing there is no universe or body, by grace the Self is revealed.

[2.7] Not seeing Self, the world is materialized.

[2.11] I am wonderful indeed; beyond adoration. I am everything thought or spoken, and have nothing.

[9.3] Seeing all things as threefold suffering, the Sage becomes still.

That was the first clue. Let me just now read only the clues.

The SECOND CLUE is: That which remains unchanging.

Maybe I can read one verse about it:

[1.17] You are unconditioned, changeless, formless. You are solid, unfathomable, cool.

THIRD CLUE: That which is beyond limitation or boundary.

[2.17] I am unbounded Awareness. Only in imagination do I have limits.

[2.23] In the limitless ocean of Myself, the winds of the mind roil the myriad waves of the world.

The FOURTH CLUE: That which can only be found in the present or Now. It does not come and go. It is not subject to time.

The verse is:

[1.15] You are now and forever free, luminous, transparent, still. The practice of meditation keeps one in bondage.

Okay, but you have to hear my commentary. [Laughs]. If you are a meditator, don’t get confused.

CLUE FIVE: That which has no desires or aversions.

[1.12] You are Self—the Solitary Witness. You are perfect, all-pervading, One. You are free, desire-less, forever still. The universe is but a seeming in You.

CLUE SIX: That which is beyond doer-ship, beyond action and inaction. That which is beyond doer-ship.

[1.8] The thought: ‘I am the doer’ is the bite of a poisonous snake. To know: ‘I do nothing’ is the wisdom of faith. Be happy.

[2.15] In Reality, knowledge, the knower, and the knowable do not exist.

[3.10] A great soul witnesses his body’s actions as if they were another’s. How can praise or blame disturb him?

CLUE SEVEN: That which is beyond separation and union; beyond both the concept of separation and union.

[1.13] Meditate on this: ‘I am Awareness alone, Unity itself.’ Give up the idea that you are separate, a person, that there is within and without.

[2.18] I am neither free nor bound. The illusion of such things has fallen into disbelief.

CLUE EIGHT: That which cannot be found by the mind. That which cannot be found by the mind means that which cannot be described or gotten by concepts, judgements or inferences.

[5.1] The mind is complex. Let it go. Know the peace of dissolution.

CLUE NINE: That which is your direct insight beyond any phenomenal perception. Direct insight beyond any phenomenal perception.

[1.18] That which has form is not real. Only the formless is permanent. Once this is known, you will not return to illusion.

[2.15] In Reality, knowledge, the knower, and the knowable do not exist.

CLUE TEN: That which is the Source of your Being. That which is the Source of your Being which, in Its unassociated form, is Consciousness; and Its associated form, appears as if it is the ego.

[2.13] The universe appears within me but I do not touch it.

[5.2] The universe arises from you like foam from the sea. Know yourself as One. Enter the peace of dissolution.

[6.1] I am infinite space; the universe is a jar. This I know. No need to renounce, accept or destroy.

[6.2] I am a shoreless ocean; the universe makes waves. This I know. No need to renounce, accept or destroy.

[6.3] I am mother-of–pearl; the universe is the illusion of silver. This I know. No need to renounce, accept or destroy.

Then, the final clue.

CLUE ELEVEN: That which is discovered by following the guidance of the Divine Presence or what is called the Intuitive Presence of the Satguru: The dispeller of ignorance.

There might not be direct clues in Ashtavakra about that, but that itself is a clue.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.10] Janaka said, “Where is the relative? Where the transcendent? Where is happiness or misery? I am empty of thought.”

“Where is the relative? Where the transcendent? Where is happiness or misery?” Yesterday we discussed all of this in great detail, where we said that once we go beyond the phenomenal. And why to go beyond the phenomenal? Because the Sage has said that the Truth, the ultimate Reality, is beyond the realm of the changing. If it is changing, what is it? It is an appearance. So, beyond the realm of appearances, then you find YourSelf, the unchanging, the unmoving. Then all the play of the relative (not phenomenal, not physical) the relative qualities start to become meaningless, immaterial. The idea that I have to transcend also falls away.

Now, remember that this is the end of the Ashtavakra Gita. So, although the pointing to transcend is useful, as we’re looking to go beyond the phenomenal, once you have crossed it, then you See that there is nothing to transcend. It’s just like saying that ‘You can only say that there is no mountain after you have climbed it.’ You can say there is no transcendence after you have transcended. Janaka has reached that understanding about the Self and has Seen that there is nothing ever to do. There is nowhere to go. Nothing relative, nothing to transcend.

“…happiness or misery…” the play of opposites. And when we’ve been so fearful in our lives to want only happiness, pleasure, avoiding misery, pain…, all that falls away. Whatever happens in the movie, happens in the movie. We will still continue to watch this body play. This body which has been given the name Ananta continues to play on a daily basis; but I See that I am the witness of that; watching it. So, this becomes Your True position. It has always been your true position, but this recognition comes that the witnessing of all of this has been my True position; That which is aware of this. That which is aware of the perception of the world, the perception of this body.

There is an Awareness which is aware of all things which are moving, which is aware of the perception of these words right now. They are appearing but Awareness is not speaking. The Self is not speaking. It is just aware. Just like the Self is not hearing, it is aware of this hearing.

Right Now, notice:

What is That which is aware of this?

Perception is happening, these words are being heard.

Are you aware of this perceiving or not?

That which is aware…, can you say it is phenomenal?

You might think it is phenomenal, you might feel it is phenomenal. But can it ever become your true insight? Nobody has come to this insight. Everybody, when they go looking for the Self, find this Reality this play of time and space, beyond ‘happiness and misery’.

“I am empty of thought.”

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Q: All that you say is so clear, yet this sticking identity with person still remains.

A: Actually, it is the non-stick; non-stick frying pan [Chuckling in the room] because it cannot stick. Did it survive the previous moment? It actually didn’t…, unless you think about it. No identity can survive even for a moment actually; automatically.

Now you are empty of it, till you believe the idea that you are not, or you believe some idea of ‘but’. You with me? So, notice right now, we will have to first latch onto some concept to feel that you are still identified. Right now, you are empty of it.

