BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

[Reading from the chat]: “Father, not knowing anything seems like effort. To drop concepts, which seem so familiar, dropping of the learned meaning is required, which also requires vigilance and effort as it’s difficult to keep up, and labeling and interpretations seems more natural than the not-knowing.”

If this were true actually then every moment would be full-on with this conditioning. But it is not natural because in this moment, you don’t even know your name. You need a moment even for that concept to come. What is natural before that concept comes?

I know, in a sense, what you mean, which is that our habit has become so that this seems more natural now. But in spite of the strength of habit, it has not truly replaced our naturalness which is just Here every moment. So, while initially it might feel a bit strange not to go to these projections of the mind, you will find that it’s not as difficult a problem as the mind makes it out to be. Even this report that you made, for example, is no longer there now. Who does it belong to? You cannot find that one. And also, you don’t have to really come to this sort of physical dropping, like ‘I am just dropping all my concepts.’ You don’t have to do any of that. I see you in Satsang often enough that all you have to do, in a way, is to come with some openness (which you have been) and all these concepts will start to lose their strength on their own.

Even this job of dropping is not yours. Just follow along with as much openness as possible. The rest is all fine.

Have I ever gone to any of you and said ‘You are doing a terrible job of this; why haven’t you dropped it yet?’ [Chuckles] I never said that because that’s fine, I’m here for this. You don’t have to worry about any of these things. You don’t have to go from this position of ‘picking up, picking up’ to now new position of ‘dropping, dropping.’ [Smiles] That is also not your job.

Just don’t take any position as much as possible. Which means, in a simpler way, just remain as open as possible.

You say “Dropping of the learned meaning is required.” See, this is also learned meaning. You might have learned it from me. [Smiles] But the point is you can leave it to me to take care of that. Don’t give ‘dropping of learned meaning is required’ also too much meaning; because then what follows is what’s coming up after this [where you say]: “…which also requires vigilance and effort; is difficult to keep up. The labeling and interpretation seems more natural than the not-knowing.”

As you come to Satsang, you will feel naturally that these are not so original to you as you believe they were … (unless you make a new project out of learning or knowing what you hear in Satsang).

What is Here when you don’t know anything?

(I was going to say ‘What do you see?’ but ‘see’ has some perceptual meaning.)

What is Here when you don’t know anything?

What is apparent to us Now without any support of any concept?

Q: The feeling of ‘I’, ‘I-ness’, ‘Oneness’ … it’s not a feeling but what else to say?

A: Yes, feeling-less feeling.

Q: The awareness of ‘I’

A: What makes it ‘I’?

Q: There is nothing else to make it ‘I’.

A: There is nothing else, really. So, it is not the ‘I’ which is ‘I and you’ … it’s not this ‘I’. Then what about this One? Whatever you said is a very good answer; we are just pushing even more. At least you ventured to share an answer; everyone else has gone into turiya, meditation.

Q: I feel it’s just a perception.

A: What is perception? (Just be ready; whatever you’re going to say I am going to say ‘What is…?’ [Laugher] It is not a judgment of a right or wrong answer, I am just going to push the boundaries of that; that’s it.) So, what is perception? We said: What is apparent when you know nothing? Now, when we say it is perception, what do we know about perception?

Q: It is difficult to define perception. It feels like things are moving and there is something seeing them somehow. If I don’t of conceive myself as I know myself (who I am from the past) then there is no need to even name the perception as well. Then even perception is without naming and it’s almost like it has happened actually, but then it’s almost like meeting yourself.

A: So, ‘nothing’ and ‘perception’ is the same?

Q: Perception is happening but without specific judgment about whether perception is this or that; then it’s like nothing.

A: So, if we didn’t know what perception was (because we actually don’t) what I am saying is that if you drop the pretense of knowing what perception is, then what can we say?

I was saying: What is apparent or what is Here without knowing anything?

Okay, let’s look at it a different way:

What goes away if you knew nothing, Right Now, in this moment?

Q: This first thing to go is the idea of yourself, myself

A: The idea of yourself. So, this is just an idea, that it went away. What of value did you lose?

Q: The question is whether it is of value or not; the life story …

A: Yes. So, whether it is of value or not is determined by what it brings to us, in a way, isn’t it? What something is worth is usually defined in the world as what it brings to us. So, what is of value that it brings to us?

Q: Feels like a silly concept. [Laughter]

A: Don’t worry about that. We realize this over and over, that once something comes out of our mouth then we have to stand up for it and take a stand about it. And many times, we look back later and say ‘I don’t really believe that so much’. So, we’re just playing around but we are seeing that. Because all the Sages say ‘Be empty’ … ‘Empty yourself of all this pointless noise, leave aside this fruitless thinking’ (conceptualization, knowing; whatever you want to call it). They keep saying this. But somewhere, we end up picking and choosing. We still grasp onto some things and we want to let go of some other things.

Now, obviously we feel that that which we are grasping onto will bring something to us. ‘If I hold on to this then it will bring this to me.’ So, what is it that this can bring to us; the story of our life, our judgments, our interpretations, our idea of what is good, what is bad, even what is true, what is false? As we start exploring this, we will see that this is how all this conditioning was picked up. We felt that ‘If I knew this then I can do this, if I got this then I can be like this.’ To be a certain way, we felt like we had to know something. But just to be, what is needed?

Now, the thing is that if to be a certain way was the greater position (we feel like ‘me plus my knowledge would make me-plus, which is this Great One’) if just being without this constraint of what we present ourself to be or what we consider ourself to be, is that broader or more open? This is the thing. Your Being, empty of these concepts (empty of the concepts that you consider to be your story, of the concepts that you consider to be of value to you) is that greater with these concepts or without? Now, if you’re smart, you’ll say ‘It is the unchanging Being’. But I’m saying: How does it seem? How does it feel? How does it present itself?

You with a concept is never greater than You without [concepts] even if the concept is very scriptural. Because the You that is Here Now, what does it need actually? What is missing in it? Which brings us back to our original question, (let’s put it in another way):

Who is Here Now when you forget your labels?

A: Now my proposal to all of you is that nothing of value has been lost. In fact, value is just a made-up thing anyway. [Questioner laughs] (We’ll talk about value investing later.) [Chuckles] Now, time, space, value, significance … all of these are being divested of their strength. It is this which you call ‘totally lost’ that I call the innocence of a child. You can say child-like innocence, you can say loss of pride, you can say end of arrogance; whatever you want to say. Pride needs certainty. Openness doesn’t need certainty. Pride needs certainty, guilt needs certainty; they are both the same actually. So, to play in a limited way you have to be certain about something; at least one thing you need to be certain about. But to be fully open, to be innocent, needs no righteousness.

This is a strange sort of class were you completely pass when you completely fail; when you’re completely uncertain about everything you think you know. Your mind will protest once in a while (maybe a lot). ‘But then…, this…, that…’ And it will also have this kind of protest like ‘Now, how am I supposed to live?’ Like this one was saying earlier ‘I have this situation now and I can’t deal with this situation by saying that I’m not the doer.’ [Chuckles] It’s still that ‘ocean [contained in a] coconut’ thing that the mind will try and offer you.

Right Now, you cannot place yourself. You’re cannot say ‘I’m inside the body; I’m outside the body.’ You’re finding no time and space for yourself. But the mind will quickly try and give you an offer which will then form a boundary about you or attempt to form the boundary about you. That is all that is playing out, in a way.

Q: Well, I was seeing that when the mind suggests something, it’s always suggesting about the self-image I have or had. Without that stuff, it’s not possible to pick up anything actually.

