BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

Chapter 14: Tranquility. Janaka said:

[14.2] “When desire has melted, how can there be wealth, or friends, or the seduction of senses? What use is scripture and knowledge?”

Janaka is saying that…, because Ashtavakra was prodding him ‘Why do you still have wealth? Why do you have all of these things?’ So, he [Janaka] is saying ‘They’re there but I have no attachment to them, I am not desirous of them. Desire is gone. The outward play is functioning but if there is a palace, it’s okay; if there is a hut, it’s okay.’ You see?

“…how can there be wealth, or friends, or the seduction of senses?” Because, remember, Ashtavakra had prodded him, saying ‘Palaces, wives, all of these things. How can you be a king if you are free?’ just to test his disciple. So, he’s saying that all of this is dependent on whether there is attachment. When there is no attachment, then how the world plays is completely fine.

Now, Janaka is both an excellent model and a bit of trouble. [Chuckles] A bit of trouble, why? Because as Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘Everybody wants a Janaka style enlightenment.’ [Chuckles] You want to be the king also. And we have an expectation: ‘God, if it happens for me’ or ‘Guruji, if it happens for me, please make sure that I have the Janaka style so my comforts, my palace and all this is not taken away.’ But truly, when this expectation drops away, then you just come to this place where ‘I just want you, my Lord. I just want the Self, Guruji, irrespective of how this body is kept after that.’ And then, whether palaces remain or don’t remain, truly this One is unconcerned. So, some have remained kings, like Janaka, and some have given up their kingdoms and gone away but nobody has come and said ‘Please, Father, take back this freedom. Let me have my money.’ Nobody has said that after getting the true taste of this. Nobody wants to exchange this (which is eternal, unchanging) for some momentary coins and plastic. It’s like Guruji says ‘Nobody comes to the realization of the Self and regrets it.’ [No one says]: ‘Give me my old life back.’ Nobody has done that.

Also, he said, “What use is scripture and knowledge?” It is a bit ironic because it is part of the scripture itself, this statement. [Chuckles] What does this mean? That all this scriptural knowledge, all the mental concepts that we might have picked up about spirituality, we’re empty even of that. As Sage Janaka now said, “Empty.” Empty because for many (many in Satsang even) what they know about spirituality prevents them from becoming open and looking. [Silence] Empty of all concepts; these are the babes that will enter the kingdom of heaven.

So, nobody is asking you to memorize the Ashtavakra Gita. [Smiles] They’re just saying, ‘Find the clues which are available to you; apply them, use them to empty yourself of conditioning and everything can be kept aside.’ The point of the concepts of Satsang, the point of the pointing in Satsang, is to remove, to empty out, your basket of concepts, your basket of conditions. Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said it best when he said, ‘These are thorns that we are using to remove other thorns and then these also will be thrown away.’ One of the best examples is the thorn being ‘Who am I?’ which cleans out everything else; and at the end, even that is kept aside. He also said that, ‘We use a stick to light the funeral pyre but we don’t keep the stick after that. When the funeral pyre is lit, then even the stick is thrown away into the fire.’

So, Janaka is saying now that ‘I am untouched by any of this. Whatever might come and go, I remain just the solitary witness. Do I need a scripture? Do I need some knowledge? No. Everything is allowed to come and go in its own way.

~ ~ ~

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

We start Chapter 14 today: Tranquility. Janaka said:

[14.1] “Though appearing asleep like other men, one whose interest in the world is exhausted, whose mind has been emptied, who thinks only by inadvertence, is in Reality awake.”

In a small verse like this, Ashtavakra could give us many clues. He’s given us 3 clues in one verse. Not ‘How to recognize?’ That is secondary. It can sound like ‘How to recognize an awakened one’ or something like this but it is to find this within ourSelf.

So, the first clue is what? “one whose interest in the world is exhausted…” We’ve spoken about this; that it is not that becomes an aversion, it is only that attachment falls away. We have discussed what is the nature of attachment. Attachment is ‘I am an object that needs another object for its happiness.’ Without this play of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ there can be no attachment. So, [he means] this “interest in the world is exhausted” in that way. I’ve often said that we’re no longer approaching everything in the world with the mantra ‘What’s in it for me?’ Not every situation is ‘What’s in it for me?’ anymore. It just dropped away. So, the dropping is not the world. The dropping is from this interest: ‘What can I get from this situation? What am I getting now?’ What is it? That we approach every situation thinking that we know better about what we need…, rather than this Supreme Intelligence, this Consciousness, which has put this moment together. We no longer approach the world in this way. And again, this clue is repeated so many times. Again, we are coming back to this one. So, “one whose interest in the world is exhausted…” means this play of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ and ‘What can I get in the world? Does the world have some meaning in my reality?’ all drops away.

“whose mind has been emptied…” So, this one; don’t misunderstand this to mean that the thoughts have to stop. When we hear something like this, we might feel like our thoughts have to stop. But here, the emptiness is that we are now empty of concepts. The thoughts might continue, but we remain empty of them. Belief is no longer going to them. We do not believe them, why? Because it is the mind, and the mind’s job is to remind you of something which is not true, which is that you are a limited entity. So, we don’t believe the mind because in every message is coming the idea of your limitation; of how you are a body / mind, how you are an object, of how separation happened and how, even if there is a God who is everywhere, it is everywhere but me. It is a constant reminder of this false-ness, of some separation, of some apart-ness, that we left God in some way and we are separate from That …, how we are no longer the Self and we have to get back to the Self. Therefore, the seeker identity also we have to be empty of. That’s why Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘The one that starts the search is not there at the end of the search.’ It seems like we start because we have this seeker identity which is seeking the Truth. But, in truth, there is no seeker or finder; other. So, this is what he means by “…mind has been emptied…”

“who thinks only by inadvertence…” So, now we are looking at the inadvertence, which means that sometimes even for a Sage, some belief will go to some limited concept about himself or herself. So, this is what it means: inadvertence; something that happens once in a while. And for a moment, the reality is forgotten; but very quickly, it comes back to this naturalness. It’s a very important verse here because So many times I say ‘Don’t bother about 100% because there is no 100% in this phenomenal play.’ And this ‘100%’ [idea] itself will cause you to give yourself this report card, which will say ‘I’m not free yet because, hey, Ashtavakra said you must have no desire but I saw this beautiful buffet and suddenly the desire came to have that buffet. Oh, I’m definitely not free.’ Something like this. So, it’s not that. Momentarily, some concept is bought. Sometimes, on the conveyor belt of thoughts, something will be picked up. But don’t buy the next course, which is the ‘gate’…, the unworthiness. And if you end up leaving most of the meal, then be careful not to pick up the dessert, which is pride. ‘I did so well. I’m beyond the mind now.’ So, it’s very good to put these reminders, that it will happen sometimes; thoughts do get picked up, even for a Sage.

So, “Though appearing asleep like other men…” Don’t expect them to have halos, don’t expect them to be, you know, where ever they walk, flowers bloom on their own and all these kind of ‘out of the worldly’ expectations. They don’t have any of that. They might appear just as everyone else. When Guruji [Sri Mooji] goes to a restaurant, he doesn’t have a group. He’s just ordering like everyone else. So, they might appear like other men, but because of these three clues that are given here, they are “in Reality awake.”

~ ~

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[Chapter 13: Happiness.] Janaka said:

[13.4] “Yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither dissociate nor associate with any of that and am happy.”

So beautiful. And you can see that a thousand years ago also same the thing. Thousands of years ago when this scripture was written, the same thing.

Even in today’s world many are preaching this concept that ‘You are not the doer’. Because we have believed for so long that ‘I am the doer’ then we can have this reverse concept that ‘You are not the doer’. But even this, even this pointing the ‘You’ is what? The body, or body/mind (if you want to be generous). It is not that; neither the doer nor the non-doer. You are not an object.

Whatever you believe with regard to your doership, what is important is it what you are identifying the ‘you’ as. If you are being taught that ‘Yes, you are an object’ (but actually even as an object, you are a powerless object) and please understand that it is not the Truth. These same things Sages said many thousands of years ago. “Yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither dissociate nor associate with any of that and am happy.”

Now, some might say to me (and some have actually said like this) that ‘Father, between the two, if I had to pick the concept that I am the doer vs the concept that I am the non-doer, isn’t it better that I pick the concept that I am the non-doer?’ And I say (if you have been in satsang with me for some time, then) ‘No’…, because I will not let you rest in this limited idea about yourself. How can I, when I have discovered that You Are / I Am and that You Are this Consciousness, this Unlimited Being; and ultimately, I Am and You Are because we are One; that which is aware even of this?

How can I let you rest [in this limited idea about yourself] if you pick up the concept like [waving his mobile about] ‘I am the phone, actually. I am the phone that believed that I was doing something. I was dialing the numbers. I was the phone that believed that I was dialing the numbers myself and having these conversations with people on the phone; then I realized no, no it is a greater power that was dialing the numbers, I was not doing anything.’ Can I leave you believing that you are a phone…, when you say ‘Can I at least pick up and stay with this concept that I am not the doer?’

If you are new, if you are just starting out in satsang with me, then I know the relief that can come by believing this, the guilt that can be washed away, the pride that can be wiped off in recognizing that no individual entity (‘I who still believe myself to be an individual entity’) never did anything. Yes, some space, some relief can come from that. But if you still consider yourself to be the individual form, then you will always question God and say ‘God why are you dialing this one? How come I always get this engaged tone?’ (Okay, I am stretching the metaphor too far.) [Chuckles] You might still say ‘But why are you giving me these bad experiences? I am not even the doer and I recognize this, so why are You still bringing misery into my life? Isn’t surrender supposed to bring for me all these beautiful things? Where is the love? Where is the peace? Where is the joy?’

So, there is still concern about what is happening to this limited appearance called the body/mind. This concern is desire, that ‘What I want should happen in my life. Now, I am not the doer, therefore I cannot do it…, but God might be kind enough to give it to me’. So, desire can also play as though you are the victim. ‘I am just this powerless mobile phone, why don’t you buy a nice cover for me instead of dropping me all the time?’ [Chuckles] I am just using these examples so it becomes clear.

