BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

A: Reading from the chapter which is called ‘The Nature of the Self.’

The questioner asks, ‘What is Reality?’

He said, ‘Reality must be always Real.’ (Reality must be always Real.) ‘It is not with forms and names; that which underlies these is the Reality. It underlies limitations being Itself Limitless, it is not bound.’

Now, one advice before we go further into this is: Don’t read this as if it is poetry, don’t hear this as if it is ‘Ah, beautiful, aahhh, very nice’. It could be; the words also carry a certain sweetness about them, especially if they are not poking us at this time [Chuckling] then they do carry a sweetness. Enjoy the sweetness if there is sweetness but hear them more as if you were lost. You wanted to come to Indiranagar and you were lost in Koramangala and you asked somebody for directions. Hear like that because He’s giving you directions, so hear them as pointers, hear them as something you have to use to explore Yourself. To ‘See’ this for yourself is the point of this. And not to just take it at face value, to just believe the words.

So, let me repeat then: ‘Reality must be always Real.’ This is a good example. One is you can hear it and you can make a conceptual notion of it and say ‘Ah, Reality is that which is always real; good, good.’ Something like that. Or you can say ‘What is always Real? What can I confirm which is always Real? What has not come and gone? Is there some perception like that? Is there some thought like that? is there some belief like that?’ You see? What has always been?

Then he gives further clues, it is still directing. ‘It is not with forms and names.’ This is beautiful. Very often I say that the Masters main job is to tell you where not to go. So, I say that if you are looking for some Jimmy Chu shoes or something like that then don’t go to Tippisandara [a locality in Bangalore] you won’t find them in Tippisandra and don’t go to Marathahalli [a locality in Bangalore] … like that, so at least you’ll save yourself this trouble.

So, if you’re looking for that which is Real, He’s telling you already that it’s not with forms and names, so don’t go there.

‘That which underlies these is the Reality.’

This we can use to explore what underlies these. What has to be before I can experience an objective reality; before I can perceive objects; before I can conceptualize things; what has to be?
‘It is not bound, It underlies unrealities, Itself being Real. Reality is that which Is. It Is as It Is. It transcends speech.’

Three words: ‘It transcends speech.’ But if you just hear the words, most of the trouble you will have on this so-called spiritual path will not bother you. So, if you hear these three words ‘It transcends speech’ then you will let go of most of your struggle. Is this hitting home somewhere? Because most of us on this so-called path of ‘Gyan Yoga’ we are trying to chase that ultimate Gyan. But this Ultimate Gyan or Ultimate Knowledge, Self-Knowledge, Atma Gyan is not going to be a Supreme concept. I cannot emphasis this point enough. Because most of us feel that when we’ve built this conceptual house big enough and strong enough and tall enough, we will get to that final answer but you will not be able to solve this in this way. It is not an intellectual process, not a mental process. True Knowledge is beyond conceptual knowledge. In fact, Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharishi] says later that True Knowledge is not to be found; it is only ignorance that has to be given up. It is only that which is false about you which you are believing to be true which has to be given up for this recognition to be so apparent; more apparent to you than to sit where you’re sitting. Even now you can check this: What is most apparent to you? Most apparent, most simple, most original. You see, it is that simple and that is why it is impossible for the mind. Because it is that simple it is impossible for the mind just like you cannot capture space with a sieve. Or measure this space with a weighing scale. In the same way this limited conceptual mind cannot capture Reality.

So, He said ‘It transcends speech. Now, these are just three words. If you take them to heart, if you take them to be a real pointer, you will see that what we are searching for is some sort of answer. We’re looking for some sort of solution but it is not that.

Who is it? …maybe Wittgenstein said that, ‘The only solution to this problem of life is to recognize that there is no problem of life.’ It’s exactly like searching for the Self.

[Continues to read from the book]: ‘It is beyond the expressions, existence and nonexistence.’ You see, then this whole debate between the Vedantans and the Buddhists about the nature of Reality (is it Being or not-Being?) gets swept aside. He is saying that That Reality which is beyond the notions of existence and non-existence always Is. But you cannot say; you cannot even capture it in the terms ‘Supreme Being’ or ‘not Being, not Self’.

‘The Reality which is the mere Consciousness that remains when ignorance is destroyed along with non-objects alone is the Self.’ Don’t get confused. He’s just saying to let go of that you have believed about YourSelf to be true (these limiting belief systems) and you’ll see the mere, apparent clarity about what you are.

