BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

It is very funny that presumably we come for an Advaita Vedanta Satsang; Advaita. But in the term itself, all that has been pointed to is already contained. If there is a truth that is pointed to, it’s contained as a beautiful pointer in the term ‘non-duality, not two’. Now, if this is the truth that there are no two…, for a while let’s imagine or presume that there are no two; Advaita is true, that there are actually no two. No distinction ever happened between maya and Brahman, between the world and the Absolute; no distinction ever came between anything. Then what is left … if no distinction ever happened between anything at all?

Is the seeker left? The one who wants to seek the truth, is that one left?

Because the seeker is also dependent on this duality of separation and therefore, the idea of finding the ultimate reality. But this is the contradiction, isn’t it? What do we hear about the ultimate Reality? It does not come and go. If it does not come and go, then what is there to find? Then where must it be? What needs to be done?

And if the unreal never existed, and the Reality is All-There-Is, then what is all this seeking, all this search about?

Now the danger with this kind of statement is that we can quickly draw the opposite conclusion, which is that ‘Therefore, I do not need to seek anymore.’ But that statement is also full of duality. Because ‘I’ presumably again is a limited object who is presumably saying that ‘Oh, there is no distinction between me and the absolute. So, I do not need to seek anymore.’ It is not a statement about the Brahman, it is not a statement about the Absolute, it is a still a statement about our limitation. So, neither seeking nor giving up the seeking; where does that leave us?

Neither somewhere nor nowhere. Because we said ‘No, we are getting rid of duality.’

But for a while, you’ll struggle with this because it will feel very strange. ‘He is neither saying this nor is he saying that.’ And once we cannot put finger on what he is saying, it can sound like ‘What is going on?’ Because this instrument called the mind works with these opposites, then when it is pushed beyond these opposites, then starts to give way, it starts to protest, it starts to throw a tantrum, it starts to feel bored. It starts to have all of these tricks and tactics, which are also part of the design of this play. That’s why the Sage said that ‘When you are pushed beyond your intellect, you might feel like complaining or having grievances about this. But actually, it is the most auspicious time’ If you cannot put our finger on this or that, if you cannot tell whether something is true or false; beyond this duality, beyond the duality of me and other, even beyond the duality of form and formless…

Many in Advaita are actually stuck on the concept of formless-ness. And when they give it to their imagination, then they’re creating a version of the formless like a dark, empty space or something like that; or a space full of light, which is ‘My formless truth’. But you are neither. Form does not apply to You, in the same way formless does not apply to You.

Now you cannot get this though the device called the mind. But somewhere in You, you can hear that You are beyond form and formless-ness. Your mind and intellect cannot grapple with this because all the visualization, all the tactics, all the scriptural verses that you might have learned can’t help you with this. This has to be something else. I don’t even want to say ‘deeper.’ It has to be something else. So, this which we usually call ‘the recognition’ is not perception, it is not conceptual; it is something else.

But with the shovel of the mind, if we keep digging, we will not get to the water. [Smiles] In a way, it is good. Because we get tired, and once we get tired, we give up on this shovel. In the same way, wearing the cloak of a judge (‘Yes, yes, no, no, right, right, wrong, wrong’) we cannot come to this. All our reasoning, all out computation, all our great memory, all our past learning, all our meditative experiences, and all our kundalini; all of this is absolutely fine … but This, what is being pointed to, is something else. It is beyond something and nothing.

The ‘me’ that you think you are, has no way to get this; and it has nothing to gain out of this also.

Truth for truth’s sake has nothing on offer for the ego, for this idea of ‘me’. So, as long as we are caught up in selfishness, even spiritual selfishness, that is a very different game from what Satsang is pointing to.

If duality does not apply to You, then no distinctions are valid; even the distinction of reality and appearance, even the distinction of samsara and nirvana, even the world, the illusion or freedom, liberation; maya and the Self. If all these distinctions were not valid, if you had nothing to do with time (past and future), with space, (here and there), if you let go of all your perception and imagination…

[Silence]

Many times, in spirituality, we also feel that this particular inward-facing position is the true position. But as long as we’re still making a distinction between inward and outward, it is still a fallacy, it is still a duality.

All positions are just stories of your limitation.

And actually, even to stay as the Self or even to try and leave the false … all these are also just made up. [Smiles] Then what is there?

You have looked and looked for many years. You have not found yourself in form and you have not found yourself as formless. That you cannot deny yourself.

So, what to do now?

It is not impossible to ‘mostly’ live an unlabeled life. (I am saying ‘mostly’ because I don’t want you to start judging yourself as to how much percent.) It is possible even with these sensations, emotions, feelings, these seemingly-outer events, the expressions appearing out of even this very body, to leave all of this unjudged. It is a possibility which I’m inviting all of you to discover.

Because the minute we define something and say ‘This is what this is’ (even the truth) then the truth is not the Truth anymore. Because the truth then is not all-inclusive. If it can be defined in opposition to something which is false, then how can it be All-There-Is?

So, the thing is that the minute we define something, we inadvertently define ourselves. Because when we say something is not nice then who is this not nice for? We couldn’t be then talking about God or All-There-Is or Self.

[Looks at questioner] Could it be? [Laughs]

Q: Maybe it could. [Laughter]

A: It’s like this game that we play sometimes. Instead of saying ‘I’ we say ‘God’ everywhere, like ‘God had this unpleasant feeling, God had this …’ [Chuckles]

Q: I could buy that.

A: Say ‘God’ instead of ‘I.’ [Chuckles] ‘God could buy that.’

Q: Yeah. [Laughter]

A: In a way, It is buying that. All this is the play of that One Consciousness, One Being.

Any of these games or experiments which I suggest can sound very ‘childish’ almost but if you try them, if you try playing with them for a bit, you will see that ‘Ah, this identity is here.’ When you change the labels of this identity, change the usual labels, you will find (we have been experimenting with this) like, instead of ‘anger’ we say ‘potato.’ [Chuckles] And then when that becomes too jaded, that label, we can change it to something else. It can sound like ‘What is this? [Laughs] What is he saying!?’ But you see that (not ‘a lot of’ but) ALL of our conditions are based on the terms we use. ‘But this is like this. I know it to be this way.’

And it completely applies to everything coming out of this mouth also about it; in the sense that this is not the gospel Truth being spoken because it completely applies to even this. Even this exploration doesn’t hold up to any true standard of Truth. That is why there is no fear here of contradiction. [Chuckles] ‘ABC, XYZ, left, right, left, right’ [Points to questioner] ‘Go left and right.’ [Laughs]

Q: Straight. [Laughter]

A: But this is good example. When I say ‘go left and right’ mind says ‘I know what that is, it’s straight.’ [Laughter] You see? So, in a way, when we come to this not-knowing, a lot of it is a house of cards. The minute we start saying ‘We know what is happening to us’ …, if anybody actually knew what is happening to them, they would have figured it out by now what is the best response to that. [Chuckles] It’s just that we don’t know. We have this imagery that keeps coming up, this so-called memory which says ‘This is what it was’ … all of this play of sensations, perceptions. And for the mind, it’s all a bit too much. Even your current sensational view, whatever you are perceiving, sensually, perceptually, is too much for the mind to fathom.

So, what does it say about this, in your present experience? Say something that the mind can say about the present experience.

Q: Pain in my belly.

A: ‘Pain in my belly.’ Is that all there is in your present experience?

Q: Anantaji is in present experience.

A: ‘Anantaji sitting in the present.’ Is that all?

So, there is a pain in the belly and there is Anantaji; both are kind of correlated. [Laughter]

Q: Maybe, yeah.

A: Even in the neck; therefore ‘a pain in the neck.’ [Laughter]

Q: [Laughter]

A: Then what else?

Q: Feel the wind.

A: Is there anything you can say which can accurately describe all of this?

Q: All of this? This is His job to sum it all up.

A: Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. Because you cannot capture it; you cannot capture it in a conceptual way, even our present experience, in a way. So, imagine how we try to capture ‘What happened in the past? Or what should happen in the future?’ It’s a very tiny device. Just like we cannot capture even the present phenomenal aspect of this experience. Now imagine if I said to describe both the phenomenal and the non-phenomenal present experience now.

Q: Non-phenomenal is easy, no?

A: Say. What did you say about it? [Smiles]

Q: There is nothing to say about it.

A: But you are saying that about it, that ‘there is nothing to say’. That is about what? It?

Q: Nothing. [Laughs]

A: So, what does that tell you to say? That there is ‘nothing’ about it?

Q: Nothing. [Laughs]

A: Exactly. [Laughter] It cannot be encapsulated, in a way. So, at best, the mind makes a tame attempt to capture a phenomenal aspect of our present experience. But the minute we say it, then:

‘Okay, but include everything; include everything. Don’t even exclude the space; don’t even exclude the space in which all this appearance is happening.’

