BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

Is it possible to drop the pretense of taking care of something in the waking state? The pretender doesn’t know how to move a finger. If you go to your mind for the answer and say ‘How do you move your finger?’ It will say ‘Because in my brain there are some neurons which activate and then the nerves get activated in my body.’ Then I say ‘Do you know how to move a neuron?’

[Silence] Nobody does. [Laughs]

So, all our minds explanations, for even something as simple as moving a finger, is not true. It is just not true. The one we are posing as does not know even how to move a finger …, and in the light of your very Existence, this entire universe is being moved. Let this Existence take care of itself. It doesn’t need support from a made-up imaginary friend.

And we stop looking for benchmarks. Because many times as I say things like this, it may feel like ‘Ah, if I just let go, my life will become perfect!’ [Laughs] But that ‘perfect’ is also just a benchmark coming form the mind which can say ‘I must have this much money, I must have this kind of relationship, the health of the body and of course, I must be super-enlightened, then life is perfect.’ But just ‘What Is’ is already perfect. Just like it doesn’t the need input from this imaginary friend, it doesn’t need the benchmarks of this made-up one also. For Consciousness to run this life perfectly, it doesn’t need the standards from the mind. It is only these standards which get us in trouble, like ‘My life should be like this, my something should be like that.’

And all that I am saying to all of you is completely, completely, completely clear to You: Right Now! It is completely clear to you. And it is completely confusing to the mind. [Chuckles] It will never be clear to the mind and it is completely clear to You. So, as long as you keep picking up the pose that you are the mind, it will seem confusing. When it is dropped, it is clear. [Silence]

You want the mind to become clear? [Laughs] Forget about it. That is a big setup for failure. Because what happens is: you pick up that idea and then the mind can play so easily because it will just give you one random, silly thought and say ‘See, I lost it! I had an impure thought.’ If you pick up the idea, for example, that ‘You must only have pure thoughts’ then you are just caught; the mind has caught you. Just one [finger snap] and gone! You’ll believe so much guilt and unworthiness. ‘You lost your freedom, you lost everything’ …, these kinds of things. So, forget about this mind, forget about this world, forget about everything in your Existence; and forget about ‘forget about’ …, don’t make that a thing. Just empty yourself with all this.

To know one thing is to know too much.

What do you know when you know nothing?

If this contemplation one day starts appealing to you, then all this conceptual knowledge cannot really survive; your suffering cannot survive.

Often, I say that ego is a 3-D ego, and the three-dimensions of this ego are duality, doer-ship and desire.

So, as you see more and more that everything that appears, appears in your light (and actually, in reality, if something can be said or we can come close to saying something) we can say ‘I Am All-There-Is.’ And if I Am All-There-Is, what is there to desire?  If there is nothing to separate me, what is outside of me, that I must desire it?

So, in seeing that there is no separation, we become empty of duality and desire.

Then, when you are empty of desire and duality, what is there left to do? Our doer-ship is very much linked to what we desire. Our false sense of doer-ship is very much linked with our false sense of desiring something. If there was nothing to get or not-get, if I had no desire or aversion to anything, would I need to make these seeming-decisions about what to do, what not to do?

All our doer-ship is about some goal. Isn’t it? ‘What should I do so that I can get some peace?’ Like that. You make a mythical creature called ‘freedom’ and then we go searching for that also. The desire is for this concept called ‘freedom’ and then we say ‘Which Satsang to go to? Should I do this; should I do that?’ All these ideas of doer-ship come.

Once you see without labels, once you see without notions, then there is such a beautiful spaciousness of allowing everything to unfold. And if you want to hold on to one concept (because it can seem too empty, initially, without that one concept) there are a few which are auspicious enough for you to hold:

‘Guru Kripa Kevalam: The Master’s grace is all there is’ is a nice one.

‘Who am I?’ is a good concept. It does a nice clean-up job.

Then, as we said earlier:

‘All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn’ is a beautiful one.

So, like that proverbial elephant walking around in the market, if its trunk messes up every stall in the marketplace, then you can give it a stick to hold. Any of these concepts, whichever appeals most to your heart, you can keep that. Any of these atomic concepts which do the clean-up job (and they clean themselves up also) any one of these we can hold on to.

In one way, we can say that:

The source of all suffering is the notion of ‘me’.

And if you have to go even deeper than that, you can say that:

The source of all the trouble is the waking state.

Then you might say ‘I have trouble even in dreams.’ Then you can say:

The source of all trouble is when ‘I am’.

So, if you have to forget about your existence (which means what? Hold no concept about you; hold no concepts about your existence) then what is left?

The One that You Are is the same in the sleep state. With the coming and going of the waking state, it remains untouched. So, what are you concerned about? In fact, the coming and going of any state doesn’t affect You actually in the least.

Can anything come out of this manifest creation and make a dent on that primal witnessing?

What can happen here [Waves hand across empty space] that can scratch my Awareness?

That is why it is called ‘The Untouched Awareness’ …, which is the Unborn.

How can the Unborn be hurt in this world?

What is here is in this world? That which is born and will die.

So, we can leave that alone. It was born and it will die.

There is no other outcome for that one.

I feel all of us can be clear about that one, at least:

that which was born is going to die.

What about the unborn?

So, our concern so far has been with that one that was born. How about if we move it out from that …, to that which is Unborn? Be concerned about the Unborn. What troubles will you bring?

You know, the mind will create something. ‘It is too boring. Nothing happens there.’ But even this trouble belongs to which one? The one that was born.

How is your Awareness troubled by anything?

Only the posing; the posing as the limited one, then the limited one itself seems to struggle. It is all part of the pose, the pretense, the facade of individuality. In ‘The Course in Miracles’ it says that ‘It is a tiny, mad idea. It is tiny and mad, actually, because All-There-Is pretends as if it is this tiny object. And it’s completely mad because every notion that the mind has is insane. Isn’t it? Even yesterday we were looking at these things and we said ‘It’s all so insane, all that notions from the mind.’ And yet we have trained ourselves (as in Consciousness, has trained Itself) to play masterfully in this game. But You are beyond even Your very existence. The ‘I’ that is playing as ‘I Am’ remains untouched by even existence, by even Being and not-Being. That Being which is beyond Being and not-Being remains untouched by Being in this play.

Q: Anantaji, I would like to know about love. Like a lot of times, when I see you in zoom also, online Satsang, I think something is flowing from here towards you. I wanted to know about that.