‘In that Bhrama Swaroopa, Real form of Brahman, which is abundant Self-Awareness, there is not the least ignorance. The Reality which shines fully without misery, and without a body (not only when the world is known but also when the world is not known) is your real form. The radiance of Consciousness Bliss in the form of One Awareness shining equally within and without is the Supreme and blissful Primal Reality. Its form is Silence and it is declared by the Gyanis to be the final and un-obstructable state of True Knowledge. Know that Gyana alone is non-attachment, Gyana alone is purity, Gyana is the attainment of God. Gyana which is devoid of forgetfulness is Immortality. Gyana alone is Everything.’

Then the questioner said, ‘What is this Awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it?’ I feel like it’s a fair question because if it’s said that it’s the nature of pure Awareness then our question is: ‘How do I find this thing? And how can I grow it?’

So, then Bhagavan says, ‘You are Awareness’ (you’re Awareness). ‘Awareness is another name for You. And since You are Awareness, there is no need to attain or cultivate It. All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is, of the not Self. If one gives up being aware of them then Pure Awareness remains and that is the Self.’

Now, if you’re contemplating (‘So, how do I give up awareness of the non-self’) then the answer will be coming later but I can just point to you and say that it is not to do with your attention. It is not about ‘I’m going to block out everything that is not real, that which comes and goes, close my eyes, close my ears, no senses operating.’ It’s not to do with that and we’ll see when the answer comes.

The questioner says, ‘If the Self is Itself aware, why am I not aware of it even now?’ [Chuckling]
So, then Bhagavan says, ‘There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego and only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object whereas the Awareness of the Self is Absolute and requires no object.’

Remembrance also is similarly relative, requiring an object to be remembered and a subject to remember. And when there is no duality, who is to remember whom? The Self is ever-Present. Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of help does one require to know the OneSelf? People want to see the Self as something new but it is Eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light etc. but how can it be so? It is not light, not darkness. It is only as It Is. It cannot be defined.’

So, we’ll come back to this later but I feel like just in this much all the clues that we really need are already apparent. He’s saying that it cannot be defined and if you’re expecting to see it as some sort of light or something, it is not the opposites of light and darkness. And this is exactly how we started satsang, at this point: It is beyond definitions, it cannot be spoken and It is not a perceptual experience.

Reading from Be as You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
by Sri Ramana Maharshi, David Godman (Editor):

The radiance of Consciousness Bliss in the form of Awareness shining equally within and without is the Supreme and blissful primal Reality. Its form is Silence and is declared by the Jnanis to be the final and un-obstruct-able state of Knowledge.

Know that Jnana alone is non-attachment.

Jnana alone is purity.

Jnana alone is the attainment of God.

Jnana which is devoid of forgetfulness of Self alone is immortality.

Jnana alone is everything.

Ananta: So, this Self-Knowledge, this Self-Recognition, Atma Jnana is the recognition of the Reality, the Self being all there is, with no distinctions. Beyond the duality of ‘me’ and ‘other’; beyond the attachment of ‘me’ and ‘mine’. Beyond all dualistic constructs, where nothing can be spoken as a true description of It.

That Silence which is not merely the absence of words, but it is the absence of egoic belief, the absence of egoic identity.

That Silence is what the Sage is pointing us to.

This Silence is beyond the opposites of speaking and not-speaking; it is not that. It is untouched by all the words in the universe; not in opposition to anything at all.

[Meditative Silence]

This is the traditional method of Vedanta where you hear some words from the Master, then you take them into your contemplation. And as you take them into your contemplation, they start to explode within you. And you are left with the direct insight of what is being pointed to.

Q: I’ve been wanting to ask you or Guruji [Sri Mooji] about ‘When is it going to be over?’ … [the things which seemingly pop out still from the habitual conditioning] I guess it’s the same thing I’ve been asking for five years now [Laughing]: when is it going to be over? Because you can’t even find anybody back there. There’s not a thought [in this example] there’s just awareness and then poof! [A reaction happens even prior to thought, then] something in the body starts shaking and you’ve said something, words come out to somebody [that you are surprised to hear spoken.] So, since there’s no ‘person’ then what is that? [Silence] It’s conditioning, I guess, huh? Or latent tendencies in the body? Or…?

A: The ‘person’ is just a term; a term which sort of seems to define when Consciousness seems to play in that limited way. So, rather than saying ‘the limited play of Consciousness’ every time, we use the term ‘person’. So, of course, Consciousness Is and Consciousness sometimes plays completely unlimited and sometimes it plays in a limited way. So, it is just that our affliction has been in the limited play. We’ve had too much struggle, too much trouble, too much this and that. So, now, we’re like done with that part of it. But when you come to this and say ‘Okay, if it comes up from time to time, then [okay] it comes up from time to time.’

Q: It still doesn’t mean there’s a ‘person’.

A: It doesn’t mean there’s a ‘person’ because there is only Consciousness, apparently. And if it is free, then you can never say that it will never be ‘the person’ again … because then it would not be free. You can’t set a limit around that and say ‘It will never become a person again.’

Q: But it can’t become a person. There’s just no ‘person.’

A: No, in the sense of using the term: ‘play AS IF it is limited.’

Q: ‘As if’ … I see, yeah.

A: So, It is free enough to play as if limited for a while, as long as It pleases.

Q: Okay. So, it’s the acceptance somehow. To just let it go like a thought; the fact that something just happened.

A: Acceptance … [said lovingly]

Q: It can’t mean anything, really.

A: Yeah…

Q: Thank you.

A: So, then if you were to ask ‘Who doesn’t want to be a person anymore?’ that’s another form of limitation; ‘the person’ trying to get rid of ‘the person.’

Q: Yeah, it’s an idea: ‘When you’re awake and you’re really free, things like this don’t happen.’

A: Yeah, that’s an idea because even that idea causes limitation. See, it defines Consciousness that ‘It has to be this way.’ But Consciousness doesn’t have to be this way or any way.

Q: Yeah. There’s nothing that can change ‘What Is.’ That’s obvious, too.

A: ‘Blah, blah, blah; blu, blu, blu; blah, blah, blu.’ That is my highest pointing.

Q2: What you were just saying, Jerry and I were talking and he was saying ‘I can observe that the mind is trying to sell a story and I can observe that there’s still interest in that.’ And I said ‘Yeah.’ And he said ‘It just sucks that it’s still playing, that it’s still coming.’ And I’m like ‘Why does it suck?’

A: That ‘stuff’. So, there’s this conveyor belt of ‘stuff’. The mind is like a conveyor belt. If you don’t want to be defined, leave all your baggage on the conveyor belt. Don’t pick up anything. But what happens is that it offers you something and it says ‘This person was very mean to me. I think you should tell him something.’ So, you pick up that. That’s like the starter. And then you say ‘You were mean to me.’ … over; done. The next thought comes ‘But that was very much ‘person’ of you. You were being such ‘a person’ when you did that, when you picked that up.’ And then you say ‘You’ve been in Satsang for 5 years. What have you learned?’ This is all coming from the same conveyor belt. First the starter came, then after that the main course, then dessert. And the dessert is all this guilt, unworthiness; spiritual guilt, spiritual unworthiness, that ‘I should be beyond this by now’ … which is just thought. It is nothing but a thought!

Q2: And it can only speak to an idea of a limited individual entity.

A: Exactly. It’s again poking the seeker identity; not poking Reality. So, just because the starter came ‘Oh, you should tell him something because he was mean to you’ (and that got over) but then, ‘You’re still so egoistic. You’ve not learned anything. You’re a blotch on your Master.’ You know, all this kind of thing makes us so heavy with ‘calories’ of concepts.

Q2: Because even this interpretation of this ‘Oh, look, you’ve identified with the person again’ or whatever, it just like … [feigns disbelief or surprise]

A: Yeah, because who has identified with the person?

Q2: It’s just like you’ve been saying, like ‘What do we actually know?’ … it’s like ‘Do we know that?’ What interpretation can be valid, what conclusion can be valid; like how could that possibly be … anything.

A: One quick and simple thing for those who may be here for the first time: Is for one day don’t say ‘I’ … say ‘God’. Don’t say ‘me’ or ‘I’ … say ‘God’. ‘God woke up today, this morning.’ It’s true? God said to God ‘Yesterday, you’ve not been good; you’ve not been a good girl or good boy. God got very mad.’ That would be much more accurate actually than saying ‘me’ or ‘I’. [Laughter in the room] Because what we mean by ‘me’ or ‘I’ is complete made-up nonsense.

Q: Blame it on God.

A: ‘God is nothing but the stupid thing It is saying from this mouth.’

[Sangha]: There was a saying a while back ‘By God!’
[Sangha]: ‘God-awful’.

