BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

A: This is chapter 26 of The Ribhu Gita:

Ribhu: “I shall explain the Existence, Consciousness, Supreme bliss, which is ever-joy by its own virtue. It is by itself the core of the essence of all the Vedas and the Puranas.

There is no difference, duality or pairs of opposite characters, no difference and nothing devoid of differences. This alone is Supreme Brahman, affliction-less and attainable by Knowledge.”

A: This verse itself is potent enough to drive away all ignorance.

“There is no difference, duality of pairs of opposites. No difference and nothing devoid of differences. This alone is Supreme Brahman, affliction-less and attainable by Knowledge.

There is nowhere anything as ‘This alone am I’, nothing that is decay-less, nothing beyond the beyond. This alone is Supreme Brahman, affliction-less and attainable by Knowledge.”

A: And this Knowledge is what? It is not conceptual knowledge. It is that Truth which is apparent. Empty of notions, what is this Self-knowledge? Atman Jnanam. Jnana Yoga is not to pick up a lot of concepts, it is to empty yourself of notions and to see this true Knowledge (with a Capital ‘K’) which never comes and goes.

“There is no outside, no inside, no I, no will or no form. This alone is Supreme Brahman, affliction-less and attainable by Knowledge.”

A: Pick one of these and accept it; any. [Smiles] Just accept that there is no outside or inside. It is enough. Or at least, be open to it. So, if you hear it as if you are hearing directions at a train station, not as if you are hearing something metaphysical; hear it as if you’re asking ‘Where should you go?’ and they’re saying ‘There is no outside and no inside.’

“There is no Truth, none who has renounced, no accounts, no corruption of values. This alone is Supreme Brahman, affliction-less and attainable by knowledge.

“There is no quality, no qualified statement, no mental certitude, no Japa, no limitation, nothing pervading and unreal fruits.

“There is no Guru, no disciple, nothing fixed, nothing auspicious or inauspicious, nothing uniform or of different form, no liberation and nothing that binds.

“There is no meaning for the word ‘Aham’ or the word ‘That’, no senses nor the objects, no doubt, nothing trifling, no certitude nor or anything named.

“There is nothing of the form of peace, no non-duality, nothing above or below, no trait, no sorrowful body, no pleasure and nothing fickle.

“There is no body, no sign, neither cause nor the absence of cause, no sorrow, no conclusions, no I, nothing mysterious and no transcendental state.

“There is no Karma that is accumulated, nor that that is yet to be realized, no Truth, no you or I, no ignorance, no knowledge, no dunce and no pundit.

“There is no base hell, no conclusion and no liberation and nothing purifying, no craving, no learning, no I, no knowledge and no deity.

“There is no sign of the auspicious or the inauspicious, no death, no life, no satisfaction, nothing enjoyable, no undivided unitary existence and no non-duality.

“There is no will, no world, no wakefulness or sovereignty, not even a trifle of the defect of equality whatever, no delusion of counting the fourth state.

“There is no all or impure, nothing adorable, no morality, no worship, no world, no plurality, no admixture of other sayings.

“There is no Satsang or the lack of Satsang, no Brahman, no enquiry, no practice, no speaker, no ablutions and no holy waters.

“There is no merit, nor there is sin, no actions causing defects, nothing related to the Self, nothing related to the physical, nothing related to the Divine.

“There is no birth or death anywhere, no states of waking dream and sleep, no realm of the earth or the nether world, no victory or defeat.

“There is no wretched, no fear, no sensuality, no quick death, nothing unthinkable, no one guilty, nor the delusion of sacred lore.

“There is no quality such as the serene or the active or the excessive dullness, no Shavism, no Vedanta, no sacred duty, no sacred study, nor the related interest.

“There is no bondage nor liberation either, no sentence, no characteristics of identity, no female form, no male form, no condition of being neither male or female, no permanent state.

“There is no praise, no slander, no hymns, verily no eulogy, nothing worldly, nothing pertaining to the Vedas, no scripture, nor any commandment.

“There is no drinking, no emaciation, none of this, no joy, no arrogance or the absence of it, no mood or the lack of it, no cast, no name and no form.

“There is nothing outstanding, nothing base, no prosperity, nor verily the opposite of it, no blemish-ness or excretion, no individual soul or the control of mind.

“There is no manifestation of peace, nothing attainable, no peace, no restraint of senses or mind, no sport, no part of Existence, no transformation and no defect.

“There is nothing whatsoever in the least; nothing of the I anywhere, nothing of what is called Maya, nothing associated with Maya, no righteousness anywhere in the least, no persecution of the Dharma.

“There is no youth, no boyhood, no senility, no death and such, no relative, no one unrelated, no friend and nobody there.

“There is no all, nothing in the least; no Brahman, no Keshava, no Vishnu, no Shiva, no guardians of the eight cardinal directions, no experiencer of the waking state or the dream state.

“There is no experiencer of the deep sleep, nor the fourth state, no Brahmana, no Kshatriya or the highly learned.

“This is indeed Supreme Brahman, the affliction-less nectar of Knowledge.

“There is nothing that is reborn, nothing to manifest to the future, there is no manifestation of the worldly life, there is no appearance of time, no I, there is no reason for dialog.

“There is no above, no inner faculty, no talk of just Consciousness, no duality that ‘I am Brahman’, no duality that ‘I am just Consciousness.’

“There is no sheath of food, nor the sheaths of vital airs or mind or that which is not sheath, no sheath of Intellect, no sheath of bliss as separate.

“There is nothing of the form of instruction, nothing to be instructed, none to teach here; it is all illusory.

“There is none to be persecuted, none to persecute, being illusory no conclusive knowledge based on the triads: knower, knowable and knowledge.

“There is none to measure, no standards of measure, nothing to be measured, no fruits arising. This alone is Supreme Brahman, the affliction-less nectar of Knowledge.”

S: He has demolished everything.

A: Everything. And if someone needs a testimony to the efficacy of the Ribhu Gita, it is said here:

“Is there a book while reading which the reader is increasingly drawn towards his own Self, even if it is the very first spiritual book he reads? The book which you are holding in your hands is certainly one such. There is no greater testimony to the unique value of Ribhu Gita than the fact that Bhagavan Ramana himself told one of his little-educated devotees, Sampoornama: ‘It does not matter if you don’t understand the book, just go through it. It will be of immense benefit to you.’ Bhagavan would often say that the recitation of Ribhu Gita is as good as Samadhi and would himself would take part in the recitation. So, let us read, chant and be absorbed in his Grace.”

So, this is the one that Bhagavan used to always recommend and Chapter 26 especially (what we were just reading) is highly recommended.

Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said: ‘True Knowledge is not to be found. It is only the false that has to be given up.’ Ati Sulabham: Super Simple. What is the most simple? … completely empty of any effort, any getting, any losing, any position?

No experience is It. Neither is it not It. It is just that an experience cannot include, cannot consume or contain It. No state can contain It. And yet, all states are It.

No concept can grab It. No piece of mental knowledge is true. But neither is it false. Because true and false don’t apply to It … to Your Self.

Right and wrong, correct and incorrect, all of these are just from our intellect. Whatever you can grasp for, you can reach for, is not It. And yet the grasping is only within It.

Whatever you can perceive is not It. And yet there is no perception which excludes It. Not this way, not that way.

My Father says: ‘Be the cow that jumped over the moon.’ How many steps do you have to take to jump over the moon? What is the run-up you’ll have to run and then gather the momentum to jump? So, it is not It in the grasping. Jumping over the moon means to leap beyond your concepts of right and wrong and all these opposites. Leave your mind behind.

Got It? Didn’t get It? [Chuckling]
Does it still apply: Got It?

[Looks around the room]
Didn’t get It? [Laughter in the room]

Are you certain? [Laughter continues]

And because we have activated this concept of coming to Satsang to ‘Get It’ or the concept that ‘I have been coming to Satsang and I’ve got glimpses of it but haven’t got it’ then these concepts can still carry some weight. If I ask my children who just come to say ‘Hi’ to me after coming from school whether after coming to Satsang they got it or didn’t get it, they would say [Makes a shrugging gesture] ‘What?’ It does not apply.

Got It? [Chuckling] All ways to It are fraudulent and yet there is no way which does not lead to It. What will you do with that?

Is what I’m saying true? No. Is what I’m saying false? No.