Actually, that’s why I say you have the best cleaning lady at your service. Who is that cleaning lady at your service? It is God. Clean up has happened completely. In this moment, you are brand new, fresh like an infant! And yet, what it can seem like is like you take a bite from this apple and this entire world of identity seems to appear. You pull at a leaf from this tree of conditioning, we pull at one thought, and it can seem like ‘Oh, the person is back’. But without picking up this thought from ‘the conveyor belt of the mind’ show me the identity?

So, that is a very good way look at it. Now there is another way to look at sticky identity; which means that which has been nourished a lot with belief in the past. So, those are sticky.
So, if we’ve nourished a particular identity (be it a spiritual seeker identity, be it a parent identity, be it a partner identity) when thoughts come like that, then when they come, they seem more attractive to our belief.

Why does that happen? This is the meaning of interest. Why it happens is because that one has been nourished in the past. The habit has been to smoke that particular brand of cigarette, so when it comes then it seems attractive.

That is what I mean by sticky identities. So, when we look at these identities, if there is a recurring thought that we seem to buy over and over again (like you might have this thought that ‘I’m just not getting it; I’m somehow not getting it’) then you pull that thought into your inquiry and say ‘Can I find the one who is not getting it?’ If the thought is ‘I’m still stuck’ the ‘I’ is again the limited notion about yourself. So, pull that into your inquiry. ‘I’m still stuck. Who is still stuck?’ And when you take this into your inquiry, then persist with it until the idea that ‘I’m still stuck’ becomes laughable!

How do we know when something is not sticky anymore? [Chuckles] When it becomes laughable. So, when the mind comes and says ‘Oh, no, no, I’m still stuck’ or ‘You are still stuck’ does it have juice?

Q: Can I speak?

A: Yes, my dear. [Smiling]

Q: When I say ‘Who is being sticky? Who is making the inquiry?’ it seems like a loop.

A: Ah, yes, So, what are my options for this answer? Suppose I’m a bad student and this question has come; Vidya has asked ‘Who is the one that is making this inquiry?’ Can you also provide the choices that I can pick from?

[Silence] Okay, so let me help with even providing the choices. The first option: The person is doing it. Is that plausible now? ‘The person is doing the inquiry’. Is it a plausible option?

Q: No.

A: No. Why? Because if the person doesn’t exist then how can it do something? If the blue cat is not there, how can it have drunk my bowl of milk? So, person is not an option. After person, what is there?

This Consciousness is there; I exist. So, is the play of the inquiry not a part another part of the play of appearances, which appeared in the light of Consciousness?

Isn’t it? Even ultimately the inquiry or any practice is also a part of the play of appearances. So, if we are saying that Consciousness is the Light if this world, and Consciousness is all there is (no person has ever come) then we are comfortable to say ‘It is Consciousness Itself which has deluded Itself to pose as if it is a person…, and it is Consciousness Itself coming out if this personal delusion and coming into this freedom.

So, God has been playing this game, you see? God has been playing this game of playing as an individual. And you see that there are many manifestations of this game, even in this world. Now, suppose you went for a movie, you went for this movie and suppose you could not relate to the protagonist. If you can’t identify with the protagonist, mostly you will not enjoy that movie. You will say ‘Who are these people? What were they doing? I just couldn’t relate to the characters.’  Just like that. This movie, to extract this kind of juice from this world of appearances, Consciousness has given to Itself this power of belief, this power to pretend as if it is something limited.

Then when it s done with the play like that, it wants to get the joy even of dropping the false person notion. That why usually it doesn’t happen in a finger snap. [Chuckling and snapping his fingers] I can say ‘No, you’re not the cat’. And you See ‘Oh, I’m not the cat’. Done, bye! It doesn’t happen like that. That’s why usually all the masters have said: Continue coming to Satsang until the Master itself tells you that you don’t need it anymore.

Q: So, this Consciousness has insight? Who has insight?

A: Yes, because only Consciousness IS. Only Consciousness exists. Existence itself IS Consciousness. All of this play. That’s why I said that ‘In the Self, [Closed fist] in the ‘I’ comes the appearance of ‘Am’ [Raising one finger] And this ‘Am’ has been projecting all this universe around it (and getting stuck, getting here, getting there). [Twirling his finger around]

Now, Consciousness Itself is turning inwards and coming to the recognition of Its own Source. Nothing happened to the Source. The hand has always been the hand. This finger [Pointing one finger] has ALSO always only been the hand.

This is another way to look at the last verse: Has the finger ever happened? Or has it only been the hand always? [Chuckling] In that way, we can look at that.

But bringing it to a simpler level, we see it is Consciousness. Being is what? I Am. This Atma, this Being, this Consciousness has been saying ‘I am something, I am Vidya, I am the body, I am this, I am that, I’m a spiritual seeker’. So that ‘I am something’ is what the Sages have called ‘jeev atma’. No jeev atma has actually been born. It is the pretense of I Am itself. ‘I am something’. And when the something is dropped, there is only ‘I Am’. It is only ‘I Am’ that has been playing as ‘I am something’. And it is ‘I Am that I Am’.

So, how do we get to even before this ‘I Am’ …, beyond the ‘I Am’? Like the Sufi story which said ‘God? I am higher than that, more than that’. So, that which is beyond God, that which is beyond ‘I Am-ness’ is the I-Itself. It has always been the I alone.

The appearance of the finger is only the appearance. So, the ‘I am something’ has been trying to make sense of spirituality, has been trying to do the inquiry, but the inquiry rids the ‘something’ from the ‘I am something’. Inquiry done truly, the ‘Who am I?’ question asked truly, gets rid of the idea that ‘I am something’. You see? The ‘something’ drops away and I just Am.

So, everything has always been a play of Consciousness. There never have been two. There is only ever been this hand; this hand playing as this finger, then saying ‘I am something’ which is a projection of the Light of this finger itself.

Consciousness has created for Itself this tool called the mind which convinces it that this ‘I Am’ is personal, is something. What is the meaning of ‘I am something’? ‘I am something personal.’ Isn’t it?

Only God has lived here. Only God is having this conversation with God

Q: If I’m beyond ‘I Am; then who is having that insight? I mean, Awareness is beyond all that, right?

A: Yes. So, when the finger recognizes that the Source has been the hand itself, then does the finger come to the conclusion that there is still a finger? There is only the hand.

Another way of saying the same thing again, that ‘I have always only been the hand. There is no finger, although it had appeared as though there was’.

Q: Thank you.