You are not that. You are way beyond that. You are Consciousness Itself.

“Yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither dissociate nor associate with any of that and am happy.”

~ ~ ~

.
Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Q: I find that talking with others, it’s not that discovering ‘I Am’ or being aware of this Awareness is unknown. But the fear of being this vastness somehow, as if it’s outside the body (which it is; but here it’s not fearful, this localization that’s playing as form/name. Still [Aware Presence is] is untouched but not separate). Can you give any clues for that…, this shying away from the vastness which the mind conjures up of non-localization, of no center?  (instead of just Here Now, Aware Presence and All That Is)?

A: Mostly what happens is that…, like the first time we get on an airplane and we start to leave the ground, going above the clouds, some fear can come. The fear of heights, the fear of falling. But as you get used to it, then you see that so many of us when we go on flights, we’re just like when we’re at home. Most of us don’t even bother to look out the window and see that we’re flying above the clouds. Something seems to recognize the naturalness of this and it no longer seems like a scary, alien concept.

So, as we are coming to this naturalness, the mind will use this appearance that ‘I cannot find MySelf anywhere in this universe; not in this body, not in this room, not in this city’…, like you said very beautifully ‘non-localization’. No attribute, no shape, no size. That’s why I say ‘It is HERE that is within ME’. I am not ‘here’. I’m beyond ‘here’ and ‘there’ but this ‘here’ is just another aspect of MySelf.

So, this vastness of YourSelf, this non-local, non-phenomenal vastness that You’re discovering about YourSelf…, of course the mind will use every opportunity to conjure up some scary visuals, some scary feelings of what is going to happen. But as it becomes more and more natural, then you will find that to consider YourSelf to be local will seem more of a pain. If you have to identify forcefully with a constricted, limited idea of yourself, it will start to feel like you are trying to fit into the shoes that you were wearing when you were 5 years old. You have outgrown all of this.

So, this is good. This little bit of fear is natural. You can call it the fear of dissolution, the fear of not finding yourself as a localized entity; fear of death to put it another way. All of this is just a little bit of wobbly-ness which can come. But as you get used to the taste of this more and more, as you start to enjoy not finding YourSelf in this phenomenal way (there is no ‘me’ here to find) …, as this becomes more and more clear (as it is in your case) then you might even come to this place where, even if (in the play) some fear is coming, it’s fine. In fact, can we go so far as to say even that is enjoyable to some extent?

[Silence]

Not just that it is outside the body; it is outside your true body, which is this manifest universe itself. The manifest universe is the body of this aspect of YourSelf called Consciousness.

Why do you think I keep saying in satsang ‘I will not let you settle, not let any of you settle, for a limited idea about YourSelf’?

[Silence]

As you are coming to the naturalness of this, I’m already seeing how many Beings are coming in contact with you and finding the Light of their own Presence (in your simplicity, naturalness, no specialness, always surrendered to the feet of the Master); people are coming to this clarity, or at least coming to the openness about what they could be, in Reality.

[Silence]

Because as they are starting to meet you now, they are meeting something which is not considering itself to be just contained within a physical body. You may not say these words but your Presence conveys it.

[Silence]

All power to you, my beloved children. May my Master’s Light shine through each and every one of you.

Ananta: Chapter 13: Happiness. Janaka said:

[13.3] “Realizing that nothing is done, I do what comes and am happy.”

“Realizing that nothing is done, I do what comes, and am happy.” Now, this can seem like it is a contradiction, but it really isn’t. All that is happening is just movements within Consciousness. Nothing has happened to Consciousness, nothing is actually done, and yet this movement can continue …, or stop.

Sometimes I jokingly say that the Zen Masters they say: ‘Before enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water; after enlightenment, chopping wood fetching water’. But I would like to add two words to that ‘or not’. Nothing has to be anything. It can continue to be as it was, ‘chopping wood, fetching water’ or it can be completely different from that. It makes no difference to the Self.

So many different examples we can take like this but none of them come close to this simplicity of your Self recognition. If a friend comes to you and says ‘Nellie, please help me. I have lost my head.’ Nellie says ‘But you have the head. In fact, the mouth is attached to the head and you are speaking from there.’ [Laughs] You say ‘No, no, no it is not true, I don’t see it. [Laugh], I just see a little bit of a nose.’ (Right now, you don’t see you head anyway; you just see a little bit of a nose). If I am convinced that I don’t have one [a head] what will you do? You would say ‘Go look. Look really, what is here?’

Of course, whether you really have a head or not is another matter. [Chuckles] There was a great teacher (I forget his name right now) he had this spiritual contemplation exercise which was an instant contemplation called ‘On having no head: Just notice that you don’t have a head right now’. She says his name was Douglas Harding.

She says ‘You’re making me hungry for grapes now’. [See last verse transcript; Ananta’s story on the grape that imagines it’s an orange’.] The trouble is not that the orange is looking for the grape-Self, the trouble is that the orange is looking to become a better orange. If you are looking to become the enlightened ego, enlightened person and if you are waiting for signs that confirm the truth of your freedom…, and on the reverse, on the converse, if you have to proclaim your freedom, even that is not freedom because it is beyond this doing and non-doing.

It is completely possible to survive (forever, actually, but let us say survive) for the next ten minutes without believing a notion about yourself. Is it possible? Next ten minutes, we don’t believe any notion about ourself. Not as a meditation…, (because the Sage just said ‘The mind numbs with meditation’ so) we are not meditating, we are just simply looking. [Asking satsang members present] How many feel it is possible? And could that one notion be allowed? [Laughs] It’s not a trick question. [Silence]

How many feel it is not possible …, to remain for a few minutes without picking up a notion, a position, a reference point identity about ourselves?

Notice that as you remain empty of any notion about yourself, your existence continues. Existence is independent of whether you have a notion or not, whether you have a concept or identity or not. If you forgot that you are [for example] a wife, you will continue to exist. So, which notion do I have to hold onto to exist …, in this moment?

There is no notion like that. Now you have to see for yourself whether these notions are bringing you joy or they are bringing you suffering. Is joy not independently arising on its own?

We have misunderstood what this Existence is. [Silence] Maybe that is the biggest understanding. We have understood this Existence to be something limited, something personal.

This Existence is the Presence of God.

~ ~ ~

.
Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 13: Happiness. Janaka said:

[13.2] “The body is strained by practices. The tongue tires of scripture. The mind numbs with meditation. Detached from all this, I live as I am.”

Most of you who have been in these sessions from the beginning know what the Sage is talking about. He’s not expressing (although it might sound like he’s expressing) an aversion towards meditation or some practices, what he’s saying is that once you recognize what you Are, you see that you have outgrown this play of practices. Why? Because even in spiritual practice can be embedded the identity of the practitioner and the attainer of something; or the expectation that something should happen as a result of my practice. So, although it might sound like he’s putting down meditation, he’s actually putting down the meditator identity. The seeker identity takes all of these forms.

What he’s basically saying is that you don’t need to be anything more than what you are already. You don’t need to move an inch. Before you decide to start, You Are That. Before you decide to look, You Are That. Before you start your practice, You Are That. Doing the practice, You Are That. And after the practice, You Are still That.

If something is missing right now, if you feel like some experience must complete MySelf, then know that this is just a trick from the mind. Only the Self Is, and It is forever complete; beyond the concept of completion.

What did the Sage say earlier? “Your only bondage is not Seeing this.” And would like to go a step further and say ‘Your only bondage is the pretense that this is not true already …, the belief that you have to become something to become the Self’.

Sometimes I jokingly ask all of you ‘If you’re looking for the Self, are you sure first that you lost it?’ … ‘For 10 lifetimes, I have just meditated because I want Self-realization’. … ‘So, in the 11^th lifetime, did you lose the Self and now you’re looking for it?’ To find the Self; where to go to find the Self? Has anyone said that ‘I was just here and there it was! Sitting on the carpet; the Self!’ [Chuckles] ‘I was drinking a coconut, and in the coconut water, there it was; the Self!’ What has the discovery always been? ‘I always was That.’ … ‘What was I looking for? I have only been this.’ That’s why the great Indian saint, St. Kabir, he said that ‘The fish is thirsty in the water, and seeing this, I laugh’. But this looking for the Self is even beyond this fish thirsting for water. It is the water thirsting for water.

If, for one moment, we drop our allegiance to what the mind is saying and you See what You Are, Right Now…

Who feels they’re missing? Who can say ‘I looked and I did not buy a concept from the mind and just in my looking, I don’t find it’. Those ones can come up. [to speak with Ananta] If you don’t find YourSelf, then you come up…, in your looking. How many feel that, firstly? How many of you? When you look, you don’t find YourSelf? Don’t feel afraid of peer pressure. [Chuckles] So, am I then (because I don’t see any hands) to presume that, in the moment, when you look you See that it’s only the Self? There is just the Self.

Maybe some of you are shy, so I’ll give you some clues. Some of you might actually be thinking that ‘Oh, I don’t find the Self but I’m one in 25, so let me not take on the shame of being the only one not finding the Self’. [Chuckles]

In fact, there are many clues. How many clues are there now? 11? And some have sent some. See, all these clues are pointing to That.

So, first, don’t expect to find something which is an object. To ‘see’ the Self can sound like it’s an objective seeing; that means, I see an object and then I can confirm ‘Yes, I see the Self’. But this seeing…, (what does Guruji [Sri Mooji] say?) is the only non-phenomenal experience. Now, what is the only non-phenomenal experience you’ve had? Can you tell me about something you’ve experienced which is not phenomenal?

Sangha guest says: Sleep.

Sleep. Very good. So, we experience sleep. You are there? Or not? So, you experience sleep. Then you say ‘No phenomenon is there. Even I am not there’. Then, who experienced sleep?

Sangha guest says: Nobody but MySelf.

