BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

So, we are here to find the self. Where should we look? If you lost your phone, where would you look?

[Sangha]: The usual places.

A: [Smiles] You look in your room. You look on the way from where you came. Isn’t it? So, you look in this world; okay, like that. Now, will you look for your phone in your emotions? [Smiles] Will you look for it in your thoughts? You might look for it in the sense of ‘Let me try and remember where I put it’ … like that. But you are not expecting to find your phone there and pull it out. (Unless you too much believe in ‘The Secret’ and this kind of stuff. That’s a different topic altogether.)

So, looking for the phone is like that. Now suppose that you are wondering whether you are experiencing pain or pleasure. Where will you look for that? You look in the body sensations. You will probably do an audit of the physical body and see whether something is in pain. So, you look for that in the body. Now suppose there was a song that you were hearing yesterday and you lost that, what that song was, and you are trying to recall the name of the song. Where will you look for that? You are not remembering the name or the lyrics. It is just you have some tune like ♪♫ taa, taa, taaa ♪♫
…
S: Shezan. [Song-finding program on the internet]

A: Shezan, okay [Sangha and Ananta Chuckle] Suppose before, pre-shezan days. Where will you look for it?

S: Memory.

A: You look for memory; look in the mind and then, what else?

You lost an emotion or something. You wanted to experience a bliss that you experienced after meditation. Then you look for your emotion over there, in the emotional aspect of you.

What is left? What about the Self? Where to go looking for that? Like you were looking for the phone? Or like for emotion or thought, memory?

What about intellect? If you were to compute 5000 into 94 … where will you go? [Smiles] You can go to this intellect. Can you search for the Self like that?

Then how are you searching? How are we searching?

S: By noticing what is there when you let go all of them.

A: If you let go of all of them, then what is there? Good, okay. So, how to let go of all of them? (Okay, so far everyone is with us?)

It is clear that it cannot be in this way, isn’t it? It cannot be found as an object, it cannot be found as a memory, it cannot be found as an experience, as any perception; let’s put it that way. And it cannot be found in a concept. In a computation … you won’t figure out the Self just like you could figure out 5000 into 94. So, it is not figure-able that way. It is not perceivable that way.

Then he says something beautiful. He says to notice what is there, when all of these things are kept aside. When all these layers (let’s call them ‘layers of our existence’ for a moment) are kept aside, then what is there?

Notice, now the question is: How to notice that? How will we let go of them?

S: By inquiry.

A: By inquiry. Okay, very good. Then?

S: Noticing the one which is trying to notice.

A: Noticing inquiry. Noticing inquiry. To find the one which is noticing the noticing, this kind of thing. How to let go?

S: Let the attention rest; resting of attention.

A: Okay, resting of attention is there. Not in the movement, you are saying. Any other method?

S: Not in the movement; not in the arising.

A: Not in the arising. Only in the resting. Then?

S: Bring the attention on ‘I’.

A: Try to bring the attention on ‘I’. What is this ‘I’ you try to bring it on?

S: It is Being … it’s like Knowing.

A: Being, Knowing. Bring the attention on that.

Suppose I was to say that nothing was needed. [Chuckles]

S: Can you say it once again?

A: That nothing was needed.

[Sangha Laughs]

Not in the way attention has to be; not any prerequisite. And the letting go which you said … what if I say that is already available to you naturally? It is already gone; whatever needs to be let go of is naturally gone. Not one-step, not one movement, and irrespective of whether movement is happening or not: there you will find it.

Too strange?

So, what do we see? It is not in the objects. It is not in all these perceivable energetic constructs. And you say ‘What is there when all these are not bothered with?’ When is the best time to find this?

S: Now.

A: Now. Here and Now. Because Here and Now, you don’t start any ‘Now’ bothered with anything, actually. So, this is very direct, very direct.

Q: So, the world takes on an added power or the colors are brighter? Or it’s a dreamlike quality?

A: It’s like a more vibrant dream. And why more vibrant?

I usually don’t say anything like this, like something has to change or something changes when you see the Truth about YourSelf because I know it makes these benchmarks. So, I’ll give you the simple thing that I’ve found here.

It’s that because attention is not so dissipated between what is being perceived and the maha-mantra of ‘What’s in it for me? Am I understanding this? Am I getting this? Is he a nice person, is she a bad one?’ And then … (we’ll do this, okay?) Look at this hand. [Holds up his hand] Put your attention on it, clearly. Now, think 3 thoughts … without the hand getting blurry … (you’ll notice that, as your attention goes to those thoughts).

So, although attention is the child of Awareness in a very pure way, it has one thing which sort of distinguishes it from Awareness, which is that it is limited. So, if you try to fully see it with clarity, and then you try to think of a tree or something or some thought, you’ll see that this [vision of the hand] starts to blur and this [points to his head] comes into view. And most of our lives have been like this; half here, half there, half here, half there; not really tasting the candy in this world also; just so caught up half the time in trying to get more candy, then we never taste it when we get it. [Sangha laughs] It’s like that, really.

So, that vibrancy now changes because your attention is not getting now dissipated between ‘What’s in it for me? Can I keep this? Will she leave me?’ [Gestures anxiety with his hands around his head] All this kind of nonsense that we go on with… it’s just being perceived. You don’t even need the label ‘hand’. It is just perceived. That’s why the vibrancy seems to go up, because attention is just flowing so naturally. You’re not trying to own it, grasp it; you’re not trying to push something aside. And yet, it is clear that this does not contain You. In that way, it is still like a dream. Like, it is contained in You. It contains you but it does not confine You. Let’s put it that way.

Q: There’s this practice called mindfulness where it’s suggested to be aware and be present; to be aware of the thing that you are doing. So, by being focused on the experience, we get more aware of our own Awareness.