Are you willing to look beyond this instrument of true and false, of assertion and negation?

What is Here?

[Silence]

If you forgot that this body has a nose, for example, then you could use your hand to confirm. That is neti-neti. Move your attention to its own Source and see where it comes from. ‘Not this, not this, not this.’ But after you see that the nose is still there, do you have to keep holding it? ‘Abide as the nose.’ [Chuckling] Then abidance only means that we don’t pick up the notion that ‘I lost my nose.’ Because we checked and we checked again, we checked again. Now it is clear.

Attention plays that function of grasping. But to be the Self doesn’t mean that I have to keep my attention only in the unchanging Reality … because if that is how the Self wanted to experience Itself, the waking state would not come in the first place. So, this world is a play of attention and that’s okay. It has nothing to do with My Self. If it seems that I forgot who I am then it is useful to check. But coming to the Truth is not remaining in the withdrawal of attention or something. It is attention; this way or that way, it doesn’t matter. What is Here naturally? [Silence] When you see Guruji, [Sri Mooji] does it look like he’s just [gestures spaced out or in samadhi] … and then he is talking? No, he is very much Here. His attention is very much with all of this as well, but the Self is not forgotten. It doesn’t need to be remembered in this way.

Q: But when my attention is on my thoughts, for instance, it seems that the Self is veiled. Veiled, yeah; that I’m forgetting My Self, in a sense.

A: Not in the mere appearance of thoughts, it isn’t. The ‘belief’ is the veil.

Q: It’s because Guruji doesn’t believe any thoughts?

A: Yes. See, when attention was fully withdrawn, then there is no question of any appearance, including thoughts. All appearance means that attention is on that. That’s what we call ‘appearance’ anyway. So, just for the mere appearance of thoughts, it doesn’t matter. It’s when I take myself to be what the thought is referring to ‘me’ as … that is the ‘I’ thought, that ‘I am that which the thought is representing: the ‘I’ thought; the thought that ‘I’ is being represented though this energy construct … that is the veil. And if you take yourself to be that, just like if you take yourself to be anything at this moment, if you give your belief to it, you will start to lose that. It won’t seem as tangible. You close your eyes and start imagining that you are a tiger sitting next to the Nile or something like that. If you start believing concepts about it, it is not far from belief. So, it is not in the appearing of these appearances, but in our taking our thoughts to be valid representations of who we are. That’s what I mean. When the thought claims to represent ‘I’ … that is the ‘I thought.’

Say something which you think true about yourself: that is the ‘I’ thought. It represents an ‘I’ which just is not there. So, when we lose that reference, the Truth is Here. That’s why I started Satsang by saying: It is not that the Truth has to be found. It is only that the false has to be let go of.

What is the false? The primary falsity is in this ‘I’ thought, the limited notion of Self.

This attempt to own it or the attempt to stand aloof are both two sides of the same coin; ideas of our limitations.

Who is dancing this dance of ‘Getting and not getting’ … of ‘Being in a state and losing the state’? If you forgot all of this education, that ‘This is good, this is bad; this is true, this is false; this was right, this is wrong; I had it, I lost it’ …  it is not original to you, and it is not about these words. If these words are just taken as words, then they are complete nonsense. If there is a point to these words, it is only to back all notions out of you. It is only to back every notion out of you, including the notion of ‘backing’ itself.

To see that ‘Even to know one thing is to know too much’ is to meet Shiva.

(Okay, that is a notion; forget it.) [Sangha and Ananta Chuckle]

[Silence]

How do you consider yourself to be in time and space? Don’t try to leave time and space; tell me how you consider yourself to be in time and space?

S: I have to think about it.

A: You have to think about it. And what is the basis of all this fruitless thinking? It is the ‘I’ thought.

If you decide that ‘I have to leave the ‘I’ thought’ then it is not leaving the ‘I’ thought. If you say ‘Now that I see that the trouble is that I have to leave the ‘I’ thought’ then that is not it. It’s something immediate, more spontaneous. To leave the ‘I’ thought means make no reference to ‘I’ … either absolute or personal. Make no reference to ‘I’ … either absolute or personal. And who is doing it; who is making no reference? Nobody. That is un-referenced. We are not making a reference; not even nobody (because we can have an idea about nobody; it’s still a reference).

It can sound very complicated, but it is simpler than how it sounds. Okay? [Chuckles] If you try to solve it like this, you can’t. But in actuality, it is simpler; [snaps fingers] … before you hear the click.

[Silence]

If you find yourself taking a position (like that or like this) it is not even that. It can become very subtle, where even these can be positions: ‘I have to hold my attention’ or ‘I have to let go of my attention.’ Nothing, nothing. Attention doesn’t have to be this way or that way. All ways, or concepts of ways, can go.

What does ‘I’ mean?

Straight to the point. [Chuckles] If you don’t clarify this fundamental question then how can you give meaning to anything else, because everything else in the world presumably is in reference to you. You had the experience of it, you had the perception of it.  This ‘you’ that had this perception, this experience, is which one?

What witnesses everything that can be witnessed?

Can that itself be witnessed? Can it be thought about?

How do we know something? We perceive, we think, conceptualize? But This, which Itself is the witnessing, can it be thought about? Can it be perceived? Yet even if you ask a little child ‘Who is perceiving this hand?’ [He will say] ‘I am, of course. What kind of question is that?’

But this ‘I’ … what is the nature of this one? And is there any other ‘I’ …?

Because some of you might say ‘I don’t really care. I don’t really care what is the nature of that one. I just want to help myself or I want to find some peace.’ But that is where the misunderstanding starts. We are trying to explore who is this ‘I’. And if you are happy to pick up on this notional, made-up ego ‘me’ then it is missing the point.

Is there another you?

You say ‘I perceive this hand.’ Is there another you besides that one?

Who has the money in the bank? Who has relationships? Who is the owner of this body? Who wants freedom or God?  Who is that one? The same one that is perceiving this hand?

So, this must be some kind of divine hypnosis. The made up of notion of ‘I’, the made-up notion of ‘me’, seems to get so much allegiance that you feel like that even to come to Satsang is so that you can get freedom. The one that is perceiving the hand, how is that one bound? And what is aware of even this perception?

If the gears of the mind are churning, they will not help. If you are trying to perceive through our senses, where is the one who is perceiving this perception? Who is aware of this perception?

So, you look for it everywhere. ‘Where? Where?’ That will not help. What is left? Your intellect will not help, your senses will not help. And yet you say ‘I’. What does that mean? What does that represent? Who does it represent? Why is this such a mystery?

A: If you didn’t know any of this spiritual knowledge, then …

S: I don’t have spiritual knowledge…

A: Okay, then what is it? [You said] ‘There is a light that is manifesting as something, as this universe.’ Sounds very much like spiritual knowledge.

S:  Without that light, how can I see? How can perception be there?

A: Show me where the light is.

S: That’s me; that is my nature.

A: Where is it? Where is this light?

S: It is the light which lights up the world.

A: Where is it?

S: It’s non-phenomenal.

A: Then how it is light?

S: Okay, then we remove label. What you are speaking then …?!

A: Allow me to be foolish. [Sangha and Ananta Chuckles] If that is the objection, allow me to be the deluded, foolish one. You remain notionless. Because these things which you might think free you, they are actually your chains; the idea that ‘I know about something; what this is.’ And these are very glorious ideas. I’m not complaining about the quality of the ideas but I’m telling you even they are just ideas.

S: Yes, yes. They are just ideas, right?

A: Yes, of course. Even yesterday in ‘Ribhu Gita’ (or the day before) we read that ‘Even the notion of transcendental light is just a notion.’ Very clearly, the Sage has said ‘It is the horn of the hare.’ [which doesn’t exist] Not only these elements (‘The horn of the hare’) … even the notion of transcendental light is ‘The horn of the hare’. Suppose you are empty of all of this. Then?

S: But something is playing in this world; I’m coming here and interacting with all these guys.

A: [Chuckles] But these are just the ideas … and to put it strongly, these are just lies. And I know they are lies you have heard in Satsang. [Laughs] I’m not denying that. But we have to, at some point, look at even these and throw them away.

‘Something’ is playing. Tell me what thing is playing?

What is that ‘thing’ … what is ‘is’ … and what is ‘play’?

Do we really know any of this?

Tell me something that you know for certain is true.

S: I exist.