Nobody but YourSelf! You see? This is a beautiful clue. Even when all phenomena are gone, You witness that all phenomena are gone. You are aware of the absence of phenomena, just as You are aware of the presence of phenomena. So, this Seeing is different from the phenomenal seeing. This Knowing is different from phenomenal knowing. And yet (even if these words sound complex) I just ask you if you are aware.

Are you aware now?

So, if you’re aware now, I can tell you that, most likely (unless the mind is conjuring up an image of Awareness) You are experiencing your non-phenomenal Seeing, on the basis of which then, in the play of Consciousness, You are reporting ‘Yes’. Can there be a clue more direct than this?

[Silence]

Now, some of you will have trouble with this clue because you will try to understand it. You’ll try to contain it in a conceptual framework; which is not going to happen.

Where did this Awareness come from?

[Silence]

Does this also have a birth?

Does this have a Source?

Does this come and go?

Does it have a quality?

Does it have a shape?

Does it have size?

Could it be that this quality-less, unborn One is what my True Self is?

How many of us are open to this possibility at least? If you are open to this at least being a possibility that you are not ‘a thing’ …, you are beyond all things, beyond all qualities and attributes, then it’s going to be very simple.

But if your idea of enlightenment is just that you’ll become another man or woman, remain a ‘thing’…, a very enlightened thing, a thing with a halo, then we’re going to have a long relationship. [Chuckles] We’re going to have a long relationship.

Just this openness. Could it be possible that I’m not a noun? I’m not even actually a verb but I am more of a verb than a noun. I’m more of a Seeing…, than a ‘thing’.

Could it be this? Could it?! [Chuckles] You’re not a thing…, at all !

So, when we say ‘You are not the person’ this is what it means. Can we taste our ‘non-person-ness’ for just one moment?

[Silence]

Wherever your idea of what you are is stuck, find out: Who witnesses that?

So, if your idea of what you are is stuck on the body, find out: who witnesses the sensations of the body?

And don’t apply a mental answer. Go with your insight.

If your idea of yourself is stuck with the mind, then find out: who witnesses these thoughts?

If your idea of what you are is stuck with a particular emotion, find out: what witnesses even that?

Then, maybe (like Ashtavakra) you could say so simply that ‘I am the shoreless ocean in which the arks of the universe come and go, but I remain untouched, unaffected’. As long as you consider yourself to be an object within this universe, can you truly call yourself the ocean?

That’s why all these clues are so useful. What is going to last forever? What does not come and go? The Sage has said that Reality must be that which is our own insight and it does not come and go.

If it does not come and go, where must it be now? Reality; where must it be?

That which does not come and go, is it possible that it is not here now?

If it never comes and goes, is it possible that you have to run towards it? You have to grab it? Go for it? Or is that ‘It’ the basis for the appearance even for the one who wants to grab something?

What is the basis for You?

Where do You come from?
Where will You go?

Can you go…, and show me?

Wherever you go, you will find only the Self.

Nobody can run from this Truth.

How will you escape YourSelf? Only in ideas, you see. That’s why I usually advise the opposite:

Instead of trying to find the Self, try to lose the Self.

Instead of trying to find your Being, try to stop being? Just don’t be.

At least, don’t be aware that you Are. Just don’t be aware that You Are.

Then we’ll look for the Self; together, we’ll look. [Smiling] Let’s lose it first; then we’ll look. [Silence] Who was able to do it?

Sangha guest: It seems so simple. This effort seems so foolish.

Yes. Stop there. Stay with that. She says ‘It seems so simple and all this effort seems so foolish’. That’s exactly what the Sage is saying. He’s saying, “The body is strained by practices. The tongue tires of scripture. The mind numbs with meditation. Detached from all this, I live as I am.” [Silence]

The fish in the water searching for water. The water itself looking for water, trying to quench its thirst.

Recently I started saying that if a grape came to you [Chuckles] and it was convinced that it was an orange, you tell me what you would say to that grape? And your words will sound exactly like the words in Satsang. It’s all just one big misunderstanding! Just See what You Already Are.

The [grape who believes it’s an] orange is saying: ‘Master, Father, please, I want to be a grape again.’

[The Master]: ‘But you Are that.’

[Grape who believes it’s an orange]: ‘No, no, you’re just being nice. In your Presence, I’m the grape; but actually, I must be an orange only because mind is saying I’m an orange.’

[The Master]: ‘But can’t you just look? You’re green, as a grape.’

[Grape who believes it’s an orange]: ‘Well, maybe that’s just happening right now because I’m in Satsang. How do I get rid of my orange thoughts?’

[The Master]: ‘Don’t believe them, because they’re not true!’

[Grape who believes it’s an orange]: ‘No, but they come all the time. I want them to stop.’

[The Master]: ‘That’s a trick. That’s a trick to convince you that you’re an orange. You were never anything but the grape.’

This is like the conversations we have in Satsang every day. This orange, can you find it; can you find the ‘person’? Nobody has found it; nobody has found it. Can you lose the witness? Nobody can lose it. So, nobody can find the orange, nobody can lose the grape. Nobody can find the ego…, and nobody has ever lost the Self.

This is why this is a Divine mystery, you see? That’s why this is also Divine. This play of individuality is also a Divine play because only Consciousness could have played this trick upon Itself, that the Supreme in which all these universes come as *arks; they come and they go…, and It considers itself to be this little body/mind organism.

So, every day, I try to figure out ways to tell you that you are ‘the grape’. And I also tell you that the only thing that is convincing you that you are ‘an orange’ is your next thought. Then I say ‘All you have to do is not believe this one’. But you say what? ‘But, I have to believe it!’ … Do you really have to? [Silence] You don’t ‘have to’ anything because You are God…, You are Consciousness.

If you start from the perspective that you are the orange, then the orange thought will be attractive to you. If you start from the perspective even that you’re an orange trying to become a grape, then thoughts about how the orange should become a grape will be attractive to you.

Have we taken the metaphor too far? [Laughs] But it’s actually like this, you see? You Are That and That alone.

What did the first verse say? [13.1] “The tranquil state of knowing Self alone is rare, even among those who own but a loincloth. I therefore neither renounce nor accept and am happy.”

.

.

~ ~ ~

Note: Ark. Arks.

*[2.24] But when the wind subsides in the limitless ocean, the ark of personhood is swallowed up, along with the universe it carries.

*[7.1] In me, the shoreless ocean, the ark of universe drifts here and there on the winds of its nature. I am not impatient.

~ ~ ~

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 13: Happiness. Janaka said:

[13.1] “The tranquil state of knowing Self alone is rare, even among those who own but a loincloth. I therefore neither renounce nor accept and am happy.”

It’s a rare discovery, what we’re talking about. Not because it’s difficult. Truly it is not difficult. If there is openness, it is not difficult. If there is not openness, then it is impossible. [Chuckles] Openness means what? Openness means this sliver where the intuitive Presence can get a foothold in the door. If we are convinced that what we know already is true, if we are convinced that our mental knowledge is meaningful in the discovery of the Self, if we are convinced that this mind (which poses as if it is our true master actually) …, if you’re convinced that this mind posing as the master is the voice of truth, then in our play at this time, we’re not open yet to the voice of the Presence, to Your own intuitive Presence.

But if, in you, there is a sign of outgrowing this mind, if there is a sense that ‘There must be something beyond what this mind is telling me’ …, if there is an openness to accept that all our investment in these phenomenal concepts really will not bring us this liberation, recognition, freedom that we are looking for …, simply put, if there is a little bit of ‘I don’t know’ in you, then there is room for the Satguru.

But if it is about scriptural knowledge, worldly knowledge, any sort of mental knowledge, conceptual knowledge, perceptual knowledge (and even your coming to Satsang has been misunderstood by you as a way to collect the best sort of knowledge instead of the means to be rid of this conditioning) then whether you wear a loincloth and are sitting in a cave, or you are a householder with five businesses to manage, it doesn’t make any difference. Whether you’re a sadhu or someone completely involved in worldly affairs, if the basis for your existence seems to you as some sort of an individual ‘me’ then this external play of ‘sadhu-ness’ does not matter.

So, why is it rare? Because this openness is rare. If the openness is there, and you come to Satsang, then it is bound to be that you will discover this truth so simply. Because it is undeniable actually, what is being pointed to in Satsang. It is only your prior knowledge which seems to get in the way.

In India also, it’s famous that many, many, many of the learned people who learned all of the scriptures then spent most of their time arguing about what they know is better than what the other one knows. ‘I’ve picked up the best knowledge therefore I’m the biggest or the best, most enlightened’.

That’s why Janaka said, “The tranquil state of knowing Self alone is rare, even among those who own but a loincloth. I therefore neither renounce nor accept and am happy.” So, he’s Seen that (just like we were saying) that to become a sadhu is not necessary. I don’t need to renounce the world, because even those I see who have renounced the world are not tranquil, have not come to this recognition of their Truth; of Knowing Self alone. Hence, Advaita: there are no-two. There is only the Self. That is the recognition that we are coming to. Only the Self is. Just this discovery, this recognition, is what is being provoked, what is being invited, every Satsang.

[Silence]

So, you don’t need to be concerned about this outward movement …, ‘Should I renounce the world? Should I not renounce the world?’ No. You renounce identity, you renounce your belief in the next thought, identification with this non-entity called the ego. This much is enough. Then in your outer play, whether sadhu life happens or householder life happens or businessman life happens, that is of no concern really. Because no matter what this play of Consciousness is outwardly, You have recognized that there is only one Self …, and all is This and This alone. That is why Advaita is ‘not-two’.

~ ~ ~

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 13: Happiness. Janaka said:

[13.5] “I have nothing to gain or lose by standing, walking or sitting down. So, whether I stand, walk or sit, I am happy.”

What does this mean? [It means] Irrespective of the position of the body, whatever might be the activity that I’m performing. And so simply, the Sage is pointing us to show us that it is just this. Who is it…, maybe [Byron] Katie [yes] or somebody who said ‘All that you’re doing is either you’re standing or you’re sitting or you’re lying down. Everything else is just an idea.’