A: When attention is just on the object, yes. They say ‘When you eat a grape, just eat the grape. When you’re walking, just walk.’ Like that. So, what happens is that it’s like a sadhana, isn’t it? ‘Sadhana’ … a practice. So, 99% of spiritual practices are about trying to master attention in some way. But here, because I tried most of them and I was terrible at them … [Laughs] … I tried this mindfulness (‘When I’m walking, I’m just going to walk’) and for two or three minutes, it looks very good. Then it’s back to [points to his head] ‘Da, da, da, Da, da, da. Am I doing this right? Will I soon become a Sage? What is going on?’ All this kind of stuff can come. So, I was terrible at this kind of attention-controlling.

S: And after, you ‘try’ to walk…

A: Yeah, exactly. [Chuckles] So, here, more what I’m saying is actually like surrender. What I’m saying is more like surrender. It’s not really a sadhana. It’s more of a giving up.

Just … Let … Go.

[Silence]

One ‘surrender’ is, of course, to say ‘I surrender’ [makes namaste, reverently] ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’.

But this is a surrender which is like ‘I give up! Stop!’

‘Huh!?’ [Acts surprised] It’s like when you’re mindful and ‘trying’ and it’s like [Gestures the stress of trying] and then you’re just like this [Gestures full relaxation and a big sigh of relief]: ‘I give up.’ …  ‘Ahhh…’  So, that seems more direct to me, to not make it a product of this practice or that practice, of doing it this way or doing it that way.

Just to see: ‘Ahhh…’

But before any of that can happen … (which I’m okay with. Many of you are more natural with staying with the sense ‘I Am’ or you’re natural with staying with this mindfulness; it’s completely fine) … but here, because I could not sustain my attention on any of these kinds of things, in spite of trying for a few years, I just noticed that when I gave up, I just saw: ‘What…?’ [Shows wonderment of relaxation and relief]

So, this is a simplistic way of experiencing that: just giving up. Just like ‘Ahhh….’

But again, not giving up while holding onto the idea of giving up. [Mimics tense trying]: ‘I’m giving up’. Then you’re not giving up.

Give up on everything, including giving up.

Like when we say ‘I don’t know’ … then many people confuse it as ‘To know that I don’t know.’ They get empty of everything else and then fill themselves with the notion that ‘I don’t know.’ If somebody comes and says ‘Which way is the hospital?’ they say ‘I don’t know.’ But you can see it over there. [Gestures a look of stupidity]: ‘I don’t know.’ It just becomes a conceptual ‘I don’t know.’ You see? You have a sense of this? I know that for the intellect, it won’t make any sense, what I’m saying. But to not hold onto even ‘I don’t know’ IS ‘I don’t know’. To know or not know … not in that box at all … is the ‘I don’t know’ that I’m talking about. It’s not a position of knowing or not knowing.

All of this is Dvaita / duality; all of these opposites are duality. We’re talking about Advaita / non-duality; literally no distinction … no prerequisite, no cause and effect, no time and space; no nothing at all, not even Brahman.

This can also be confusing. It is denial of the assertion of Brahman. It is only a denial of the assertion of Brahman. Because if it needs an assertion, then it cannot be It.

It-Itself is independent of the assertion or negation.

So, when I’m denying, when I’m saying ‘Not even Brahman’ I’m denying the term ‘Brahman’ and the assertion of ‘Brahman’ … not what it actually points TO, because that is independent of the assertion of it.

Basically, I’m denying any notion about anything.

S: Words.

A: Words; the terms. Because distinction comes with ‘term’. One term gives rise to the world of distinction. You see? Because we don’t even understand a term independently. Isn’t it? If I say ‘tree’ … what is a tree?

S: A plant.

A: A plant. What is a plant?

S: A form of life.

A: A form of life. See? So many words. The ‘tree’ is not enough. If it was just a term where you could say ‘tree’ … that’s all I want. Done. No, but you pick up everything; the entire dictionary you pick up, when you pick up one word. Because it’s all circular; every term points to another term, which points to other terms.

So, I’m just denying this entire box of terms … (and [denying] the denial of them).

[Sangha laughs]

Because I’m not like ‘A denier.’ I’m just denying the denying and the terms also.

Shall we go through some of the basics?

[Smiles] I know all of you are very advanced seekers. [Laughs] Indulge me for a few minutes.

So, presumably we are on the search for something that is Real; in search for Reality, in search for Truth, Reality, God, Freedom. Let’s use these terms synonymously. And if you are not here for that, then I am wondering why you are here. [Laughs]

So, presumably it is just to come to this recognition of the Self, Truth, Reality, Freedom, Moksha (whatever you call it). Now, the Sages have presented to us many clues. And most of those clues are about where it is not. Isn’t it? What did they say?’ It is not in something that changes or comes and goes.’

It is not in something that changes or comes and goes. These are used provisionally, okay? Don’t take them too seriously; they are just pointers.

So, let’s say that this is the first clue: that it does not change and it does not come and go.

What all is gone because of this clue? (We will go slowly.)

So, the first thing, let’s say, is perception. What is perceived, at least; the object of perception. Now, is there an object of perception which comes and stays permanently?

All comes and goes.

Everyone knows what is perception? What is implied by the term perception? That which is consumed, in a way, through the senses. What are these senses? Sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch: that is perception. There is another type of perception (I don’t know what the term is but I call it) ‘inner perception’ because even if we are not using this physical sight, even if we are not using physical taste, touch, it is possible to perceive these things. If I say ‘What is the taste of an orange?’ we can perceive it, isn’t it? Even though we are not tasting it with this tongue, we can still perceive the taste, the tanginess of an orange or the sweetness of honey, the sourness of a lemon. Say, if you can bring attention to the image of a tree, you can still perceive a tree. You can still perceive it. What’s better is if I say ‘don’t’ … ‘Don’t think of a tree’ then you still perceive a tree. That is the nature of the mind. This perception is also perception. So, is there anything in this perception that meets the Sage’s criterion? The Sage has said ‘If you are looking for Reality, then it cannot be found in the objects of perception’

So, is this true?