A: What does that mean: to exist? Even this is not true. That is why [Sri Nisargadatta] Maharaj said….

S: But I am not dead.

A: [Smiles] Even this is not true. Maharaj said ‘The only Truth …’ So, you’re not in bad company; you’re in very good company. Maharaj said ‘The only Truth I can say is that ‘I Am.’ But he said ‘Ultimately, even that is not true.’ Ultimately, even that is a notion.

S: Then what to speak? Everything is a lie then? Everything, everything, every word is a lie.

A: How about these words?

S: Then what to say?!

A: So, when we say ‘Everything is a lie’ is that Truth or lie? [Silence]

Saying is so important. We can explore this: Where does it come from? Because we feel helpless the minute we don’t have anything to say. What does it mean? Not that we have to say nothing, but to be like ‘But what do I actually know?’ And you come to the nakedness of that moment. And it can feel defenseless. It can feel defenseless. ‘So, what have I really understood?’ … ‘Nothing.’ And that can feel like almost like an attack. But this is it. If you can take the attack now, good; then you can be done with it. Because you have not understood anything, you have not come to know anything and you have not found anything. So, all these are gone. Now?

S: Not speaking is okay also.

A: Now you said ‘Every sentence you say is a lie.’ Now, this one is true?

S: In the real sense, there is no need to say anything.

A: Is that true? [Chuckles]

I’m pushing you beyond your intellect and you’re trying to capture it with your intellect. You’re saying ‘speaking’ and ‘not speaking’ … these are the boundaries of your intellect. Isn’t it? In the intellect, there can be speaking, speaking, speaking less, speaking really less, not speaking at all. This is the boundary. I’m pushing you to a place where none of this is true. So, it doesn’t matter about speaking, not speaking; all of these opposites.

You want to be pushed there? Or no?

S: Yeah.

A: Yes. That openness is enough for me.

This is what I was saying, that when we first admit that ‘Actually, I don’t know anything’ (and not even this, whether I know or I don’t know anything) that is openness. Then, it is simple. [Smiles]

If we meet it with our mask of our knowledge, then we will keep making something out of it. I was saying that ignorance in the world … they say ignorance is what? ‘We don’t know what we don’t know.’

S: ‘Ignorance is bliss.’

A: Bliss, yes. [Chuckles] Yes. How would we define it? ‘We don’t know what we don’t know.’

Many times, the trouble in Satsang is that: We don’t know how much we still know. And that is getting exposed every day; exposed every day, if you are being open. Otherwise, we are adding a lot of concepts every day. Otherwise, we are adding a lot of spiritual concepts also every day; adding to our framework of knowledge (which we think is knowledge but actually is garbage).

Now the journey is really, really, super short actually. Because it is already over. It is already over, Here and Now. But the seeker usually just keeps picking up the journey over and over again. It’s like you take a flight from Boston to Bangalore and you got to Bangalore and you quickly fly back and take flight the flight back again. The journey is over. Over. But you just say ‘But, but, but … what happened?’ Then back to Boston. I’m saying ‘It is over.’ If you say ‘Where is my seventh Chakra?’ …back to Boston. [Chuckles] If you say ‘What happened to the fireworks I experienced three years ago?’ … back to Boston.

Any notion that you attach now … I was saying yesterday that if I said that ‘A cat is going to walk through this door in a minute’ you will stay with that, looking at the door, much more than when I say ‘The Truth is apparent to You Now.’ The minute I say ‘The Truth is apparent to You Now’ it’s like ‘No, no, no, what, what? Maybe for him.’

Give it a chance.

What is Here Now?

This is the shortest journey ever, quicker than immediate, quicker than time: You Are It. Faster than you can sit where you are already sitting, You are the Self.

What is the journey between you and where you are already sitting?

How many steps do you have to take?

It’s Here? Zero?

More intimate than that is You YourSelf. But if you should pick up an idea, if you grasp at the idea, then you can start running around the whole of Bangalore, the whole of the world. What you are looking for? ‘I want to get to where I started from.’ [Chuckles] Suppose the goal was to find exactly where you are sitting Right Now … and you start walking. Are you going to get closer from it or far further from it? [Chuckles] Full turn till a point further, then you go around the world and then it comes closer. So, you can come to it that way … but where will you reach? Exactly where You are Now.

Wherever you may wander, You are This.

You could not lose YourSelf if you try.

So, what is happening then? If it is like this, that it is more immediate than immediate itself, more Now then Now, then what is this game all about? And because You have unlimited potential, You have the potential also to consider YourSelf to be something that You are not. So, You have the potential to consider YourSelf to be this bucket of flesh and blood, which is very ephemeral in its nature. But if You want to consider Yourself this, nothing can stop You. If You want to play like this, nothing can stop You from playing. This play is called the ‘Leela.’ But it is not true that You can ever become just this in Reality, or that the Truth is not here Right Now. These things are just not true.

So, when we say that ‘I don’t find it’ it is not true, because you already said ‘I’. (I wonder if some of you get it.) The minute you say ‘I don’t find it’ you already found the ‘I’ who cannot find it. Everything after the ‘I’ is just a story anyway.

So, this grasping at ideas, conclusions, notions, is to try to get to where you are sitting Now by walking. And then we have some very fancy ideas, like very spiritual ideas, where we can feel like ‘I’m really running now to my destination.’ What is your destination? Where I stared. [Chuckles]

So, meet what is naturally Here.

A: This is a good contemplation: Is there something called the world?

Q: It depends where you stand, if you stand in personhood, there is a world. If you stand in the expanse of Awareness, everything is playing on the fabric of Awareness. So, it’s not just ‘Is there a world?’ … the more important question is ‘Is there a world and where do you ask that question from and where do hear that question?’

A: Yes, but whatever that distinction might be, the question is ‘Is the world real or is it just a notion?’ And you said ‘Of course, if you’re looking at it from the personal perspective, then it, of course, seems real.’ But the person itself is what I am talking of as a notion. You see? Isn’t the person just a notion?

Q: I want to amend my statement: Where you’re looking from … it’s where you inhabit. It’s almost like where do you sit; where’s the throne? If the throne is in personhood, then there is a world, there is time, there is space, there is relation to the body … and it hurts if you are in personhood. But if your throne is in that sense of all-Awareness, then these are just play, flashes of light and vibration playing on this.

A: So, the first world that you described, if I say that that is just notional, it’s just ideas…

Q: But you only say that because of where you’re standing from, or where you’re talking from, because that’s what you occupy. You’re speaking from a position of Awareness, as Awareness, so You can say that. But if someone is not sitting there, is sitting in personhood, then they can’t say that. They will say ‘The world is real. What are you talking about? I have to get up and walk.’

A: Yes. And this would be a big problem if it was true, in the sense that if it was possible for you to sit as a person, then it would be a real problem. So, can you be rid of this Awareness and be the person for a moment?

Q: See, I reject that statement because that statement implies ‘this or that’. I prefer to word it as ‘this AND that’ … meaning I can sit as Awareness, in Truth (It is Here right Now) AND I can also sit as personhood.

A: Show me. Show me how…

Q: But that’s how we are sitting.

A: Show me. [Silence] Where? Move from Awareness.

Q: You’re still coming from ‘this or that’ in the sense that you’re verbalizing. I’m saying ‘Your Self and, in our case, personhood are both simultaneously co- existing; not one or the other. Simultaneous, both. So, you are the Self and you are the person. It just depends which one you inhabit from.

A: So, this ‘and’ which we feel like has some reality, I’m saying is just notional. That’s all I’m saying … that it is never like you say, that ‘I can be Awareness AND the person.’ I’m just questioning that.

Q: Another way to put it is one is primary, one is secondary. They’re just terms, which you can have fun with. I’m just trying to explore that.

A: I’m glad we are having this conversation; it’s very, very good.

Q: So, let’s say, in my case, I’m steeped in my personhood then just to be very ‘excel’ [a software program for listing information] I would say that my personhood is primary. And I’m still the Self but the light is shining more in the personhood. I don’t know if what I’m saying about it is [clear]… but You know what I’m talking about.

A: Yes, Yes. Therefore, would you say that it is not a statement that you inhabit both worlds, in a sense, but more of what you believe about yourself?

Q: Yeah.