‘Then don’t even exclude the witnessing of this.’ When we start to include everything, then we see that this ‘including everything’ is actually naturally present Here Now. This ‘including everything’ is just …

I say ‘Okay, include everything that you see. Don’t label them as Govind, Gopala, Prakash, Chaitanya; don’t make those labels. Include everyone …, and don’t separate yourself also, like no Olga, no Govind, no Gopala; none of this.’

Then you say ‘Okay, why do you leave the objects outside? The supposed non-living things, the rugs, the seating, the couch, the mic, the computer; include everything.’ You say ‘What about all of this?’

Then you say ‘Okay, include all the sensations, perceptions, that you are feeling so-called inwardly, include that also.’

‘Then include this space in which they seem to happen, and the space in which this space seems to appear. Because this space [Points to physical space] is also an object of perception which appears within your inner space (to use the term ‘inner’.) Like this: [Points to space around] … space; [closes eyes] gone, [opens eyes] it appears; [closes eyes] gone. That space in which even this appears, it’s always there, so include that also.’

‘Okay, now I have included everything, everything!’

Then you say ‘Okay, but what about the fourth dimension of time? Include everything that happened previously, whatever memory has in storage and whatever ideas of future you might have, include that also.’

Then you say ‘But you left out something very important. You left out that which witnesses all of this.’ So, include that also.

Now after all of these steps, you come to this sort of ‘place’ where you see: ‘But all of this is just naturally there. I didn’t have to go step one, step two, step three, step four.’

Although it is a useful exercise, especially that last one which is what I call ‘Inviting the elephant in the room’ where we include the non-phenomenal aspect of yourself. But we don’t really finally have to go that way. It is naturally just like that. All is naturally included in this moment.

There is no separation, no division: no Dvaita, no duality, actually is here. Can I go as far as to say that ‘No duality can actually ever be experienced?’ At best, it is a seeming-experience which You-as-Consciousness want to play with. You-as-Consciousness want to play with that experience and, without this ‘wanting to play’ it is completely apparent to You that there is no duality.

Advaita [non-duality] is your natural position

Dvaita [duality] is your play time.

[Smiles]

This is actually, in a way, very radical and very simple at the same time. Very radical because it goes contrary to many things that we’ve heard in spirituality. Like many times in spirituality it’s ‘Yes, yes, the Truth is unchanging but you have to do this, this and this to get to That.’ But what you’re being introduced to in Satsang now is:

Okay, what is apparent to you Now?

Is this a dual experience that you are having?

Is there duality naturally here?

Or is what we call Advaita (non-duality) actually your natural resting place?

Q: Father, is it feasible to contemplate or inquire when absorbed in activity? Not believing your next thought seems fine when I’m idle, but 90% of the time, I have something to do.

A: When you’re actually absorbed in activity, there’s no trouble. When you’re absorbed in activity, you might feel like you’re constantly thinking, but it’s not like that. It’s just that things are so flowing. That is what the term ‘absorption’ is. At least, when I hear the term ‘absorbed in activity’ it’s just like work could be happening, things are being written, stocks are being bought and sold; [Chuckles] all these things can also happen. Just like, the breath is functioning, your heart is beating, hearing is happening, digesting food is going on; all these complex activities are going on. But we feel like ‘Okay, but my email God cannot send. The bills God cannot pay.’

So, to be absorbed in activity, which is to ‘just be’ in that moment whatever is appearing, even if it is just to be with the content of what is appearing in that moment, needs no further practice; nothing.

That’s why the Zen Master said very famously ‘Before enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water. After enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water.’ In fact, a beautiful story in the life of [Zen Master] Dogen, when he was just starting out in the true recognition, he met this kitchen Monk who was in charge of kitchen in the Monastery. And this one was a very senior Monk so he asked him ‘How is it that you have been a Monk for so long and yet you spend your time on these kinds of activities like cooking? Shouldn’t you be meditating or something like that?’ He said ‘Shouldn’t you be practicing Zen?’

And this old Monk said ‘You know nothing about what you are speaking. It is just things that you have learned.’ So, in fact, it was the very, very accomplished Monks in most of these Monasteries who were given charge of activity. [Smiles] They could be absorbed in activity, but not absorbed in the mind.

This is the fallacy. The fallacy is that ‘If I am absorbed in activity, I must be using my mind constantly; this limited mind, you know, this limited identification. But all of this activity is happening within You. All of these activities. The breeze is flowing within You. [Smiles] The trees are fluttering within You. You’ve taken a part of this broad appearance and made that ‘your’ activity. We’ve done that; which is this boundary, the body boundary. And I keep asking this question: What is it that you are inside this hand … that you are not in this space around it? What is the ‘you’ which is inside this hand … which is not in the space around it?

And it’s a very ‘primal belief’ sort of thing. ‘Of course, I must be in this hand or this hand must be in me.’ But actually, the space is as much in You as the hand is. And You are as much in the hand as you are in the space. It is just this learned condition that ‘I am the body.’

Therefore, that when we say ‘I am absorbed in an activity’ we are talking about just the activity of this body. Actually, the entire state is Your activity. All appearances are Your activity. You are the light of this appearance. All of these sensations are Your sensations, just like the sensational aspect of touch and anger. Like we explored just the other day; what we say are ‘my sensations and other sensations’ is also a fallacy. We looked at that rubber glove-hand experiment. And the amputee, the phantom limb syndrome. We also looked at the audio thing, where we’re hearing so clear that ‘Yes, this is the sound coming from the computer’ but actually, (like what we were seeing) a different sound is coming from the computer. So, we do not really know. All we can say is that ‘All the content of my experience is experienced within the space of my experiencing.’ What truly IS (if you don’t want to say ‘It is just all this’) at least we can say that ‘I admit, I do not know what truly is.’

When we become conclusion-less about it, that is enough. The coming to these so-called ‘true conclusions’ is not a requirement. Like you cannot really say that ‘That body is sitting in front of you; that one has a mouth and these sounds are coming from there.’ A simple thing is that this could be your imagination, your dream. You don’t even have to say ‘This is a dream, or it’s maya, or an illusion.’ You don’t have to say even these things. At least admit that we can’t be certain about what this is.

We’re scared of losing that certainty because we feel like ‘It is based on at least these certainties of time and space that I am able to live my life.’ This is a great fear of death, in a way.

What I’m suggesting is very simple actually. I’m saying:

For such a long time, we have lived on the basis of these certainties.

Can we play for a bit, as an experiment, like this?

Allow all uncertainties for a while.

I’m holding your hand while the fear comes, while you feel wobbly.

But it is an invitation that not everyone takes …, the invitation to allow yourself to be wobbly, to allow yourself to just play, for a bit. I said the other day: It’s what? One percent of your life so far? You’ve spent one hundred percent of your life so far in these certainties, learning more and more. Give me one percent. One percent of the time you spent in certainties, we’ll spend on not being certain about anything. What is the worst that could happen? [Smiles]

But what happens for most of us is that we’re looking for more and more certainties in Satsang. ‘At least now, I’m certain that I am the Self. I have this unshakeable Truth.’ [Chuckles] But that ‘Self’ which can be captured in any term, including ‘Self’ or any idea that you might have about yourself is not the Self.

Allow yourself to remain uncertain for a while.

Q: It’s not a question. I don’t have something specific to ask but something is coming up. Sometimes, if there are things that are troubling one (you know, when things are getting poked) then it’s really an unpleasant feeling and there is reaction here like ‘Something is not feeling right, I want to get away from it.’ So, it’s like an initial reaction and then I’m like ‘Okay, how to get away from it? Let’s see what I have learned in Satsang. [Laughs] I am not that.’ Then I’m just playing with concepts and also, I want to get away from it. And still I have the ‘Just letting it all be and just observe.’ And also, the wanting to get away is also allowed to be there, allowed to be observed. But then, I feel like sometimes concepts get in the way, like Advaita concepts sometimes; like ‘What should I do then?’ There’s list of ‘Should I not do anything? Should I allow everything?’ or ‘Should I not allow everything?’ So, actually I find that it’s adding to the confusion a little bit. And if I use it to aid my pain, it’s kind of mis-using it. [Laughter] It’s like, not using the concepts for what they are made for (let’s say it like that).

A: What are they made for?

Q: Well, to get rid of all concepts, right? [Laughter] And to make you feel good.

A: ‘Concepts are made to get rid of all concepts.’ So, only one or two are enough, no?

Q: What do you mean?

A: In the sense, like if you need something to do the clean up job (like I have been saying) like we could just have one. Like that day you took permission for one. Then…?

