BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

[Reading from chat]: “I have strong attachments with the past and the personhood.”

So now, we are more clear. So, who is this one that has strong attachments? Then we might find that is it God that is playing this way That is a bit of a switch; that is God that is playing this way.

What is strong for God? Which attachment is too strong for God?

Either there must be two: There must be God and there must be ‘me.’ Or there is just ‘me’ and God is just a fiction. Or there is just God and ‘me’ is just a fiction. What other alternative? [Smiles] That there is ‘God and me’ or there is ‘God, and ‘me’ is just fiction. Or there is ‘me’ and God is fiction.

Now let us look at the first one. If there is ‘God and me’ then God is not everywhere. Then God is everywhere but ‘me’ …, the separation actually happened. Is this your experience? This is what we presume, but it is never our experience.

Second is that there is just God or there is just One Being. (Sometimes we can have conditions about the term ‘God.’ So, we don’t have to use ‘God’ as a word.) There is One Being and I find no two. So, this One Being leaves no space for a ‘me.’

And the third option could be what we started with, which is: ‘This ‘me’ is here this ‘me’ should be helped to become free.’ So, do we have an experience of this ‘me’ in this present moment? If we did, we should be able to produce it, for ourself at least. Where is this ‘me’? Found it? [Looks around the room at Sangha] No. Anyone found the ‘me’? Found?

[Someone says]: The ‘me’ thought.

The ‘me’ thought. So, if a thought about an elephant came, an elephant would be there? [Sanagha smiles] If the thought came ‘There is a pink elephant.’ Or ‘I am a pink elephant.’ is there a pink elephant just because of this thought about it? I am making light of it but actually what I am saying something important because just by the appearance of the thought which seems to represent a ‘me’ …, is that enough validation for us?

So, if you go to (let us say) the family of the King of Mysore and say ‘I deserve the fifty percent of the inheritance.’ And they say ‘But who are you deserve fifty percent of the inheritance?’ and you say ‘I had a thought that I am the son of the King (or the daughter of the King)’ …, would they accept that as evidence? They would say ‘Go away!’ Then how come we take just the evidence of this thought that ‘There is a me’ as the evidence enough for the actual existence of one? The thought can appear and say ‘Me, me. I want this, I don’t want this.’ All of these things they can say. But just the appearance of the thought, is this enough proof?

Then somebody comes and says ‘Show me your passport or your identification papers.’ You will say ‘But who are you?’ And they say that ‘I had a thought that I am a police man.’ Will you agree to show? So, just the thought appearing and making a claim about a ‘me’ is not valid proof even in this world. So, how come it serves as valid proof for us?

Just the ‘me’ thought can come. ‘I this, I that; I whatever…’ But if we don’t accept evidence…

That is why Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said ‘What witnesses this thought? When a thought comes, when ‘me’ thought comes, when the ‘I’ thought comes, ask yourself: What witnesses this thought. Is this thought representing this witness?’ It’s not representing this witness. We can take a minute over this.

Who is this thought claiming to represent?

What is this thought claiming to represent?

So, when the thought comes, for example, that ‘I want this to be my last life’ …, many of us believe this thought ‘I want this to be my last life.’ So, obviously this thought is not representing this body because nobody is saying that ‘I am talking about this body; the last life of this body because this is the only first life of this body.’ [Chuckles]

So, who are these thoughts representing?

[Silence]

And don’t settle for an answer. Your mind will say ‘Nothing. We are representing nothing, or something.’ I don’t know what the mind is saying. [Chuckles]

Until you find this one, don’t settle for any thought about it. Settle for It. You know what I mean? Don’t settle for a thought about it. Settle for It Itself.

‘I want freedom.’ Don’t worry so much about what it is wanting. Settle for the ‘I.’ Who is the ‘I’? Don’t presume that.

So, who is the ‘I?’ Who wants freedom? Nobody? [Looks around] [Silence] Who doesn’t want freedom? [Smiles] We neither want or don’t want freedom? [Chuckles]

[Silence]

Shall we make it tougher? Who (so, stay in this room) will not get freedom? [Sangha laughs]

Impressive. I am very impressed. Nobody is moving. [Sangha laughs] So, why do you come here? [Chuckles]

Who is in this room?

It’s a very unique part of the play, where words that have been designed to create some conceptual understanding, we try to use the very same words to demolish all understanding. And this is unique in even a spiritual way. Most spiritual movements are about giving you some spiritual understanding. But what is being shared in my Master’s [Sri Mooji’s] grace in Satsang like this is an invitation to see that it is completely possible to live without a belief system, without a conceptual model, without any sense of limited identity.

[Silence]

[Reading from chat]: “It seems that there is no need for words for bliss to be; no need for concepts.”

Yes. But before coming to Satsang, how much time do we spend without words? It can seem like it is just words in Satsang. [Smiles] But how much time did we spend without this allegiance to these mental words? So, just because of this addiction to the mind, we come to this rehab called Satsang so that we can come to a silence which we speak of.

Because many times, we had periods of silence. And I noticed that all tough outwardly many of us are silent, inwardly we still continue with a lot of concepts, playing with a lot of words; without even mental understanding.

Therefore, what types of words are best?

Those words which speak of all that we think we know, we can throw it out.

[Reading from chat]: “After thinking about my parents, I felt sad at the thought of giving them up, and then a feeling of contraction happened in the chest; an intimate, personal feeling.”

So, ‘After thinking about my parents, I felt sad at the thought of giving them up.’ So, if neither of these thoughts had come, then what division would there be? First, let’s suppose that neither of them came. Then let’s look at: if they come, then what? So, firstly, if neither of these thoughts appeared at all, then…? Then you’ll say ‘It’s fine.’ Mostly, you would say that; if the thoughts had not come at all, it would be fine.

The trouble then is: What to do once the thought appears? This Satsang (this type of Satsang) is just about this. What to do (or not to do; we’ll get into that exploration later). What to do once these kinds of thoughts come? (‘My parents, giving them up.’)

Already in the way I’m saying it, I feel like you’re getting some ideas about where I’m going first. Where I’m going first is the inquiry. So, where I’m going first is the inquiry; which means that if your temperament is a bit of an explorer, then when the thought comes like ‘Oh, what about my parents?’ then we inquire into this and say ‘Whose parents are these? Who is this ‘mine’ who has parents?’

And it doesn’t have to be logical or intellectual, but it’s okay sometimes to start like that. We can look and say: That little baby that was born has nothing in common with this man that is here. At least physically, every cell is different in this body. So, what then remains a constant between that baby that was born and this man that is there? That one; does it have parents?

Now be observant of the nature of the mind, that as I’m saying these kinds of things, the mind will be quick to pick up the opposite kind of idea, like ‘Oh, okay, I have no parents so I can give them up’ or something like that. I’m not saying that also.

I’m saying that as we inquire into the nature of this thought, we find that this thought is making a ‘me’ where there is none. This thought is making a ‘me’ where there is none. So, like that, we continue and say ‘I felt sad at the thought of giving them up.’ So, in each aspect of this sentence, the mind is convincing you about this ‘me’ …, like the one that felt sad, the one that has to give up.’ (‘I did not pick my parents but now I have to give them up.’) [Chuckles] This kind of thing.

This is all misunderstanding. This is how limitation gets created. In this case, the one that has parents, the one that has to give them up, is which one?  That one is ‘the presumed one’ …, exactly the one that I’ve been talking about, the one that we presume ourself to be on the basis of some ideas that we have. So, as Guruji [Sri Mooji] would say: Can we bring this one to the witness box?

So, this is a beautiful example; a very beautiful example. Are we willing to live in the presumption of this one? …, especially because these ideas are so intimate and sacred almost? Are we willing to explore even this, like ‘giving them up’? Who is here that can ‘give up’? That must be the same one that picked them in the first place. Who picked their parents? You see?  Like that.

So, when I said that ‘All of Satsang is about what to do when a thought arises?’ the first approach is to inquire. Because it is the thought which is [causing the trouble]. We looked at that so beautifully in this example, that before the thought everything was fine. Even the term ‘fine’ is just a thought, actually. Everything is just ‘what it is’. But once the thought comes then it seems to cause this struggle, this suffering, this resistance. So, what to do with that?

Firstly, we can inquire:

Which is the ‘me’?

Who has to pick up, give up?

Whose parents?

And we don’t presume any such ‘me’ unless we find it.

And we can go on with this entire sentence actually. [Reading from chat]: “…and then a feeling of contraction happened in the chest, an intimate, personal feeling.”

Now, it is fine as long as it remains phenomenal; like a feeling came and it seemed to corelate somewhere with this experience of the sensation that we call the chest. And even to go as far as this, we can say ‘intimate’ …, although even this we can explore a bit and say ‘Intimate? At what distance? How intimate was it?’ Then if we start to explore like this, we can say ‘How intimate was it? How close? One inch? One centimeter?’

Because intimate means there are two. Do we say that ‘This computer is very intimate with the space of this room’? We don’t say that. Why don’t we say that? Why don’t we say that this computer is very intimate with the space of this room? Because there is no duality as far as that is concerned. It is clear that the computer is an appearance in the space. So, we don’t say it is intimate. But when we insert an idea of ‘me’ and then the feeling comes, then it can feel like ‘This feeling is very strong and it’s very close to me.’

So, what is important is this exploration.

But the trouble is that we explore the content in great depth, like the feeling: ‘The feeling feels like grief, the feeling feels like separation, the feeling feels joy, feels happy.’ All these names we’ve given to feelings because we love exploring that.

But that other part of this feeling, the one that it is ‘close to’ or ‘intimate with’ …, when we start to explore that, then what happens? Who is the feeling intimate with? You see? That is the presumed idea.

So, when I said (for example): Are you willing to look at every idea in a true way and stay with the Truth of what you are discovering? … and willing to throw out every idea based on what you are discovering? …, then it’s talking about all these aspects.

Because in this one paragraph there are so many presumptions about ‘me’. One is a physical presumption, that ‘I am a child of my parents.’ Then there is a presumption of knowing what sadness is. Then there is a presumption of ‘I can do something’ which means ‘I can give them up or accept them’ There is presumption that there is a feeling inside the chest. The presumption of distance or intimacy. And then a massive presumption which ‘personal feeling.’ You say ‘An intimate personal feeling.’ So, what is that? …, a personal feeling?  Like, can a feeling confirm the existence of a person?  It cannot.

So, this is a beautiful example. Thank you, Mahesh. Because in this one paragraph, you can see how it becomes like that web I was talking about yesterday. One idea after another idea; all (‘my limited existence, my desire, my doership, my duality’). Everything is contained in this one small paragraph.

But the beauty of exploration, open exploration, is that we look and say ‘Wow, there is no basis for this. There is no basis for this. There is no basis for this. There is no basis for this. There’s no basis…’ In two or three small sentences, a few small sentences; so much that is presumed. But when we start to Look, we say ‘What is this about? What is going on? Actually, I’m not experiencing any of this.’ And we’re not denying any experience. When I say ‘I’m not experiencing any of this’ I don’t want anyone to use it just as a concept. You must say this only if that is your experience: ‘I’m not primarily experiencing this ‘me’. That is just being presumed here.’

So, a lot of the tricks of the mind are being exposed in this one sentence; like intimacy, which means there’s some distance between two. Can there be intimacy in one? There cannot be. So, there must be one (which is the feeling itself) and two (that is the experiencer of this feeling, which is like a limited entity; like ‘my feeling’.) And the mind quickly comes onto that and says ‘See, therefore, it is personal.’

So, we cannot go with any of these inferences now. I’m really spelling it out today because it’s important to look at what Self-inquiry actually means. It is not just about sitting twenty minutes a day and asking ‘Who am I? Who am I? Who am I?’ It is really openly checking: Who Am I?

And everything that the mind says can be used for this exploration.

Who is the ‘I’ at the center of this? (‘My parents; I felt sad, giving them up.’) Who can give up or pick up? Then ‘Contraction happened in the chest.’ Do we really know it is in this physical chest? If I were to get a surgeon here and do a surgery of the chest, would we find that contraction? Or actually this level of feelings is a completely different level of existence? But we’ve presumed that it is in the chest. Maybe there’s a bigger sensational space within which the chest, the physical experience of chest, is just another set of experiences. Like we can say ‘Gratitude in my throat’ or ‘Grief in my heart’ or ‘Grief in my throat.’ Is it really physical objects?  You see? Because if it is the physical throat we are talking about, it can only contain other physical things. So, this feeling we are talking about is not a physical entity.

It can feel like a feeling of constriction happened in the chest but once we start to explore, we say: What is this? …, these two set of sensations which seem to intermingle in some way? Is it true that one contains the other? No. From my experience, I can say that in the space of My Existence these two sensations are playing out. This idea of container-ship, the idea of ‘the chest contains sensation of sadness’ is a notion.

But you must not just take these ideas at face value because of what you’re hearing from me. You must explore for yourself. ‘An intimate personal feeling’ (especially this personal one).

So, first part, let me recap for everyone. What did we say?

Before the thought arises, no trouble. Then suffering must be a product of at least the thought having to arise, and our belief in it. ‘What to do with that?’ is what we are exploring.

So, the first method (if you want to call it that) is the Self-inquiry; to really explore ‘Whose is it? What is it? What do I really know about this situation from my direct experience?’ And staying true to that rather than inserting a presumption of the ego or inserting the presumption of separation.

Now, some would have heard all of this for the last half an hour and said ‘What is this, man!?’ [Chuckling] Because some are just not inclined to this sort of exploration. This sort of inquiry seems very alien to them. So, it can feel like ‘What is Ananta saying? How can I look? It is so pointless, it is so intellectual, it is so abstract.’ Actually, it is not intellectual; it is anti-intellectual. Whatever I’ve said so far in Satsang is anti-intellectual because I’ve said: Don’t go with your intellect for any of these answers. You go with your direct experience.

But the mind will label it and say ‘But this is too intellectual or too abstract.’ It is anti-intellectual, anti-abstract, because I’ve said: Stay with your direct experience; don’t intellectualize it, don’t infer it. Stay with what you’re truly finding for YourSelf

But I know this is deep human conditioning for those for whom this Self-inquiry sounds too intellectual. And it is how it is. So, are we to then say ‘There is no hope’? No. Then we say: What can you relate with?

Do you have some trust in a Divine force? Do you have some devotion towards God or Satguru or any expression (form) of a Master? Do you feel like, in your heart, some devotion comes naturally to you?

For those, there is another way; and this is the way of surrender. This is the way of surrender which means that all of this is the problem of this Divine Force. And this faith in the Divine Power could have come just naturally or it could have come with some exploration …, when we look back at our life where we say ‘It just happened. I decided to do something else but life took me this way, life did this to me, life brought me to Satsang.’ So, we see that there a Greater Unitive Divine Presence, the One that is growing the trees, the One that is making the earth spin, the One that is making the light and sound function. And we say: If it is doing all this, why can’t it run this life?

This is the path of surrender.

Whatever little will we presume we have, we see that it does not compare with this beautiful, enormous, magnificent functioning. So, then we come to this point of saying: Why do you have to carry this heavy burden of trying to run this life, when Life is running itself? When the Divine Presence, God, is running this life, why do I have to carry it?

[Silence]

So, those who are inclined to surrender can also look at this; when the mind is offering up these problems. Like when you said ‘I’ve been thinking about ‘my parents’ [then just saying/feeling]: ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ [Everything is the Master’s grace, is in the Master’s hands, in God’s hands]: ‘God is looking after my parents, God made them my parents.’

You can get a bit mechanical about it like [Nisargadatta] Maharaj would do sometimes. ‘A sperm travelled; one-in-a-million shot it had, and then it reached the egg, then the body was formed.’

‘Who did all of this? Who made these my parents?’ Then ‘That Divine Force which did all of this is taking care of my parents. I felt I had a thought of having given them up but who is here that is the doer? It is the Divine force which will keep them or give them up. All positions are decided by the Divine Itself because it is the One that is doing everything anyway. So, who is here that can do anything, including giving them up?’

When we explore our thoughts in this way, with a sense of surrender, with the Divine in our heart, there is no trouble. You don’t have to decide to give them up or to stay with them or any of these positions. Life is doing it. Life has done all of this so. It is doing it; whatever It is doing.

So, a sense of devotion, a sense of trust in This, with a sense of surrender, comes to this very simple but beautiful statement that Guruji makes. He says ‘Leave your existence to Existence.’

[Silence]

Leave your existence to Existence then also you will find that these thoughts do not create the kind of trouble like they would if it is met with a sense of individuality and personal doership.

Now, these are the two main paths.

[Inquiry and Surrender]

[Reading from chat]: “I also like what you said yesterday about the home in the middle of nowhere.”

Because when Sri Prahlad Tipanya came to our house and had the program where he sang a lot of the Kabir words, then I liked one thing (and I’m not even sure if I got the translation right but I loved it anyway) which is that Kabir said ‘Build a house where nothing can be seen.’ Then what kind of a house would that be? Or [maybe it was] ‘Build your pillars where nothing can be seen.’ It’s a beautiful thing. And it astounds me sometimes as to how these Sages will use such very regular terminology to convey something which is so beyond phenomena. It’s almost like a Zen koan.

If I say ‘Jyotima, build a house where nothing can be seen.’ [Smiles] It’s a beautiful exploration. How will you go about it? Where will you go, where nothing will be seen? Nothing can be seen. And if you go to a very dark place then I would say that the darkness can be seen then. Even in a very dark place, you see darkness. It’s not like you see nothing. [But Kabir says]: ‘Where nothing can be seen.’ Where can you go, where nothing can be seen?

So, in the same way, the Master is leading you from this idea of just a very limiting phenomenal existence to something which is beyond phenomena; which is not a ‘thing’ (we have to use words) something which is beyond phenomena. Now, in the phenomenal experience, everything is a ‘thing.’ Everything has size, shape, color, duration; it was born, it dies. Even for this entire world of time and space, we have theories about it; will we find the end? …, and what will happen at the end of the Universe? So, this entire world of time and space has duration. It might seem like billions of years but it’s still in the realm of duration. So, everything is a ‘thing’ here.

So, a Sage could say ‘Build your pillars where nothing is seen’ and you might even feel ‘Ah, beautiful; very nice.’ But if you really jump into that, if you take the Sage as your Master and you say ‘My Master said that I’m to build my pillars only where nothing can be seen’ this itself, this one instruction, is enough for you.

So, I don’t build any attachments, any pillars, in that which comes and goes, in that which is just phenomenal. I’m looking beyond that which I am attached to; where I cannot see anything, not even darkness or light. It’s a beautiful, beautiful exploration.

I was saying yesterday that if you invite a Sage to an inauguration for your house (your house-warming) and he says ‘Oh, this is your place? Come, I’ll show you better’ and he takes you literally to the middle of nowhere, where you cannot even find up or down, and says ‘Live here’ …, what will your initial reaction be? It will most often not be very good because of our sense of investment. We’ve invested so much in this identity, we’ve invested so much in being a person.

Like, all of you (or most of you) will have this idea that you’re very truthful. If I call you in and say ‘You have not spoken a single word of truth in your life! You’re the biggest liar I’ve ever met!’ …, it will seem strong. Isn’t it? It will seem strong, like ‘He has not really understood me. I thought you were my Master but it turns out you are another fake.’ This kind of attack/response will come because we’re so invested in this identity of speaking the truth. (‘I’m a truthful person. But sometimes I lie. It is for the good. But I cannot take it that you call me a liar about everything I’ve ever said!’ Isn’t it?

So, in some way, this is what is happening in Satsang. I’m calling out every lie that you believe. But I’m trying [Chuckles] to do it in such a way that you do not feel like it is a full-on attack, because then you will not see it. You will run. This is what’s happening in Satsang. I’m confronting this house of cards that you have built. But you’ve invested a lot in this house of cards. Just imagine you built it with great care. Some of us, as kids, have built it. When we have siblings, what have we told our siblings when we are building this house of cards? ‘Don’t come close, okay?’ Then the sibling comes at a distance and then he’s trying to scare us. I don’t know how many of you played with cards like this, but here we would build it for some days.

You’ve spent now years, maybe lifetimes, maybe a hundred-million years. You’ve built this house of identity lifetime after lifetime trying to make yourself into God; or this house into something that you can actually live in. And now comes this one who is saying ‘But this is not right. Looks a bit like it’s slanted. It doesn’t feel like this is true, what you’ve built.’ And the initial reaction can be ‘Leave me alone!’ or ‘Tell me a better house that I can build.’ You see? ‘If you see that these cards are wrong, at least give me new ones.’ And this is the way we’ve renovated this house, lifetime after lifetime. ‘Okay, now I’m going to do a better concept. I started with one teacher, then I went to another teacher who gave me a better concept, then I went to another teacher who gave me a better concept and it feels like I’m making my way home. The cards are looking better. I’m starting to get a handle on it.’ But then you come to some place where they say ‘No, none of this is true. None of this is really true.’

And I don’t have a truth that I can tell you, to replace this with. Now, this is the struggle. Because if I tell you ‘You are Awareness’ you will take that as a concept to replace [other concepts] and use it. If I tell you ‘You are God’ you will take that as a concept and use it. But then it becomes a part of your house of cards. You feel like you’ve replaced the whole deck with a better one, with a super gold shiny deck which is Awareness cards…, you see? …, which is Advaita cards. ‘I used to have personal cards, now I have Advaita cards.’ [Chuckles] So, I don’t want to give you that.

Then what are you left with? You are left with your direct insight. You are left with your direct experience. You cannot rely on any concept; even the concepts that you hear in Satsang. It cannot be second-hand information. Only rely on that which you find for yourself.

Do you find a ‘me’?

If you do not find a ‘me’ …, don’t be scared of ‘I don’t know.’

[Reading from chat]: “Feedback: I keep looking (am not sure if something is blocking something)  …”

Yes, because I was saying ‘Are you willing to look, or are you just willing to presume that there is a ‘me’? And I said ‘Give me some feedback about what your experience is.’ That’s the context in which I’m reading this now.

[Reading from chat]: “I keep looking (am not sure if something is blocking something) but I can’t find something that’s stuck as ‘feeling right about it’.”

Yes. Because I’d said ‘What are you going to say that ‘I am right about’ in spite of not finding a ‘me’?’ So, she says ‘I keep looking and I don’t find anything that is stuck in the sense of ‘I’m feeling right about this and unwilling to give it up.’

[Reading from chat]: “What to do if we can’t find something?”

If you can’t find something that is feeling blocked, then it is already good news!

[Reading from chat]: “Just surrendering everything will work?”

Yes. Because then we can look deeper. First is to look for ‘What presumption am I still feeling right about?’ And if you find that ‘There is no presumption that I’m feeling right about’ then we can look deeper into this and say: ‘The ‘I’ that is aware of this’…, or we can start even with the sense of perceiving and look at:

The ‘I’ that is perceiving block or no-block: which ‘I’ is that?’

Can this be perceived?

The ‘I’ that perceives either blocking or no-blocking, can this ‘I’ be perceived?

And if it cannot be perceived, then on what basis do we know this perceiver?

If it is not a qualitative, phenomenal experience, then what is it?

So, then this exploration deepens away from the conceptual blocks into a deeper inquiry; just checking:

What is truly here?

And as you find that there is perception of the world, who is the witness of it?

Who is the perceiver of it?

And what witnesses even this perceiver?

And what kind of witnessing is that?

So, then it becomes a very beautiful exploration (if our feeling is to explore like that).

Otherwise, what you said: ‘You surrender everything’ and it is fine. Yes. Because as we don’t find presumptions there about who we are…, to the mind, it seems like there is an ‘I don’t know.’ Even that ‘I don’t know’ is a very beautiful surrendered state. (Unless we get attached to [with frustrated voice]: ‘Oh, I just don’t know!’) Then the ‘I don’t know’ applies even to the ‘I don’t know.’ [Chuckles] When the ‘I don’t know’ applies even to the ‘I don’t know’ then it does not become a sticky position of ‘I don’t know’ itself…, like if we don’t even know if we know or don’t know. So, that is a beautiful surrender.

And this actually, I’d like to say, that everything is actually fully apparent to you but it is not yet translate-able in terms of concepts. So, we don’t know yet conceptually what is apparent but the Truth is completely apparent.

[Reading from chat]: “Father, here on simply Seeing, something feels pain, unsettled, just on noticing the body and that the gender does not match the strong emotional feelings. Both the masculine and feminine are felt separately. This is in my view…”

A: [Closes eyes] You see, if there is some space for this exploration…, in fact, yesterday it came like this where I said ‘You can use the term ‘man’ but even to use the term ‘man’ we have to pick up the entire lexicon, the entire set of language. Because ‘man’ implies so many different terms.’ When we start looking in one direction, a man has more facial hair, facial hair means face, hair means calcium (or whatever, something), face implies the appearance of these sensations [Points to face] and has a particular shape and size. Explore whether it is possible to have an existence without even these very primary labels of masculine and feminine. Why do we have to separate this Being, which is genderless, and make labels and notions about it and say ‘Okay, this is this way and this is that way’? I know it is prevalent. I know it is prevalent in humanity but just because something is popular doesn’t make it true. Like it was very popular to believe [Chuckles] (funnily, it is becoming popular again) to believe that the earth is flat. [Chuckles] It was very popular to believe that the earth is flat, then for a while it lost its popularity and now, somehow, it is regaining its popularity. [Chuckles]

So, these notions, although they are popular, it doesn’t mean that they are true. I don’t feel like I can look at any appearance of any human and say ‘This is male or female.’ Everything has aspects which are so beyond definition; and change actually, from time to time. So, to Exist in this moment, do we really need a definition that implies that ‘I am this’ or this implies that ‘I am this’.

You Are. Actually; in fact. It is a beautiful exploration because what is this Source of both this and that? It is Your very Existence. You came to Be. You came. You-I has to play as ‘I Am’ or ‘Being’ for there to be even these qualities emerging.

What gender are you in your deep sleep?

So, this is our Unchanging Reality; That which remains in deep sleep when all gender, all differentiations, all of this [is absent]. Now, I am not saying (as with everything) I am not saying that we must take some opposite position. [Smiles] I am just saying that in our openness, in our acceptance, then we find that in some moments we feel masculine and in some moments we feel feminine. But it is possible for that feeling and those expressions to play out without necessarily becoming defined. They don’t have to define a ‘you’. They can just become the play which is happening in the substratum of You.

[Reading from chat]: “This is my view. Until I don’t pick up a thought about the feelings and emotions; it’s all okay.”

Exactly.

[Reading from chat]: “But something repeatedly feels in disharmony.”

Now, just explore even this term ‘disharmony.’ Let’s suppose [Makes a gesture of holding one hand still and waving the other hand in front of it] disharmony is like this. When we just view it from our neutrality, can you say whether this is disharmony or harmony? So, truly, when I am saying ‘When we are coming to our notionless Existence’, when you see it from …, like when I say ‘The Truth becomes apparent’ then you will find that I cannot use the term disharmony or harmony for anything. In a way, I can say that when you are aware of disharmony, it becomes harmony. [Smiles] In a way, I can say that: When you’re aware of it, then what disharmony can still remain?

And a feeling comes that ‘Maybe it’s the time to harmonize the body.’ These are ‘really something’ …, these are ‘either this or that’. If something has to change at phenomenal level, even this can happen. There is no resistance to that. But this idea that ‘I know what needs to be done to resolve this’ can be the doorway into suffering.

So, allow this Existence to play out how it is playing out; without any need to draw a conclusion that ‘Okay, this that I do; this will resolve this.’ You don’t know that this is a fact. It’s like we don’t know anything for a fact. Everything is taken care of in itself. The universe, life itself, knows how to deal with everything it is creating for itself to taste. We don’t have to force it, we don’t have to feel like ‘The recipe of my life is wrong.’ [Smiles] The universe is the perfect chef. It is not messing up anybody’s recipe. It has not made any mistakes.

[Reading from chat]: “I stay in the Seeing of this but it keeps popping up.”

Yes, it will be popping up. These conditions are designed to keep popping up.

[Reading from chat]: “And at times it is picked up naturally.”

Yes, it can be Seen that, many times, conditions will keep getting picked up.

[Reading from chat]: “I try not to battle it…”

Very good because that itself becomes another position.

[Reading from chat]: “…and simply intend to stay in the natural viewing and allowing whatever is playing out to play out. However, this can cause a lot of confusion.”

If we take the resistive element out of it, then we find that the confusion aspect of it seems to reduce radically. And what is the resistive aspect in this? The feeling that ‘I can fathom this’ or the feeling that ‘I can understand and make a framework out of this.’

So, if you are willing to remain in the unknown then we no longer can call something confusion. If you are willing to remain in the unknown then what can confuse you? Confusion is just the battle to know; and when something cannot be put inside a box then it can feel like ‘I’m still confused.’ But if you feel at home in the unknown then what can confuse you?

So, this unknown can sound like the biggest curse at some point but you will discover that it’s the greatest blessing. ‘I need to know, I need to know’ …, but nobody can know the Truth. Not in that way. That which has opposites can never lead to true clarity. If there is an opposite of confusion (which means that this clarity that we are finding is the opposite of this confusion) then that is not the clarity I am talking about. I am talking about that clarity which is clear about the appearance of either but it is not participative in that; that Truth which does not have the opposites which is lies; which is aware of the play of duality but remains unconcerned (in a way) about that.

This true Knowingness, which is beyond knowing and confusion, is what we are discovering, as you allow your mind to remain in the unknown.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: Whether you are happy to just continue with the presumed idea of ‘me’ or you’re willing to explore this ‘me’.

This is what it comes down to (at least in the type of Satsang that is shared here) is that if you’re happy to just presume that there is an individual ‘me’ and then ‘What’s in it for ‘me?’ is natural …, or are you willing to explore?

Not just actually ‘willing to explore’ (not just as a kind of a curiosity) but more like a deeper longing to really find out:

Who am I?

What is going on here?

Whose Existence is this?

Because literally there is nothing here for the presumed ‘me’. For your idea of YourSelf there is nothing much that I can offer anyway. At best, if you have to say something, I can say that I have a mirror.

Suppose you went to the mirror one day [Smiles] and you did not see a reflection. Your first impulse will be what? It will be to doubt the mirror itself. ‘This is not a mirror. It’s not working well.’ [Smiles] Because you’re expecting to find a reflection. Then when you don’t see anything then you will start by first doubting the mirror and saying ‘But how can this be? I have always known myself to be some ‘thing’. So, how can it be that when you are showing me a mirror I find no-thing?’

And I’m not mispronouncing ‘nothing’. I’m specifically saying ‘no-thing’. (But we’ll come to that.) You’re not nothing. But You Are no-thing. You are not a thing.

If this was true, would you want this Truth? If this was true that You are not a thing, would you want this Truth? Or would you rather go back to the presumed idea about YourSelf? This is the key.

And I know that every day I come and say ‘This is the key’ to something else. [Chuckles] That’s just how it’s being said at the moment. [Chuckles]

If it was true that You are not a thing, do you feel that you would want to align with this Truth just because it’s true? Or would you prefer just a false idea because it makes you feel comfortable?

Because initially this can seem uncomfortable. For some a bit uncomfortable; for some a lot. And for some of you, it’s already starting to feel natural.

How much burning are you willing to go through for the sake of this Truth?

Are you willing to burn every single idea that you have (if you were to start to find that it is untrue) for the sake of the Truth?

And which idea are you unwilling to give up?

Which means: What do you still want to be right about…, even if it is contrary to your discovery of the Truth?

And you can give me some feedback on how I’m sounding. If it sounds too abstract, we’ll try to make it more real-life examples. If it is fine, it is fine. [Chuckles] But I really want you to hear what I am saying. What I’m saying is:

If you were to come face-to-face with the Truth and you find that there is nothing that you’ve believed about YourSelf which is true (now that you have come face-to-face with the Truth, you cannot hold onto any idea about YourSelf) what is your inner-attitude about this? Would you still want to hold on to something? Or would you be willing to say ‘Whatever it is, I want to now align just with that which is true’?

Even if you had the idea for twenty years…, thirty years…, if it feels like you’ve always had that idea: Are you willing to come to Satsang and question these now-sacred ideas about YourSelf?

In some ways, this is Surrender. In some ways this is Devotion.

It can feel like (especially for those for whom this Indian culture is a little bit strange) it can feel like devotion means this outward bowing down and touching the feet, or just expressions of devotion like that. Actually, true devotion implies a great trust mixed with a great love. [Smiles] A great trust mixed with a great love …, which means that if my Master asks me the question, then even my most sacred idea about myself, I’m willing to question it.

[Silence]

This is what I mean when I’m saying that I have a mirror for You.

What does that mean if I say to you: Explore in this moment, in your experience, whether you can find the ‘I’ that you think you are, the ‘I’ that wants some thing, the ‘I’ that is suffering.

Are you willing to explore it and stay true to Your direct experience?

Or would you exchange this direct experience again with the idea you have about YourSelf?

[Silence]

When I ask you to look, you have to look and show me the one that wants anything at all (including freedom). And if you’ll feel like you have found something, you must say it!

If you feel that the body wants freedom…, say ‘The body wants freedom.’ If you feel that there is some other entity here that wants freedom then say that ‘There is an entity that wants freedom.’

But no longer can we rest on just a presumption of this one! [Silence] Because there comes a time when we must be willing to look at this so-called imaginary friend called the ego. A parent will let you play with it for a few years with the hope that you will grow out of it. But there comes a point when the parent will tell the child that ‘It’s about time that we look together and I’m not going to let you presume anymore.’ The Master is like a parent in this case who is inviting you and saying:

How long will you keep presuming that there is a ‘me’ like this?

When will you look and stay with what you actually find?

[Silence]

Don’t be scared of any peer-pressure. Don’t be scared of trying to look enlightened and saying that there is no ‘me’. [Silence] Have the integrity to say what really you are finding.

If you are looking and you still feel like ‘But this is the ‘me’ …, I found the ‘me’!’ then say it. Then let’s look together. But don’t keep on presuming that ‘The ‘me’ is there but Ananta won’t understand. Actually, his experience is different. I have not gotten there yet.’ Don’t use all these ideas to shield the non-existent one. Expose yourself.

[Silence]

I’m not offering a conclusion to you. I am offering what I find when I look.

That must become your exploration.

I find when I look that all these perceptions are appearing and disappearing on the screen of My very Existence, I Am. And it is this Existence which seems to be that creative light. [Silence]

I find that unless I label something, I find no division.

What is your experience?

Actually, it is completely verifiable in this moment: To Exist, what concept are you using? To Be, what concept do you need? What concept is holding up your Existence?

You will find that ‘No concept is holding up my Existence, my Existence has been holding up some concepts. My Being, my Consciousness, ‘I Am’ which has been giving power to concepts such as ‘I am something, I am this or I am that.’ And around every concept, I have built a limitation, a boundary, a house around my existence. But this house is never real; it has only been notional, only been conceptual. [Smiles]

So, the Sage Ashtavakra said ‘The mind is complex, let it go.’ Such a simple statement. [Smiles] Guruji says ‘Don’t identify’ and what do we identify with? A label of something creates a sense of identity. Like nobody really knows what a man is; what a woman is. And yet we have used these labels and identified ourselves with that. This is how belief works. It creates a sense of identity around That which is completely beyond all limitations. It plays as if this one is a man, not woman.

Now, the thing with labels is that it not only it defines (tries to define) what you are, it also tries to define what you are not. [Looks around. Smiles] The minute you say ‘I am a man’ it automatically defines that you are not a dog, you are not a cat, you are not a cow, you are not a woman. [Chuckles] And I know some of this might sound strange to you, but when we pick up one label, one leaf from this ‘tree of conditioning’ (as I call it), we feel like this entire tree is valid.

But what all do we have to know? If you are a man, what all does that mean? [Looks around]. Let’s just take a simple example: If you have a beard. [Points to his beard. Chuckles] What is a beard? Hair on the face. What is hair? [Chuckles] This piece…, it is just one aspect of defining a man. So, one notion we picked up: ‘man’ (it seems harmless) but actually we picked up the entire lot; everything, all these meanings. This is how we pick up conditioning. Because we pick up one label, one idea, one concept about ourselves, then it seems like we pick up the entire structure of personality.

That’s why I was saying the other day that ‘Don’t try to play this game and live dangerously where you can say ‘I can play with the ‘me’ for some time and the minute it starts to get too hot in this kitchen, I can go to ‘God-Now’. My Being is there, I know this. How will I forget?’ But actually, every notion that you pick up, you are picking up this entire conceptual structure. It seems to define you; it seems to limit you. It tells you what you are and what you are not. [Smiles] In Reality, there cannot be something that you are, or are not. Because not only are You the light of ‘all there is’ …, You are also the screen of ‘all there is’. Simply put ‘All there is’ is just made up of You, but You are beyond that. It is not beyond You but You are beyond even that. So, the minute we define ourselves this way (‘I am this and therefore implying I am not that’) we wear this mask, this presumed mask of separation, individuality.

Now the thing is that when I say ‘Remain in your notionless Presence’ or ‘Stay in your notionless Existence’ …, around this also we can create like a hundred notions. And the thing with any pointing like this is that it’s always self-referential anyway. Because many of your minds might be saying right now is that ‘This is also a notion: notionless Existence; this is also a notion.’ [Chuckles]. So. any of this pointing is completely self-referential. And yet in the play of this life … That’s why some of the Bhagavan’s [Sri Ramana Maharshi’s] examples are so beautiful because he given us beautiful ways to relate to this. He says ‘Treat the inquiry (or treat some pointing like this) as we treat a stick that we use to light the funeral pyre. The funeral pyre stick is also a stick and yet you use a stick to light it. And then what happens to this stick? Even this is also thrown. [into the fire]

Now sometimes, in our over enthusiasm, [Chuckles] we throw this one first. ‘Done. Okay, now I have gotten rid of notionless existence.’ And quickly it is forgotten [Chuckles] and all the other notions start to come back in; quickly. We are quick to forget the inquiry ‘Who am I?’ You say ‘Now I don’t need to discover. I had an insight about myself. Now I don’t need any tool.’ So, we throw that out first.

Bhagavan also had this other metaphor where he said ‘If you have a thorn embedded in your finger, then we use another thorn to remove it and then this thorn can also be thrown.’ But what would happen if we threw this thorn first? When the seemingly deep-rooted, embedded conditioning appears in the form of a thought then it can seem like (like I said before) belief feels right to us initially. It feels, in fact, righteous that ‘I must believe this. This is a position I must take because it couldn’t be right. All Satsang and all that is fine but this I have to take for my relationship, for my country, for my gender, for my something.’ [Chuckles] How many of us have had moments like this, where ‘I will come back to my notionless Existence just after I deal with this particular thing …, this particular thing that ‘I need to be somebody.’ [Chuckles]

This is the thing. So, this is what I mean when I say don’t presume that we can play with this ‘me, me, me’ and then on call [snaps fingers] I will make God available. Just before the ‘ow’ when the suffering is about to come, I will have a dial-a-pizza type God. [Chuckles] It is true actually and yet the web of this spider can seem to entangle us so quickly that you might not even remember about your Presence. Because the speed of these thoughts coming is … [Makes a gesture of thoughts coming like rain] I know the nature of the mind will take it to the extreme. It will say ‘See, you did that yesterday; you picked up the ‘me’ and Ananta had said ‘Don’t pick up the me.’ [Chuckles] What is all of this? It’s also a notion. Just like it can initially feel like a fine line; like a razor’s edge almost, neither this, nor that.

Then you will discover that it is the most open field: notionlessness. This same notionlessness which for many of you might feel like a razor’s edge where you have to tread carefully, will become like your open filed. You will see that nothing can come and make a difference, make a dent on This.

Q:  Hello, Father. For some time, this question has been arising if awareness is not negative nor positive, why do we experience happiness and joy when contemplating on our Self and why do we not feel sadness or negative?

A: Yes. [Smiles] So, That which is empty of quality…, if we have to make a comparison, we can compare it with the deep sleep state.

(Perfect timing! [Laughs] Just as I said that, somebody went to sleep.)

So, this Awareness is very much like the deep sleep state; neither negative nor positive.

[Mock conversation]: ‘How happy were you in your deep sleep state?’ … ‘I was fine.’ … ‘Were you unhappy in your sleep state?’ … ‘No, I was just sleeping.’

You see? So, these qualities also don’t apply there. The qualities which are a part of our physical phenomenal existence don’t apply there. So, that’s why actually I’m happy to see that you say that you don’t feel sadness or negative. Because many feel like ‘It’s so frustrating to inquire on the Self. I feel a lot of irritation and anxiety coming.’ But either joy or sadness will be part of this phenomenal construct; which Awareness is beyond, is prior to. And that substratum does not change. That substratum of your Truth (this Brahman, this Absolute) does not change.

So, this is like the ocean. (It’s all a metaphor, okay? There is no real ocean like this.) But this is like the ocean, on top of which these waves arise. The waking state, the dream state and all the objects; in all of this, the ocean remains the ocean. But on top of this come moments of sadness, moments of joy; then identification with one of the waves (waves identification with the state itself) …, then other waves, like that which we call relationship…, then we try to collect a full bank account of waves to be secure as a wave. All of this is part of just this appearance. And all of this is going to go to Nothing. All of this is going to go to Nothing. And you cannot truly predict that this world, this body/mind, this system, will ever truly repeat itself in this way ever again or not. We can’t predict. You might say ‘I have a memory of yesterday’ but we have memories even in dreams. It might be the first time you experience a dream but you’ll have the full life story of that dream- character.