A: Now, forget this also. Any conclusion that you make is not more worthy than when you were totally lost. I know it can feel a bit strange because we want to come to that. It’s like a conclusion machine is sitting there. It can also say ‘This is very good. To be empty of conclusions is the best. I’m not going to make any conclusions from now on.’ This kind of thing is also very conclusive. And then it will protest ‘But then what? as if without having a position, something valuable will stop. That’s why I was asking this question. If you didn’t have a position, if you didn’t say this or that, if you couldn’t say anything (this, that, other, inside, outside, up, down, yesterday, tomorrow; nothing) my proposal to you is nothing of value will be lost.

The mind’s offers are completely the opposite. ‘At least this, you need.’ Most of it will come down to this ‘How am I supposed to live my life?’ And this is because we were taught this in this way. I was saying (it doesn’t have to play out in these terms exactly but) this is what happens. I was speaking of child-like innocence. Now, as children all of us have protested having to learn stuff, like ‘Why do I have to learn this? Why do I have to learn that? Why do I have to learn that this is my head, this is my nose?’ I remember doing that with our kids and it feels so silly now, but it’s okay. We were saying ‘Where’s your nose, where’s your nose?’ and the child feels like ‘I just want to play with my toys, I don’t want to know where my nose is!’ It’s not necessarily fun for them. So later, when they were able to express their protests, they were able to say ‘What’s the point of all this?’ My son to this day protests when he’s learning something. ‘What’s the point of learning all this?’ [Chuckles] And we say ‘You need this to run your life. You need this otherwise how will you live your life? You need this so that you will have a good life.’

So, now as our reliance on these concepts is being taken away (in fact, the substratum concepts like time and space itself are being taken away) then because this conditioning is so deep that ‘I needed this so I could run my life’ that is the same protest which is being used now but it’s the opposite now because we bought into the idea that ‘This is how I run my life’ but now were saying ‘If this goes away, how will I run my life?’ We were taught all this because we thought we’ll run our lives because of this. And now as these are being seen through …

I’m not forcing anything; just hoping that we can look together at some of these things and really check whether we know: What is past? What is future? Can we really say there is something like memory? Can really say there is an up, there is a down? I’m just exploring along with all of you. And I’m used to the fact that your mind will come and protest and say ‘But, but, but … this is too far, this is too much!’ This kind of thing. Or ‘How will I run my life?’ which is basically also somewhere built in, that ‘Did I really come to Satsang for this? I just came because I wanted a happy life, how to be at peace, how to be effective, to have a nice balance’ and these kinds of things. All of us came to Satsang because we wanted some benefit and here’s this guy sitting here and he’s not promising any balance, any peace, any joy any; not even Self [-realization] is being promised. He’s taking away time as if it’s candy. He’s saying to forget time, forget space. ‘Is this what I really came for!?’ This can be behind our protestations also.

That is why I keep saying: if it had no benefit except that it was true, it had no benefit except that just it’s true, then would it still be worthwhile? And it seems like, at this point, to most of humanity it may not be that appealing. If a sort of Satsang was being offered where there’s no offer of peace, no offer of better relationships, no offer of anything at all, not even enlightenment, then everyone would wonder ‘Then what is the point?’

Q: The point is, you can relax. [Laughter in the room]

A: In a way, that is peace. Okay, suppose you knew the Truth (you came to the Truth, you didn’t ‘know’ it) you came to the Truth and you just couldn’t relax after that. [Laughter in the room]

Q: Even that’s fine because then you don’t have to do anything to relax again. You’re relaxed in your not relaxing.

A: This is very deep actually. It’s only when you have the contrast that it feels like something is painful. You see? So, even that is gone.

Q: For me, I feel if I can just relax then it’s worthwhile because then there’s no need to make effort and get somewhere.

A: So, just relax.

Let’s put it another way. Who is Here Now, when you forget your labels?

Q: It’s funny. Whenever there is this let go of all the constructs, there is immediately then a grabbing hold of something, but it’s not a grabbing hold of concepts, it’s grabbing hold onto body sensations; it’s like it’s to anchor…

A: Yes. If attention goes to this sort of anchor, then what happens? Who are you then?

Q: It’s like I’m anchored, but I am not there. It is like I am Space, but they are just parts of …

A: Yes, so now we don’t know whether it’s a concept of space or anchor actually, so we’re not trying to keep our attention this way or any way. We have no expectation about what should happen. Now, an inquiry is coming, saying ‘Who are you when you have no labels?’ (Suppose.) ‘Who are you when you have no labels?’ Then it seems like this attention (which you don’t have a label for anymore but I’m just defining) it is now getting through anything. It could be a sensation, it could be an object, it could be anything. So, what is the answer? Who are you then?

Q: Gratitude. [Laughs] What can you say? That is what is happening.

A: That’s nice. So, now if you didn’t have labels or any concepts of what should happen (like I should be spacious, more spacious or less spacious) if we didn’t have any spiritual baggage whatsoever, not even satsang terms, Now who are you? Or what is Here? (Same thing.)

Q: Love.

A: Can it be this simple? [Chuckles]

Q: Exactly. That’s where the mind comes and says ‘Really? Is it?’

A: Can it be this simple?  [Asking Sangha]: What’s your answer? Can it be this simple? Me, you’ve heard for a long time. [Chuckles] Okay, pros and cons? Why can it be and why can’t it be? How many are just lost, like you have no idea of what we are talking about? [Chuckles]

Q: You have to work hard for it.

Q2: I think when a difficult situation comes, then there is a test of whether I have been in that space and I know that space well enough, if I stay in that space (with respect of how much I have been there before) there’s enough trust in that; then in these weaknesses suddenly there is this belief that I must go back to whatever I know and try to deal with it from that space.

A: So, suppose everything that you just said was not true. [Chuckles] I know it’s a bit radical. Suppose it is just not true; worth throwing away. Would you?

Q2: Yeah.

A; So, anything that is future…, there is no future, so forget about this thing. Then?

Q2: Then I don’t know what’s going to happen.

A: This idea is very oppressive actually. And I might not say it tomorrow but it can be very oppressive actually, which is that ‘If I have been in this long enough, then my tomorrow should be like that or I should never be stuck or my life should change in this way’. It’s just like you found the magic apple but you are saying ‘But tomorrow this magic apple won’t be there, so what is point of eating it now?’ And many of us get stuck in that. How many times have you heard this in Satsang that ‘Right now it is fine, with you it is fine, but when I leave then what will happen? That will be my true test.’ This is the problem. This is the thing. ‘That will be my true test.’ This is what I was saying. ‘But when it comes to the ‘real’ stuff then what is going to happen?’ So, if you forget about ‘test’, if you forget about having to stay a certain way, if you forgot about all the benefits of enlightenment, if truth had no benefits (Truth for truth sake) if it will not keep you at peace, will not give you love, will not make others around you happy, you will not also necessarily want to help anyone … suppose nothing. Then?

Q2: Then also it is fine.

A: Good. Good. Because if it is Truth without conditions, then it can breathe as Truth. When we anchor Truth with so many conditions (it should be like this, it should lead to this, it should become like that, my life should then become this way or that way) it’s already too much burden. It’s like trying to see your original face but putting on masks: of future, of ‘should be’ or ‘should not be’ …suppose none of this true. Now, empty of everything that you think you are right about, that you think you know, who are you Now?

Q2: Nothing. Just space… or…

A: Nothing. Space. These are nice pointers but if you go beyond even this nothing? Because this nothing also has an opposite like ‘something’. I know, in this play, some words have to come out so you are using them in that way but many times you also get stuck in ideas of nothing or even the idea of space you can be stuck in. That which You Are is not even space; it is not nothing also. Nothing and space are also both notions. So Now, who are you?