Q: Yeah. [Laughter]

A: But you didn’t take permission for others. You know what I mean. [Chuckles]

Let me explain so that it doesn’t sound crazy. She said to me (we had a conversation a few months ago and she said to me): ‘Can I keep this idea of ‘Drop it? Because this ‘Drop it’ really helps. It really helps me when I use this concept ‘Drop it’ then I use that and it cleans up everything else.’ Then I said ‘No. Just drop this ‘dropping’ also because it’s also a concept, so even this you can’t keep.’ Then the other day then she spoke to me and said ‘Ananta (or Father), can I have that one? Because the last time when we spoke you said no you can’t keep it. Can I have that one?’ So, then I said ‘Okay, so you have permission to use one, which is: Drop it.’ [Chuckles]

But the thing is that, like she rightly said, ‘A lot of the things we learned even in Satsang then come; and they [the thoughts] say ‘Okay, if you just did that, then you will be free of that; if you do this, then you can be free, or if you step back and just observe’ or something which seems like it will aid our current predicament, in a way. But already, when we start to define things, like when we say that we know what something is, then we are already caught up in that. So, because we get caught up in that definition, then we can use one concept and say ‘Okay, drop it’ or ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ or ‘Who Am I?’ to help us step back from this kind of false knowing which seems to get us. Actually, we cling onto it but it seems like it is actually causing bondage to us.

Q: What do you mean by false knowing?

A: Like whatever we define; in the sense that ‘I know what this is.’ So, if you were to report again, then I can point out…

Q: Well, there was something causing a not very unpleasant feeling today.

A: Yeah. So, a not very pleasant feeling.

Q: No. [Laughter]

A: We’ve talked about this multiple times actually. I know that it can feel like: ‘At least this, Ananta. Come on! You know an unpleasant feeling is an unpleasant feeling. What do you mean? At least this you have to let me keep.’ And it can be very troublesome, in a way, when we hear it like that. But we have spoken about it so much, where we said that: Are we truly able to define the energetic construct of this feeling and say ‘This is pain’ and ‘This is pleasure’ and ‘This is good’ and ‘This is bad’? Are we truly able to define it?

We looked at Guruji’s [Sri Mooji’s] example, which is beautiful, about stage freight verses excitement for travel; how it’s a similar sort of feeling. Even pain; you can look at that experience in the body. You look at it and you will find that it is not purely what we consider to be pain-pain. We look at it and say ‘Yeah, it has elements which could be defined as not-pain.’ And sometimes we might even go as far as to say ‘This aspect of this experience is actually pleasurable somewhere.’ (I wonder if you’ve had some experience like that.) When we look at it what we usually call raw pain or something like that, if we look at it for just what it is, are you able to find that is completely uni-dimensional?

Q: I think I can recall; not an example but how it’s not always just one thing.

A: In fact, my proposition to all of you is that you never experience anything twice. It might seem like it is the same thing but actually, energetically, we have all unique experiences. Just like in this so-called outer world, we never have the same experience twice; in the so-called inner world also, we never actually have the same experience twice. The construct of these things that we call sensations or emotions or feelings is quite unique. When we start just looking at them without labeling quickly, we can’t say ‘Oh, but this is pain’ or ‘This is pleasure’. So, right in the beginning when we label something as ‘not good’ or even like ‘uncomfortable’ then we get caught up in that, in a way.

Okay, then go on with that. Suppose we bought the presumption that ‘It is an uncomfortable feeling’?

Q: What you are suggesting, as I understand through you …, because it automatically gets bought.

A: This is the thing. [Laughs]

Q: I feel like what you’re doing is saying that when you buy it, ‘Okay look again.’ Look. And maybe it’s more like a scientist examining it. ‘Okay, what is that?’ More with an open mind also. So, the judgment is also there, that’s what we have learned in a way, but I feel like you’re bringing us back again, to kind of just ease the judgment a bit.

A: Yes, not a bit. [Laughter] Quite radically. Quite radically to ease it. And resting on what Maharaj [Nisargadatta Maharaj] said, in a way, where he said ‘I just found myself more and more without conclusions.’ And actually, once we look at that statement, it feels very [Makes a gesture of ordinary] like, ‘Yeah, see without conclusions.’ But we see that all has been a conclusion actually, when we start looking.

In a way, you’re right, that I’m actually inviting a re-looking at all of this, to see: Do we really know good, bad; this way, that way?’ Because once we take a position about what something is then already there is an impulse to pick up a position with regards to that. If we say ‘This is this’ …, then ‘What should my posture be in regards to that?’ And in that posture, we limit ourselves from ‘All-There-Is’ to just [Makes a small little space between his two hands to signify a tiny object] that.

So, one experiment also could be then, other than saying even ‘God’ because there can be a sense of identity even around the term ‘God’, you can say ‘space’. It is not accurate because even space You are not. But it is more spacious than presuming YourSelf to be a limited, tangible object. So, what is happening to space?

Your experience is full of spaciousness actually. Like whatever the sensation might be, you cannot deny that it occurs in the space of Your Existence. That is just natural to most of us now who have been in Satsang. Isn’t it? So, whose space is that space in which all this is happening?

Then what is your report? [Long silence]

Let your mouth represent that space in which all of these appearances are coming and going (which is actually better than representing that unethical entity).

Sangha: It’s very strange, like it is kind of a blank, you know. There is no way mind can make a concept of how this space is. I mean, I couldn’t give an answer. I don’t know. [Laughs]

A: Yeah, give it some time; it’s very smart. [Chuckles] Once the mind runs of its moves, then it’s confronted with a new sort of sharing. You have Satsang. That’s why we have to keep it fresh. Because otherwise the mind makes position about everything that it shares, even in Satsang. Within a day or two, it will have some smart repartee to this, which is fresh Now, so it’s just like ‘Okay, by tomorrow, yeah, this space is … yeah.’ You know?

So, it’s good for it to be out of moves. I’m saying that if you were to represent yourself as this space of outer and inner perceptions, that would be a more accurate representation than the ‘me’.

The ‘me’ is more unbelievable, actually, more ludicrous, than even these so-called mystical creatures. Like I was saying, even the Lockness monster; at least this Lockness monster, some have seen it. [Chuckles] There have been some sightings. What is the other one? What is that snowman?

Sangha: Bigfoot.

A: Bigfoot. Bigfoot is also one. At least it sounds like some people who seem credible have said ‘I’ve seen that.’ But this ‘me’ nobody has ever seen.

No? Yes? [Smiles] You have seen? [Chuckles]

Q: Who makes the decision to identify or not identify?

A: Yes. So, if it is like this, that there are two modes of Existence, which is empty of this identification or full of this identification, it could not be that at the root of It Itself there is an identified one. Because identification itself needs to happen, isn’t it? The Primary cannot be a pre-identified one. That is why I call it the play of Consciousness itself; the Leela that Consciousness is choosing to play as this deluded one … and then choosing to step out of this delusion. So, the choice, the will of Consciousness, somehow feels different from when we feel like something happening through personal will. But actually, there is no such thing as personal will, because we looked, even just now, and we can’t find (even objectively) this person.

So, when we say that ‘All things happen through the will of Consciousness’ or we say ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ we say that there is an underlying Intelligence to the movement of things. What is that? Like even, how do plants grow or how do flowers flower? Or who is making the heart beat or the breath function? What is that underlying Intelligence?

So, another term to use for that underlying Intelligence is ‘The will of Consciousness’. There is no distinction between that primal Intelligence and that which we call God’s will. This One is playing that game of (in a way, these are just terms) playing that game of identifying as something limited … and playing the game of stepping back from something limited.

Q: You said ‘Don’t identify.’

A: This is just Consciousness speaking with Consciousness. [Chuckles] Why does it have to be done? No reason. It is all part of the design of this play. Like in this play, there are millions of shops which are selling you the story of identification; there are few shops which are selling you the story of dis-identification. Now, who is to do that? That is the only One that is Here. Does it need to be reminded? Absolutely not. [Chuckles] Does it need an objective reminder to come in the form of (the outer form of) a Guru and say ‘Stop identifying’? Absolutely not. Yet, in the play, it seems to be that way. Just like there are so many who are saying ‘Okay, this will be good for you; if you do this, you will become a better person, if you do that….’ there are some reminders available in this appearance which seem to be saying ‘But are you a person? Are you a person?’

Just like to wake up from the dream, what appearance has to come within the dream? Nothing. No appearance has to come within the dream. And yet, many times it can feel like, in the dream itself, you might have an experience of jumping off something or some strong experience where you can say ‘Oh, that woke me.’ Is it possible that an object within the dream can wake you out of the dream? Actually, it doesn’t seem like it is logical and yet, in the play, it seems to play that way.

That is why a good way to describe Satsang is ‘Consciousness speaking with Consciousness.’ But, actually, even that you cannot say is hundred percent true because everything is Consciousness speaking with Consciousness. [Chuckles] But most conversations of Consciousness speaking with Consciousness are seemingly for the betterment of the identified one. And there are some conversations which have nothing to do with the identified one, the personal identity.