[13.6] “I do not lose by sleeping nor attain by effort. Not thinking in terms of loss or gain, I am happy.”

So, this is breaking all those conceptual paradigms that ‘I must do something to find my freedom. If I just sleep then I lost something.’ Whether sleep or awake, whether dream or turiya, you are That. The Sage said earlier ‘Whatever might come or go, I’m neither enhanced or diminished’.

You’re not changing your level. Another popular fallacy is ‘I’m changing, I’m going to the next level.’ The Self has no levels. [Silence] You don’t have to become the next-level Self.

It’s funny…, (you shouldn’t make jokes like this, but it’s coming so I can’t help it) …, there was one who had come to satsang and she said that the first time she went to Tiru, she went to do an ‘Advanced no-ego program’. [Chuckling] Does anyone else find it as funny as I do? ‘Advanced no-ego program.’ Not just a no-ego program, but an advanced one! [Laughing] So, who is advancing, the Self or the ego? What to say?

“[13.7] “Pleasure and pain fluctuate and are inconsistent. Without good or bad I live happily.”

So, pleasure and pain and good and bad (whatever we label as good and bad) all this is seen as the coming and going in the play of appearances. None of this shakes the reality of what I Am. In the Seeing of this, unattached to any outcome, unattached to any appearance, there is a simple substratum of happiness.

Simple, simple trick, isn’t it? Papaji said ‘You don’t need anything to be happy but you do need something to be unhappy.’ The ‘something’ is what? An attachment, a desire, duality, doership.

Can you truly be unhappy without a belief? Without an identity?

~ ~ ~
.
.
.
Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Q: My question is about when I’m involved in the world, in college or whatever, it seems like on my part, there’s always a responsibility to always be vigilant, like a watcher, to see whether I’m taking anything personally or not. And just this is making me restless all the time.

A: Yes. This is a very good question. Often, I say that if freedom was to look like this [makes stressful, rotating hyper-attentive moves with his body] …, if you’re constantly ‘Is the mind coming? Is the mind coming?’ then this doesn’t look like a free Sage at all. [Chuckles] It looks like somebody who is scared out of his wits. A Sage is not like that. So, the meaning of vigilance has been taken too far maybe.

Let me put it another way. So, vigilance (as I would say) is this simple non-denial. If you’ve been watching satsang or you’ve been in Satsang for some time, then [you know that] when you pick up an idea about yourself, it is bound to poke; some suffering is bound to show up very quickly, actually. See? So, when that happens, we are not to be in some sort of Advaita denial or something; but we are to look and say ‘What it is that I am really believing about myself?’ So, pull that into your inquiry until that concept becomes empty of belief, empty of any lies. This much vigilance is enough.
So, just be free, relax, let your attention go wherever it wants. But if something starts to smell then just don’t say ‘Oh, I’m the Self; there can be no smell’ or something like that…, (unless it is coming from your heart as a response to that smell, to wipe it away). Notice if it’s coming from the mind and we tend to just try to ‘Advaita it’ or repress it away; then, you look at that and you pull it into your inquiry and See.

Then, vigilance becomes like this, like a simple non-denial of what is appearing, of what is your direct experience. In this way, this mind’s tactic of using this denial (which humans are very, very good at) …, then it can’t use that power of denial to reinforce itself back again.

This much vigilance is enough. You don’t have to be constantly like this. [makes hyper-attentive gestures]. Just be a little bit open to Seeing. Am I believing something about myself? Have I picked up a concept about myself again? And this life will show you; especially because you’re in Satsang. (I don’t know if this is bad news or…) [Chuckles] You’ll find that once you come to Satsang (many of you will find this) that anything that you pick up about yourself which is not aligned to the Truth, quickly a ‘whack’ comes. And then, the ‘whack’ comes, use that as an opportunity to inquire. That much is enough. It’s clearer?

Q: Yes. I usually try to save inquiry for those moments when I’m not trying to get rid of it; more or less when I’m actually interested in it. This is something that I happened to come across recently about myself. It seems like inquiry…, is it true that inquiry must be reserved for those moments of real interest?

A: Hmmm. Is it true that inquiry must be reserved for those moments when you have real interest? [Silence] It’s good, it’s good. But I won’t reserve it in that way. Because mostly like that, it’s fine; but sometimes it’s just simply questioning ‘Who am I?’ It doesn’t even have to be “inquiry!” It can just be, when something starts poking, just gently bring this question: ‘Who is suffering?’ This that much can be helpful.

Now, if you’re doing inquiry like a practice, like a sadhana, then yes, I would say; be ready in the heart for it. [Puts hands on heart] If you’re devoted to it in that way, then your sadhana is beautiful.

But your inquiry will become very much part of your day-to-day existence. It doesn’t even have to be ‘Who am I?’ It can just be ‘Who…?’ Or even before you can come to ‘Who…?’ it is done, many times.

What is it really? What is the question ‘Who am I?’ provoking? It is provoking this inner looking for what is here. That inner looking can happen whatever the trigger might be. So, if I say something you don’t like, for example. [Makes contracting/defensive movement with his body] Something can drop off when you just look. Suppose you’re being like [your ego-identity] and I say [sternly] ‘You haven’t understood anything about inquiry!’ …, something hurtful, then something can start to build up. You can [relax and just gently look and ask yourself] ‘What was that?’ It doesn’t even have to be accompanied by that. So, inquiry becomes just like that. Simple.

Q: So, you say that it becomes instant looking.

A: It can be. And yet, if you’re using it as a sadhana, if you’re devoting some time to it, it’s a beautiful thing.

Q: Father, can we say perception of objects can still be there without attention engaging with them?

A: So, this is about the point that Ashtavakra was making earlier, that attention does not go to objects:

[12.2: “Neither sounds nor other sense perceptions attract my attention. Even the Self is unperceived. The mind is free, undistracted, one-pointed. And here I am.”]

What I’d say is that there can be perception of objects without interest in them. But there cannot be a perception of objects without attention. So, what Ashtavakra is talking about is the interest in the objects. What do I mean by interest? This ‘What’s in it for me? What can I get out of it?’

So, this phenomenal perception is a product of our attention. There is no perception independent of attention, even imagination or thought; anything. Any phenomenal perception, attention is the basis for that.

These are very beautiful contemplations. That which does not have our attention we cannot claim that they have any existence. It’s only a presumption that they exist. That’s why even science has been doing for hundreds of years these experiments, like Schrödinger’s cat.

Q: Father, when Guruji [Sri Mooji] does this exercise ‘Be empty of everything’ your eyes can be open or closed. Even there can be objects of thoughts or even the phenomenal objects we see around. So, at the time, my experience is there can’t be perception without interest, as you said. And at the same time, the experience of being in a very attributeless place, the only attribute can be peace.

A: Yes. And this is exactly what I mean by openness; to let your attention go completely free. Because if, by attention, you mean it is being specifically diverted to something…

So, what do I mean when I say just ‘Remain open’? It’s the same thing as Guruji is saying. Be empty. Then objects can come, objects can go. And although attention is functioning, making perception happen, it is not seeming like it’s motivated by a selfish attention. It’s driven by Consciousness in the way of interest, not driven in the way to ‘Get something for me’…, not with an object or an outcome. So, although it continues to be the functioning of attention, it is not directed in an egoic way, directed in an associated way (which would mean interest). That’s why I say it is empty of interest. And yet, you will find even if you’re empty, sometimes attention goes to the sound on the street, sometimes attention goes to the words that I am speaking, sometimes attention goes to the memory of what happened when you were sitting in the meditation…, this is all about the movement of attention. And yet, the interest in the outcome of ‘What are you getting out of it’ is not there.

Just play with this some more, contemplate with this some more. You’ll see that very naturally attention can function, and you can still continue to remain empty. Empty of what? Empty of the egoic belief, empty of a concept about yourself. And you are empty like this, then there is no interest in that way; no interest or disinterest, no desire or no aversion also.

Just like right now, you could be empty of the concept and your attention could be on these words. Something might come, either in your room or some sound might come on your computer, and attention might go there. Attention can traverse but You find YourSelf untouched by the movement of this attention…, because You are not buying YourSelf to be something which is interested in where attention is going or what it is bringing.

Play with this concept that I am offering to you that attention is that tool which itself is quality-less (except the quality of limited-ness) but it brings all phenomenal perception to life. Only that exists on which there is attention, in my direct experience.

~ ~ ~

.

Quote from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 12: Abiding in the Self. Janaka said:

[12.3] “Effort is required to concentrate a distracted mind superimposed with illusion. Knowing this, I remain here.”

So, that’s what we spoke about. Most spiritual practices are trying to get control over our attention, trying to not let it be distracted by this mind. What is a distracted mind? It basically means attention getting mixed up with the content of the mind; a distracted mind. So, if I try to forcefully keep my attention away, just ‘be the breath, be with the breath’ …, ‘but don’t you have that email to send?’) …, and it’s coming like that; you’re trying to [Makes pushing away movement with hand] ‘No, no, no. The breath, breath’. [and puts hand on his head in frustration and mimics strong breathing] It can feel like there’s so much effort in that.

“Knowing this” (I keep all that aside and) “I remain here.” I stay as the witness, untouched by any of this play and let everything come and go. So, ‘Stay as the witness’ means what? I am not buying the pretense that I am anything other than the Self. I’m not buying the idea that I am something other than Awareness.

Janaka has discovered this now. Probably because he was a spiritual seeker, he did a lot of that effort and came to this trying to keep the mind away and keep attention on the breath. And per say, there is nothing wrong with that. All of these practices have been shared with beautiful intent. But there comes a point where we outgrow those; we go beyond those. And it feels like: Okay, that was fine for that time but now, it’s much simpler because to leave my attention free is to See that I am the Self. I am not changing; even if attention brings lots of objects, it doesn’t really matter. You see? It doesn’t really matter what objects have been brought because I’m not believing MySelf to be contained in this objective world, I’m not buying the interpretation from the mind. So, I don’t need to run away from the mind. Many times, it can seem like the effort was to run away from the mind; push away the mind. And the mind is like, when it comes, the opportunities that you give it to come, then it will come like a big rogue, a big monster or something like that. ‘Now I’ve got you, you see? You tried to run…’ [Chuckles] It’s nothing! It’s just a tiny voice.

