BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

What benchmark do you set for the Truth? When you say ‘I really know this’ what benchmark are you setting for the Truth? Take an example of something you think you really know. What do you really know?

Q: It is from my experience.

A: ‘It is from your experience.’ The repository of experiences is what?

Q: Memory.

A:  Memory. I remember these examples which I take often. Guruji [Sri Mooji] had one time said in a Satsang that ‘Instead of all this, I should just give you some spiritual push-ups to do.’ And then he spelled it out. And what I remembered is like 23 or something. I don’t remember what I remember but I remembered that he said ‘I’ll give you 23 spiritual push-ups to do every day. Then you go down and do Om Namah Shivaya in this way and then you go next time and you do Om Namah Shivaya that way and then you will be happy because you have a practice to do.’ The Satsang got over and some of us were just standing outside the Satsang hall and then we were saying ‘It’s very nice what he said about ‘I should just give you spiritual practice’ where he said 23 push-ups, spiritual push-ups, everyday.’ And I said 23 and somebody else said ‘No, no, Father, he said 19!’ And somebody else said ‘No, I felt it was 21.’ Satsang had just gotten over and within five minutes, everything was starting to dissipate anyway. So, it was so clear.

And how many times does it happen that you felt like you saw a movie (in the movie or in your life) where you saw a particular character say a particular dialogue and then you look back at it and say ‘No, they are saying something completely different.’ But you had the visual of it as if it actually happened. So, the memory is very much part of the mind. It creates, very conveniently, this idea of knowing or individuality. But there is no reliance on it. So, if even this experience which I value more than just a concept; in the sense that you can create…

There is this beautiful example from Plato. He was trying to distinguish between conceptual knowing and our truer perceptual knowing. He said ‘Suppose you had a blindfold on and somebody you trust came and told you ‘Be careful. 20 feet away there is a cliff. You will fall.’ So, you know that 20 feet away there is a cliff but it’s just like a mental knowing. But it came from a credible source so you feel like ‘Ah, I know this.’ Then somebody you trust even more comes and says ‘No, no. A cliff 20 feet away? Be careful. It’s only 10 feet away.’ Now you know its 10 feet away. So, both are concepts and yet it is possible to debate them, to come up with a more credible sort of reasoning and change that. Then, you remove the blindfold and you see that 2 feet away there is a cliff. ‘What were these guys doing?!’ Now, you really know.

But even with perception; there are so many misperceptions. You can see mirages. These are the common ones. But there so many examples which Shankara, Adi Shankara, himself took. Like he said ‘You mistake a pillar to be a man. You mistake a rope to be a snake. You mistake an oyster; if it’s open, then it can feel like it’s a piece of silver instead of mother of pearl.’ So, all these perceptions are misperceptions again. You could hear something and all of us could disagree on what was heard. So, not just for visual but also audible. Even this is not a reliable way to truly know.

Concepts you cannot count on, perceptions you cannot count on. And that brings us back to the same pointing from the Sages, which is ‘Count on That which is the Unchanging.’ Count on That which is Unchanging.

Now you will say [Chuckles] ‘Easy for them to say. How do I find this Unchanging? Where do I find the Unchanging? Which side do I have to look on to find the Unchanging one, if there is such a thing?’ On this side; anything? On this side of the eyes; anything? Everything is changing, unreliable. We can’t really say for sure about anything.

Now, this side of the eyes [inside] …, you might say ‘There are a lot of things which are changing even there; imagination, memory, emotions, sensation, pain, pleasure.’ It can seem like these are inside.

Now let’s go even deeper. So, even these are perceptions. What witnesses all of this? Inner perception, so-called inner perception, outer perception: what witnesses all of this?

Here is where you have to love the ‘I don’t know’ because to the mind, it’s extremely frustrating. There you will not find a thing to see because you will see that even that is Seen. So, on one side of the seeing, there are all these objects. What is on the other side? Everything is seen and everything that is seen is changing. Therefore, we cannot really know it; we cannot rely on it. Who is the Seer? Okay, let’s ask it that way:

Who is the Seer?

Who does the Seeing belong to?

The word ‘Seer’ (which also means ‘Sage’ in India) the word ‘Seer’ also comes from this; the one who Sees the Truth. The Truth is Unchanging.

In fact, to encourage a sort of inner attitude to this exploration, I would say: Enjoy it! Enjoy it, love it! Don’t be so quick to say ‘Oh, it’s nothing. There’s a big void over there’ or something like that.

Who Sees the void?

Don’t rush to a conclusion. Enjoy this. Because your claim will not mean anything. I’m not bothered at all by any claim or any answer that you give. I am a strange sort of teacher. [Chuckles] I don’t want you to give the right answer. But those who can start to enjoy this exploration of ‘What’s on that side of my seeing?’ …

It’s like, I woke up this morning. The sense ‘I Am’ was there. Then, when the sense ‘I Am’ was there …, (I’m saying it in temporal terms but time itself comes after ‘I Am’) …, the sense ‘I Am’ was there and then I saw that ‘Okay, Ananta is there, this body is there, this family is there, this room is there.’ And you see all this. Now, all this is true for you.

Now, all of this is perceived by My Being. ‘I Am’ is Seeing all of this. I Am Seeing all of this. I Am Seeing …, all of this. So, My Being seems to work so much in resonance with my attention that it seems to create this phenomenal appearance or reality; whatever you call it. But: What is on that side of ‘I Am’? [Prior to ‘I Am’]

What is the ‘I’ …, which [‘I’] now ‘Am’?

We’ve looked for the truth for a long time on that side [that which comes after the primal sense ‘I Am’] in everything. ‘I am this, I am that, I am in this house, I am like this, I am not like this’ and we’ve seen that (today we looked and saw that) all of this so-called truth falls apart when push comes to shove.

So, how about we try looking on that side? [Prior to ‘I Am’]

Can This, that Sees all of this, itself be Seen?

Like Guruji’s [Sri Mooji’s] favorite question ‘Can the Perceiver be perceived?’

[Silence]

This brings you to a deeper Knowing which is not conceptual, that is not perceptual.

What are you Seeing there?

Like Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said ‘What is the point of knowing anything if I don’t know myself?’ Then he said ‘Once I know myself, then I know everything.’ So, he is encouraging you, he’s imploring you, to look deeper at Your own Self rather than trying to find something in objects or in concepts.

Who is at the center of all of this?

That’s why I say that everything that comes after ‘I Am’ is a story, a lie. Why? Because we are not even sure what this ‘I Am’ is or who I am or who this ‘I’ is.

It’s like saying (in India you could say) ‘Oh, I have a shop on Mahatma Gandhi road.’ But the thing is that you have a Mahatma Gandhi road in every city. We don’t really know where. You will say ‘Mahatma Gandhi road. Where?’  Like ‘This Mahatma Gandhi road, I can’t tell you where.’ [Chuckles] This is the thing with everything that you put after ‘I Am.’ Who is it related to? Who does it belong to? ‘I am this or I am that.’ ‘I am honest’ for example, is very popular. ‘I am honest.’ So, we feel like ‘Okay, I know what honesty is so I am able to say I am honest.’ But do we really know what ‘I’ is? [Chuckles] Then are we being honest when we say ‘I am honest’? [Laughter] Because we don’t know; most of the sentence we don’t know. ‘I am’ we don’t know. ‘Honest’ is just a concept we have but that we actually don’t know.

So, what’s happening today is like a disintegration of all our notions about what we know …, and also an invitation to check deeper into whether any true knowing is possible at all; whether all of this is rubbish. [Speaks as if someone else is speaking these words]: ‘So, Ananta, then what you’re saying is that all that we know mentally is rubbish; everything I think is rubbish, everything I think I know perceptually is rubbish, everything I know through memory is rubbish, anything that I can imagine is rubbish. So, then what? Is this like one pointless thing?’

‘Find YourSelf’ all the Sages have said. ‘Know ThySelf’ (with a capital ‘K’). ‘Know Thyself.’ Even Papaji [Sri Poonja] …, what did we say that he said the other day? He said ‘The only way to escape death is to Know ThySelf Now.’ It’s very literal. Everything else you can know is going to die. All our ideas are going to die, this body is going to die, all the experiences of this world that you have are going to die. But can you come to a Knowing of YourSelf which is beyond death, beyond changing? This ‘beyond changing’ is beautiful because it must be Here Now. [Chuckles] The Unchanging cannot come and go. So, how to find That which is beyond changing? Here. Now. ‘Know ThySelf Now.’

[Chuckles] I don’t mind that we are taking few of these words of the Masters because we get so used to hearing them and we feel like we understand them. But I don’t mind looking at them slowly and just deconstructing them a bit so that we really use it as an invitation to look.

Everything is going to die. What about yourself? It’s good that it comes from a Sage, Papaji, because you know he’s not lying. [Chuckles] You know that it’s coming from a credible source. So, now you are stuck in this ‘I don’t know.’ This reference is good because it takes away from this arrogance of knowing something. There is only one trick to avoid death, and that is to ‘Know ThySelf Now.’ Now. Now. This is a very good. All the clues, all the pointers are there. Tell me where you are stuck (if you are stuck).

For all those who have come to Satsang, if it’s still about the ‘me, me, me’ then I have to say that is no longer a way to live your life. Just like you picked up this jacket of ‘me’ and then you felt like you must make it better and better and you’ve been collecting rocks in your pocket. ‘But I will make it. I will make it one day.’ Like that. [Chuckles] The Master says ‘Take off this ‘me’. Live as God. God is Here as Your holy Presence. You don’t need any of this; this so-called treasure that you feel you’ve been collecting. Just take off this burden.’ And initially you feel like ‘No. But this is my treasure. I’ve been collecting all of this; all my experiences, all my memories, all my great ideas about myself, all my conceptual insights which I think I know.’ Take it all off. ‘Okay, okay. You are the Master, I have to follow you. But this one rock, can I keep it on my head and go?’ No, no, not that rock. It’s not a treasure. It’s not giving you any peace.

So, the way to live is to Now drop all of these conditions. See who is Here for Real. Who is Here for Real and not just a passing coming-and-going? Who is Here for Real? What is That one’s name? Because the passing one, where is it going to go to? What is the end; what is the end game?

Suppose you collected the best ideas. You compute; you found a great equation. You found the next theory of relativity. You computed it. You have the best concept. You’ve even written it down. Now, what is going to happen to all of these ideas? Will you carry them with you after death? So, then, the Sages have set the bar really high. When they say ‘Real’ they don’t mess around. [Laughs] When they say ‘Real’ they don’t mess around, but they are saying ‘That which does not come and go. It is the Unchanging. That is the Real.’

Now, one thing we can say is that there is nothing ‘Real.’ But even to say that, what position do You have to be at? Everything is coming and going. What do You have to Be to See that everything is coming and going?

So, these spectacles, [Moves them in front of himself] they are coming and going; now they’re gone. [Hides them] [Chuckles] Then something else is coming and going. Then for something that itself is coming and going, you can make a valid report saying that ‘Everything is coming and going.’ It itself would have gone …, or it is seen that ‘Some things came and went in front of me but ultimately, I am also a coming-and-going.’ But what is, then, steady?

A simpler example is that you say that ‘This wall is so unpredictable because every day when I see it, it’s a different colour. One day its red. One day its green. One day its blue. So, all these colours are coming and going.’ So, to say that all this is coming and going; can you, as red, say everything is coming and going? Can you, as green, say everything is coming and going? All colours are coming and going. You cannot, because you yourself have gone. You’re not there now to see what else is coming.

So, to report that everything is coming and going, what must be That which is the witness of it? What perceives the change in everything?

‘What is Real’ means that which Itself is the Unchanging and is not a made-up idea. So, I mean that we’re really not fooling around or otherwise you can create an idea and say ‘Oh, the soul, the Self, God, does not come and go.’ But the Sages have said ‘No, not just an idea you have. It must be your insight. It must be your intuitive insight or a deeper insight which you can really testify to; not just a concept you heard from somewhere, not just a belief you have.’

Now, if these two filters are applied:

That which is Unchanging

and

that which is your direct insight,

then what is left now?

What is left?

Can we say ‘The waking state, dream state, sleep state, fourth state.’ Can we say ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’? Can we say ‘Here or there’? These two filters might seem like they are very simple: ‘I just have to find something which is unchanging and it has to be my insight’ but then, when you look, what happens?  To find the Unchanging, where did you have to look, firstly?

Q: Inside.

A: Inside. But that inside…, is inside what? That inside; what is it inside of?

You didn’t look inside the body like a surgeon. The surgeon looks inside the body. He takes the scalpel (or whatever they take) and opens the body. ‘This is inside the body.’ The surgeon looks inside the body.

When you look inside, where are you looking?

Where is that ‘inside’?

Your answer is right, but this ‘inside’ is what?

One attitude tip I would give you is to start to love the ‘I don’t know.’ Because if you hate the ‘I don’t know’ you will still go back to some mental conclusion or you will get frustrated or will get irritated. When you start to love the ‘I don’t know’ it’s like ‘I don’t know. I go inside, I just don’t know what this inside is. [Laughs] I don’t know what this inside is. I don’t have to be spiritual to go inside; a baby can go inside, children can go inside, an old man can go inside because inside is always Here. And it’s Here for everyone, but I don’t know what it is.’ [Smiles]

So, start to like this ‘I don’t know.’ Or at least don’t hate it. [Chuckles] Because if you start hating it then you are in for quite a ride; a lot of irritation, frustration and anger will come.

So, if we don’t know something as fundamental as this, it is actually good news because what is collapsing is the idea that ‘I do know.’ [Smiles] To have a label for something (mostly; at least on the spiritual path) is a great disservice to yourself. Many times, we just put a label on it and say ‘That’s what it is.’ This takes us away from the true understanding of the nature of our Reality and gives us a photocopy version.

Now, how many hate the ‘I don’t know’?

You won’t admit it. [Laughs] Later, you’ll be irritated. ‘What does he talk about in Satsang?’ [Chuckles] Even something as basic as that, as ‘What is inside and outside?’ I have been taking these very basic things like up and down and saying ‘In relation to what?’ You say ‘Oh, this is up and this is down’ but then you are setting a position for yourself. Where are you? When we say something is up or something is left or something is right then you are saying that you are an object contained in this body. Nobody has ever found it, but still we like to believe it at least, because it gives us something that we know. This is the problem with knowing. Just because it is a prevalent belief doesn’t make it true. There was a time when everybody in this world used to think that the world is flat.

Just because everybody feels like they are the body doesn’t make it true. You will be astounded at how much you don’t know. [Smiles] I live in this wonder. I don’t know anything. That’s what I was saying about Facebook that day, that I log into Facebook and see ‘Wow, everybody claims to know so much! They seem to know what is right and what is wrong and what is this and what is that.’ I just look at it like ‘What is going on?’ [Chuckles]

So, in the same way (not just about space but also about time) we don’t know really what happened in the past. Our memories are so unreliable; if there was a past in the first place. Like often I say that we don’t start a dream with a sense of amnesia. You start a dream and you recognize the people, you move with them, interact with them. So, presumably there is memory functioning completely fine even there. Nobody can conclusively say that ‘What I remember from five minutes ago’ was true anyway. In any case, if we ask all of you ‘What did he say five minutes ago?’ some will say ‘He was talking about this’ then somebody else will say ‘No, he was talking about that’ … ‘But he said this’ … ‘He said that.’ There is no reliable evidence. [Smiles]

I am going to say something even crazier, okay? [Chuckles] If, in this life, it seemed like the first moment of experience is that where the day starts with you feeling really sleepy, about to get into bed, then evening comes, then afternoon, then morning, …, where everything moves backwards from there. If this was like the content of your memory and what was being shown to you every day, it would seem completely normal.

So, like that; anything about this apparent-realm we don’t really know. But we have presumed so much that ‘This is how it is.’ And it is a defense mechanism. This make-believe knowing is nothing but a defense mechanism. Because for the limited idea about ourself, with this amount of chaos …, if we didn’t know anything, it seems like it is too much; too much of sensational perceptions. So, we have to deal it in a way that I can say ‘Okay, I know what is happening here. I know what is going on.’ But we don’t really.

At no level of appearance do we know. In the sense where I mean that even at an emotional level we might say ‘This is grief, this is joy, this is bliss’ but we have never experienced the same thing twice. You might not even know this yet but as you start to look, you will start to see the colors. You will start to see the spectrum is so broad. That which you are putting into a big box called ‘grief’ has got so much qualitatively within. That which you are putting in this big box called ‘happiness’ has got so much that is contained within. So, it’s like we are living this many-dimensional life through what the mind is interpreting for us but actually Your Reality is beyond all these three, four dimensions.

So, we don’t know …, when we think we know something about what is Truth or what is false.

A: What would you like to speak about?

[Someone in sangha]: Seva.

A: Seva is very beautiful. [Smiles] I remember many, many, years ago, I was a part of a very large Sangha with a different Master. It was twenty years ago. [Smiles] This young kid joined this big Sangha and he was doing the advanced course. As part of the advanced course then, I was living in a big ashram and everybody had to do some seva. And you know the seva I got? The first time I really did seva in my life and I got the seva which is called ‘garbage seva.’ [Smiles] So, I got this garbage seva and as it happened, they were trying an experiment. They wanted to separate recyclable and non-recyclable. But they hadn’t yet gotten multiple bins and things like that. So, what would happen is that they would have the morning meditations (very peaceful, very nice) and after that, seva time. [Smiles] The job was to walk around this huge ashram, go to all the bins and to separate. [Recyclable and non-recyclable] They didn’t have the concept of gloves or anything; just separate it by hand, that which I felt was recyclable and that which was not recyclable. So, like that.

First, initially, there was a lot of irritation and frustration, anger. ‘What are we doing? Should I just leave it and go?’ These kinds of things were happening and there was a lot of burning. But I kept doing this. And in the heat, you are carrying this garbage so you are starting to smell bad. Right? So, all the triggers, all the buttons, got to be pressed here. Especially because this one has lead a pretty comfortable life; pretty cushy in terms of not having to do much housework and things like that. [Smiles] So, this was the first seva that I got. And you know, the Satguru has a great sense of humor; the Master already knows which buttons to press. So, this was getting pressed really hard. [Chuckles]

This is my first experience of seva. After few days, I realized that so many of my emotions, so many ideas (that we cannot touch this, we cannot do this, we cannot walk with garbage and you cannot dig into it) …, all these started to fall away and it was fine. By the third or fourth day, it was just fine. It was not a big deal. It was just that I have to quickly finish it off, have a quick shower and come to the next session. So, that was the only thing. The rest of it (to separate the garbage and do all of this) was just fine. But the lesson was ‘What was I considering not fine before that?’ And then having gone through that, you see that it is fine. It is just our ideas which seem to create these problems.

I know that there are many of you here who are doing some seva also, with transcripts and quotes. [etc.] And because we don’t have an ashram, there’s not so much physical seva to do. But seva is like: these videos, making some highlights, typing some transcripts. And I know that even in this, a lot of buttons in the last four/five years have been pressed; there are a lot of things which can come up in seva. And some were starting new and already it’s starting to burn something. It’s very nice. [Smiles]

Seva is very, very strong Satsang; very potent Satsang. The other reason why it is strong Satsang it is because everybody is a boss. I mean, the Master is the boss but after that everybody is the boss. [Smiles] So, there is nobody who is going to give you a raise or who can fire you. These things don’t happen, especially in a small sangha like this; there is no hierarchy. So, you can just feel like ‘Why should I listen to this one? I might know better.’ Nobody calls the shots, so it’s every man, woman, to herself, to himself. It can be chaotic in that way and this is another way that buttons can be pressed. Because at least at work, you have a set system and you can hate your boss but then, beyond that, there is not much else to do. You know you can hate your boss (like everybody at work). [Chuckles] But here, there is no boss and yet some have their way getting things done in a certain way. Some have victim thoughts, so they cannot speak up; all this potential for, again, buttons to get pushed.

So, it is proper, proper Satsang. You know? I speak of ‘the rubber hitting the road.’ Many times, seva can be a big, big ‘rubber hitting the road.’ And then our notion-less-ness, position-less-ness …, all of this gets tested.

Actually, for seva, it is never really for an outcome itself. If nothing productive came out of it, just the seva by itself will be a very, very useful sadhana. It will be a very, very useful Satsang. Because it is very easy to be enlightened in a cave. You don’t have to deal with other’s issues and other’s problems. Once you get used to the lifestyle and the lack of things in a cave, it can be quite peaceful. But it is only in a Sangha …, and there is no real hierarchy and you have to face all that seeming-malicious intent and politics and all of these things (which are completely possible in a Sangha). Then it can feel like a very, very strong (very, very strong) Satsang.

But the devotion in our hearts, the feeling in our heart that ‘It pleases my Master. I want to be in service to my Master’ …, leading to devotion like ‘You have put me in this situation? You must be having a good laugh!’ [Chuckles] Not maliciously; but you know sometimes parents do throw their kids in the deep end so that they can learn fast and learn well. [Smile] And also a good laugh because he knows that ‘Everything is fine, everything is always taken care of.’

It’s very, very beautiful. Here we try to keep it very much like Satsang. Because what is the seva for? The ones who are doing transcripts many times come back with the report which says ‘Wow, Ananta, I didn’t even hear. I was there in that Satsang, but I didn’t hear anything that you said. When I do the transcript, I realize that I didn’t know you were speaking of all this. This is what he answered; every question …, but I didn’t hear.’ So, transcripts are very good because you really immerse yourself in the words of the Master. While hearing, it gives you a good opportunity to hear things at your pace. Because this one here [Ananta] speaks a little fast sometimes so it can seem like I make a lot of points very quickly. It can just feel like, many times, it’s difficult to keep up. So, when you are doing your transcripts you can pause and just immerse yourself in that.

That is what I meant that even if the transcript never came out, if no book ever came out, even that is completely fine because in doing the transcripts you have immersed yourself so much in Satsang that you see it in a fresh light, you get a fresh insight into things which you might not have heard or considered when you are attending live. Same for highlights or videos. You go through that portion of your life, of ‘What is he saying?’

One of the Sangha members the other day was doing a transcript. And as she was doing the transcript for the first time, she was like ‘Wow, I did not realize what you are saying. Do you realize how you speak?’ she told me. And I looked at it with her. She said ‘Many times, you just start saying something and it doesn’t feel like anybody knows where this is going. But somehow it goes to somewhere. The sentences seem to complete themselves. It seems to be pointing to something.’ So, when you’re doing transcripts, it can feel like that; that many, many sentences start off from one place and then they meander somewhere else and then they come back to somewhere else. But if you are doing the transcript, you will see that this seems to flow with an intelligence which is beyond our usual mental sort of conceptual knowledge.

So, this is very good. Also, this new seva is to share these beautiful pointings. What is the pointing actually? The pointings which actually we want to point …, what is it? All that which takes us beyond our ‘me, me, me’ …, beyond our individualistic sense of existence to a greater reality; to that which is beyond the ‘me.’ That is a pointing. So, if it is pointing to something which is talking about your universality, your unlimited-ness, that Reality which is beyond that which comes and goes (or even just a higher perspective than just that constant ‘me’ mantra) this for me is a beautiful pointing.

So, something here wanted to be more and more in service to this. Because it doesn’t have to be (all our seva doesn’t have to be) Ananta, Ananta, all the time. Decent words, decent expressions of what is being shared here …, there are so many beautiful voices which have been sharing for generations, for thousands of years. Their bodies might have gone, but their voice remains, in a sense, their pointing remains. So, I felt like having a small project like that where you could share the words of Sages across the centuries, across the traditions, across religions.

And the second part was that all of us have to just log onto any of these social media platforms and you see that everyone is like ‘I am the best, my tradition is the strongest, my culture and my religion is the only one, is the true religion and my truth is the only truth.’ Then all these divisive kinds of things happen. That is the disadvantage of everyone having a soapbox to stand on. [Smiles] Everyone can have a soapbox where they can go and stand and share. And the thing is that everybody’s opinion seems like it is right to them. So, whatever opinions we have seem like they are right. Obviously, they are going to share those. [Smiles] So, the thing is that too many of these divisive opinions are being shared. And this, I feel, is just adding (at least here in India, it seems to be adding) a lot more antagonism, a lot more friction between religions, communities, traditions; all of these things. So, I felt like ‘Let’s have (in writing also) some things where all of these writings from various cultures and traditions can be shared, without worrying about who is speaking them or which religion they belong to.’

So, this one is a nice project, I feel also. And the best part even about this one is that if no post ever comes up, at least we dug into these pointings which point us beyond our ego, point us beyond our individuality, to something that is greater.

So, these are the lines of seva that we have. And we are lucky, in the sense that this Sangha is small so our seva is very immersive in this way.

But the main thing in seva, of course, is keep your eyes at the Master’s feet. Keep your head at the Master’s feet and you will be fine. If seva becomes mainly ‘My seva’ or ‘What I am doing, what I have produced’ then that is no longer seva. Seva means ‘self-less’ (or we should call it ‘ego-less’) …, self-less service or ego-less service is what seva means. But if it also becomes about ‘me, me, me’ and ‘What I am doing’ and ‘How much I have helped’ then …,

I remember one man who came to Guruji’s [Sri Mooji’s] Satsang and he said ‘I have done this. I have taken care of so much, and I have done all of this. What are all of you doing? You are just sitting around and inquiring. But I have made so much of a difference in this world.’ [Smiles] (This kind of thing.) Then Guruji says ‘So, then what was God doing before you were born?’ Do you remember this? [Chuckles]

So, if it becomes about ‘me, me, me’ and ‘what I have done’ and ‘how much I have helped the world’ then that is no longer seva.

Q: You used to say, if you put a piece of ice into a glass of water, right at the edge of the ice cube there is a point where it is neither ice nor water at the same time. Is there some kind of point where physical, measurable space meets non-spatial space? Or is it that actually that they are the same, like in the same way as Being and pure Awareness?

A: You cannot put it into physical terms again. The sense is that it is so empty of these attributes that you cannot say it like this. The point would mean a point in space. So, it cannot be. It’s just like, what is the relationship of the snake with the rope? At which point do they meet or not?

Strangely the rope Itself has given Itself the capacity for it to seem like there is a snake. So, at which point can we say that there is an overlap between them?

Q: It’s just a ‘seeming’.

A: It’s a ‘seeming.’ Exactly.

Q: How can we verify that in our experience that it’s just a ‘seeming’?

A: This is what is being verified; the sense that that which is real seems to be that which is durable …, that ‘Okay, all of this happens but I remain untouched by it.’ If I remain unaffected by something then it seems more and more dreamlike as it goes on.  Then when we come to the waking state, what do we say about the dream? ‘Ah, it seemed like there was this world; there was a house in it, I was living in that house.’ It ‘seemed’ like. What is ‘seeming’ in it?  Something which is not real can ‘seem’ to present itself as reality.

So, then this experience becomes more and more dreamlike, because You See that You are not contained in it in any way. Then you might start using these terms (which you don’t have to) …, you might not say ‘It’s a seeming’ or you might say ‘It’s a play.’ You might say ‘It is I, tasting MySelf in a phenomenal sort of way.’

So, these explanations are not really so important. It can just feel like ‘How do you describe the dream last night?’ You say ‘It seemed like I was in this place and this happened.’

Q: So, when we say, there is a space-less space or a non-spatial space, could we also say it is a potential or capacity, because the mind often imagines spatial space and non-spatial space.

A: Yes, like a big space. [Chuckling] It has no attribute like that. But actually, there is no word we can truly use. We can say potential, of course. Then even this potential can have an energetic sort of …, like a holding up of energy [Opens his hand] which is then available for it to be used.

But this potential is so strange that the manifest also comes. So, the seeming potential energy does get manifested but That remains just the same. There is no change.

So, if we were to use these physics terms like potential energy or kinetic energy, then you would say ‘Okay, the potential got used up and it transformed into this sort of energy.’ Here we cannot say that because that’s why that mantra from the Vedas: ‘Om Purna Midam, Purna Midam’ states that ‘From Wholeness, wholeness comes and yet the Wholeness remains untouched.’ So, this is unique and we cannot slot it in any phenomenal sort of way. That is why it is so strange.

Q: So, obviously there is a contemplation of that time and space. If we don’t hold onto any notions then at a certain point of time …, because you’re saying that basically the best and the fastest and easiest way to contemplate what’s not real is ‘What snake-ness does the rope have?’ So, the easiest way to contemplate that is to discover that it’s a rope.

A: Yes.

Q: Because then you see it was never a snake. Then the question ‘Where does the snake begin’ is void. So, if we stay with notion-less-ness, at some point this distinction between space and space-less space [shows that] space-less space is the reality.

A: This is very good what he’s saying. In our notion-less-ness; I often say that the Truth is completely apparent to us. It’s just that Now, all of this is completely apparent to you but what has happened is that the mind has not yet acclimatized. So, what happens is that we might not yet have the vocabulary or the conceptual presentation of what is happening, so it can just feel like … [wordless silence]

If you could just speak from what you See (and the speaking is not the important part, anyway) you would just find that ‘I Am’ (You could say) ‘and I’m aware of This.’

So, that which we’ve been searching for or trying to get to, the Absolute, is completely apparent to you in this notion-less-ness. But the mind is not satisfied with this kind of ending to the movie. It will say ‘Seeking has been going on. The movie is still here.’ You see? Like sometimes I used to say that if your autobiography was being written and you’re coming to a beautiful point, and then one day nothing happened and the pen stopped writing, would you be okay? To the mind, it is unsatisfactory because you want a … [Opening his hands wide] At some level we hate those movies which end abruptly. [Chuckling] So, it [mind] wants to then have a say, to beat the bad guy; all of it needs to happen for it.

So, in a way, we can call it ‘the giving up of the mind’ at some level …, and then moving to relying on this other device, which is our intuitive voice, which is available to share from this higher perspective, higher view.

[Reading from chat]: “Father it has been feeling that freedom is so close; just beyond this wall of distracting thoughts that seem to fill my awareness and block my path and my field of vision. I see this as the larger space of awareness but I felt to expose it and offer it at your feet, in the heart.”

A: [Closed eyes] Freedom is close …, but even that is not close enough. [Smiles]

What is closer than close?

What needs no path?

Not a step, no journey?

What is that …, which doesn’t need even a thought to be stirred?

No feeling even of peace, joy, love has to arise.

Nothing has to happen.

What is that?

This Presence which you are tasting Now is ever-free.

But It has given Itself the ability to wear these masks.

[Meditative Silence]

So, before we decide whether it’s close or not, we must first clarify our starting point. And if at the starting point itself, you find that you are free [Chuckles] …, then? No journey left. But then even that ‘no journey’ or ‘no seeking’ can become a concept.

How many of you feel that even after coming to Satsang (and its fine, completely fine like that) that you have not tasted the Presence which is spoken of? (You can say this Being or Consciousness or Atma.) I just want to know for some feedback: Do you feel that ‘this sense is apparent’ or ‘it’s a bit doggy’ or ‘actually no idea.’ What would you say?

Apparent?  How many? Please raise your hand.

Q:  Here it was just feeling like while I was walking, for no reason, I was just feeling silence. I just don’t know if it’s my mind.

A: Silence cannot be mind. So, it’s not mind.

Q: You can reach that state any time? Is it real?

A: Before you can reach that state, is it not already Here? These states will come and go.

Q: Is it like I remember this state?

A: All states will come and go. Everything became silent as you were walking and just something [Makes a gesture of dropping everything] became silent. But You were still there. That which Saw that something was noisy, noisy …, and then something became silent. So, You saw that, without the noise, Your Being was just there. Now the same Being is Here. The same Existence is Here.

Sometimes then the noise can seem to come back …, but nothing really happened to That.

What can happen in these spiritual experiences of awakening is that, after they happen, it can feel like ‘I must hold onto this’ or after they are gone we feel like ‘Oh that should not have gone. That is freedom! Once I get to that permanently, then I will be free.’ But it is not that.

It is showing you that all these states can change, but you remain what You Are. Freedom is not the holding onto a particular state; freedom is the allowing of all the states to come and go.

As everything fell away, You were there. And as things come back, You were still there. Is that You really affected by the coming and going of this? It was only our conclusions which are affected. ‘Oh, that was it. I should have that only.’ You see? Like that.

So, freedom means to allow all these states to come and go.

Because the trouble (again, I am saying trouble) with spiritual experiences is that the mind can latch on to those and say ‘That! That must be …, then you are free’. But it is not that. Everything can be, but You are free.

Then sometimes, when we have these notions that ‘It must be that’ …, there may be a fresher, deeper experience which was waiting to come [Smiles] but we are saying ‘No, no, I want only that.’

So, freedom is a big allowing. And as you are open, you will see that all these beautiful insights will come. But we will not get attached even to these.

[Reading from Chat]: “Father I only say all this because after so long here with you and Guruji [Sri Mooji] it still wants to play as pretense, and it is experienced as you say as this nihilism. Daily the thoughts are like this and it is only being here and trusting you more that I find some reason to stay in this play …, and the girls. [Her daughters] Otherwise, there is this feeling to quite willingly leave this play.”

Now, what does the nihilism say? That you can leave this play by killing yourself or suicide or somethings like that. What am I saying? You leave this play as ‘person’ and play as God …, (which has always been Your true position, anyway). Because nobody, no nihilist, can tell you that the ending of this body will be the end of this play. So, as bad as this play might seem at the current time, who knows? [Chuckles] You don’t want to go from the frying pan into the fire.

So, we snap out of this play; not in the way that this nihilistic mind is telling you, but in the sense of Be Here with me Now.

Now, this trust that you speak of is very good because you know then that I am not just making up these fancy words. This is what was tasted here, is tasted here. It is possible to snap out of this identity.

And if I do that ‘Now. Now. Now.’ thing with you now, you will see that there is nothing to fret about. It’s very beautiful like this. The other day, someone who has not been in touch with me for a long time, they got in touch and they said ‘Father, just explain it to me very simply because I am tired of this life and I don’t know what to do. I have no peace. So, just like a little child, you explain it to me very simply.’ And I just said to them that ‘When you look within, what do you find? Who is here?’ And in that moment, something became clear and they said ‘This is the Divine Presence which has always been Here.’

Simpler than snapping your finger. What is it that takes no time? And I know that you know all of this; you’ve heard of this from me before. But the thing is, every moment is auspicious to dip in again. If we keep saying ‘Yeah, I know all of this. He’s said it before.’ …, (you know, this kind of thing) then we again can activate this pretense more and more.

But just, like Now …, What’s your trouble?

If, in your original nature which is available to you every moment, all of this (whatever you might have believed for the last ten thousand lives) is not there, then you are tasting this Divine Presence which I am speaking of.

As who? As the Divine Itself.

[Reading from chat]: “So, Father it is Consciousness that is agreeing to the existence of what these energies (thoughts) are saying that it is; agreeing that it is what the thoughts say it is?”

Yes. Only Consciousness. Consciousness Itself agreeing to its own limitation and playing in that way. That is the only one who could agree or not agree. That is why Guruji [Sri Mooji] might say ‘Satsang is rehab for God, by God’. [Chuckles] So, it is Consciousness Itself that agrees to play with its limitation. (Of course, as it is playing, it doesn’t seem like a play.) Nobody else is naturally Here. There is not a ‘God’ and ‘me’ both together here, right now. In fact, it is never ‘God’ and ‘me.’ But when we buy into these notions, when we agree to what the mind is saying, then it can feel like, it can seem like there is a ‘me’ which is separate from the rest, which is separate from God or Consciousness (whatever term we use).

And that’s why Bhagavan’s [Sri Ramana Maharshi’s] suggestion to inquire ‘Who am I?’ cuts through all of this. And we find that the landing place for all our grievances, our irritations, all our ideas, plans, all our arrogance; there is no such landing place. So, it attacks this idea at the root.  When we look for ‘Who am I?’ then we say, just Consciousness is Here. Now, what does this Consciousness actually want? Your Being; what does it inherently want or not want? It doesn’t have anything personal about it.

[Reading from chat]: “So, Consciousness has a choice to play or not?”

Yes. The only will there is, is the will of Consciousness. If there is such a thing as will, it belongs to the only existent Being that is Here and that is Consciousness. That is why we can say ‘Everything is the Guru’s grace; everything is grace of God or Consciousness’ (whatever term we use).  The prayer of surrender is: ‘You are the doer and You are the experiencer’ …, basically implying that ‘You are the only existent Being.’ There is nobody else.

[Reading from chat]: “Say again.”

So, you say ‘Does Consciousness has a choice to play or not?’ and I was saying that if there is such a thing as will, it belongs to this Being, this Consciousness, alone. So, all is the will of Consciousness.

This will (we can say ‘choice’) …, if it is Consciousness’s will that it’s going to play in a limited way, if it’s going to give assent to these thoughts, it will. Or it is Consciousness’s play, the projector’s so-called choice, what it is going to project on the screen. Even this play of reminding Itself of its own truth is just the will of Consciousness. The play to get deluded and to come out of delusion is both the will of Consciousness Itself.

Now, sometimes when we hear this, we can feel like ‘Okay, then it has nothing to do with me. It is just for Consciousness to do. What does it have to do with me?’ Then again, we could be making a distinction between Consciousness and me.

I just want to say finally, there is only one seeming-problem. And that seeming-problem is that God’s Presence has been mistaken to be the presence of an individual.

When you say ‘I exist’ it can seem like you are speaking of the existence of some person or some individual, but that ego just doesn’t exist.

When you truly taste Your Presence, tell me if you find a person there.

This is what I was actually asking earlier: When you say Presence or Your Being, does it seem apparent or does it seem completely unclear? As you taste Your Presence now, did you find somebody who has likes and dislikes; a plan? Is that inherently present in the Presence?

Who is this one?

Whose Presence is this?

Even before you can say ‘I am sitting’ …, there is ‘I Am.’

Whose ‘I-Am-ness’ is this?

Is there a person sitting there waiting to get to God?

Or these are just ideas?

What do you find when you look?

Did you find Santa Claus? [Chuckles]

Who did you find when you looked?

So, this is the problem of the Master. I want to give freedom to somebody. But I never find that one to give freedom to. Because everyone I meet is free. [Smiles] Who should I give it to? Show me the one that is bound. I want to give this gift of freedom to someone. Show me the one that is bound and I’ll give it. Present that one. Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] would say ‘Let that one present itself in the witness box.’

[Reading from chat]: “Father, it appears that pain takes me closer to truth and pleasure takes me further away. How to deal with desire for pleasure, without taking a position of renunciation?”

Now, what I am going to say might sound very difficult. But actually, it is the simplest. Don’t take any position with regard to anything. Even drop these conclusions that ‘Pain takes me closer to truth, pleasure takes me further away.’ Nobody actually knows these things. And who are we talking about anyway? So, see if it is possible for few minutes, for few seconds, to live a label-less existence; like the simple not-knowing of anything. The beautiful ‘I don’t know.’

Don’t try to solve these problems. Just step back. Because the mind will give you lots of problems which have no solutions. Beings have been trying to solve these problems for thousands and thousands of years. But when you step back, you will See: What problem? Who does it belong to? [Smiles]

That is why these books like ‘Yoga Vasistha’ sometimes are very good. Because Vasistha will say that ‘The seventh son of the woman who had no children. That seventh son, he had a dream in which he was a king. And in that kingdom, he had these problems.’ It can sound like a very strange story. [Chuckles] But this is our life. The non-existent one has lots of problems to deal with. How to solve them?

You know what? One problem I have also seen with many who come to Satsang is that they would not know what to do if they had no problem. They are just like ‘The basis of my life is problems. I have to have something to solve them.’ We have this. Some of us are like these ‘solvers.’ The main identity is the ‘solver.’ We just feel like ‘If I have no problem to solve then what is the point?’ [Smiles]

Q: Boredom.

Yeah. So, then how do we solve the boredom problem? You know? This kind of thing. Everything becomes like that.

But the life of the Sage is not like that. That is why it is so beautiful to have living Masters who will show you that life will continue, you know? Nothing has to stop in the way of worldly appearance. And it is completely possible to have a problem-less life.

As, more and more, we come to our notionless existence, we find that we do not need to make any distinctions, even between ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ …, even between ‘phenomenal’ and ‘non-phenomenal’ …, between any quality. Nothing causes a real separation.

So, Papaji [Sri Poonja] said ‘Nothing has ever happened’ that no real distinction has ever come in to play.

You are the same one who was present in your deep sleep. You are the same one who was present in your deep sleep. The appearance of your manifest aspect was not added to you. It is just a play of YourSelf, tasting yourself in a manifest way.

So, what can happen here in this play, in this phenomenal appearance? It can’t hurt you, in reality, unless you consider yourself to be something first. And you cannot do that, again, without the ‘mind’ [Smile] without a notional boundary which divides, which makes a distinction. ‘I am here’ and ‘you are there.’ But this is just a soup of sensations. [Smiles] And this entire soup of sensation, entire play of phenomenon is where?

Q: It is in space.

A: Where is the space which comes? (And in that space, all this comes.) Where is that space?

In which space this space born?

This is a non-spatial space.

We have to still say ‘space’ because it has the space for something to be born. Yet, it is not that type of space which can be measured. For the space of this room, I can say height, length, breadth. But this space of my Being, who can measure that?

That is why the Sages have said that maya, another definition of maya, is ‘That which can be measured.’

But You are beyond maya. You are the immeasurable One.

Just before I came into the Satsang hall, I got a question which was ‘If the mind doesn’t exist, then why do we speak of it so much?’ [Chuckles] ‘If the mind doesn’t exist then, basically, what is all this fuss about?’

Maybe we will look at it really slowly. We’ll look at it really slowly so that it can become a bit clearer. And if it’s not, then we can look again slowly. [Chuckles] So, let’s looks at what we mean by ‘mind’ firstly because the word ‘mind’ is not something special which inherently means something. We have defined it to mean something in particular, and in this itself, there is some confusion because of how the Sages have also used ‘mind’ traditionally. There is possibility of confusion in that. Like in India, we have the concept of ‘the Big Mind’ and ‘the small mind’.

Let’s slowly look at what we mean. In the deep sleep state or in dreamless sleep, there is no phenomenal experience whatsoever, isn’t it? That is clear for everyone, that there is no phenomena that we are experiencing when there is sleep. Then the waking state comes. When the waking state comes, what happens? What do we mean by ‘the waking state comes’? Firstly, what wakes up?

Q: I wake up.

A: ‘I wake up.’ So, this ‘I’ that wakes up is which one? The ‘I’ that wakes up is which one?

[Sangha says]: Awareness, Consciousness.

A: Awareness, he says. Consciousness, you say. We will come to that particular question of whether ‘It is Awareness.’ For now, let’s call it Consciousness. So, this Consciousness ‘I Am’ sense wakes up. Then what else wakes up?

[Sangha]: The whole world wakes up.

A: ‘Whole world wakes up.’ Whole world means?

[Sangha]: Perception.

A: Perceptions. What are the different types of perception? It can seem like visual perception, audio perception, smell, taste, touch (all these perceptions) and also that which we call inner perception. (We will go into that later.) [Chuckles] Inner perception means what? Imagination, memory, thoughts, feelings, emotions. It is all a bit too much because there’s so much. In our mental attempt to make sense of it, we use certain definitions. These body sensations also wake up when the waking state comes; these body perceptions are there.

So, we use some definitions to try and make some sense of what is appearing. Otherwise, it can seem like there is too much chaos to deal with; too much stimulus, too many sensations …, too much to try and fathom all of this. All of this is there dancing around. For the mind (or for our mental faculty, in some way) to make sense of this we need to have some definitions so that it can seem like we have understood what is going on.

So, first we will say ‘This set of sensations [Points to body] which seem so intimate in this way; body sensations, and the visual perceptions, at the center of which I seem to be. Let’s use a term for that. We will call it ‘the body.’ Nothing inherently in the body was saying ‘This is the body; I am the body.’ This is a label that we use and it is different in all languages. Then there is all of this. [Waves hand indicating in the room] If we presume that this is the body and this where I am, then everything outside of this is what we call ‘the world.’ Nothing inherently there was also saying ‘I am the world, I am the universe, I am this realm.’ These are all terms that we use.

Now, there is a particular set of sensations which are these thoughts, memories, imaginations. So, either we can just leave it at that (thoughts, memories, imaginations) and deal with that just like this or we can make another label which is ‘mind’ …, ‘this is the mind.’

The thing is that if we include imagination in that, then at some level, all of this is the imagination. ‘Image-ination.’ We create this imagery. Consciousness is projecting all of this. So, if we include imagination in the definition of the mind, then we come to the Sage’s definition of ‘the Big Mind.’ Because all of this is the imagination of Consciousness, just like a dream.

But if we use another definition, which is ‘the small mind,’ it is for this, which are these-seeming inner perception of thoughts, memories and imaginations. It is very fleeting; if we take this definition. Like Bhagavan’s [Sri Ramana Maharshi’s] definition that ‘mind is a bundle of thoughts.’ Then it has a very fleeting quality, isn’t it?

I was saying the other day ‘Instead of trying to get rid of the mind, try to hold onto it and tell me if you succeeded.’ The thought comes and it goes. So, when there is thought we call that ‘mind’ and when the thought is not there we call that ‘no-mind’. It’s a very fleeting quality. So, when it is there, we say it’s ‘mind’ and when it’s not there, there is ‘no-mind’.

In fact, I rarely ever say that ‘the mind does not exist’ and even if I do say it, I mean that the one that it is seeming to represent; that one does not exist.

So, who is this voice representing? The seeming-person. Let’s not even say the term ‘ego’ because the term ‘ego’ also has many, many different meanings. If you speak to people on the street and you say ‘You seem to have an ego’ they will be like ‘No, I am very nice and very humble.’ So, this can seem like ‘I am not egoist’. But if you say ‘You are a person?’ they will say ‘Of course I am person.’ So, the way we use the term ‘ego’ in Satsang is for this idea, this sense of belief in a separate entity called a person.

Now, you’ll notice that as these thoughts come they are presenting this limited persona, they are claiming the existence of this limited persona, which when we investigate for ourselves …, like when the mind says or if this thought says ‘There is a Santa Claus sitting at the end of this room’ we cannot just believe it because it is saying it. It says all kind of things. So, what is worthy to look for is whether there is really a Santa Claus sitting at the end of this room; and you find that it is not there. So, you can say ‘Okay, Santa Claus does not exist; at least in this room.’ [Smiles] So, in the same way, when you are looking at what the mind is saying about me …, when we look for this ‘me’ we find that this ‘me’ does not exist. The one that is limited does not exist.

So, when we are saying ‘the non-existence of this ego’ we are talking about that which the mind is claiming to represent; that who the mind is claiming to represent. That one does not exist. So, it is mostly like that.

Now, if we use a higher definition of what exists and what does not exist, if we go with Vedanta and the Sages, they say that ‘Only the Real exists.’ Okay, only the real exists. How to find that? ‘That which does not come and go is Real’. They have said ‘That which does not come and go is Real.’

So, if you apply that parameter, then what exists? By that definition, no phenomena ultimately exists. What can we say about that witness? That which witnesses the coming and going of phenomena, that is what we usually call Awareness. So, even the coming and going of the sense of Existence (My Being, Atma) is being witnessed by That which is the Absolute (or we’ll call it Brahman or the Self).

This is how the terminology can get confusing sometimes. And we use language to be able to point to certain elements of our experience but that doesn’t mean that inherently it exists in that way. So, the mind appears as an energetic construct which is called the thoughts and similar energies like imagination, memory. It seems to appear and disappear just like all other appearances do. So, I hope that clarifies a little bit.

Now, why do we always pick on the mind? (This is the next question.) Why is it that all these appearances come but we’re always saying ‘Oh, that is mind; that is mind leave it alone; don’t believe what it is saying.’ It’s because there is nothing else in this world of appearances, even in the waking state, which is conveying a limitation. There is nothing else inherently which is pointing to a limited ‘me.’ Everything else is completely operating in Oneness, Wholeness. (Even these are terms but you know what I mean.) But there is one voice which is convincing you that you are this limited entity. Just like saying that there is Santa Claus in this room. Have we seen this Santa Claus? And it is not just that it is convincing you that there is a Santa Claus in the room (it’s a harmless myth) …, it’s that with this limitation also comes suffering. Because then, if I am limited, then I can have a grievance against you, then I can have a desire for something, then I can have this doership (that I have to do or not do). What is suffering but all of these things; grievances, pride, arrogance, guilt …, all of these terms? That is another bigger term to define the whole box of them, which is called suffering.

So, it is not a harmless belief like ‘Oh, there might be something up there in the sky above.’ It’s okay; sometimes these kinds of beliefs can be there but they don’t really seem to harm us at all. But it is this belief in an individual existence which has become the premise for most of humanity. That’s why it can seem like (even the Buddha said ‘The world is suffering’) it can seem like that, that the world is suffering.

This is why we look at the mind and say ‘Is there another device which is convincing you that you are limited?’ Yesterday when we looked at this in the great detail, where he said that ‘The appearance of the body or the sensations of the body itself convinces me that I am a separate entity.’ We looked at that and we looked at the sensations of the body, the visual perceptions of the body, and we checked: Where are they being perceived? We saw that all of this is in the one space of My Existence; there is no separation there. Just like this space …, where is this space perceived? Even this space is perceived. This space, that contains all of these objects …, even this space is perceived.

What is that space which perceives this space? [Spreads hands to indicate physical room] Even this space is perceived. Where is this space in which this space is perceived?

Now, you cannot solve this. And even if you have the answer, you cannot rely on it. You cannot compute your way to this answer. You can just have an intuitive insight about this; you can look within intuitively: All of this is here, within the space of my Existence. Then it will become clear what Bhagavan meant when he said ‘All of this appears in the light of Consciousness, on the screen of your Consciousness. There is nothing apart from You’.

So, let all of these terms not be just very fanciful concepts that we picked up from the Sages. Let these become our true insight.

Now, as we are coming to this insight, this voice will come and it will say ‘But who is going to pay your bills? But what will you get as a result of this? But what about this? What about your emails? What about (something)?’ This voice will come, again proposing to you that you are a limited entity, that you were born and you will die. Proposing all of these limited notions about yourself to you, this voice will come. That’s why it is said in Satsang to ‘Look beyond the mind, look for yourself for what is true.’ Because this voice is designed to be this false narrative; the narrative which is trying to convince you that you are a character in this movie; not the screen, not the projector, not the witness but a character in the movie. But there is no actual, real evidence of this.

That’s why we seem to be always picking on the mind. [Laughs] Like yesterday also I was saying that sometimes I used to get this complaint ‘But the mind is also Consciousness. Why are you are always going after the mind?’ Everything is Consciousness, including the mind. But in the play of Consciousness, all opposites are present. So, there is an intuition which is pointing to your Truth …, but there also is the opposite pointer, which is called the mind.

[Speaker in sangha] = [S]

[S]: The ‘Is-ness’ does not need any quantification.

A: Yes.

[S]: It is non-quantified.

A: Yes.

[S]: And there is a tendency to glorify the Self, which cannot be touched.

A: Yes.

[S]: Even the finest words can’t touch it.

A: Exactly.

[S]: And this tendency to storify this content-less vast ocean of Being, of Self,

is an aberration of the ‘Mind.’

A: Yes.

[S]: It is totally you cannot express in expressible.

A: Yes.

[S]: It can just be…

A: Yes

[S]: Dive into to experience tasted without any expression.

A: Yes.

[S]: It Itself expresses everything.

A: Yes.

It is seen here as a screen which encompasses everything.

[S]: A: Yes.

Space manifests out of it, forms manifest out of it.

A: Yes.

[S]: But the mind sees form and space, which is just a manifestation out of it.

A: Yes.

[S]: And can be expressed, the ideas expression, we just sit there, as ItSelf and enjoy Itself .

A: Yes, yes.

[S]: It’s what we call the feet of the Guru.

A: Yes.

[S]: Ah …, and in that, there is a love, peace and endless devotion. All dies in that.

[Silence]

[S]: It is so loud in silence. Silence is so loud….

A: Yes.

[S]: You know that.

A: Very good. I am so happy that sometimes we receive a report which does not have a ‘but’ at the end. You know this is like ‘no but.’

[S]: The content is such small energy forms.

A: Yes.

[S]: So miniscule, but it is given such credence. It is so silly, isn’t it?

A: Yes.

[S]: That is why we call them ‘children.’

A: Yes.

[S]: Once who knows that, it’s like children which arises from them.

A: Yes.

[S]: Thought forms.

A: Ah…?

[S]: We are only thought form, isn’t it?

A: We are?

[S]: You know, that which manifests is only…

A: Yes.

[S]: But that’s not what we are.

[Laughing together with his tears]

[S]: Thank you so much.

A: You are welcome.

[S]: To be in your Presence is just…

[Silence]

[Reading from chat]: “Father, there is still a wish that I do something to earn some money to make this ‘me’ independent. When someone comments on not having money, there is sadness. It feels unfair to leave it on someone else and feel irresponsible for not contributing enough. What would you say about this? Are we to do nothing?”

Earn money, its fine. [Chuckles] Have I said to anyone ‘Don’t earn money’? Earn money, don’t earn money; either way I am fine. If you earn money, you are my child, if you don’t earn money, you are my child. It has nothing to do with this. So, I am not giving you a position in terms of activity; how you should be, or how you should not be. I am telling you that your inner attitude should be position-less, your inner attitude, your inner stance, should be open like space. Then you find that sometimes this body has a lot of activity going on (and sometimes, there is no activity going on) but inwardly you are open, spacious.

So non-doership does not mean this way or that way, in terms of activity. Now to not earn money is also doership. If you take the position that ‘I am spiritual, I won’t earn money’ that is also a doing. You are doing the ‘not earning money’ in the same way as you are doing the ‘going to work and earning money’. So, the idea is not about the activity. To see that you are not the doer or non-doer because both of those terms would apply to someone …, who doesn’t exist! To See that ‘I am much beyond just the activities of this one body or the inactivity of this one body’ …, that you are neither the doer or the non-doer. You have nothing to do with what the body is going to do in a mental way. (That’s why we were talking about decision making, doership, earlier).

So, suppose you decided to make a lot of money today and tomorrow there was no life energy; the body is just not moving? Then, of what use is that decision? And suppose today you decided that ‘I am going to be a Sadhu, I am going to give up everything’ and tomorrow, all this life energy is playing through you. You are creating Google ads and you are starting a business; you are doing all of this stuff. This is how the life force plays.

But when we presume some sort of individualistic control this way or that way then we get into trouble. This is a struggle that many of us go through when we come to Advaita also. We feel like the Master is saying non-doership, so ‘I must do the non-doing. I must sit on my bed and meditate’ …, or something like that. But that’s also a doing. This realm is a realm of activity; activity will happen. Even sitting down is also an activity. Are you doing the sitting down? [Chuckles] This is the thing; the idea that there is somebody here individually doing or not doing. That is what I am asking us to inquire into. You are neither the doer nor the non-doer.

You ended…., [Reading from chat]: ‘Are we to do nothing?’

I will end on a lighter note.  Nobody can ever show me this ‘do nothing’. Do nothing and show me. Do nothing. [looks around] Do nothing. You are looking. Do nothing. You are breathing. ‘Do nothing’. Who can do the ‘do nothing’? [Looks at someone]

Can you do the ‘do nothing’? Nobody can do it.

There is no such thing as ‘do nothing’. Because this waking state is a state of activities. There is always ‘doing’ happening in this state. But you are not doing it (or at least that which you consider yourself to be is not doing it).

So, even if I were to give you an answer in affirmative ‘Yes, you are to do nothing’ who can succeed in this instruction? [Chuckles] ‘Do nothing’ means ‘See that you are not the doer. See that you are not the non-doer also.’ Because you can ‘do’ the non-doing. Like you can take the position that ‘I am not to do; I am Sadhu Baba. I will just sit in the cave.’ But you are doing the sitting in the cave.

So, forget about it.

[Reading form chat]: “Father, is there no relation between thoughts and actions? Is thought, as a decision, not leading to action? Can the body act if you stop believing thought?”

This is very good contemplation. I am very happy to receive a question like this. Many, many, many (in fact, I will say that most) times the body is acting without believing thoughts. Like I see that I have to speak about this body. This body is speaking all these words now. It is acting. But I don’t see that this process is happening that ‘Okay, this is what I am going to say next. Better say this; don’t say that.’ It is just flowing spontaneously. Just in the same way that everything is being heard over there (seemingly) …, it is also being heard here. So, nobody. And your words are like that. I am not saying something special is happening here. It’s just that we see it differently. When you get into a conversation with someone, you might even decide ‘Okay, I better tell them this.’ But many times, you find that the words which come are something else.

I take this example of going to work because probably it happened here. [Smiles] ‘Tomorrow I’m just going to tell my boss to, you know, get lost.’ [Smiles] And you show up for work and your boss is in front of you. You had come with full stream: ‘I am going to tell him to get lost today.’ And the mouth opens and it is like ‘Sir, what work is needed to be done today?’ [Smiles] So, many times, it happens like this.

So, all three combinations are possible. Thought can come, no action might happen. Thought can come and that action might happen. Those times will lead us to this cause and effect, casualty, sort of relationship. And no thought might come and yet action might happen. So, in our life we see that all three things happen. But the mind latches on to this cause and effect, because without the story there is nothing to hang onto. That is why the great Sage Vasistha said ‘The bird flies. It lands on the branch of the coconut tree. The coconut falls. There is nothing to it.’ But the mind will say what? ‘Because the bird flew and landed on the branch therefore, the coconut must have fallen.’ But does anybody really know that? We cannot say.

Okay, let’s also presume that the first one is true, that there is a relation between thoughts and action. What is that relation? Who is the cognisor of thoughts and therefore, the decider of action? At best, if you come up with an answer, you will say ‘Consciousness.’ Then Consciousness itself created the thought. Consciousness itself created the action. We take it to be somebody individual.

That is why I say the answer to ‘Why?’ is Consciousness. It seemed like a strange answer initially; like how can the answer to ‘Why?’ be ‘Consciousness’? [Smiles] ‘Why does this happen to me?’ Okay, Consciousness. ‘Why does gravity work?’ Okay? Even for that, Consciousness might be a good answer. [Smiles] ‘Why is my girlfriend upset with me’? Consciousness. [Smiles] ‘Why can I never do anything which I decide to do?’ Consciousness. [Smiles] ‘Why is my life so bad?’ Consciousness. ‘Why is my life so good?’ Consciousness. ‘Why can I never follow up?’

If you feel so strongly related to this, then let’s look at this. If there was a strong relationship between thought and action, if everybody had a different plan for their life, was this in your plan ten years ago: coming to Satsang? [Smiles] I’m sure it was in nobody’s plan. And yet, you are here.

Why, in the Bible (I don’t know whether Guruji [Sri Mooji] said that it says this) …, why is it said that ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’? Because they said that (of course, they were talking about a complete different thing) but even there it is saying that this ‘thought, thought, thought’ and ‘intending to follow up on the thought’ is not enough. That means it cannot be directly correlated.

Guruji says ‘You are not the thinker of your thoughts and you are not the doer of your actions. Both are just appearances in Consciousness.’

What is the difference between a thought and an action? Both are just perceptions, sensations. Where are they coming from?

May I ask you something else? Do you know how to move a finger? You might say ‘Yes, I do. Here you go.’ [Moving his finger in the air] ‘But no; how do you do it? How do you fire a neuron? Do you know how the action happens?’

I was just saying the other day that a show on BBC said that many, many years ago they had done a study where they said that ‘Six seconds before even the action starts to happen, independent of whether the thought has come or not already, the nervous system is prepared to move the hand.’ It’s ground-breaking, in a way, this study.

So, there is a deeper intelligence which is working all of this. That’s why the examples are very good, like ‘The tree is not thinking of growing its next branch.’ If you look at the intelligence of this world, you will see such beautiful things. How do even newborn birds know where to fly in migration season? Are they deciding ‘Let me go west because a lake is there’? They don’t know. They are less than one year old. Everything in nature is telling us that everything is moving in this supremely intelligent way.

Your wholeness does not come and go because then it would not be whole. So, what convinces you, now, that you are limited? Before the thought comes, what convinces you? Before you make a conclusion, what convinces you that you are separate?

Q: This body itself makes me feel I’m separate.

A: The body makes you feel you are separate? So, you’re sitting here, Right Now. There are some sensations which we call the body. Are those sensations creating a separateness? Or are we labeling the sensation as separateness?

We can go very slowly at this. If you see through this, it will be very, very beautiful.

Is the appearance of some sensations, the appearance of some perceptions, in itself, automatically creating separateness?

Or actually these sensations are just appearing in the wholeness which is you?

But when the label comes ‘me’ or the label comes ‘I’ or label comes ‘my body’ …, only then the seeming-separation seems real.

So, what is the condition, as it is? Are the sensations enough to cause separation?

Now, okay, look for yourself. I don’t want to give you too many tips because too many tips can also confuse you.

What is on ‘this’ side of the separation and ‘that’ side of the separation? The sensation is coming. You are saying that is separating. Can you tell me what is on either side of separation? To put simply, if you say that ‘That is a fence’ can you tell me what is on ‘this side’ of the fence and ‘that side’ of the fence? You have to look and tell me.

And if you want to go really slowly then you can say ‘Okay, what do we mean by body?

Is there experience of the body besides sensations?

Like you don’t know you have an ear right now until somebody comes and pulls it. Then you will have a sensation. Then ‘Ah! Ear!’

So, that which we are calling the body is just a set of sensations …, in our experience, isn’t it?

Or if you want to count sensory perceptions, then you say ‘Sensory perception and sensations.’

So, let’s use a bigger word: sensations, which includes all of this.

So, these sensations are there. What are these sensations separating?

If you did not know the word ‘separating’ …, will there be a separation?

You see, this is the thing. It is not really a real separation, it is a make-believe one. Make-believe how? Literally. Like we label something as ‘me’ and ‘other.’ It causes us to believe that there is a ‘me’ and there is an ‘other.’ This is the entire dynamic on which the mind works. The whole premise is that there is a ‘me’ and there is ‘other.’

Now, if I told you that on ‘this side’ is Consciousness, on ‘that side’ is Consciousness and these sensations are also within Consciousness (or let’s say these sensations are also Consciousness) …, what is your experience? What is your insight about this?

Q: I’ll have to really see it to believe it.

A: Really See it. And take your time over it. Not so that you can believe it; but so, that you can See it. [Chuckles]. Actually, I know it’s a popular saying ‘I have to see it to believe it’ or things like that. But once you See it, you don’t need a belief. It’s like saying that ‘Right now we believe that the earth, is a sphere.’ But if you were to fly on a spaceship, then you would see it. Then you don’t need to believe it. You’ve seen it.

So, see what’s on both sides of the seeming-separation.

And what is that separation itself?

Is there such a thing?

And one more tip is that: you start with the presumption that there is Oneness and then tell me if something really comes and separates something.

Now, if on ‘that side’ of the picket fence, if you were not there, then how would you know that there is a ‘that side’ of the picket fence? (Are you getting the question?) If something separates and I am on ‘this side’ …, then how do I know what is [over] here? [Indicates the other side]

Are you there on both sides? Or no? Worth exploring.

It’s worth exploring because we get stuck in this idea that the body separates us. And therefore, ‘As long as I continue to experience the sensations of the body, I’ll feel separate. I must constantly have my attention only in this unadulterated Awareness …, and then I will call myself free.’ But that is not true because if that was true then once a Sage found the Truth about themselves, they world go into this deep ‘Turiya’ or sleep state (one of these states) and they would never experience the waking state again …, because you cannot experience the waking state unless there is attention on phenomenon.

So, it is not true that freedom means that my attention must only be in this non-phenomenal Awareness. In fact, there is no such thing as ‘attention’ in non-phenomenal Awareness. It is just that the string is reiterated back completely, where you cannot even tell that there is a string.  So, if there is string like attention, which is getting content from everywhere, once it recedes back to your home (in the sense of the unchanging home) then there is no concept even of attention.  Like in the sleep state you cannot say ‘My attention was on this or that.’

So, we’ve tried to demolish a few concepts. One is that body sensations cause separation which is innately present. The second is that freedom means that my attention must only be on this particular thing and then I’m free. Does it sound free to you? [chuckles] If attention was always just …? [Eyes closed and tightly scrunched face] That doesn’t sound very free. [Chuckles]

Free must be: ‘Anything can come and go but I’m free.’ Waking state can come, sleep state can come, dream state can come, anything can come in the waking state, anything can go in the waking state. That must be freedom!

There is no freedom for you (don’t miss understand what I am saying) [Chuckles] …, there is no freedom for you without having full freedom for the world. What does it mean? The Buddha said ‘When I became free, the whole world became free.’ What does this actually mean? It’s not like everybody became a Sage or something like that. Then what would we be doing here? [Chuckles] So, I realize that I am free and this world (which is just an appearance for Me) is completely free and must be given its full freedom (which is the opposite of desire and aversion).

What is desire? ‘I don’t accept which appearance is going to come next. I want to have an idea of what should come. I want only pink flowers to come.’  But life might want to show white, blue, green, yellow; everything. But when we say ‘Only this should be’ …, that is desire. Or [aversion is] when we say the opposite ‘Oh, this should not come, pain should not come, this should not come.’ So, we are trying to take away freedom from life and say ‘This is how life should be.’  So, not only do we first create a mythology about ourself (of this limited ‘me,’ individuality) and then this limited me wants to control everything that is appearing and disappearing. ‘I am entitled to this!’ No? ‘But life owes me that!’

Life doesn’t owe us anything because you don’t even exist. The one that seems so entitled doesn’t exist! You See? [Chuckles]

So, our desires and aversions are mythical. Why? Not because ‘Oh, it’s a bad thing to have desires. We should not have lust or greed or hunger.’ Not like that. But the fundamental basis that you are a separately-existing entity …, that itself is flawed. So, duality is the core misbelief; that there are two (‘me’ and ‘other’) which leads to all this doership and desire.

And naturally, none of this is present. And I’m glad you said openly that ‘It’s the body which makes me a doer.’ But it is worth exploring if this is true. And if this was true …, (and I want to say it to you because you will understand what I am saying because you have contemplated these things) [If this were true] then Jnana Yoga would not work. If it was a physical process then, just to shine your light on it, would not work. Then a physical or a manifest deconstruction would have to happen. Then better to do Hatha Yoga. If there is a physical practice which can unknot this knot, if there is really a knot, then you would need a physical practice. (I don’t know whether you are getting it.) So, if you tied a knot, if there is a big rope and the knot was actually tied, then no matter how much light you shine on it, the knot will not go. Isn’t it?

So, Jnana Yoga is what? We are shining our own light on our Existence. We’re looking at what is true; the light of knowledge. The Guru is supposed to be the bringer of the light. But light would not be enough, then, if there was an actual physical knot. The Guru better bring a tool kit [Chuckles]

I know, it can seem a bit strange what I am saying but actually it’s very simple. I am saying that if it can be resolved just in the light of knowledge, then it must only mean that this knot was never there …, and I truly was misperceiving it or misunderstanding what I am perceiving. But once I’ve shone my true light on it, I See that it is completely unknotted already. That is the only way in which Jnana Yoga would work.

So, Bhagavan [Ramana Maharshi] said that ‘The Truth doesn’t not need to be held. The Truth does not need to be held, it is only the false that needs to be taken away.’ Shankara [Adi Shankaracharya] said that ‘We are misperceiving the rope to a be a snake’. Therefore, in the light of Jnana (in the light of knowledge, true knowledge) you see that there is no snake. There is just a rope.

So, it is not that some actual separation is there which then has to be fixed. It just has to be seen that ‘that’ which we are calling separation has never actually separated anything. That is why it’s just a correction of misbelief. It is not a physical manifest change of anything. It can come with its own manifest changes, but those are byproducts. That’s is not the core.

Did someone get a little bit of what I was trying to say? The point is that it’s not like a physical de-coupling, then you would have to physically move it back together. Then the Seeing or the inquiry would not work. You just have to See for yourself what the Truth is and then you will see that the de-coupling never happened. There is nothing that can be de-coupled.

So, this idea that the body creates separation is false because this body is just experienced as a set of sensations (I’ll share from my experience and then you can validate if it’s true for you) …, as a set of sensations but all these sensations are contained within Me. I’m on all sides of it.  I’m on all sides of these sensations. So, where is it separating?

If you can see for yourself if this is true, then you will see that no actual separation is there. These sensations are experienced in the same space of My Being where these words are experienced. I’m speaking these words. You will say ‘Okay, there is another one besides me who is speaking these words’ but where are these words being heard? In the same space where the sensations are being felt! Or no?

So, that space: is there something that you can say from experience that ‘There is something but it is not in this space.’?

You want me to repeat slowly? So, I am asking whether you can say from experience that there is ‘something’ but it is not contained in this space of my Existence?

You cannot say. Therefore, all perceptions, all experiences, happen in this one space of My Being, My Existence. ‘I’m just the appearance of some sensations that we call the body (or some energy construct that we call the mind)’ …, is leading to no real separation.

So, we’ve taken up this space (which is actually unlimited and without any real separation) and we’ve made …, like we’ve taken a piece of paper and we’ve drawn a map on it: India, Pakistan, Russia, Europe. We’ve made all this on map. Now, if the paper starts saying but ‘I’m just Indian!’ [Chuckles]. If the paper just starts saying ‘I am Indian because of these boundaries; they separate’ …, what will you tell that paper? ‘Look beyond those boundaries and see where the rest of it is contained; also on you.’

So, every perception is experienced only in My Existence but we have learned how to separate this [outlines his physical body] map and say that ‘This is what contains me.’

Actually, the reality is more ludicrous than the paper example. Because I am not even the paper. The paper is just also My Existence, My manifest Existence.

I am beyond even that!

What happens very often is that you See this but our habit of separation, the habit of belief in individuality, is so strong that quickly the mind will say ‘Ah, very good, well done! Now, what does this mean for you? Do you have a halo yet? Are you going to start sharing Satsang now?’ These kinds of things it will offer.

This is where the example of ocean and coconut came from. (Some of you are new so you probably haven’t heard it.) What you are discovering is that you are the boundless ocean (as Ashtavakra said: ‘You are the boundless ocean in which the arcs of the universe, they come and go.’) He didn’t speak any small thing. [Chuckling] ‘You are that boundless ocean in which the arcs of the universe, they come and go.’ And this is actually your discovery now. But then what will happen is that the mind will come and say ‘So then, what happens to Raghavan? What happens to Ananta?’ So, you are discovering that you are the boundless ocean but the concern is still about the coconut which is floating on the surface. The insight that you are having has to not mean anything for this coconut you have considered yourself to be in the past.

It’s like saying ‘I was pretending that I am Sri Lanka but now I’ve discovered I’m the whole paper. [Ananta’s metaphor of drawing the map of the world, different countries, on one sheet of paper. The paper is the same; it’s just showing all differently-named countries.] So now, what does that mean for Sri Lanka? Like ‘What is that to you?’ You see? This is the thing that often gets us in Satsang. Sri Lanka came to Satsang and discovered that Sri Lanka was paper. Now, what will Sri Lanka’s life be like? ‘This is not it.’ [Chuckles]

That’s why sometimes in Satsang I ask a strong question: Suppose you had a beautiful sadhana now, inquiry which we do it together, but this body/mind gets no benefit from that; all benefits go to this one. [Pointing to another one sitting there] Not even friends. (Okay, it’s a friend …, but not a friend…) Suppose it goes to him. Will you be okay with that? You did the sadhana ‘Om Namah Shivaya, Om Namah Shivaya’ and you saw that You Are this boundless ocean! …, but all the halo, all the words, all the followers, everything, came to this one. [Pointing to the other one sitting there] Is that okay? [Chuckling]

This is the thing; we discover that we are everything or everything is a part of us but we still want something for the coconut. It’s not that the other one will take away your insight. I’m only saying the perks; the smile, the halo, everything. You get nothing; you have no benefit from this. You just see what You Are. You See that You are the boundless ocean. ‘All these universes have come and gone in Me millions of times, all the cycles of time and space, all of this has happened.’ And yet, you are so deeply connected (because of our conditioning, because of our habit) to this one grain of sand. Although we discovered that ‘This whole desert is nothing but an appearance within Me’ we still say ‘What is in it for that one grain on sand?’ This is where limitedness, individuality, selfishness comes back; even in spirituality. ‘I had the insight. How come he gets all the perks?’

So, once You find that You Are the ocean, then You don’t have to come back to the coconut mode.

This is what the mind will do, especially after a very strong experience. When this body (some people call it, body-consciousness) when this sense of body-consciousness doesn’t seem so central to you (which is another way of saying this ‘me’ dissolves) then it will quickly try to bring back limitations in the mind by saying ‘So now, what is going to happen to you?’

We have a beautiful example. One time, one of the sangha members (he was in Satsang in Rishikesh, in Satsang with Guruji) and he felt that he really heard it that day! It was clear! Guruji was saying this, that; it was completely clear. So, then he started feeling ‘What does this mean now? Are people going to be able to recognize it? Are they going to come to me for Satsang?’

Satsang got over and he’s still dwelling over these thoughts. ‘It was so clear to me! I wonder if…’ So, he went out of the Satsang premises (and those of you who have been to Satsang in Rishikesh know that outside the Satsang gate, a lot of people collect there). So, he went out, and the first thing that happened is that this lady, this foreign lady, is coming towards him at a great pace, directly. And he’s thinking ‘Ah! Can she see it? Is she going to ask me: Are you awake?’

So, she goes to him and asks ‘Are you the auto rickshaw guy?’ [Laughter in the room] And his whole bubble burst.

It’s very good, in a way, because we can have this thing, you see? It’s crazy. This is how special-ness works, even with spiritual experiences. It can be like:

‘Now that I’m Seeing that there is no ‘me’ …, what does it mean for me?’

[Laughing]

‘Now that I found that I dropped my ‘me’ …, what’s going to happen to me?!’

Some of this the mind will try and play with, and it’s okay. We might even buy it. None of this is meant to cause any guilt. I’m just trying to point out some things, just so that you can look at them. And if you’re falling for these tricks of the mind, then you can just look at it and say ‘Drop it. Another one bites the dust. It’s another trick. Drop it.’

That is the purpose of pointing these things out because many times, as these things happen, we don’t realize that the old habits are still there. So, it’s helpful that someone says ‘Look this way, look that way.’ Then you explore.

We are sitting in this room and suddenly a voice comes, maybe from the next room, saying ‘You had better sort out your life. You had better sort out your life; earn some money, get a proper relationship.’ So, you’re hearing this voice. Are you immediately going to Better Matrimony .com and start looking for marital prospects? Or go to the job portal ‘Monster’ and look at jobs? Just like that? Don’t you want to know at least who is speaking; who is giving these instructions from the next room?

How is it that we seem to get these instructions and we just claim that ‘Oh, this is my voice’? This mind (that which we call ‘the mind’ …, these energy constructs that we call thoughts) they come and they say ‘This is good, this is bad; this is right, this is wrong; you must do this, you must not do this; you must have this goal or you must not have this goal.’ Isn’t it fundamental that before we accept the request (or follow the order, more likely) that we check ‘But who are you? Who is the one who is speaking?’ And in this case, actually, we can check either side: ‘Who is the one that is speaking?’ Or ‘Who is the one that is spoken to?’

Do we know either? Really? Not just to have the word for it. We can say ‘mind’ …, (‘Oh, mind is speaking’) but what does that mean?

Who is speaking (supposedly in our heads)?

Whose voice is this?

And if that is you that is speaking, who are you trying to speak to?

So, if the voice is saying ‘I know what is right for you, you better do this’ …, who is this voice trying to convince then? If you already know what is right for you and that you had better do that; if you are the speaker, then who is this voice trying to convince? What is this duality?

Even now, the voice could be coming and saying ‘Don’t listen to him, I know what is better for you.’ So, if that is your voice, then what are you doing here? That is something trying to convince you or to doubt what you are hearing in Satsang. And yet, you are here.

So, whose voice is this? How many are willing to look at this? Okay, let’s ask it in the other way. How many are just happy to just presume that ‘That is my voice’? (In a sense, the voice of the ‘me’ …, ‘my’ voice.) Are you are happy to presume; to go on as things are? Or are you willing to question:

But who is this?

Or

Who am I?

This voice is speaking to me. But who is this ‘me’?

Who am I?

Now, I can tell you some so-called after-effects of listening to this voice. The so-called after-effects are that you will start believing the three D’s; the three D’s of duality, doership and desire. Right Now, You are free of them already! If you pick up the condition that the mind is offering to you, then you will find that the separation (although it never really happened) you might start believing, and it might start seeming that it is true.

And once the separation starts seeming true then you can’t handle your smallness. If you feel you are just a small object (this limited body/mind) then something in you doesn’t like that also. Then you will have a desire to collect things; to have more (better objects, better feelings, better something). This is desire.

Then you will say ‘Oh, so how do I get this?’ Once you buy into this duality, desire is not far behind. Because something innately doesn’t like this small-ness; this limited-ness. Then you try to become a worldly version of success. ‘How can I have the best house? How can I have the best relationships? How can I have the most money? How can I have the best body?’ and even ‘My enlightenment should be my special enlightenment.’

And then once you start buying into this, that ‘You are not enough’ …, once you buy the idea that there is something besides Me and that you are not enough, then you identify what you think will make you full again. How rampant is this notion that a partner will complete me? How popular is the idea that you will be happy once you have all your materialistic desires fulfilled?

So, once you pick up the idea that ‘I am not all there is; there is something besides Me’ then innately you will not like this idea and will try to complete yourself and make yourself whole.

Like they say: For one lie, you have to follow a hundred lies. The first lie, if we can completely de-construct that, You find Your fullness.

If Your fullness is True then it must be Here Now.

Through which eyes do we see this quality-less One, this silent One, this Existence?

Q: Its own eyes.

A:  Its own eyes, yes. Literally or metaphorically?

Q: In the sense that we can’t perceive anything formless, so therefore, the only way can know that something formless IS is if we Are That.

A: Let’s go slowly on this one. ‘The only way we really know that something formless IS is because we Are That’

Q: What you said the other day about introducing someone to the friend who is formless …, that the reason that we dismiss that so easily is because it is like ‘Where is the evidence?’ Even the conceptual evidence isn’t there, it’s just that It Is all there is. In the same way, you could say the same thing about the Self. There is no evidence. The only fact is that we Are. We Exist. It validates Itself by Its own Existence.

A:  He said ‘It validates itself by its own Existence.’ Like we were talking about the friend yesterday where I said ‘I have somebody you could meet and that one could be your best friend.’ And you say ‘Introduce me.’ Then I say ‘I can’t introduce you because this friend has no size, shape, color, quality; does not speak, no form at all.’ You say ‘What kind of prank is that?’ [Chuckles] This is what happens to many of us when we come to Satsang. As it is shared that the ‘Truth is formless’ (and we have heard this so often, that ‘Absolute Reality is formless’) then it feels like ‘It is a great concept but how do I experience it?’

So, what is it that we have experienced this way in our life? What is it that we have experienced in our life that we have not experienced phenomenally?

How many are following the question? Like [Picks up a card] what is in my hand? A card. Why? Because you see the card; the shape, the size. What is the color of this couch? Blue. Because you can experience seeing the color. But have you had the experience of something for which you find no quality; no size, no shape, no duration? What is that which you have experienced which had no quality?

Q: Sleep.

A: This is very good. What did you experience in sleep?

Q: Nothing.

A: Nothing. You were there in your sleep or not? This is sort of answering the question. He said ‘In sleep, I experience no quality or anything.’ So, whose experience is that?

That which even experiences this nothing, is that itself a thing? Or nothing? [Chuckles]

I have a word for this, which is ‘no-thing’. [Chuckles] (Don’t worry so much about the word; just be with it.) How do I know there is something called sleep state? Sometimes I joke and say ‘Oh, we can’t really know that there is a sleep state.’ Then I say ‘So, if I tell you that when you go to sleep tonight (or yesterday night when you slept) you went into super-advanced seventh Turiya state.’ [Chuckles] Then you say ‘What is that? I had no experience of this.’ But if I ask ‘You went to sleep last night?’ You say ‘Yes, Ananta, I woke up at six thirty.’ So, there is some knowing of this. And yet, I can understand when you say that ‘I do not know sleep, I have to refer to memory’ and all of that.

Q: Sleep has a beginning and an end. Sleep has qualities.

A: It can seem like it has a beginning and an end. (It reminded me that I was having a conversation about that.) [Chuckles] (So, let’s come back to this one.) In this moment, can you experience something without quality?

Q: A sense of ‘I’ that doesn’t have quality.

A: That’s okay so far. The sense of ‘I’. In the real sense, is it even a sense? It’s not even a sense. But we have to use terminology that is defined for qualitative experiences, even for this ‘I’ because we have no other language. So, we have the sense of ‘I’ (or the feeling of ‘I’ some might say) but this is neither a sense nor a feeling because even that quality it does not have. So, can we ask ‘Is it like a big space?’ [Looks around] I am just asking these questions because I know that sometimes while we are doing these contemplations, these inquiries together, the mind will also be painting pictures of what is being said. So, when we say ‘It is a big space’ or when we say ‘It is dark, it is black; just like blackness of sleep’ or something, then that is the way our mind remembers sleep. The memory stores sleep like ‘black’. So, this ‘I’, is it this ‘big black empty limbo or something’ …, is it like that?

Q: It is quite spacious.

A: But is it some measurable space?

Q: No.

A: So, what is that space which is spacious but not measurable? [Chuckles]

While you contemplate that, I know for many of you what can happen is that the mind can come in here and say ‘You are not getting it. This will not really help. What is the point of this?’ These kinds of things will come. And really, I want to say that even if there was zero benefit to this, it is completely worthwhile. Because it is the Truth.

Do you want to live a lie? Nobody wants to live a lie. You want to live with the Truth, and just for that, it is worth it. You don’t need to have joy or bliss or some benefit. Suppose it was not even for the end of suffering? I know that most of us come to Satsang because of that …, but suppose that this contemplation was not even for that? It is just because it is the Truth. Isn’t it worth spending a little bit of time and to find out what the Truth is? So, just for that, it is worth it. I call this ‘Truth for Truth sake.’ Because the mind will say ‘What is the point? What are you getting? Make some money. Why are you sitting in this Satsang?’ [Chuckles] ‘Go find a girlfriend, go find a partner. Do something. Do at least some hatha yoga; the body will feel better.’ (By the way, I am not saying anything is wrong with any of that.)

I am just saying that this is the point of time where you come to Satsang. What is Sat Sang? The company of the Truth. So, this time we have dedicated for discovery of the Truth, irrespective of what the benefits or pitfalls might be. So, that is the point. That is why it is worth it.

So then, this non-qualitative experience …, can we say it is like dark, empty, limitless sky? Or white, pure, heavenly light? Is this ‘I’ like this; either of these? [Silence] Then what is it like?

Q: It is not an experience.

A: It is not an experience and yet it is undeniable.

Q: It is like it’s all we experience but …, it always Is.

A: That’s not what we use the word ‘experience’ for.  [Chuckles] We usually use the term experience for ‘It means sweet or salty, this or that.’ But this one is neither this nor that. See? It is undeniable and not yet not an experience. Therefore, we can invent some terms; like we can say ‘It is your only non-phenomenal experience’ or something like that. Language, of course, cannot really capture this. We just use some words to explain that.

‘It is something that always IS’ he says. So, this Self, this ‘I,’ always IS. Then, what are we looking for? [Chuckles] When we look, we find that This always IS. I say ‘Have you found your Self? You say ‘I am close. Something has to push me there. Push me over the cliff. 100 percent.’ [Laughs] I say ‘Okay, but when did you lose your Self? You cannot lose it’. This is like a [indicates circular loop] and somehow this makes sense to us. There is certain time where (these completely contradictory concepts) we live with them and they make sense to us. When we start to really look at them and say ‘What are you looking for?’ …

It is often said ‘You are looking for That where you are looking from’ or ‘What you are looking for is where you are looking from.’ That is actually what we have looked at today.

You will never find anything greater than This. Because This has no shape.