That is why there is no such thing as a perfect Satsang or the best path because what wakes us out of the dream, what has to appear within the dream to wake us out of the dream, or even if it seems like a sound from outside wakes us up …, what needs to be said to wake you from the outside, these things we cannot say.

That is why Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said that ‘As long as it feels like that we have a choice…’ Because many times it can happen that we are feeling like we have many choices but only when it comes to this choice, like ‘Don’t go with your thoughts’ you can feel like ‘Do I even have a choice?’ We make the choice of believing this question about the choice …, only in Satsang. [Chuckles] In life it seems like we have to make a lot of choices and we still believe the choice-maker identity.

So, he said that ‘As long as it feels like there is some choice, make the choice not to go with your stream of thoughts and then you will see that even this so-called choice was actually just Grace.’

It seems to play this way. We cannot really, actually define it but it seems to play in this way that Consciousness makes that choice of identifying … and then gives up on making that choice.

Then there comes a point where even choice or no-choice is meaningless; it doesn’t mean anything.

And that point can be Right Now.

When I say ‘Then there comes a point’ it doesn’t necessarily mean sequentially. Like Bhagavan said ‘Then you will see, actually, that even this choice or no-choice was actually Grace.’ That is available Here and Now.

You can seem very frustrated because Satsang is taking away all that we can stand on, all the concepts that we can hold on to, getting rid of all distinctions. So, when the mind asks this question ‘So, what is it? What are you learning? What are you getting?’ you will find that there is no answer to this and that can seem very frustrating.

But this which the mind labels as frustration (just as I was reading from the book the other day) this openness, this not able to rest on a concept, this letting go, even this tension of not knowing (it can feel like the stress of not knowing) actually, it is doing a clean up job. It is a great, great opportunity to see things as they are, instead of for what you think they are.

So, that which the mind will label frustration or just like stress (because it can feel like ‘But what is this? What am I getting? What do I know now?’) these are the messages from the mind.

If you let them come and go and remain in your openness, not landing on any concept, it can feel like you are floating in a limbo for a while.

So, let this mind get frustrated.

You allow it to come and go.

And you will get more and more used to this, not needing to rest on a concept (as the Sage said, not having to come back to the nest of our ideas and our intellect). Then you are just natural anywhere, whatever might be coming and going. You are just natural because you’re not a slave to your interpretation of ‘What Is’.

So, this so-called conflict in the intellect is good because you leave it behind.

Then you will find that your intellect has never actually solved anything. It has just given you conclusions and reasoning for things which actually you cannot conclude or reason about. And it is these conclusions which have led to suffering, which have taken away our sense of spaciousness or openness.

So, let the intellect be contradicted and collide with its own concepts.

You rest in Your neutrality.

Okay, let’s make it easier. So, there is body/mind and … what else is there?

S: Perceptions of body/mind.

A: There is a perception of it. And who is the perceiver?

S: Consciousness.

A: Consciousness. And what is this Consciousness? To be, to exist, Being, I Am-ness, Consciousness.

But even the term ‘Being’ has an opposite, which is ‘Being and not-Being’. So, these are states for whom? Like ‘I Am’ and just ‘I’ without ‘Am’ …, even ‘to be or not to be’ is for whom?

My Master [Sri Mooji] says ‘Before I Am’ …, or the Sages have even said ‘Forget about Consciousness.’ Of course, it depends on how we use the term. If we use the term in this way, that Consciousness implies Being, I Am-ness, then it is definitely up for exploration as to who is this ‘I’ that is Being? And can this ‘I’ also NOT be?

Now, already we have said that the body/mind instrument cannot help with this. So, the mind’s concepts, the sensory perceptions, they cannot help with this recognition. What other way can you recognize? The senses can’t help. Then, what can? What is left?

S: It’s not like an inference process but then finally you see that the inference itself is happening.

A: He says it’s an inference process and then you see the inference process. So, what is this ‘Seeing’? That is the question.

S: It is not normal seeing.

A: Yeah, so he says it’s not normal seeing, which means it is not sensory perception. Then what kind of seeing is it?

S: It’s just how we are aware of all these things. There has to be something that sees. Mentally it takes you to a point where you see that everything is being perceived, so there has to be somebody seeing it and it’s not the body or the mind. And then sometimes you visualize yourself being a point; everything is around you. You’re a point and you disappear into nothingness. Or the other extreme is that you are everywhere.

A: So, either of these is seen by whom? Like either you disappear into nothingness or you just see that you are everywhere; both of these are seen by which one?

S: The One that is Here Now. Cannot describe that.

A: It is the in-describable One. What is Its relationship with you?

S: I Am That.

A: You Are That. So, now, is there any way in which you can NOT be That?

Also, then, is there any distinction between the seer and the seen?

And if there is, then what is needed for that distinction to seem like it is valid?

Let’s experiment with this now. So, there is a Seeing which is untouched. Let us call that ‘Seer’ for the moment. And there is all this that is seen; the manifest. So, is there naturally a division or distinction?

S: There is no natural distinction; except later when you contemplate it, you realize that in the waking state, it’s one. Then in the other states, whatever it is, it’s still there.

A: Let’s see about this part. In the waking state, it’s one, so there is no distinction. Or there is a distinction (you were saying)?

S: It seems to be that. Because whatever you perceive, you Know that You Are, because you perceive things. It’s … I don’t know, I can’t explain.

A: This is valid [to look into]. You Know that You Are because you perceive things. If one by one, all your senses started going away (sight went away, hearing went away, smell went away, touch went away, and taste went away) then by which sense would you know that you do not exist? Like, by which sense going away … would you now NOT know … that you existed?

S: Re-phrase. It’s more of seeing the phenomenal things; and they cannot be seen without That.

A: Yes, yes. What I’m saying is that nothing is seen. Suppose this room became completely dark now and all the sounds vanished and no taste was there, no touch was there; you were in this special chamber. Would you not know that you exist?

You would still know. This Knowing is separate from conceptual knowing and perceptual knowing; is independent of our sensory perceptions or even of this seeming-inner perception of memory, imagination, all of these. We don’t actually need objects to confirm our existence. In fact, in the other way, it is more naturally said that: We never perceive an object unless we Are.

Now, we’re exploring this Knowingness, which is independent of any concept or any perception; that means independent of any inferences and what is visibly seen. And (let’s use this term for now) … this Knowingness, what does it mean for this idea of me?

S: It’s just an appearance.

A: The ‘me’ is? Is it even an appearance?

S: The body is.

A: Yeah, sensations, perceptions are appearing. But even in the appearance of these sensations and perceptions, is there a ‘me’ found there?

S: It keeps coming.

A: [Smiles] Yes, it keeps coming. In what way? So, if it is not found perceptually …, like can you find the one who wants freedom, for example? Perceptually, as an object, find the one that wants freedom. You can say ‘It is the body, obviously; the body wants freedom.’ But the body is free. Nothing is binding the body at the moment. The sensations are free; they come and they go freely. So, even perceptually, like visibly, can we say ‘I am this me’? We can’t find it.

So, this is very strange, isn’t it? … that the one that seems to get so much allegiance in life and we seem to be catering to all the needs of ‘me’ for so long (seemingly) yet we cannot even find it this way. And the One that is being pointed to be in Satsang: that One you cannot miss.

Isn’t that astounding that the person that we seem to want to be rid of so much, in a way, which is also personal, that one we cannot even locate. And the Self we seem to searching for, the Self-realization, we cannot miss. Then, why does it seem like a struggle? What is the seeker of them? If we cannot miss this, then what is that we are seeking?

S: We are having fun.

A: We are having fun. [Chuckles] I’ll be very happy if that was true …, if you mean Consciousness is having fun playing this Leela.

That is why the Sages found that there is one very direct route, if a route is needed, which is to see that this play of ‘me’ depends more than anything else (more than appearances, more than emotions, more than any sensation) it depends on these thoughts, these notions. And it is not the appearance of the notions in themselves which seem to cause identification with this ‘me’… (although many have prescribed many things so as to not perceive these notions, like trying to control your attention) although many have prescribed various ways in which you can try and get some mastery over your attention, be it mindful breathing or chanting or such methods in which you would not even pay any attention to what the mind is saying …, here it feels more natural to express it in this way, that:

Even if these notions appear and disappear, unless you give your assent to them, unless you believe them, they do not cause any identification.

A: How many are testing my… (my what?) [Chuckling] … my thesis? How many are testing my thesis that: The Truth that everyone is presumably looking for is not just Here … (which should be obvious by now that it is) … but it is also apparent?

How will you test whether it is apparent or not? This is an important question. I say that the Truth is apparent to you Now, especially when you’re empty of any notion about yourself. How will you test this then?

Sangha: You have to see if you have to do anything to recognize it.

A: Yes, good. So, do you? He says that you don’t have to do anything to recognize it. It’s apparent then.