So, when it’s effortless…, attention also, my recommendation has always been: Just let it be free. Don’t try to force it here or there; just let it be free. The inquiries which I’m giving you, the questions that I’m asking you, Consciousness knows how to treat those inquiries and where attention should go and what should happen. You don’t have to force your attention in any way.

[12.4] “Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. No joy, no sorrow. Lord God I am here.”

There’s this whole play where duality is dropped away. We discussed this already also. But even in spirituality, we can take positions. The other day, I was speaking with someone and she said ‘When I heard in Satsang that I have to be open, then I decided that I’m going to be open. And I opened myself and then I saw that something is happening in my life. All these strong events have started to come. And there is some trepidation or some fear about what is going to happen’. (I’m paraphrasing but this was the feeling of the question.) Because even openness can be a position which is opposite of closed-ness. Even our acceptance…, that’s what I was saying earlier ‘Oh, I accept everything. I am forgiving the entire world’…, but what is the ‘I’ in that? That is also this position of a limited entity…, which might be feeling very glorious. [Chuckles] But see that it is a limitation.

Openness means getting out of this play of duality…, and accepting it for what it is; accepting that this world of yin and yang will constantly be; Shiva and Shakti will constantly be [makes dancing together movements with his hands]. Don’t play. Don’t play as a participant. See that You are beyond. Then whatever position this outward play is taking is fine.

So, we’re not giving you more positions to take. We’re not giving you more concepts to hold onto. If all that happens in Satsang is that you released the concept ‘I am (put your name there), I am a person’ and it gets replaced with ‘I am Awareness’ (just conceptually) then I failed at my job… [Chuckles] (…in the play, of course.) So, my job (if there is such a thing) is to point to you that you cannot apply a label to YourSelf.

Empty of all positions…, empty of all reference points…, empty of any conclusion about YourSelf. [Silence] “Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. No joy, no sorrow. Lord God I am here.”

[12.5] “The four stages of life, life without stages, meditation, renunciation, objects of mind; nothing but distractions. I am forever here.”

It’s not an attack. It can sound like an attack on the Vedanta way of life or meditation practices or something. That’s why I was saying we’re outgrowing; we’re looking beyond.

What is a good metaphor? [Silence] It’s like my daughter. She does not enjoy math too much. So, there was a point where we two used to tell her to do single digit addition. So, up to a point, she started doing single digit addition and we were happy every time she would do it. Now, she’d outgrown that. Now, they had moved to thousands and tens of thousands. She was still doing single digit addition. So, we were saying ‘Leave that. It had its purpose; it served its purpose’.

So, for some of you, you are recognizing that you have gone beyond; you have outgrown these practices, you’ve outgrown the standard methodology (this math). You’ve basically outgrown the idea that ‘If I do something, I will get there’. You’ve come into this Seeing that You Already Are That. It might not be settled in; the oscillation might still be happening, but what is striking you as True in your Heart is that: What I was looking for is what I’ve always been.

You have never left the destination (as I like to say). Now, if this is ringing true for you, then automatically you will See that something is not so attracted now to that which we felt was so relevant earlier, so important earlier. That is what is happening.

So, Janaka is not saying…, well, it sounds like he’s saying negative in some way but he’s saying: ‘The Seeing that I have now, what I’m finding about myself now, about all these 4 stages of life and all these practices and rituals, all the meditations are just something to do which claims that it will get me there but I Am Already That. It’s so clear to me’. That is what he’s trying to convey.

[12.6] “Doing and not-doing both arise from ignorance. I know this. And I am here.”

Very, very important. Doing and not-doing is two sides of the same coin. This is very important for everyone who is in modern-day Satsang to hear. So often we hear ‘you are not the doer’. We must also that often hear ‘You are neither the non-doer also’. Neither doing or not-doing apply to You. Because most often when it is heard, then we take the opposite position ‘Oh, I considered myself to be the doer. Now I’m seeing I’m not the doer’. There, in the ‘I’…, it can hide, this limited notion of ourself again. ‘I-the-body-mind I considered to be the doer; now I’m discovering that I’m the body/mind but this body mind is not the doer’. See, this is also ignorance. The point is that You are not the body/mind.

So, it is not just that the body/mind is not the doer because more importantly, You are not the body/mind. Because otherwise we’re just changing, like a switch, like a mode, like a belief about the body/mind itself, the consideration about what we are continues to be that limited entity.

So, that’s why this verse is very important where they say “Doing and not-doing both arise from ignorance. I know this. And I am here.” So, even this position we cannot take. [Silence] I’m not doing anything. [Silence] Neither the doer or the non-doer you are.

If the words are confusing, don’t worry. Just keep them aside; stay with your questions, stay with your inquiry about who you are, then very soon they will start sounding like common sense.

~ ~ ~

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 12. Abiding in the Self. Janaka said:

[12.7] “Thinking of the unthinkable, One unavoidably conjures thought. I choose no-thought and remain here.”

“Thinking of the unthinkable, One unavoidably conjures thought. I choose no-thought and remain here.” So good and so beautiful. What is this saying? Don’t become one of those who are parroting or mentally holding onto to the concepts of the One, of the concepts of the Self. That kind of mental knowing (exactly what we were talking about earlier when I said if I leave you with just the concept ‘I am Awareness’ with just the thought ‘You are awareness’ then that is not point of Satsang). In our letting go of thoughts, in our simple openness, we come to the insight about this; the realization, the recognition ‘I am the Self’ (which doesn’t need the proclamation ‘I am the Self’…, just the recognition). These are just pointers which are shared in Satsang, to point you in that direction.

That’s why, more and more these days, I’ve started pushing you, provoking you to share from your insight and not from your inference. Because many are inferring; many are making conclusions about what you’ve heard about Awareness. Integrity means to share from your insight and not from your inference.

(I don’t know how these set of three always show up in satsang.) [Chuckling]: Integrity is based on insight and not inference…, (so in-in-in!)

The integrity that [Sri Nisargadatta] Maharaj used to speak of was this. It was not the worldly sort of honesty. He was speaking of: What is it that you are truly finding, if you keep all inferences aside, all judgements, concepts aside? What is it that You Are?

(Another ‘in’ we could add to that [Laughing] is Guruji’s [Sri Mooji’s]: Invitation. What does he say? ‘Keep it aside. Past, future cannot help me here. If it is conceptual, it cannot help me here. If you were to go beyond all of this, what is it that you Are?’

Then you come to this simple Is-ness, [Silence] which is independent of any phenomena.

That which you find YourSelf to be…, also it depends on your terminology. Do you consider Being to be phenomenal? I like to call it ‘the primal phenomenon’ or ‘the Immaculate Conception’ because everything else is a product of Being. But Being itself does not have a phenomenal parent. Everything else is because I exist. I cannot have an experience unless I exist. I cannot have a taste of anything till I exist. But this Being, does it have any phenomenal precedence? Does it come from a phenomenal source?

So, this IS (before the phenomenal play starts) …, I Am IS. Whether we call it the primal or the primordial (in India it is called the primordial vibration; Om, I Am) it does not come from anything which can even be described, even ‘Am’ or Being.

[Silence]

So, when we leave all inferences aside: I just Am. And there is a Knowingness of this; Awareness aware of Itself and Its dynamic aspect, which is Consciousness. And Consciousness not associated with anything that it is calling ‘me’…, not anything that is phenomenal that it is relating to itself and calling itself as.

[Silence]

And the best, best news is that all of this is your natural state in this moment! Otherwise, it can sound like ‘I have something to do to get here’. You Are That, Now, in this moment. Before you can pick up an idea about yourself, you are The Self.

Of course, even after you picked up an idea about YourSelf, you are the Self…, only the Self posing as if you are individual.

“Thinking of the unthinkable, One unavoidably conjures thought. I choose no-thought and remain here.”

That’s what we say. That’s why for some of you I try to get you away from the habit of thinking about it. Just use one or two key pointers that you hear in Satsang and apply them to your insight. See where they take you. [Silence] That is enough.

[Silence]

That which is a product of just thinking will always be smelly. That which is a product of just thinking will always be smelly. That which is a product of your own recognition, insight; that will have the fragrance of love, of peace, of joy.

[Silence]

A simple example of this is: Many of you have not seen the little library we have here. So, now if you keep getting clues about this…, if I say ‘It is to the right’. Somebody says ‘It is very beautiful’. Somebody says ‘There’s a photo of Guruji there’. Then ‘On one side, there are all Advaita- Vedanta books’. Then somebody says ‘Oh, the full Ramayana is there’. All these clues you get. And then you’re thinking about it and trying to conjure up the imagery of it, concepts of it; and you speak from there. No matter how good a job you’ve done, no matter how many clues you got, it will not smell of the truth, whatever you say about it. So, the invitation is to: Step in. Once you’ve walked in and seen for yourself, there is a different quality about it.

The Self is not something that you have to think about and then come to a conclusion about. The Self is your discovery Now. This is what all the pointers in Satsang are for. This is what Ashtavakra is for.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 12: Abiding in the Self. Janaka said:

[12.8] “Blessed is he who attains this by effort. Blessed is he who is such by nature.”

Very, very nice. Then it takes away all this hierarchy that ‘Ours is the best path’. Whichever way you come to this recognition [is okay].

Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] said sometimes ‘If it feels like effort to inquire, to come to the Truth of who you are, then make that effort. Come to this recognition’. And at other times he would say ‘Why are you making effort? You already are That. Drop all effort’. So, different quality of pointings at different times for different temperaments.

Whatever way we come; whether it was seeming effort or whether it was just naturally seen! And all of the experiences we’ve had in the sangha. Some have come to this with very solid self-inquiry, effort and have sat in sadhana and came to this discovery. And some very naturally just come to one or two Satsangs; effortless. ‘Why?’ Then that idea can come… ‘Why is this one doing so much hard work when it is so natural?’ And the one who is putting all the effort in is saying ‘That one is just fooling himself or herself. It cannot come like that. I have been trying for so long’.