A: Now, whether you know or not, it is flowing. [Chuckling] To ‘know’ it usually then creates one layer of mental concepts on top of it. And it will be fine, but it seems like when we have a mental layer of concepts on top of anything in this world, it seems to become a little stale, it seems to become a little lifeless. So, this love, if it is naturally present, the more you know about it the more it will become just a concept. So, better not to know.

Q: I wanted to know more about love maybe which is already present.

A: Towards what end? In the sense that, once you know about it, what will happen? What should happen? What is the purpose?

Q: I think maybe it will increase.

A: [Chuckling] So, what happens is that we feel that in our certitude, when we are certain about something, it increases. But actually, it is in our openness, in our not-knowingness, that it is tasted fully.

Like I often take this example that if you’re looking at a perception, like an object, like a flower, once you label it ‘rose’ then the pure perceiving actually diminishes and we go more with our labeling of it. We put it in our box of past. ‘Oh, that rose was pink, this one is red.’ It becomes more like that.

So, the simplicity of this open tasting of ‘What Is’ for ‘just what it is’ seems to get diminished the more concepts we have, the more we seem to be mentally certain about something because soon we apply our certitude to ‘how things should be’ instead of ‘just what is’. You see?

So, it is not that if you had the perfect definition of love …, which there isn’t; there is no such thing, but even if you felt like that there was one and once you had that it would increase, it doesn’t happen that way. Because it just becomes a set of labels …, because every definition asserts something but actually denies something else also.

Now, if there was a definition of love then it would also be in denial of something else. But with something which is SO open …, we don’t even need the label ‘love’.

Actually, nowhere in Vedanta is love mentioned. Isn’t it strange? [Chuckling] We read the Ashtavakra Gita, I didn’t find any mention of love. In Bhagavad Gita, I didn’t find any mention of love. In the Upanishads, we find no mention of love. In the Zen pointings, you hardly (at least I’ve not) come across any mention of love. Why? Because if you make a concept out of it …, it is not that they were not loving, it is not that the natural presence of love which is experienced with the Sages was not there. It is just that once you have made too many ideas about it, then it seems to become constricted.

And many times, in our definition, our ego comes. Like you’ll find many who are writing poetry about love, then the ‘me’ can be very strong in that. It’s not a bad thing, whatever poetry you like, but many times it smells like a personal ‘me-ness’. If there is the separation of ‘me’ and ‘other’ can we really call it love? Like ‘I wrote a poem for my beloved’ that means that ‘I’ and ‘beloved’ are still two.

[Silence]

And the fact also is that nobody has ever been able to explain love. For example, you met someone who had never experienced it, like an alien came and they don’t know and they see so much literature, poetry, about love and they say ‘Please tell me about this.’ You can try and try and try but try as you might, you can never really, truly explain what love is to anyone.

So, what is naturally present in Your openness, what is naturally present in the unborn, in Your notionless Existence, it is best left unlabeled.

Because otherwise what happens is that when we bring it into language, then opposites naturally come. If you say ‘love’ then you’ll have to have something called ‘hate’ also. If you don’t define it then you’re not so much playing with the duality of opposites.

So, what is Advaita actually? It is to go beyond these opposites. Dvaita is two and two is opposition, separation. ‘Not-two’ means no distinction.

So, is there something which is beyond ‘thing’ and ‘no-thing’? …, beyond all these opposites?

[Silence]

What is That for which there is no past or future? … that does not have an age, does not have a size, does not have any dimensions?

Let’s start with a simpler question: Where are you now?

Where are you?

[Silence]

Where are You? or Who are You? or What are You? or Why are You?

Any of these ‘W’ questions … (even ‘why’ we don’t know).

Anything after ‘You Are’, after ‘I Am’, we want to resolve. ‘Why is the world such a bad place? Why do these things happen? Why does the apple fall downwards from the tree?’ All this we want to resolve but the basic foundation: Why are You?

We can’t even say where we are, because if you say ‘I am just in my body ‘ but the body is an object and an object can only contain other objects, can an object contain a non-object?

The body is an object. How can it contain a Being? Can you put a Being in a glass; like the body is like glass? ‘My Atma is in my body.’ You see? How?  [Chuckling]

These are just concepts. We don’t know where we are. We don’t even know what is inside. We say ‘I go inside. I see this; I go outside I see this.’ What is this ‘inside’? We don’t know. Where is it? Is it the back of this bone, this forehead? Is ‘inside’ like a blank screen where I can project things like imagination and memory? What is it?

Sangha: Exactly the same. This blank screen seems so real.

A: Where is that, where is that? Where is the One who is witnessing that, who is perceiving that? Inside? … who perceives the outside?

We don’t even know these basic things; what to say of our other claims that we seem to know so much? We don’t know who we are, where we are, what we are, why we are, but everything else we feel we know very well.

And we know about others as well! ‘I might not know who I am but this one, I definitely know!’ [Laughing] You see, this is the thing. It’s insanity in a way; it’s insanity. Like that lady who came to Guruji and said ‘Yes, yes, I’m happy to admit that I’m not real but I can never admit that my husband is not real.’ [Chuckling]

As we let go of our certitude, as we become more and more open, you will see that you will struggle to struggle. [Chuckles] You will struggle to struggle. It’s only once you are certain about something that you can struggle. If you are certain about being uncertain, you can struggle with that also, like ‘Why am I uncertain? I just don’t get this.’ Like that. But that’s also a statement of certainty. Just be uncertain and struggle. Okay, pose as if you are struggling but don’t have any certainty about anything. [Chuckles] Let’s see; can we do it? [Laughs]

Why this is important is because (I don’t know whether I should say this; just hear it and then forget about it) [Laughter] our happiness needs no certainty, it is just naturally here. But to struggle, to suffer, we need to be uncertain. The Sage is not happy because he is saying ‘I’m so certain I am free.’ [Chuckles] Just naturally, happiness is there. [Laughs] Even in grim expressions (like Nisargadatta Maharaj). [Smiles]

So, that’s why we say: What is the mind? Unsolicited advice on how to suffer. [Laughs] And it has deals all the time: ‘Get two; double for the price of one! One concept and double the suffering, today only!’ [Laughter]

Q: Discounted.

A: Discounted.

We can suffer:

‘My relationships are a mess.’ [Makes a gesture of suffering]

‘I’m not becoming free.’ [Makes a gesture of suffering]

‘My health is going down the drain.’ [Makes a gesture of suffering]

‘I have no money left.’ [Makes a gesture of suffering]

These are the four main topics.

But we can also have the master concepts:

‘I am just a worthless human being.’

[Laughter] That’s like four for the price of one.

Q: Combo pack.

A: Combo pack. It’s like ‘I am just so, so useless.’

And without any of this? …

So, the mind has taught us to value the wrong thing. It has taught us to value certainty over openness. Because the openness is so broad that you can’t even be certain about openness. Like you can say ‘I have discovered the master technique to be free. I am just going to be completely open.’ Even that concept will lead to attachment, certitude.

What is the conclusion that you can’t do without?

What is the judgment that you can’t do without?

What do you HAVE to be right about?

Just do this internal audit. [Smiles]

What do you HAVE to be right about?

And the sooner you can give that up, the better it is; just with openness, with integrity.

The mind in this moment becomes very smart. It will come with some very smart-aleck answers and things like this. But you know in your heart what is being asked for.

You know in your heart:

What is that you are so committed to be right about?

Is it your journey?

Is it your path?

Is it your outcome?

Is it what you want?

Is it ideas about how life should be; what death should be?

(Some of us have good ideas about what death should be, or is.)

Forget it. Your concepts are at best a reflection, a tiny reflection.

Just like you cannot dig inside a mirror to find yourself. You know? Like, where do I go looking? Dig in the mirror, find it: there it is. Dig. [Smiles] You cannot do that. In the same way, you cannot keep digging into mind. You will not get Your Reality there.

Now, I was saying the other day that if you were to say there are some layers to our existence …, we could say ‘There is the layer of  my existence which is the apparent world; there is a layer of my existence which is the body, the sensations of the body; there is a layer of my existence which is this mind, the intellect; there is a layer of my existence which is emotions; there is a layer of my existence which is Being; there is a layer of my existence which is unmanifest, it is the Absolute unchanging.’ (You can’t really include it as a layer, but just for this example.)

So, the thing is that we don’t need any layer alone. There’s a layer of existence called the world; we want things to change there. There’s a layer of existence called the body; we want it to be this way or that way. There’s a layer of existence called the mind; we want it to be ‘this one, think this thought, think pure thoughts, don’t think this, think that, come to the best conclusion’ … all of this. We want to have our emotions to be only a certain way: ‘Only good stuff should come, only love should be experienced, fear should not be there’ … this one.

And this ‘I Am-ness’, this Beingness, which is just ‘I Am’, we don’t leave that alone; most importantly. We have to put something: ‘I am … this. I am man, I am woman, I am good, I am bad.’ You see? We don’t leave this Being alone.

So, Satsang is just coming to this place where, when you leave this ‘I Am’ alone, then you can’t really meddle with anything else. Don’t attach any label to yourself. Don’t make any distinction about anything at all.

And in this, like Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said, the true knowledge is only the dropping of that which is false. It is not the learning of something new.

So, as you drop all of this, as I am saying to you: It is apparent to You. It is not clear to the mind [Chuckles] but it is apparent to you. The mind will only say ‘What was that? What is apparent? I don’t see anything. What’s going on?’ Like that, see? Because that device is not good enough; it is not subtle enough; it is not big enough or small enough to have a view of Your Reality. Just like you can’t fill the ocean in a glass. Don’t try to get it with your mind.

Q: Now, the mind is trying to find how to drop it.

A: Exactly. It can’t do that also.

The moment drops it for you.

If you try drop it, then actually, that is picking it up.

Like NOW [Snaps fingers] it is gone.

[Snap, snap, snap, snap] You see? You don’t have to drop anything. Even to tell me what you have to drop, you have to think about it, so it is not naturally present.

Q: Right.

A: What if there was no struggle?

[Silence]

Sometimes, it can happen that our ‘seeker’ has been around for so long, we feel like ‘If this seeker becomes jobless, what is to become of us?’ [They laugh] He is [Ananta is] saying that it is just apparent to you and it is completely clear now. Now, what do I do with that seeker guy who has been looking for something for 20 years? Where is the final certificate I can give to him? Where is the experience?’ Isn’t it? It wants some finality in the experience. ‘Where is the laughing Buddha? Where is that laughter? Where are the shining chakras? Where is all of that stuff? Something should happen!’ You see?

But this is just made up,

because if … the Truth is Unchanging …

then it cannot be an object of getting or not-getting.

Q: Right.

[Silence]

A: It can feel for a while like the mind runs out of moves. It can feel like the mind runs out of moves …, but it’s quite persistent, so it will have some moves. [Chuckles]

Q: Still searching for something…

A: Still. I can see the scanning going on.

[They laugh]

That is happening a bit. But that is just habit. That is just habit. As you see that you don’t have to refer to it to exist …,

You see, we’ve made it so essential to our existence that it can feel like ‘I have to go to that [points to his head] and make some conclusion.’ Even a conclusion like ‘I’m getting it! I don’t have to go to the mind.’ At least you can rest on that. But if it is empty of even that…

But because we are so not used to that, it can feel a bit strange for a bit.

There is a beautiful story in the ‘Brihadharyanka Upanishad’ where this very, very bright student, very bright student, was sent by his Master. His Master said ‘You have learned everything you could learn from me. But now you have to go to Yagnavalkay, I feel. You have to go to Sage Yagnavalkya. He will tell you the final truth.’ So, this student feels very happy, very proud, and he goes to Sage Yagnavalkya. He says to the Sage ‘Oh, great Sage, my Master (this and this) has told me that you have to give me the ultimate truth.’ So, the Sage just sits there. He’s just sitting there quietly. The student says ‘Okay, the Master must have become old. His hearing must be a bit weak.’ He says even louder [Smiles] ‘Oh, great Sage Yagnavalkya, my Master said to get the ultimate truth from you. So, I am here.’ The Sage is just sitting quietly.

So, this seeker kept asking. Then he got very upset by the end. He is like ‘I thought you will be able to help me but you are very arrogant. You do not want to give this one an answer because you think I am not worthy.’ This kind of tantrum, a Satsang tantrum, was thrown. [Chuckles] So, then the Sage spoke. He said that ‘You asked and I answered. But can you hear the answer?’ Some answers cannot be heard in the mind.

[Silence]

I don’t know when you’ve heard Satsang last but I have been saying ‘It is just like the mind is like Alexa or Siri.’ We feel like it knows a lot. But it has just been fed in with a lot of concepts. ‘What is the capital of Karnataka?’ [State in India] ‘Oh, Bangalore’ it will say because it is fed in that concept. So, the mind is just like that. There is no actual knowing there. You see? There is no actual knowing there. So, just by feeding some more concepts in to its database, we might get a sense that ‘I know something now.’ But, actually it is not.

Like, what is keeping you on the floor right now? You have this concept: gravity. ‘Gravity attracts me, pulls me downwards towards the earth, so it is keeping me on the floor.’ But do we really know it, just by having the label?

[Sangha]: No.

A: We do not know. And then you might know some more, saying that ‘There is mass one, there is mass two; both apply a certain force to each other. That is gravity.’ We still do not know it. We just have some concepts about how it seems to operate. So, this mental Alexa or Siri does not have any true knowledge, any true knowingness. It only tries to replicate. It just has photocopies; just concepts.

Now, I will tell you something even more important: When you are empty of this, in this moment Right Now, all that needs to be known is completely apparent to you.

This device does not have it. But when you are not relying on this device for the answer: Right Now, in this moment, it is apparent to you.

Q: What knows everything?

A: This is apparent to you. [Smiles] Just leave yourself unbothered for a moment without any concept, any question, any label, any doubt, any seeking. Don’t search for a mental conclusion.

Is there any confusion about what knows everything?

Q: No.

It is clear, actually.

But if we say ‘The Absolute or Awareness, that unchanging Witnessing’ (and we can use these terms) ultimately, we have to empty out the basket of terms. And in this nakedness, in this openness, it is completely clear actually. It is only the mind which is muddled or confused.

You don’t need to know anything. You don’t need to know anything. You don’t even need to know what will happen as the result of not knowing anything.

Anyway, all that you think you know is just made up. Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] told me ‘It is better not to know. Because if you start to know, then it messes it up and it is never true anyway.’ [Smiles] These simple words he told me.

[Meditative Silence]

[Reading from chat]: “When you close your eyes, is your experience of nothingness the same as mine?”

Now, let’s presume lot of things, that all of this is true: that there is a ‘you’ … there is a ‘me’

… there is experience there … there is experience here …this is not a dream. Let us presume a lot of things. [Chuckles] Just as a reassurance for now, I can say ‘Yes.’ I can say ‘Yes’ but even this question, at the root of it, at the root of even this question, at the root of even this confusion, is confusion about ‘Who I am’ …, who you are.

But if you were to presume for a moment that there are two sets of experiences; there is a ‘your’ experience, there is an ‘Ananta’ experience … and both of them have eyes … and when the eyes are closed, then t same thing happens, let’s say ‘Yes.’ Because that is the pretense under which Satsang is shared anyway. [Chuckles] That is the over-all pretense of this posing of sharing and listening anyway. You know? Do you see what I’m saying? [Smiles]

But more important than any of this is what I’ve been saying that: To know even one thing is to know too much.

Give yourself this gift.

Remember that I’m just speaking about your inner attitude, your mind set. How this body expresses itself in this apparent realm, it can unfold; it can unfold in any which-way. But I’m pointing you all to a conceptual emptiness. And as you’re being pointed to this conceptual emptiness then all the things, all the concepts that you hold dear, are bound to put up a fight in a way. They are bound to put up a fight because we’ve nurtured them in that way. ‘This is what I am, this is what I do, I’m like this or I’m not like this.’

But I’m not suggesting any position. Because All-There-Is does not have a position.

And yet, when All-There-Is Itself takes a position, then it can seem to play life in a limited way. It can seem to play life in a limited way, that which we call the life of a person or an individual life.

But Satsang is the dropping of these concepts of limitations and coming to that open, empty Truth which is apparent.

The cake is perfectly decorated already. You don’t need to put a cherry on top. (I’m trying to come up with an elegant example.) [Laughs]

[Laughter in room]

This, as it is, is perfect as it is; beyond perfection. Now, whatever you think you can do to add on to this, whether it is to figure something out, whether it is to come to some experience, whether it is to have some emotion or to have the most brilliant thought, all these ideas are the ideas you have of trying to ‘put a cherry on top.’

Can you leave it?

Just leave it as it is.

Not physically as an action or inaction, but leave it aside.

Leave the concept of it; all concepts about it.

So, what I’m asking all of you is: What do you think can improve This?

What do you think can improve This?

This.

This. Now.

If feel like once you get to the first part of this: Aham Sphurna …, but it’s in the Aham itself. And Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] has made it clear over and over that all confusion actually arises about who you are, so even the need for any interpretation is only needed when there is confusion about who you are.

So, this ‘I’ …, how do we go chasing it?

How do we go looking for it?

If I was to say that everything that you can think about it is not the fundamental Truth about it, that it is just a thought about it; then I was to say:

What is it that you cannot think about?

What is it that you can’t think about?

So, to attach any concept to Your Reality, even if you feel like it is the greatest pointer ever, is only, at best, a provisional truth. Why do I say it’s a provisional truth? Because, at best, it can point you in a direction of where to look. So, if I say ‘I’ or ‘I-I’ or ‘I am’ or ‘I am That’ or ‘I am Brahman’ at best even these concepts are provisional truths. Now, the thing is that when we hear something like that, we feel we can solve it like a math equation or something. ‘I will come to the ‘I-I’ by figuring out that one ‘I’ is here, the other ‘I’ is here; and we can look at this and then we can say Yes! This is it. This is the ‘I-I’ that Bhagavan was speaking of, the ultimate ‘I’.’ But it is not that way. At best, the pointers in Satsang can bring your mind to a place where it becomes quiet, it becomes still, it runs out of moves. And this is very auspicious.

So, when I ask you ‘What is it that you cannot think about?’ at least for some time today, you might not have the best move in response to this. But that’s where you are. So, this Self which is beyond all concepts, beyond all intellect, this Truth is just completely apparent in THIS very moment. As I have been saying: ‘If you give yourself this gift of one uninterrupted moment, then you will find That (That to which Bhagavan was pointing) is completely apparent to You.’ Not as an objective experience but not excluding any experience.

But there comes a point where the mind can use even the greatest pointers as an avoidance to this unlabeled Existence. Even the pointers that you hear in Satsang, the mind will use that and say ‘Once you resolve this, then you will find the Truth. Once you get that, once you really know this, then you will get to the Truth.’ What did Bhagavan say? He said that ‘True Knowledge, Self Knowledge, is only dropping of that which is false.’

And as we saw yesterday, there is no representation you can have in your mind which is an accurate representation of the Truth. No thought can represent ‘Is-ness’. So, it will make these side projects for you. It will create side projects for you and say ‘Okay, resolve this or deal with this. This is what you have to do now.’ But the Truth is more available. [Smiles] It is more open, it is more naked than that. Empty of your interpretation, what do you find?

Q: ‘This,’ Father.

A: This. (I know you are using this because I asked you to use the term) but This, without this-ness or that-ness. So, you don’t have to pick up any project. You don’t have to say that ‘This is what I have to conclude or figure out or discover or realize’ because That which is Here is beyond anything you can conceive anyway.

Now, the thing is that what gets in your way, in a sense, is that you think you know where you are or you think you know what’s happening to you. Only then, when we are able to make a claim about our starting point, do we feel like that ‘Okay, the destination is over there.’ That’s why I keep saying: If you feel like you have to get to freedom which is point B, can you define accurately what your starting point is? And if you really investigate openly, you will see that it’s all made up. It is just a bundle of concept; at best mixed with another set of energy constructs called emotions. How does that define your location or your state? [Silence] What do you actually find when you leave life as it is, with no interpretations, no conclusions?

What gets in the way of this gift that you can give yourself? It is only your knowing; whatever you think you are right about. So, in this way then [Chuckles] (it sounds a bit strange) even your most humble thought about yourself is just a resistance to the Truth. And, in a way, it can be said that it’s a sign of arrogance. A belief in separation is nothing but arrogance.

So, in a way, we have to figure out only one thing (and I’m saying this half-jokingly) [Chuckles] which is: How to get out of this groove that we find ourselves stuck in, without getting into any new groove?

We were speaking after Satsang got over yesterday; we were talking about these things and we were saying that ‘How easy it is to leave the Satsang hall and then get back into a mindset about ourself?’ The seeker mindset or the relationship mindset; any of these mindsets. And these grooves, in a way, have become deeply embedded conditions. This is the way we get used to thinking about ourselves. If we didn’t have to be any way, then the fear will come. ‘But how will I live?’ this ‘How will I live? How will I be productive, effective?’ …, all of these things.

It is only these times that you think of yourselves as productive or effective. [Chuckles] Only in these times. Usually, otherwise the story is ‘Why Am I so useless?’ [Laughter in the room] It’s only when I say ‘Live without the groove’ that you come with ‘But how will I be effective? How will I live my life?’ [Laughter] So, it’s like if I say ‘Don’t get into any mindset, including the seeker mindset’ you will say ‘But then, how will I find God?’ But you’ve been seeking for twenty years. [Chuckles. Laughter in the room] It must be apparent by now that with that mindset, the Truth cannot be found.

It is only in the dropping of it that, that it becomes apparent.

Okay, what is most natural to you right now? [Smiles] You are like scared of answering. ‘No, no!’ [Chuckles] Because you know what’s coming. [Chuckles]

[Sangha]: My self is most natural.

A: Your self is most natural. What does it mean: ‘yourself’?

[Sangha]: When you’re not associated with anything.

A: When you’re un-associated. Yes, yes.

So, if that is most natural, what are we searching for?

[Contemplative Silence]

Now, let’s see if you can hear what I’m saying. I’m just saying that in your most, most naturalness, you don’t need even the concept that ‘In my most natural, I am the Self.’ Isn’t it’?

So, empty even of that idea.

The next answer you have to give, you cannot use any Satsang language …, when the question comes up. Because I’m getting a lot of answers, even on the chat. But a lot of it is what we have heard, you know; it is learned language.

[Sangha]: It seems also very natural to have thoughts. It doesn’t seem like an effort.

A: Yes. Of course. Nothing has to stop, nothing has to change. Thoughts can arise, thoughts can go. Everything can come and go. Everything that comes, goes anyway.

[Sangha]: Have you asked another question?

A: No, not yet. [Chuckles] It will come.

[Sangha]: In this most natural, there is no search. Which is a relief.

A: No search. Because there is no search and also there is no ‘no-search.’ In the sense that the concept of search itself is not there. Otherwise, that can become the opposite of natural; even the idea that ‘Oh, I’m not seeking anymore.’ Neither this nor that. [Smiles]

[Sangha]: It’s actually very oblivious; like it’s not…

A: It is very obvious. But to the mind it is very oblivious. Yes. [Smiles]

[Sangha]: Something like that; forgetful…

A: You cannot grasp it, in a way.

That which is higher than highest.

Smaller than smallest.

More natural than even Being.

[Reading from chat]: “The feeling of oneness and not the feeling of separation.”

Now, there is only way to insert the sense of separation where there is none and that is using labels. Now, I have to say that even ‘oneness’ is also ultimately a label. Because one (to label something as one) gives the potential for zero or two. [Smiles]

That’s why I enjoy very much in the Ribhu Gita when the Sage says ‘Even in the concept ‘I am Brahman’ there is duality.’ Now some of you said ‘What do you mean?’ because we’ve latched on to these concepts. I say ‘Why do we need to affirm ‘I am Brahman’ if it is, clear?’ If it is just so apparent, as I am saying, then we don’t need that affirmation. Isn’t it? Because, nobody goes on affirming ‘I have a mouth. I have a face.’ [Chuckles] It is just apparent. So, why do we need the affirmation?

At best, it’s only to negate the concept that we might have about ourself that ‘I am a limited object.’ So, another concept can come which can take away this concept of your limitation. But then both have to be thrown away.

Every day when I share Satsang, I realize the beauty of Bhagavan’s [Sri Ramana Maharshi’s] metaphor when he said ‘Thorns are used to remove other thorns and then thrown away.’

So, no concept of zero, one, or two.

[Reading from chat]: “When we ask ‘Who am I?’ I’m actually trying to silence myself and searching inside the location of ‘I’. But the search is also perceivable. So, then you ask ‘Who is looking?’ but then you go recursive and infinite. Should we get lost in looking for ‘I’ when I ask ‘Who am I? ‘or should I perceive the search? But then, there is no end to that. Am I complicating it?”

In a way. In a way, we are complicating it. Because the question is: ‘So, who am I?’ A thought might come in response and you say ‘Who witnesses this thought?’ Then you say that the seeking itself is perceivable. So, now, who is it perceivable to? Whatever sensations and perceptions are there, who perceives that? You might say ‘I do.’ Then ‘Who is this I?’

As you get to the point where you find that all the perceptions are perceivable, then you are trying to find out ‘Who perceives these perceptions?’ As you do that, these perceptions will change again. ‘Who is perceiving? … but…’ You see? As you do that. these perceptions will change again/ ‘Now who is perceiving? … but…’ All that can change in the level of perception but what perceives them? If you stay with what the mind is saying then of course it can seem infinite, it can seem like a loop, it can seem recursive, but actually you take a step back.

You saw that all these sensations, perceptions, even that which seemed like the asking of the question ‘Who am I?’ is perceivable. Now you take a step back and say ‘What perceives that?’ And don’t bother at all with whatever is happening at that layer now.

Here is where you come to the end of the mind, the end of the intellect. So, whether you ask the inquiry ‘Who Am I?’ or whether you ask yourself ‘What do I know when I know nothing?’ or when I ask you ‘What is bigger than the biggest that you can imagine?’ … all of these bring your mind and intellect to a strange position because they don’t have answers for this and in this, this is the trick in a way. As soon as this mentating, conceptualizing stops: in that moment all that needs to be apparent to you is apparent.

That’s why I posted that transcript from Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharishi] yesterday which is saying exactly the same thing: ‘It is very easy for You but it is completely impossible for the mind.’

Now, what you might think is that ‘apparent’ means that it should appear, like the Self should appear. No. That ‘apparent’ that I’m talking of (‘The Truth is apparent’) is beyond appearances. ‘Apparent’ means it is clear or obvious, not that you will see a luminous Self or something like that. That can happen but You are beyond that. In that instant, where you are not relying on what your mind is saying, Your Reality is completely clear to You. And if we are forced to use words then we can say: this is the Silence. This is the Silence beyond silence or this is the Absolute.

What is the biggest thought you can have? [Laughter in the room] Seriously, what is the biggest thought you can have?

What is the biggest representation you can have through a thought? Universe? God? Absolute? I’m only giving the answers. You say…

Sangha: Infinity. Love. Now. Deathless. Anantaji.

A: Ah, so sweet. Whatever you said, or whatever you like the most, what is bigger than that?

Sangha: Perceiver.

A: Perceiver. What is bigger than that?

Sangha: The one who knows the perceiver.

A: The one who knows the perceiver. What is bigger than that?

Sangha: ‘Higher …’ [Chuckles]

A: ‘Higher…’ Like that Sufi example, yes. What is higher or bigger than that?

Sangha: Awareness.

A: Awareness. What is bigger than that?

Sangha: Awareness of Awareness.

A: What is bigger than that?

Sangha: That where there is no dimension.

A: That where there is no dimension. What is bigger than that?

Sangha: Beyond three-dimensional or four-dimensional.

A: Okay, this idea that you have of something beyond three-dimensional or four-dimensional, beyond this understanding…

Sangha: Anything you say is after that.

A: Yes, but this understanding you have that everything you say is after that, what is higher than that, bigger than that?

Sangha: That Is … Itself.

A: ‘That is Itself’ means?

Sangha: [Laughter] The truth itself.

A: The truth. Whatever we know about truth, what is higher than that?

Sangha: You don’t ‘know’ the truth but stand as that Awareness; one who’s, like, the Satguru.

A: Bigger than that?

Sangha: It’s just a title.

A: Yes, it’s bigger than any representation of whatever you’re representing through the label (or ‘title’ as you call it) …, what is that?

Sangha: It cannot be higher or bigger than that which cannot be measured.

A: It cannot be bigger than that which cannot be measured; why?

Sangha: Father, you are talking as…?

A: ‘As…’ [Chuckles] Bigger than that. Nice try. [Laughter]

Sangha: Father, if I have to think of it, I can’t conceive from something which is limited to something which is immeasurable. I can’t use a thought to know that ‘unlimited’ because a thought is just coming and going.

A: Why? Because it is unlimited.

Sangha: The thought is not unlimited.

A:  Yeah, but thought cannot be used because ‘That’ is unlimited? What is bigger than unlimited?

Sangha: I know the right answer, but…

A: [Chuckles] Whatever you think you know, bigger than that.

Sangha: [Laughter] ‘I’.

A: Bigger than ‘I’.

Sangha: ‘If you know one thing, you know too much.’

A: You can do the exact same thing with: Smaller than that. What is the smallest thing you can think of?

Sangha: A quark.

A: So, smaller than that?

Sangha: Silence.

A: Smaller than that …, or subtler than that, whatever you prefer.

Sangha: Nothing.

A: Nothing! Smaller than nothing.

Sangha: Neither nothing nor no-thing.

A: Not even that; smaller than that.

Sangha: [Inaudible]

A: Stay there.

Now, in between this ‘very small’ and ‘very big’ … what is there?

Sangha: Everything.

A: Everything perceivable, everything perceptual-ize-able.

Sangha: Everything changeful.

A: Changeful. Everything that your mind and intellect can work on. And Satsang is where you come to be, in a way, pushed beyond that. So, in a simple way, we can say that all our personal considerations are between this ‘very small’ and ‘very big’. But that spectrum of ‘very small’ to the ‘very big’ is nothing really to the Reality of You.

What concerns you that is beyond the very small and the very big; right from the spectrum of ‘nothing’ to ‘the Absolute’?

Everything that concerns you is between ‘nothing’ and ‘the Absolute’. So, beyond these two conceptual boundaries…, what are you concerned about?

Sangha: What I am.

A: But still in this: [Hold hands wide apart to show spectrum] Still in this; we are either between this one or this one. [The two ends of the spectrum] Tell me something that you are concerned about beyond these?

Sangha: Beyond the opposites?

A: Beyond the opposites and beyond the extremes; beyond the duality.

Sangha: [Silence]

A: Now, … in the space between two thoughts, … what is there?

[Reading from chat]: “Can we not say that Consciousness is just a by-product of the brain? That is what the science says, I believe. If my brain is dead, I can’t perceive anything; not even silence. What if I am just a limited organism with a brain inside my head which produces Consciousness and allows me to perceive and sense? What evidence and experience is there to prove that this is not the case? You can please rid me of this question like you have done before?”

A: Yeah, this is a very clever one. I have met this one quite a few times before. This idea that ‘I am just a brain in a vat.’ This is a very famous example by many philosophers, that we can’t really confirm that we are not just a brain in the vat. Now, the thing about Satsang is that whatever you might consider yourself to be, when you are empty of notions about yourself then all of our existential dilemmas, all of our seeming-suffering, all of our sense of grievances, regrets, pride, arrogance, all of that goes away. It is so beautiful that in this experience, even when this phenomenal experience is here, you find that YourSelf is unburdened, untethered, unanchored to any of this. Now, even if you are a brain in the vat, it will help you. [Chuckles]

Now, there are many interesting ideas related to this; like another friend and I were having a discussion the other day and they were saying ‘First the brain comes and then the rest of the world comes.’ To this, I said: Okay, from where does the brain come then? Is it just like the brain in limbo arises? Instead of Being: I Am, there comes this brain: I am. [Chuckles] And then, around this brain, comes the body. Because the body is also apparently part of the world, isn’t it? He said ‘First the brain comes and that is the source of the Consciousness.’ So, the brain comes, then ‘I am’ and then there is the world. But the body is also part of the world. Or is it that the brain and body come first? We don’t know these things. These are just theories but they don’t stand up to any investigation.

Now, when we go with our direct experience, nobody has experienced a brain. Nobody has an experience of it. You cut another body and apparently there seems to this organ inside that. But the same thing could happen in a dream also. So, when you’re having a dream tonight, then is the brain that is there in that body, is that your brain? Or this brain which presumably is inside this body, is this your brain? Is this state like King Janaka said? You might say that there is only one brain and all waking and dreaming happens inside that. Then, whose brain is that? Like King Janaka said ‘Am I the king who had a dream that I am a butterfly? Or am I the butterfly now having a dream that I am the king?’ So, even in this brain theory, the question about who you are, and why you identify just as this, doesn’t get resolved.

[Reading from chat]: “Where does the brain comes from? It is perceived in the Consciousness only. How can it be?”

A: The answer is that it is just perceived in the Consciousness that It Itself produces. That would be recursive. Isn’t it?

Q: Unclear.

A: Ultimately, whatever answer helps you to come to peace is fine.

Now, the thing is that those who come to Satsang, they don’t actually believe that they are the body, I will say. If you actually believe that you are the body, what motivation, what reason do you have to come to Satsang? It is an uncomfortable seating arrangement, my mumbling is not so easy to hear, the video and audio are not the best always. It is not attractive to the body in any way. So, something already must be beyond this body identity. But I understand that there can be a fear that ‘What if it is true? What if it is true that I am just the body, actually?’ Okay, what if it is true that you are just the body? It’s no big deal. [Chuckles]

Q: Can we have a feeling that we are just the mind, not just the body?

A: Anything. ‘I’m just the mind, I’m just the brain, I’m just … (whatever you like).’ [Chuckles] But will that give you the peace? That is what I am asking. The benchmark should be peace. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.

The thing is that: In this peace, the truth is apparent.

That’s what Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] also says that: In your peace, truth is apparent.

So, whatever gives you peace. Either it is this coming to a crazy Satsang like this, which is trying to jolt you out of your mental conceptualization, jolt you out of your limitations …, or you drown in some devotion and the mind seems irrelevant. Whatever the method is, if it brings us to peace, that is fine.

So, today I am speaking a very special brand of nonsense. [Laughter] I am speaking a very special brand of nonsense. [Laughs] You need to hear with a different set of ears, in a way So, what we looked at so far (I don’t know how many online were following but what we looked at so far) is: ‘What is the smallest representation we can have in thought?’ which is, we can say ‘nothing’ or ‘the thought’ or ‘something really measly’ to ‘What is the greatest representation we can have in a thought? which is: ‘That which is the absolute’ or ‘Awareness: That which is aware of Itself’ …, all these very fancy things. Everything that you are concerned about is between these two.

But what is beyond that?

I was giving you an example that in the space between two thoughts, before you have the notion ‘I Am’ or any way to represent ‘This: That Which Is’ … is it nothing? … or everything? … or Absolute? Can any representation truly represent it? Can this entire spectrum come close to what really is being pointed at, in a way?

[Silence]

And whether you are representing yourself in this spectrum or whether you are representing God in this spectrum or the Self in this spectrum or the no-Self in this spectrum, it doesn’t matter. Because none of these representations truly define that which we call Reality.

And some of you are new here; don’t mind what I am saying. But you say ‘Consciousness, Awareness is bigger than that.’ Bigger than that; bigger than that which is aware. ‘It is the Self alone that shines. Nothing is higher than Self.’ Higher than that of which nothing is higher.

Your only concerns are within this spectrum of ‘tiny, tiny, tiny, subtle subtle, subtle’ to ‘big, big, big, big, biggest.’ But are You in this? That’s why I was saying that all that we call personal is embedded only in these.

To the mind, what I’m saying is strange or weird or crazy because it cannot fathom this. Because whatever it is saying, I am saying ‘bigger’. And it’s very much like that story of the Sufi Master. All of you know the story? Ultimately, it is: The emperor asks ‘Are you God?’ And this one says ‘No, higher than that.’ And the guard says ‘There is nothing higher than God.’ In this story, the Sufi Master says ‘That Nothing, I Am.’  But what if we didn’t even say this? Maybe we said ‘Even higher than that Nothing.’ [Smiles] You see? Because even ‘Nothing’ is a representation. And it’s very much possible for us to get stuck in our spiritual representation; even of the Absolute.

In this way, nothing happened. [Laughs]

Even the idea of ‘Why struggle with all of this when I can just be?’ …, how many of us have tried to ‘just be’?  Has it happened? You’ve heard this for how many years? Till this clean up job happens of even this position of trying to ‘just be’ …, we’ll be like what Guruji [Sri Mooji] says: the minute you try to be natural, the natural-ness is gone.

Try to just be. ‘I keep my attention on my sense of being.’ That doesn’t seem like just being; it seems like work. [Silence] That position of ‘I’m just being’…, something relaxes out of that [naturalness].

This is an important point to make because sometimes the words of Satsang, the words of the scriptures like Ribhu Gita, can be very frustrating and then we can take on this position that ‘I don’t need any of this! I’m just going to BE.’ You see? ‘I don’t need this stuff, I know the Truth, I just have to BE.’ But in that position itself, your bondage is already guaranteed, in a way. Almost like the way that we started the conversation: ‘I have to open fully.’ In the ‘have to’ itself, your fullness is gone.

Q: Then what to do? [Laughter in the room]

A: The nice way of saying it is: If you feel you have to do something, give yourself this one moment of notionless existence; [Silence] one moment of not defining YourSelf based on anything you know. Leave YourSelf undefined. Because sometimes when I point like that, you can have the taste of ‘just this’ …, but if you judge that, even that, and then you have the taste of something else (if you’re speaking to someone, if something’s happening) then it can be like ‘See, I left that.’ It’s not true. It’s not about this outer expression.

Q2: If there one moment of notionless existence, that is ‘just to be’?

A: [Chuckles] In a way, yes, but empty of the notion of trying to ‘just be’ (if you’re empty of the desire, empty of the intent). But you’re right.

Q2: Empty of the thought ‘Am I notionless or not?’

A: Exactly. [Chuckling] Then the other part of it is ‘just doing nothing.’ Can you do nothing? It is just that the concept of doership does not apply to You, actually. As long as you have the idea of ‘I-doer’ or ‘I-not-doer’ then were getting into the trap of a limited concept about ourself. So, if I say ‘Do nothing’ …, can you do nothing and show me? You can’t blink, you can’t breathe, you see? This realm is the realm of activity. It has just taken some part of this realm and made a report about yourself based on the activity in that aspect of that realm. And then we get into that thing of ‘Okay, so that aspect of that realm, how should that exhibit itself? Should we take five deep breaths?’ (Anything.) ‘Or should you just leave it?’ Like that, you know? This kind of thing. But in that also is inherent the untruth about what You Are.

Today I saw a very beautiful quote by Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi]. He said ‘There is no Advaita or Dvaita.’ (I am paraphrasing a bit.) ‘There is no Dvaita or Advaita, there is no duality or non-duality; there is only the Truth.’ I found that very, very beautiful. I like very much also in the Ribhu Gita (I noticed today): ‘No duality, even of ‘I am Brahman.’ Who can say these kinds of things? [Laughs] Because even in the statement ‘I am Brahman: Aham Braham Asmi’…, even in that statement there is a potential that ‘I could not be.’ If it is just naturally that, you don’t need to state anything at all. Even in the trying to state that, we are giving some credence to the possibility that an opposite could exist, so that’s why I’d have to affirm that ‘I am Brahman.’

Like we don’t go around asserting ‘I have a face; I have a nose.’ [Looks around] ‘I have a nose.’ [Laughter in the room] But if we did go around asserting that, it gives an openness to the possibility that ‘I could not have a nose.’ [Chuckles] You see? So, in the same way, if we keep asserting something, it is almost giving in to the play of duality again …, (not almost; it is actually giving in to the duality) that there is a possibility that I could not be that. ‘I have a mouth.’ I’m not saying that. Why? Because if you say that to anyone, what would they say? ‘Of course you do. Is there a possibility that you couldn’t?’

So, when you assert that ‘I am just Consciousness’ or ‘I am the Absolute; I am Brahman’ it is in that affirmation itself (which may be useful, of course, at some point, but the kind of Satsang we are having now) …, even that assertion, in-built into it is the possibility that ‘You could actually be a person’ or ‘You could actually be separate.’ So, true non-duality cannot be that which is the opposite of duality. It has to be outside the play of opposites. It is not opposed to anything at all. Your Self is not in opposition.

That is why I’ve been repeating these days that: What does it mean? Our Self is not in opposition to anything at all, therefore, in a sense, it is completely neutral. But no thought is ever neutral. The Self is neither asserting itself nor denying anything. But it is the mental version of ‘What Is,’ the mental version of ‘Is-ness,’ which seems to be either this way or that way.

Actually, each of these verses [of Ribhu Gita] are very, very beautiful because it’s constructed in a very beautiful, divine way. He could be talking about ‘There is no lust, there is no anger’ and suddenly ‘There is no Guru, no disciple.’ And it shows us that we have made this staircase of meaning; that some are of lower meaning, some concepts are of higher meaning. But to mix it all up; like he could be talking about the most mundane things, like ‘There is no bath.’  Of course, in those days, the holy bath could be a sacred bath; that concept. But saying ‘No bath, no Brahman’ …, I like that very much. Because all these terms are as meaningless as any other terms, but we have made a gradation out of that; the best of us have made (I’ve made) over the years also. (Not that I am the best. That is the quote for tomorrow.) [Laughter] We end up picking up this terminology. So, it’s very much possible to get caught up in this hierarchy of meaning, in a way, and presume that different terms have different levels of Reality or unreality.

I feel it is bit relevant to speak about why these kinds of scriptures are kept in secret. Like this is part of the ‘Shiva Rahasyam’ which means ‘The Secret of Shiva.’ (The secrets.) Now, this is just one tiny aspect (it doesn’t look tiny but) this entire book, this entire scripture ‘Ribhu Gita’ has a tiny aspect of the Shiva sutras: ‘The Shiva Rahaysyam’ And even in the ashram, they were kept in secret caves. [Smiles] Why? Because, if you make concepts about these things…, like ‘There is no Brahman’ …, if you make that in to a concept itself (‘There is no ‘Brahman’ or ‘There is no ‘Guru’ or ‘There is no ‘disciple’) if you create a conceptual framework out of this, then (because these are very, very, beautiful pointers to that wordless reality) it will take some special kind of words to shake you out of these concepts. Because you can take these positions; you can use these words also to make positions, which are then so strong that life has to bring some special events, in a way, to shake these out.

In our Indian history (or stories, whatever you like to call it) there are many representations of these. Very learned, scripturally-learned ones, who then became so egoistic because they were holding onto these concepts which were meant to do the clean-up job (that itself they were intended for) then that spiritual ego had to be shaken up. In one story, the Lord had to come down as an Avatar to shake up this super-spiritual ego. They were saying all the right things, in a way; saying everything scriptural, but it was taken individualistically. So, I do have a sense, in a way, of why this kind of knowledge is not for public consumption. But in Satsang, I am more and more feeling that there is a certain readiness, there is a certain openness for these kinds of words to be shared now.

One thing that will help you, one tip that will help you is: anytime you find yourself becoming heavy about something, you find yourself becoming stiff or heavy about anything: Know that it is not true; that you’re holding on to some concept. Like, with most of you, I can see it in your eyes; something becomes lighter, a certain lightness of what you taste. You can find it very strange that all our concepts are being chopped. You are being left with (like Guruji [Sri Mooji] calls it) an inner bath. It feels so fresh inside. Sometimes, while the bath is going on and where the concepts are being shaken out of you, it might not always feel like a bath. It might feel like there is frustration, anger; all these might come. But as it leaves you, this tyranny of mind is seen to be this oppression of language, the oppression of actually trying to be right. You’re oppressing yourself by trying to be right. As it leaves you, you will find a lot of spaciousness; Your very Existence.

So, isn’t it strange that the only way we can really make ourself suffer is in trying to be right? It is strange. The only way we make ourself suffer is when trying to be right. That is why they have this old saying (which seems so tame): ‘Do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?’ It is a very, very strong pointer actually. All of our baggage is a mental attempt, our metal version, of trying to be right.