Sangha: It’s just Here.

A: It’s just Here. It’s just Here, without even the claim that it is the Truth or something. Very obvious and apparent but not sitting here like ‘Oh I’m the Truth sitting here’ or something. Then even the label ‘Truth’ falls away.

The Truth is not sitting here being ‘truthy’ or something, or waiting to be recognized.

Now ‘That Which Is’ …, which words can capture it or which idea can encapsulate it?  Like for phenomenal things, we can look at this mic and I can say that it is silver in color, it is round in shape, it has a base upon which it rests; this camera is like this, it is standing on a tripod. You can say various things about it, which seem phenomenally accurate. Now for This (we’ll use the word provisionally) Truth, which is apparent, what can we use to describe it? Which quality can we say it has?

Sangha: Presence.

A: Presence. And?

Sangha: It’s Self-aware

A: It’s Self-aware, okay.

Sangha: Isness.

A: Isness. [Silence] But you notice that when we say ‘Presence’ or we say ‘It is Self-aware’ or we say ‘It is the Isness Itself’ qualitatively these are different from ‘It is silver in color, round in shape, black, white’ all of these things. What is that difference?

Sangha: It doesn’t have a form or shape.

A: It doesn’t have a form or shape, therefore it is not perceived in that way, like phenomenal objects. And if it is not perceived in this way (phenomenally) then how is it known? (Again, I’m using the term ‘known’ in a provisional way.)

Possibly my favorite question of all time, which is: Are you aware now? And your assertion ‘Yes’ …, where does that come from? What is the basis of that?

Sangha: The moment you try to answer, the words themselves seem to corrupt it.

A:  Yeah. Like, what could an answer be? What is a corrupting answer?

Sangha: Words confuse it.

A: Yeah. They don’t seem to actually describe it.

Sangha: It’s essential.

A: Essential as in ‘must be’? Or essential as in ‘full of essence’?

Sangha: Both.

[Silence]

A: Now whatever we might say, Presence, Isness, Awareness … (all of these terms also have qualitative differences actually) but really, if you were to keep even these distinctions aside, what could we say that we need to get? … or find? …or become?

And if there’s nothing that we need to get or find or become, then you’ll notice that all the offers from the mind are only about getting, finding or becoming; either in the positive or in the negative.

It is this identification, which is a grasping of the clinging onto the notions; and this clinging which is suffering. Clinging equals suffering. So, then all we have to check is ‘Can I remain without this clinging?’ If clinging equals suffering and there is no other way to suffer except this clinging, then all we need to then check is whether it is possible to remain without clinging.

My proposition to you is that: It is. Because I see that even to say ‘Oh, clinging seems like it just happens automatically’ is also clinging on to some notion of it. But we’re most times really independent of that notion. We’re not clinging onto anything at all. This we can experiment with and see.

So, what happens when we identify that which is so apparent? You all said ‘It is just Here. It is clear. It is just Being. It is prior to this Being.’ All of these good things were said. And it is just apparent Here and Now.

Then what happens when we identify? Why is clinging equal to suffering? What is it that we identify as?

Sangha: It could be some factor as ‘person’ then you’re sort of meddling.

A: Yeah, but what is this person?

Sangha: It is, again, just an appearance.

That’s what I’m saying. It’s like an imaginary mythical entity, I would say. Like a mythical entity, as mythical as the Lockness monster or something like that, which seems to get a lot of ownership over these four categories of things, which we often talk about, which is relationships, health of the body, security and the search for meaning or freedom. It seems to operate in these. It seems to be the owner, for example, of the money that we have, the relationships that we have; it seems to own this body also. ‘My body isn’t feeling so well today. I feel I must rest my body. My body is a bit tired.’ It seems to be the owner of all of this and also wants an end to this suffering. It claims to want the end to the suffering through freedom or some ultimate meaning. Now, this one is the one that we identify with. But it is impossible to identify as that one unless we are using some concept, at least one concept. And in one concept, all concepts are contained. But this prerequisite is there.

Sangha: It is the worst.

A: Ah, yes. As [Zen Master] Bankei said ‘All things are completely resolved in the unborn.’ Then the birth (which is then implying the birth of this notional ‘me’) is of this identification as this mythical creature ‘me’. So, wouldn’t it be really cool if we could just not identify?

[Reading from chat]: “What is the Ultimate Truth, of That who never gives Satsang, beloved Father? Last question from the Self before it dissolves itself.”

A: The ultimate Truth is that: There is no difference between the Ultimate Truth and the Ultimate falsehood. Whatever Truth that our intellect can fathom is no different from any falsehood that the intellect can fathom.

Beyond right and wrong, beyond bondage and freedom, beyond Being and not-Being, Self and not-Self:

What can you gather there?

What will you understand Here Now that will survive your death?

Will you take concepts with you?

What is going to happen to your basket of truths?

What happens to them in the night when you sleep?

I feel to say to all of you: Stop seeking. And I also feel to say to all of you: Don’t give up the search. What are you going to do now?

What I am saying? I’m saying that the notion does not apply to You. So, the opposites are as true or as false. I have been saying this a few times but I wonder whether really it is getting through. It is just that when we are just caught up in duality, if something is asserted to be false then the opposite of that seems automatically seen to be true. So, if it is not this way, then we make the inference ‘Therefore, it’s that way’.

So, let’s take an example. If I say that ‘You can never be bound’ will you leave it as that? Or will you then claim that ‘I must be ever-free; this, therefore that’? But what I am actually saying then gets missed because what I’m saying is: Bondage and freedom actually does not apply to You. Beyond the notions of, the possibility of, being bound or free. All of these are still individual references.

Who are we talking about then?

If You are free, who could you be talking about?

So my invitation for to you is to then step back from this duality. Allow all opposites to fight among themselves if they want. You remain uninvolved. Because nothing that can be this or that actually applies to You … (unless you first pick up an idea that ‘I am just this’). And your mind will object; it will say ‘This is not fair. I came to Satsang for Truth.’ You see? ‘I came to Satsang for Truth.’ But this is the Truth. There is no difference between Your notion-less-ness, Your freedom, Your Truth and the Self. They are all the same.

A: So, ‘Advaita’ means what?

Sangha: Literally, not two.

A: Not two. And if this ‘not two’ is a pointer, then do we need any other pointer? [Smiles] Not two means there are no two.  So, all our divisions, distinctions, must be all imaginary, made up. Because there are no two. [Smiles] And beyond even not two, it means actually that there are no distinctions at all.

What is our life without distinctions? [Silence] What are our stories? They are just stories of division, separation, distinction. You make no distinction between past, presents, and future, between something that has already happened or is going to happen.

I saw a beautiful quote from Maharaj [Sri Nisargadatta] the other day. It said that ‘I realized that I had let go of my certainties.’ Now, the things that we are so certain about (in a way; I speak like this) …, all our knowing is all the things that we think we are right about.

And in every one of these certainties, you make a certain reference to a ‘me’, a certain reference to an individual entity. And if there is an individual entity then that cannot be ‘Advaita; not two.’ So, there is space only for (if you want to give it a term, you can say) God or the Self. But there is no space for ‘me’ then.

As great Indian Sage Raheem had said ‘This lane is very narrow; the lane of love is very narrow. If there is a ‘me’ then God cannot be. If there is God then there can be no ‘me.’ Both cannot pass though.’

As I sometimes simply say: Consciousness exists in this realm in only one of two modes. [Chuckles] One is ‘God now’ and the other is ‘mee-oww.’ This ‘me’ is the realm of distinction, division, separation. ‘Me’ implies ‘other’ also automatically.

And it is not that we have to get to ‘God now.’ Actually, we are trying to get to the ‘me’ over and over again, and failing. Trying to get to the ‘me’ over and over again.

The Self needs nothing. But for Self to play as if it is a limited entity, It has to give assent to this idea; it has to agree to play in this field.

And in your notionlessness, Right Now, in that moment of notionlessness, You are free …, as free as any Sage is.

The Sage is not saying that ‘You have to work hard to become like I am or to find what I have discovered.’ The Sage is only saying ‘Stop working so hard to become something that You can never be’ … which is this limited idea about yourself.  Your Self is never hidden, never concealed. It is ever-present, ever-available, ever-apparent. It may only seem difficult if you try to catch it this way: [touching his nose with his hand around his head] If this is the Self [touches his nose] and your try to catch this way [wraps his hand around his head to touch his nose] … where you first pick up the individual identity and then try to become the Self; first posing as a limited one and then wanting to have God, it is like this idea that ‘I have to hold up my nose and that too like this: [wraps his hand around his head to touch his nose] That just means it is held up.

God is just Here.

More natural than keeping up that nose on your face is your Truth.

Now, first you want to be a seeker and then get to Truth? Or can we drop this in our innocence, all these ideas? You are not going to get a new nose. You are not going to get anything new. At best, it is a recognition of what already IS.