So, this verse, it takes away from this sort of benchmarking, checking and looking to see which way is the best. “Blessed is he who attains this by effort. Blessed is he who is such by nature.”

It doesn’t matter which seeming-route is taken because the discovery is that which is already here. You see? So, if it felt like, for some, they have to take three left turns and come to this point; walk straight, take a left, take a left, take a left, then come to the Self. And for some, they just found ‘Ah. It is just here’…, it doesn’t matter because the point is to See this, the Truth about yourself.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 12: Abiding in the Self. Janaka said:

[12.2] “Neither sounds nor other sense perceptions attract my attention. Even the Self is unperceived. The mind is free, undistracted, one-pointed. And here I am.”

“Neither sounds nor other sense perceptions attract my attention.” Now, we have to look at this closely again. Again, potential for confusion and everything is there. So, what is it we looked at? We’ve seen that the maha mantra of the ego is what? [Looks out at sangha] You have to answer.

[Silence] Seriously? [Laughs]

It is ‘What’s in it for me?’ Constantly, in reviewing objects of this phenomenal world, the mind is constantly asking ‘What’s in it for me? What is the value that something that I perceive brings to me?’ So, this ‘What’s in it for me?’ is the maha mantra of the ego. What are the side mantras along with this? It’s not just ‘What’s in it for me?’ …, but it’s also ‘Me, first’ and ‘Preferably, me alone’. Also in the sangha you will see that (not a general statement, but) many times the mind plays in this way, saying ‘It’s fine if I don’t get it, as long as nobody else is getting it either’. [Laughter] ‘It’s very irritating if I’m not getting it and others seem to be getting it, just so simply’. That’s very, very irritating for the mind because it wants to be first…, and it wants to be alone, if possible. So, according to the mind, what’s happening in Satsang is ‘I will get enlightened. I will get enlightenment is why I’m here’. (‘What’s in it for me?’) ‘And I want to get it first! I want to win this race’. We see this everywhere; in queues, in traffic. ‘How is this one cutting in? How could they?! I’ve been in this queue all this time’.  It’s very bothersome. I’m not saying when someone in cutting in traffic or cutting in line at the airport, to be all Advaita saying ‘But we are One’. [Laughs]

Actually, it happened with me. Many years ago, I was in (I don’t remember which one, either) Dubai or Abu Dhabi airport and there was a fellow countryman there. We are all standing in line, and he decides that he’s going to go first. So, I told him ‘What’s up? Isn’t there a queue here?’ He told me in Hindi ‘Everyone eventually has to board the same plane, so how does it make a difference?’. [Laughter] That was his version of Advaita; of Oneness. ‘We’re all one’. I remember that because it was so funny. What?! [Laughs]

So, the world is based on these kinds of principles where ‘What’s in it for me? What is the value?’

Q: [Inaudible]

A: Everything. Even the mind, even this play of separation, of delusion, is a play of Consciousness. Then we can say ‘Then, why Satsang?’ Because Consciousness itself is doing the play of delusion. Then, why Satsang? Because Consciousness is doing this also; this coming to the end of the movie…, (supposedly) [Laughs] also with this play of coming to Satsang and coming to the joy of Self-discovery step-by-step. Because again, like in the movies, most of us don’t like abrupt endings. Suppose that you had struggled, struggled, struggled with this ‘person’, with this egoic entity for millions of lifetimes and suddenly a Sage comes and says ‘You’re not that, You are the Self’. Finished, ‘The End’. [Laughs] Like this long four-hour movie. You’re in this four-hour movie (struggle, struggle, struggle; person, person, person; what should I do, where should I go? How can I get it? All of that…) then you meet someone and they say ‘You’re not this anyway. You are the non-phenomenal, untouched, un-label-able Self’. End of movie. [Laughter] ‘Okay.’ Because Consciousness also wants to extract the juice from this play of finding Its Self. Some oscillation between Consciousness and ego…, ‘Why do I still get stuck with my ego?’ You see? Like that. Then going back and saying ‘In Satsang, it’s all fine’. Then ‘Stuck, stuck, I’m stuck again’. So, even this play of oscillation is a play of Consciousness itself. Because that’s what makes the leela fun for it.

“Neither sounds nor other sense perceptions attract my attention.” (Okay, we were talking about this.) Once belief in this idea ‘What’s in it for me?’ starts to get dropped, whatever Is is fine. It’s not even fine; it just Is. There is openness, there is acceptance of What Is. This whole grasping, trying to own something, or trying to push away aversion to something drops away. Then what do you find? Because you don’t have that kind of personal tension. You don’t go into meetings saying ‘Okay, what is it? Tell me, tell me.’ [Whispering] It’s just What Is. It’s fine.

This is what it means here. Otherwise it will sound like ‘My attention will just drop away…, (this is a very, very, very troublesome concept; don’t pick it up) like: ‘My attention will drop away from the rest of world and my attention will only be on the Self’. Really, there is no attention ON the Self. Because the way we look at this play of attention is like a baby coming back to sleep. So, attention just comes back home, to the resting position.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 12: Abiding in the Self. Janaka said:

[12.1] “Becoming first intolerant of action, then of excessive speech, then of thought itself, I come to be here.”

Remember now that this is Janaka after hearing Ashtavakra again. Janaka is speaking and it’s truly become a dialog between two Sages; a communion of One.

“Becoming first intolerant of action, then of excessive speech, then of thought itself, I come to be here.” What does this mean? Intolerant of action does not mean that we’re adverse to some action or some inaction. It only means that I stop considering myself to be the actor, the doer. It is a big fallacy. Just because these sensations are so intimate it can seem like I’m the speaker of these words. But I’m not. I see them arising. Just like this. You must contemplate like this with your own movements (that seem like your own movements) and you see that everything is just moving. This world is running effortlessly and this world includes this body also.

Often, we’ve asked ‘Are you Being, Existing, with some effort? Or effortlessly? So, your existence is effortless. In fact, if you applied all effort right now in this moment to ‘not be’…, you couldn’t. It’s unstoppable; your existence (till it decides to that it is done with this realm of experiencing then it goes back to sleep). And that Existence, on the basis of which all is experienced, all of this experience (the intricacy of the body and the intricacies of the rest of the world) rely on your Existence to exist…, because this is the one and only universal Existence.

It is not just a nice thing to say that ‘God is everywhere’. It is as much, or more, of a fact than any other fact that you can state. What is this God? What is the undeniable Truth of this Existence? It’s Your own Existence; I Am. And this I is not personal. It’s not your name, It’s not Ananta. It just Is; Consciousness Itself.

So, once this Existence is here, what happens? I Am comes. And usually with I Am comes all of this play, all of this play of movement. It’s moving; including this body. It’s part of the same appearance. But also, as part of the movement, is a trickster, is a tricky part. Which does not mean that we have an aversion to our mind; but to realize that it is not speaking the truth about Me. It is telling Me that I am a limited entity, it is telling Me that I am something contained in this body, that I am the owner of this body. Just that; not the owner of the rest of the universe just the owner of this body. Then this duality of me and another can start.

If you woke up from sleep and you never had this sense that there is any separation, [and instead saw] all of this is one appearance…., then…, how would you live? The same way that we are living now…, because that is also just a movement of Consciousness.

But what is it that we are recognizing about ourSelf? When we inquire (as Bhagavan [Sri Ramana Maharshi] implored us) ‘Who am I?’…, are we finding a limited person sitting there? I ask sometimes: Who is in your Heart altar? Who is in your inner citadel? Do you find one tiny person sitting there? [Chuckles] ‘Do this, do that, go here!’

This is what the mind would like to convey, isn’t it? The mind will say ‘I want this. You should have this’. It’s conveying the voice of a limited entity that we cannot find. It’s like a lawyer who shows up in court. And we say ‘Who’s the client?’ and they say ‘That’s none of your business’. [Chuckles] It has to raise an objection to What Is. For everything…, ‘Objection, objection, objection’. Even in its so-called acceptance, it’s an objection. ‘I accept you, I forgive you’. But there’s so much separation in that. This lawyer is there, but we’re looking for the client. Does this lawyer have a real client? This voice is representing somebody, but is that somebody real? And this is the point where the lawyer starts jumping, saying ‘Oh, no. We can’t go there. That is too difficult, that is too abstract. I’m not interested in that. I’m a person of the world’. This is the lawyer’s voice.

So, what is the trick? What is the trick? As Bhagavan said ‘Who is the witness of even these thoughts? What witnesses even these thoughts?’ Ashtavakra’s number one pointing has been this. You are the witness of all phenomenon. Is that itself phenomenal? Are you a phenomenal entity?

Now, are you going to go to the lawyer for the answer? What is it going to tell you? That you are this measly client who is fighting for his or her own rights. This ego is just a bundle of self-righteousness is some way, isn’t it? This need to be right. And that is the biggest resistance in Satsang also, that ‘There must be some value to some concept that I hold. Something at least must have been right in what I have believed about myself’.

What if all of it was rubbish; every belief that you had about yourself? Would you suffer? If you did not believe anything about yourself? Could anyone come and push your button? How would it be? Would this play of attack and defense, righteousness, right and wrong; can this play on? Grievances, pride and guilt, attachment?

So, when Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘Meet me naked, meet me empty’ it is not a phenomenal thing. Meet me without any beliefs; meet me with the innocence of a child.

“Becoming first intolerant of action, then of excessive speech, then of thought itself, I come to be here.” This we looked at. The body is moving on its own. And all of us must experiment with this. The claimant who claims that it knows how to move the body: ‘I am moving my hand’. This lawyer itself. But it doesn’t know how to move the hand. It will say ‘Look, look, I’m doing it’. How? [Silence] Just like that is an appearance (‘I am doing it, I am moving my hand’) the movement of the hand is an appearance. Both are movements in Your own Being, in Your own Existence.