Q2: Just like existence…

A: You have a sense of what is coming next? [Chuckles] Like ‘He is not going to say that existence is a notion.’ But I am. [Chuckles] Even existence and non-existence, being and not-being, these are notions (which I have used for many years as well). They also are just notions. There is no such thing as existence or not-existence.

[Reading from the chat]: “How to know the right questions from the wrong ones?”

In the Satsang context (if we are speaking about it from the Satsang context) actually, I will not say ‘the right question and the wrong question.’ No question in itself inherently would be wrong or right … but [is about] whether what is heard in response to that question becomes part of our concept basket or whether the answer does a clean-up, sweep-up job.

If our ‘inner attitude’ is that of letting go then even the simplest words that we hear from anyone actually can be beautiful pointers to help you let go. But if our inner attitude is to build more and more ideas into a new belief system, then that can lead to more identification, more confusion and more duality.

There is a beautiful story about Dogen. (And there are many versions of this story so I don’t know which one you would have heard but this is the one that is coming up now.)

Dogen met this old kitchen Monk. He was a monk who was taking care of the kitchen. So, Dogen tells him ‘What are you doing? You’re cooking all this and you should be doing meditation and come to some recognition of your truth.’ So, the old monk said ‘You don’t know what you are talking about! You have no idea about what the teachings are.’ Then Dogen got a bit shaken up and he says ‘What are the teachings? What is the teaching? What is the true pointing?’ And the old monk starts laughing and says ‘One, two, three, four, five.’

[Chuckles] So, was it the right question and the right answer?

I have been saying that the words a mother uses to wake up her child from sleep are really not of that much importance as we think they are.

Q: It’s a little bit difficult in a way, because when we listen to you, we at the same time contemplate, then we might also see the mind is there to comment, to say ‘Yeah. I understand that. It’s good to see that.’ So, I see it also happening and there is a feeling like ‘Yeah.’ And I see, too, that it’s happening. And one thought is like ‘Okay, what should I do now? Should I go into that?’ It seems to be the lower choice so it might be part of the path. So, what to do and all this, to drop it? I don’t know. It’s like a very tiny path. Is it like where you drop everything so you just stay empty … in which case, you might also drop the insights you have? Or you actually appreciate the insights and stay with them, even though confusion may come?

A: How do you differentiate between insight and conclusion?

Q: It’s very … It’s like you’re pointing to something and I might see that actually, inside / outside (for example, the definition of water example) … it’s just a label. That’s it.

A: So, that wordless seeing (let’s use the word ‘seeing’ for now) in which there was no defining of inside and outside; that wordless seeing is what we would call insight. But when we say ‘Ah, now I know there is no inside or outside’ that is the conclusion.

Q: Yeah. It comes in a split-second after…

A: It can come soon after. And the thing is that, especially with these Advaita concepts, people have been arguing about them for centuries. Like one Sage will say ‘All of this appearance is within Consciousness. This is the way of Consciousness; the will also.’ Another Sage will say ‘There is no such thing as maya; it both exists and doesn’t exist.’ Like Shankara would say ‘None of this ever happened.’ But we can’t even say that. We cannot say anything about the existence or non-existence of This. So, it is not about which side we pick, because that naturally will unfold. Like this mouth is generally talking about the play of Consciousness. But it’s that deeper Seeing, in a way. And there’s a resting in this conclusion-less-ness which seems to be a bit healing to us, in the moment. It can seem like it’s a bit healing. So, that’s why there’s all these methods; the method of inquiring into our conclusion and saying ‘This is not valid, this is not valid, this is not valid, it is not valid, its opposite is not valid’ then you start letting go of these. Or to just hand them over to God, to the Master (whatever you feel); this feeling that ‘It’s all Yours anyway, so I surrender it back to you.’

These things I’ve been saying, I’m not fanatical about it. The thing is, we very quickly start making a museum for these pointers. We start (like Guruji would say) making tattoos out of these things. We’re just looking at: What does the cleanup job? This is enough. Because it can feel like ‘I’m getting to true spirituality by making the best museum to the spiritual concepts that I think are true.’ Like ‘This is how this should be, this is how the Master should be.’ These kinds of things can then also happen.

Q: As I’m just looking, I feel that you’re pointing us to something without concepts. And of course, sometimes we hang onto concepts right away, I mean, to go away from concept ‘A’. And then, like this inside/outside, it can be labeled ‘This is inside, inside the body, and the rest is outside, outside the body, outside of me’ or I can then, in a way, replace it with a label ‘No, it’s all inside.’

A: That’s also a label.

Q: That’s also a label, and we all see that. But that’s how the mind is functioning.

A: And that’s very ‘Advaita’.

Q: Very much. And what I find is that actually, to see it in the moment, there’s investment in that. There is some belief because the labels come and then there is a little bit of belief in it; because now you’ve found something that is  more true, right? But I find that, in a way, it’s strange because it seems to get more belief if you speak about that, if you share; if I share with a sangha sister and I say ‘Yeah, of course, it’s all in me’ then it takes some shape. So, I think that’s why Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘Just be quiet.’ You know? I feel like even if I talk to myself, that my mind is saying ‘Look! It’s all inside of me’ and also give it belief, in a way. It’s not exploring, as you say.

A: It’s good. I’ve noticed that. Who was saying the other day? … that ‘My thoughts are okay because nobody can hear them, but when I say these words, then I have to live up to that or own them.’ It is like that. Once we take a stand, in relationships, in the sangha, and say ‘This is how it is; it is all inside me’ then somebody comes and says ‘There is no inside’ then it’s like ‘No, it’s all inside me. Come to see it.’ We have to, in a sense, then own that. It can feel like that.

But I would recommend that we don’t even take a stand like ‘Therefore, then the best thing to do is to keep quiet’ or something. Because in the end, that is a conclusion. Like the best thing for what? ‘Best thing’ also implies that there is somewhere to get to, something to do.

Q: The best thing is to have less concepts. That’s kind of a more sattvic concept; throwing out the tamasic ones.

A: Just one [concept] is okay for everyone. One sattvic thought is enough. I feel happy with what you’re saying, that if there was really a choice between ‘Keep quiet, be quiet’ and just shouting every insight, maybe for a while, I’d say, better to just be quiet.

Q: I didn’t just mean an exchange. I see that it’s also manifesting when you speak; but also, when you speak it or when you actually speak it inside the mind.

A: Okay, let’s do one thing. I’ll take your postion, you take mine.

Q: It’s a bit difficult. [Laughter in the room]

A: I say ‘Now, the best thing for anyone to do then is just keep quiet.’ Now you say…?

Q: Yeah, but isn’t that also a position. [Everyone laughs]

A: And the more you say about it, the more you start to own it.

Q: What would you say then if you were me?

A: I would say ‘Keep quiet.’

Q: You’re telling me to be quiet. That’s my choice. [Laughter]

A: What was that role-play you were doing the other day?

Q: The pizza guy.

A: The pizza guy; the mind.

As the Zen Master would say ‘You have spoken enough. Now bow and withdraw.’ [Laughs]

But this is exactly what we were saying … (I’ve already moved onto the next thing) … is that, if we were to argue about something now, we would suddenly be much more attached to that thing that wasn’t there 5 minutes ago. It’s just like that. This is exactly what I’m saying about perspective and positions, is just this sort of ‘conclusion-making system’ that we get used to; then we feel like ‘On this, then, now I can rest. On this, now I can rest.’

As these notions of ‘me’ and ‘other’ start to dissolve, we find that all of this has been notional.