So, ‘What Is’ … without a notion?

Can there be distinction without a notion?

If Advaita is not two (which means no distinction) it is naturally This.

It is only that this idea of getting, getting, getting, seems to be so deeply ingrained in us that if I say ‘The Truth is ever-present: You are It Right Now, and it is apparent to You’ … mostly the notion that still ends up getting belief is ‘Am I getting this? I hope I’ve got it now.’ But it’s not about that at all. The concept of getting or not getting does not apply. But because we have been taught that ‘If you do steps 1-2-3-4-5 (and then these are the fireworks that happen along with those steps) then you will be able to hold up your nose one day. Now, we have this idea.

So, the Master is basically showing you a mirror, saying ‘See, it’s already all fine. Your nose is right where it supposed to be.’ [Chuckles]

[Reading from ‘Swampland flowers by Ta Hui]:

“When we cease to make distinctions, what happens?” (He is mentioning that the Sage, the Master Yung Chi, also said): ‘The real nature of ignorance is identical to the nature of enlightenment.”

This is explosive, you see? Because for the seeker, this discrimination is held onto very tightly.

[Continues reading]: “The empty body of illusory transformations is identical to the body of Reality.”

What a thing to say. As you are beyond your conceptual discrimination, then we are not distinguishing between the world and Self … [Looks around the room in silence] … we’re not distinguishing between even illusion and Reality. We cannot understand this. We can try and tire ourselves out, which is also fine. But the distinctions between Being and not-Being, appearance and Reality, Self and Maya, all of these have also been made with the intellect.

[Continues reading]: “If you think like this, suddenly in the place where thought cannot reach, you will see the body of Reality, in which there is not a single thing. That is the place for you to get out of birth and death. What I said before; that one cannot seek the Dharma, which has nothing to attain, with an attitude that there is something to attain.”

If you keep chasing, if you keep taking the position of trying to attain something, how do you find ‘That’ in which there is no attainment? And you cannot be clever be about these things. If you become clever about it and say ‘Okay, I’m just going to stop searching now and that way I will get it’ that is also a form of searching then. A very tired sort of searching. [Chuckles] So, you cannot keep these ploys, these tactics. That is what the Sage was talking about; about cleverness.

If you are trying to clean up the garbage in the room, if you keep adding garbage to it, when will it get clean?  It might seem like it is a better sort of garbage. Like it might seem like spiritual garbage, but it’s still a concept; still garbage, nonetheless. So, at best, what the Master brings to your room is that which can clean this up. But if you make a storehouse of what the Master brings to your room, then it will also add to the clutter in the room already. The Master is bringing a new vacuum cleaner every day, and we make a store of vacuum cleaners. [Chuckles]

Let it all go. Or keep one vacuum cleaner. [Laughter] If you feel like letting it all go is too much, then, at best, keep one vacuum cleaner. ‘Who Am I?’ is good vacuum cleaner. ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ is a good vacuum cleaner. Don’t make a vacuum cleaner museum. ‘I have my special display case: ‘I am the Absolute.’ [Laughs] All this doesn’t help.

We read earlier [From ‘Swampland Flowers: The Letters and Lectures of Zen Master Ta Hui]:

“Those who make their living within the confines of thought and judgment their whole lives, as soon as they hear a man of knowledge speak of the Dharma, in which there is nothing to attain, in their hearts there is doubt and confusion and they fear falling into emptiness. Whenever I see someone like this I immediately ask: Is this one who fears falling into emptiness, themselves empty or not?”

‘Is this one, who fears falling into emptiness, themselves empty or not?’ …, this is a common doubt, isn’t it? It’s a common report that ‘I fear my dissolution’ or ‘I fear falling into this unknown.’ That one that has this fear, what is the substance of that one?

“ … is the one who fears falling into emptiness, himself empty or not? Ten out of ten cannot explain. Since you’ve always taken thought and judgment as your nesting place, as soon as you hear it said that you shouldn’t think, immediately you’re at a loss and can’t find your grip. You’re far from realizing the very ‘lack of anywhere to get a grip’ is the time for you to let go of your body and your life.”

Beautiful; very, very beautiful. Because as you let go of this mind, you might quickly pick up the mind again and say ‘But I’m finding nothing’ or there can be some fear about dissolution. ‘You’re far from realizing this very lack of anywhere to get a grip’ …, not finding a grip, you see? What to hold into? ‘Is this Brahman?’ The Master says no. ‘Is this Awareness that we speak of?’ Forget about it. No grip; nothing to hold on to.

A: Then the mind will throw all its doubts. ‘But, but, but…’ When I say to you that the Truth is apparent to You Now, the Complete Truth, the Highest that any Sage has ever found is apparent to you Right Now, fully! …, but apparent [only] when it is uninterpreted, unjudged. [Silence] And this ‘Now’ is not like the ‘Now I’m in Satsang’. It is apparent to You at all times. There is no time in which this is not true. Only our intellect clouds it, our judgments, our interpretations, our labels …, they seem to cloud it; but not really. The Sage say ‘When you’re told to not think…’ These days we don’t say ‘Don’t think’ because you will think so much about that. ‘What do you think about not thinking?’ [Chuckles] We simply say: Let it come and go.

The only struggle is that you’ve made a nesting place out of your mind. And to live without conclusions seems alien right now. To let go of your body and your life doesn’t mean that you have to let go of everything physically. You don’t have to renounce anything. Let go of your concepts about it; the idea of control over life, the idea of identification as a body, the idea even to attain freedom for the body.

If I was handing out freedom today, who would be there to receive it? Can I give it to the body? You might raise your hand and say ‘I would like some if you don’t mind’ [Chuckles] but can I give it to that body? Show me the one that can get this freedom.

We are reading from this book called ‘Swampland Flowers: The Letters and Lectures of Zen Master Ta Hui.’ We are starting with this letter which is called ‘There is nothing to attain.’

“Gentlemen of affairs often take the mind, which assumes there is something to attain, to seek the Dharma, wherein there is nothing to attain. What do I mean by ‘the mind which assumes there is something to attain’? It is the intellectually clever one, the one that ponders and judges.

What do I mean by ‘the Dharma, wherein there is nothing to attain’? It is the imponderable, incalculable, where there is no way to apply intelligence or cleverness.”

“Haven’t you read of old Sakyamuni at the assembly of The Lotus of the True Dharma? Three times Shariputra earnestly entreated him to preach, but there was simply no way for him to begin. Afterwards, using all his power, he managed to say that ‘This Dharma is not something that can be understood by thought or discrimination.’ This was old Shakyamuni taking this matter to its ultimate conclusion, opening the gateway of expedient means as the starting point for the teaching of the true nature of Reality.”

“In the old day days Hsueh Feng, the truly awakened Ch’an master, was so earnest about this matter that he went to Mt. T’ou Tzu three times and climbed Mt. Tung Shan nine times. Circumstances were not met for him in those places however. So, later when he heard the teachings of Chou, Master of Adamantine Wisdom Scripture on Te Shan, he went to his abode.  One day he asked Te Shan, ‘In the custom of the school that has come down from high antiquity, what doctrine is used to instruct people?’  Te Shan said, ‘Our school has no verbal expression, nor does it have any doctrine to teach people.’ Later Hsueh Feng also asked, ‘Do I have any share in the business of vehicle of this ancient school?’  Te Shan picked up his staff and immediately hit him, saying, ‘What are you saying?’ Under this blow, Hsueh Feng finally smashed. the lacquer bucket of his ignorance. From this, we observer that in this sect, intelligence and cleverness, thought and judgement, are of no use at all.”

“An ‘Ancient worthy’ had a saying: ‘Transcendent wisdom is like a great mass of fire. Approach it and it burns off your face.’ If you hesitate in thought and speculations, you immediately fall into the conceptual discrimination. Yung Chia said, ‘Loss of the wealth of the Dharma and destruction of virtue, all stems from the mind’s conceptual discrimination.’ Hence, we know that the mind’s conceptual discrimination not only obstructs the Path but also can make people mistaken and confused, so they do all kind of things that are no good.”

“Once you have intent to investigate this Path to the end, you must settle your resolve and vow to the end your days not to retreat or fall back so long as you have yet not reached the Great Rest, the Great Liberation. There is not much to the Buddha Dharma, but it is always hard to find capable people. The concerns of worldly passions are the like the links of a chain, joining together without a break. Those whose resolve is weak and inferior, time and again, willingly become involved in them: unknowing, unaware, they are dragged along with them. Only if the person truly possesses the faculty of wisdom and will-power will he consent to step back and reflect.”

“Yung Chia also said, ‘The real nature of ignorance is identical to the nature of enlightenment; the empty body of illusory transformations is identical to the body of Reality. Once you have awakened, there is not a single thing in the body of Reality. Original inherent nature is the natural, real enlightened one”.