A: That’s what I’m saying. So, it’s not that You Are ‘this and that’ but it is more like what you identify with ‘this and that’. And what can be ‘identified with’ is just ideas. You see? This we can confirm. Like: Is the Truth subject to identification as well? So, can the idea ‘Awareness’ encapsulate Truth? And if I identify with the notion of Awareness, does that make me free … versus this? Or are not both notions? (And identification is only possible with notions.) But empty of this identification with either or both notions, there is something that is not identified ever, or identifiable?

Q: Perfect, perfect.

A: So, it pulls the sense of there being an ‘I’ who is straddling both worlds or something like that.

Q: But this is a thorn. Sometimes we need a concept or a belief in a thorn to take out the other thorn.

A: Okay, so it’s gone?

Q: Very fresh.

A: So, gone?

Q: Gone.

A: Now, any time, any space, any duality, any distinction … any of this?

[Silence]

Q: It’s playing here and I chose to be here without the sense of ‘me-ness. There is ‘me-ness’ here…

A: And to make that choice … how would you say that? How do you make that choice?

Q: It is a sort of falling in. First, it starts with a falling in, and then it’s something that springs forth and you just find yourself resting in.

A: Before you fall in, what is there?

[Silence]

Q: Beautiful. Before I fall in, It is also just there. And there’s almost the illusion that you’re falling in.

A: Look, look; explore like this, explore like this. Because if you make it subject to time then again, we are getting into ‘process’ and ‘state’ and these kinds of things. So, it’s helpful to just see that before we can even have the intention of ‘going to It’ … what is That?

Is it in opposition to this or that? Is there some ‘I have to push and pull or pull from here and go there?’ … this kind of thing?

And I know that all of this was good stuff. I’m not denying that at one point, all of this was good stuff. It turned our attention away from this [gestures the outside appearance] and got us to explore what is beyond just this. All of this is very beautiful stuff. But there comes a point where … [Makes a sweeping gesture; dismisses everything]

[Silence]

Neither this nor that; neither both. Nothing. Neither, neither.

[Chuckling]

How is it when you meet yourself empty of this; of any sort of knowing, any sort of label, any sort of conclusion of even having got it or not got it? How is it?

Give it a chance; a few moments?

And I don’t want the answer. [Smiles] That was just an invitation to look.

When you meet yourself notion-less-ly, how is it?

You are actually testing what Master Bankei said. He said ‘All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn.’ And this Unborn is your notion-less Existence.

So, it is my proposal to you that all things are perfectly resolved right Now, already. But it is completely in your power to pick up the notion that it isn’t.

You as who? Consciousness. The root, the primordial of that which is manifest.

(Anyway, we don’t even have to pick up these notions.)

How is it, notion-less-ly?

The invitation to ‘be somebody’ will come. The invitation to bring yourself back into this limited identity will come. Even when it says ‘Yeah, this is pretty good; I could live like this’ … who is that ‘I’ then?

So, open-ness, emptiness (whatever you want to call it) is already Here.

The Unborn just Is.

This Is-ness just Is.

How will you grab that which you already are?

But a thought, a notion, claims to be a valid representation of ‘What Is’. It’s a metal attempt to grab at Reality. But it actually has no meaning in Reality. Even to say that ‘It has meaning or no meaning’ doesn’t mean anything, actually. It’s not to come to a meaninglessness. It is that there is no meaning in the term ‘meaning’ itself. And a quick way to check is whether you’re still giving credence to something which has an opposite. If you are still stuck in this play of opposites then those opposites, those ideas, are seeming to cloud Reality (not in actuality).

S: Can you give examples for stuck in opposites?

A: Good / bad … should be / should not be … I’m doing well / I’m not doing well … I’m free / I’m bound. Any of these positions. We can oscillate in these positions. But actually, that oscillation is in a tiny box, as I have been saying. That’s only as far as our intellect can reach. But our intellect cannot reach our real Self. It can only define our limited self. So, neither this way nor that way.

And we don’t have to make a way out of it. Don’t try to hold it with your intellect. Don’t try to even grasp what I’m saying. Because if you grasp it in that way, it will become another notion. Just meet this moment empty. It’s much more than you can ever imagine or are looking for. Even if you think you are looking for God … much more than our concept of God is already naturally Here.

Don’t exchange this ‘What Is’ for any concept. That’s the game. It’s just a thought. Because we start empty. And the truth is Here. God is Here. Self is Here. Whatever label you want to give to Ultimate Reality is just naturally Here and apparent. Apparent; but not apparent in the way you think it should be. Not apparent in our idea of how it should be apparent. It just Is; un-definable.

You don’t have to grasp at it. You don’t have to push it away. And if naturally something is happening to the body, it’s fine, but it’s not like you find it inside this container. Even if you go inside … you’re not inside this container anyway.

Without any grasping or not grasping, just naturally: This is Your Self.

Beyond, beyond any beyond; beyond any notion of beyond also.

Any idea that you pick up about this is an escape, a diversion or a distraction which is part of this play, which is called the Leela. And to see that this Truth is just naturally Here and apparent is ‘Gyana’ (Knowledge with a capital ‘K’). It’s not the concept that ‘The Truth is naturally Here.’ That is not Knowledge. It’s the tasting of that which is naturally Here.

A: Suppose the task was inverse; suppose that when you refer to ‘I’, you are supposed to refer to the Truth, how would you do it? Like, represent the Truth as ‘I’, how would you do it?

S: Just by Being … nothing special to do, you know?

A: Yeah, is that a true representation of ‘I’? … the same one that we were speaking of?

Can the level of activity or inactivity in this appearance lead to some false or true representation of ‘I’?

S: No, I feel that everything that is going on is part of this.

A: Yes, there is no distinction. Now if you have to refer to it, the Truth one, how would you do it? You have seen all the false claims: ‘I am body, I am mind, I am seeker, I am good, I am husband, I am wife, I am this, I am that’ … all of these you have seen; false, ephemeral ones that come and go. Now, what is the true representation of it?

S: Just I Am.

A: ‘I Am’ is true?

S: What Is.

A: [Chuckles]

S: What Is, is true.

A: What is, is true?

S: What is, is it!

A: [Laughs] What Is … Am?

S: To Be.

A: To Be. But I Am is also like just this: ‘I am husband, I am wife’ which also comes and goes.

Does it? [Laughs] Yes it does.

S: I chose to Be.

A: Everything comes and goes within It, but it also is a lie ultimately.

S: Yeah, I just chose to be all these, roles, but I am none of these. I could be, but I am really not.

A: Yes, that’s how it’s usually done; it is defined in the negative: ‘not this, not this’ (Neti, neti) is the usual way to point to ‘I’. But what is the positive definition, positive representation of ‘I’?

Actually, if you discard ‘I Am’ also, then there is not much to say. It has no reference then. When you don’t refer to I as anything at all, then I is the Truth. Once you make a representation of I even in the primal ‘I Am-ness’ then we got into the realm of the comings and the goings.

S: Then you step into the golden cage, when you say ‘I Am’. But if you want to be the sky then …

A: Forget about ‘I Am’.

S: It’s just subtle and …

A: Papaji [Poonjaji] said to one ‘Who is the one that wakes up?’ This one said ‘I wake up.’ He was referring to the sense ‘I Am’ waking up. Papaji said ‘Don’t touch that I. Now don’t touch the one that woke up. Don’t touch the one that will go away in sleep. Now which distinctions can survive?’

S: I think the label ‘I’ itself creates some kind of …

A: Yes, yes.

S: Like what we are used to. When we say ‘I’, it creates separation already.

A: All the baggage comes, like with any term. We say ‘banana’ and all our experiences with banana come. Like ‘Oh, the taste was like this, last time I had it was like this, I used to like it when I was a kid.’ You see, all these kinds of things. So, because this ‘I’ is so charged with identity, when we make a reference, it can seem like ‘Oh, it’s back’. Its limited nature; it’s a super-charged term in itself. But it’s losing its charge. In Satsang, as you are seeing that there is no such limited entity, then it will become as playful as light.

[Reading from chat]: “Dear Anantaji, there is a kind of certitude felt in the process, that Truth always embraces me. It’s a conviction growing day-by-day. Any alertness to be kept around this?”

A: Let the Truth embrace you so much that there is no ‘me’ left. Take a dip in this Ganga so much that you don’t come out; that the one who presumably took the dip does not actually return. Because the Truth actually has nothing for this ‘me.’ The truth has nothing for this ‘me.’