What is your experience?

What is the criterion?

It is that it must not come and go; it must not change.

Anything like that in perception?

So, then we cannot look for it there; we cannot look for it as an object of perception. Take this quite seriously because many of us are still hoping to have an experience of It. Many of us are still hoping to have an experience of It; and sometimes when you are having an experience then you are calling it It. So, we are either grasping or searching for an experience of it (perceptual experience) or when there is some by-product of inquiry or meditation or whatever (whatever you might be doing) if there is an experience, then you might be mistaking that for It. So, it is not in that, because the Sage has said ‘It does not come and go; it does not change.’ So, it is not that. Don’t attach yourself to this. So, perception is out.

Then what about thoughts? What are these thoughts? Another form of perception only, isn’t it? But what is unique about thoughts as opposed to other perception?

S: Shapeless.

A: Well, some perceive it as a shape. Some can perceive it as a language or perceive it as audio. So, shape can also, in a way, be perceived.

S: It’s not solid.

S: Imagination.

A: But imagination is also perception, (in a way). If you imagine a green Martian, it is not solid and yet it is a perception.

S: It tells a story, Father.

A: It tells a story. Okay, this is a good point. What is this? [Raises one hand] If you are perceiving this (and I am not using the label for a reason) if you’re perceiving this … then is there a story inherent in it? Is the story inherent in an object? (Let’s use the term provisionally: pure perception.) In pure perception, is the story inherent?  So, when we say [Points to hand] ‘believe’ or ‘don’t believe’ is it possible? Not possible.

S: Not applicable.

A: Not applicable because there is only a certain form of perception; a type of perception, an energy construct, that we call thought which carries this story or message (interpretations; subtitles of the movie) So, this [holds up one hand] how is that perceived? And each of you may perceive it differently. When you perceive a thought … if I say to you ‘Wait for the next thought to arise and tell me what it is saying’ … it might seem a bit ‘floaty’ and yet we can see the arising of it and report what it is saying; or you might seem to hear it. (When I’m saying ‘see’ I am using the term broadly.)

So, if you refer to this energy-construct of thoughts, can it represent something which is without qualities: that which does not come and go?

S: No.

A: In the greatest concept that you can think about … what is the greatest concept you can think about?

S: Brahman.

A: Brahman, Absolute. What else? The Self or God.

S: Pure Consciousness.

A: ‘Pure Consciousness.’ You see? Concepts; all of these. What else?

S: Emptiness.

A: Emptiness.

S: Vibration.

S: Primordial.

A: Vibration, primordial. So, this is the greatest concept.

Then what is the smallest concept?

S: Person.

A: Person, ego, selfishness, identification.

S: Lunch.

A: Lunch. [Chuckles] Something very phenomenal, in a way. Lunch verses Brahman. [Laughter] Trivial; just labels for some phenomenal thing, some tiny phenomenal thing.

So, we looked at all of these perceptions, and now we’re looking at all the labels which are possible.

Now, when we say even Brahman, you will notice that the mind tries to paint a picture of it, paint a visual of it, to say that ‘I know what he’s talking about.’ Or if you say ‘lunch’ then the mind can give you a banana; the mind can give you a picture of it. Now, all these labels are something which are four things that you can visualize or represent. The smallest to the greatest. Many times, when we talk about Awareness or the space or even of emptiness, the mind gives us a visual of a dark, empty space or some room full of white light or something like that. And we mistake that visual to be It. But that is also what? It is just a perception; it is just a perception.

So, in these labels, in these representations, they are only trying to represent or interpret something which you can visualize or imagine or think you can have a perception of.  So, we found that in all these perceptions, they do not fulfill the criterion of ‘the unchanging’ and all of these thoughts only represent something we can perceive. And even if the thought is saying ‘It is That which cannot be perceived’ … even if the thought is saying that ‘Okay, the thought is of That which cannot be perceived’ actually it is still using a perception as the reference. It is still using the reference of perception; perception as a reference.

Nisargadatta Maharaj was asked by someone ‘What is the Reality of who you are?’ He said: ‘It is nothing you can think about or perceive.’ Now, he wasn’t being insulting to the questioner. He wasn’t saying ‘You can’t’ … not like that. He was saying it is beyond our concepts and beyond our percepts. So, if these two are gone, then our methods of knowing (in a way) are gone. Isn’t it? Our methods of knowing are gone. Because how do we know things?

Now, since we are going through the basics, let me go through this also very slowly.

If you had a blindfold on and somebody came and told you ‘There is a cliff hundred meters away’ and it was a credible source, a voice that you recognize, you would say ‘Thank you for warning me. Now I know that there is a cliff a hundred meters away.’ Now, after few minutes, suppose a more credible voice came; your parents came, or your children came, somebody that you trust a lot came and they said ‘What are you doing? There is a cliff fifty meters away.’ So, you knew it was a hundred meters away but now you know it is fifty meters away because you heard it form a more credible source. Now something happened and you were able to remove your blindfold and you saw that actually, it is just ten meters away. So, you trust that perception more than these concepts which you have heard from other credible sources and now you have a perception of the cliff which is ten meters away, so you trust that more.

So, when the Sage is saying that it is not possible to know the Truth through these concepts that you have heard, even though they might be from outside or they might be from this mind, it is not to be captured in the concept or it cannot be an object of your perception.

So, if it cannot be based on what you hear about it, or what you perceive it to be, then these two methods of knowing are gone. Then what is left?

S: The one who perceives it.

A: The one who perceives it. How is that to be known?

S: It’s known by Itself.

A: As what?

S: Witnessing.

A: Okay slowly, slowly.

So, even the Sages said ‘Find the one that witnesses.’ That is another clue … which you just shared.

So, what are the clues we’ve looked at so far? It does not change and it does not come and go.

Another clue is: It is that which Itself witnesses everything. It is the primal witnessing itself. So, this is the second clue.

And what if we investigate It?

Can you find It as something which you see, hear, taste, touch, smell? No.

Can you find It as a concept? No.

So, if we are looking for the Self (we are here for ‘Atma Jnana’ – Self Knowledge) then how is this type of Knowledge to be gained?

In fact, this is (in a way) like the first verse of the Ashtavakra Gita, where king Janaka asks his Master: ‘How do I gain true Knowledge, liberation?’

Because it’s a conundrum, no? If you apply the filters that the Sages have provided, then to know this seems impossible. Because my means of knowing are my concepts and my percepts. Now we can’t apply those.

Then what is left?

Q: I am still stuck with that Awareness. Can I speak of it?

A: Sure.

Q: The pointers that you have suggested, we have to see that clearly.

A: Yes, exactly.

Q: There should be some clarity around that, about the Awareness.

A: The way to make it clearer is to try not to be aware. Don’t be aware.

Tell me when you’re done.

Q: The problem with me is that Awareness comes as a blob to me. I want to chop it off and understand and what it really is.

A: That is not the approach. That is the approach that we use as a scientist. The approach which is being suggested is that if everything appears as a blob, find out who witnesses that blob. And that is not fun and it’s okay. Admit that it is not fun. It’s okay. But don’t be scared to meet it. So, don’t fall for the same trick. Now, you say that ‘I’m not able to dissect it.’ But it is not dissectible. Find out what witnesses this. Even the need to dissect, what is aware of that? You will not see it as a perception. Even if you get the greatest concept of it, the truth is not in that.

Q: Awareness … would you say that is somebody’s existence?

A: No.

Q: Awareness for me is something OF. So, if I am aware OF you, that means that you exist.

A: Okay, let’s use the same line. Are you aware of your existence?

Q: Yes.

A: That which is aware of your existence, what can you say about That?

Q: Didn’t we just establish that that we call as Awareness is that which is aware OF?

A: No. Are you inferring this?

Q: Yes, after our brief discussion.

A: Don’t infer now. So, you are aware of your existence. When I say ‘Don’t infer’ it means don’t rely on some past knowledge and don’t compute or equate anything. It’s not ‘I must be aware because OF this.’ Do you exist? Or no?

Q: Yes.

A: So, that which is aware of this existence, what can be said about That?

Q: [After a contemplative silence] Can’t be said; anything. It is … Is.

A:  It is … Is. Is-ness itself. Yes. Anything can’t be said. But unlike a 20-color rainbow, about which you say ‘I can’t say anything about it because I have never perceived it’ but you cannot deny it. That is the beauty of it, that although you have no perception of it, you cannot but affirm it. So, that which just Is, independent of any quality, independent of any change, independent of any excitement or grief, that is what Satsang is pointing to.

Now for this, you check the Sages’ pointers and see: Does it come and go?

Q: It is always there.

A: Does it undergo any change?

Does it witness perception and all objects of perception?

It’s beyond any boundaries of space and time?
Does any concept of boundary apply to it?

What is its location? What is its age?

Now, the best news is that for us to hold onto this we don’t hold onto it with our attention, we don’t hold onto it with a concept, we don’t have to hold on to it like that [Grasps with hand] and we don’t have to hold on to it by saying ‘I am Awareness, I am Awareness, I am Brahman, I am Brahman.’ To abide or to hold onto it only means that we don’t pick up a false representation of what we are. And this is what the Sages meant when they said: ‘The truth is always just apparent to you but don’t pick up the false.’ Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said that ‘True knowledge is not something that you will get. All you will do is to drop the false.’ So, what is the false? What we’ve already discussed; that it is the ideas of a limited me, of the limited version of the Self. So, to not take this ‘me’ seriously is the Sage. That’s all. And to take the ‘me’ seriously is the sufferer. The distance between the two is this thought. That’s all.

In this moment you are a Sage. [Snap fingers] You start Now [Snaps] as a Sage. Now, how do you want to play? You have the voice coming; if you want to grasp at it then it is the Consciousness itself who wants to play the game of suffering. If Consciousness is done with the game of suffering, then it just allows this to go. Then you come to that beautiful Zen saying which is: ‘Thoughts are just visitors, let them come and go. Keep your front door and back door open. Let them come and go. Just don’t serve them tea.’ That’s all.

The end of suffering is to come to That which is the unchanging Self.

It should be fairly obvious by now. What is the nature of this world? Even if you weren’t spiritual, I feel like by the time everyone is a bit older they come to this understanding that attachments lead to trouble. Because they see that everything in this world is changing. Now, if I just try to hold onto something that is going to go, is that going to bring peace or trouble? [Chuckles] It is only going to bring trouble, isn’t it? So, sometimes jokingly I say that it’s like tying yourself to drunken donkey and expecting to sit in quietude or something. It can’t work like that because it is going to shake things up. Whatever is here is going to change, is going to go.

So, now stability can come from That which is not changing, which does not come and go.

Now, where to find such a thing?

We said it cannot be found in the realms of perception or conceptualization. So, intellect cannot do it, and sight and perception cannot do it. Now the clues are being provided to go beyond that. Because we relied so much on these methods of knowing that we feel like ‘Oh, besides that, there is nothing.’

That’s why I say: ‘What is apparent to you if you don’t use your senses or your concepts?’ … ‘Nothing.’ That comes quickly, doesn’t it? [Snaps fingers] Like ‘Nothing’. But I’m trying to introduce you to this ‘Nothing.’ Meet it. Meet it and you will realize that it is not nothing … although it is no-thing.

So, when the Sages say ‘The truth is to be found in the space between thoughts’ … what is in the space between thoughts? To the mind, nothing. But what is this ‘Nothing’? It is not the ‘nothing’ that we think.

In fact, this part of the Satsang to the mind is no fun because to the mind ‘nothing’ is the worst insult. Like, if somebody comes and says ‘You are nothing!’ you’re like ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ When somebody treats you like nothing, it is the worst. [Chuckles] So, we don’t really enjoy that. We want to claim ‘But I am this, I have done this, I have had this award and this experience.’ To be thought of as nothing is the worst nightmare for the mind.

So, here it starts to resist. ‘But I want to be something. I thought I was coming to be a very special enlightened one and you are making nothing out of me!’ [Laughs] And we have very fancy ides about spirituality being the last rung of the ladder after you have evolved through all the rest. Even in spiritual texts, it is written like that. ‘After you had some 84 lakh 800 and 40000 or eight million 400 thousand lives, then you will come to this lifetime of searching for the truth of what you are.’ This kind of thing. But we can doubt that notion very much because maybe this is just the kindergarten; this world. This is the preparatory school where you can’t really play. [Chuckles] Because the ones who come to Satsang usually suffer much more from the world then those who are just normally living in the world. [Sangha chuckles] I’m not saying it is so. I’m just talking about ‘Oh, we are the top rung and they are only after money and having things. We are after God.’ You know, these kinds of things; [claiming a spiritual] specialness.

When you come to Satsang, you’re like: ‘But you cannot even find yourself. What will you become?’

‘You will find that you are no-thing.’

‘But I came here to become a special cat. I wanted freedom so I could be the cat with a halo. And now?’ We start saying ‘I am looking at the cat; but there is no cat. So, it is not helping me at all! And whatever certainties I had, even those had been taken away from me!’

So, these are the frustrations that come. In that phase, Satsang does not feel like fun. And whether we use big words for it and call it ‘The dark night of the soul’ or whatever we call it, it is only resistance; the ‘me’. All the glorified versions of this ‘me’ are getting in the way.

Q: Can you clarify about ‘me’ also … the concept of ‘me’?

A:  Okay. So, say something about yourself.

Q:  I exist.

A:  When were you born? Are you a good person? So, all of this, like: Are you like a party guy? Or do you like being at home? You see, these kinds of things are all about the ‘me’. ‘I am very honest. I am spiritual. I am not so ambitious.’ You know, all of these things can be about somebody that we are referring to as a ‘me’. Now the funny thing is that even that is not perceived. [Chuckles] Even this ‘me’ nobody has ever perceived. The ‘me’ that has money in the bank account, that has a manager at work … that one was also not perceived. And yet, somehow this bundle of concepts seems to get all our allegiance. And yet this Self, which is not perceived and yet it is undeniable, seems to be ignored.

So, the ‘person’ is not found; it’s not found in any way at all.

The Self is not found perceptually or conceptually but cannot be missed, cannot be denied.

Q: Cannot be what?

A:  Cannot be denied.

Are you witnessing your own sight, your own perception? Of course, you are. So, it is undeniable. But this ‘person’ which we have no real evidence of, expect this circumstantial evidence, that seems to get all our allegiance.

So, when we spoke of thought, it is thought which is referring to you as this limited entity. That is what we call the ‘me’ … the notion of limited self, the ego … which is not real, but it can seem like it is the center of this story. This hero of our story is a ‘me’ which nobody has ever met actually.

These are the maha-mantras of the ego: ‘What is it for me? Why me? Why does this happen to me?’ This kind of ‘Why’… and the notion that we can figure this out. That’s why I loved that Kurt Vonnegut quote very much. He says: “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 ask to tell himself he understand.”

So, this need to build a conceptual boundary around reality and say ‘I’ve got it now in my box’ is a claim to power actually. But it is really fraudulent because reality cannot be captured in our box of concepts. That’s why we looked at it and said: ‘What is your greatest concept?’ (I don’t know whether I ended that contemplation.) The Absolute, Brahman, Self. What is our smallest concept? Ego, person, lunch, chai. [Tea]

So, between chai and Brahman, what is the distance? It is just a thought. It is nothing. And this whole box is very tiny for you. I can’t help myself from reiterating this point. But if we feel like the truth is just to go from chai to Brahman, then we are still in that box. The point is to leave this whole box … and then, when we hear that ‘The Truth is apparent’ … this Truth, which is apparent, is not in that box. The ‘What Is’ (the Is-ness) is not in the box of being Brahman or something. You might, for communication purposes, then call it Brahman. But if you’re still in that box of opposites, the box of intellect, then the intellect will promise many things but it is still like a juvenile claim to power. ‘But I understand.’ What do we actually understand? What understanding is there really? We just like feel like ‘We can add up two plus two, therefore we know something.’ But nobody can really state ‘This, therefore that.’ This kind of inductive reasoning is very popular but the claims we end up making are all ephemeral.

They’re all ephemeral. How longer they are going to last? Which of this knowledge will we take when this body goes? If fact, which of this knowledge will you take into your sleep state tonight?

You could have solved quantum theory or something, you could have come up with the better version of the theory of relativity, but when you go into the sleep state, will you know what it is?

So, this ephemeral knowledge is not the center of your reality. It is part of your reality, which is okay. As far as the worldly play is concerned, I have no trouble with any of that. I’m just saying: Don’t consider it to be ultimate Truth. Two plus two might be four; that is fine. But if you consider it something which is beyond your life and death and waking and sleep; if you consider it to be an unchanging Reality, then know that you can just as usually in wake-up state where two plus two is not four. I know it sounds crazy to you right now because our intellects box is only designed like that. You can every easily experience a realm where if a goose is in a small vase, it can easily fly away. And the question ‘How will you make it escape?’ will not make sense … just like in this realm, it doesn’t make sense that ‘How can it escape?’ (I don’t know, okay, maybe I’m going too far out.) But the thing is that what defines all this is just a very tiny aspect of us called the intellect. Our power to reason has been given too much reality and importance. We have neglected our other aspect.

A: It’s about what experience or sets of experiences that you’ve tagged along with that label. That’s why these labels are so potent because they don’t come like ‘Oh, Consciousness’ [in a bland voice] because everything we think we know about Consciousness is loaded into that term.

He gave me a USB drive. So, a term is like that. There’s so much loaded into that term already. So, you say Consciousness, [points to those sitting in the room one by one] you say Consciousness, you say consciousness. Now, you all are asked to describe it. Everybody will describe different things because that’s how you’ve loaded the term. And then we argue about, ‘No, my term is the best one.’ Or ‘How could you use that term in that way?’… as if the term itself, a set of sounds, can inherently have some meaning. ‘Blah, blah, blah’ in another language could mean something but you call it gibberish. ‘Gibberish!’

Q: So, I never get this part. I mean when you say that just the sound doesn’t have any intrinsic meaning in it, right?

A: No intrinsic concept is loaded within it.

Q: Yeah, just in the sound, like ‘Blah, blah, blah’ … if I never heard it, I would never know it. So, where are you pointing us to? That’s what I don’t get. I mean it’s quite obvious if I don’t know a language…

A: Good question.

Q: … if I was the only human being in the world I would I have invented some language for myself, if only to remind myself. (I’m just imagining.)

A: Yes, good question. So, ‘Meaning’ is what? A set of other terms; each of those are a set of other terms.

Q: Are they not based on some experience?

A: Yeah, we looked at this. Those labels don’t actually (and we looked at this so often) that if you were to describe the experience of this room, could you actually do it?

Q: No.

A: At best, it’s a pictorial representation; at best, if you use ten thousand words or something like that. You see? So, it doesn’t really describe anything in ‘Is-ness’. It never describes even the manifest aspect of ‘What Is’. So, that just leads to other terms and those lead to other terms.
So, if you were to be rid of all of these terms, then Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said that the root of all of this trouble is the one term ‘I’ … the ‘I’ thought’. You see? We have given that meaning. So, if we take all meaning or reference out of that one, then all of this other stuff is naturally gone. That is a very good shortcut; a cheat code. Then you don’t have to deal with individual meanings of all of these terms. ‘I am this, I am that, in my world it is like this.’ All this is the meaning we give it.

So, what is the fundamental term? The fundamental term is ‘I’ … (whatever language you might use for ‘I’). So, this ‘I’ … we have given it conceptual meaning, whereas Reality cannot be captured in any conceptual meaning that you give to it. Whether you say ‘Awareness, Brahman, Absolute’ or you say ‘Person, ego, mind’ … both do not actually represent Reality. So now, don’t refer to ‘I’ as anything. Don’t give it any meaning or reference. Finished.

S: So, there is no ‘me’ in meaning.

A: Exactly. ‘Me’ is created in meaning. [Laughter in room] ‘Me’ is created in meaning. Now, what you have to be open to hearing (because I repeat it very often, but sometimes the mind gets very loud at this point) is that the opposite meaning is not true also. So, don’t get boxed into the idea of ‘Meaninglessness’ or the idea that ‘Nothing has meaning’ because that is also to give it meaning. It’s just that it does not apply. Here at one time, we used to talk about ‘Not applicable’. So, just like that, it is not applicable. ‘Meaning’ itself (the term) is meaningless, therefore ‘meaning’ and ‘meaningless’ don’t mean anything. Get out of that box, otherwise you will stay with theses boxes of ‘Oh, only Awareness has meaning; person has no meaning.’ You see? We are not replacing one set of meanings with a new set of meanings. We are not replacing the notion ‘I am a person’ with a new set of notions ‘I am Brahman’ or ‘I am god’. We don’t want to have one kind of ego then replace it with another kind of ego, the ‘spiritual ego’. That’s really going from the frying pan into the fire.

So, it is just to remain empty from all of this; all judgment, interpretation. Empty of getting losing, finding, seeking, holding, wanting. Empty of all of this.

[Silence]

In a simple way, we can say that it’s the end of word play. We’ve just been playing with words thinking that that is our Reality. But now, as Guruji [Sri Mooji] says, we are coming to a wordless spirituality.

So, then it will not trouble you if I say ‘You are Consciousness’ and then I say ‘But there is no Consciousness’ … you won’t feel like [Makes a surprised, puzzled face] ‘What?!’ Because you’re out of that box, you see. You’re not boxing yourself based on these assertions and negations; these opposites. Otherwise this game of ‘Oh, I’m a person’ or ‘I am Awareness’ will keep going on because we have made them opposites in that box. Just keep all terms aside and whatever You are is apparent.

[Laughs and laughter in the room] I’m a bit sheepish in saying that because [Imitates sangha with a frustrated look]: ‘Father, what is apparent?’ [Laughing]

What are you without this box?

Now, you’ll notice that the mind will become very smart at playing this game. It could say ‘Oh, but within and without are still opposites in that box.’ But you’re not really looking still! You’re still in word play then.

So, all words are in that box. That is clear. If that gives the mind some smartness certificate, every mind can have it. It’s completely fully, smart. Okay? [Chuckling] So, that full, full certification is yours. Now that you’ve seen that even this question is in the box, what is it that You Are without the box?

Then you settle again for these smart conclusions, ‘Oh, even within and without is in the box.’ You see, like that. But even that is in the box.

What about You? Can You be represented in the box?

So, really, the question boils down to ‘who’, isn’t it? Who is here? Can that be described in any concept? And if itself cannot be described in any concept then how can its afflictions, problems, its versions, its stories be described in concepts?

It’s like saying the story book started with ‘Once there was I don’t know who…’ [Chuckles] ‘Once there was I don’t know who but he / she had this particular problem in the relationship.’ What does it even mean? So, this is because in this fundamental way, just we presume. We filled in that box with ‘me’. ‘Once there was a me’ … Then, once that one is there, that one can have a problem. Relationship, money, body, freedom; all these problems. But if you don’t fill in that box…

This is what Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said. (This is the contemporary version of what he is trying to say.) He said ‘While just ‘I Am’ it is okay. Once ‘I Am’ becomes something, that ‘I am something’ is what we call ‘me’. So, once we fill in that blank ‘I am this me’ then it is the root of all the trouble.

But who is at the center of the story? When I ask you: ‘Who is there?’ then if you don’t know, then why do you fill in that blank with ‘me’?

S: It is impressions formed for very long time.

A: Yeah, but whose impressions?

S: On the Consciousness.

A: Yeah, but there is no Consciousness.

S: I am not happy without it.

A: [Smiles] Who is not? You see? That’s why I said it. [You say]: ‘I know, I affirm Consciousness, I was affirming it for the last ten minutes.’ This is what happens in Satsang. We can make it a term and then that term can become the home for the ‘me’. Like ‘It is just happening to me as Consciousness.’ Okay, forget it. There is no Consciousness. Now? …

This is good example of how Satsang terminology can actually just get in our way. Because we feel then immediately that ‘I know who it is happening to. It is happening to Consciousness.’ Forget it. There is no Consciousness.

And why we are not happy with the answer is because something latched onto the term. I know I was saying it jokingly also, half-jokingly [Chuckles] but it’s because you got attached to that term ‘Consciousness.’ When I say ‘Forget it; there is no Consciousness’ [you may want to say]: ‘But that is the basis of my understanding now. Consciousness is my basis of my understanding now and he said ‘Forget about it.’

Now, what I am saying is more than even these terms ‘Consciousness, Awareness’ … but our reality cannot be grasped in any of these concepts, including these.

So, so when a question is asked, it has to come, the response has to come from a more alive place than what we know. It has to come from a more alive place than just what we’ve just learned. Even if it seems so fresh because ‘I just understood this.’ It can feel like that. But even more alive than that, more fresh than that.

S: And you said ‘You got attached to…’

A: Yeah, you as … Consciousness, of course.

S: There is no Consciousness.

A: [Ananta and Sangha laugh] Yeah. There is no Consciousness.

This is how a term becomes potent. I wish, I prefer that every time I would say something, I wish I would use a fresh term. If I say Consciousness once, then if I didn’t ever say it again, that would be better. Because otherwise we build a home for the ‘me’ in that term ‘Consciousness’. This is what happens in spirituality.

So, who is it happening to? Consciousness. But not like that.

It has to be fresh: Who is it happening to?

The minute you make a ‘knowing’ out of anything, it can seem to obscure your vision (seem to). It is not in that process. What would it mean when you say ‘Okay, I know what you’re saying’? What would it mean?

S: From the memory, recollecting…

A: You have a phenomenal experience that you can tally with the concept of what you feel is being said. And therefore, you that give assertion of ‘Yes, that’s valid’ and you keep it in your toolbox of concepts. That is ‘knowing’ in the way it usually operates in the mental way. Isn’t it? So, suppose the truth had nothing do with this process. Then? Neither trying to understand nor not trying to understand; nothing to do with that process either way.

My Master told me that ‘If you know, it just messes it up.’ And it’s never true anyway.

Now, try to suffer without knowing anything. Let everything come. Even if it’s like a tsunami of resistance, let it come. Don’t know that it is even resistance. Be fully, fully open. Don’t grasp. Don’t grasp at it. Just remain open.

You don’t have to do anything with these words also. Like the sound of the wind chime, they are being heard. It is enough.

It’s because we have an idea of ‘solution’ … that’s why all these problems seem real.

It’s because we have an idea of freedom that the notion of bondage seems like it is true.

And all the ‘But…’ will be ‘But me…’ It might even sound very global. Actually, all the ‘But…’ is ‘But me, but me!’ [Chuckles] Like a tantrum-throwing child would say ‘Take me also to the party! Take me also to the party!’ That’s all. That’s all it is. All this, what we call resistance, is nothing but a little child saying ‘I also want to go the party!’ [Laughs] It’s like ‘I’m having a major resistance.’ But are you having it without the notion of ‘me’? And this ‘me’ is just like a little child: ‘What about me, what about me? Take me also. This is so unfair.’ [Smiles sweetly]

I know you can see that it’s very much like this; all your experiences, no matter what you may say, you can check that they’re experienced in the space within your Being, within your very Existence; where I am saying now don’t make even a distinction between Existence and non-existence, my Being and not being. Nothing is needed. If you had to have a conclusion to get to That, then that could not be That; then That would be dependent on your conclusion. If you needed a step, even a mental step, then it will not be That.

Where is this voice heard now?

Where is this voice heard? In the body?

The voice is heard in the body?

Where is the body experienced?

These sensations that we call the body, this voice, every perception is experienced where?

S: In this space. Here.

A: Now, what is more intimate to you? An experience in the space? Or that space itself?

S: Space.

A: That space. What does not come and go? This experience? Or that space itself?

S: Space.

A: That space. If you have to meet life as something, meet it as space. (If you have to meet it as something.) Higher than that is to not meet it as anything; neither something nor nothing. But if you have to meet life in some way, meet it as space. It’s a nice intermediary pointer. Because it, at least, takes us way from this grasped idea of ‘myself.’ And it is fairly quickly verifiable. This was the simple question: Where is this voice heard? Where is your sight seen? Where is the body sensation experienced?

You find that these are things which are coming and going within my own Being (if you want to call it something).

So, what can’t you meet as space? That you surrender or you inquire. This whole so-called path is just this. That which you can’t meet with openness, you either surrender (‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’) or inquire: ‘Who is this happening to?’

Our stubborn insistence is only that. Our stubborn insistence is that ‘I will not meet it as space and I will not inquire or surrender.’ [Chuckles] That is just what elongates this seeming-path.

Okay, let’s start at a different place. So, we looked at relationship, we looked at money. Let’s look at the fundamental notion, the ‘me’ itself. Because we start getting into it. So, when that happens, what should we do? Who are we referring to this ‘me’ as? Who is this ‘me’ now? How is the ‘me’? (Like we said ‘How the world is: What is money? What about you is true?’ )

S: It still wants to play now and it said ‘So, what do I do now?’ Like when you become notion- less, this thing keeps…

A: So, that is (the ‘doer’ is) true?