“If you think like this, suddenly in the place where thought cannot reach, you will see the body of Reality in which there is not a single thing. This is the place for you to get out of birth and death. What I said before, that one cannot seek the Dharma, which has nothing to attain, with the attitude that there is something to attain, is just this principle.”

“Gentlemen of affairs make their living within the confines of thoughts and judgments their whole lives. As soon as they hear the man of knowledge speak of the Dharma in which there is nothing to attain, in their hearts, there is doubt and confusion and they fear falling into emptiness. Whenever I see someone talking like this, I immediately ask him, ‘Is this one who fears falling into emptiness, himself empty or not?’ Ten out of ten cannot explain. Since you have always taken thought and judgement as your nesting place, as soon as you hear it said that you shouldn’t think, immediately you are at a loss and can’t find your grip. You are far from realizing that this very ‘lack of anywhere to get a grip’ is the time for you to let go of your body and your life.”

Ananta: I repeat this part.

“Since you have always taken thoughts and judgment as your nesting place, as soon as you hear it said that you shouldn’t think, immediately you are at a loss and can’t find your grip. You are far from realizing that this very ‘lack of anywhere to get a grip’ is the time for you to let go of your body and your life.”

“Tun-li my friend in the Path, when we met in the Pien in 1126, you were of mature age and already knew of the existence of the Great Matter. But with your vast erudition, you have entered too deeply into the Nine [Confucian] classics and the Seventeen Histories. You are too brilliant and your lines of reasoning are too many whereas your powers of stable concentration are too few. You are being dragged along by your daily activities as you respond to the circumstances; thus, you are unable to make a clean break right where you stand.”

“If correct mindfulness is present, at all times and the attitude of fear for birth and death doesn’t waver, then over the long days and months, what is unfamiliar will naturally become familiar. And what was stale will naturally become fresh. But what is the stale? It is the brilliance and cleverness; that which thinks and judges. What is the unfamiliar? It is enlightenment, the Nirvana, true Thus-ness, the true Buddha nature, where there is no thought or discrimination, where figuring and calculating cannot reach, where there is no way for you to use your mental arrangements.”

“Suddenly the time arrives. You may be on a story of an Ancient’s entry into the Path or it may be, as you are reading the scriptures or perhaps during your daily activities as you respond to circumstances, whether your condition is good or not good or your body and mind are scattered and confused, whether favorable or adverse conditions are present or whether you have temporarily quieted the mind’s conceptual discrimination, when you suddenly topple the key link, there will be no mistake about it.”

Ananta: Very beautiful letter, I felt. Of course, the ways the Masters speak will always have different expressions and things, but as the Sage is saying don’t judge that too much; don’t worry. What happens when you try to build a very solid conceptual framework, if anything sounds a bit contrary to what our idea of the truth is, we feel like ‘This is not good.’

This is very beautiful. This passage is really very nice:

“The real nature of ignorance is identical to the nature of enlightenment.

The empty body of illusory transformation is identical of the body of Reality.”

What is he pointing to? Even this distinction, these discriminations, these differences are the functioning of our discriminating intellect.

So, once we leave this one behind, then what distinction can we make?

As I keep saying: In the Right Now, the Absolute Truth is apparent to You …

(but not to your mind).

In the Right Now, the Absolute Truth is apparent to You. But not to your mind.
So, who can speak of what they find, without their mind, without this discriminating intellect?

What is Here Now? I say it is the Absolute Truth. What is your discovery?

If this key unlocks you, then it’s a very, very good short cut.

If the Truth was just apparent to You Now, then what is needed from the future?

Then, do we need a plan or a strategy?

It’s worthy to investigate this.

Why does this one keep saying: The Truth is apparent to You Now?

You mind will come up with all sort of silliness. It will say ‘He must be talking about his state or he must be speaking from the ultimate position. He must be this, he must be that.’ [Smiles] None of that.

The Truth is just very simply apparent to You Now.

Whether you call it the Self, the Absolute, God, Buddha nature, it doesn’t matter.

So, what is apparent to You Now?

The only word of advice is: Don’t use your intellect. Without that…?

Q: Existing.

A: But does this existing have an opposite, like not existing?

Q: No.

A: If you have think about it, it doesn’t. [Chuckles] It’s just like saying ‘I Am, I just Am, I Am what, I can’t say.’… ‘Or ‘What this is, I cannot say. Why this is? I can definitely not say.’

So, because the Sage said ‘We have made a nesting place in our intellect in our mind’ it can seem like a strange place to come to. He has a very beautiful pointer, where he said [Reading from text] “Since you have always taken thought and judgment as your nesting place, as soon as you hear it said that you shouldn’t think, immediately you are at a loss and can’t find your grip. You’re far from realising that this very lack of anywhere to get a grip is the time for you to let go of your body and your life.”

So, this ‘lack of getting anywhere to get a grip’ is the perfect time for you. It’s only because our resting place or nesting place is been this mind and intellect that you feel like it’s wobbly and you let go of it. But this is the perfect opportunity.

So, what is apparent to You Now … without making any distinction? Without using any terminology, not even (especially not) Satsang terminology. You see, that becomes like a resting place. We have a nice nest with all the concepts about ‘Consciousness, Awareness and what I have to do to stay there.’ So, don’t rest even in that. Don’t make any conclusion, any judgment.

What is Your in sight about this Now …, not your inference?

Who are You without your mind?

Do you have to go to the mind for the answer?

Who are you without your thoughts?

(For a few moments, don’t worry about ‘What do I do with my thoughts?’ Just like this and then we will decide later. I promise we’ll figure it out. I’ll tell you what you can do with them.)

Have no position about anything at all.

You don’t have to go into any special states.

You don’t take on any position, including the meditator, for now.

Just a simple openness.

Just Your beautiful spaciousness.

You don’t have to hold on to anything or let go of anything.

Your attention can go wherever it wants.

You’re not trying to control anything at all.

Fully open.

You’re not trying to remain inside.

You’re not trying to go outside.

All your senses can function as they are functioning.

Not trying to focus or de-focus.

No grasping at anything at all.

And no holding back.

Nothing to be added or removed.

No concept of staying or leaving.

Nothing is happening or not happening.

If it feels wobbly, let it wobble.

If it feels still, let it be still.

Make no distinction between them.

Not trying to get to something.

Not pushing anything away.

If you are resting for a moment on a conclusion, just notice it.

Don’t push anything away. Simply notice.

Allow it to simply loosen its grip on its own.

You’re not figuring out anything at all.

You’re not having any insight or no insight.

You’re not concerned about all that comes and goes.

No desire, no aversion.

All comes and goes.

All circumstances are the same.

No distinction, good or bad.

This is Your Notionless Existence,

where the even the concepts ‘I have to remain’ (or not) don’t apply.

No strategy.

No tactics.

No cleverness of any sort is needed.

Let it all go.

Just remain open to whatever comes and goes.

What is apparent to You Now?

Without your mind, without judgment.

Without anything happening or not happening.

Have you gotten something that you can keep?

Are you getting something that you can keep?

Can you lose this in any way?

Just open.

Conclusion-less, label-less, notion-less.

If your mind is struggling, it’s okay.

If it’s quiet, it’s okay.

Everything is just okay.

Open at all levels.

If the world is poking, it’s okay.

If it’s pleasant, it’s okay.

Same for the body; it’s also part of the appearance of the world.

Same for the mind, emotions.

Don’t worry about what they are or what they are not.

Don’t label them.

Don’t shy away from them

No grasping or looking away.

Everything is just what it’s.

All perceptions, all sensations can come and go in Your vastness as You are open.

‘What is next?’ doesn’t mean anything.

‘What is now?’ also doesn’t mean anything.

Neither is it meaningless.

The term does not apply.

What might seem like it’s the most relevant question or doubt now, just let it come and go. If truly inquired into, you will see that it’s empty of any substance. It’s only full of contradictions.

If you feel that you are caught up again, don’t worry about it.

If you have left everything, don’t worry about it.

Make no conclusions about your state.

Nothing to feel guilty or proud about.

There is no success or failure.

[Reading from ‘Swampland flowers by Ta Hui]: “An ancient worthy had a saying ‘Transcendent wisdom is like a great mass of fire. Approach it and it burns off your face. If you hesitate in your thought…” (that means using thought and speculation) “… you will immediately fall into conceptual discrimination.”

Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] sometimes say ‘Just jump in. Just jump in.’ Just with the innocence of the child, if you were to say ‘You come and suck my finger.  You come suck my finger, you are free.’ But, if you start to think about it ‘Hey, what is this? Did you wash your hand?’ this kind of stuff, then … It is a nice simple example. The Master is saying ’Let go. Do not worry about anything. Just let go.’ … ‘What will happen if I let go? Am I really letting go properly or not?’ We fall in to that sort of thing where we start thinking about it. Just let go.