The other day in Satsang and Govind gave a very nice report which I enjoyed, he said, ‘Father when you stated saying about ‘inside/outside’ being notions I felt it was like a bit philosophical, a bit too much (something like that) conceptual’. He said ‘When I actually looked, I saw that this is really strong, really powerful. That there is no distinction actually between inside and outside.’

And as you really start to explore these things you will see that you have no idea what it means when you say ‘outside’. Outside of what? Outside of ‘me’. But then you make a boundary about you to be your body. And really, this is irking you somewhere because, like was saying to someone the other day, if you truly believed you are the body, truly, truly believed, why would you be here in Satsang? There is nothing here for the body. So, already there’s a sense that you’re not this.

Now, you also found that when you explore things like your attention, you will see that it cannot leave you. So, when you say ‘I’m bringing my attention to the street and the sounds there’ where is all that happening? It never leaves you.

So, we’re very convinced about the outside and many of us feel very sure about what is inside, but we don’t know this. Because this ‘inside’ is very different from inside the body. As I’ve been saying very often, if you went inside and you were going inside the body then you’d find different things there; bones and ribs, kidneys and flesh and blood and all these things.

So, it’s not really that important to make a conclusion that there is no distinction between outside and inside. But what is important is to admit to yourself that you really don’t know. And the same for every notion; every notion. The same for everything.

As ‘Father’ and teacher, the feeling here is to say: As you lose these notions, you come to the end of your suffering or you come to a true recognition of what you are. Now the thing is that even these are notions, conclusions.

I was having a nice chat with someone the other day, probably Shivani, and we were just looking at this ‘notion/conclusion machine’. Even as we are seeing that all our notions are made up we still have to make a conclusion about that including ‘Oh, all my notions are made up!’ We cannot rest without it, in a way, because the habit is that way. That is like the loss of innocence.

It’s always ‘Okay, now I know that I cannot know’ … this type of thing. Because to return this innocence, to return to the point before the bite into the apple was taken can seem a bit strange because we’ve gotten used to living in a way that now we’ve got some conclusion that we can rest on.

All of you know the story of the elephant and the six blindfolded men? [Refers to the poem by American poet John Godfrey Saxe] So, each from their perspective is right. They have the blindfold on and they have a perception of something using their hands. And they can say ‘This is a rope, this is a pillar, this is a water hose’ and no amount of further inferences or deductions can get them to the truth. The only way for them to recognize what it actually is, is to get the blindfold off.

So, in Satsang, fundamentally this is the main thing that is happening, that all of us can have a certain perspective. Some can have a devotional perspective, some can have an Advaita perspective, all these various perspectives and in each of these there are hundreds of thousands of variations. But really, to go beyond our deductions and our inferences and our judgments is what Satsang is introducing you to.

So, to speak to one who is completely convinced that there is a rope in their hands and to tell them that ‘No, it is actually a pillar’ can be quite a futile task. [Chuckles] Isn’t it? Trying to convince others that our individual perspectives add to most of the (much, if not most) struggles in our human existence. Especially this relationship struggle is because of that, because we are looking at it from a different perspective and another is looking at it from a different perspective and trying to convince each other that this is true and this is not true leads to all this strange conflict. And actually, no two expressions in this realm seem to have the exact same perspective on anything. [Smiles] So, then what is the way out?

When we were empty of all perspectives, would we stop existing? Or life would stop functioning? [Smiles] If there was no other knowing, empty of concepts, notions, perspectives, then there would be no escape from this. [Smiles] But actually, what is your experience? When you are empty of all perspectives, all positions, all shapes [Chuckles] (these perspectives are the shape that you give yourself, the form that you give yourself) but empty of these, without a boundary to yourself, without a shape, what has changed? What did you lose? When you lose your favorite idea, when you lose that which you are completely right about (you think) what do you actually lose?

We were speaking to a Yoga teacher that day and the Yoga teacher said ‘They say Yoga is the cessation of mental fluctuations: chitta vritti nirodha’ and we were saying ‘What is this vritti?’ and he said a very interesting answer. He said ‘It’s all this knowledge.’ [Smiles] I was not expecting that. He said ‘All this knowledge, all these things that we think we know.’ And we were not naturally like this; we were taught like this. And when we protested and said ‘Why do I have to learn this stuff?’ you were told that ‘You will need this to live your life. Without this how can you live your life?’ Isn’t it? So, now the protest that comes is the reverse, isn’t it? In Satsang when you hear ‘Let go of everything that you think you are right about, let go of your perspective’ the protest is ‘But how will I live my life?’ because that has been the condition on which we agreed to learn all this stuff anyway; that ‘I am learning all this; I’m coming into this limited, unnatural sort of state of Being because Being can live this life only on the basis of this knowledge.’ So, when the Master is saying that ‘As a Gurudakshina, I want you to hand over everything that you think you know’ you have this fear that ‘How can I live my life?’

But the thing is that the life has never been lived the way we think it has been. We think that it has been because of our ideas and our decisions, our will, but this is made up because the one that could exert that will, the one that could have such a thing as free well, that itself does not exist. So, it’s not a volitional play. It’s not a play full of choice. It’s just like a movie unfolding. Then at best we can say that it unfolds as is the will of the projective light (whether you call it Consciousness, whether you call it the Supreme Intelligence, whatever we call it). So, it has not been led in the way we think it has been led … because the one that could lead it has no substance, has no Reality, individually.

[Reading from chat]: “Father, you asked. There is a lot being contemplated about this. I guess I could say it’s about Consciousness being Intelligence, using the mind for intelligent functioning. All the egoic positions and anything not open is accepted (as that) but to deny that we are one with Intelligence and it’s available in life is true here; so sharing this … about Consciousness as Intelligence functioning through each expression.”

A: Yes, but as we are really looking at everything that we conclude to be true … (and I’m very happy to hear that this contemplation is on; this contemplation is very good) …then we see that we don’t know what ‘expression’ is, what ‘functioning’ is, what ‘through’ is, even what ‘Consciousness’ is. Actually, we don’t.

As a pointer, as a provisional truth, of course, it’s quite beautiful, what you say; that it is just the One Consciousness which is functioning through all expression. But as we are pushing through the boundaries of all concepts, looking at them in the light of true Seeing, we see that all these statements also ultimately are just provisional; are all distinctions.

Like the Sage said (I’m not sure if it was Nisargadatta Maharaj): ‘The ultimate Truth is very simple. Just make no distinctions.’ Now, the thing is that even in a statement like that, there are so many distinctions like ‘ultimate, truth’ but as a pointer, it is potent. So, what I’m saying is that the ultimate truth is not contained in that statement, and yet, it seems like it is a useful pointer for the time being. In the same way, all expression, including what is being shared in Satsang is, at best, a provisional truth, a provisional pointer, to bring us to that which is beyond even the statement ‘I am Brahman’ or ‘I am the Self’. Like [Nisargadatta] Maharaj said ‘In the end, even ‘I Am’ is not true. Although it is the only truth that I can speak of, I have to say that even that is ultimately untrue.’ So, if this ‘I Am’, Consciousness Itself, is ultimately untrue (which means actually it is untrue right now) … then we come to this wordless spirituality, wordless (if you can call it) space where the distinction of true and untrue is not there anymore.

So, it’s a beautiful contemplation.

[Long Silence]

[Reading from chat]: “The little trick here has been that ‘The mind thoughts are never true, but Consciousness Itself is Intelligence and can be relied upon’ … (using that as an idea) to cover up a fear that ‘I’ll become stupid by believing that I know nothing.’ So, am exposing/surrendering that.”