So, let it embrace you completely and see if you can let go of this embrace. Is it even possible for the Truth to leave? It’s just that we stop giving credence to the pretense of falsity. You stop believing in the notion of the ‘me.’

Your only struggle would be when you want to hold both hands; when you want to stand on both Truth and ‘me’. So, everything that needs any sort of ‘knowing’ to be kept alive, let go of that.

Reality cannot go. Once all notions of reality go, Reality cannot go. But what goes once one’s notions go? That is called ‘false.’

What notions are you scared of losing? … ‘I’?

S: My life.

A: My life. It’s a hilarious idea, actually, no? [Chuckles]

S: It’s a big one.

A: A big joke. ‘My life.’ You don’t know anything about this ‘my’ … we don’t know; this ‘life’ … we don’t know. And yet as a combination, we seem to know. [Sangha and Ananta chuckle] ‘Me’ … we looked, we looked; we can’t find.  ‘Life’ … what is life? Can any one tell me what is life? That we don’t know. Then we put it together ‘my life’ then it just becomes that fairy tale, that story. ‘It started there, it became this, it became that. I wonder what I will become next. This is what I wanted it to become.’ All of these stories come. But deconstructed, pulled apart, it’s nothing. Really, it’s just sounds.

This ‘my’ is who?

This ‘I’ is who?

It’s just a sound. It is nobody. It’s nobody. It is just a noise: ‘I’. And yet so much conditioning has been put on top of ‘I’ (I am this, I am that; I like this, I don’t like that.) So, it seems to have become the protagonist. Then what we try and do is we try to move it away from the false ‘I’ and try to bring it to the true ‘I’. But to bring it to the true ‘I’ actually means to drop all the references to ‘I’. As long as we still have this notion that ‘I’ was the false, now ‘I am the Absolute or Truth’ or something like that, that is still aversion. It is still only a representation.

A: Tell me something which is True.

S: It is Always Here.

A: Truth is always Here. ‘Is’ is always Here. Is … because it just Is. So, what else could be needed now?

S: The absence of thoughts.

A: It’s not necessarily confirmed (if this is what you’re saying) it’s not necessarily the absence of the appearance of thoughts, it’s just the absence of us treating them to be valid representations of Reality. Isn’t it? So, that is why we can inquire into them or surrender them; whatever still feels like they are valid representations. So, how about we start with this one, because ‘I must come to the absence of thoughts’ itself is also a thought, so we’ll start with this one.

This one is also gone. [Waves his hand to show its passing] Then? [Silence]

S: Stop believing them.

A: Okay, give me three that you want to stop believing in.

S: ‘I’m a human being.’

A: One is ‘I am human being.’ That’s it? [Chuckling] That should cover it actually.

S: It’s the root.

A: It’s the root, yes. ‘I Am-ness’ is what we call Being. To add anything on top of Being is to create separation. Because if you say ‘You are just a human being’ then you are saying that you’re not the existence of space, you’re not the existence of everything else that you perceive, that there is separation between you and everything else. But Being is this that IS. Right Now is Being. So, this Being-ness has no trouble. But when we draw any line, that makes separation, and that is conceptual. It’s always conceptual. Now, these concepts have been thrust on us, have been thrust on us in this play. These conditions have been believed so much that when they show up again, it can feel like ‘Yes, this is true, this is familiar.’ That’s why it can feel like ‘Yes, this really still means something.’

So, when this notion comes and we say ‘Yes, this is true’ we are saying ‘I know this. I know this: this is fact. I know this for a fact.’ But if you start examining those things which you think are facts, you’ll see that you’ll struggle to find a single fact. [Silence] So, whether we look at it this way ‘Who Am I?’ or ‘Can the Perceiver be Perceived?’ or ‘Remain Open and Empty’ … they are the same because in both cases Truth is apparent.

It’s the same homework every weekend: To remain concept-less, to remain open. Otherwise, we can keep talking about these things and they can become more and more knowledge that we are learning. But actually, what is it? What is it really? [Silence] Is it that the truth is missing?

S: No.

A: Then what is it?

S: Seemingly covered up.

A: Seemingly covered up. Covered with what?

S: Thoughts, sensations, notions.

A: Thoughts, sensations, notions. Thoughts and notions are the same?

S: Yeah.

A: Sensations and notions? [Chuckles]

S: Not quite the same.

A: [Chuckles] So, the truth is not missing. What seems to cover it up or the ‘blur the moon’ as they say …is just whatever concept we have of It. Whatever concept we have of It never represents this Truth. Whatever the concept might be? Yes or no?

S: Yes.

A: Can there be a concept which does?

S: No.

A: Sure?

S: Yes.

A: Whatever the mind is selling?

S: Yes.

A: Whatever it may sell, as real as it may seem, even if it seems to represent some true feeling or something that actually happened. Is there still a doubt about that?

S: No.

A: Can it ever represent the Truth? Can any concept ever truly represent something that is Reality? And where is the Truth to be found?

S: Here.

A: Here. Let’s go with ‘Here’ for now. So, Truth is here. And no concept, no matter as glorious it might sound, can capture this Truth that is Here. Then? To have Satsang, to be in the company of Truth (Sat ka sang: the company of Truth) where do we need to go?

Obviously then, we cannot go to the false representation. And whatever concept that we might believe to be true, we have seen now that these are just false representations. So, to be with the Truth cannot mean to hug the false. So, to not give any false representation, like the ‘belief’ that it is true, is more than enough because the Truth is just organically Here.

Now what is missing? [Silence] What is missing? Can you tell me something that is missing without inserting a notion of ‘me’ … which itself now, thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of times you have seen that there is no such ‘me’? So, without inserting the notion of ‘me’ can you point to something that is missing?

S: Knowledge, recognition.

A: So, if this is true, then we must be able to say ‘Okay, what is Here Now, just naturally Here?’ If the recognition is missing, what are we recognizing now?

S: The untruth covering.

A: Now, where is it?

S: Just now, I cannot find it

A: Then you’re not recognizing it. Then it’s just presumption. We have to speak now from just whatever we actually find. So, if we say that ‘Untruth is naturally here’ then what I am saying is not true. What I am saying is that ‘The Truth is Here’ and all seeming-covering, all seeming dust, all this seeming-illusion has actually left you right Here and Now. But there is another voice which is saying ‘But it is here. This [untruth] is here.’ So, what you actually find? Do you find any evidence of this untruth?

S: The covering?

A:  Yeah.

S: Because I cannot see the Truth, so it’s covering it.

A: Okay. So, what can you see?

S: I know it is there but I can’t …

A: What can you see? Let me see if we can go together; we can walk together hand in hand and see together; we can check whether it is true that you don’t see the Truth. So, what do you actually see?

S: Silence.

A: Yes, this is good. So ‘you’ see the silence, isn’t it?

S: Yes.

A: So, this ‘You’ that sees the silence, you are aware if it or not?

S: I am not aware of it but I know that something seeing the silence.

A: And yet it is ‘You’.

S: Yes.

A: So, you are not unaware of it because otherwise you would not be able to confirm that it is you. It’s just that you cannot perceive it. Isn’t it? The struggle is just that we cannot perceive it. So, this not-finding is actually the finding. This is not just a word game. This not-finding … because I can’t find it perceptually, I can’t perceive it and yet I cannot deny that I am perceiving the silence or I am perceiving the world or whatever we can say.

So, we didn’t find it using our senses and yet, it is clear that it is ‘I’. So, this clarity, independent of perception, is the recognition of the Self. You will never recognize the Self as an object. You will never recognize the Self through perception. You will just look like this and you will see ‘I am witnessing and yet, I am not witnessing this ‘I’.  I’m not witnessing this ‘I’, I am not perceiving this ‘I’ and yet I cannot deny it. How does that happen?’

So, this is what I would say: You are aware of It but if you’re saying you are not aware of It, you are possibly saying that you are not aware of It as a perception. But actually, you are aware that you are witnessing. So, this You that is witnessing, to see that ‘I am witnessing’ that ‘I am aware without a perception of it’ or without just picking up a concept that ‘I am aware’ IS Self-recognition. It is nothing else but this.

So, if there is an idea that Self-recognition implies any other by-products or something, any other perceptions, it is not that. Those could be the fireworks on the side … or no fireworks on the side. So, don’t worry about those. That is why I have been asking: Who perceives this hand? [Showing his hand] You cannot perceive that one and yet you cannot deny that that one is You. Isn’t it? So, this non-perceptual recognition, which is beyond your senses, beyond anything the mind can fathom, is the only Self-recognition.

Make no distinctions; no distinctions.

Distinction means concept.

Concept means conceptualizing mind.’

Conceptualizing mind means a false representation.

That is what we started with: Can any concept truly represent What Is?

What distinction do you have to make?

[Meditative Silence]

Or what is the discovery Now?

The Truth is Here or the Truth is missing?

Can the Truth go missing?

S: The label itself creates.

A: The label itself does what?

S: Trying to call Truth as not-truth.

A: Yes, that itself is a label. So, having seen through that, then that doesn’t bother us. Having seen through that then that also does not bother us. But you have a sense of what is being asked.

S: Open and empty is easy.

A: Open and empty is easy.

Yes. [Smiles] Okay, I accept that premise. Then don’t make anything difficult. [Smiles]

Open and empty is the same as ‘Make no distinctions.’

It’s the same as to ‘Remain in the Unborn’.

It’s the same as ‘Don’t believe your next thought.’

It’s all the same stuff, just put in different ways. [Smiles] Whatever seems natural, it is fine.

It’s the same as ‘To remain in our notionless existence.’

It’s the same as ‘God Now verses me-ow.’

All these pointers are same.

S: What is this master-conclusion?

A: It can be anything. It can be a very spiritual thing, that ‘Everything is the Absolute’ or something like that. Anything which you feel like ‘It’s just like that’ becomes your defense.

Sometimes the words of Satsang will provoke you. It will poke you and you might find that you are using a defense, a shield. ‘Yeah, yeah, it’s all like this.’ But notice that and notice whether even that notion truly represents any reality or is just a defense we are using now because our intellect cannot cope with this seeming-dissolution. It can take this invitation to dissolve as an attack and it will try to defend with some notion, which can seem like it is defending against the words of Satsang itself. Just like ‘I settle for this’ and it becomes ‘Okay, whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ If you share something corresponding to that notion, then it’s like ‘Yes, yes, yes.’ Then ‘blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ And then something again that corresponds to this notion; again ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah.’ You’re still making all these distinctions and not really letting the words (which are meant to be completely dissolving in nature) not letting them in and through. Just like using convenient hearing in a way to confirm what we already know.

In fact, in our life (in most of the world, not just in Satsang) we just operate like this. We go into most situations just wanting to confirm what we already think we know. And it takes a lot of effort for the seeming-others who are speaking to make an in-road and say ‘Ah, there is an opportunity; there is a bit of openness there.’ Otherwise, we’re just like ‘This is what I think I know so, as long as he is corresponding to that, it’s like ‘Yes, yes, yes.’ But the minute it becomes something different, something which you feel you can’t relate to or you don’t see something the same way, it’s like ‘Ah, let me meditate now.’

Even in Satsang we make these favorite notions and we listen a lot to just what that is. I notice that all of you have your own set of favorites. So, when I start speaking about that particular thing, you wake up. And if I’m speaking of something else, it’s like ‘Time passing … it’s nice, this Presence … just time passing.’ [Sangha and Ananta Smile] It’s like ‘Na, na, naaa, na, na, naaa.’ And then concepts … like if it’s surrender or something like that (‘Just surrender to God’) then it’s like ‘Ah, this is mine! This I can relate to.’ It’s like that. And those who cannot deal with surrender or who cannot relate to surrender, they switch off and they’re like ‘La, la laa. Guru Kripa Kevalam. La, la laa, la, la laa.’ [Sangha Chuckles] Then when I say ‘The Truth is to inquire who really you are’ it’s like ‘This is inquiry. Yes; inquiry is mine.’ [Sangha Chuckles] Then they wake up and the ‘surrender’ ones go to sleep. [Sangha and Ananta Laugh]

So, because we feel like ‘This is what we know; what we understand’ therefore, to get you to leave your strangle-hold on what you think you know can seem like it takes hammering after hammering after hammering. And many times, the frustration in Satsang comes because for weeks it can be that our favorite topic has not been spoken about and you feel like the rest is just like ‘Ah, what is he saying, what is he saying?’ You’re not really asking ‘What is he saying?’ It’s just that you’re not in agreement with what is being said. It’s like ‘What is he saying? What?’ It can be like that. [Chuckles]

But it’s all grace. If, in one moment, you are actually open to that, you might See. Then, that might become your favorite topic. [Chuckles] Then you keep switching. And at the bottom of it somewhere, there is this thing like ‘My way, my way.’ … ‘My way or the highway.’ [Chuckles] So, even the Guru is on the highway most of the time, till those moments where it is corresponding with ‘My way.’ Those moments, you let them in. But the Master will not leave you with that. He will keep saying ‘Broaden, broaden, broaden; open, open, open, open. Don’t get attached to any of these.’ Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘Don’t make tattoos of my words.’ You don’t attach to this sense of ‘This is what it is.’ It’s not that. Everything that you conclude like that is in the box.

That’s why I said ‘I have given license for one.’ If you feel like ‘There is too much fear, there is too much; it is too broad. I can’t believe that it’s….  (something)’. If there are so many notions you’re buying about notion-less-ness, then better than buying all those notions, you pick one notion and you hold onto that tightly. Like ‘Remain at my Father’s feet. Guru Kripa Kevalam’ or ‘Who am I?’ Take one and just hang on with that one. If it is one of these, then those are self-destructing in nature anyway, self-dissolving in nature, in any way.

It is only when you’re faced with this Unborn, when you come face to face with your original nature, you feel like ‘There are too many notions’ so you pick up about that. ‘I can’t do it. I’m scared. I’m lost. I’m not understanding.’ When there are so many notions about being notion-less, then better you hold just one notion. So, that one stick you can hold onto if you feel like this. But my invitation, of course, is to let them go. [Waves hands outward gesturing releasing]

Not this way, not that way.

Not up, not down.

Not Self, not person.

Not Brahman, not maya.

Neither asserting nor denying.

Although the ‘not, not, not’ can seem like denial, it’s not really.

It’s just letting go.

The arising of thoughts is not a problem. The thoughts can come and go. Just like any other energy construct can be perceived. All perceptions can come and go. It is not that the arising and going should stop. All the bait can come; the fisherman can keep trying. But now you have become the smart fish. [Laughs] You are not biting whatever the offer might be. And even if you bit, then you have this Divine blessing which is that: The next moment, you are free. But if you keep saying ‘I have bitten, now I am caught’ then we keep biting this bait for our entire life. If we feel like we are this fish that is trapped, we are caught. Actually, no hook can really grab You; no bait can really hold You in this moment itself. In this moment itself, You Are Free from everything. And the Truth (or anything you could be seeking, the highest version of it) is just this: It is naturally Here. But the minute you start to interpret it or judge it, it will seem like it is limited, it is not enough or it is something.

What is the highest you are seeking? God, Self, Absolute, Brahman? It is just naturally Here. This is It. Is-ness is It.

Now, if the highest that you are seeking is to become a special person, then you will be frustrated. If the highest that you are seeking as the seeker is to become something special like enlightened or something like that, then you will not find that one. That could be frustrating. But if you are seeking is just the Truth, then the Truth is just This.

Then others might come and say ‘Oh, this one is free; this one is enlightened’ but you will have no need for these terms. You will have no use for them. If you have this idea that ‘Because this Truth is Here Now and apparent, therefore, what’s in it for me?’ that again is the bait. You caught the bait, you see? So, some bait like this may remain. That’s why it’s good to play that game ‘It is just a thought’ because many times we just feel like ‘But that must be real, this must be right, how can this not be?’ [Smiles] These kinds of ideas. But it’s not. No notion represents Reality; not even this.

Q: Guruji, these ideas, the notions in this box, is it also not the part of Vastness?

A: It is. Your egoic play is very much part of the play of Consciousness. So then, what does that mean to you? Now that it is part of the Vastness, are you asking for permission to play egoically or what is the …? [Chuckles]

Q: If it is part of the Vastness then all that is happening, has to happen.

A: Yes.

S: How do I get over that …?

A: This is where you inject the trouble. So far, everything (even the play of delusion, the play of freedom, everything) was part of the Vastness; Consciousness itself. Now, when you say ‘Whatever has to happen, will happen’ … yes, because that is what is called ‘The will of Consciousness’ … ‘Guru Kripa Kevalam.’ Then you say what? ‘How do I …’

Q: … eject myself out of this?

A: ‘I’ is who now? You see? If you say that ‘All is Vastness’ then where is the ‘I’? [Refers to a poem by Indian poet Rahim]: ‘God’s lane is quite narrow, there is room for only one.’ If you say ‘All is God’ then where is the room for ‘you’ now?

Q: If I am also God, then why don’t I behave like a god?

[Laughter]

A: You started with the idea that ‘Isn’t whatever my play is, whether bound or free, isn’t that the play of God?’ I said ‘Yes, it is.’ Now you’re saying ‘But why don’t I play as God?’ I’m saying ‘You are.’ So, if there is only the Self, then there is no ‘you’. This is what you started with. Even if the play is in the box, it’s the play of the Vastness Itself, so there is only Vastness. Then no question of ‘Why don’t I …?’ … ‘I-who’ then? Vastness? Vastness is playing this way. But then when we try to mix this non-doership and try to bring our personal identity back into it, that’s when the trouble comes.

Q: Like I Am God, but I’m still looking for Godliness.

A: Yes, in a way. And you’re still buying into the premise of the egoic Self. The looking means what? That ‘I must not be already.’ Only then you look, no? So, then the notion ‘I Am God’ is not useful because it’s just like a band-aid or something. If actually our presumption still is that ‘I am the limited one and I have to look for God; and maybe if I say ‘I Am God’ that will help me’ then the fundamental is still the belief that ‘I am this limited me.’ So, whatever strategy and tactics you have, just keep them aside for a moment. Just keep everything aside. Everything. (Kept? Gone?) Now, whatever this mind says, let it come and go. This is the bait I’m talking about. You keep the fish’s mouth open; don’t bite into it. And even if you bite into it, no trouble; the next moment you’re open.

Q: Just helplessness happens.

A: This is also bait. It’s just a thought, my dear; it’s just a thought. The one who is helpless is non-existent, so it doesn’t really happen. So, when the notion comes ‘This is when helplessness happens’ … and because you have bitten this bait so long, it can feel attractive but just see that it is just another bait. Gone, finished. Now, it will come and say ‘It can’t be that simple’ (or anything). It’s just bait.

Q: The seeking has to drop.

A: Bait! It’s the bait, you see, because our condition is like that, that you have to conclude. But the answer is not conclusive in this way. This answer is unique. All other answers that we have learned in our life have been like that (e = mc2). Now, this is not like that.

Your openness is the answer.

Your emptiness is the answer.

There is no answer there.

That is the answer.

Q: Yes, the answer itself bounds.

A: It is the boundary. Whatever the answer is that you can come up with is your limitation. You may think that it will free you but actually it is limiting you. Even the notion that ‘Something has to be this way or that way’ … like that. So, are we like this? [Makes gesture of being closed with closed hand] Or like this? [Makes gesture of being open with open hand] This is the whole game. That’s it. Naturally, we are like this. [Open hand]

Now…?

Q: I have to believe ‘I’m not open’.

A: Exactly! Exactly. And you believe anything; you believe that. Whatever you close your mouth to, you will start pretending to be a fish.

Q: Why can’t this simple thing…?

A: Bait!

[Laughter]

Let me make the claim for the moment (and my claim is big; my claim is that): as you remain open like this, you are out of the tiny box of limitation, of identity, of intellect, which only have these meager opposites.

So, you are struggling to climb this tiny wall but actually your reality is much beyond that wall. You want to get from ‘bound’ to ‘free’ which is just in the tiny box … but Your Reality is much beyond that, already, naturally.

At best, with your mind, you can just play like this. ‘I am bound, I am free, I am bound, I am free, I am bound, I am free.’ Beyond that, what is there in your mind? You, at best, can say ‘beyond free’. That is also just like that. So, the highest notion you can have about yourself is what? You can switch from ‘I am a meagre limited person’ to ‘I am the Absolute’. This is the box, no?  Beyond that there is nothing. But Your Reality is beyond this box. Even our notion of ‘Absolute’ is just in the box. Our notion of ‘person’ is definitely in the box. But we don’t realize that when we consider ourselves to be anything, including the Absolute, it is just the opposite spectrum of the same limited box. This is as far as your notions can go; tiny, okay? Tiny.

But Your Reality is much vaster than this. So, stop playing in this playground of back and forth; ‘the person’ and ‘the Absolute’. Like that; ping pong, ping pong, ping pong. Just step back. Let these notions come and go. They have nothing to do with You.

Now, the next notion will come saying ‘But … how to live my life?  But … can I keep this?  But … something, something’ but it is still in the box. So, let that ping pong happen in the box; all our judgments, interpretations, ideas; what we think. Nothing in this box truly represents the Reality. Nothing in the box can be a true representative of the Reality … not even the statement that ‘I am Brahman.’ Because the Reality doesn’t need an assertion. Because assertion can be negated. It can say ‘I am not Brahman’ and that becomes the box. But Your Reality is not in this.

So, which playground you want to play in?

S: No-ground.

A: No ground; very good. In that no-ground (without even no-ground becoming a notion) you can only suffer in this box. Only as Consciousness, the Self plays as if it is a limited entity. That itself is called suffering.

I’m saying this every day … but many times, because of our hypnosis of the mind, I’m not sure what all of you are actually hearing. That’s why these days I’ve started taking more feedback. Like, what is it that you are actually hearing? Or when an inquiry is being done, what is the question you are actually asking? So, what I’ve said simply (because I know for a moment now you will be hearing because you have this idea that I will ask you for what I am saying, so you will be hearing at least for this moment) [Chuckles] … what I’m saying is that:

All your notions/ideas are in this limited box and this limited box is all your version of your limited self.

You are never in this box. Whether you are calling yourself ‘the Absolute’ or you are calling yourself ‘a person’ it is all in this box. You are not contained in that. You are beyond it (but beyond the concept of ‘beyond’ so not even the concept ‘beyond it’ you can hold on to).

But the good news is that, in this moment, You are empty of all concepts.

In this moment.

No concept has survived this moment.

Now, like the fish, you want to grab onto the bait which the mind is offering … or you want to remain open. That is what all spirituality is about. All of true spirituality is just about this: Remaining as your natural Essence, remaining as God … or picking up the mask of individuality, the pretense of separation. This is what this entire game is about.

Now, it’s your move.

S: No moves.

A: No moves is also a move. Assertion and negation both are moves in the box. So, what is your move now?

S: [Silence]

A: This being empty of moves, this moment of not being caught up in any notion about ourselves, is to remain in the Unborn. And what did Master Bankei say? “All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn.” You need anything better than this perfect resolution? You said you are a perfectionist. There is no other perfection except this. All things are perfectly resolved Here. And if you say ‘In what way is it resolved? What happens to my problems?’ then you are back to the born. You have given birth to a limited identity again.

From the tiniest notion about yourself to the largest seeming-notion about YourSelf, both are just tiny notions. Reality does not need any idea of it.

So, this is the tiny cave, like Plato’s cave. They’re just shadows you have taken to be Reality. And you might not realize that as you give up on your notions, you see that you can’t find anything which you can really point to and say ‘Oh, this is not a notion.’ You will find that time is a notion, space is a notion; everything in time and space is a notion. And That which you find YourSelf to be … you can never point to anyway because it is not spatial, not point-able.

You see that it is nothing but it a thought. That is why Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharishi] called it the ‘I thought.’ It’s just a thought. This individual identity is just a thought. You don’t find any evidence of any such seeker here when you look; even phenomenally. Without even having to get to what witnesses all of this, you do not find any such entity. Isn’t it?

S: Yes.

A:  And you rightly said that ‘It is just a notion, just a thought, that I am a seeker or I am something.’ That is why Bhagavan said ‘Simply I Am … is okay.’ Once we start to believe in ‘I am something’ (this so-called individualization of Consciousness) when that is believed in, that is the start of all suffering. So, whether I am a seeker, whether I am successful, a failure, whether I am doing well, I am doing badly … all this makes us presume ‘a something’ out of us which actually does not exist. It only seems to make something out of us; not in actuality. It is only a pretense or mask.

S: Yes, yes.

A: Now, it’s all a question of how you deal with the ‘But…’ that comes. How to deal with it? One way is to remain open. One way is to remain open; the other is to dive in. [Hand gesture of grabbing in air]

So, this is the fish’s mouth; it’s open. The bait is coming from the mind. Once you see that it is just bait and ‘It’s only got to bring me suffering, nothing good will come from it’ … what is your response to it?

S: I must investigate immediately.

A: Ah, but that’s also bait.

S:  Yes.

A: Don’t worry; let’s go slow. Don’t take it too seriously. Let us go lightly, lightly. [Smiles] Because that is also a pose it can make. [Gestures contraction] Something like that. It is not like that. Relax, chill.

So, this attention-and-belief combination is the fish’s mouth. The mind’s offers are the bait. Now it says ‘I must do this.’ Then it is caught. Then, the good news is that it’s never caught perpetually. So, it is open again.

Now, the bait is coming which could be anything. ‘But this, but that; I have to do this, I have to do that; you haven’t got it yet, you will get it; keep doing this, this is good.’ You know, all of this will keep going on like this; the whisper. Now, if you keep biting, you keep getting caught. So, the fisherman is ‘Maya’ in a way. You get caught in the idea of your limited identity.

So, all we have to do is keep ourselves open. Keep ourselves empty.

Now, find for yourself (each of you can do this) … find for yourself one thought which you feel is that bait which you always end up biting. You feel that ‘This will not get me caught in Maya; this will actually lead to something good for me.’ And you’ve seen it now over and over, that you get caught in it but still, when that comes, when that worm comes [Smiles] as the bait, you still feel like you have to bite it. What is that thought?

You talked about perfectionism; that’s a common one. Many times, the thoughts are about freedom itself, about enlightenment itself, about God itself. So, what do you end up biting?

As I was saying the other day: Does reality depend on a notion to be real?

Does reality depend on an idea to be real?

If it doesn’t, then how does our grasping onto a notion bring us closer to Reality?

And the thing is that you are naturally like this, Right Now.
With your attention, you become like this and with your belief, you become like that. You are naturally open, Here and Now, in spite of whatever energy you might be feeling, whatever constriction you might be feeling, whatever emotional sensation you might be experiencing … actually, you are open. You are more spacious than space, in which all of them are coming and going … which is naturally your nature. Your original nature is like this. Now you are like this.

Who is not like this? Anyone not like this? … open naturally, in this moment?

Everyone is like this. Now…?

S: Before you use the word ‘this’ … there is an immediate grasping of that … of the constriction.

A: Is there?

S: Looking.

A: Is there?

S: No.

A: [Chuckles] Now, that was the bait that came.

S: Yeah.

A: But not to feel guilty or unworthy; nothing like that. It is not about that. It’s not to grab a new notion. Whatever notion is coming, let it come and let it go.

Let it come, let it go.

Can you believe that all this spirituality, with its entire huge libraries, ultimately boils down to this: Can we be open in this moment or not?

Can you remain open in this moment or not?

That’s all that is about; everything.

Because the truth is naturally Here.

Everything is an explanation of this fact, actually, that the Truth is just Here and apparent.

So, in this moment, open.

You can even play with yourself like this. [Lifts his arms and opens his hands wide and resting upwards] Use your hands. When you’re open, just like that. [Smiles] And once you find that you are starting to bite onto something, you will find that just having vigilance like this keeps you very open.

S: The thought was ‘We can stay like this all day long?’ You know?

A: Yeah, this is the thought. So, the Truth does not need grasping, the Truth does not need biting into it. The Truth is what is naturally present. It is our grasping, it is our biting, it is our belief which makes this Unborn seen as if it is the born, as if it is the identity.

The Self can seem like it is ‘the limited-self’ only like this. [Closes his hand into a fist and makes a holding-onto-it gesture]

[Lifts his arms and opens his hands wide and relaxes]: Like this, like this. You see? Can it be as simple as this? (Don’t even bite into that.) [Chuckles]

The Self Cannot Be Seen

~ ~ ~

A beautiful thing about openness is that the truth of who You are is also apparent to You. Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said (very beautiful) he said ‘The point of Self-inquiry is to See that the Self cannot be seen.’ Fantastic!

As the mind [from the mind’s perspective] it is a very silly endeavor then. ‘The point of Self-inquiry is to find or see that the Self cannot be seen? If I’m not going to see the Self then what’s the point of Self-inquiry?’ It seems like it is saying that it’s pointless to do Self-inquiry then because you can never see the Self; that is the minds interpretation of this. But Bhagavan said: It is the very point, that it cannot be seen. (I am paraphrasing on top just to prod you.) And yet, can you deny it?

So, in your openness, in your emptiness, which is emptiness of mind, emptiness of intellect, empty of positions… you find this un-seen. It is so apparent. And you also see that it cannot be lost.

So, what DON’T you see right now? Let’s look at it that way. What don’t you see?

S: Is that about … what don’t you see about what you spoke?

A: No, just generally: What don’t you see? Go for it. Don’t worry, it’s not right or wrong or difficult.

S: I don’t see any individual separate seer, like an entity there.

A: Okay, so you don’t see that. And what else don’t you see?

S: I don’t have the experience of the expression that ‘Everything is One.’

A: You don’t see how this expression is true that ‘Everything is One.’ So, you see duality?

S: Yeah, I see duality.

A: You see it how?

S: I see that everything is separate.

A: How do you see it as separate? If you look around …

S: Because there is a label to everything and all of it is different.

A: So, this label, is it inherent in the Seeing itself?

S: This label is not inherent in the Seeing but there are different forms and colors …

A: So, ‘form and color’ is not a label? Is that not a label? You are labeling something as form or not form, space and object. You see? These are also labels. In your innocent Seeing, if you call it pure perception or innocent Seeing, what distinction is there?

What about That which Sees … do you see That?

That which Sees, is That Itself seen?

So, now we are at a strange point:

That which we consider ourselves to be, the ego, that also we don’t see.

And This, which Sees everything, we also don’t see That.

So, what is more true?

Can we deny the One that Sees?

If you say there is no Seeing would that seem true?

Or ‘There is no Awareness’ … would that be true?

Or would it be truer to conclude that ‘I must be a person although I don’t see it’?

What is true? There is Awareness? Or there is a person?

S: There is Awareness.

S: I can only say there is Seeing.

A: Yes, but can you say You are not Seeing?

S: There is Seeing but I don’t know whether it is ‘I’ or what.

A: How do you conclude that there is Seeing? It is your direct experience; nobody told you right now. You are directly Seeing, so it is yours. This ‘you’ is who? … you do not know. But that it is yours, you cannot deny.

S: I know it but…

A: Yes, so you know it. That you cannot deny. This ‘you’ is which one? This we cannot yet conclude (let’s say). So, even the conclusion that there is Seeing or there is perception is something that you are directly reporting. It is not third-party; nobody is telling you or it is not just a thought … and also, you don’t see it … in the sense that the One that is Seeing, the One that is aware of perception, That you cannot see.

(Tell me if I lost you somewhere)

S: No.

A: So, this un-seen but un-deniable Self (un-seen means no quality, no attribute and yet undeniable because you are saying ‘I am Seeing’) … it is ‘I’ which is Seeing. And when you are open, it is completely clear that this is how it is. (Not conclusively, like an intellectual conclusion, but to You it is apparent.)

This is all that I want you to check.

The only seeming-struggle is to become open.

So, if you want to do it like Papaji used to sometimes say ‘Don’t think! For one moment, for one fraction of a second.’ Or you can say ‘Don’t bother with thoughts. Let them come and go.’

The only seeming-block is the notion, is thoughts.

You cannot own this with your mind, you cannot own it for ‘the non-existent me’.

To ‘own it with the mind’ means what? Because the mind is just like a lawyer for the non-existent ego; then it would be to ascribe self-hood to that which does not exist. To say that a non-existent one is the Self is not possible. That’s why the Master said: ‘The One who came to Satsang, or the One who felt like they’re being brought to Satsang, will be dissolved in Satsang, will not leave Satsang.’

And we can take the cat example; there are many examples like that.

So, as long as it is still playing in that way, that ‘What’s in this for me? What’s in it for me in Satsang?’ … [it will always be]: ‘Nothing’.

And I keep saying ‘nothing’ but the mind will make a mash of even that and say ‘He keeps saying ‘nothing’ but actually I have hope that there is something here for me.’

But it is not that. It is not for this ‘me’.

It is freedom from this ‘me’.