[20.11] Janaka said, “Where is illusion? Where is existence? Where is attachment or non-attachment? Where is person? Where is God? I am Awareness.”

Then you see that, when you discover this Reality, then you notice that all of this play of maya, all of this play of attachment, trying to not be attached and be detached, either of those positions, have been an idea from our limited notion of ourself. I’m either the one who’s attached, who has desires, or the one who’s not attached. You see? You can pick up that position, ‘Oh, I’m just beyond everything.’ Not attached to any of this. But what is the ‘I’ there? That is always the key. If that ‘I’ is still the limited idea of yourself, the individualized idea of yourself, the personal idea of yourself, then neither of these positions will help. We’ve talked about all these opposites, isn’t it? Impure mind, pure mind; with desire, no desire; attachment, no attachment; doer, non-doer. It’s all part of the phenomenal play. How does any of that touch Awareness?

So, when you see your greater Reality As the unchanging one (and I’ve clarified why this is the greater Reality) …, if there are two, and one just comes and goes, and one is eternal, ever-present, then which would you say is greater? So, that is why it is the greater in which that which is coming and going is also coming and going. There is an awareness of that coming and going. So, what is your greater Reality? Do you come and go? Are you still attaching your identity to that which comes and goes? Or do you see for yourself that you are the unchanging one?

So, that identity, if it is attached to that which comes and goes, that is what we called ‘the person’. The idea of there being a ‘me’ (who is something which is not eternal, which is subject to birth and death, which has likes and dislikes, which has desires and aversions, all of this) is what we call the person. And this has been our constant conditioning. Consciousness has believed itself to be this person, through this belief system. (‘You must be attached to this, you must now not be attached to this.’) Everything latches on as a condition, as an identity. What is a person but just a bundle of identities; just a bundle of beliefs? So, if you don’t believe anything about yourself…, if you don’t believe anything about yourself, do you still exist?

And then, the Sage asked the ultimate question: ‘Where is even this existence? Where is this existence’? That’s why at some point, like Maharaj [Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj] can we be bold enough to say even something like ‘Forget about Consciousness’? Even that seeming-forgetting is of course a play within Consciousness. But what is Your greater Reality, that which is before ‘I Am’. Let the ‘I Am’ come and go. What is it to You in reality?

Have we gone too far? It’s the same as saying ‘Allow all these states to come and go; waking, dream, sleep, turiya.’ If all these states are coming and going, and You remain the eternal witness of this coming and going, how does just an appearance in one of these states make a scratch on You or a dent on You? Can something that happens here touch Awareness? You remain untouched.

“Where is illusion? Where is existence? Where is attachment or non-attachment? Where is person?”

Now, the funny thing about the person is, that at least for phenomenal things, we can say, ‘Okay, the computer, here it is; body, here it is; sofa, here it is; people, bodies, here they are.’ But person, where is it? Is it even a phenomenal appearance? It’s not even a phenomenal appearance. You cannot identify the location of this person. Where is this person?

This is a ‘Second level delusion’ which means that it’s just an imagined concept of separation. What is the ego? It’s just an imagined concept of separation, that there is a ‘me’ which is apart from everything else. That is the notion, isn’t it? That there is a ‘me’ which is apart from anything else.

Now, unless you think about it, can you believe such a notion? Can you experience such a notion? Of course, we need a thought to believe something but, is it your experience that there is a ‘me’? Sensations can be there. The body sensations can feel very intimate. But can you distinguish between your body sensations and the sensations of this voice, and the sensations of the sound from the road, and the sensation of the breeze from the fans, unless you define a boundary for the ‘me’ which is based on thought? Can you do it? All are appearing in the same space of Your existence. If you do not exist, would these sensations be experienced? You see?

Now, many have misunderstood this, and felt that this is something speaking individually, saying that all of this is in the mind of the individual. I’m not saying that. That is what is called Solipsism. I’m not saying that.

I’m saying that the misidentification is about who you are. I’m referring to You-as-Consciousness. I’m referring to You as beyond even that Consciousness. I’m not speaking to you as the body. If I were speaking to you as an individual entity, and then saying that all of this is your play, then that could be a misunderstanding.

You are This. Your existence is the Light of this Consciousness. Only from this place can you say that ‘All of this is a coming and going. I am the eternal, unchanging one’ …, or can you say, ‘I am the one solitary witness of all there is’. Or you can say (a very sweet verse, which is) ‘I am wonderful indeed, beyond adoration.’ All of this comes from that place.

No person has ever become special. There is no enlightened person. Enlightenment is the discovery that there is no person. The recognition of Your existence beyond personality, beyond personhood, is what we are talking about.

“Where is person? Where is God? I am Awareness.”

So now, depending on your definition of God. So, some refer to God as this sense ‘I Am’ which is how I usually refer to Consciousness or God, the sense ‘I Am’. Now, in the ultimate reality of what I Am, even this Consciousness is a coming and going.

For those who are new to Satsang (I don’t know about you, but for those who are new to Satsang) even the statement ‘I am God’ can sound very arrogant or special or something. But here, what is the Sage saying? ‘I’m beyond even God. God is a coming-and-going for me’ …, depending again on your definition of God. But if you say Consciousness is God, this Presence is God, this Existence is God, then you are even beyond that. Many refer to This (the Self, the Absolute Itself) as God, which is also fine. But don’t get confused by definition. This is what is being spoken about.

“Where is God? I am Awareness.”

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

When will the discovery happen? NOW. Only Now. It can happen only Right Now. It cannot happen in a projection of the future and it cannot happen in the post-mortem of the past. What is it that You Are…, Right Now?

Every clue which is available in Vedanta you have heard now in the 19 chapters of Ashtavakra. Almost every clue in Vedanta has been heard by you. Now, in this moment, Here and Now, what is it that You Are?

Simple…, if you don’t go along with what the mind is saying (‘But, but, but…’) and if you don’t go along with what the quality and content of what your feeling is right now. Don’t go with any of these. Don’t resist any of that, of course. Find out: What witnesses that? Come to the unchanging.

Then truly, when we use the words ‘the unborn, the undying, the eternal’ it is not just a concept. It is your own direct experience.

And all these pointings are not something for you to do. Just allow them some space in which they can enter.

You cannot solve it. Like I say, you cannot solve ‘Who am I?’ like an equation. (‘I will add 3 + 2 and multiply it by 55 and then I will get the answer. Yes! Right or wrong?’) We’re trying to solve it like this. [Points to his head; deep thinking] [Chuckles] You cannot get it like that. What did the Sage say? You cannot get it through these phenomenal tools.

Let these words do their work on their own. Just a simple sense of allowing (if that is possible in Satsang). Just to keep that; something just opens up.

Because the mind will take even these pointings and make a doer out of you. ‘Am I doing it right? Have I got to the right witness? Is this really the witness? Is it really unchanging?’ You see? It will become like that.

So, just like that, with some openness, Know that this is Your own intuitive Presence which is speaking. It’s only using the body of this so-called-Ananta to communicate. But what is the voice that is speaking? Your own intuitive Presence, reminding Itself of Its own Source: Where does Consciousness come from? Where does the Satguru come from?

So, far Consciousness has been playing on this side of the field where things are moving. [Holds up a stationary hand in the center, and moves his other hand on one side of it] Can we now play on this side of the field where there is nothing moving?  [Shifts the moving hand to the other side of the stationary hand and keeps it still and unmoving there]

It’s just a simple recognition. Who is coming to this recognition? It is the dynamic aspect of the Self, which is Consciousness.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.9] Janaka said, “Where is distraction, concentration, knowledge or delusion? Where is joy or sorrow? I am Stillness.”

“Where is distraction, concentration, knowledge or delusion?” Why is the Sage saying all of this? Because it is time to drop all this trying to get this focused mind, to have these certain practices. Janaka is saying ‘I See what I Am, beyond this entire play [of] trying to control my attention, trying to control my senses, trying to control my mind.’ Distraction and attention…, what is it that You Are?

“…knowledge or delusion?” We talked about that. “Where is joy or sorrow? I am Stillness.” [Silence]

So, I want to tell you about three types of bliss.

One is the joy or the happiness that you get which is based on objects. You have a coconut; I like those, they are sweet. Some joy can come based on some objective taste.

The second is Divine Joy. As you come to Your unassociated Presence, I Am which is Being, You notice that there’s a different fragrance to the joy in Your Presence. There’s nothing yearning for that joy, there’s no need for joy, and yet it is unavoidable. It just appears. Love, Peace and Joy are Your fragrance as Consciousness not attaching itself to personal identity. It is empty of any object; you don’t need an object of any sort to come to this.

And the final joy, Brahman; that purity of the attribute-less-ness. It is not that ‘pure and impure’ in the realm of duality pure. This, that is beyond Being; That which is just aware. This joy is not something that can be really spoken about; beyond even the joy of existence. Joy of the Self. You will See that the Self, in Its very nature, is Joy. So, this Ananda. This quality-less Ananda. How can I make sense out of that for you? You have to taste it for YourSelf.

In the Presence, this Joy is unavoidable. So, all that is seemingly-needed is to drop our feverishness for an objective type of joy. And you See that, in its simplicity, there is nowhere for this Divine Joy to go but to be in service to You. Love, Peace and Joy are in service to Your Presence.

And just like karma, one of the apparent ways in which this universe works is: that which we keep chasing, chasing, chasing seems to run, run, run. So, if we keep chasing, chasing, chasing joy, joy, joy…, then joy seems to run, run, run. [Laughs]

Just empty of any notion…, tell me if that is not joy? It’s very natural, joy. That Ananda. Sat Chit Ananda. The simple way that I put this: You worry about Sat and Chit; Ananda will take care of itself. [Chuckles]

So, don’t worry about if it’s complex about the three types of joy; we don’t need to know this. Just to clarify in case there are some ideas we might have about this.

But, the simpler pointing? Stay with the Truth; just remain in Your Being as You Are. Nobody can report truly there is no joy. Only when looked at through a personal lens, it can seem like it is missing.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.5] Janaka said, “Where is the doer or enjoyer? Where is the origin or end of thought? Where is direct or reflected knowledge? There is no person here.”

“Where is the doer or enjoyer?” Where is it? Who is hearing right now? There’s only one thing; that the same one is hearing and speaking. There is only One: Consciousness speaking with Consciousness. Without a notion of yourself, this is your perceived reality also. This is what you are Seeing; but many times, this is not what you’re saying. Next time some words appear from your mouth, find out who spoke them. Is there really somebody sitting over there and saying it? Where do these words come from? The hand is moving; is there an Ananta sitting there somewhere behind? No, there isn’t. There is only God, there is only Consciousness. Is there is Rama sitting over there, Joya sitting there; is there a Gopala sitting over there, hearing these words? No, there isn’t any such thing. All of this is appearing within Your Being, within Consciousness; various appearances are happening. You See God. Only See God. Who Sees God? God Sees God.

The mind is designed to be the seller of the ‘But…’ ‘But, but, but…, I don’t feel that I’m God.’ The un-inquired ‘I’ is the ego. You see? Just a notion that we pick up about ourselves without looking at who that really is. Because it cannot withstand inquiry. The ego cannot withstand inquiry; open inquiry. You will See that there is nobody there. I say ‘Where are you?’ Yesterday, somebody was saying ‘I’m something, inside my body.’ Where? Where are you?  What are you?

So, the doer and enjoyer do not exist ( even if you consider yourself to be that) because no person exists. That’s why I like these simple examples like the blue cat. Why? Because many of you say ‘The person doesn’t exist, I’m pretty clear about that now. But how do I get rid of the doer identity?’ So, it’s like saying ‘I’m aware that there is no blue cat but how do I keep it from drinking all the milk from the house?’ It is a contradiction, you see? If you know that you do not exist personally, then who is it that has the attribute of doership? That which actually IS.

So, person does not exist. Does that mean that You are not? Nobody can say You are not because even to say You are not, You must be. [Chuckles]

Sangha guest: You have to exist.

Ananta: You have to exist. Exactly. So, this existence is whose existence?

THIS IS THE PRIMAL MISUNDERSTANDING.

This existence is whose existence? Is this a personal existence?

It is Existence Itself (whether you call it Consciousness, God, I Am, Being, Atma; whatever you call It). But when we say ‘This existence is of the person that I consider myself to be’ that is the basis, the root, of the play of what is called the ‘jivatma’ (the ‘I am something’). Atma, I Am, Your Being Itself, playing as ‘I am something’.  Atma picked up the notion about Itself as something limited, then plays the role of the jivatma which then takes on all these roles (student, husband, wife, employee, manager, all of this; spiritual seeker). Then, what is the troublesome role that it will pick up? The enlightened one! [Chuckles] Don’t bother with that one. Don’t bother with that one because that can be super-sticky. I’m telling you. A true Sage is not ‘the enlightened person’…, ‘the enlightened one’.

Not true; whatever is a limited notion about yourself. I keep saying ‘limited notion, limited notion’…, why? Because it is the perpetuation of the mind. And if you really smell for what the mind is saying, you will find that almost everything that it is selling to you is the idea of your limitedness in some way; is your boundaries being defined. Any concept you pick up about yourself draws a boundary about itself. It’s trying to create a line in space and saying ‘Space starts and ends in this’.

“Where is the doer or enjoyer? Where is the origin or end of thought?”

Beautiful exercise, isn’t it? Where does a thought come from? Many who start coming to Satsang are feeling like they are creating their thoughts and also they are creating their action. And many times, after a few Satsangs with me usually, they See that ‘Wow. They are just appearing and disappearing’. It is the role of action that usually is more sticky. It will also come to that Seeing, where you See that ‘Just like these thoughts are appearing and disappearing within Consciousness and going back into Consciousness, in the same way the actions are also appearing and disappearing within Consciousness and going back into Consciousness. That’s why when Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘You are neither the thinker of your thoughts nor the doer of your actions’ then it will make sense. You’ll start to See that all of these are just appearing. And the mind comes either pre-event or post-facto trying to take credit or blame for what happened. But actually, what is happening is just a movement within Consciousness.

“Where is the origin or end of thought? Where is direct or reflected knowledge? There is no person here.”

“Direct or reflected knowledge.” In India, scripturally, there are some which are direct scriptures and some which are commentaries or reflections of those scriptures. So, the Sage is now in the last chapter and Janaka is reporting that ‘All of this which might have been used along the way…, now I find myself to be beyond all of this’. Where is all of this? Who does it apply to? (‘You must be a good person. You must find your enlightenment.’) Who does it apply to?

And notice the nature of the mind will come and say (because it only understands opposites) ‘So, does this mean I can just go around shooting people?’ First time I heard something like this was with Ramesh, where when he said ‘You are not the doer’ people usually had one of these two objections: ‘Does this mean I can be irresponsible, lazy and lie down in bed all day?’ (First objection.) Second objection is: ‘Does this mean that I’m not responsible; that I’m going around shooting people?’

There is no doer of actions, and yet the play of Consciousness continues to move. Mind comes and says ‘Do this, do that; don’t do this, don’t do that’. If you were even to statistically keep track of this, you will see that this doership will fall away; because how many times have you decided ‘I’m going to do this’?

One of my favorite examples (because it happened here) was how many times I that when I go in to work, I’m going to tell my boss ‘This, this, this; I don’t like this!’ And you show up to work and you’re standing in front of your boss and you say ‘Sir, what can I do today? What is there for me?’ [Laughs]

So, this whole idea of decision-making running this life is quite fraudulent, even if you were to investigate it statistically, you will see it doesn’t stand. Many times, you will see that exactly the opposite of what the seeming-decision was seems to happen.

It’s just the fear of lack of control; lack of personal control, which makes us unwilling to look with openness about this. Something clicks a button somewhere. ‘What happens if I hand over and I open up?’ Hand over this existence to Existence. What is so difficult about that? The difficulty only comes because there is this fear of not having control of what’s going to happen.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.4] Janaka said, “Where is the unfolding of karma? Where is liberation-in-life, or even liberation at death? There is only One.”

Now, some of you might be hearing this and if you’ve come from a traditional spiritual background, something might be going ‘ouch, ouch’ because if we’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand karma, trying to purify our karma, trying to do all of this; and then there’s been a lot of time going into either of these two traditional paths: trying to get liberation while in this body and the other path is to try to be in as much devotion as possible so that at the  moment of death you merge into the Lord itself (revelation at death). These are two traditional Indian spiritual paths.

Now, Ashtavakra Gita is saying: Where is all of this; karma? Who does karma apply to? Even if it is the design of the world, even if it is the design of this play that what happens here is that you will reap what you sow (what goes around, comes around) …, even if that is the design of this world, who does it apply to? Is it the script of the movie? Or is it about You? Then you See that ‘That One that is the Light of this movie is so beyond any idea of rules; even when it seems to play in a certain way. Just when we pick up the idea that it must be this way, you will see that something, the opposite, shows up.

Many times, these things will come and it’s just like God is saying ‘Hello’. Like with a so-called coincidence with a mathematical probability of one in a gazillion [Chuckles] will show up; there’s no explanation for it. How could it be that this is just what we were talking about and here it is? Like that. So, that’s like God saying ‘Hello’. So, many times, we get this kind of play in the movie where we just See that it’s undeniable that there is a Supreme Intelligence, which is completely free, that seems to be running this world, this life. And if we look back at our life, we are able to admit that (most of us are able to admit that). Many times, we will say ‘I just happened to be at the right place at the right time’. I just happened to see Guruji [Sri Mooji] on video, on YouTube, and life is changed; beautiful things. But mostly we are okay to make this kind of statement about the past but the mind very rarely is able to use that to surrender everything in the future.

So, whatever might be the rules or the functioning of this realm, whatever your paths to liberation might be, whatever your ideas about liberation might have been, who do they apply to now?

Who is here that is free or bound?

Who is here that is either free or bound?

Was here ever the prisoner?

Was there ever a prison except the idea of it?

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.3] Janaka said, “Where is Knowledge and ignorance? Where is ‘I’? Where is ‘this’? Where is ‘mine’? Where is bondage and liberation? Self has no attributes.”

Just what we were saying. Now, “Knowledge and ignorance.” If they’re in the play of opposites, (what do I know? How far are we away from the sun?) either we have that mental concept or we don’t have it. But that knowledge is different from this Knowingness Itself, this Awareness Itself. So, don’t get confused with the terminology. There can be our conceptual knowledge: How far are we away from the sun? Second, it can be our perceptual knowledge: How many people are in this room? …, experiential in this way. There can be an emotional sort of knowledge: How am I feeling right now? Am I feeling a sense of joy? Am I feeling a sense of boredom? See? Whatever the qualitative feeling might be; emotional knowledge.

Beyond that…, what is That which Knows of your very existence? What type of Knowledge is that? How do you know that you exist? Do you use some senses? Do you use a concept? When I ask you ‘Can you stop being?’ …, to experience your own Beingness, are you using a concept? Are you using senses? Are you using a feeling? None of these? And yet, you say, ‘Yes. I Am Here. Beingness is Here. I cannot stop being.’ What is aware of this? This Awareness.

This Awareness. What is aware of That? Can we go as far as to ask this? I am aware of my Presence. What is aware that I am aware of my Presence?

I know that to the mind it might sound like it is possible to have an infinite regress. It’s not true. It has to stop here. If you are following through your recognition, if you are following with your direct insight, then you will See that there is nowhere for it to go. This is actually the last question that you can ask yourself; because after this, the play of subject and object stops. There is nobody there; beyond even Presence, beyond any qualities.

Awareness is Self-aware. And it is much simpler than it might sound to the mind. It is because it is Self-aware that you are able to say ‘I am aware of my Presence’. To say ‘I am aware of my Presence’ you have to Know ‘aware’ and ‘Presence’.

Don’t try to understand these words They’ll just become a big mish-mash in your head. Just let them play. You are aware that you exist. And it is not that you are unaware that you are aware that you exist. It’s not a riddle to solve. It’s the most natural thing.

“Where is ‘I’? Where is ‘this’? Where is ‘mine’?” So, this ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and ‘this and that’…, we’ve looked at these many times as we come to this point of the Ashtavakra Gita. “Where is bondage and liberation?” We’ve already discussed this today.

“Self has no attributes.”

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.2] Janaka said, “Where is scripture? Where is Self-knowledge? Where is no-mind? Where is contentment and freedom from desire? I am empty of two-ness.”

“Where is scripture?” [Chuckles] Reading the scripture, they ask the question ‘Where is scripture?’ So, now is the time. What is the Sage pointing to? The Sage is pointing to (is saying) ‘Now is the time to drop all this knowledge that we have picked up. They have been useful only as pointers. There is nothing you need to remember or to know (small ‘k’ know) about the Self. You don’t need to know mentally the Knowingness, the Awareness.

If you don’t remember one verse of the Bhagavad Gita, if you don’t know what happened in the last 19 chapters [of Ashtavakra Gita] it’s completely fine. What is it that you are Now? You don’t know anything about anything at all. You don’t even know what you’re doing here. It’s better, actually, because we know too much. If you know what you’re doing here or where you have to go, then these mental notions just get in the way (seemingly; as part of the play).

If you can only See Right Now that to exist, you are not using a concept.

Is a thought or a concept holding up your existence right now? If you thought in another language, if you did not understand your thoughts, would you cease to exist in this moment? And then, if it is just Here, this existence, unaided, and this world of appearances continues to move as it has to, then what is it that is the doer? What is it that wants something? What is it that is separate? Is there any such thing? How long will be fall for the interpretation of these sensations, the intimacy of these seeming-sensations? How long will we let it convince us that we are just this bundle of flesh and blood? That’s all that’s happening.

I was saying to someone yesterday (they were saying that ‘You are the body’) that actually you experience the body just as a set of sensations. Sensations: feelings, pain, pleasure. Whatever labels we give to those sensations. So, Consciousness has been caught up trying to disentangle itself from the sensations of pain and go toward sensations of pleasure.

Now, are you not done with that game?

What is beyond these two opposites?

Is That which is aware of all this…,

subject to any of this?

Is that not You?

So, Your unlimited Self removes the false notion of the self (the limited self) and remains the unlimited Self. As Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said: ‘I’ removes the ‘I’ yet remains the ‘I’.

This is what Satsang is for. I was saying that any place which seems to become an aid in this world to remove this limited notion of ‘I’ (your idea of limitation about yourself) is Satsang. And any place which reinforces it is not Satsang (even if it is this room). You see? So, it is possible to hear the words of Satsang and again reinforce a spiritual ego. Or it is possible to hear the voice of Satsang as pointers to See.

Only two pointers you need:

What witnesses everything and yet remains unchanging?
What witnesses everything and ItSelf remains unchanging?

This one sentence is more than enough actually.

I usually speak for so long every day, but actually you just need to pick up one small little thing as the tools.

“Where is scripture? Where is Self-knowledge? Where is no-mind? Where is contentment and freedom from desire?”

So, where is no-mind and contentment and freedom from desire? Many are trying to get to the ‘no-mind’. What is no-mind? Because the bundle of thoughts is ‘mind’. When there is no thought, what is here? Now, mind or no-mind (whether there is an object on the screen or no object on the screen) what happened to That which witnesses it?

Sangha guest: It witnesses either.

Ananta: Simply, it witnesses either.  Isn’t it? So, although these concepts were useful at one time, we come to this Seeing that whether the appearance of mind is there or there is no appearance of mind, I-as-the-Self remain unchanged, untouched.

“Where is no-mind? Where is contentment and freedom from desire?”

So, many also on the spiritual path are trying to get to this contentment. Many times, the spiritual journey is like picking up stones along the way and filling up the bag of ‘me’…, then wanting to be unburdened. Trying to do this, trying to get there, without first establishing Your True position Right Now.

Can it be this simple…, that all that we are looking for (contentment, freedom from desire) really does not apply to the Reality of You? It only applied to the notion of yourself.

If you were beyond these opposites, how would that be?

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 20: Liberation-in-Life.  [20.1] Janaka said, “Where are the elements, the body, the organs, the mind? Where is the void? Where is despair? My nature is transparent clearness.”

So, as we were saying the other day, this is one of the most important clues. What it is that is beyond the elements, including the space which contains them? Must be You. But can we settle for this just as a concept? It’s best used a pointer, as is all of the Ashtavakra Gita. The elements; earth, water, fire, air and space. What witnesses that? Is that also elemental?

“Where are the elements, the body…” What is the body made up of? Elements also, the same elements.

“…the organs, the mind?” See, all of these are the by-products of the appearance of this phenomenal realm; by-products of the appearance as ‘I Am’. What it is that is before this ‘I Am’?

Like I was saying yesterday, how do we come to this discovery? What tools can we use to come to this pure recognition of the Self? If we’ve been told that we cannot find it in the phenomenal realm, is it even possible? At least we know which tools to discard to start with. We’ve been told that it’s not phenomenal, the discovery…, it’s not elemental; then we know which tools to discard. What are the tools to discard which won’t help you in the discovery? The body, the senses, the mind. Because? Can we go beyond the phenomenal? So, what is it that is beyond this? Now, we’ve been left without any support. [Silence]
The Sage has pointed again and again to go to the witness of these. All that is phenomenal…, what witnesses them? “…the body, the organs, the mind?” The elements. Where are all of these? Where are they? Take it as a little question. So, where are they? Where are they? [Smiling] Sometimes, we can hear it as poetry and sometimes, we can take the question seriously. Where are all of these? When you question where they are, then you might say ‘They are in the realm of appearance’. Why do we say they are in the realm of appearance?

What is an appearance?

That which comes and goes.

So, any of these, are they constant? Not coming and going? That is the second clue, isn’t it?

[First]: That which is the constant witness (and)

[Second]: That which does not come and go.

This is what we are looking for. Simple. Simple for You, but impossible for the mind (or the organs).

Now, we were saying the other day, if you want to board a flight but you want to keep one foot on the ground, can you do that? Isn’t it impossible? So, to come to this discovery and hold onto a limited concept about yourself, hold on to a mental notion of yourself, is impossible. Because the mind will mix even mud in this chocolate cake. [Chuckles] You will come to this beautiful recognition, that it is ‘I’ that is aware of all that is moving. And the mind will come and say ‘Can I keep this now?’ Again, what story has it sold you? Of the same limited one. Not about That which witnesses all of this. So, even this recognition, when we allow the mind to come in, it will only sell us a story of the limited identity; trying to keep it, asking whether you really got it, whether the world can see that I got it.

The mind is that voice that is selling you that limited notion about yourself, which you can never really find.

“My nature is transparent clearness.”

So, what does this mean? Basically, it means that it is attribute-less, quality-less, clear beyond any clear; transparent beyond transparency. “Transparent clearness.” Now, as I say this ‘transparent clearness’ if you give it to your mind to find this transparent clearness, it will try to give you an image; something transparent, maybe something luminous…, all of these ideas. But find out what witnesses even that image and who is aware of this witnessing.

Who is the perceiver of this mental notion of transparency?

Who is the perceiver of this and who is aware of this perceiving?

Then you’ll See transparency beyond any mental notion of transparency. Then you’re playing on this side of the field.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[20.6] Janaka said, “Where is the world? Where is the seeker of liberation? Where is the contemplative? Where is the man of Knowledge? Where is the soul in bondage? Where is the liberated soul? My nature is Unity.”

We’ve looked at all these aspects.

[20.7] “Where are creation and destruction? Where is the end and the means? Where is the seeker? Where is attainment? I am One.”

When we start to look at this life empty of the personal lens, our experience (even that which we call our daily day to day life, which we take so much for granted) …, do you realize what wakes up every morning?

Who wakes up every morning?
And from where that comes?

This Consciousness, this Being, I Am.

With the waking up of this Being, we say that the world wakes up, this universe wakes up. That’s why the Sage earlier said, ‘I am that shoreless ocean in which the arks of this universe which go up and down, they appear and disappear. I am that in which all these states (waking, dream, sleep and turiya) come and go.’

So, what is your daily experience? You who have come? You who as Consciousness appeared to exist within this existence, create this entire play of light and sound, and time and space, all these beautiful movements of electricity and gravity and magnetism. All these appearances came. Where do they go? When you are not (when existence dissolves into its Source) where does all of this go? Just like the contents of a dream; it flows right back into You.

Simply, empty of the lens of personhood, you start to see the world in this way. Your living day-to-day life (which seemed so mundane for the person) you will see is full of these wonders. This is the leela of God.

Whose leela is it? Yours.
You can feel like ‘Oh, there’s a God whose leela it is and you are just an object within that play.’
All of this is Your doing, as Consciousness.

Creation and destruction; where does this happen? “Where is the end and the means? Where is the seeker? Where is attainment? I am One.”

[20.8] Janaka said, “Where is the knower? Where is knowing? Where is the known, or knowledge itself? Where is anything? Where is nothing? I am pure Awareness.”

You see, when you come to the Self, the knower, knowing and knowledge, the known; these distinctions they fade. It is beyond the subject/object relationship. Don’t be confused by the words. All I’m saying is that there is an object which you perceive. Therefore, in that, I am the object and you are the subject of that. Now who is the Subject of this subject? [Points to himself]

Who perceives this? You.

You perceive an object.

What perceives this perception?

That’s why in the Upanishad it is said, ‘Who hears hearing? Who sees sight?’ Not to be taken literally. You know what I mean. Who is aware of sight? Who is aware of hearing? Who is aware of all perception? Who is aware of the so-called movement of attention?

You find that here there is no distinction between Knowing, the knower and the known. There is no distinction between subject and object.

“Where is anything? Where is nothing? I am pure Awareness.”

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Satsang is this: whatever might be the environment you’re in, whatever might be the place you’re in, if it is about this coming to the recognition of the Self and letting go of the false…, it could be that you’re in the middle of a fish market, but it is still Satsang.

In the physical environment of Satsang, many times it could be that we are picking up more and more concepts about ourself. So, then it is no longer Satsang. In the physical environment of Satsang, of course, there is so much energetic Presence which is available, so much Satguru’s grace which is available allowing the mind to just come and go. But it can be that those who are playing the game of building their spiritual ego, can find the Satsang environment very nourishing for the ego also. Then Satsang words are looked at as if they are concepts to know, concepts to learn or something like that; not being used as the tools to remove all that we know.

Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said self-inquiry or the question ‘Who am I?’ is the thorn we are using to remove the other thorns. But suppose we’re using it and embedding that as a thorn itself? Then we pick up the next thorn, ‘Are you aware now?’ and put that as a thorn. ‘Can you stop being?’ and put that as a thorn. You see, if all these become badges for our spiritual ego, which is a collection of all the most beautiful spiritual concepts, but empty of true insight [Touches his heart] then all these are just badges of honor of the ego playing in a spiritual way. But any one of these pointers, when used to check the Reality of what You Are…, check on the Reality of what You Are, you will find that everything there is empty of all positions, all conditions, all doing, all desire; empty of duality.

[18.96] Ashtavakra said, “The man of Knowledge is neither happy nor miserable, neither detached nor attached, neither liberated nor seeking liberation. He is neither this nor that.”

All of us now have the ears to hear this. Because to the worldly ears, this doesn’t make any sense. Exactly what we were speaking about some time ago, neither this nor that; empty of position. Is it possible?

For many of us, it can sound like it’s not possible. ‘Am I free or bound?’ But what if there’s a third option? In India, we usually have this third option called ‘not applicable’. I wonder if it is there everywhere in the world: ‘not applicable’. Why is it not applicable? Because You are not that which could be bound. So, if You are not that which could be bound, how will You be free? It’s not possible at all. It’s like ‘What is the color of the space in this room?’ Not applicable. It does not apply. So, in that way.

So, when the Sage says, “The man of Knowledge is neither happy nor miserable” this is Knowledge with the capital ‘K’. It’s not that the one who has learned a lot, who has a lot of mental concepts has come to the true discovery, the true Knowingness Itself. This is a “man of Knowledge.” He “is neither happy nor miserable.”

“…, neither detached nor attached, neither liberated nor seeking liberation.” If You are prior to time and space, do any of these apply? For everything, it is not applicable. Click the box: Not applicable. Mind comes and says ‘But what am I supposed to do next?’ Not applicable; I am not that. [Chuckles] ‘Are we doing the right thing? Am I doing the wrong thing?’ Not applicable. ‘What do you need in your life?’ Not applicable. ‘Where do you want to go next?’ Not applicable. This is the meaning of ‘not believing your next thought’.

Many times, when I say ‘Don’t believe your next thought’ many hear it as ‘You must believe the opposite’ or something. It is not that. It is out of the play of opposites; basically, coming to this ‘not applicable’. Is it left, or right? None of these.

Now, it’s only in Chapter 18, verse 96 that we can truly get the importance of this, get the meaning of this, and still see that there is this mind which comes with this ‘I’ and says ‘What is my true position? What is my real position?’ And it wants to use enlightenment also as a position. That’s why the Sage says “neither liberated nor seeking liberation” so that neither becomes a position.

To find the Truth means to discover That which always was. You are not discovering something which now you have become. The outward play might change, the expression in this body might change but the Truth has always stayed the same. So, it is the continuing confusion of the outward play of this body/mind to be ‘me’ which can then lead to us believing these positions.

If You are not a thing, if You are not a thing at all…, just this simple Seeing that ‘I am not an object and all positions belong to only objects. Hence, how can something which is not an object have a position?’

And that which has no attributes; can you say something about it? Only like this, only in the negative, in this way: it is not that, it is not that. Neti neti. It does not have attributes, it does not have qualities. What does it have? At best, you can say Awareness, Witnessing (which Itself is not something It ‘has’).

[18.97] Ashtavakra said, “Even while distracted, the blessed one is still. In meditation, he does not meditate. In ignorance, he remains clear. Though learned, he knows nothing.”

Now, each of these aspects, we’ve looked at many times, so we’ll go forward to 98.

[18.98] Ashtavakra said, “The liberated one, who abides unconditionally in Self, who is free of the concept of action and duty, who is always and everywhere the same, is desireless. He does not worry about what he did or did not do.”

So this, as I say, are the 3-D’s: desire, doership, duality. These are the legs of the ego. So, as you see that you are not the doer, no desire is actually true about You because You are not a thing, You are not an object. And no separation has ever happened. You will find that the play of the outer world can continue. All the attributes which the Sage has mentioned might continue to be seen in the life of the Sage, but if you were to ask him ‘What is your truth?’ he would say ‘I’m not doing anything. All is happening with the will of Consciousness.’

[18.99] Ashtavakra said, “The wise one is neither pleased by praise, nor annoyed by blame. He neither rejoices in life nor fears death.”

Again, we’ve discussed this. Don’t get confused about the rejoicing. It’s not that the external celebration cannot happen. Joy can come. Laughter can come. In fact, it will be very natural for it to come. But he’s not identified as ‘the rejoicer’. He’s not identified as ‘the experiencer’. All of this is the movement of the waves on the surface of the ocean. But the Sage Knows that his depth is much more than the surface. His Reality remains untouched, whatever the movement of the ocean might be.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 19: Repose in the Self.

[19.1] Janaka said, “With the tongs of Truth I have plucked the thorn of thinking from the innermost cave of my heart.”

This is God saying ‘Hello’. Isn’t it? These things happen when God is saying ‘Hello’. We just spoke about it; this is exactly what we just discussed

[19.2] Janaka said, “Where is meditation, pleasure, prosperity or discrimination? Where is duality? Where even is Unity? I abide in the glory of Self.”

So, all of these have now fallen into the ‘non-applicable’. Should you meditate or not? Not-applicable. In the appearance, meditation could appear…, or not. That’s why I say – Before enlightenment chopping wood, fetching water; After enlightenment chopping wood, fetching water…, or not! That ‘or not’ is very important.

“Where is meditation, pleasure, prosperity or discrimination?” What is this discrimination? This discrimination was not how it is usually used in the world; this discrimination was to check between that which is real and unreal. How to check between that which is unreal and real? You find that which is unchanging is real; and that which changes is an appearance.

But now…, (although that was a useful tool; you said ‘not this, not this, not this, not this’ because that is still the realm of change) but now, coming to this recognition, do we need to ‘not this’ anything? Nothing! Everything is accepted as is. And yet, you now that your reality is much more; much beyond that. The ‘not this’ is a very beautiful tool to bring some focus to what You Really Are. So, the Sage is not spending the rest of his life saying ‘Oh, I am not this, I am not this’. The tool served its purpose and the purpose was what? “I have plucked the thorn of thinking from the innermost cave of my heart.” That is the purpose of all this spiritual pointing. They all had this one purpose.

“Where is duality? Where even is Unity? I abide in the glory of Self.”

“Where even is Unity” is a very important point. Because although we might say ‘I am that One Awareness’ actually it is more accurate to say ‘I am that not-two Awareness’. Advaita: non- dual. Because when we come to the discovery of the Self, it is not One. Because if there was One; then in-built in the concept of one, there is a two. If there can be something which is a one, there is a possibility for there to be two. You see? In accounts. [Laughter] So, it is not an objective discovery at all. It is not an object which is just ‘That One’. It is empty of all objective qualities. Although Oneness is a beautiful way to point to that, to explain that, the discovery is not of ‘One’.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf