BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

Even in Satsang sometimes, all that we are doing is waiting for confirmation of an existent belief system. Suppose you come to Satsang everyday and all you heard was everything contradicting what you believed. You’d say ‘I don’t like this. This does not seem like a good Satsang. Today Ananta is contradicting everything he only told me.’ [Smiles] But truly, the attempt is to not to create a solid belief system, a framework of concepts which seems to be very Advaita, but to take you beyond this, beyond the idea that you can capture the truth in a mental way. And we’ve been talking about these things. We cannot even capture the phenomenal aspect in a phenomenal way … not one moment, in a mental way. You cannot capture one moment of even the appearance of phenomena. There is no concept which can describe this, even this meeting. And we use these broad strokes then. ‘There is Satsang with twenty people.’ Is that what this is? But we live in this way. ‘What did you do this morning?’ … ‘Oh, I went to Satsang and it was nice. There were twenty people.’ You see, this kind of thing. It’s okay, conversationally. But you know what I’m getting at, that it does not capture this.

Life is actually much broader than our mind can just capture.

In a way, it’s like, you know, in our time we used to have these phone directories. Some of the younger ones, my children, have never seen a phone directory. [Smiles] But is the city just a phone directory, a list of the people and their addresses? Our mind’s version is like that; just all the labels. But the truth is un-label-able. (I have some practice in saying that word; what do you say?) [Chuckles] The truth is un-label-able.

Sanga: Un-label-able.

A: When you’re happy in front of that mountain, is it because you know the name of the mountain or because you know it is a mountain? When you see a newborn baby, is the joy because you know the name of the baby? [Smiles] Is the Presence that you experience in Satsang dependent on the words of Satsang, the language which is been spoken? It is independent.

For years, we’ve looked at the validity of our conclusions. We looked at the validity of all our conclusions, then we said ‘They just don’t create; they just don’t have any tangibility.’ If at the end of this life, you were told on your deathbed ‘Actually, you were right’ [Chuckles] is that all you want? … at the end, to have an affirmation that you were right? But we seem to live our life in this way. And all that remains for all of us in Satsang is usually followed by a ‘But…, but I’m right about this; but I’m right about this’ hoping that that concept somewhere represents truth … even after hearing over and over that it cannot and checking repeatedly (not just hearing, but checking for yourself).

What can’t you do … what can’t you do without being right about? (Is that sentence correct? ‘What can’t you do without being right about?’ Is it correct English? Sometimes I’m hearing the words coming out.) [Chuckles]

What do you HAVE to be right about? Simply… [Smiles] You just HAVE to be right about this.

If the ‘seeker’ is the predominant identity now, you will find that there will be these spiritual concepts, Satsang concepts. Those thorns, which were meant to remove other thorns and to be thrown away, themselves are the embedded thorns which are to be removed; for many of us.

It’s our version of the spiritual truth. And if you look at any of these versions, you feel like ‘These are so special, these are so cool’ but actually, when you go back in history you find that these are the same spiritual debates which have been happening for thousands of years. There is no big deal in any of them. Whether Maya is unreal or real. Whether this is the play of Consciousnesses or it never existed. Whether both ‘Self’ and ‘person’ are real or only ‘Self’ is real. Whether ‘person’ is real aspect of ‘Self’ or it has no existence of whatsoever. There is no big deal in any of these positions and none of these represent any Truth in Reality.

The idea is not to become a ‘pandit’ [Smiles] who know so much, but tastes very little. That’s why The Ribhu Gita is a beautiful scripture because it deconstructs all spiritual and non-spiritual ideas. It says ‘You are beyond the duality of even the statement ‘I am Brahman’ … beyond the duality of even the statement ‘I am Brahman’. [Smiles] Because even in that assertion there is duality; the possibility that you could not be and therefore, an affirmation is needed (as inherent in any assertion).

Like I was saying ‘Nobody goes around saying, asserting, that ‘I have a mouth.’ Is there a possibility that you couldn’t? [Smiles]

Reality is independent of your idea about it, your assertions or denials about it. Empty of labels you are empty of distinctions.

[Reading from the chat]: “For me, subconscious means that which I repress; repress in the waking state, mostly desires and fears.”

It’s okay. However you want to use the terms actually is fine; it’s no trouble. But just don’t make too many side projects, like ‘I must now work on my subconscious nature’ or something like that.

The beauty of this simple, straight-forward, natural sahaja way of remaining in our notionless existence is that all the clean-up that needs to happen apparently is also taken care of.

There is no actual thing like the world. There is no actual thing like the world, the body, the mind; even Consciousness, Awareness … there is no actual thing like that. It’s just that we take from our existence, we make certain boundaries and say ‘This is a world, this certain a set of sensations, this is a body.’ Visual perceptions and certain sensations we label them together in a basket and say ‘This is a body’.

Then for another set of energy-constructs which carry this language and meaning, we say ‘This is mind.’ Mind is a bundle of thoughts, like Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said. And then, for the very Presence of Existence, we say ‘This is Being’. Different sensations we call emotions and say ‘This is anger, this is fear this is joy.’ But the terms are not inherent in the sensations or the perception of them. These are just terms we use for communication. There is no distinction ever between anything in Reality.

Q: You were talking about the stage and the actor is coming in there. There comes a point when one of the actors starts taking the center stage and starts making so much noise that entire attention shifts to that actor. In the moment of anger or fear, frequently we are able to observe that this is taking over but sometimes it goes beyond our control and only later on we get to recognize it. How can we handle that situation?

A: So, this is what we are discussing: anger comes. Whenever fear, anger, all this comes, it seems like it is center stage. Actually, it never is. It is just that…

I have that very old example. If I drew a black dot on this wall and I ask all of you ‘What do you see?’ not even one of you will say ‘I see a big white wall.’ All of you will say ‘I see a black dot.’ This is our life … and dealing with these emotions is especially like that; that these things come. It’s like the dog’s tail is wagging. Everybody starts looking only at the tail. The rest of the dog is not seen. [Chuckles] So, when these emotions take center stage, the difference between energy-constructs which we call thoughts and energy-constructs that we call emotions is that one has this specific language-oriented meaning which is these thoughts. They just come and go but they throw language-oriented meaning actually. The emotions seem to have a quality of lingering.