A: Yes. It is a trick, like you say. The mind will say ‘But what if I just sound stupid, to not know anything?’ because we feel that our conceptual knowing has made us intelligent. And then we see that ‘Okay, I’m seeing that the mind doesn’t know anything but the true Source of Intelligence is Consciousness Itself’ … and you see that this trick is played by the mind itself.

[The thought says that] ‘To know that I know nothing makes us silly or stupid’ but actually, I’m not even saying that. We come to a point where we don’t even know that we know nothing. Like, no conclusion is valid anymore, including the conclusion that ‘I know nothing’.  So, ‘I know something’ and ‘I know nothing’ both are divested of their meaning.

[Silence]

And as reassurance, of course, we can say that ‘Don’t worry. Your life continues to run in this Supreme Intelligence of Consciousness.’ But that soon will start seeming insipid. I know that for a while it can feel like we need to reassure ourselves in this way, but when I say ‘insipid’ it’s more like the claim that ‘I have a mouth speaking that I have a mouth.’ [Chuckles] It doesn’t really have to be claimed.

This is all very good to look at, to expose, to inquire into. It’s good.

This is the seeming dilemma of the Satsang teacher, that seemingly so many conclusions are being made. But if there is like a test of that, the test is ‘How attached are you to that which is being spoken?’

The other day, we are about that and we were saying that ‘Have you noticed how sometimes these words just come out of your mouth and you had no feeling to say them or no intention about them; they just come out … but something naturally then must take a stand about that. They just came; and then we have to then live up to them and say ‘Okay, it has come; now have to own it.’ And someone was also saying that it’s same thing with thoughts. ‘Once it has crossed my mind, oh, this is mine.’

This is what we were taking about: perspectives. What are perspectives but just a collection of thoughts? So, once it is crossed your mind-space then you feel like ‘Okay, I will live up to this, own up to this.’

Sangha: So nice that you say ‘How attached…?’ because normally when you converse, it just comes and it’s not like it has to, but words are spoken. It is almost like this there is some kind of knowledge (not the ‘Self-knowledge’ but some knowledge). But it is seen that it is also a conclusion which really does not have anything in it. It’s just because conversations have to be made; things are spoken.

A: Exactly. So, it’s all a question of openness. In a way, to say ‘attached’ and in another way to say that ‘attached or not attached’ is to see how open … how open we are to being contradicted? [Smiles] It’s about how open we are. Does that start to seem like an attack immediately? Like we said something; it came from nowhere. [Smiles] But somebody said ‘No, it is not like that.’ Is it like ‘No, it came from this mouth, so it must be valid!’ … like this kind of thing?

It is in these sticky things that we no longer then are open, that we are no longer then even exploring. Once we take a stand then that is the end of exploration … because you become so closed. And it’s very funny that in this entire play, it could be exactly the opposite also. If those words that we are attached to could have come from another mouth and the response could have come from our mouth, then conversation could have just been the opposite. But it just seems like ‘Okay, now, but this is [right].’ [Smiles] It’s a strange thing.

Many times, I feel like asking all of you: Are you just saying? Or you really believe it to be true? [Smiles] Are you saying ‘But this, this, this…’ Like just saying. You have seen this mouth moving [indicates his mouth] and these words just spilling out. Or are there some actual ties you have to these words, attachments you have to these words? And a few times, I have asked this question. Many times, the answer has been ‘I’m just looking at this stuff. [Smiles] And as it is coming out, I was starting to get attached to it.’ You ask this question. We are very quick to take a position about of what is being spilled out of this mouth. [Smiles] It is just like ‘Oh, this came out from here and now this is the stand I have taken; now I have to live up to it.’ So, this is like fear of contradicting yourself because you’ll seem insane or something. [Smiles] It might have never have occurred to you but it came out of your mouth. How many times does it happen in so-called personal arguments? [Smiles] It never occurs to us, then it just spills out, and then it’s just like ‘No, I mean it! This is my stand.’ I didn’t know it until it spilled out: this is what it is. [Laughs and Laughter in the room] Many times, it even happens it spills out of the mouth and your initial reaction is ‘Where did that come from?’ But very quickly, you have to own it. [Chuckles]

Sangha: Even if thinking, it can be the same.

A: Yeah, exactly. Words showed up. It shows up. ‘This is what I believe.’ But it wasn’t there until a moment ago. ‘No, but this is now.’ [Smiles] Most arguments, most debates, most differences, most of it is like this in the world. ‘I really, really believe that the left is right!’ (I’m taking politically.) [Chuckles] But did you always have this? ‘No, actually this last year I started and it just came up, but it never came up before, that thought.’ [Smiles] I mean nothing.

Sangha: Father, very funny on this side, (now I see more clearly) that I kind of remember that I read it and sometimes in fact, lot of strong belief is there, then still it comes back. I was not even so convinced, but still I had a feeling ‘I actually believe that’.

A: Yeah, exactly. As soon as you asked a question or you made a report, then you it takes something. As it comes out, then you feel like ‘But now I have to stand up for this.’ Because maybe it looks too strange when we say ‘I want to go there’ and the next moment to say ‘No, I don’t want to go there’ or ‘what is left or right; what is straight?’ You know, these kind tricks. It’s like the world will think you’re mad or losing your mind or something so you feel that you have to hold on, just in case. It’s not just words which fall out of the mouth; it’s like this with our thoughts. It can come and say ‘I feel…’ But a moment ago, it was not like that. Or ‘I strongly feel that this is wrong.’ How strong is it? It just started one minute, one second ago. [Smiles] That’s why (as many of you know) sometimes I get report which is like ‘Ananta, I got in to an argument yesterday, but within a minute, I was laughing at what I was saying.’

Language is fundamental to our idea of separation, our idea of false representation. The idea that the mind has some true meaning about ‘What Is’ is impossible without language. And the thing about language is that it is completely inter-linked; like every concept within it contains the seed of every other concept. So, when we want to play around and say ‘Okay, I want this one, and this one but then I will give up everything else; these are keepers, these are convenient’ …, then what happens is that it contains everything else.

Is there a concept which is completely independent of every other concept? It all depends on each other. All this language is dependent on other language. So, the whole dictionary is nothing but a circular loop. You never learn anything new. We just learn other words. Then those words mean some other words, and those words means some other words, and ultimately, we refer back to the original word itself.

So, there is nothing new to be found there, it’s just circular. But we feel like to collect these words, to collect these notions, these interpretations, we’re actually learning something or understanding something about ‘What Is’ …, about the Is-ness. But this Is-ness is independent of any interpretation.

Even if it’s primal toys, like love, peace, joy, time, space, attention (I’m using some terminology but it’s okay) … these seemingly-primal toys of ‘What Is’ … light, sound, any of these are not capture-able in any concept. That famous example of the one who has never experienced love and you try to explain it. What words can satisfy that? You cannot.

So, if these by-products of ‘Is-ness’ (just to use some term) itself are not definable in concept, then how can That which is beyond these be definable? And in fact, can we go so far as to say that nothing that appears even phenomenally can we conclude anything which we think is true about?

Like you might say, as I was saying yesterday, you might say ‘This apple is green’. Do we really know this? Or ‘The sound is this.’ Do we really know that? We do not know. Then we have looked at these illusions and fallacies. We cannot conclude even anything in the phenomenal appearance using concepts.

Then how can we conclude that which is beyond coming and going, beyond appearances?

And all our concepts are about something that we have never met.

We have never met past.

We have never met future.

We have never met inside or outside.

A: But the thing is that this mind is like the way some Indians give you directions. Nobody will tell you that they don’t know. [Chuckles] They will always presume to have an answer. Only rarely one says ‘I don’t know’.  … ‘Just a little more.’ [Points his hand in a direction] ‘You will get there. What you do is just ask somebody on the road: where is this place?’ Does anyone say ‘I don’t know’? They will only say ‘Just ask a little ahead, 100 meters ahead.’ … ‘Are you saying it is that way?’ … ‘No, no, just ask them.’ [Chuckles] They can’t get themselves to say ‘I don’t know’. It’s like it hurts them deeply to not know where everything is, for some reason.

Q: If you ask some shopkeeper in Thippasandra [a local market in Bengaluru] ‘Can I buy this?’ they say ‘I don’t know.’ [Laughter]

A: ‘But it is right there.’ … ‘Oh, thank you for telling me.’ [Chuckles] There are shopkeepers also who are not interested in selling anything at all. Or they are just sitting there for a friend.

‘Can you look after my shop while I’m going for a smoke?’ or something. [You come and say]: ‘Can I get a toothbrush?’ … ‘I don’t know.’ … ‘But it’s right there.’ Because he doesn’t know how much it costs, so, he’s like ‘But I can’t sell it to you.’ He hardly ever says ‘This is not my shop’. He likes the respect that is coming his way. [Chuckles]

The answers of the mind are as reliable as these people are.

Are you satisfied having no answer, no conclusion, from the mind?

Q: It says ‘Not applicable.’

A: ‘Not applicable’ means satisfaction is not applicable? What is not applicable; satisfaction?

Q: Whatever the mind says. It may give an answer or not give an answer.

A: Yeah. So, not having any validity or validation, certificate, freedom, no freedom or any of this from the mind is okay with you?

Q: What is the other option?  [Laughter in the room]

A: You’re reconciled to that or …?

Q: It seems like either the mind will force you to reconcile or you ….

A: Or you … suffer. [Laughter] It’s like Kabir said ‘O my beloved, either understand what I am telling you or go fall in the ditch.’ [Laughter]

Is there a sense of regret about it? ‘Unfortunately, I have to reconcile that this mind I cannot rely on for any valid representation of reality.’

Q: No. That would be for the mind.

A: It can be either. Sometimes it can feel like regret, but many times it can feel like relief that ‘I don’t have to be concerned with this voice which is trying to tell me that I am this or that any more.’ It is a huge relief mostly. It’s like if you had a strict teacher throughout your schooling days, and now you have just finished your convocation and you’re done. You got your certificate and there is nothing he has or she has on you anymore. Isn’t that a big relief? The certificate no longer matters. What it is saying about you or the world or your relationships, or anything really, does not have anything to do with having meaning or meaninglessness.

The mind will now say ‘But the point is to become like that.’ But you are over these ideas of what the mind is saying the point is. You are over this idea that something has to happen for this kind of reasoning; that there is a reason behind something, that there is a cause and effect. And you’re getting over the doubts of ‘But, but, but, but, but…’

‘I know that no ‘buts’ are true, but…’ How many times we have heard this in Satsang? [Chuckles] ‘I know, Ananta, that everything that comes after ‘but’ is just a story, and yet….’ [Laughs] ‘…simultaneously, at the same time, what about this?’ … ‘I know everything that comes after ‘I am’ is a story, but I am just stuck.’ Did you hear the first part of what you said? [Chuckles]

So, these are just withdrawal symptoms, in a way. You’re getting over most of this ‘But, but but…’ of making conclusions about ‘I am….’ After a while, you can feel like ‘I’m so frustrated, I cannot really say anything about myself anymore!’ But you just did. [Chuckles] So, it’s getting over these kinds of things.

And then there will be a phase when you want to proclaim big, big things. You want to proclaim that ‘I am the Sun, I am the moon.’ Then you get over that also. ‘I am everything. I am all there is.’ Not really. It’s not true nor untrue. ‘But that sounds so boring.’ You will get over that also. All these are various phases of the seeming-unburdening.

‘But now that I have seen this, here is what I must do.’ What did you see exactly? That you are not an object in time and space. So, the one that ‘must do’ is what? [Chuckles] All these are withdrawal symptoms.

And I’m not saying that the mouth will not say these kinds of things. It’s okay. I’m just saying that inwardly you will remain completely non-resisting and open as these things are happening. Like, whatever way this life has to unfold and has been unfolding, it will continue to unfold, in the light of the same One.

Okay, I’ll give you multiple-choice option today. You have to forget about two things. I’ll give you four options, out of which you have to forget about two things, okay? So, there are these two sets. So, the first set is, we forget about past and future. [Chuckling] Everything that concerns you about past and future: Forget about it. That’s the first set.

If you say ‘No, no, I can’t do that; that is too much’ then forget about it. The other set is inside and outside. Everything that is inside and everything that is outside. What will you forget about it? You can’t say, future and inside. [Laughter in the room]

You can forget about all four also. Actually, if you forget about any of the two then you’ve forgotten all four. No deal? [Chuckles] One of the four? Let’s start with that. Everything that happens outside or everything that happens inside; at least let’s start with that. The so-called inside and outside. Let’s forget about the barrier.

Q: You said ‘Forget about it’. I feel it’s more in the sense like be unconcerned about them?

A: Yes, unconcerned about them. Time or space?

[Reading from chat]: “It’s difficult to drop strong emotions.”

Okay, don’t drop that. Forget everything that appears on the outside; don’t be concerned about that. This emotion that seems to happen inside, okay, it’s fine. Deal? [Chuckles] If there are four legs to this table, you have to let go of one of them so I can pull you in.

We have never met any of these. We have never met the past, we’ve never met the future, we’ve never met inside and we’ve never met outside. So, why so much concern about it? [Silence] What will you attach to now?

[Reading from chat]: “The truth is that there is no Truth.”

He says there is no Truth. And what is that then? Is that the Truth? [Chuckling] Even that is not the Truth because It Itself is saying it is not the Truth. The truth that we can fathom through our mind, the truth that we can conceptualize, is not the Truth. And then what remains is That which is beyond these boundaries of true and false, beyond these boundaries of Being and not-Being, of perceiving and not-perceiving. It is naturally Here and apparent, clear.

But where do we go looking for the Truth? Where do you go looking for the Truth? What is the source of our Truth? Even when we say ‘This is my truth’ what is the source of this? Where did it come up?

Q: It’s already Here.

A: It’s already Here. Usually we find that we do not refer to This which is naturally Here as ‘Our Truth’. We refer to some interpretation or judgment or idea and say ‘This is what it is’. When you come to Satsang, then you’re able to make that shift away from the narrator voice, the narrative …, to just ‘What Is’.

So, where do we go when referring to ‘Our truth’? The wanting to find Truth in that source; that is what shifts, in a way. The content doesn’t have to change really. As long as we feel that we will find this Truth in the mind, and keep referring to those conclusions of the mind as the Truth, then it can still seem to be changing, suffering, limitation, separation.

For a while, it can feel a bit strange that this voice that I’ve replied on for a fair bit of time actually is not truly representing ‘What Is’…, in fact, has no way to represent anything at all.

How many of you feel fairly clear about this, that our mind cannot represent anything truly?

Fairly certain? [Looks around the room] So, at least that certainty is there. Then the rest is easy.

It’s just like an allegiance to an old friend who is a teller of stories. And yet, because we’ve heard the stories for so long, it can feel like it takes some time to get over those stories. If you feel in your heart that you’ve seen through these stories and seen that they are not true representations of Reality, then the dropping away of these stories is not difficult.

But if you still feel that ‘Okay, okay, for Satsang stuff, it cannot really represent [truth] but for this or that, this is true.’ You see, then we insert duality into it. Because the fear is what? ‘If I don’t refer to it as the truth for running my life, then my life won’t run, my work won’t happen.’ You see? But experiment with this. And you’ll see that just as these movements happen energetically, the mind unfolds in the same way the movements of the body also happen. Whatever needs to unfold for the running of this life is unfolding naturally anyway. So, this so-called dependency of thought and action itself is a fallacy. The source of thought is the same; Consciousness. The source of action is the same; Consciousness. So, why would Consciousness have to rely on something which It Itself creates to do the other aspect of Its Existence? So, it’s not like this.

I’m not saying that the mind should come to a standstill or stop. If it happens fine; but even if it is there, it doesn’t matter. Just like whether the body is sitting in complete yogic posture, completely still, or it is moving about, really doesn’t matter to your Reality. Whether appearances are moving or they are still doesn’t matter to That which is the Unmoving, the Unchanging.

A subtler pair I can give you also. We talked about past and future, we talked about inside and outside. I can also give you another pair, which is: Forget about cause and effect: ‘This, therefore, that’.

Don’t be concerned with any cause and effect. Because if it’s about a ‘leading to’ (even these things we hear in Satsang, if they sound as if they are about ‘leading to’) they are very provisional. If you have the idea that ‘If I just do this, then that will happen’ … forget about it. As long as you continue to feel that ‘Your Truth’ is about a ‘happening’ you’ll be stuck in time, you’ll be stuck in causation.

As she was saying, we have never actually met the boundary. What is that separating line between past and future? We have a concept of it and we might say ‘Now’. [Chuckles]

Have you met this Now?

Has anyone seen this Now? [Smiles]

Same way for inside and outside. You might say ‘body’ but is that inside of the body that you are referring to? Inside of the body is what? Any surgeon will tell you but we are not talking about that.

So, we have never met even this seeming-separating line. They are just ideas, they are just notions. And you as an entity or the ‘me’ is like the super-notion which relies on all of these notions. [Smiles]

So, this ‘me’ …, if it did not rely on the notion of time, it had no birth, it has no death, then what would this ‘me’ be? If it did not rely on the notion of space, what could you say about yourself? You wouldn’t even be able to say where you are. Actually you can’t. [Chuckles]

Where are you looking at this world from?

Where are you looking at appearances from?

Where are you hearing the sound of the traffic from?

The sound of these words, what is that space?

And don’t use that tame label ‘inside’. [Chuckles] It doesn’t do it justice, to just say ‘inside’ and it’s over. It’s just like ‘Inside, finished!’ [Chuckles] Explore this. What is this? The body is sitting here, presumably. Where are you sitting? Are you sitting or standing? [Chuckles]

Again, don’t settle for a label like ‘Oh, I am formless!’ [Chuckles]

Don’t settle for any answers. Just look.

Have you ever met something which is formless?

How did you meet it?

And don’t even settle for even any ultimate sounding labels like ‘I am the Self’ or ‘I am Awareness’ or ‘I am the Absolute, I am Brahman’. Just look.

Who is hearing the hearing?

Who is seeing the seeing?

What perceives all perception?

[Meditative Silence]

[Reading from chat]: “Can it be said that the belief that ‘I am the body’ is a learned belief?”

Yes, all beliefs are learned beliefs. All beliefs are learned beliefs. If you want to become technical about it then you can say… (okay, better not to become technical and to get into the karma thing). They are all learned beliefs. Forget about it. [Chuckles]

That is why Satsang, at times, can seem like a struggle because nobody believes anything thinking that it is false. All our beliefs are picked up as our notions of what is true, as true representations of ‘What Is’.  Now, as we hear every day in Satsang: ‘You cannot represent ‘What Is’. That cannot be captured in any notion. Whatever you’re thinking about yourself to be true, is not true. You cannot even find that ‘me’ that you think of as ‘you’.  You don’t even know where you are.’ It is bound to lead to some churning; sometimes frustration, sometimes bliss. Sometimes it can be any way. Of course, I have to say that we encounter frustration a lot more. [Chuckles] Why? Because all of these are ideas that we have held strongly thinking that ‘These are helpful to us, they are the truth and they will help me become a better person, lead a better life.’ All of these things are there.

So, that’s why it can seem a bit oppressive almost. But it is very feigned, because it would seem oppressive only if you continue to carry the idea that you are a limited object. Then it can seem oppressive for that; that ‘Oh, I am a limited object and I even don’t have doer-ship; then I’m just like a chair, just getting pushed around.’ But I’m not saying that. I’m saying: most important is to see that you are not this object; to find that all these objects are nothing but perceptions.

But that which perceives them, is that a perception?

As Guruji [Sri Mooji] would say ‘Can the perceiver be perceived?’

So, whether the cleanup job happens through this inquiry process (which sometimes is called Jnana Yoga) or whether it happens through a surrender (which is called Bhakti Yoga) or whether you just take on something where you realize that your intellect cannot get you there (whether you call that Zen or something else; it doesn’t matter) ultimately you come to this conceptual emptiness. It doesn’t mean that concepts cannot arise and go. It only means that they are not taken to be valid representations of reality. They are not taken to really decipher.

Like the other day, we were saying that even your phenomenal aspect, it cannot really represent.

Say what is happening in this room; in concept. You cannot do it.  Even phenomenally, what is happening in this room, you cannot decipher truly, conceptually. At best, it would be a very timid version, like ‘There are 10 people talking about some strange truth.’ [Chuckles] But is that truly representative? Then you can say ‘Okay, some are sitting that way, some are sitting this way.’ How many sentences will it take to define even this? And this is just the content of our perception in one moment. It will take millions of sentences to truly decipher even the phenomenal appearance; sounds, tastes, sensations, appearances, colors, shapes and sizes. All of this. But we live by these; these photocopy versions of life. ‘This one is like this, this one is like that.’ These kinds of things; we live by these. But we don’t really know any of that.

These photocopy versions are oppressive, in a way, because it is not just that we are making a judgment about what is appearing; more importantly, we are making a judgment about what we are, which is also a limited object.

So, if even your phenomenal existence cannot be deciphered in concepts, then how will you represent your wholeness …, which is the un-manifest and the manifest? … (if you can say something like that).

That which is aware of all of this, what concepts can contain IT actually?

So, neither this nor that can we really encapsulate it in any conceptual framework.

[Reading from chat]: “Father, as I wait for the next thought to come, nothing happens. All the thoughts I can perceive are in the past already. Waiting for the next thought seems to lead to neutrality.”

Yes, in a way, when anyone comes and says ‘I am just so caught up in my thoughts. There is so many, I am just so confused all the time’ then we say ‘Okay, wait, wait; you welcome them, let them all come’ then you see that their quantity seems to reduce and their quality is not so oppressive. In the same way, like you were saying ‘I wait for the next thought to come’ … when you’re not taking a resistive posture even towards your thoughts, you are just open. I would say not ‘waiting, waiting’ so much because even that seems like ‘I am just waiting.’ I would say more like ‘open’. You remain open to everything. Whether it is perception, whether it is thought, whether it is emotion, whether it is any sensation, in your openness you will see that all things come and go naturally. Because waiting then can become another oppressive position.

And if just this radical openness, in a way, without anything to hold onto, is too much, then you can pick one concept, which is…  (you have the list). [Smiles] Whatever works for you the best.

What is happening is that you are remaining empty of the notion of ‘something’. Like Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said ‘I Am’ is no trouble. The idea ‘I am something’ is the birth of jeev-atma’ of the so-called ‘individualized Consciousness.