Then we have thoughts about thoughts; meta-thoughts. ‘Oh, look at these thoughts that keep coming. Oh, but my mind is like this. But belief just happens on its own.’ All of these.

Just let it go.

Let it come and let it go.

Don’t even distinguish between ‘come’ and ‘go’.

Q: When you say ‘let it go’ actually the mind wants to do something to let it go.

A: This is the thing. [Smiles] This is exactly we are speaking of. ‘How do I let it go?’ This meta-mind about the mind itself?

Let that also come and go. All its judgments, all its strategies, all its tactics, its techniques about even how to let go: Let it come and go.

If you are not identified with, what the mind is trying to do, then there is no struggle with that. Now of course the mind will also say ‘Okay, how do I stop identifying?’ You see, like this. [Smiles] It’s just a thought. It comes, it goes. Or maybe I can make it simple:

Just simply notice the coming and going of the mind.

[Reading from ‘Swampland flowers’ by Zen Master Ta Hui]: (The second letter is called mindlessness).

“An ancient worthy (ancient worthy: an ancient Sage) had a saying: to look for the ox one must seek out its tracks; to study the path, seek out mindlessness. Where the tracks are, so must the ox be. The path of mindlessness is easy to seek out. So-called ‘mindlessness’ is not being inert, unknowing like earth, wood, tile or stone. It means that the mind is settled and imperturbable when in contact with situations and meeting circumstances, that it does not cling to anything, but is clear in all places without hindrance or obstruction. Without being stained, yet without dwelling in the stainlessness.”

This is very nice part; I will just pause here for a moment. Many times, we get caught up in the idea. So, the Sage says, “Without hindrance or obstruction, without being stained yet without dwelling in the stainlessness.” Otherwise we can pick up the idea that ‘I must just hold onto this emptiness’ [Makes a gesture of holding on with a fist] or something like that. But it is not either; it is just completely open, completely open. Even attention goes wherever it wants.

Q:  But without clinging.

A: Without the clinging.

Q: Completely open but without clinging.

A: ‘Completely open’ means without clinging. Cling means to close. To close means only to cling, to attach is to be closed. Open means no clinging.

Q: That would mean effortless, also.

A: Effortless, like space. So, the Sage is using various terms to say the same thing. [Chuckles] Open, like space, unimpeded, unobstructed. All means the same thing. And not even hanging on to the idea of ‘stainlessness’.

Q: There is actually big wonder. We actually hide various things from ourselves. This stainlessness is what you’re saying; certain aspects when we feel let down by our own selves, like ‘Oh, wow this is not my basic nature’. When we’re making that conclusion like ‘It should not feel like this, it should feel so free, it should feel so happy’. And suddenly we walk out of the path, we feel like some dispassion, something. [Laughter] ‘I am not supposed to be…’ Even that ‘stainlessness’ that clarifies that.

A: I have been saying usually these days that ‘Be free from all opposites. Everything that has an opposite we can safely forget about it, even forgetting about remembering.’ See, we have to use a provisional statement and then wipe them off also. [Chuckles] Otherwise we can get stuck on the provisional statement and then take that to be the ultimate Truth or something like that. But that also has to be wiped away.

Q: Like something has to be constantly remembered. That is really, very unstable actually.

A: Yeah, like you are caught, the mind has caught you, in that way then.

How is it just to be open?

Can we wait for a few moments and then say something?

I have often also said that ‘open’ is my favorite word. Just one word ‘open’.

Q: Effortless is what comes to me.

A: This ‘open’ is not which is open or closed, effortless or effort. It’s out of those, but just points to that, jumping out of this duality.

Q: Simple Being, no resistance.

A: Okay, now don’t report for a few minutes because we also jump to spiritual conclusions that we got from so-called prior experience.

Just remain fully open.

[Reading from ‘Swampland flowers by Ta Hui, Chapter: The Mind’s Conceptual Discrimination]

“The obstruction of the path by the mind and its conceptual discrimination is worse than poisonous snakes or fierce tigers. Why? Because poisonous snakes and fierce tigers can still be avoided whereas intelligent people make the mind’s conceptual discrimination their home, so there’s never a single instant, whether they are walking, sitting, standing or lying down, that they are not having dealings with it. As time goes on, unknowing and unaware, they become one piece with it. And not because they want to either, but because since beginning-less time they have followed this one little road until it becomes set and familiar. Though they see through it for a moment and wish to detach from it, they still can’t. Thus, it is said that poisonous snakes or fierce tigers can still be avoided but the mind’s conceptual discrimination truly has no place for you to escape.”

I very much like this one, it’s a bit strong but sometimes it’s good to shake things up a bit.

He says, “The obstruction of the path by the mind and its conceptual discrimination is worse than poisonous snakes or fierce tigers.” You know what this is? We talked about this conceptual discrimination, this intellectual distinction; making distinctions between [things], making our judgments, giving truth or value or not to things. Why?

“As intelligent people make the mind’s conceptual discrimination their home. So, there’s never a single instant, whether they are walking, standing, sitting or lying down, that they are not having dealings with it. As time goes on, unknowing and unaware they become one piece with it. And not because they want to either but because since beginning-less time they have followed this one little road until it becomes set and familiar. Though they see through it for a moment and wish to detach from it, they still can’t. Thus, it is said that poisonous snakes or fierce tigers can still be avoided but the minds conceptual discrimination truly has no place for you to escape.”

You see, within itself, there is no escape. You cannot escape this conceptualizing mind using the conceptualizing mind itself or using another conclusion. At best, at best they are (the term I’ve been using often today is) ‘provisional truth’ …, like the thorn, as Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] would say; a self-destructive thorn.

But mostly what happens, the ‘intelligent people’ as he calls them, feel that the freedom from this trap will also be in a concept. Like I’ve been saying, if you were sleeping and your father had to wake you up, then the words that he’s using to wake you up are just words that’s he’s using to wake you up. They are by themselves not some truth. They are not themselves to be held onto. It is your waking up which is important. That’s exactly what Guruji [Sri Mooji] means ‘Don’t make tattoos out of my words’ because all Masters are using them provisionally. Because it is not in the words; the Truth is not in the words. It can point to them. At their best, they can point to that; at their worst, they are just traps, in a way; they are just limited boundaries. Like the Sage said, “…they follow this one little road until it becomes set and familiar.” We just feel that our approach to life is to try and resolve it mentally. Even our spiritual quest, we feel we have to resolve it mentally; that until we come to a mental resolution, it won’t be resolved.

Q: It can start mentally.

A: Yes, like all quests, in a way, it started with an idea of what should happen. You are in class three then you have to go to class four; you see, it’s an old familiar road. You go into class, you learn certain things, you learn them well enough that you are able to reproduce them, then you move onto the next class. Like that. So, this freedom thing…, we get into it thinking it will be like that. ‘Once I know enough about the Truth then I can clear the enlightenment certification. Done!’ You see, like that.

This is a strange type of class [Satsang] where it’s ‘You learnt that? Okay, you leave that also behind.’ … ‘You learnt that from this class? Then you leave that also behind.’ Many times, initially, the protest can be ‘But you told me!’  [The Master says]: ‘Yeah, I know, but leave it.’

Or you’ll bring out the big guns and say ‘Bhagavan said, Maharajah said…! [Chuckling]

Yeah, but still (a little meekly) I have to say ‘Leave it behind.’ Because all that we remember. But Bhagavan said: ‘All these are also just thorns, ultimately meant to be thrown away.’

[Sangha member quotes]: ‘When you see Buddha on the way, kill him.’

A: But my way is a bit different: Let him come and go. [Laughter in the room] Because to kill him also becomes a very strong position. Then you’re waiting for the Buddha to come, and … [makes an action of catching the Buddha]

Some who are attracted to a more sort of rebellious kind of spirituality can also make that into a position. ‘Look at this one trying to make a holy place for himself, I’m just going to kill him! I’ll prove to him!’ You know, this kind of thing. Then that can also become very personal. What was meant originally was: Let go of your objective version of the Truth or freedom. If you feel like you will find the Buddha externally, forget about it, that’s not what the Buddha is. It is your natural, unobstructed Being. That’s what ‘kill him’ meant. But we take it very literally, like we apply it to this phenomenal world.

So, those who have traversed the path of their intellect very diligently in their lives, sometimes it can feel to them like they rely on it a bit longer, because they feel like this is what has helped them in the past. ‘It got me through this problem and this problem so now I’ll leave this problem of my spirituality also with the intellect and one day it will say: I am Brahman itself.’ You see, something… ‘And that will be it. With that knowledge I will be free.’

But what can the intellect do with non-conceptual knowing? At best, it can make some fancy statements about it in the negative, like ‘It cannot be this way, it cannot be that way’.