So, when they are lingering, let them linger but don’t hold on to any concept about them. Let them come and go. See if you cannot even label it ‘anger’. Let attention be on it as much as it likes. Try to leave it empty of any labels. Because if I tell you one thing you might be a bit surprised: You have never experienced the exact same emotion twice. So, that which we call anger actually is a big spectrum, just given a convenient name. So, when this thing is there [flaps his hand in front of his chest] if you are not saying ‘I’m angry, I should not be angry, when will this anger go? I will be free only when …’  all these conclusions; none of them are true. Because if you look at our Sages, especially if you read stories of our Sages, many have been very angry at times. [Chuckles] There have been sages in India like Vishwamitra, Parashuram. They have destroyed big dynasties of kings and things like that in their anger.

So, don’t judge yourself, or don’t even say that ‘This has to go’ or ‘This has to stay’. Take no position about anything … because no matter how long something might seem to be at the center stage, for Infinity it is just a blink of an eyelid. And you don’t have to deal with it with your attention anyway. If your attention is fixated on it, then let it be fixated on it. You just become empty of any concept about it. As the Zen master said ‘These thoughts are visitors, they come and go. Allow them to come and go, just don’t serve them tea.’ What is this tea that we served to them? The tea of our belief, of our identification with them.

And one more tip I will give to you is that: Don’t try to solve it for some past version of you, or some future version of you; because that will keep you caught. You’re sitting here in Satsang and many of us are just trying to solve it for the one that was here yesterday feeling so much or something; or ‘How is it going to be when satsang is over and you are not here?’ You see? You are trying to solve it for this version or that version, instead of tasting ourselves in our reality Right Now.

The mind will keep saying ‘But in Satsang it is fine, Father, in Satsang it is fine, but…’ Like that. But even in Satsang, it is not fine because we are still buying into two notions of past and future.

Any moment when you are empty of this, when you allow this Unborn to be unborn, is Satsang.

What is happening here is that you are allowing Yourself to taste Your own Presence.

So, what is Here Now?

What can you say about Now?

Can I add a supplement to that question?

What can you say about Now without thinking about it?

Q: Nothing.

A: Even ‘nothing’ is saying too much, actually. You know what I mean? Neither something nor nothing, neither this or that, neither here or there, neither getting it nor missing it.

[Chuckles] Let it go.

It will come saying ‘This really means something!’ …but it really doesn’t.

You can just safely let it go.

And this silence, which initially can feel a bit uncomfortable, you’ll start enjoying the naturalness of that, uncluttered with false knowing.

Now, don’t exchange past concepts for new concepts. Don’t exchange the ideas for ‘Yes, I used to think I’m a person but now know that I am the Self or ‘I am the Self and the person’ or some newfangled notion like this. Allow yourself to let go. Allow the truth to breathe in this way, without again covering it up with conceptual dust.

And if you need a reassurance, Master Bankei has said that ‘All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn.’ All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn. So, can we not give it a chance, what he said? [Smiles] Let the Unborn deal with everything.

What is that Rumi quote? (Very beautiful, from that day…) ‘What a joy to be empty. Now God can live this life.’ Whether you call it Consciousness or you call it God or you call it the Unborn or you call it Self … various terms (they are not exactly synonymous but) are used synonymously many times.

And what is the other option anyway? I say ‘Let God lead this life.’ What you got? What option do you have? Who else is there, besides this one Consciousness, one Being? Show me that one. Then we will pick. [Smiles] Present as God, your very Being; undeniable. Now, present the other option. Then we will take an objective call, okay? Show the other one. Who is here? The lawyer in our head is representing which client? [Smiles] Who is the lawyer who is objecting vehemently and pleading a case for this ‘me’? Who is that?

You are here in Satsang; presumably you want freedom. But we cannot even find that one who wants freedom. Ah. [Smiles] Can you find? Find the one who wants freedom. What freedom can you give to this body? It is not in chains at this time. Who else did we find?

We are looking very simply, okay? Nothing special, very objectively asking: There seems to be a voice who is representing a ‘me’. Now, who is it actually representing? We just have to find that one … and present this one and say ‘See, this is the one that is representing. I need to take care of this one.’ Now, you are taking care of this one also in your quest to find liberation. So, let’s find that one and give liberation to it.

Who wants it?

And try to make this question fresh. Because otherwise the mind will keep saying ‘Yeah, I know; who am I? It doesn’t exist. I don’t exist…’ You see, these are all still just answers. So, see if you can meet the question fresh.

Who wants freedom?

What is here that wants freedom?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said that ‘The notion ‘I am something’ is the root of all suffering.’ The idea ‘I am something’. And what is the shortened version of ‘I am something’?

The idea of ‘me, me, me’ is the notion ‘I am something’. And in usual use, the even shorter version is ‘I’ (in usual use). So, if this notion (the ‘I’ or the ‘me’) became empty of meaning, did not point to any object, just became emptied of its referential nature, then what is left? The entire spectrum, right from the object to the Self, Awareness Itself … in that entire spectrum we’ve gone from referring to this ‘I’ as many of these things. Now, the Truth needs no such reference. You do not need to even fix the ‘I’ in its true position. If it is the true position, it must always be, and all positions that you can give to it, all references that you can make about it are fundamentally flawed because it is beyond any such reference that you can make. That is where the inquiry comes in. When you refer to yourself, the question is asked: ‘But who are you? Who am I?’ Empty of these references to yourself: What is it that is left?

All concepts in some way refer to you as if you are the limited self. As we go beyond this conceptual knowledge and even beyond intellectual reasoning, you no longer know yourself conceptually … but you are not empty of the true Knowing. Let us be empty of this blurriness that comes with false reference-making. That is why I have been asking: ‘What is that you know when you know nothing?’ I know on the face of it, it doesn’t sound like a very appealing question. It sounds like wordplay almost, but it isn’t. We only suffer from what we think we know. Have you ever suffered without thinking you know something? You have to at least make a conclusion that ‘I know what this is’ to suffer from it. That’s why Papaji [Sri Poonja] said ‘To be happy you do not need anything. But to be miserable, you definitely need something.’ I would add to that and say ‘You need to know something.’

Now, the mind will come and say ‘But that’s a dumb way to live. What kind of living is that? That is so dumb.’ This is just the momentum of prior conditioning. I was saying the other day … this bumblebee came into the room and was fluttering its wings and going from place to place. I was asking everyone whether they feel like she is thinking about it and then saying ‘Okay, I’m going to flap flap like this and flap flap like that.’ But it is the beautiful intelligence which animates it. The same supreme intelligence is animating our lives. A bird is newborn, but in the season of migration it knows which direction to fly. But it’s not a conceptual knowing (presumably; let us speak to the bird about that). [Chuckles] There is innate intelligence which is driving all of this. Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] says, the tree is not deciding where its next branch is going to be. (‘Ah, should it be left, right?’) [Chuckles] It is not deciding. And yet, it’s so beautiful that every one of them is unique and yet such supreme beauty is present.

So, this surrender, this letting go, is not dumb. It is Being with this Supreme Intelligence which is animating this entire perceived creation. But it doesn’t even make that distinction between the phenomenal and the nominal; the perceived and the perceiver. Even these distinctions are not needed there.

Q: So, I had a related question. I have been following the pointings of Mooji Baba for a while now. Sometimes I get a doubt whether I’m really able to experience the Presence or whether it is a mask created in a very subtle way by the mind itself because it can be very clever. How can I?

A: Yes. I will help you with this. What you have to do is you have to be not Be. Don’t Be, for a moment. Did it? Don’t Be, now. Done? [Laughs]

Q: I get a sense of that but I don’t have that sense. The moment I get it, that means I have not been there.

A: No, it’s not complicated. Okay, just like … come here as if this is your first Satsang; you don’t know anything about anything. And I want you to stop Being for a moment. Like don’t Exist. [Silence] Stopped Existing?

Q: There is sense of void.

A: Who is tasting this void? Is it the one sitting next to you tasting this void? Whose report are you making?

Q: Something within.

A: Something within. Stop this one. Let that one not Be, that which perceives even void. Did it?

Q: Yes.

A: Who senses ‘Yes’?

Q: Still something within.

A: That which perceives all of this is Your Presence. You can’t miss it; in fact, you can never experience it not Being there.

Okay, let me ask another question: Are you Aware now?

Q: Yes.

A: How did you confirm this? What did you see?

Q: I didn’t see anything but I felt …

A: Was it a feeling-felt?

Q: Just an Awareness.

A: Just Awareness. What is the color of it?

Q: No color.

A: No color. How old did it feel?

Q: No age.

A: No age. How big was it?

Q: No definition applies.

A: No definition applies. Now, isn’t it unique? This discovery itself so simple and yet so unique.

Did you see a green apple on this couch?

Q: No.

A: Why did you say ‘No’? You didn’t see the shape, you didn’t see the size, you didn’t see the color green. For Awareness, you said ‘Yes’ … for green apple you said ‘No’. Why?

You see what I’m getting at? For phenomenal objects, you have to get their attributes and then we confirm. For this Knowing-ness itself, for this Awareness itself, it is so primal that you cannot deny it and yet you do not perceive it objectively.

Can it be as simple as this? They say ‘The Self is without attributes. It does not come and go, does not have age.’ I asked you simply: Are you Aware? You said ‘Yes’. I asked you about the attributes, you say ‘No’. I said ‘Are you making this report conceptually?’ you say ‘No’. It is an experience but it is not phenomenal. [Smiles] Can we say such a thing? It is the only non-phenomenal experience you can have. Your unchanging aspect, the unmanifest aspect of You which is ever-present but prior to Presence.

Now get rid of it. Don’t try to hold on to it, don’t even abide in it, get rid of it! Don’t be aware, throw it away, push it out! [Silence] Can you do it?

Q: Can’t.

A: Can’t do it. Then what is the struggle about? If we can’t leave it, then what are we trying to get?

Q: It just that the attention shifts to the person.

A: Yes, but where does attention report back to? No matter to what it goes to, where does it report back to?

Q: I.

A: So, this Self it cannot leave. It’s like a dog on a leash; it can go here, here, here and here but can it leave you? It can’t. So, we get so obsessed with checking on what is on this side of attention, with what is the content it is bringing back. But what is on that side of attention? Who is it bringing back to? Does that also change?

Q: How can I make that side of the attention permanent?

A: I said, no? You try to get rid of it. Try to make it impermanent. This is a strange Satsang you have come to. [Chuckles] Here we are not saying that we want to make it permanent. I am saying that: You take this Awareness and throw it away; make it impermanent. Can you do it? Like for one moment, don’t be Aware. You come fully on this side of your attention, the content side. Leave Awareness, can you do it?

Q: Can’t do it.

A: So, the Truth is always permanent, you see? It is not coming and going. It is just these ideas which have to go.

That’s good? Are you going to leave the idea or are you going to leave the conversation? [Chuckles]

Q: I’m going to leave the idea. [Laughter]

A: Because many times it can happen that we just leave the conversation and we feel like ‘I still have to do this! I still have to make sure it happens like this.’ These are just ideas. And who is the ‘I’ that you are referring to in all of these ideas? Who has to do this?

Q: Awareness.

A: But this Awareness, is it doing it in the traditional way we think about doing; like objectively? It has never moved, it has no limbs. [Chuckles] All of this is its limbs, in a way. So, it is doing all of this.

Q: It’s just Observing.

A: It is just aware, yes. So, every time we make this notion that ‘I must do this or do that’ we are again picking up the limited version of ourselves and buying into that.

Now, ‘not-doing’ is another version of ‘doing’. See if you can follow this. When you make that intention that ‘I’m not going to do anything now because Ananta said I don’t have to do anything; I’m just not going to do’ then you are ‘doing’ the ‘not-doing’ … you are taking the position of the ‘not-doer’. But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that ‘doing’ and ‘not-doing’ are not applicable to Your Truth.

Now, this the mind cannot fathom. It will try to make a concept around it, it will try something but it really cannot fathom the neutrality. It can either fathom ‘doing, doing’ or ‘not-doing, not-doing’. If I say ‘both’ or ‘neither’ … what is left?

You find that the peace that happens in this letting go is way more than the peace that you get through anything that you resolve mentally or achieve materialistically anyway. That peace that you’re looking for through the achievement of this, that and the other, is naturally present. And the best part is that in being naturally present, it is not opposed to achieving this, that and the other. It is not contradictory to that. All of that can still happen.

Like, suppose all your life you believed that you have to push this heavy cart along the road. You have to push this heavy cart along the road, and the minute you leave it, it starts pushing you back so you’re losing ground every moment if you stop pushing. But one day, somebody comes to you and says ‘Why do you push this cart?’ You say ‘Without that, it will run me over. I’ll go backwards.’ He says ‘Do you want to try? Do you want to try leaving it? I’m telling you that this cart is running with super Guru power.’ [Chuckles] ‘This cart is running with super Guru power. Are you willing to try it out?’ And very few, almost reluctantly, will say ‘Oh, that must be because the road was slanted this way; just for now.’ Or ‘Because of the situation I’m in right now (I’m in Satsang) I can leave it. But I can’t leave it at work. Guru power can’t work at work, it can only work in Satsang.’ This kind of thing. But as you start letting go of this, you see that the cart is running as well or as badly (at least as well or as badly) as it was running before. You see, this is just the idea that you have to push life. ‘I have to make life happen this way. I can turn it based on how I want it.’ It’s all fallacy.

I used to say often that trying to control the flow of life is trying to control the river with a twig. We don’t even have this twig. So, how to control life? How are we actually controlling it? Who has managed to control it? But this fear is there that ‘I’ve been pushing this cart so much! Look at this state. And suppose I didn’t push it at all, then what would I be?’ You see? The mind comes and says ‘Then what would you be? You’d just become like a beggar on the streets. I don’t know what would happen to you.’ This kind of thing.

As we start letting go more and more, this trust deepens. This heavy bag that I thought I had to carry on my head actually takes care of itself. No effort is needed. I can just let it go. And just like my heartbeat continues, the sun continues to rise, flowers continue to bloom, our life also keeps unfolding in its own beautiful way.

If you try to understand it with your mind, then it will only be strange scenarios for you. [Woman begins heavy breathing and soft sounds in the room] Like, for some of you, watching what is happening, you must be like ‘She is really suffering. If this is what happens when you come to Satsang, I don’t want this.’ But I can tell you, it’s very beautiful. It’s beyond any other phenomenal experience that you can have. So, our mind cannot understand these things. But our mind is quick to judge, it is quick to make conclusions.

[Silence]

The funny thing that the mind does is to convince you that the problem is something else. It will convince you that the problem is some sort of decision at a worldly level. How many of you have gone through this? Almost all of you. I’m looking around this room and I see that almost all of you have gone through this, where you’ve been convinced that the problem is a decision at a worldly level. But the problem is never a decision at the worldly level. It is only about an inner opening. How open are we inwardly? And then most of you will testify that the world takes care of itself … including this body.

So, the only decision ever, as Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said at one point ‘The only choice you have is whether to go along with the stream of your thoughts or to let them go’ … whether to remain inwardly open or to limit yourself through some conceptual limitation.

So, actually, the question is never really about ‘Should I quit my job?’ It is never about ‘Should I do this or do that?’ Of course, sometimes these things can seem very strong. In a way, the question always is about:

How open can I be?

Is my acceptance just lip service?

Is my surrender just lip service?

[Silence]

Q: Father, there is no end to deepening of trust in life. With Guruji’s [Sri Mooji’s] Grace, there was an insight that everything is ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ here. Everything is so beautiful, everything is only a blessing, whether we realize it or not. Then slowly the head gets pushed into the play. To see that, in every situation, is this really the response or is this really that outcome. And this back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, again coming back to ‘Everything is Master’s Grace’ … then again ‘Why this?’ This never really stops.

A:  Yes. Actually, ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ or ‘Everything is the will of Consciousness’ or ‘God’s will is All There Is’ is the best answer to every ‘Why?’ [Chuckles] Because mentally this might seem to you that this is like an escapism or something like that, but actually: Can you tell of one thing that you really know the reason why to? [Laughs] You can’t even confirm cause and effect. ‘Why?’ implies ‘What is the cause of this? Why does this happen?’ but we can’t even confirm that there is cause and effect. As it is said in the Yoga Vashishta: The bird flew and landed on the branch of the coconut tree and the coconut fell. The mind will say the coconut fell because the bird landed … but can you really say that? We don’t know for certain. So, ‘Why?’ is like this. We don’t even know:

Why do you wake up in the morning?

And when you wake up, why does this world appear?

Why do you exist?

People have been trying to solve these questions for thousands of years.

What is the point of existence?

What is the meaning of life?

Isn’t it? But we are quick to determine reasoning for everything else that happens after you exist. The substratum we don’t know why, but the appearance on top of this substratum we are quick to presume and say ‘Oh, this is because of this, this one is like this because of that’ and ‘I am feeling like this because he did that or she did that.’ These kinds of things we are quick to conclude on but we don’t actually know. We don’t know why your next thought will appear as it appears. So, we don’t know any of these why’s. And without this ‘Why, why, why?’ most of this apparent suffering seems to become light.

The thing is that when we ask ‘Why?’ we are not even truly investigating; we are so quick to conclude ‘This is why!’ Even when you asked ‘Why?’ were you truly investigating and inquiring, instead of then just presuming and interpreting and judging? So, mostly, the responses or the conclusions we draw out of our ‘Why?’ are very insipid, they are very surface layer; they have no actual basis. So, it just gives us a very fertile ground to judge ourselves, to judge others and the world. ‘Why [am I/are they/is it] like this?’

I like that verse very much: [Quote by Kurt Vonnegut from Cat’s Cradle]:

‘Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, man got to ask himself why, why, why.

Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, man got to tell himself he understands.’

This is a strangely human condition where we feel like we have to resolve our life mentally.

So ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ is the best antidote to this. Because it is very authoritative: ‘Master’s Grace is All There Is.’

‘Why this? Why is our Manager so bad?’

‘Master’s Grace is All There Is.’ [Chuckles]

Even if it starts out (for many it just starts out) as word play. [Chuckles] For many, it just starts out with some resistance, but they have tried everything else so they have no other [option]. ‘No harm trying this out.’ [Chuckles] This is like ‘We have tried every other self-help technique so we might as well try this out.’ So, it starts out as word play many times, just resisting-ly. ‘Oh, even this must be …’ Sometimes it starts out resentfully also. ‘God, You only are doing all of this to me!’ … not as a form of gratitude but as a blame. Like Amitabh Bachchan in that movie scene where he is throwing a big tantrum with God. ‘You must be very happy today!’ [Laughter] But life somehow has a way of squeezing everything out of us and bringing us to this sort of helplessness at some point or the other.

So, this ‘Why?’  … Consciousness. For a long time, if somebody asks ‘Why?’ I would just say ‘Consciousness’ [Chuckles] which means that it is the will of Consciousness, it is the will of this Projective light, the Supreme Intelligence, your very Reality, God.

And this is what you were speaking of: the deepening of trust. It can start off at a very surface level, trust, and say. ‘Okay, let’s see.’ But as you go you will find that ‘Ah …’

It’s not a cheat code to life. It doesn’t mean that ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam: all I really want is ten million dollars in my bank and now I have left it up to You.’ [Chuckles] Then every day, you just check your bank balance to see if the transfer happened or not. [Chuckles] It’s not that way.

It means that everything, whatever the state of this seeming-outer appearance might be, whatever the state of this body might be, whatever the state or quality of our emotions might be, whatever the state and quality of our thoughts might be, all of this moving light and sound show, we leave it up to the light of the Satguru.

[Reading from chat]: “Father, you say be open to everything; thoughts, feeling, etc.  But sometimes openness to thoughts allows them to drag me along with the stories. It seems like a lot of holding back is required. Am I misunderstanding something here?”

What is ‘Drag me along?’ So, when I’m saying ‘Remain open, let everything come and go naturally’ he says that thoughts come and then ‘If I am open to thought, it just takes me along with it’. But what is actually happening? What is the mechanics of this? A thought can come. What is the maximum a thought can stay? Count the seconds; the longest the thought can stay. I am not saying when it repeats. It is one thought. Somebody says, 2 seconds; maybe like that. So, that which is going to go (let’s presume this answer is right) in the maximum of 2 seconds, it really can’t drag you along. So, then ‘Drag me along’ can only mean that it can attract my belief, it can attract my assent or something like that. If I’m open to it, it can drag me along. If I’m closed to it, then it doesn’t have a chance to pull me in.

This is a very interesting discussion because if you look at most spiritual practices ever in this world, most of them have been so that your attention is not so attached to these thoughts when they come and go; whether it is chanting, whether it is be with your breath, whether it is yoga, whatever the method you might use. It is more to do with trying to control your attention so that your attention does not go to these thoughts and therefore, then the question of belief does not arise at all. The practice of staying with your sense of Being (staying with the sense ‘I Am’) then brings an anchor to your attention and then if your attention is anchored on something, then it doesn’t feel like these thoughts-systems arise (and even if they do arise, they don’t seem so strong).

Now the thing with this method is that, here, I’ve hardly seen anyone gain mastery over their attention. Many have tried. Many have tried for 50 years, tried to control their attention (I mean control and hold it so that it doesn’t go to the thoughts) but it hardly ever works and it seems like a lot of sadhana is needed to gain this kind of mastery.

So, besides this type of effort there is also a more natural, simpler way. You can call it, in a way, the path of surrender, which means that actually these thoughts don’t mean anything till belief goes to them.

So, this is a classic example of when I say ‘Try not to think of an orange’ or ‘Don’t bring your attention to an orange’. Very quickly the orange wants to come into attention. Then you say ‘No, no, chant Ram’. Then, with some practice, you can say ‘Okay, stay away from the orange, stay with Ram’. Beautiful; but mastery of that seems like it takes a lot of effort and time and the orange seems to sneak itself in the middle of Ram. Like ‘Ram, orange, Ram, orange, Ram…’ [Chuckles] So, it can feel like a bit of struggle is there. But if I say to you ‘Don’t worry about whatever appears, whether it is an orange, an apple, whatever it is, don’t consider yourself to be an orange or an apple, don’t consider yourself to be that which the thought is saying that you are’ … because that is all that is happening. The thought is conveying an idea about you and you buy into that idea of what you are.

So, why do I call this the path of surrender? Because all these thought-forms are then just surrendered. They are let go of. So, in a way, to me, it seems like a more natural way; a sahaja way. In a way, all I’m saying is what the Zen Master said ‘Let all thoughts, as visitors, come and go. You just don’t serve them tea’ … including the thought that you could be dragged along by, or you could be taken away from your center by or something like that. Because when you check, you will see that this has no basis. The thought does not last long enough for you to be dragged anywhere. And what You really Are, That which perceives thought, has no change; there is no movement, there is no real dragging.

For some of you, if you find these attention-oriented techniques natural and helpful, then to stay with the sense ‘I Am’ is a very beautiful method. Or to chant the holy name of the god like Ram is a very beautiful method. If you find any of these more natural, this is very good as well. Here, in those times when I was looking for the Truth, it didn’t seem that natural. I experimented, I tried various things, various sadhanas for even long periods of time but something led me to this effortlessness, this simple openness, this simple allowing, which seemed be without self-judgment, without too much time to hold onto something.

Like I say sometimes, it is a key to get to identity. Your identity is stored in a bank locker. Have you heard this example from me? Your identity is stored in a bank locker. Now, at least in India, how does the bank locker work? You have one key, and the banker has another. And when you go to the bank, what you have to do is you have to put in both of the keys and only then the locker works. One key is not enough. So, to get to your identity, you need both the keys of attention as well as belief. You need the key: which is you perceive this thought construct, which is attention (perception is just attention) but also, you need to give your assent to this thought- construct, that ‘Yes, this is true or it has meaning’. When both are there, then the identity or separation seems real.

If, for some of you, it feels natural, that ‘I don’t have to put the first key at all. No attention’. Then, finished. It can be anything. There is every single technique. Some have a sense of imagining the face of your master; or anything. Whatever keeps your attention naturally present, it is good enough. But identity is formed when attention and belief function. And I find that to let go of even attention, for me, seems like a very natural way (if you can call it a way).

The good thing is that we have everything in our tool-kits. Some of you will say ‘But belief just goes automatically. When thoughts come, I just end up believing them’. But you don’t believe many of your thoughts. So many of them just come and go and you don’t end up giving them belief. So, it is not inherent; belief is not inherent in the thought itself otherwise we will not need the term ‘belief’ at all. We will not talk about belief if the arising of thought itself inherently means that it is believed, then what is the point of belief? There is no term like ‘belief’ then. Then thought will encapsulate it.

So, if a thought came that ‘I am a green mosquito’…? [Chuckles) All nonsense thoughts come; then it is not so easily believed. But it’s only that which we have identified with. We can use the term ‘interest’ there, in a way. The thoughts that we are identified with or which seem to hold some meaning for us, like ‘If I do this, then I will get freedom’ for example. Because speaking to an audience of spiritual seekers, in a way, then thoughts about freedom can get more belief. Somebody who is interested in ice-skating only in their life, or wrestling, will not be interested in the Freedom. [They will say]: ‘What are you talking about?’ They will not get easily identified with those. So, the belief is not inherent in the thought itself.

Imagine how that would be; the thought would come ‘I am a green mosquito, flapping’. It could be anything. Who can say what the next thought is going to be? Nobody can guarantee to me that they know for certain that their next thought is not going to be that ‘I am a green mosquito’. [Chuckles] Nobody can guarantee. So, if it was just so inherent in the arising of the thought then really, it is like just the thought comes and you are caught. It doesn’t work like that. These thoughts come and there is a subtle power of giving them a truth value. ‘Yes, truth value.’ But to determine the truthfulness of it, the meaning in it, is a primal functioning of Consciousness; as primal as attention is. And this is called ‘belief’.

So then ‘Why does it seem like that some of them just get me? Why does it come like that?’ Because we have identified or nurtured those with our belief in the past. So, what to do about those? That depends upon your temperament. ‘Those which just seem to get me, what to do about those?’ depends upon your temperament.

If your temperament is more the inquiry type, like ‘What is going on?’ … if you are attracted to ‘Why is life like this?’ and ‘What is going on?’ (these kinds of questions) then you are very well suited to inquiry. Then you can take on this thought and say ‘Who does it belong to?’ If the oppressive thought is saying, for example, ‘Oh, you will never come to freedom’ or ‘You are so far from it’ then you pull it in and say ‘Who is it about? Who is this really about? Who will not come to their freedom?’ And you don’t leave this. Whenever life gives some space for it, you pull this into an inquiry and don’t leave till the venom is pulled out, till it becomes de-fanged. As long as its ability to cause you this sense of suffering has not been extracted out of it, then you keep asking and say ‘Who? Who is it about?’

For some of you, this seem like too much work. ‘Who wants to do this stuff?’ This kind of thing doesn’t appeal to you and you are more in your heart, in this way, just, devotional. Then you will say ‘Whatever this problem is, it is not mine, it is my Master’s or it is the Lord’s – Guru Kripa Kevalam’. And the beauty of this is that more you truly surrender in your heart, the more you see that it is just so apparent that everything is being taken care by the supreme intelligence (whether you call it the Satguru or whether you call it Consciousness, that doesn’t matter). The more you see it, the easier it becomes to surrender. It’s very virtuous way; a virtuous circle, in a way.

You come to this point where most of these thoughts then will just come and go and they will not seem so big, so strong, so powerful; their gravity, their magnetism, will not seem so strong.

[Reading from chat]: “I think Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said ‘Physical reality is an illusion. Although this could be seen as another idea, it helps in eliminate a lot of fears.”

‘Maya’ is everything that can be measured. Everything that can be measured means everything that can be fathomed, everything that has duration, everything that changes, that comes and goes. In India, we call it ‘Maya’ and this Maya is roughly translated into ‘illusion’. But actually, if you look at what Shankara said about Maya, he said that ‘It is indeterminable; neither can we say that it exists nor can we say that it doesn’t exist.’

[Someone says]: Unfathomable.

A: Yeah, unfathomable. As opposed to putting it in a straight box, which is ‘illusion, therefore, not real’ or something. It apparently exists as long as it is seen though … is what could be a tame definition of what was trying to be conveyed.

[Silence]

As you look at these ideas some more, you’ll see that. You said that ‘To say that the physical appearance is an illusion is very helpful to eliminate fears’ but what is the layer in which this elimination of fear is happening? Also, in physical appearance, which is still phenomenal. If it is an illusion, then how does it matter whether the fears are been eliminated or not? [Chuckles] It’s like saying ‘Once I believe that the world is an illusion, my life in the world becomes better.’ So, therefore, our allegiance is still towards how to make life better in the world.

This dichotomy will also lead to suffering, as all dichotomies do. Although they might seem to provide some initial relief, if our heart is still on ‘How to make my physical existence better’ then although to repeat to ourselves ‘This physical existence is just illusory’ might seem to provide some relief … the point is that our attachment is still to how we are doing in this physical existence. And this duality, any duality in the mind, leads to suffering. That’s why I say: Truth must be for Truth’s sake; not for any benefit of the Truth.

I feel like all of you are very tough on yourselves because, for me, it just feels like you ARE in this for truth’s sake, because why would you be here otherwise? At least in a Satsang like this, there is nothing else on offer actually. So, Truth for Truth’ sake, independent of what then happens in your phenomenal existence, is a very, very potent statement because it includes surrender, it includes true Knowingness; that which we’re calling Truth.

Therefore, it’s good to see: ‘What is that I really want? What do I really want?’

And not with the perspective of beating yourself up, not getting attached to these answers, but just to see that it is not true; it’s just some by-products that we heard about in some books. But I feel that all of you are really into this because you do not want to give assent to lies anymore. You’re tired of lying to yourself, you’re tired of all of this fake stuff. That’s why you allow yourself to let go of these deeply-held belief systems … even though the letting go of them may involve, many times, some painful seeming-releasing happening.

Okay, let me say it simply: Our beliefs are what we hold onto as if they are true.

Isn’t it? That is what a belief is; concepts we hold onto as if they are true. Now, we hold onto them because we feel like they are of some value. Like holding on to this hand; it feels like it is of some value. [Someone is holding his hand while sitting there] But if it was to be snatched away, then you feel like ‘No, I don’t want to give that up.’

So, when you come to Satsang and your beliefs are questioned, it’s not always going to be a fun process because you’re holding onto them because you feel like they are of some value. So, when it is said ‘To know even one thing is to know even too much’ or some statement like that, you feel like ‘No. I feel like I need to know this stuff. I have given up all nonsense and now what is left is pristine.’ And then, it is looked into together, and you’re like ‘No, it’s not.’ [Chuckles] And you don’t necessarily like that. Because in the world you have been told that ‘If you know nothing, you are dumb.’ You don’t want that; nobody wants to be dumb. And what did they say? Who was the wisest man? They say (at least in the western philosophy) that the wisest man who ever lived was Socrates. Why was he the wisest man who ever lived or the wisest human ever lived? Because he said:

‘I know only one thing, which is that I know nothing.’

So, all these things that we think are so meaningful, so relevant, so important to our life, all the concepts that we have of reality don’t come close to Reality.

To experience Your freedom, to experience Your Reality, to experience the Self, to experience Your Sage-like nature, all you have to do is: Experience one moment of notion-less-ness; one moment where you just forget about it … whatever it might be. That’s all that any Master is actually asking.

Now, if you refer to your memory then you say ‘But he is constantly asking for that one moment.’ [Chuckles] But the Truth is deeper than that, which your mind cannot fathom. It’s actually just about this one moment: This one moment. That’s all. Just this one moment.

You don’t even have to worry about even the concept of one moment. Just fully open, everything can flow as it likes; attention, perception. Nothing matters. Everything is just fine. No past, no future; just Now.

This is the simplest, for You. ‘The simplest for You’ means that it’s impossible for the mind but the simplest for You. If you try to put it in your conceptual box then it will become complex again. All I am saying is:

Give me one moment.

Forget about everything.

Don’t judge yourself.

Don’t rush to meaning.

[Reading from Chat]: “It appears that it requires some practice with holding belief. It works very well sometimes.”

A: Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said two sets of things. He said:

Don’t believe your thoughts. ‘I am the body’ is a thought, ‘I am the mind’ is a thought, ‘I am in the world’ is a thought; all these are just thoughts.

But he also said that if it feels like it takes some effort to withdraw belief, then make that seeming-effort … till you see that even that is Grace.

If you feel that to give yourself one moment when you are free from interpretations, judgments, seems like it takes some effort, then make it.

Also, Bhagavan had said something very beautiful (along with this) he said ‘Even ‘I am God’ is also a thought’. That means don’t try to replace this ‘I am the person’ idea with another better idea. [Smiles]

And definitely don’t be concerned about your progress; in the sense of many times we are trying to let go but we are trying to let go with one eye open, like a surrender with one eye open. [Chuckles] It’s like ‘I am going to be notion-less but what’s happening to me then? Am I making progress? Am I becoming more free?’ [Chuckles] This kind of thing.

Why do I say it like that; surrender with one eye open? It’s like ‘I am surrendering everything to you, Father, just please make sure that it goes fine.’ You see?  [Chuckles] If we still have an eye on whether it is fine or not, or what ‘fine’ actually means, then it’s not surrender actually, it’s just deal-making.

So, when we let go of our notions, when you don’t keep yourself anchored to the notions of freedom or progress or getting it or not getting it, then we really see (what Bhagavan said) that ‘I am the body’ is a thought, ‘I am the mind’ is a thought, ‘I am God’ is a thought, ‘I am the world’ is a thought, ‘I am in time’ is a thought, ‘I am in space’ is a thought. All of these are just thoughts.

I have been making this point, but I feel like very few are actually assimilating what I’m saying … where I’m saying that to face things openly, to look at everything in this empty way completely is the best, most open way to meet it. To label it is an avoidance. And yet, day after day, almost every day, I get a complaint that we’re sort of in avoidance of some experience by meeting it in this way. Now, I wonder if the message will get through this time. What I was saying is that if you run away from what is being experienced (something is arising and I’m saying you run away from that experience) and you use some spiritual concept like ‘Nothing has ever happened’ then that would be like an avoidance. It’s like trying to force the attention away from it and not look at it.

But what I am saying is: Be with it completely, head on! It itself inherently does not have the label with it. You see? But when you define it, then you are not with it completely (when you are with all your ideas about it and all your past experiences). And I started using this term a long time ago: ‘Don’t Advaita it away’. It’s very strange that I’m hearing it now, that we just ‘Advaita it away’. But it is not like that. ‘Advaita it away’ means to use a concept like ‘Nothing has ever happened’ to come into a conceptual denial of what is being experienced.

Stay with this experience fully. Don’t run away from anything.

But that presumption that ‘I know what this is’ is only bringing past baggage into it, which is a way in which you avoid the experience by defining what you think it is.

And the idea that meeting life this way, completely open and naked, is somewhere contrary to our humanity or our humanness is just strange because the most human of expressions is to meet life in this way.

But if ‘human’ is another term for egoic or personal, and we are just trying to change terms and make excuses for egotism, then I cannot bless that, in a way … if it is a term that is used as a guise for specialness, for arrogance, for individuality.

True humanity must be to meet everything appearing in this manifest experience with openness, non-judgmental-ness.

[Silence]

But if the term ‘I’m only human after all’ actually is translating into ‘I’m an ego after all’ then I can’t let you rest there. (Or ‘I am a person after all’.)

So, as with every other term, it is this term which has to be clarified.

A: No conclusion actually lives up to the Seeing itself …

Q: It’s not a substitute for the Seeing.

A: Exactly. … nor does it describe it in any true way.

Q: Not in any true way.

A: Yes, only in a …

Q: Provisional way.

A: Provisional way and also in a negation. Like a conclusion can be ‘I see that there can be no inside or outside’ but it doesn’t say anything about ‘What Is’ it only describes what it is not, like ‘there is no inside or outside’. But if you try to describe ‘What Is’ we see that words are not so eloquent.

Even when we say ‘Unchanging’ (for example) ‘it is not changing’ … but what is it doing? [Chuckles] ‘It’s not changing’ we can say. So, we can put a lot of un’s or non’s to describe what is not, but if you were to try to positively describe it, it is not that straight-forward because no description comes close to this what truly it is. But the thing is that now if we see this and we say ‘Okay’ then you would feel … if you felt that the mind is all that we have, if the mind is all that we have then it would feel like ‘Just give up; there is no chance’ because the mind cannot capture this in any true way.

But is the mind all that we have?

Q: At the moment all I can see is conclusions being made.

A: Yes, that which sees, that itself is that mind?

Q: No. But because I cannot see that in an objective way …

A: This is a very good point; let’s pause here for a moment. So, ‘I see the mind but the ‘I’ that sees the mind I cannot see that in an objective way.’ Then how do we claim that ‘I see the mind’? Is there a knowledge which is deeper than (or independent of) just our objective experience?

Q: I feel more comfortable in saying just that ‘the mind is seen’ but don’t feel like ‘I see’.

A: Yeah, so we can look at that. If you say ‘I see the mind’ are you making the report on Govind’s behalf? [the one sitting adjacent to him]

Q: No.

A: Then whose? [Chuckles] I know this sort of dilemma because you can’t really say ‘I’ because you have no perception of that. You can’t say ‘it’s a third party’ also.

So, this is a beautiful explorative territory. Like when we say (in Advaita it is very popular to say) ‘It is seen’ or ‘It is just perceived’ and the intent there is to try and remove any sort of personal sense of either doer-ship or personal perception from the picture, but it’s not in that sense that ‘Oh, it is seen but I am not seeing it’. That’s not what you are saying. Isn’t it? [Smiles] Because at this point, we can neither claim nor deny that ‘I Am’.

Q: We can neither claim nor deny that ‘I am seeing it’.

A: ‘I am seeing it.’ So, this is already very good because when we go beyond claim and denial then we see that it’s not possible in that way; then we have left this dualistic thought (or at least this aspect behind). So, as we look at all aspects of time and space, of this appearance (as we call it) we see that you can’t actually claim or deny any of it. [Chuckles] Then dualistic thought doesn’t really have a way to grab a hold.

Q: I mean we cannot make conclusions about …

A: …anything. Anything in the appearance we can’t make a conclusion about and that which is not an appearance, which is neither (not coming and going, not perceived) that we can’t make a conclusion about anyway.

Q: It’s like I’m so used to making objective reference.

A: Yes.

Q: So, making the reference of myself as something which is not seen is bit unusual.

A: Even that you do not have to do.

Q: Reference itself means limitations.

A: Exactly.

In a way, it is like habit-breaking when the Masters say ‘Look at that which is unchanging. You are That.’ It’s really to break this habit of making a reference to ourselves as limited, or just objective. But really, it’s not so that you can continue to make even this distinction; it is that once you break the habit of making the reference which is objective about yourself, you do not have to make any reference. And this is true openness. The openness that is spoken of in Satsang is this.

That ‘I’ (which it seems can point anywhere in entire spectrum of phenomenal to non-phenomenal, in a way; it can seem to point in this entire spectrum) this comedian ‘I’ can point. But what if it no longer pointed to anything?

The term ‘I’ …, if it was divested of its reference making, what would change?

[Silence]

Because when you are struck in notions, whether they are worldly or spiritual, then there is just this sense of a worldly individual or a worldly limitation or a spiritual limitation.

The spiritual ego is what? Just that which is fed with all of these spiritual concepts and then we make a boundary about the ‘I’ saying that only that which is spiritual applies to it. [Smiles]

Q: Spiritual conclusions.

A: Spiritual conclusions are what it is made up of; this spiritual belief system. So, any of this boundary-making is not real actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Here when you don’t know anything?

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

What is Here when you don’t know anything?

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

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

A: Yes, feeling-less feeling.

Q: The awareness of ‘I’

A: What makes it ‘I’?

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

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

Q: I feel it’s just a perception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Feels like a silly concept. [Laughter]

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

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

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

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

Who is Here Now when you forget your labels?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: So, just relax.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Love.

A: Can it be this simple? [Chuckles]

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

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

Q: You have to work hard for it.

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

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

Q2: Yeah.

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

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

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

Q2: Then also it is fine.

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

Q2: Nothing. Just space… or…

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

Q2: Just like existence…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: How do you differentiate between insight and conclusion?

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

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

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

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

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