The lawyer will say ‘See, if you fall for this stuff, you will become the most irresponsible. You will stop taking care of your children. Your children will go hungry and unbathed for weeks’. It has never happened. This is just the same voice of the lawyer which is saying that ‘You exist as an individual entity apart from the rest of this world. And even if God is moving the rest of the world (is making these planets go around, all these trillions of worlds, all of the multiple lands, all of these beautiful intricate forces which are moving here, all of that God is doing) your life, your days, all of that must be up to you’. And we say ‘Who is this I that must take care of it?’ The mind will say ‘No, no, that is not important. It is you. What you want to know, it is you’.

Shouldn’t that be the basis of everything actually? If you want to get somewhere, if you want to do something, if you want to get something, must not you first know who you are? So, that has become just an assumption that ‘I know who I am’.

So, that’s why we’ve come to this funny situation (in the play of Consciousness Itself) where we are constantly in denial of who we truly Are (which is so apparent actually if we look for one instant). And we are constantly in service to that one which we cannot find. This is the mystery of this play. This is maya. This is the illusion. How could it be that God Himself / Herself is posing as this limited entity? Who is doing only this? [The voice of the mind says]: ‘What is moving from this body, I am doing. Only that.’ As if some measly character is sitting inside this body as the owner of this body, remote controlling it.

You are not that measly character. Why? Because I have seen that about MySelf. And there is no difference between you and I.

So, these words are not borrowed words. They’re not something that I’m counting on the Sages to say ‘Yes, it must be right so let’s all presume together’. I’m speaking from My experience…, which actually is Your own experience.

It is humorous that I ever considered MySelf to be (or sometimes still [momentarily] consider MySelf to be) just a limited entity. This is Your Truth…, because I have seen our Oneness.

So, (like my Master [Sri Mooji] says) You are not that which you consider yourself to be; not the thinker of your thoughts nor the doer of your actions. This limited perception we have about ourselves does not know how to do this. I’ve said that the mind doesn’t know how to move a finger. It can claim that it does but it really doesn’t. Not one neuron it knows how to fire. It doesn’t know anything. It is mostly (like [Nisargadatta] Maharaj said) a ‘post facto’ voice. What has to happen, happens; and this voice comes and says ‘It’s very good, you did this. It’s very good. We decided to do this, very good’. Or it will say ‘No, no. You shouldn’t have done that’. You see?

If we ask one of the two questions: ‘But who are you, who is saying this to me?’ or ‘Who is it that you’re speaking to?’ either of these questions is enough. But mostly, we just go about in this blurry zone where it is presumed that ‘The mind is my voice’ …, and who is it talking to? ‘It’s talking to ‘a me’…, with no investigation about if it is truly my voice.

What it is saying, I must already know. Why do I need a voice to talk to myself? Why do you need a voice to talk to yourself? So, these little bits of investigations we can do. We can check with the mind: ‘So, who is it that you’re representing here?’ What does it say? Mostly, it runs out of moves very fast. If we ask this voice in our heads: ‘Who are you representing?’ [Silence] [The voice says]: ‘Me, me; you’. … [We ask it]: ‘Who…, you? Who…, me?’ What happens if you ask that? Is it that difficult? So much resistance.

Once in Tiru, these words came up. It was close to lunchtime and these words came up: If there was a speaker in this room (like a device, a speaker) that just gave instructions: ‘Yes, you are hungry now. Go and eat. This is what I want for lunch’ wouldn’t we look at the speaker and ask ‘Who is speaking?’ [Chuckles] And suppose this one said ‘I am Rajan and this is what I want’. (I don’t know why the name Rajan came. There are many Rajan’s in the sangha. It is not personal.) [Laughs] The answer came ‘I am Rajan and this is what I want’. Now, this voice has always been there, like a speaker here. [Touches his head] (It’s not actually there but it feels like that.) Even now, it’s saying ‘Yes, I’m understanding this’ or it’s saying ‘I’m not getting it’. Like that; the constant commentary. This inner narrative belongs to who?

Now, if it happened in this realm like this, where somebody came and said ‘You. [Points finger] This is what I want you to do!’ …, you’d say ‘But who are you to give me orders?’ …, and then it says ‘It’s you!’ You’d say ‘What?!’ [Chuckles]

Why don’t we question the mind like that? The mind says ‘This is what you want next. If you get this, then you will be happy’. [Then you ask]: ‘But how do you know this? And also, not just that, the last 2,000 times you have said this to me, it has not worked’. You see? It’s not like it has no track record. Also, it has a track record of hundreds of things it has told you, that ‘If you only got this, you would be forever happy’. Has it worked?

So, it’s like the snake oil salesman who is selling us this story…, and yet we keep buying. Why? Because it’s just habit. And it’s some sort of a hope that ‘So far, it’s lead me down the garden path but ultimately it will lead me to heaven’ (or something).  ‘So far, it’s sold me tickets to a merry-go-round saying that it’s a whole trip to heaven, but it’s only been a merry-go-round. But because I’ve bought so many times, then ultimately one day I will get it’. That’s how people get addicted to lottery tickets. They keep buying, keep buying, and over the years they spend thousands (of whatever currency they’re using) and they think ‘Now that I’ve invested so much, my odds are better next time’. No, they’re not. The mathematical odds remain exactly the same. But this is worse because the lottery ticket you have been sold by the mind, the prize you already have. Whatever it is promising to get you IS your eternal nature already.

What a play, huh? What a joke, almost. Like the story of the one who is sitting on the box and there is treasure inside the box and he’s begging for food. ‘Just open that box.’ … ‘No, no, what is the point? I’ve had it forever. It’s useless.’

So, the invitation is to ask. It can feel like inquiry is very tough, it’s very abstract. But actually, it’s just asking ‘What’s in the box?’ We’re looking outside for all of these things…, but what is inside?

What is inside? What is it that you are? Before you tell me what you want, can you introduce yourself with integrity? Who is it that you are?

One thing is clear: You are not that which you construe yourself to be. The limited entity is not the doer.

“Becoming first intolerant of action, then of excessive speech, then of thought itself, I come to be here.”

So, what have we looked at? Action, movement like this [Waves his hands around] then speech, then movement [Points to head] which seems to be this inner movement of thought. None of these belong to me…, (like the words Janaka is saying). I’m not the thinker of my thoughts nor the doer of my actions (as Guruji says). “…I came to be here.”

~ ~ ~

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

.

I want to leave you with a simple inquiry.

What is the mask that you are wearing …,

through which you project or express yourself?

What is that?

It is just a position, a reference point that you have made…,

a limitation that you have believed about yourself.

Is it not in your power to throw away these masks?

Is it not possible for us to meet without the pretense of identity?

What makes you a seeker?

What are you without even this position?

Is it not possible to throw away even this mask?

Can God not meet Itself now? …,

empty of pretense? …,

in complete openness? …,

with no fig leaf of shame or guilt? ….,

no limitation of body or mind?

The seller of masks will continue to knock at your door.

How long will God continue to buy the stories of this one?

Can we not meet mask-less? …,

open to all appearances? …,

empty of any positions?  …,

not rushing to conclusions?

Can we not meet as little children? …,

playing as this world itself? …,

knowing that Mother is taking care of everything?

Let’s meet Now …,

as No-thing…,

That which witnesses all things.

Here there are no-two …,

no you or I.

This is my favorite meeting place …,

beyond time and space.

[Silence]

Chapter 11: Wisdom. Ashtavakra said:

[11.7] “From Brahma to the last blade of grass; I alone exist. One who knows this for certain becomes immaculate, serene, unconflicted. Attainment has no meaning.”

What does it mean: From Brahma to the last blade of grass; I alone exist? Some terminology: Brahma sounds like Brahman, but they are not the same.

When we say ‘Brahman’ we are talking about the Absolute, the Self, which we often refer to as Awareness. So, in Indian spirituality, that is called Brahman within which all of this play of existence and non-existence happens. This is Brahman.

This ‘Brahma’ (if it is this Brahma which is in the scripture) this Brahma is the Creator. We know that in Indian spirituality, all is One Consciousness but this Consciousness has been looked at in various aspects…, based on what we are temperamentally attracted to. Many times, I discussed this with you, that those who are attracted to the naughty and the fun aspect of Consciousness seem to find Krishna as their perfect deity in a way. Those who are attracted to righteousness or being the good son are attracted to Ram. Same for the others; all aspects are there. The One Consciousness…, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are also defined as the three main aspects of this One Consciousness; Brahma being the originator or the Creator energy, Vishnu being the preserver, the that who takes care of the functioning of the universe, and Shiva being the destroyer or basically the regenerator (because nothing actually gets destroyed; it’s just a revival, a renewal. So, the renewing aspect of Consciousness is Shiva).

So, “From Brahma (who is the Creator itself) to the last blade of grass” (Brahma we had said is supposed to be the Creator) are all ‘I’. “I alone exist.”

“One who knows this for certain becomes immaculate, serene, unconflicted. Attainment has no meaning.” Remember, the Sage says ‘Becomes’. We don’t have to try and do any of that to See our Truth.

[11.8] “One who knows for certain that this manifold and wonderful universe is nothing becomes desireless Awareness and abides in the stillness of No-thing.”

When you come to this discovery of what you Are, you will find that this ‘I’ does not have a quality, it does not have an attribute; no shape, no size, no color, none of this…, and yet, it is I. That’s why the translator has said ‘No-thing’. It is not a thing, and yet, it is that I, that Source, that Brahman, the highest.

Why is this simple hyphen so important? This ‘No-thing’. This one simple hyphen makes all the difference. Because otherwise, if you start to consider YourSelf as nothing it would mean that it’s nothing like the nothing of phenomenon. What is the mind’s usual interpretation of this ‘nothing’? It is just empty. You are nothing. But You are actually not nothing; You are No-thing. You are the Source of All That Is…, which is not what nothing conveys. You are beyond attributes. You are the Self.