Now, what to do with this ‘something’ as it arises? It only arises from the mind. It is not inherent in any experience. It is inherent only in its narration, its translation.

So, the question is ‘What do I need this one thing for?’ We need it so that this can be swept away, this ‘I am something’ notion.

Some like to use the inquiry. The mind says ‘I am not really understanding what he is saying.’ So, we are attaching that ‘I am not really understanding’ (this kind of thing) to ‘I Am’ which is beyond all these. Then we say ‘Okay, but who am I? Who is the one that is not understanding?’ And you see that there is nobody like that here.

In the same way, for those who are devotional in their temperament, when the notion comes ‘I am really not understanding’ they will really take this to heart and say ‘This understanding or not-understanding is the Master’s problem. Guru Kripa Kevalam. I am surrendered at the Lord’s feet.’

So, depending on your temperament, depending on what you feel gives you the most openness, the most spaciousness, you can use that one concept. And then that one concept is self-emulative, in a way; self-destructive.

Q: Say if I were eating something, you can have the thought ‘I am eating something’ but that experience of eating something doesn’t rely on the thoughts of it. But if you, for example, imagine eating something tomorrow or remembering, because there is no experience outside the concept of it, then it’s the other way around.’

A: Are you talking about like an image coming in, like the image of lunch tomorrow? Or are you talking about the concept of lunch tomorrow?

Q: Well, no actually. What I started with was the question ‘Is it possible to have a thought about myself in the present moment?’ Because it seems like that’s one of the ways that the mind justifies thoughts is by saying ‘Okay, well, forget about the past, forget about the future’. But you can still have valid thoughts in the present moment. Then I realize ‘Well, not really …’

A: Because by the time it comes out and is translated or assimilated, that moment is gone. Like suppose the thought starts now: ‘I am sitting down, trying to understand this.’ [Chuckles] And now you understood this thought but by then, the time that the thought started is already gone.

It’s like what I say sometimes, that a thought can sometimes be seem very harmless; like [Pretends to hold something] ‘This is a green apple’ which is just a very, very seemingly-accurate representation of what is appearing. If were to stop at that, it would be fine. It’s not true that it’s a green apple, but even if it is believed, it’s okay. But very quickly it comes with preferences. ‘I prefer red ones, or green are not as sweet, or I really like green.’ This position-taking starts very quickly, even after just phenomenally-interpretive thoughts. The second thing is that do we need that thought ‘This is a green apple’ to get the experience of the green apple?

Q: No.

A: What do we need it for? Exactly. So, like I was saying, we don’t need to have the concept ‘glass’ to drink from it. Like I’ve been talking about this infant child not having the concept of milk or breast or drink or any of that, but still the functioning happens very naturally.

So, the idea that ‘I need to have it in my conceptual box and then only this body/mind will function’ is a fallacy. And mostly, as I was saying, looking at plants: plants are not deciding where to grow their next branch and they’re not thinking ‘My next flower should be like this’. You see? Still it unfolds. Then one of you said ‘But I’m not a tree, Father.’ [Chuckles] Then I started taking the infant example, the child example, that functioning happens very naturally but without this layer of mentation [thinking] on top of it.

What has it actually brought to our lives? If we were to be honest with ourselves and say ‘What do I actually know?’ This ‘What do I actually know?’ only feels like the mildest inquiry. We do not even know who we are, where we are, what we are. [Chuckles] All these ‘W’ questions. Why we are, we don’t even know. We want to know a lot of ‘why’s’ about everything else but why are we? Actually, fundamentally, we don’t even know whether we are. This is the thing. Are we?

Q: Maybe not in the sense of knowing as we know other things but, in some sense, we are always aware.

A: Yeah, this ‘aware’ is neither a perceptual knowing nor conceptual knowing nor a sensational knowing. This Awareness, this Knowingness (this capital ‘K’ Knowingness) is what Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] was talking about when he said ‘This True Knowledge, the recognition of This, is just the dropping of that which is false. It is just ever-present.’ That’s why Jnana is not talking about what all can we do; which scripture we should learn. That is not Jnana Yoga. It is to come to this Knowing of This, which is independent of what we know conceptually, of what we see perceptually.

But the struggle with language is like that. Since we use the word ‘know’ for both things, then it becomes difficult to really fathom this. Now this Knowingness does not have the claim that ‘I am the Knowingness’ or ‘I am the Self’. This is the thing. [Smiles]

Q: I always got confused when you said ‘Knowingness’ because ‘ness’ is a quality of something; it just cannot be somebody. You always said ‘Knowingness, Awareness’ as if it is like what we are. But this is only a quality (it’s not even a quality) but whatever…

A: In the same way, we got used to saying ‘Awareness’ so we add the ‘ness’ there. So, it’s okay. Why to say it? Maybe we say Knowingness to make some distinction between this Knowing and that usual knowing of perceptual knowing or conceptual knowing.

Q: But there is nobody to know.

A: Nobody being; yeah. [Smiles]

Q: That’s the difference. Nobody knows this capital ‘K’ Knowingness; there is nobody to know

A: That ‘nobody’ has ever existed anyway, so that one has never known anything. I was going to say that (In the Ribhu Gita, it is said that) ‘The Truth is empty of the duality in the statement: I am Brahman.’ It’s a very beautiful line. And for many Vedantans actually, it might sound like sacrilege but that was not the intent. The intent is to say ‘Even in that claim, there is duality; in that claim that ‘I am Brahman.’ It’s like what I was saying the other day that the mouth is not saying ‘I am mouth’. You’re not going around saying ‘I have a face’. To make that assertion implies the possibility of its negation. So, if we say ‘I am Brahman’ as an assertion, then it could be negated also because it’s just a concept. But empty of all these assertions and negations … just ‘This’. [Silence] Now, whether we call it ‘Is-ness’ or whether we call it ‘Such-ness’ or whether we call it ‘Awareness’ or ‘Knowingness’ it doesn’t really matter.

Something very beautiful is that there is never ever any trouble in the present moment.

We carry the baggage of past and we take the projections of the future and we invent this idea of suffering; and therefore, the idea of freedom is also super-imposed on this idea suffering.

You know this very well actually. But it is just a trump card from the mind which says ‘But what happens when this…? Or but what happens in the future? Oh, what happen when you are not there?’ You know, some idea like this. [Smiles] That’s just like saying ‘Oh, tomorrow is going to be terrible anyway so why be happy now?’ Isn’t it? If all of us knew that tomorrow was going to be terrible, one option (suppose we had these options?) one option is to mope about it and say ‘Okay, tomorrow is going to be terrible’ and the other option is to say ‘Okay, at least let us taste today completely. Let us be with what is Here Now.’

So, if you remove that project that ‘I must be come to a place where I am empty of all beliefs’ … because that is also just a belief.

We were talking about the Yoga the other day. Suppose what happened is that you said (like we said) ‘Yoga is the sensations of metal fluctuations.’ [chitta vritti niroda] Suppose all the vrittis, all the fluctuations, were talking about what will happen if the future fluctuations come? We are like ‘But we are empty of those fluctuations now. What will come, will come.’

So, enjoy your empty Sage-like nature now. Tomorrow, if the person is back, person is back.

This is what I mean when I say ‘God now’ or ‘Me-ow’.

God is here Now.

There is no obstacle.

There is no duality, no separation.

Then God himself or herself plays with this idea of limitation. And can feel like a limited condition, a limited state … the fear of what the future holds or this need for reassurance that ‘Okay, I’m getting it now so that then I will be peaceful in the future or this state will remain’ or something like that in the future. That keeps us bound in a very strong way.

Leave the future to the future.