A: Has any Sage said ‘I really got it mentally and I was free’? Nobody has ever said that. It is never going to be an understanding like that. It is never going to be conceptual. That is why I’ve said: My premise is that the Truth is Here. All the Sages have said ‘Truth is Here.’ Now, if there is ‘false’ then that must be a false construction on top of the Truth. So, my only job is to deconstruct everything. And we’ll be left with what? If there is Truth, it must be Here.

If anything needs constructing, it cannot be the Truth. Because that would mean ‘getting to it’ … cause and effect and all of that. So, I’m just saying …

Q2: I think it’s also, it just feels like there’s no preference; like God doesn’t have any preference. It’s only from the point of view of the limited individual who wants things to be a certain way or even desires love or happiness or freedom or whatever. But actually, everything is acceptable to Consciousness. That’s why it manifests in all these ways.

A: All these terms themselves lose their meaning because the terms themselves create duality. So, ‘acceptable or non-acceptable, doing and not-doing, Being and not-being’ …

Q2: And that can be an experience, like whatever the experience is, whatever flavor it’s playing as … why should it not? I don’t know. Do you know what I mean?

A: But what I’m saying is that only humans are having experiences.

Q2: Yeah, ultimately, we don’t even know what ‘experience’ is or what anything is.

A: We are putting things in that box called ‘Experience’. A bird is not flapping about saying ‘I’m having the experience of the air.’ You see? And if you need to accept what I’m saying logically, then what I’m saying is: Really deconstruct this box of intellect; the box of intellect which has all these opposites. Just see if you can step back from that whole thing. Because it’s all just made-up. It’s all made up.
~ ~ ~
.
.
.
From a small gathering and spontaneous talk in Rishikesh
19th February 2019

Q: Can it not be sensed; you can sense that you are aware?

A: Sense. What would ‘sense’ be?

Q: No, not ‘sense’ with the five senses. But if I’m sitting here, a thought comes. I’m seeing the thought. I’m seeing the thought then I’m trying hard to see who is seeing it. And then I come to a stop. I notice this spaciousness and awareness. And I can’t go beyond that. It seems to just be there. And I think that I’ve come to the conclusion (because I’m so used to these five senses and I can’t seem to disconnect from that) that to allow myself to fall into the awareness, that that will allow me to see …

A: So, who is this playing ping-pong in the middle that can go to the sense or to the awareness? What is that? Is it you … or is it just attention?

Q: It is the movement of I-Consciousness; its attention.

A: Okay, just let’s use a simple term: it is attention. Now, the movement of attention is witnessed by whom?

Q: By ‘I.’

A: By ‘you.’

Q: Some layer before that.

A: Yes. So, this ‘you’ …. has it changed or has something happened to it, no matter where the attention goes; whether it is not attention at all (which means completely at home)? The spring is completely pushed back or it is all over the place like a dog on a leash, just everywhere, like that. So, the one that is witnessing even this movement of attention, is it affected in any way by whatever the content of attention might be?

Q: It shouldn’t be.

A: Should not. [Smiles]

Q: I have experienced that it doesn’t but because I’m so connected with the world …

A: So, now this ‘I’ is which one, that is connected with the world?

Q: Yeah, I’m losing the focus of this ‘I.’

A: Who is losing it?

Q: I.

A: You are, as that awareness … or as what?

Q: As the fundamental awareness.

A: Is losing the focus.

Q: It’s becoming so identified with the thoughts and things around it that I can’t lose my perspective again so that I could stop and say ‘Okay, but…’

A: Okay, let’s go slowly. The minute you say that it gets identified, then that is the end of identification … because the one that is identified does not know that it is identified.

You say ‘I get identified.’ To see that ‘It is identified’ is to say that it’s not true; it’s only a belief system or it is only a conceptual idea that ‘I’m that.’ If you see that it gets identified, you see that ‘Okay, now this identification: is it substantive (in the sense that there is something happening, in actuality, to you?) No.

Q: It is just a … virtual.

A: It is just virtual. Nothing really happened. And you spot that it is just identification. So, it never really actually happened but ‘Ah, I seem to sometimes believe that I’m this limited one, but I see it is just not true.’

Q: And yet, sometimes you need to do that to live in this world. You have to identify to do. I mean… [Smiles] It is incredible.

A: How are you living now?

Q: How am I living now?

A: Yeah.

Q: Right now, by this minute.

A: What are you having to do?

Q: Nothing.

A: Even to communicate, even the movement of this mouth, nobody can tell me how you are doing it, how they are doing it. I don’t know how to move a finger, I say. [Smiles] Because if you are scientific, I will say ‘How do you move a finger?’ … [You say] ‘Oh, in my brain there are the neurons that are fired.’ … I say ‘Okay, to move a finger, you have to fire neurons. Does anyone know how to fire a neuron?’ You don’t know.

So, this is happening the same way that that is happening. For me, that is clear. You may have this sense that ‘Okay, he is speaking those words, but I’m speaking these’ or something like that but this is just not true. Both are heard. Both are perceived in the same space. So, when we start drawing the boundary around one object and saying ‘That is me’ then all these ideas can come. ‘How does this limited object live its life? What is the future of it? How will it take care? How will we bring it to its freedom?’ It is full of contradictions. Why contradictions? Because if we keep repeating that ‘I’m this limited object’ and then saying ‘Freedom is to see that I’m not’ then it is, at best, cancelling each other out. You are not getting anywhere. So, the notion that a limited one will come to its freedom is just bondage. To see that there is no such entity like that is to see that there is no bondage, which is freedom.

So, when you say ‘surely’ … I want to argue with that ‘surely’ a bit. ‘Surely, we must have to pick up the identification for something.’ I’ve looked; I didn’t find any single benefit of picking up this identity. It promises many features. And you buy it. It does not fulfill its promises anyway, in this identification. And even if you explore this promise deeply, you will see that it is not true, this idea of doer-ship, like ‘I must be identified to then be able to run this life.’ It’s a very limiting box which you construct, which you identify with. And then to identify, to live this life and to conveniently manage when it is convenient to not identify … it doesn’t work like that. [Smiles] You cannot have one foot on the ground and the other foot on the airplane. It’s not going to work. It’s going to be very painful if you try to do that. [Chuckles]

So, don’t have the sense that ‘I must pick up this identification.’ Like when the child is born, the child is not deciding ‘What is my first move. I’m going to cry. What is my second move? I’m going to drink milk.’ It is not deciding these things.

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to call it the ‘Nivritti’ path, which means the deconstructive path. (Pravritti path would be the constructive; trying to be better, trying to do good). This is the Nivritti path, which means going inwards ot the ‘deconstructive’ which means to really look at what is the substratum and see if any conceptual construction is possible there at all about it in Reality. Is there any construction of that? Even like a spiritual construct … is it possible?

S: Father, as you are saying, it seems that there is a one who is trying to meet is listening to these words.

A: It seems like, so don’t be stuck in that ‘seems like’. What is it actually? What would ‘seems like’ mean? Already you are saying ‘it seems like’ therefore it is not that. Or are you saying it is that?

S: Maybe.

A: That’s what we have to look at. Then if there is a doubt ‘it could be that’ let’s look at that. The one who is trying to … what?

S: Meet.

A: Meet; is trying to understand these words. Okay, where is this one?

S: It is listening to these words also.

A: How do you know that?

S: It’s a default belief that goes to those words.

A: Are you referring to a belief as your knowing …? Or you know that because you have belief that it is, but you don’t see it?

S: In a way, these thoughts come and automatically…

A: If you see that it’s just a thought, then automatically: nothing. What is belief? Belief means that it represents me, no? It is true for me. So, once you see that it’s just an energy construct floating about, that is enough. And when you look, do you find a ‘me’ that is represented by these thoughts?

S: In the looking ‘the searching’ uses that as an argument that ‘searching is going on so the false ‘I’ must be there.’

A: Okay. So, whatever you can perceive that is going on, who is that which is perceiving it? ‘This is happening, belief is happening, identification is happening, thought is coming, belief is happening, identification is coming’ all of this you are the witness of this or no? You’re not making it up; you witness. That’s what you say. This witness, what are its properties, attributes?

S: Not able to go to this… like the identification with the thoughts. Not able to identify with the witness at all.

A: Don’t have to, You can’t, in fact. If that needed an identification, then it would not be that. Like you are trying to make the ground pull you towards it?

S: Then why is there doubt?

A: Doubt means it always tries to convince you of what is false. [Laughs] (We talked about this.) I say ‘I love you, I love you, I love you’ … now, you will doubt that. But if I say ‘I hate you’ you are like ‘Oh, this must be true’ [Laughs] Okay, what is your doubt? Let’s hear.