S: No.

A: If it is No’ then how would you have that ‘What should I do?’

S: No, I’m saying the thought arises: ‘What shall I do now?’

A: All kinds of thoughts arise.

S: Yeah, but I am just saying this thought. Even when we were just sitting, I stay quiet, but what should I do now? Make a distinction between one thought and another? I’m just reporting now.

A: Yeah. A thought in a thought. This is I have been noticing. I mean, it’s like an energetic need to get into so many distinctions.

S: What? [Chuckles] Yeah, when I still I pick one…

A: Okay, if you say ‘make no distinction’  … then there is no such thing as thought. No energetic, non-energetic, no ‘comes and goes’. If we are making no distinctions, then there is no distinction of time and space. It is not just like that. Maharaj said ‘Ultimately, I just want to tell you: Make no distinctions; that is all.’ Because in this simple pointer, all of this has no chance.

S: No distinction about anything.

A: Anything. Not up, down; not good, bad. You don’t make any distinctions. Let this body operate as it operates. If you still hear this from the level of being a body / mind then it will sound strange. So, don’t make any distinctions even between your perception of this body or anything else. To make no distinction is Advaita. This is non-duality.

Q: Beloved Father, when so much grace is here by the Lord, then why is there so much drama of egoism and pride here? It’s still so dominant. I’m like compelled to behave to be Ravana not Ram or Hanuman.

A: It’s because you still have not understood what is the mind. You have still not been able to distinguish between just thoughts and what is reality. You consider all this chatter to be you. One day it represents you as this, one day it represents you as that, and that’s why this roller coaster seems too much.

[Meditative Silence]

If you still feel that some claim that the mind makes about you is worthy, then only this drama will come. The mind is just a big drama queen. This mind is just a big soap opera script-writer. [Smiles] You know? All of this will happen.

When it dangles a carrot in front of you, you feel that ‘Ah, this is going to get me something.’ And again and again, you fall for the same April fool’s day trick. One day you presume that you are Brahman itself, the next day you are Shiva, the next day you are the most arrogant Ravana. This is the nature of the mind.

So, you have to be able to see it by now for what it is; just a seller of stories, of masks.

Just let it all come and go.

That is the end of pride. If you are done with trying to be special, then be rid of this Ravana mindset.

It’s very simple.

In all these old religious pictures you see the gods and the Sages sitting like this. [Raises one hand to show palm] They are just saying ‘Stop.’ [Sangha and Ananta laugh] ‘Stop.’

For the past few weeks I have noticed that all of you have started to see a lot more in terms of where you are not stopping; where you still allow the identity to hold sway. At least these things are coming to your attention. And your noticing is enough actually. To notice is more than enough. You’re noticing where you are still putting the ‘But, but…’ You are saying ‘Everything is horn of a hare, BUT … this I still have to do’ or ‘This I still have to solve or resolve’ or ‘This I still have to figure out.’ You’re noticing where you still rest on a conclusion.

If the words of Satsang are used to conclude and say ‘Oh, this is how it is’ then Satsang is not yet Satsang. If the words of Satsang are just opening a door where you no longer conclude … because in your conclusion is suffering. Don’t rest on any conclusion; let it go. Don’t try to define ‘This is how it is. Actually, this is how it is. After coming to Satsang I saw that this is how it is’ or ‘Today I had the insight: this is how it is.’ But the insight had nothing to do with your definition of ‘This is how it is.’

If you were able to say how it is, then somebody would have said it by now and this would be done, like centuries ago. [Chuckles] If it was definable that way: ‘This is how it is!’ Finished, no?

S: But that thought just comes, after an insight or something, it comes and it is believed also.

A: The second part, let’s look. [Laughs] To notice that the thought just comes, it’s fine. Then? Take an example. Like ‘This is how it is’ … what?

S: Everything is God … or something like that.

A: ‘Everything is God’ and it is just believed. Yes? Then that is not too bad because that would be the last thought you believe. If it is believed that ‘Everything is God’ … what else is left?

[Smiles] Now when the notion comes ‘Why does she do that to me’ (for example) then if everything is God (she is God, me is God) then who is doing what to whom? It’s all gone.

So, if the thought is like that, that’s why I said: One notion you can keep. One notion you can keep, if it has that dissolutive impact. And if you want certification of that thought, then you can ask me ‘This is thought I am keeping Ananta. What do you feel; it’s okay?’

We start Satsang with ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam’ … that one thought is enough. Because Kevalam is beautiful pointer. Kevalam means ‘Is all there is; only Is.’

If the ‘Don’t know’ is empty, then it is good. If the ‘Don’t know’ is full of the concept ‘I don’t know’ then it’s not ‘Don’t know’.

[Silence]

S: Last night you were referring to yourself as the foolish one. Why?

A: [Chuckles] If I knew why, then I would not be so foolish. [Laughs] Why? Where did it come from? It came from … (ah, let’s put it this way) … when we come to a negation of even that which you heard in Satsang, then this resistance can come. But this I learned from you. So, in that context. [Chuckles] Okay, this one is the deluded foolish one, but You go beyond. Because it can seem like these words have some inherent meaning in them or something like this; that the words in themselves contain some truth. So, in that way we can say ‘Forget even everything that you learned from this foolish one.’ [Smiles] Foolish I also saw yesterday after Satsang. It’s not such a bad thing. Because what did [Nisargadatta] Maharaj say? (Somebody posted a quote; was it it?)

S: ‘The best Advaitan is a fool who knows nothing.’ Something like that.

A: The best Advaitan is the fool who knows nothing.

So, I was being very arrogant actually. [Ananta and Sangha Laugh] This foolish one is very funny; sometimes he says ‘Even it can happen to the best of us; even me.’ [Laughs] And sometimes he says he is the most foolish.

Nothing; neither of it means nothing.

All these words are just like sounds from that wind chime.