But we can have some fun with this at times, in the sense that maybe it’s a rotational system. Like we are sitting in sangha together. I feel so clear that ‘I am Ananta, this is Matthew, this is Radha, this is Gabriella, this is Drishti.’ So, it might feel so clear that ‘I am this one’. But suppose tomorrow when we wake up ‘I am Mathew, he is Radha, she is Gabriella.’ [Laughs] It’s completely possible that you might have the experience of the centrality of another character, which you feel like is an auxiliary character today in your story.

So, all of this is Your play. You are playing with all of these roles and characters, all of these appearances. Now, allow these to be your deeper insights. All you have to do is remain empty of this belief system, empty of all these notions.

In a way, I can say that all you have to not do is pick up a notion. [Smiles] Because when I say that ‘All you have to do is remain notionless’ then it can feel like there a ‘doing’ to it, like the effort is in remaining notionless.

I feel the effort is in picking up notions; the energy goes in that.

So, the question he asked was like in this way: Awareness is empty of all of these qualities. And when we start to recognize that ‘This is my very Source’ then, at times, it can seem like a completely sober Seeing, a sober recognition. And at times it can seem like so much joy, so much love, so much peace is coming as a by-product of this recognition.

Some have also said (although it is rare) that they had a moment of great clarity and then some sadness came because of the remnants of the attachment to the past must have played out as some sadness. It seems some have had these kinds of experiences also.

So, my advice would be to not worry so much about the by-products of what is coming, as you inquire: Truth for Truth ‘s sake. Because why? It is the Truth, no? [Smiles] You must not need a ‘Why?’ for Truth because it is the Truth.

Truth for Truth’s sake; irrespective of the by-products.

And I am happy with this report, that you enjoyed this contemplation, which I remember very well also.

Suppose that 10 years ago you started building a house. You wanted it to be the best house possible. [Smiles] So, you decided that ‘I am going to make the best house possible.’ Then you spend one year on the plan. You hire the best architect. Then every part of the house …, the floors, you picked Italian Marble, the best among the best. You picked for the kitchen platform some Belgium Granite or something. Everything top notch. And you’ve been building slowly with care. And whatever you built which you didn’t like, you demolished it. You rebuilt it to get it right; to get it just right.

Now 10 years have gone by and only the roof is left. Let’s say the roof is left. Then you ask around and say ‘Who is the best one who can make this roof?’ And somebody says ‘This one is the best one.’ So, you go to this one, who looks at your house and says ‘Okay, okay.’ He doesn’t seem too impressed. [Laughs] That itself is upsetting, firstly. He doesn’t seem too impressed with the house that you’ve built. And next he looks up and says ‘Come, I’ll show you something.’ So, he takes your hand and takes you out and walks with you till you get to the middle of nowhere. You get to the middle of nowhere [Smiles] and this one says ‘This is your house. Here is your house.’

How will you feel? You spent 10 years building a house and this one seems crazy by now. You’re pretty clear he is crazy. He takes you to the middle of nowhere and says ‘This is your house.’ [Smiles] What will be your reaction?

Many of you can correlate your initial Satsang reactions to this. So, what does this mean, really? Slowly and slowly, we have built up a belief system that we call ‘the person’. All the learnings from all the teachers and from parents, from all the books, from all the people we have met, from all the self-help that we’ve applied; we have taken these ideas and built this identity.

And then we said ‘What is cherry on this cake? How can I top off this identity? How can I give it a halo?’ And somebody said ‘Go to this one.’ And this one, that is the Master, doesn’t give you a halo or doesn’t give you a roof. He says ‘Even all of this that you’ve built up, if you want to come with me, you have to leave.’

And we’ve got to be honest and say, mostly, this doesn’t feel good. [Smiles] It doesn’t feel good, at least initially. Because you will say ‘Tell me what is wrong, I will fix it. If this wall is wrong, I will demolish it and make a new one. I’ve done it many times before. I was in this movement, I was in this class, I was in this Satsang and I realized that something is not right and I changed it. I exchanged it, for something else.’

So, the disciple says to the Master ‘Tell me where you are going to take me or tell me what I can do instead of this. I’ve done this before. I’ve taken a set of beliefs. I realized that they were wrong. I dropped them. I believed in a new set. If that is what you’re saying, tell me I am wrong, and tell me how I am wrong and I’ll replace it with your philosophy. Oh! God isn’t like this? You tell me God is not like that and I will take your version of God and I’ll put it there.’ [Smiles] You see? ‘I’ll demolish what I believe and I’ll take your version and put it there.’

But the Master is saying ‘Let’s just go from here.’ You’re saying ‘But is this a better place? Where you’re taking me, is it going to be better? Tell me how is it going to be better? I’ve given my life to this, to building this house.’ [Smiles]

So, this is why this spiritual search can seem to have this …, like many times in Satsang we use this term ‘burning’.  A lot of burning is happening, a lot of things are burning, I am burning from inside. What is burning, actually? What is burning is our concepts; even our spiritual concepts. And many times, when this burning is happening, it does not feel good. Why doesn’t it feel good?  I was hearing somebody yesterday; very beautifully they were explaining the mechanics of belief. And they said ‘In every belief that we have right now, while we hold it, feels good, it feels right.’ It’s only when it’s given up that you realize ‘Oh, that was not true.’ While you have it, it feels like it is the right thing. You see? That’s why it’s your belief. So, you might go through that journey of starting to feel like there is something wrong with this, and then testing it some more, inquiring into the nature of it, and dropping it. But while you hold it, it doesn’t feel to you that it is limiting you.

How many of you are hearing this? It’s very important. While you’re holding a belief, it does not feel to you that it is limiting you. It feels to you that it is necessary, it is helpful. And when you meet someone who, in your heart, you feel is to be trusted but they are taking you to a place where there is no such belief system, it can feel like some burning is happening. Because you feel like ‘What I am burning is what I invested in for so long. I’ve invested in this belief system for so long, for so long. And the bigger problem here is: at least tell me what to put in its place.’ [Chuckles] ‘You’re telling me to demolish the house but are you going to give me a trailer at least to stay in?’ This is the burning.

The Master says ‘All of this is within You. You don’t need a house in this world.’ (This is a metaphor, okay? I am not asking you to give up the physical house.) [Chuckles] You don’t need this identity, you don’t need this house of cards.

Try living open.

And this can feel strange; it can feel scary. The Master says ‘Don’t worry. I know it wobbles but I am with you. I’ve been through this wobble, and I will take you through it.’

Now, what can happen is that (in the design of the mind) the mind is not designed to just give up without a fight. [Smiles] When a belief starts getting questioned, it also gets everything to try and reinforce it. Everything, to reinforce it. And that works with all our beliefs but it especially works with our doubts. [Smiles] It especially works with our doubts and our negative belief system.

So, if you feel …, for example, suddenly a thought comes to you today that ‘Oh, Ananta has… like this…’ [Gestures like a belief that the mind is thinking as if it were a bug and brushes it away] Notice how the mind will use that opportunity to say ‘Yeah, this is also like last Thursday when he did that to this one, and you know, when this one said this, and then he said that.’ This is the nature if the mind, to quickly produce enough evidence (seemingly, since they’re just concepts) so that the belief can get deep-rooted very quickly. So, it’s almost like a spider. Have you seen a spider; like when a mosquito goes in the spider web, what happens? It quickly goes to the mosquito and… [Gestures wrapping it up in the web] The mind is a bit like that. It plays a bit like that, where you feel like something got caught and then it doesn’t want to leave it. It wants to spin all the stories around it…, and soon! This one can be really soon, really soon; like in 10 minutes, you could be convinced.

And what did they say? That every belief feels right anyway. You see? So, within a short period of time, we could be caught up in this huge web of beliefs, and can feel like ‘Yes!’ [Gestures as if having won or achieved or triumphed over something]

Now, with most of the traditional spiritual paths, what can happen is that they will provide you an auxiliary ‘replacement belief system’ which is supposed to last for a bit. It’s supposed to last for a bit. [Smiles] They say ‘Okay. It feels too naked, too open, to leave your house (to be without an ego) and come to this, literally, middle of nowhere; without any walls. So, let me construct a temple around you, a ‘kutiram’ for you; a hut. Let me give you a hut. This is how it looks. Wake up at 5:00 every morning, do this kriya, do this thing, be a good disciple, have your own personal mantra, chant it like this.’

I know I might be saying that in a bit of trivialize-ation but I am not trying to put any of that down. I’m just saying that if you look at some of this, at least it feels a little more comforting; that ‘I left my old way of thinking and replaced it with a new one. I left my old lifestyle and replaced it with a new one.’ And that can seem to provide some sense of comfort.

But when you come to Satsang like this, it is more direct …, where I don’t really want to give you a replacement to your belief system. I want you to be able to step back from this entire paradigm of believing and not-believing.

Come to a greater openness. I’m not replacing old walls for new ones. We’re replacing it with a completely naked, complete lack of conceptual support structure.

And it is the Master’s job to hold your hand through this all. Because initially to you, it will seem like, in a way, he is setting your house on fire. It may seem like he is setting your house on fire. So, it is up to the Master what speed the house has to be set on fire; whether to put down the fire a little bit and make it a little more comfortable or to increase the intensity of this fire. And the Master is relying on their intuitive insight, which allows this Satguru’s Grace to function. But it has to come to this.

Get out of this limited paradigm of belief in something …, or belief in the opposite of that something. Get out of this paradigm of duality; of ‘that’ and its opposite; of truth and lies; of good and bad; of past and future; of me and other; of time and space.

This is what it means when I say ‘Notionless Existence’.

How many actually want to step out of this paradigm? That’s a most important thing…, in the sense of, are we in Satsang so we can build a better house for ourself? Or are we in Satsang even in the sense that even if the Master has to blow away this house of cards, it is completely fine?

This is a critical question and I’m not really asking it like ‘Yes, come on, and say yes.’ This is for real, sincere questioning. Shine your own light on this question.

One day it happened that I was called for the inauguration of a house. ‘Come, come, let’s go from here.’ And they take you in the middle of a forest and say ‘Why don’t you live here? This is better.’ Because our attachment to the material is just a tiny aspect of our attachment. Our attachment to the material, objective surroundings is a very tiny aspect of our attachment.

This is what I mean about the razor’s edge. This switch in interactive; going from attachment to neutrality. Not from attachment to renunciation. (Are you hearing these words? Are they making sense? Because this part is where the mind starts to create trouble because it doesn’t get that.)

I’m saying: We’re moving from attachment to neutrality; not from attachment to renunciation. Because what is renunciation but another attachment? An attachment to not having anything is renunciation (in a way).

So, when we step back from this entire paradigm, and not consider ourself to be just an object which is defined by the movements of this flesh and blood, we find that this body is just another notion, just another idea.

Step back from this paradigm; from all belief in something and its opposite. It’s important to reiterate that.

So, if you feel that you’re at a cross-road, where there is a left and there is a right…, you say ‘Ananta, which way is the Self?’ So, I say ‘It is not left.’ Then automatically, you presume it is right. ‘Oh, then it’s right, then.’ And I say ‘It is not right.’ And you say ‘Is it left then?’ [Chuckles] And as this conversation continues, your irritation levels might increase. ‘Is it left then?!’ …’No.’ … ‘Then it must be right!’ … ‘No’ … ‘But… left!’ [Smiles]

This is the thing with the mind: Neutrality, What Is, Is-ness, this Is-ness, is not fathomable to it.

So, the invitation actually is to just step back from this. No left, no right; no up, no down; no right, no wrong; no truth, no freedom; no lies, no mis-beliefs; no concept applies to the Reality of You. No thoughts; no instinct. [Smiles] See? If I say ‘There is no path’ you say ‘I must get it this instant!’ If I say ‘There is nothing to get in this instant’ you say ‘Then I must be having to walk on this path longer.’

Snap out of this! [Snaps fingers]

Q: When you were explaining about Beingness, you said ‘Come to our Beingness’ and then you said that ‘Can this become an object?’ You said that ‘It can’t’ and then ‘How would it become an object? Imagine: How would it become an object?’ And from there you said that ‘The only way was that you would pick up a pretense of something; of being a ‘someone’. And that these thoughts, this pretense also probably come from one Source.’ I mean, the ideas to become… That’s where I got confused.

A: Okay, good. I get a little bit of what you are saying. So, as Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said, the ‘I Am’ Itself, your Being, has no struggle, has no trouble. It’s only when we consider ourselves to be something (‘I am something’) then that becomes the fertile ground for all of these notions to come, all these ideas that we have about ourselves and especially about how my life should be.

So, once you start taking yourself to be a ‘something’ (an object) then all this comes. But even this pretense, where the mind and even these notions ultimately come from, is the same Source. Otherwise, there would be two. Isn’t it?

Q: Yes, exactly.

A: Even this play, even this notion of ego, even the notion of separation, must ultimately come from the One Self. That’s why we call it ‘the play’. We say that ‘Okay, we give these explanations which have no actual meaning. [Chuckles] They just serve to remove the question actually.’ We can say that ‘If you are all there is, it becomes just boring for you, you need some leela, you need some entertainment.’ [Chuckles] We create this idea that ‘I am something’ and that ‘something’ is related to name, with form. And then we start to feel like ‘I am a limited something.’ We start to believe that ‘I am a limited something.’

Then something in our heart still knows that ‘I cannot be this limited object.’ And the mind’s version of trying to become unlimited is to try and gather more and more; in terms of relationships, in terms of material objects. So, nobody is really satisfied with what they have because they start with the pretense that they are limited to begin with. But something nags them from within. And that limitation doesn’t sit right for anyone. They are just trying to make themselves the mind’s version of God, which is to posses everything they can; to have the best relationship, to have the best body, to have the best material objects and then ultimately, also to come to the best liberation or the best freedom.

The Source of all of this play is also very same Consciousness. Just like the waves are all made up of the ocean itself, but the ocean itself has given itself the capability to believe that it is an individual wave.

So, the insight that all of you have in Satsang is that all of these boundaries are notional. All of these sensations that you experience, we use them to create a notional boundary for ourself and say ‘I am this.’ And then, using this reference point, then we start to play in this way. If the ocean first considers itself to be the wave, if the ‘I Am’ which is unlimited considers Itself to be ‘I am something’ (then ‘I am this, I am that; I want this, I want that; my life should be like this, my relationship should be like this…’) then all the pretense of individuality plays out.

But in this very moment, You have no sense of separation. This individuality is not original to You. It’s not natural in Your Existence. So, we pick up this trouble moment-to-moment. But even the Source of this seeming-trouble is just the one Self Itself. The Sage Vashishta says in the Yoga Vashishta that ‘To remain notionless is easier than crumpling a petal in your hand.’ So, it is that easy to remain notionless. It is our starting point in this very moment.

Nothing forces us to pick up the pretense that ‘I am something.’ Nothing forces us to believe that we are this limited object. Our unlimited-ness is completely apparent. But you don’t have the concept of it; you cannot have a concept of it. No concept truly replicates Your Truth.

Actually, the ‘I am something’ is not just the definition (like ‘Okay, we feel it’s making a definition about my body or my mind.’) It is to make a definition about anything! Because everything is just an appearance within Your ‘I Am,’ within Your Being. When we give this notion to anything, to any object, with the presumption that ‘I know it in a conceptual way’ then that becomes the root of individualization.

I lost you all? [Chuckles]

I mean it in the sense that if I say ‘This is up and this is down’ …, without any reference necessarily to the person here. But even that makes like a locational reference, in the sense of distinction. Like in the ‘I Am-ness’ which is beyond time and space, we try to create a notional boundary of up and down. So, it is not just the labeling of ‘This body being this way, these desires or aversions being this way’ it is just anything that we presume to know mentally which seems to become the source of this individualization.

That’s why notionless Existence is such a beautiful term. It’s like a beautiful notion in itself, but it’s like one of those super-powered notions which we use to remove all other conditioning.

So, this that Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said: This ‘I Am’ is without trouble. It is only this sense of individualization (‘Individualized Consciousness: ‘I am something’) that becomes the source, the root, of all this.

Notice, Right Now, whether you are something.

Originally in the moment, Right Now, are you something?

Usually what happens is that when you encounter this Being, it’s not usual that the mind just gives up. It also has some trump cards up its sleeve. So, it will say ‘But yes, it is so clear that my Presence is unlimited. It needs nothing, it wants no freedom because the bondage itself is not a problem, but where are the fireworks? [Chuckles] I was promised that all my chakras will open; that I will have unlimited bliss.’ And basically, it is not even the wanting of an experience but it is wanting of a certificate, that ‘Because this happened therefore, it must be true.’ It is more like a confirmation or validation that we are looking for in the form of an experience; not the experience in itself.  Because at least if I said ‘Just meet yourself empty of the judgments, then you will meet the most enlightened Being ever’ and you just look within and came to Your Presence and this deep bliss started arising then you might conclude ‘Oh, that must be it because the bliss came.’ [Smiles]

But the trouble with that is that everything that comes, goes. And then, what will happen is that when the bliss goes then you will say ‘I had it and now I have lost it.’ That’s why my Master [Sri Mooji] says ‘Sometimes the sober seeing is the best’. Because when it comes with experiences (many of you are having and will have these experiences) but the point is then that that becomes trouble. Because you say ‘When I looked with you yesterday, I had such an experience of just love, just love. But now today when I woke up, I was not feeling love. Therefore, then my freedom must be gone.’ So, we use these things as conclusions and sometimes maybe it is better for these things to not happen.

When we just look at what we truly Are, without any by-products, without there being any need for any by-products…

That is why when I say:

Do you want Truth for Truth sake?

Do you want Self for Self sake? or

Do you want it for the by-products; the experiences that accompany it?

I also want to tell you that if it is an experience it will come and it will go.

The Self is not an experience. Your Being is not an experience.

Q: Does the same go for the experience of clarity?

A: ‘The experience of clarity.’ Can you define it a little more?

Q:  It’s like today, we are Seeing …

A: How does this Seeing becomes unclear?

Q: Sometimes it’s like the thoughts and feelings slide by easily and then that brings about a sense of clarity. It’s like they are Seen. And other times, it feels like it is very cloudy.

A: That which is Aware of both clarity and cloudiness, is That ever cloudy?

As you are meeting YourSelf, you will find that there is a Seeing (a capital S seeing) which is beyond even our perceiving; That which is aware of sight (of inner sight or outer sight), which is aware of hearing, taste, smell, all of these things, but It Itself is not dependent on anything. Like the functioning of our attention, which can seem at some moments like the content is very clear and sometimes it can seem very blurry, but You that witnesses the functioning of attention is independent of either of these states.

So, once you see that You are That and there is not so much concern about ‘Okay, do I have clarity?’ because even this…, the quickest way to become cloudy is to try and hold on to clarity. ‘I must always have clarity. [Points to head] I hope it’s like this; I hope it’s like that.’ See, what is that? This is cloudiness. [Chuckles]

So, if you See that my Self in Reality is unconcerned with these moving waves; sometimes high tides, sometimes low tides (it is unconcerned with the movement of attention) then you will See that this question is truly not applicable for you. And yet, in the play of life, you will find that something seems to be mostly in clarity. You can’t approach it this way, by trying to hold onto clarity to keep the clarity. But you can approach it with the sense of finding the Source of all of this: What is at the center of all of this? You will see that this is independent of any blurriness or clarity. And then, in the outward manifestation, it will mostly play as clarity. [Smiles] You know what I mean?

Q: So, clarity is kind of like by-product?

A: It is a by-product, yes.

Q: That’s my …, that’s the stickiest notion that needs to be thrown away.

A: The notion could be that ‘I have to come to or create some clarity for myself.’ How would you do that?

Q: It’s like the notion comes up and I need to like catch the things that are coming up.

A: You see, the seeking or the attempting or the ‘trying to get’ is itself is a source of so much confusion.

Q: It’s like I am seeing now like the value in having this said again and again because what I realized when I am left alone and I am not following the guidance, it’s like ‘Okay I am staying notionless’ but it’s slightly distorted by this notion I am speaking about.

A: Yes, these notions can become very subtle and we don’t realize it. But life pulls it out of us. [Smiles] In notionlessness, there is not even the notion that ‘I am being notion less.’ [Smiles] Because that itself is a notion. [Chuckles] Because once we have something like that, then we set ourselves rules like ‘I have to hold onto this; I should be that or I should not be like that.’ Then we make a journey out of this which is not really a journey at all.

It is more intimate than sitting where you are sitting Right Now.

What is easier than sitting where you are sitting right now? What is easier than even that? [Smiles]

Sangha: Knowing that you are sitting.

A: What is this Knowing? Is there anything easier than this Knowing?

Sangha:  Being.

A: Okay, suppose it’s Being. So, this Being is whose Being?

We said: What is the simplest? (And we will discuss that knowing; the small ‘k’ or big ‘K’ later.) Right now, it’s a good answer. You say ‘Being.’ So, Being is simpler than even sitting where you are right now. This Being is what everyone is looking for. This Being is what everyone is looking for.

Is it too simple? [Smiles] It is just doubt that we have to deal with because the doubt will come and say ‘But…’ There is a beautiful story which Ramesh [Balsekar] was sharing. He was saying that ‘A king came to a Sage and said ‘I will give you half my kingdom if you show me where God is.’ The Sage said ‘I’ll give you twice your kingdom if you show me where God is not.’

It’s just that switch. Like this beautiful interaction with Papaji where somebody who came to satsang with him said ‘Papaji, can you show me God?’ And Papaji said ‘If you drop doubt, then you will see God. What do you see now?’ The man said ‘I don’t see God.’ Papaji said ‘I said drop doubt: ‘Don’t‘ is doubt. What do you see now?’ And the man said ‘I see God!’

This is just not word play; not just word play. It’s just a switch of perspective. We have been mis-labeling things for so long that as you come to this unlabeled life, you’ll wonder at the nonsense you use to believe. You’ll really wonder how you considered yourself to be a separate individual when all there is, is God. Those who are spiritual mostly have this concept that ‘Everything is God but me. Everything is God but I am not. I have to get to God or I am seeking God.’ You see, this itself is arrogance. It can seem like a very humble thing actually but it itself is arrogant, that ‘I can separate myself from God.’ That ‘I am a separate individual who’s been running my life.’ Nobody has met this individual, ever. Nobody has ever met this person who is running your life. All you have met is Your own Presence, Your own Being.

So, the first set of doubts are about this ‘Where is my special experience; fireworks, bliss?’ (Or something like that). The other set of doubt is ‘But how can I live like this? How can I live like this?’ But the one that is presuming that it has been living [Chuckles] (with all these notions) has never lived.

Notice, Right Now, whether you are ‘something’. Originally, in the moment, are you ‘something’?

[Silence]

Do You have a name, originally? Do You have a boundary? Like, does something define You originally; what You are, in this very moment? [Silence]

So, what do you need now a concept for? Do you need a concept even for normal body- functioning like breathing? If you did not have the concept ‘breathing’ would you stop breathing? Would your hearing stop if you did not know what hearing was?

So, Existence is completely taking care of Itself. Like my Master [Sri Mooji] says ‘Let Existence take care of existence’ or ‘Leave your existence to Existence’. It is already doing all of this. In Your very Existence, the light of Your Existence, all this play is moving on its own. So, what support do you want to give to God or to Existence?

The One that is playing with this entire universe and many universes …, does It feel like it needs some support from the non-existent idea that we have about ourself?

So, when we make a conclusion, we feel that ‘What Is’ is not enough; the ‘Isness’ is not enough. ‘It needs the aid of my idea of what life should be, of who I am or what the world is.’ But those conclusions are not needed.

The simplest way to surrender (because sometimes we struggle with this ‘surrender’ (‘How do I surrender?’) …, the simplest way to surrender is: Don’t make a conclusion.

It is possible to live a notionless existence. But the trouble that many of you are having is that after hearing all of this then you’re getting into the cycle of self-judgment. Because you hear that ‘Notionless Existence is the best’ then it can feel like ‘Oh, then why do I keep picking up these notions?’ (Like we were saying the other day.) Then this can be so… [Circling his hand] ‘Why do I keep doing this?’ But that is another notion. So, then it becomes a vicious cycle. You see? Suppose you picked up the notion ‘Oh, I wish I had this in my life?’ It is fine. I call it the ‘starter’. That is the starter, but the desert (with the most calories) is the guilt. ‘Oh, why am I being so full of notions? Why can’t I drop this?’

That’s why I keep assuring all of you that the best amongst us, the best that have ever lived in this realm, have had moments of where they do pick up notions. Even the Sages pick up notions from time to time. But they don’t usually pick up the desert ‘Oh, why did I do that? I must not be free yet?’

Somewhere at the root of all of that is an individual self-concern. At the root of that concern is the concern whether ‘I have got it or not.’ But the ‘I’ in this case is still the one with the boundary. It is still personal. So, as long as that is there, then you will continue to judge yourself, and say ‘No, no, I’m not there yet. I am not following Father’s pointings. I’m not following what I’m hearing in Satsang.’ (Or something like this). Then that becomes the vicious cycle. Then again, a notion comes and the whole cycle starts and then you feel ‘Oh, I’m really stuck now. Is it really helping?’ Then it can get into this sort of vicious cycle.

But actually: Just forget about it. Come back to the original-ness, notionless-ness, of this moment. This moment is your best friend.

Then the mind it picks up and it says ‘Yes, yes, this moment is fine.’ (This conversation which we were having that day; somehow it’s re-playing itself because I feel like it’s important for many of you.) Sharanya was saying that ‘This moment is fine, Father, because I am with you. But I know what is going happen. This always happens, that when I leave you, I start picking up notions and I can’t remain like this.’ Then I said ‘But why do you want to spoil this moment for something that is going to happen in the future?’

So, if you know, for example, that you are going to fall into a ditch tomorrow, then why do you want that falling to seem like it must spoil this moment already? It’s better that you don’t worry about that.

It can sound like a simple thing but actually, all of us know that death is coming. Ultimately, the end of this body is going to be the funeral; the burning on the funeral pyre or the burying under the ground. That’s what’s going to happen to this body.

If it is that way anyway, then why do we even bother with anything at all? If freedom was for this body then why would we bother with it? Because it’s going to die anyway. Of what use is that freedom? If freedom is for an individual, the individual has only one end, which is death. So, why would we then bother with it?

There’s only one thing ever actually, which is ‘God Now’ or ‘Me-ow.’ [Smiles] These are the two main modes of operation. (It’s not true like this; but sometimes I say these things to clarify some things.) Consciousness is only operating in one of two ways: ‘God Now’ (with no sense of individuality; just Being ItSelf) or picking up the notion of ‘me’ and then inevitably playing with the sense of suffering.

Now, many of us feel like we can live a bit dangerously; in the sense that ‘I’m going to play with the sense of ‘me’ but the minute the trouble comes, I’m just going to become like in this ‘God Now.’ You feel like you have the ultimate tools at your disposal so you feel like ‘Let me play with the ‘me’ but I have the tools at my disposal so the minute the ‘ow’ starts to come (the suffering starts to come) I’ll get to God and I will escape it.’ [Smiles] Now this is kind of a dangerous game. Many times, you don’t even realize you’re playing this.

In this very moment, do you want to meet the most enlightened Being you’ll ever meet? [Smiles]

In this very moment, do you want to meet the most enlightened Being you’ll ever meet?

How to have this auspicious meeting? [Smiles]

You have to meet YourSelf without any interpretation or judgment. Meet yourself without any interpretation or judgment. And as these interpretations and judgments come, you just have to let them come and go. This Being that You’re meeting, this Presence that is Here, is the One Consciousness, is the Atma, is the Beingness; which needs nothing, which is not bound.

[Silence]

You don’t meet a photocopy version of yourself; you don’t meet an idea of yourself.

Meet YourSelf in Your true openness.

This Being that is Here has been understood to be something personal (something limited) but it truly isn’t. We look for God everywhere but actually, God has just been Here as Your own living Presence.

But if you judge, then it will seem like this God is personal. It will seem like there is a person here. It is just an addiction; just a habit that one must consume, that ‘I must believe what my thought is telling me.’

But this Being that You are encountering Now as Your own Presence has no concept of past or future. It is not trying to hold onto a state. Even freedom and bondage have no meaning for this One.

[Reading from Chat]: “Beloved Father, it is Seen that there is no person. However, it can’t be denied that the One who Sees no person is simply not there in other states.”

Yes. I read this question now because we are just coming to that point.

[Continues reading] “It’s simply not there in other states…, other than the waking state. To clarify: any state which has normal appearances, whether you would call it waking/dream. Wanted to clarify (including the one who wanted to clarify): this isn’t Seen in states other than the waking state.”

That’s why it’s important to note that it is just the manifest aspect of OurSelf (that which we call this Consciousness) which plays with the role of separation (with the role of ‘I am something’) and then comes to the recognition ‘So, I Am [then adds] ‘something, something’ …, and this very same ‘I Am’ is coming to the recognition ‘I Am That’. So, ‘I Am That’ means ‘I am coming to the recognition of my very Source; of what I truly Am.’ And even this One (which we have called the Deity, the God, Consciousness, the Light of this world) ultimately, in Your Absolute Reality, is also a ‘coming and going’.

Both the delusion and recognition (both the play of bondage and coming to freedom) only apply to this Being (this Consciousness) which is now seemingly-waking ItSelf up within the waking state; through Satsang, through Self-inquiry, through surrender; whatever tools or mechanisms It has created for ItSelf. Consciousness coming to the Recognition of Its own Source is this Awakening or Self- Recognition.

Now, an important point worth mentioning is that because we say that this Awareness is the Absolute within which is the manifest aspect (which is Consciousness) doesn’t imply that now there are two: The Absolute and Consciousness. Just like because there are so many different fingers of different sizes doesn’t mean there are two hands; it is still one.

This is a very important point, that even in this distinction, ultimately, between the manifest Being (the dynamic aspect, as Guruji would say) and the Source (the completely non-phenomenal Self) there is actually no distinction. It is One Self. Because like I often say: With the appearance of the Being, it still remains ‘I Am’. It is not that ‘I was’ and now ‘You are’ also; that would mean that there are two. It is just that You are prior to ‘I Am’ (You are always prior to ‘I Am’) but there appears this sense of existence ‘I Am’. Where? For Your own Self.

This ‘I Am’ seems to get into all this trouble (‘seems to’ get into all this trouble) and then ‘seems to’ find various ways to get Itself out of all this trouble. So, although we are very referential about this Being sometimes, like [Nisargadatta] Maharaj said: ‘All this trouble is because of the ‘I Am’ Infection. You have an ‘I Am’ Infection.’ [Chuckles] And he would say things like ‘Forget about Consciousness.’

Now, why I don’t repeat these things very often is because I know the nature of the mind. If it hears something that sounds like ‘Oh, that is the Ultimate’ than that becomes like [Pretends to Grab and Clutch in Hands] ‘Oh, that is what I want!’ [Chuckles] ‘This is what I must hang on to! Forget about Consciousness!’ …, forgetting very quickly that even ‘Forget about Consciousness’ is within Consciousness.

There has to be a certain depth of insight before we jump into these things and start speaking like Maharaj. But I know that if I say this stuff, then it will become like ‘Within Consciousness, within the Being ItSelf’ …, but with the sense of individuality, we’ll hold on to these ultimate- sounding pointers, feeling like now we have the truest knowledge. But it is not that.

The fragrance of when these words are spoken, when they’re coming from a place of True Insight, definitely will not contain the sense of ‘somebody speaking them’. Did you hear what I said?

The fragrance of when these words are Truly said will not contain any sense of there being a speaker, or there being a sense of somebody who has understood this.

That is why I am not in a rush to give you any ultimate-sounding concepts because I know how you are attracted to them. [Chuckles] ‘Oh, I got it!’ [Pretends to Grab Possessively]

It’s simpler to remain in Your Notionless Existence.

Then one day, these words, too, will not be ‘smelly’.

Now, this Being has a lot of beautiful aspects. You can even call them abilities (or aspects is better). Because as soon as Being is there, so much of this play starts. There are phenomenal aspects of time and space, light and gravity. So much, so much, is going in in this apparent universe. There are also subtler aspects like attention and belief, which are very unexplored actually. A lot of exploration has happened about the phenomenal sciences but very little exploration has happened about these very fundamental aspects of our existence.

Like, what is attention?  What is a belief? And therefore, what is identity? [Silence]

So, as you met YourSelf, you found that all limitations, all boundaries, all concepts of history, your past, all desires for the future do not apply to Your Being in Its originality. You saw for yourself: nothing really applies. It is not wanting anything, It is not running from anything, It has no grievances, It has no guilt. All these various terms we use for suffering do not apply to It.

So, what supernatural ability does this Being have? Because it must be a supernatural ability that the Unlimited One is more spacious than space; is That within which even this space comes. You’re meeting this Being, Right Now, as Your own Being, as Your own Presence.

Then how is it that This One considers Itself to be with boundaries, with limitations, with past and future? (Okay, for one minute, you have full permission to identify; for science.) [Laughs]
How is it that This Being considers Itself to be anything limited?

Try to do this. (I know this is never done in Satsang.) Try to do this:

Be a person. Or pose as if you are one.

Slowly, let’s look now. Who actually managed to become a person?

Okay, so we are looking at two questions:

Were you able to pick up the pretense of personhood, the pretense of ego?

Or were you able to transform this Being into something which is limited, which is an object?

An object means it has a size, shape, duration.

Who was able to make this Being into an object?

Cannot do it. This is a very, very important point.

So, no separation has actually happened.

No individualization has ever actually happened in Consciousness.

Therefore, Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharishi] has said that it is only the notion that ‘I am something’ which is the jivatma. There has never been actually a jivatma (which means there has never been an individualized consciousness). It is only the idea ‘I am something’ which makes the Atma pose as if it is an individualized consciousness. When we are operating under the assumption that I am something, then it can feel like ‘I am limited, I’m an individual.’

Then you notice that this ‘I Am’ is just ‘I Am’ …, with no boundaries.

Being is just Being.

The offers of this ‘something’ are only coming from one source. The offers ‘to attach’ are from one source. And this is also very important to see. This is also very important to see, otherwise you will get into some fight with the world, you will get into some sort of position with the world. You don’t have to do any of that because there is only one source which is offering this notion of ‘something’ to you. This source we call ‘the mind’ (also called the ‘small mind’). It is giving you ideas about YourSelf which are not true. It is that aspect of Your creation which You have created so that You could believe this story of individuality. It is the narrator of this story which has the personal perspective.

If you let this one ‘be’…, if you leave it alone (you don’t have to fight it, you don’t have to love it, just let it come and go) then you will find the natural love which is there for all appearances can also exist for this one. But we’re still not buying that story of separation; you’re not buying this ‘tiny mad idea’.

This is what I’ve been calling ‘Your Notionless Existence’. And this is what it means to go ‘from person to Presence’ …, which means that we go from this maha-mantra of the mind (which is ‘What’s in it for me?’ …, constantly identifying with this ‘What’s in it for me?’) to having no notion that ‘I am something’ (which means to have no idea about this ‘me’).

The Sage’s life is a beautiful representation of this: how even a normal, regular day-to-day functioning can happen without picking up concepts, without picking up the identity.

Check Inside: Who is the one that is now left? So, the notional went away; the conceptual, the made-up one was just an idea. [Chuckles] It is like you can have a crazy idea like ‘You are uncle Sam and your only job is to recruit people to the American army’ [Chuckles] (or something like that). Now, you looked and you found there is no such entity. But you looked: Who is existent Here? Who is present Here? You have looked. So, when the notional one is no longer given a belief, it is not given a reference point (you can say) …, another way to say it is: the death of the person idea does not imply your death.

The one that is present; first we come to this one. The Sages have also used the term for this one, called the ‘I Am’. Now, you have never had the experience of anything at all unless first you existed. So ‘I Am’ becomes the substratum for this state in which all this is appearing. As Omkar is saying, the waking state or the dream state, any state in which there is phenomenal appearance, first means ‘I Exist’ / ‘I Am’ / ‘My Being Is’. Just like this, Existence is just the existent aspect of What Is.

So, the beautiful question to as is: What wakes up?

This Being, this manifest aspect of your Self, seems to wake up. And once it wakes up, all this drama of life, all these colors of shapes and sizes, they start to appear. But if you kept the originality of the moment of waking (if the originality of the moment of waking is not tethered, not attached to any idea about ourselves) then here there is no suffering and the Truth of what you are is completely apparent. Now the best part about this is that you don’t have to wait till tomorrow. [Chuckles] Because from what I said it can sound like ‘from tomorrow when I wake up Then I have to wake up and keep that originality of that moment and then done’ the best part about this is that, in this moment, you are completely fresh. All the notions and everything that is happening. This is like a ‘huge’ cheat code. [Chuckles] You can make nothing out of your spiritual journey (in a good way). [Chuckles] It can make nothing out of the so-called spiritual journey because Right Now, as you meet this Being, as you meet this ‘I Am-ness’ completely empty of any judgment, you are meeting God; you are meeting Consciousness; you are meeting Beingness.

So, we saw that there is no person and then we are coming to a meeting with our own Being. And the only prerequisite is ‘Don’t bring your thoughts with you.’ They can come and they can go but you don’t bring any thoughts that you are attaching to. Don’t put anything in your bag. Everything can come and go but don’t collect anything, not even the interpretation of this insight which you are having. You see? You don’t have to come out saying ‘This is It.’ Then you will hold onto ‘this is It’ …, and ‘This’ will be forgotten. [Chuckles]

Empty of any interpretation, meet yourself. In this moment, you are an enlightened Being. You are as ‘Sagely’ as a Sage can get. [Chuckles] And I am allowed to make that judgment on your behalf. You leave it alone.

Because we hear things so often in Satsang, sometimes I feel that they lose their value. Like we keep saying ‘There is no person’ and it has become part of our language now that ‘Oh, there is no person.’ But THERE IS NO PERSON! [Chuckles] Sometimes I want to say it with so much emphasis! Because many times we are saying it but we’re just saying it personally.

What does it mean that ‘There is no person’ …, that this individual boundary that we have created for OurSelf is just made up? The notion of separation is just made up. It’s not a simple statement to just say ‘There’s no person.’ First, before we get to even Presence, let’s explore this.

‘Yes, yes, I’ know there is no person.’ [Monotone voice] It has become a bit like that. [Chuckles] Come on! There is no person here! [Chuckles] What does that really imply then? If there is no person here, there is nobody who has a story. There is nobody who has a history. There is nobody who is this way or that way. For a while, let’s deal with this fact. And because the Sages have said it umpteen times, it is a fact that there is no person, there is no individual, there is no ego. It is just a made-up concept; made up by the One Consciousness ItSelf.

All your pride, all your grievances, all your regrets, your guilt …, all of this has who at the center? All your understanding also; who is at the center of all of this if there is no person? And we have looked and looked and we found that there is no person. Even phenomenally, you have the appearance of these intimate perceptions called the body; intimate both in the sense of sensationally intimate [Rubs fingers together] (seeming-like) and also intimate in that the visual perspective seems to be centered around this head. In this way, this object seems like the most intimate.

Now this body has no concept of bondage or freedom. If you consider yourself to be this body, then what are you doing in Satsang? [Smiles] What are you doing in Satsang? What is in Satsang for this body? Nothing is available. There are no donuts for this body. [Chuckles] It cannot be really that you consider yourself to be this body. Also, if you look at your last five-to-ten problems, how many of them are related to the body? Maybe one or two, but the majority has to do with relationships, has to do with money in the bank account, has to do with people like at work, also people in the Sangha; other people which the body is not so concerned about. Does the body have a career path? Does the body have a bank account? Can you take that money and feed it to the body? You can’t do it. It means nothing to this body.

If your life has been centered around relationships, about security (like money) …, if it has been centered around even the question of freedom, then already you are not behaving as if you are a body: You are behaving as if You are the owner of this instrument called the body.

This ownership has been given to the wrong place. It has been given to a made-up idea. It has been given to a name. But who is this one? This is what we call the person (the ego) and it is just a concept. At best, it’s a belief system. The body is an instrument. It is just sitting around or standing up or lying down. It has no concept about anything at all.

Even phenomenally, we do not find this person. That’s why I call this person ‘a second-level illusion’. (That’s a different debate: whether you consider this world play an illusion or not; we don’t have to get into that at this moment.) But even in this world play we do not find this person. And that should have a seismic impact! That should have a seismic impact. It cannot just be run-of-the-mill, like ‘Oh, I know there’s actually no person. Everything is actually the will of Consciousness. You know, it’s all Guru Kripa. You know, it’s all very…’

It’s just become like language, these words that we are using to justify ourselves personally, to take a personal position about things, claiming to be in the cargo of spirituality. We have to get out of this.

There is no person. Digest that fact. You have looked. The Sages have said it and the scriptures have said it; all the credible sources have testified to this over and over again. And most importantly, You have looked. In Your own insight, You have not have found this entity called the person. [Silence] That’s an important point.

Then the question comes:

‘When I say ‘I’ what am I referring to Now?’

When I say ‘I’ what am I referring to Now?

What does the ‘I’ represent?

This is worth exploring. ‘I have already discovered that there is no person but I’m still saying ‘I have discovered…, ‘I’ have discovered that there is no person’ …., but I’m saying ‘I’ have discovered’.

So, who is this ‘I’ now? If the person was all there was, then there must not be a ‘you’ left to make a discovery. But who’s insight this?

And we also said: From Your own insight (you can say intuitive insight, you can say inner perception, you can use many words but) You can say from Your own insight that You have Seen that there is no person.

You have Seen. So, which ‘you’ is now left?