S: It should be clear without doubt that this witness….

A: The doubt is that the doubt should not be there?

S: So, the doubt is ‘Maybe I have not seen it. Maybe it’s an inference or something.’

A: Okay. So, whatever the inference is, cannot be it. So, I’m saying to you that Right Now you cannot miss it; nobody has ever missed it. Right Now, it is It. You have not missed it. But you cannot grab at it, either conceptually or perceptually. (With me so far?) Right Now, you can’t miss it … but you can’t own it in any sort of intellectual way or sort of objective way.

Now, if the mind is quiet and the perception was to go one by one, would you also go? And if you also would go, then with which perception would you go? If the thoughts stopped, like they do now) like ‘Now [Snaps fingers] Now’ … you are still here, no? And if one by one these sounds, tastes, sights, smells. touch also went, would you also still be here?

S: And the one who doubts, would that still be here? When the perceptions …

A: No. Can you doubt without a thought? Try to doubt with no notion.

S: No, this notion of ‘me’ has to be there.

A: Exactly. The doubter is made up of notions; the Self is not. So, this problem that you’re thinking is a problem is not a problem.

S: Is it that the ‘me’ has to go? The doubt is like…

A: The ‘me’ doesn’t have to go, but you can stop playing the game of picking it up. It’s gone! Suppose it had to go, now it is gone!

S: Even if it’s there, don’t pay attention to it?

A: It’s not there; it’s gone. It is gone! Yes?

S: Maybe…

A: Maybe; no. I’m saying ‘It’s gone’.

S: I can suspend the attention …

A: Your mind is saying ‘It’s not true’ … like ‘What he is saying; it’s not true.’

S: There is a shapeless image of ‘me’… I don’t know, the abstract image.

A: Okay, let’s go one step back then. This ‘me’ … what does it desire? What does it want?

S: It’s an insentient thing; doesn’t …

A: This is mythology; you are building a myth of a ‘me’. [Laughs] Don’t have any of this. Right Now, it is not there. Because it is what? Your idea of desire, duality and doer-ship: the 3-D ego. It is not there Now.

S: When I try to search for it, then the abstract image is there, but when I am not searching for it, I don’t know what is there… a feeling? Or something is there.

A: Okay, who witnesses there and not there?

S: To answer this; if I say ‘me’ then that ‘me’ which I’ve used in the past automatically pops up.

A: Okay, but you do witness it, right? Whether you use the term ‘me’ or ‘I’ or ‘myself’ or something like that, the fact is that you witness it.

S: Yes.

A: What is the quality of this witness? [Silence] Independent of what idea you have of it, It Is. Now, the notion of ‘me’ is only dependent on whatever you think of it. The mind will come and say ‘But how do I know if I have really seen it or not?’ That’s why I am saying that ‘You can’t miss it.’ And your mind’s idea of seeing, you can never do it anyway. What do you mean by ‘seen it’? That you can never do. Whatever your mind’s idea of seeing it, it will never happen. Because it is not objective in that way.

It’s a simple question.
Are you perceiving the hand? [Showing his hand]
Who is perceiving it?
You are.
Can this ‘You’ be perceived?
No?
Then how do you know it is You?

What is that unperceived Knowing or un-perceivable Awareness? After that, words fail. What to say now? Because words are useful mostly for that which is quantifiable, definable, perceivable. So, it is a return to simplicity in this way. Because one thing is very clear, that you will not be able to solve it mentally, intellectually. And already you say that it is not even perceived. And yet, you know it is ‘I’. What is that type of Knowing? How do you make that claim?

In a way, it is the same as how I have been saying that I cannot tell you the Truth … and in a way, I can only show it to you. But this type of showing is a bit different. So, first I tell you where not to go. Don’t go to the jungle of thoughts because you will not find the Truth there. You can look. It is said in one of the verses by the Sikh gurus: “Soche Such Na Hove, Jo Soche Lakh Baar” which means that you cannot think your way through this even if you think a hundred-thousand times. So, it is not in the jungle of thoughts. Then where else not to go? You will not find it objectively as an object. So, anything that you can perceive, you will not find the ultimate Reality that you are looking for in that. These two lanes you don’t take. These two by-lanes you don’t take.

Now, what is left?

Recognize the thought as a thought. That is ninety-nine per cent of it. To recognize the jungle as the jungle is ninety-nine per cent of it. Because otherwise, we are still buying into the claim of the thought to be representative of ‘I’. (Does the word sound too complex if I say it like that? No. Okay.) If you still buy in to the claim of the thought claiming to be the representative of You, then You have still not recognized it as just a thought. And that recognition is most of this so-called journey. Because I have seen that many can be in Satsang from the beginning, five years with me, but in five years also, some have still not able to recognize thought; what is thought.

To recognize the mind is ninety-nine per cent of recognizing the Self. So, even after hearing this for example: ‘Don’t go to the jungle of thoughts and the desert of perception’ … if you’re still trying to figure out how to think about that and now what to compute and how to figure it out, then that is not It. It is not going to be a fanciful claim. It is not going to be claim: ‘Ah! I saw the Truth is… this.’ If it can be represented in that way, it is not the Truth.

So, the invitation with this question ‘Can the perceiver be perceived?’ also brings us straight to this point, where you know you can’t think about it and even your perception cannot help you. Because you say that this ‘I’ who perceives this hand [Showing his hand] itself cannot be perceived … and yet you say it is ‘I’ that perceives. [Silence] How is that you? What claim do you have over it?

Q: In a way, it is the first thing I have known.

A: The first thing? What is the very, very first?

Q: I don’t know.

A: Is there a zeroth thing? Like, was there a you and then first, you knew it? Like that? Because even that would have to be known then.

Q: Yes, I have listened to the thoughts of me, of the conventional knowledge that I have always had through my life, and this seems to have been there before; so only in that relation, it doesn’t seem fair to say, but I understand…

A: It’s okay. I have a sense of what you’re saying.

Is it the first, first … before the idea of zero and one? It is like my daughter said to me the other day; she read a post on Instagram and said, “Pa do you know that for the first three seconds after waking up, we don’t know who we are?”

Maybe. [Chuckles] So, is it like that? After three seconds, then I know that I’m the perceiver? Is it that? Or is it in that three seconds itself?

Q: Not able to confirm.

[Silence]

A: And you don’t have to confirm (in some sort of conceptual way).

Whatever this is, is an attempt to get you let go of this device called the ‘intellect’ which is searching for some answer to a non-existent question. That is why I love what the Sage said: ‘Searching for the solution for the problem of life, where none actually exists.’

There is no problem of freedom.
There is no problem in life to be solved.

He said ‘The only solution to the problem of life is to recognize that there is no problem’
which is same as Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] saying that ‘It is not true knowledge will not be found but only that which is false will be given up.’ Freedom is not something that you will get. You will only see that there is no bondage. All the Sages have constantly told us this, that there is no problem actually. But to be rid of the notion of problem itself is to be rid of the problem.

What are you trying to solve?

[Silence]

This is the nicer way of saying ‘What do you want?’ [Smiles]
What is it that you want?

S: Fearlessness.

A: Fearlessness. So, fear needs a notion? Or fearlessness needs a notion?

S: Both are notions.

A: Yes, yes, both are themselves notions. But to fear, then you have to have a limited picture of yourself, to have a version of yourself, which has a boundary, which can be attacked, which has to be defended. Right Now, you do not have no boundary. Without a notion, you do not have any boundary.

You have no location.
You are not in time.

As much as you might think you are, and as much as you think you have to get out of time and space, actually, you cannot get into time and space.

Jump into time.
Do it and tell me.
Who did it?
Jump from where you are into this room.
Jump into this room.

You did it? What came? You cannot do it. You cannot objectify yourself at all. That’s why you need this constant reinforcement of the lie; the mind saying ‘You are this, you are this; you are this limited object.’ It is just a lie.

Become an object in time and show me.
Like, be subject to time.
Let time affect you.
Age; age with time.
Change, change…
Change is time, no?
Change and show me.

Nobody can actually do this thing. It is a great fantasy. [Smiles]

S: You can be without notion, with notions…

A: With a notion, you can imagine yourself to be anything. You can imagine yourself to be the busiest object. In fact, it’s like you can give assertion to that idea and then it seems as if it is true. That is what belief is. But you can’t actually do it.

So, the game is not to come to freedom; it is to actually see that there is no problem. To See … not just to use another notion: ‘Okay, there was a problem; now I see (I believe) that there is no problem so I have no problem now.’ Because these tricks do not work that way.

If something is true, then it does not need our assertion of its Truth. If something is true, then it is already true. It doesn’t our belief; it doesn’t need our idea of it being true. So, we can actually go a step further and say that anything that needs our assertion for it to be true then cannot be fundamentally true, originally true. Because, nothing lasts; all these assertions, they don’t last. Now … they are gone. They need to be asserted over and over again. And this is the loss of ego because there is no struggle here except ‘what did it bring to me? What did I get? What’s in it for me?’ Here, right Now, there is no struggle except ‘But what about little old me?’

Now we want to come to the end of ‘me’ … with great benefits for me. [Laughs] ‘We should come to the end of ‘me’ … but it should benefit me in some way, no? Otherwise, what’s the point of coming to the end of ‘me’ if it doesn’t even benefit me? [Chuckles] In a way, this is what I mean when I say ‘Truth for Truth sake.’ Why? Because it is true, not because it brings you anything. And if you start to See like that: if it is true then it does not need my assent, it does not need my assertion of its truth. And if something is coming over and over saying ‘But this is true, this is true, this is true’ notice that that cannot be, because if it needs so much convincing, then how can it be true? Truth is that which always Is. And all these we have played for very long now. We have experimented and said ‘Maybe this time it is true actually’. And many times, we have fallen into the trap of believing ‘But this is true.’ And then we have looked and said ‘What?’ [Laughs] ‘It is just an idea’. And idea or a concept is just an assertion that something is true form the mind. But why does the Truth need assertion?

As I was saying yesterday, the Master is mostly here to tell you where not to go. [Chuckles]
So, don’t go to the mind because you will not find Truth there, you will only make yourself miserable. It’s the ‘Any time Misery machine.’ It’s the ATM which is always available and the minute you give it your attention and your belief, it always has some idea of how to make you miserable. The mind is unsolicited advice on how to suffer. Unsolicited advice on how to suffer. If that is what your feeling is to do, then of course [Chuckles] you’re free as Consciousness to do whatever you want. But Satsang is just Consciousness reminding Itself that if your feeling is not to suffer, then why you go to the suffering machine?

If you don’t want ice cream, will you go to Baskin Robbins? This is the thing. But the thing is with this Baskin Robbins, it tells you that ‘I have all kinds of food. I will give you whatever you want. I will give you a parantha [Indian bread] if you like.’ But it doesn’t have anything but misery. And you have seen this over and over again that you cannot be miserable unless you believe something. Now, whether you call that knowledge, whether you call that a concept, it doesn’t really matter. But you cannot take a bite of this misery unless you take a bite of a concept. This is the poisoned apple.

So, the Master is here to tell you where not to go. So, don’t go to this mind. But the habit is that we will take this also to the mind and say ‘So, what do you think about this? Now, he is always saying don’t go to the mind. What do you think? Should we try this thing?’ And what do you feel the mind will say? It will only give you bad news like ‘You can’t do it, it doesn’t work, maybe only for him, but what about the real world in practical life…’ More and more terms, concepts, assertions will come your way. And hidden in that is the notion of ‘me’ and ‘my way’ …. I want to do it my way.’ What is that Zen Master’s saying?

‘The path to Truth is very simple. If you don’t take the by-lanes.’

I was saying that to come from Manipal hospital [Nearby hospital] to here is a straight line. But you can also go to the Rustambagh Road or the Leela’s Palace. The Leela is a very good example.

More direct than a straight line; more immediate than Now, is what you are being pointed to. Now which by-lane do you want to take? These by-lanes usually start with ‘But…’ (‘But, according to me…’) And this is the stubborn resistance, the stubborn insistence, on being an individual … which is how Consciousness want to play, apparently, and that is why we have had a Satsang almost every day for so many years [Chuckles] because of the same nature of this idea of ‘My way, got it, lost it, grasping, being averse to.’ Because you feel like you are nothing if you don’t have a position. You just feel like nothing; you feel that you will become nothing. So, anything to avoid that feeling of no-thing-ness. So, we take on these subtle positions, even Advaita positions. That there is nothing to do is also an Advaita position. I’m saying there is nothing called ‘doing’. So, instead of taking strong positions like ‘there is nothing to do’ or ‘something to do’ … See that there is nothing called ‘doing’ itself.

Nobody has ever met their notion of anything. Nobody has ever met their notion of anything at all. You have not met yesterday, you have not met tomorrow; you have not met ‘me,’ you have not met ‘I’. Your idea of what something is never corresponds to Reality.

Why go on this temporary expedition of ‘Oh, I will know what this is, then I will know what that is’? What will you do with that?