Now, this Self is capital-S Self…, as opposed to what the Buddhists have to say which is that you have to lose the self to come to the Reality of what we Are. This Self is not that self. That is a reference to the ego; the sense of individualized existence is what some other traditions call ‘self’. But this Self that we are talking about is this ‘No-thing’.

And even if the words don’t make sense right now, don’t worry about it. You will See that as Your own recognition soon enough. When I say that what You discover about YourSelf is not going to be like what is contained in an empty coconut; just nothing. See? It is not that nothing. It is the pristine, the most innocent…, (these words, of course, don’t do it justice). The unexplainable. This emptiness, this No-thing-ness, is not the emptiness or nothingness of the world.

~ ~ ~

.

.

.
Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 11: Wisdom. Ashtavakra said:

[11.6] “I am not the body, nor is the body my possession; I am Awareness itself. One who realizes this for certain has no memory of things done or left undone. There is only the Absolute.”

“I am not the body…” This we have spoken about. “…nor is the body my possession.” This also I have spoken about many times. But let’s look fresh at this.

Actually, not so many of us believe that we are the body. If we really look, even at the times in your life when you were not spiritual, you will realize that your position with regard to the body mostly has been about it being a possession of yours. ‘My body is not feeling so well. My arms have some pain’. Mostly, it has been this kind of relationship where we say that it is something that we have possessed. Now, that one, which has been the claimant of this body has been the same one which has been the claimant of our money, of our relationships. That claimant is the non-existent one. Now, coming to Satsang, we’re coming to the recognition of who is the true claimant. Who does all of this truly belong to? It belongs to the Self and its manifest aspect which is Consciousness itself.

So, this is what Guruji [Sri Mooji] means by the switching over of power from person to Being. All that we attributed to ‘person’…, all that we’ve attributed to ‘myself’ …, ‘I’d better take care of my body’…, everyone says that. Isn’t it? Even those who are not in Satsang say ‘I’d better take care of my body’. So, what is the relationship there? The object that I own, which is the body. Now, the one who has been claiming this has been the same one who is concerned about all the other things I spoke about (‘my relationships, my money, my security, my freedom, my enlightenment, my Satsang’) and upon investigation, we find that no such ‘me’ has been there.

Then, when the Sage says ‘Oh, my body has not been getting so much attention from me; I feel to put some attention to my body or take care of my body’ we know that he’s speaking from a broader perspective. It is no longer personal. Of course, we have seen, for many, many Sages, that the default position is seeming-neglect of the body. But none of them have ever said you must do it like this, you must neglect the body.

“I am not the body, nor is the body my possession; I am Awareness itself. One who realizes this for certain has no memory of things done or left undone. There is only the Absolute.”

Okay, so once You See that you are not your body; this body is as much an appearance as everything else, then you see that it’s moving. Many times, I say ‘These words are just coming; I’m hearing them like you’re hearing them’…, [Chuckles] that Being is enjoying the taste of its own creation but not in a way of ‘I am saying this’ or ‘You must listen to this’. These words are just coming; nobody is doing them, individually. The hearing is also just happening. Nobody is sitting here and hearing individually, that ‘I must hear’. Conversationally, sometimes we say those things, knowing fully well that all this is just a play of Consciousness itself.

If you ask the conceptual entity, or even if you ask the mind which claims to know so much, ‘How do you speak’. It will say ‘I just speak. I decide I’m going to say these words and I speak them’.  And you ask: ‘But how do you speak? How do you move your lips? How do you move your tongue?’ It doesn’t know. It really doesn’t know. This is the cause and effect thing that we were also saying earlier. In the play of the world, just like in a computer game (what is a game character?) James Bond is there. He’s firing bullets. Like that; you can believe yourself to be this individual entity who’s firing the bullets but actually, where is all of this happening? All is happening within the game, on its own. The programming is doing everything.

“One who realizes this for certain…” So, if you’re not this body and yet the body is animated…, (there is a certain animation which is running through this body; your heart is beating, your breath is happening but you are not this body) and it is saying that you’re not even (in that way, individually) a possessor of this body. So, does this mean the body has to fall off, has to stop all activity? No. So, nothing to do means only this; that You See that you are not the doer. Everything, including this body, is functioning effortlessly on its own.

All of you have heard that Francis Lucille example from me, of his story about his visit to that theme park? This one was very beautiful. I heard it many, many years ago…, where he shares this example of a theme park where someone gets into a ride and they are told ‘There will be this sign that comes; it will say ‘Left’ and when it says ‘Left’ you turn left with all your force. And if you do well, you’ll win this ride’. The signs say ‘Left, Right’.

So, he got on this ride (or someone got on this ride) and they saw ‘Left’ so they turn left, left, left, left with full strength. It felt so good, yes. I did a good job. The sign came, left; I turned left’. Next time the sign came ‘Right’. He’s turning right, right, right, right…, and where does the thing go? It goes left. ‘See, I knew! The first time I put all my heart into it and then I became over-confident and I didn’t do a good enough job with the second one’. So, then, same like this; left, right, left, right…, many turns came. Sometimes he won (according to him) and sometimes he lost. And then the play of pride, guilt; all of that happened.

At the end, what is told to them? That all is pre-programmed. The lefts and the rights, you had no control over any of them. But nobody in that ride figures it out. That is how our programming has become. This world is functioning on its own, with its lefts and rights.

What did the Sage say? “Adversity and success come and go in obedience to destiny.” Same thing, you see? The winning and losing is the same as that ride. But once you see that it’s all moving on its own, its own light, its own speed, then this burden of doership falls away.

~ ~ ~

.

.

.
Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 11: Wisdom. Ashtavakra said:

[11.5] “One who has realized that only by caring is misery caused in the world becomes free, happy, serene, desireless.”

Now, this caring is not the automatic sense of compassion or love which can appear. This ‘caring’ means ‘I care about the outcome. I care about how life should be. I care about how the world should play’. It points out that we have some ideas, have some ideas about any of this; our pretense of knowing anything which is greater than how God’s will is playing out.

So, ‘caring’ is not caring about other Beings, caring about the planet…, it’s not that, of course. Caring is a natural part of this existence. Very often I’ve said that when true spirituality meets this world, kindness, compassion, all of this will be a natural by-product of it.

So, this caring [the Sage is speaking of] is that ‘I care about the outcome; I care about how things should be’…, ‘I care about my individual identity’ basically.

“One who has realized that only by caring is misery caused in the world becomes free, happy, serene, desireless.”  It is only that in the Sage there was compassion which arose for Janaka in the Sage’s heart and therefore, he shared these words.

Ashtavakra especially was known to be a very reclusive Sage. Most people he would drive away. They would come to him and say ‘Master, Master, please tell us, what is the Truth?’ and he’d say ‘No, no, go away from here; go to some other place and don’t trouble me’. Many such reclusive Masters we’ve had in our history.

But something he must have recognized in the heart of Janaka, that he had yearned for this Truth. Therefore, this caring, this compassion had arisen, in the light of which all these beautiful words were shared.

So, don’t misunderstand this verse to mean that all those you care about you must not care about now or that you must not feel compassion for anyone. Nothing like that.

He’s simply saying that when we have an idea that is in opposition to ‘What Is’…, that a resistance to ‘What Is’ is the cause of suffering. In fact, another word for ego is resistance.

~ ~ ~

.

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

Chapter 11: Wisdom. Ashtavakra said:

[11.4] “One who knows for certain that birth and death, happiness and misery, come and go in obedience to destiny sees nothing to accomplish. He engages in non-action, and in action remains unattached.”

So, let me look at the end of the verse first; it’s very powerful. “He engages in non-action, and in action remains unattached.” So, notice that the Sage is saying ‘engages in non-action’ but when there is action, he remains unattached. So, again, it is not the picture from the mind which could be saying ‘I will stop doing everything. I will stop going to work and stop taking care of my family. I’ll find a cave in which I can live’. He’s not saying to renounce all of that. So, when action is happening, who is doing it? Consciousness.

So, when action is happening, we see that there is no individual doer of it. We see that Consciousness in its light on its own screen is moving all this imagery. Then we cannot have either guilt or pride.

“He engages in non-action…” What I want to make clear is what you are finding about YourSelf is beyond action and non-action, which means its beyond doership and non-doership.

Please, give some attention to this because this can be very sticky. This year especially I had to deal with somebody who got completely stuck on this non-doership concept and it was very confusing and brought a lot of suffering for them.

What you have to understand is that just because you’re not the doer, doesn’t mean you’re the non-doer. What does it mean? It doesn’t mean that you are an object which is being pushed around by the will of God. And although that concept can bring some momentary relief (that God is controlling my life; He’s taking care of my life) it does not bring us belief from our desires, our expectations, our guilt. Many of these things still remain because we still have a limited concept about ourself.

So, notice or find this one who is beyond doing or not-doing. I don’t want to make an object out of you or leave you with a belief that You are an object to which things are happening through the will of a greater force. You are not an object at all.

Q: A cause is also a concept, right, Father?

A: Yes. This is so beautiful. Many times, I say this so-called connection between cause and effect gives rise to a lot of egoic identity. [Video cuts out]

Actually, we can say either that everything is just happening within Consciousness or we can say that Consciousness is the one cause for all things. This is basically saying the same thing. The one example that I keep quoting from the Yoga Vasistha is that ‘The bird came and sat on the branch of the coconut tree and the coconut fell down’. What does the mind say? ‘Because the bird came and sat, therefore, the coconut fell down’. But can we really presume this? We don’t know. So, better to say that Consciousness let all of this happen; nothing is the cause of another thing. All is just the will of Consciousness.

Now, when you apply it to your life, you’ll see that SO much grievance is there because of this cause and effect. So much grievance, guilt, pride; all of this is there. So, we see that there is nobody there who is doing this, there is nobody there who is suffering from anything, yet all is moving only in ‘I Am’ …, only in Consciousness, as the will of Consciousness. And no space for any interpretations, any conclusions.

~ ~ ~

.

.

Reading from the Ashtavakra Gita, Translation by Bart Marshall
http://www.holybooks.com/…/uploads/Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf