BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

This openness, this emptiness, is beyond tactics and ploys. Behind tactics and ploys is the notion of ‘me’. So, the mind itself might construct a tactic and say ‘Okay, the mind will not go if I resist it, because that which I resist, persists. So, what I will do, smartly, is that (I realize that the mind is the tormentor) but because it will not go with my resistance, I will love it to death.’ This is a very popular self-help tactic but it doesn’t work. Why? Because your core intent is for the death of the mind and your ploy is to love it. So, it is like hugging someone so that they could die. It’s like ‘Can I hug you enough so that you can just go away?’ So, this duality, this discrepancy, is already ingrained in us and we cannot fool ourself to Truth.

To see that: All of my attempts to get me to Truth do not succeed because the truth IS that there is no such ‘me’.

And where is this Truth available if there is no such ‘me’?

Right Here and Now.

No need to construct a path.

No need to have any tactics.

Right Now, the Truth is complete.

If you have a move left, then Satsang continues.

Right Now, the Truth is complete.

If you have a move, like ‘But…’ or ‘I know better. This is what works for me.’ … then if you’re still inventing this lie of ‘me’ then Satsang can continue.

Empty of these notions, Right Here and Now, in this Unborn is the Absolute, is Shiva.

But the minute you grasp at it, the minute you try to own it, it becomes the mirage that you can keep chasing.

If you had to sign a contract when you came in the Satsang door today [Smiles] which is that ‘I hereby hand over all that I think I will get for me; I hand over all that I think I will get for me, with no expectations of even freedom’ … how many of you would sign it?

S: Who is the ‘I’?

A: [Chuckles] The one who is asking ‘Who is the I?’ [Smiles]

S: The trick mind plays is that even signing this contact, you know…

A: Something you will get as the result of that.

S: Yes.

A: It’s good to see at least that trick. [Smiles]

Because this idea is so persistent, it can seem like it needs to be hammered out of us. Life is hammering it out of us and Your own divine Presence is hammering it out of you. So, these constant remainders, constant provocations, constant invitations are so that this stubborn identity can be let go of. Because it becomes clear to you that naturally, in this very instant, as you are open, there is no identity … then you will realize what the Master said, that ‘There is no distinction between, openness, freedom, and truth.’

So, we have to move away from thinking about ‘What is happening to me?’ to just tasting this openness, without needing to make any progress report. It is not like ‘Ah, I tasted the openness. Actually, it’s very nice. It has happened to me five times before.’ It is not about that; it is not about getting to that frame of reference at all. Just to remain empty. Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] says ‘Take a dip in the river and don’t come out’ this is what it means. If there is the sense that ‘I have to do it and I did it’ … this ‘I’ can dissolve in that. But if it comes out of it with this ‘Oh, that was good and this is what I must always do every morning at 5 a.m.’ or something. Then it is coming back out.

Take a dip in yourself. Full stop. And how to take a dip in yourself? Just remain open, notion-less, unborn.

As much as we resist this, it all boils down to the same thing. I can explain it to you this way, this way, this way; any which way. It all boils down to the same thing.

Once you take a dip in this, let go of all that. It is just conceptual.

All that I am asking you for is to just surrender all those notions that you think are not just a thought.’ Every notion that you think is more than just a thought, throw it away.

A: If you feel like ‘to not know anything’ is too much and it feels too fearful or something then ‘know just one thing.’ And that could be: ‘All is God, Guru, Self’ (it’s the same thing) or ‘All is the Masters Grace.’ Now, that thorn is also ultimately just a thorn. That is why I said: If it feels like it is too much to be so fully empty and ‘I need to have at least one thing to hold onto, I feel like I need one branch or one thorn’ then you can have one of these. But it doesn’t mean that actually it is that. It is not actually that that distinction is true or something like that. That there is any sort of inherent meaning or duality in anything is just not true.

When we are rid of even that notion … (let’s put it another way): Is the Real real only because there is a notion of it being real?

S: No.

A: So, if you discard the notion of it being Real, will it cease to be Real? But whatever the notion might be and however well-crafted the notion might be, can it really represent the Real?

S: No.

A: So, that is why, as real as any notion might seem, it is at best a provisional Truth because it can never truly represent the Reality of the Real.

We might feel that ‘If I throw away the notion of the Real then the Real would go away’ but then what kind of real would that be, if it is so dependent on having the notion of it? It is supposed to be the great Unchanging, isn’t it? So, how can it be the notion having it is detrimental to its own Reality? It can’t be; having it or not having it? To see that even this, the greatest that you might say: ‘All is Brahman’ is also a notion representing Reality because even in the word ‘All’ there is duality, there is separation. ‘The one and many’ … these notions are there. So, it is not possible to capture this Reality in any notional fashion, and it does not go when we are rid of everything that we think is right or true. Because it is, by definition, that which does not come and go.

So, even in the highest notions that the Sages enumerated beautifully, there is no distinction between them and the lower-seeming notions. He’s not even making a hierarchy of notions; he is saying ‘Throw them all out. Throw them all out and don’t be scared that the Real will go.’ It is not going to be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. We have confused the bath water to be the baby. We have confused our notions to be the Real.

Our notions of Reality are not Reality. That’s why I’m emphasizing so much about True Knowing versus this notional knowing because we are not yet able to distinguish between the two and we often confuse that. That’s why it is important to clarify what we mean when we say ‘All that I know is the Self’ or ‘All that I know is God or Guru.’ What are we actually saying? That I have a concept of it? or ‘I had some experience of it. I have some memory of it.’ Is that what we are saying or is there something more immediate [Snaps his fingers] empty of any representation.

So, can the notion of Hari and the notion of Shiva really represent Hari or Shiva?

S: No.

A: Our holding onto the idea of Shiva helps Shiva in what way? Because it will have some boundary around whatever representation we have … because that’s what the word makes it, a representation. Even the representation that it is boundless is a boundary.

Our intellect will not understand what I’m saying. Even the representation that something is boundless is to give it too much quality, You See? It is too boundless to even have the notion boundless.

So, to say ‘All is Shiva’ is not in service to Shiva but at best, it can be a useful last notion to have; the last provisional Truth that we can keep.

But even this thorn will have to be thrown away as we become so empty of all notions, even that of ‘The Absolute.’ That is why I so love the Sage Ribhu saying that: ‘Away from even the duality of saying ‘I am Brahman’. Because Brahman is not dependent on me thinking ‘I am Brahman.’ But me thinking ‘I am Brahman’ makes some representation of It, which will always have some distinction.

So, in this way, you can understand the intent, so to speak, the ‘prayojan’ [Sanskrit work for intent] the intent of the Sage is to empty you from all notions of Reality … but to introduce you to Reality, and get rid of this sort of seeming-obstruction which seems to be the source of suffering, individuality, limitation.

[Silence]

So, if you had no notion about anything at all (what is up, what is down, what is constriction, what is openness, what is life, what is death, what is yesterday, what is tomorrow) how will you struggle? No notion of freedom or bondage.

So, the question was: Show me your real form. Yes?

[Silence]

Are you aware now?

[Silence]

Actually, ‘Real’ and ‘form’ are kind of contradictory. So, this ‘Are you aware now?’ … do you meet a form? And that is the most real. The most real from which benchmark? From the benchmark of ‘The Unchanging.’ All other forms, ALL other forms, will come and go. But if you say ‘Real’ … then the Real does not come and go. So, beyond all attributes, beyond all forms, I Am the Real … You Are the Real. There are no-two.

And in service to this Real, all forms can arise, do arise. And they can be enjoyed. In a way, this world is for the enjoyment of the Self. But it is only enjoyment as long as it is met from a space of openness. The minute we start considering ourselves to be something limited, it is no longer enjoyment; in fact, it can become an attachment. So, the universes are here for your joy. Let them come and go. But My Reality is The Formless. And of this Reality, You are aware.

This Reality is never un-Known and yet can never be known.

Everything that you can know, that you can perceive, will also come and go.

To allow it this space to come and go is non-attachment.

To want something to come or to want something to not go is desire.

To want something to not come is aversion.

To allow everything to come and go is to remain open.

To interpret any appearances is to resist it.

To label any phenomenon is to not to meet it.

To remain open and empty is to be free.

And in this openness, the Self is completely apparent.

It is not hidden.

And yet it is not an object of perception.

This attention and belief, they work like eyes and hands.

The attention is the eyes and belief is the hands.

So, watch everything let it come and go. But do not pick up any notion, any idea. Because to pick up a notion is to pick up a limitation. To watch it come and go can never lead to any trouble. And soon the watching will become open, light, universal.

But if we see with the intent to hold, to grab, to grasp, then that is what suffering looks like.

So, your eyes can be open or closed; the eyes of attention.

But keep your hands of belief in your pocket.

Can you live like this?

Sangha: Yes.

A: Yes. Only grasping is suffering.

These are all the words you need.

The mind will come with, it doubts, trying to convince you that it knows better or you know better. But it is the mind itself claiming to be you.

In your pure perception (pure perception means unmixed with any notion) there is no disinclination between the changing and the changeful, between the manifest and the un-manifest.

The minute you know something, you know suffering; the instant you think you know something, you know separation … which is never real, but it can ‘seem to be’.

That’s why I say: To know even one thing is to know too much.

And yet, the emptying of our mental knowing is not the end of the true Knowingness.

This Self, this Awareness, for which no distinction ever happened, is completely apparent to Itself.

A: Who is the witness of perception? [Looks around]

[Long Silence]

You are? Or no?

Are you the witness of perception?

S: Yes.

A: Are you doing it?

S: No.

A: Are you not doing it?

S: No.

A: Neither applies. This is very good. So, then that debate of ‘doer verses non-doer’ does not apply. It is only at the level of intellect and only about objective things; not about this. The One that witnesses perception, is it alive or dead?

S: Alive.

A: ‘Alive’ … but alive in the sense of breathing?

S: No.

A: Alive in what way?

S: It Is.

A: Just in its Is-ness it is alive. But does it have a heartbeat? Or does it breathe? Does it have even the sense of Existence (let’s say)? Or is even this something that is even more subjective to this Ultimate subject? (Okay, that is too complicated. Let’s leave that.)

We can come back to this: Who is the one that witnesses our perceptions?

No trouble so far. All is good?

S: It’s not like witnessing but it’s like perception itself; there is no separation between …

A: Yes, but if we were to say perception is a master-term for things like sight, smell, taste … now when I say ‘witnesses perception’ although it is aware of this sight, Itself you would not call it sight or you would not call it smell or taste and yet, it is perceiving perception itself, in a way.

S: Not individual perceptions like sight or smell … I can’t see this as a separate thing and then there is another thing called perception.

A: Yes, yes. So, eyes are open, there is some stimulus of light; this is called sight. There is a witnessing of this, opening and closing the eyes, the presence of sight or absence of sight. It is not separate from it and yet, there is an awareness of it.

S: I see.

A: Good so far? Ready to add some trouble to it? Little bit? [Chuckles] Happy to rest here? [Chuckles] Now, suppose I come and start to question your claim. You say that ‘I witness even my perceptions’ or ‘I am witnessing, I am aware of my perceptions’ and this ‘I’ is quality-less, attribute-less, space-less, time-less, all-less, less, less. Now I ask you: Are you certain about this? How do you know this? … What is your answer?

S: We can check.

A: You checked. And then, what happened?

S: Any qualities that we can give it …

A: … are discarded, you can’t claim them. It doesn’t seem to have any of these qualities. But without qualities, how do you see something? How do you see this ‘I’? Then you say ‘I don’t see it.’ Then, are you thinking it?

S: I Am It.

A: ‘I Am It’ you feel like saying but even this claim ‘I Am It’ is made on what basis? Is it innate, apparently just innate, like ‘Yes, yes, yes, rescue me’? [Laughs] What does it mean?

S: It creates a space between perception and hearing and everything else. It seems to be like far off.

A: Beyond, in a way.

S: It’s directly perceiving but engaging indirectly.

A: Would it be accurate to say ‘far off’ or would it be more accurate to say that it is not just contained in either or any of these?

S: Vast.

A: ‘… and yet it is not separate from them.’

S: Un-involved.

A: Yeah. But for all of this, which eyes are we making these conclusions with?

S: It doesn’t seem like a witness.

A: [Smiles] Well, if you are saying ‘I am witnessing my perceptions’ it is heard as a claim or conclusion, isn’t it? You say ‘It is beyond sight, sound, hearing, taste; it remains untouched, unconcerned with the play of all of these qualities’ … all of this is a claim. And already, I know that for most of you, you’re not using learned knowledge from the past, you’re not imagining. So, if you are not using this conceptual knowledge, if you’re not imagining, visualizing, if you’re just checking … what is it that you are checking with?

S: The answer seems to be a sense, a sense of me.

A: Is it a ‘sense’ of me?

S: That ‘unconcerned’ is a matter of concern to me [Laughs] … that it’s unconcerned.

A: Okay, we will not be concerned about that for a few minutes; we will come back to that, because mind will throw all of these concerns. [Laughter] So, we are just looking at it very, very scientifically for the moment. Just getting a lay of the land, so to speak, then we’ll see if something is a problem or not; we will see. This is just a survey, an audit, okay?

So, we found that these perceptions are there and I seem to be witnessing them, but this ‘I’ that witnesses them doesn’t seem to have any quality, doesn’t seem to have any concern about what is being witnessed.

Now, what I was asking is: With which instrument are we checking on this ‘I’?

S: It’s not the eyes.

A: Not the eyes, very good.

S: Not any sense.

A: Not any senses, very good.

S: Maybe it’s the mind that is sneakily doing it (but I don’t think so).

A: The mind is just a bundle of thoughts, so if it’s not a thought, it’s not the mind.

S: It’s felt from inside.

A: Inside. Inside what? [Silence] What is it that we usually use to check on things? We use attention. So, this attention has gone to the world, it did not find the witness in the world; it went to the body, it did not find the witness in the body; it went to thoughts, it saw that thoughts are not witnessing; it went to even the sense of Being, which seems to have the power of witnessing all of this, but even this I am aware of or I witness. Now I Am Here; quality-less, timeless, space-less. Is this the functioning of attention now?

S: Attention has kind of gone back to …

A: Attention seems to have gone back to its Source. Now, we cannot even say that the attention is checking on Self or Awareness. It seems to have withdrawn. So, now attention, thought, imagination … all of that is not there.

So, now when you say that ‘I am quality-less’ how are you able to check?

[Silence]

S: Quality-less with the senses. Because if I close my eyes or ears, it seems to be a little more palpable; I mean experience-able.

A: Yes, and whatever is experience-able, find out what witnesses that. If it feels like a light vibration, even primordial, what witnesses that?

At least this much should be clear to all of you now (and tell me if it isn’t) that all the thoughts, no matter what they might be saying, they do not seem to capture this. This is clear?

S: Yes.

A: So, to go to mind for this answer, what would you call it?

S: Stupidity.

A: Silliness or stupidity or whatever you call it. So, don’t do that. To see that no colors, no shapes, no sizes can actually capture this … this part is clear?

Then, to go to phenomenal experiences and try to grasp this would be what?

S: Stupidity.

A: Stupidity okay. So, it’s not in that. Then, what is left? Concepts are gone, phenomenal perceptions are gone.

Now what is left?

This witnessing … what must it witness or what can it witness so it can be affected by it, hurt by it, scratched by it, dented by it? Any sort of affect or effect; what perception can be there that This can shake?

Sangha: Nothing.

A: Nothing. Anything can appear in your perception, no matter what sound, what visual, what taste, what smell; anything can appear and this Awareness remains untouched. Yes?

S: Yes.

A: Now, if this is so, then how come you seem to be affected, hurt, by things that come and go, by these perceptions? [Silence] You say ‘I am the witnessing and I am untouched, unhurt, by all of this, whatever it might play out.’ And yet, in our life, it seems to be something different. We seem to be hurt, affected, concerned.

S: Empty…[and] S: But that’s when the ‘I’ comes up; the sense of ‘I’.

A: What is this sense of ‘I’?
S: It has a feeling.

A: Okay, (before we actually even go there) … this witnessing, does it find any sense of separateness between itself and what it witnesses?

S: No.

A: Are there two there; the sense of two-ness like ‘I am the witness and this is not’? Is it like that?

S: No.

A: Or it’s just that the witnessing is just naturally unchanging and yet, it doesn’t seem to have any opposition with whatever the content of whatever the witnessing might be. Is it like that?

S: Yes.

A: So, if it is not claiming a sense of duality, a sense of separation, none of that, then what happens?

Now, your project is the opposite: Now you have to TRY and be affected about something. How do you go about doing it?

[Silence as looking happens]

S: Believe it with the mind. [Others chime in with ideas; inaudible]

A: Slowly… So, you are this Awareness, and you are manifesting as Being. Your manifest nature is just Being. Now what? Step by step. Very slowly.

S: It has to create some boundaries.

A: It has to create some boundaries. So, how does it do that?

S: ‘Me and Father.’

A: Slowly, very slowly. How does it do that?

S: It thinks it is the body.

A: It thinks it is the body. What does that mean? Break that down.

S: That there is an individual entity.

A: So, this is what? Just a thought? I’m saying, it just comes like a thought, that ‘Oh, I’m an individual entity’?

S: Yes.

A: Okay. So, a thought is coming. A thought is what? What is a thought?

S: Sensation.

A: Just some sensation. Just some energy construct; let’s call it that. So, there’s like a construct of energy or perception, sensation (whatever we call it) that comes. But there so many other energy constructs also. Why are we picking on thoughts? Just sensations; light, air, all of this is also perceived as sensation. What’s so special about thought?

S: It seems to have a voice.

A: It seems to have a voice. It seems to give some message or meaning. The other energy constructs which are perceived, they are not screaming and saying ‘I am this, I am that.’ They are just perceived. So, the labels or the meaning of anything, as Guruji [Sri Mooji] says, is not inherent in anything by itself. It is how it is interpreted that makes that meaning come. That is why we identify one type of energy construct which seems to give this sort of meaning.

So what, then? If it’s saying ‘This is the mic, this is the couch, this is the hand’ …

Q: Can you go slowly? Because I’m not following this.

A: Okay, where did you lose us?

Q: I’m just trying to see this thought, but … where do I know this thought? I mean, there isn’t something called a thought.

A: Yeah, as I said, now the project is the opposite. You are the untouched Awareness. This is clear to you. You’re chilling out completely as just pure Being; nothing is happening to You. Now, You got bored with this just pure Being. ‘I’m so bored, I would like to get a taste of suffering so that I can enjoy my pure Being again.’ You see? It is not as absurd as it sounds. It is so ‘Being, Being, Being’ and then ‘Where’s the drama in this? Where’s the entertainment? Let’s make a leela [a play].’ Then you say ‘Okay, you have to now construct a leela around you so that you can play with some drama or something; some ups and downs; roller-coaster.’ How would you do that?

S: By paying attention to thoughts.

A: So, first Yourself, in a way … even these energy constructs, like everything else, comes within You. Let’s say that You have to project this on your own screen. First, these have to come. What would You say to Yourself to get You pretending to be affected? What has to be there?

S: I’m tasting them somehow.

A: How? You taste every perception, but these perceptions are not bothering you.

There is no suffering inherent in perception itself. They are just tasted.

So, how to suffer from them? That is the project.

S: To interpret.

A: To interpret. Example?

S: It shouldn’t be like that.

A: ‘It shouldn’t be like that.’ So, that one construct comes. So, now, are you just playing with this? How do you play with this perception of this hand? [Holds up one hand] You can seem to move your attention to it, or you can seem to move your attention away from it or you can really deepen your focus of attention on it. But this cannot cause you suffering, just the perception of it. So, in the same way, when the thoughts are being perceived … (whether they’re being heard as audio or seen as script; all these ways of perceiving thought. That in itself is a beautiful experiment to try. But we won’t get digressed with that.) … in whatever way they’re being perceived, just by the looking at them, it is possible? Just like you look at the thoughts like you look at the hand or hear thoughts like you hear the traffic or anything, is it like that?

S: You pick them up.

A: ‘Pick them up’ means?

S: You identify.

A: Identify means?

S: You own this. You put your identity on it.

A: So, is that power (let’s call it belief for a moment) is that possible with just this perception that doesn’t seem to have this message? No. So, it needs this. And it is dependent on some language; as primitive as it might be. It needs to have some capability to convey something, which is beyond just the perception of itself. It has to have a message. And that message is what gets identified with or believed. So, we give it ‘truth value’ like I say. We give it ‘truth value’ or we deny ‘truth value’ to it. If I say ‘Give this perception truth value’ [Holds up his hand as the perception] it doesn’t give meaning to it.

So, this ability to give meaning, the ability to make this true or false, this mind/intellect sort of combination … is suffering possible without that?

S: No.

A: Not possible. So, when it comes, then … what happens? So, the mind is coming and saying (like she says) ‘This should not be like this’ or it’s saying ‘I’m not getting this’ or whatever it is, then what happens?

Attention is on it. But if attention was on it but there was no meaning or relevant significance, it would just be ‘Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ You see? And you cannot identify with messages from another language that you don’t understand. So, if your mind suddenly started speaking Russian or French or German, whatever was a language that you could not understand, it could not poke any buttons. It could say the most wild things, it could say the strongest things, but because there is no meaning associated with those terms, it does not cause trouble.

So, a thought is coming: ‘I’m not getting any of this.’ Suppose that is what the thought is saying, ‘I’m not getting any of this.’ Now, what do you have to do with it to suffer?

S: To believe it.

A: To believe it. Now, when you believe that ‘I’m not getting it’ are you still referring to yourself as that boundless-ness, beyond space …? No.

What are you referring to yourself as?

A: That which is left [when all else is taken away or put aside] … if I said ‘That does not come and go’ … what would you say about that? True or false?

Sangha: True.

A: So, check then. And we have to speak just from our experience. Don’t infer anything. In terms of the nature of things, we find that all that changes quality, changes appearance, is that which comes and goes. Is there an attribute of this which you find here, and therefore, some change is possible?

S: It seems like it witnesses whatever changes.

A: ‘It witnesses whatever changes.’ Okay, let’s put the question in another way. If this was not there, could you be aware of anything called change?

S: No.

A: This much is clear? This question is useful then. Even for us to conclude that something is changing quality and quantity in any perceptible way, this witnessing principle has to be there.

Now, how is this Witness or Witnessing witnessing itself? [Silence] Is it witnessing itself?

S: Not as two things.

A: Not as two things. Then as…?

S: One thing.

S: It seems to know, it just seems apparent.

A: What does apparent mean?

S: It’s just evident to itself.

A: Yes, but evident in what way? Phenomenally evident?

S: No.

A: So, how does something become non-phenomenally evident? So far in our life, only that which has been phenomenally perceived, we have called that ‘evident’. Is there a sun in the sky? We saw it and we say ‘Yes.’ So, this is a unique thing.

S: It seems that Witness is witnessing Itself.

A: Yes, but not phenomenally.

S: Not phenomenally.

A: Then, in what way?

S: It’s like a Knowing.

A: It’s like a Knowing … but it’s not a conceptual knowing. What is this ‘Knowing’? Like, I’ve known many things in the past and I’ve forgotten many things. Is it that kind of knowing?

S: This is not studied.

A: ‘This is not studied.’

S: This knowing was there; it seems like it ever-existed. The rest was like made up.

A: ‘Everything else is made up; this Knowing is ever-there.’

Who is the knower of this Knowing?

Who is aware of this Awareness?

Is it You? Or no? (That’s all I want to know; I don’t want anymore terms.)

S: Yes.

A: Who is aware of this Awareness.

S: I.

A: You. As what? Awareness; this Itself? Or … ?

S: As Awareness Itself.

A: ‘As Awareness Itself.’ Okay. So far, no trouble with anything. As long as there’s just this unmanifest, no trouble ever arises about anything. Now, what happens when the sense of Being, I Am, seems to appear? ‘

Is it like this: that it comes? It seems to appear? Like that?

S: Yes.

A: So, this is like a primal witnessing, primal perception. (Let’s call it that, just to be fancy for a moment.) This so-called primordial vibration arises (if you wanted to use poetic words, you could say) in the Heart of this Awareness.

Q: I’m not getting this; I mean in the sense that attention is going on but I’m not getting any idea of some arising or what it means.

A: Good. Okay. So, that you are aware of yourself is apparent. Now, what tells you that you exist?

Q: Nothing seems to be needed or to be told that I exist.

A: Yes, yes. So, let’s look at it another way then. When we look at this witnessing, the notion of Being or not-being, does it apply, as it is traditionally used?

Q: No.

A: It does not apply. So, if coming and going does not apply, Being and not-being does not apply, this sense that ‘I Am’ or ‘I exist’ or the ‘I’ that wakes up the morning … that one is which one? What sense is that? [Silence] I’ve used this question for many years to point to this; I’ve tried to get you all to ‘Try and stop being’.

Try and stop being.

You say that you See that this awake-ness is here, waking state is here. In this, to stop being is not possible in this because all of this is Being Itself.

So, this sense that gives you Presence, that gives you the sense of existence, is this clear?

[Silence]

It’s okay. Either way is okay. Because this can be a bit tricky. This can be a bit tricky because that which is non-phenomenal also, we cannot say that it is not present or doesn’t have a Presence, in a way. But there’s like a qualitative taste of existence which comes; that which we call ‘waking up’. It’s just primal existence: I Am.

I am witnessing and yet I find no evidence of this ‘I’. (We won’t even take that sometimes-useful diversion, which is: The one that cannot find, who is that one? We’ll keep that aside for a bit.) Yet, it is clear to you that You are witnessing. It is clear to You. Because if I said ‘Someone else is witnessing and just telling you about it’ that would seem absurd to you. Isn’t it? So, that’s not the case. Like this ‘I’ that is witnessing, does it fall into anything that you can think about it? Except, at best, in negative terms: ‘It is not this, it is not that.’ Like that, at best. But in terms of being able to tell me one quality or attribute of it, can you look and say?

Don’t get side-tracked at all by anything. Whether it’s working or not working, what is happening, how the mind is, what the state is … don’t worry about any of these.

Just this:

I am witnessing these perceptions.

This ‘I’ …what can we say about it?

S: Space-like.

A: Space-like, is it? Space is what? Space, in a way, is three dimensions. Is that the space you’re talking about? Does it have length, breadth, and height?

S: There is no dimension.

A: There is no dimension.

S: There are no boundaries.

A: There are no boundaries. So, because it has no dimensions itself, the question of boundary does not arise. Actually, when we say ‘boundless ocean’ for example, you can imagine like a three-dimensional space which is in every direction everywhere. But this One doesn’t have any such attributes like length, breadth, height. Is it like that? Everyone is with me?

S: Yeah.

A: Don’t rely on learned knowledge. Don’t rely on what you’ve heard. Just look: The ‘I’ that witnesses all these perceptions, we are finding the qualities of that.

So, what we are doing here is inviting the elephant in the room. Giving some time to our un-manifest ‘nirguna-self.’ [Sanskrit language, meaning attribute-less self] If visualization is happening, don’t worry about it. Just ask yourself: ‘What witnesses that?’

Don’t worry about anything that comes. All is useful for your inquiry.

When you hear something like ‘The truth is just apparent to You, Right Now’ …what did you just hear? [Chuckles] What did I just say?

S: The truth is apparent to You, Right Now.

A: The truth is apparent to You, Right Now. Okay, so what do you do with that?

S: We think of it.

A: Then what happens? So, the truth is apparent Now. Where do you go looking?

S: Here.

A: Here. What do you find?

S: I have to suspend labeling.

A: [Chuckles] What do you find?

I say ‘The truth is apparent to You, Now.’

The Vedantian said ‘The Truth, Reality, does not come and go. It is your present Reality.’ The Buddhist says ‘The Buddha nature is never concealed. It is always here.’ All paths, everything, is saying ‘Now’.

S: I do not find anything, in the sense that I don’t find anything new. Not that I have to conceive of the Truth or something …

A: Okay, slowly, slowly. So good. ‘I don’t find anything.’ This is a very common response and this we must look at.

S: Okay.

A: This much you found, that you don’t find anything?

Slowly I will go, before you all start to switch off and start crying and doing various things. [Sangha and Ananta Laugh]

S: Can we begin with just with the statement ‘The Truth is Here Now.’

A: Yeah, we started with that. You checked apparently and said ‘I don’t find anything.’

S: No. When I heard that ‘The truth is Here Now’ then there is something which says ‘Ah, but I do not know what the Truth is that I must look for it.’ You know? Really that was my first…

A: Yeah, so like I was saying ‘Where will you go to for the answer?’ If you didn’t have to go to your sensations or any perceptions, if I said to you that ‘The Truth is more intimate to you than any of that’ … where would you go to look?

S: Nowhere. If it’s so intimate I would not have to look at anything, I wouldn’t go anywhere.

A: Okay, so don’t go. [Smiles] Don’t go. What do you find?

S: Yeah. I find some sensations.

A: Okay, if I ask you now ‘What witnesses these sensations?’

S: I can say that ‘I witness them’ but I can’t find an ‘I’. I can’t find any object ‘I’.

A: So, let’s go very slowly. Say again what you are saying, very slowly. Mean every word that you say.

S: Yeah, I can say ‘I am witnessing.’ I mean, I am witnessing these sensations but I can’t find an ‘I’ as an object which is witnessing this; all these sensations.

A: Do you find ‘I’ as a non-object?

S: No.

A: So, this is the crux of it, isn’t it? … that ‘I am witnessing’ and yet there is no seeming- evidence for this ‘I’ that is witnessing.

S: Yeah.

A: And yet how do I know this, that ‘I am witnessing’?

Satsang is like antibiotics for the infection of ‘me’. For those of you who don’t like antibiotics, it’s Ayurveda, naturopathy. [Chuckles] There is only one thing that seems to afflict us, no matter what the circumstances are, no matter what is happening in the world, what is happening to our emotions, what is happening to the body; it is only this affliction which is the affliction of the ‘me’. And this affliction of the ‘me’ is only transmitted through thoughts. Whatever we might think, there is no other way to transmit this limited self except through thoughts.

It is funny the other day (I don’t know if you find it funny now; I hope you don’t mind me saying it) she came and she said that she was a bit upset, so I was asking her ‘What happened?’ She said ‘I must be by now at this point where I’ve stop believing my thoughts. This is bothering me.’ And it was just a thought. [Chuckles] So, this is as clear an example as possible, that even the idea of finally being free from the thoughts is only just a thought. And if you hold on to that idea, that itself can cause suffering because it attacks the seeker-identity who feels frustrated that ‘I’m still not free or not-found’.

That is why this nice seemingly-fun game arose in Satsang where we said ‘Just expose whatever thought seems to get your belief, and we’ll just remind you that it is just a thought.’ That’s all this game is about actually. Then whether it is thoughts about the state of the world, the state of our life, the state of our mind, the state of our body, the state of our enlightenment, it is all rubbish. Why rubbish? Because to look at it as if it represents something real, the claim that a set of words, a set of noises, can represent Reality (as big or as holy as those words may sound) is rubbish, is nonsense.

And all of this trouble is because we seem not to get over the idea that ‘You are not free’ that ‘You are not complete’ that ‘There is a step to take’ that ‘You have to get somewhere’ … or its opposite, which is the same. This is an important point. If you are still hanging onto its opposites that ‘I have it, I am it, I got it’ these are also just ideas. Two different brands of cigarettes. [Chuckles] Whether you smoke a rolled-up cigarette or you’re smoking this long filter, ultra -thin one, it doesn’t really matter. Neither is helpful to your lungs.

So, if at best you are using Satsang concepts to come out of this addiction, and then you will give up on even these, then that is fine. But pick one. Don’t go shopping around for too much. Whichever gives you the most peace, whichever brings you the most stillness, pick that and stay with that … (not something that activates your mental faculties more).

Also, another tip is that you must not get into any sort of spiritual fantasies because they are not in service to us. Sometimes a little bit is okay but usually it just becomes that we go on a different sort of ride. Just ‘What Is’ plain and simple is greater than any fantasy which you could have. So, neither spiritual despondency nor spiritual fantasification. Nothing. All of it is in avoidance to meeting ‘What Is’ as Is.

And this is the number one cause of frustration in Satsang. What is the number one cause of frustration in Satsang? Because I keep saying ‘What is Now?’ and you keep thinking that it is nothing or thinking that it must mean something. You try to make it a part of your story but it cannot be.

What you find is not going to be a chapter in your story. It is not going to be an experience. It is not going to be a thought. It is not going to be a sensation.

So, if I say that the truth is always apparent and completely known, and you try to capture it in your mental grasp, then we can keep playing this game till (it’s 2019 staring tomorrow) till 2059, 3059, 4059 … [Chuckles]

But this is the only game in town. What is Here and How?

And I don’t want to know what happened last time when you checked or what the state was then. I don’t even want to know what your mind is saying now. 99% of the time, when I say ‘What is Here Now’ and you report ‘The mind is saying … mind is saying … mind is saying … because this has become our ‘go-to guy’ for every question. What is Here now? [You say] ‘Ananta, the mind is saying …’ But I said: What is Here Now? [You say] ‘The mind is saying’ or ‘I’m just feeling very still right now’.

What is Here Now?

These layers of our existence seem to be all-there-is so we keep referring back to these: either our mental layer or what our intellect is telling us or our emotions.

But what is it?

A: So, now you have to tell me, naturally Here and Now, is the consideration that ‘You are this limited-self’ naturally present?

S: No.

A: You have to look and say. Naturally, in what way is it present?

S: Because of ‘Maya’ covering …

A: From your checking right now … suppose I was saying ‘It is not present and you have to convince me that it is there.’ What will you show me? What will you show me that ‘Yes, this limited nature is naturally present?’

S: It ingrained in me.

A: Show me where?

S: Behaviorally …

A: So, right Here and Now, there is no behavioral consideration.

S: Yeah. Consciously because I ‘m going back to visualize my Real Self. If I do it consciously each time, then it won’t be…

A: Yeah. So, suppose even this was needed. Suppose (humor me for a moment) suppose nothing was needed: How you naturally are is Yourself. Now you have to tell me how this is not true … (not from learned knowledge but from what you See).

I’m saying to you that ‘It is God now’ … which you have heard often. Now you have to convince me that naturally, actually, it is ‘me-oww.’ (For those who are new, ‘me-oww’ means there is a sense of ‘me’ and as long there is sense of me then ‘oww’ is bound to be there as suffering.)

Show me this one, the sense of me, which is naturally present Here and Now.

This is where we end up differing through most of the year. At the end of the year, let us clarify this one point. If we can clarify this one point, then I feel like there is not much juice left in the journey. This one point is what? I am saying: Naturally, Here and Now, You are free, You are the Unlimited Self.’

You might believe that ‘No, naturally, Here and Now, I am the conditioned ego and therefore, I have to work on removing it and there is a job to be done.’

Now we have to check on: What is true naturally, Here and Now?

Where is your limitation now?

What is your condition now?

Where is the ego?

So, let us just clarify this point: What are you naturally, Here and Now?

[Silence]

Okay, let me give you a challenge. You have to Right Now, in this very moment, consider YourSelf the limited one … but you have no time. Now. [Snaps fingers] Now: consider yourself the limited one, Right Now. Now. Right Now, you have to do it.

This that I see is the Self. This which is naturally Here is the Self. Because I don’t find the boundary.

You have to show me the boundary; where is it? Show me the limited one.

S: It would be a lie. You have to make it up.

A: ‘You have to make it up.’ You see, this is what I’m saying: You have to make it up. So, that is why the pretense, the mask has to be worn. It is not that the mask naturally is here and you have to discard it.

Now, I can tell you that ninety-nine percent of spirituality is built around the idea that ‘The mask is there and you have to discard it.’ And that’s why if you have learned a lot of spirituality, you will find this to be unbelievable. But from my experience, I can tell you that it is not; it is not there. So, to discard it, first you have to put it on.

But You are free, Here and Now.

Right Here and Now, you are the most enlightened Being that you will ever meet.

I’m not saying these words loosely or not even as motivation or something like that. I’m saying it really.

Right Here and Now, the Being that You meet is the most enlightened Being that you will ever encounter … Your own Presence. It is un-deniable, un-miss-able.

But this Self has given Itself the power to consider Itself to be limited. And now you have seen today the entire mechanics of how all that can happen.

S: I’m not aware anymore of my limit-less-ness.

A: Are you not aware? Look. It’s good.

S: Attention is not given to the subject.

A: Okay, so even if attention is not given to it, do you lose the Awareness of yourself?

S: No.

A: So, you haven’t lost the Awareness. What have you done? You’re still Aware of what You Are.

S: I’m focusing on…

A: You focused on that thought and then you said ‘I’m not getting it.’ So, in that belief system, or even in that belief statement, what are you considering yourself to be? This is belief; this grasping is the mechanics of giving meaning, of knowing, of grasping is this. So, nothing happened to You in Reality because even then if you check you are the same Self. And yet, belief is the power to consider Yourself to be something that You are not. This Divine Self has unlimited power so it also has this power to consider Itself to be something it is not. That’s why I call it the pretense. It is never real, it is just the mask. The mask can never take on the original face but You have, for Yourself, the ability to consider Yourself to be the mask or the limited Self.

So, although You always remain what You Are, in that, when You are caught up in that belief, You consider Yourself to be something that You’re not. And this belief is so ludicrous because when You go looking for this one that you now consider Yourself to be and even that You can’t find, you see. But since that would be too unbelievable and You would drop the false idea immediately, the mind has a trick up its sleeve. It says ‘I’m here’ and when you say ‘Where?’ it says ‘Here.’ [Touching the body] It uses this evidence of some set of perceptions [Touches his hands] and it says ‘This is what you are. This is your boundary.’

S: It makes a project to get out of the body.

A: No. First its main project is to convince You that You are in the body. And then it will say ‘If you want freedom then you have to find that you are not in the body.’ But actually, it’s your most natural finding. That’s what we did in the first part of Satsang was to see that it had nothing to do with the body. That which witnesses all perceptions sees that the body was just another set of perceptions.

So, this consideration that ‘I’m what my mind is telling me that I am’ is to believe, is to identify, is to be caught in Maya. Because Maya, in the appearance of this imagery itself, is not to be caught up in it. As Guruji [Sri Mooji] would say ‘The log-in is only when we buy into this identification.’

So, is there another way? If I said there were three ways to get into suffering? Besides identifying with thought in this way, can you tell me one other way? [Silence]

S: ‘This belongs to me.’

A: Yeah, but that also is a thought. Anything which is not thought-based? [Silence]

But you have to check.

S: Physical pain.

A: Pain comes. [Pause] Does That which is aware of this perception of pain get affected in Reality? No. So, are you saying that in the arising of physical pain, Awareness then automatically starts to consider Itself to be the sufferer of that?

These are worth exploring, these things, because we can end up believing them. So, it’s good to look

S: Attention goes…

A: Attention goes there, and it seems like there is no other attention; it seems like attention is fully immersed in that sensation. But does Awareness, without any thought, any identification, start to consider Itself to be the sufferer of that pain?

S: No.

A: All of you can check.

S: What was the question?

A: In the arising of pain, it is that Awareness automatically take on the sufferer position? Or is it that pain is tasted like every other sensation that comes?

S: Because it is felt in this particular body, there is a tendency to immediately identify to this body.

A: Because it is felt supposedly in this particular body, to identify: How would you identify? Just in the arising of it? Just in the arising of the pain?

S: ‘My pain.’

A: ‘My pain’ or ‘This should not be’ or ‘Why does it come? When will I be free of it? Why me? It’s not meant to be.’

S: There has to be identification with the body.

A: What would cause that identification?

S: If you want to play with identification in the body, then the pain would also be identified as ‘mine’.

A: Yes, but at least you need the notion ‘body’, you need the idea ‘my’… at least some notion. As small of a notion as it might be, that concept has to be there. And that is the concept that is taught to young children who are like an empty, blank slate (many times, not always) and then they have to be taught this notion of ‘body’.

S: Father, there is an experience that the body is the center of the scene.

A: Okay. The ‘centrality of visual perspective’ as I call it; that it seems to be around this object here. [Points to his head]

S: Yeah, and I don’t see my face.

A: And because that centrality is there, is that enough to convince You that You are an object in it?

[Silence]

S: Seems…

A: Is that enough?

So, tomorrow if I buy you a computer game in which you wear this headset where it can seem like you are seeing this war zone, and that you’re James Bond or something like that, will it be enough to convince you that you’re just that?

[Silence]

In our dreams, in our day dreams, right now, you can imagine a world, any scene that you want and look at it from the perspective of anybody. All of us are aware of this projective power of Consciousness. But just because that centrality of perspective is there, is that much enough?

And is that centrality of perspective in itself saying ‘You the body’ … in just the witnessing of the world in this way, without a notion convincing You that ‘You are this’? In my experience it is neither saying ‘You are this’ nor is it saying ‘You are my instrument.’ It is not saying any of that. So, it is just that different perceptions are changing.

Q: [To experience limitation] You have to give some truth-value…

A: But truth value to what? To the perception itself? How? Give the truth-value to the appearance?

Q: No, no, truth value to … Yeah, exactly.

A: It has to be to a notion, isn’t it? Even the notion could be ‘I am this or I am not this’ or whatever.

Q: Or first, that I Am.

A: ‘I am all of this’ or ‘I am just this’ … all of this then becomes the notions which can come. Then we keep playing with this or that, this or that. But inherently, what is there? This is good to see: Inherently, what is there? Inherently is perception claiming to be me or separate from me?

Q: No.

A: What I mean by ‘inherently’ is without notion, without thought. Just as you can also look around, does it automatically make a ‘me’ out of you?

Q: No.

A: Just in your perception. So, just in perception, it is not possible. This is called ‘Remaining in the Unborn.’  It would be meaningless to say even ‘Unborn’ if there was no such thing as the waking state or the sense ‘I Am’ that came. But in spite of the arising of the sense ‘I Am’ the Self does not consider itself to be the limited-self because it is not giving birth to that idea or giving credence to the birth of the limited-self.

Q: I don’t understand this thing.

A: Yeah. So, the difference between ‘The Unborn’ and the idea that ‘I am the born’ is what? You need a notion to consider yourself something that was born; this body or something that will come and go. In just the perception of this world, it is not possible.

S: I have a question. A baby which does not identify with the body; he sees the hand of his Father (for example) and there is a movement to grab it. There is no sense in him that he desires to grab the hand. It is just a movement happening.

A: Yes, yes. There is no distinction between the movement of this and that. He is not saying ‘This I did and that you did.’

S: So, the fact that I’m speaking and asking this question is not coming out of a personal desire or something. It is just a happening.

A: Exactly, it is just a set of perceptions. Because we didn’t define any of these layers, did we? We looked back and we saw that whether we called it ‘Awareness, the Knowingness, That which is apparent’ (whatever term we call it) that somehow, This Knows Itself in some way. (Anyway, that is a different discussion that I will bother you with later.)

We saw that there is an arising of the play of all of this perception. The sense of Being and all of this perception is happening, but nowhere did we come across the birth of a person. Nowhere did we come across the birth of a person. We only saw how the Self considers itself personnel. It is only because It has given Itself the power to identify through what we call belief.

And we looked for ways in which it could consider Itself to be limited. Besides thought, is there any other way? And we looked at one specific thing called pain and we saw that even the perception, without the label ‘pain’ (because pain with the label itself becomes a notion) … but just the experience of it does not cause any consideration of the limited-self or the feeling that ‘I am the constricted one’ or something like that. It is also perceived just like all other perceptions.

In the realm of perceptions, when we are not distinguishing between good / bad, pleasant / unpleasant, should be / should not be, then everything is just perceived as perception.

I asked also first: What can come in the perception that can actually hurt This?

You say ‘I’m the one who witnesses all these perceptions.’

So, I asked ‘Who can hurt This ‘I’ or what can hurt This ‘I’?

It is clear to you at this point that whatever the perception might be (pain / pleasure, hot / cold) all of these don’t actually have any effect on this Witnessing. Isn’t it?

So, when these perceptions come and go, unless we mix it up with the consideration that ‘I am the limited one’ it can remain as pain but it cannot be considered as suffering.

The suffering only means that ‘I consider myself to be an object that is suffering.’

Pain is a perception; it is a label for the perception.

But suffering is when I consider myself to be the sufferer of that pain.

This is the beautiful thing about nothing having inherent meaning. It’s just what spectacles we chose to wear. If they are rose colored, then everything is rose colored; if they are blurry, then everything is going to blurry. So, if we don’t have that condition that ‘It should be this way’ or ‘It should not be this way’ then no trouble. That’s fundamentally what I’m saying, that somewhere we feel like we need some completion certificate, whereas, I am repeating every day that ‘You are free naturally.’  But you have an idea which you might consider stronger than what I’m saying, which is that ‘No, but it is not true for me yet.’ If you still consider that to be of greater value then what you’re hearing in Satsang every day, then the journey seems to perpetuate.

I am saying: Show me. (Let’s go on even empirical evidence.) Show me your boundary. Where do you end?’

S: (Scared to ask. … I’m too scared to ask only, but) … when I investigate ‘Okay, I am here; voice is coming out of this body’ and I am conscious of it.

A: But is this distinction ‘me’ and ‘you’ naturally there?

S: No.

A: In our interpreting this ‘What Is’ as if it is that (that means that interpreting it as if a voice is coming from one body, a voice is coming from another body) we cannot even claim those things, even scientifically. Most of you have seen with me [the video on] the McGurk effect, where the sound coming out of the computer is one thing, apparently, but what we are hearing is completely different. So, we cannot even claim this thing, that ‘This sound is coming from here, this sound is coming from there; this sensation is from here, this is from there.’ All of this is just [conjecture]. But the minute we start getting into those, there is fertile territory for identification, because immediately that distinction is already made of space and time when we start to say ‘here, there, then, that’.

S: There’s a lot of questions; unanswered questions, which need to be reconciled …

A: So, that what? What will happen at the end of reconciliation? [Laughs] You see? Because we are so conditioned to live in this way, that this is like an exam, this is something where at the end that you will know in this way. Now, we have checked over and over that we cannot know it in this way, anyway. [Points to head] So, what will happen once you have answered all your questions? You will be left with a set of answers which are as pointless as any of these answers. You see?

S: It’s not satisfying.

A:  It is just the momentum of this conditioning which makes us believe these things to be true. They are just thoughts. What you are saying is just thoughts. What you are hearing from this mouth is also just thoughts and hopefully, these are countering some of those so that you can be left empty. Like, what would an answer be? What will the answer enable you to do? Write a treatise on Advaita? [Chuckles] What would you do? You can be the next Valmiki or Yagnyavalka? [Refers to ancient Sages] If you had all the answers, what would you do with that?

S: The person would do something.

A: This is the thing. We are still in that trap; still in that thing that ‘It is undone.’ Because we went through such a beautiful inquiry where we saw all the layers of our existence and the mechanics of our belief and identification, all of this, and yet when this trickster comes and says ‘But there are still some unanswered questions’ you are like ‘Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.’ Because that is the more comfortable position and that is what we are more used to. Whereas, actually what I am saying is: Leave yourself, leave all of this. Forget it. Let it unfold on its own. Don’t make any conclusions.

But your mind is saying ‘But come to final conclusions’. I’m saying: Leave all conclusions.

So, this is the push and pull (in a way) of the spiritual journey. And as long as you keep having some belief in both voices, you will seem to be even more stuck. One is to have one voice: mind. Sometimes you see people in this world and you see that they are suffering much less than us. What are we doing in Satsang? [Laughter] They seem to be fine. They go to work, make some money, come back home, play with their kids, go out somewhere, have a drink, go to sleep. It’s fine; many of them seem to be fine. But once we start to find that as thermocol or something and we start coming to Satsang, with a bit of belief in this and a bit of belief in that, then it can feel like we are very stretched out. Neither here nor there; stuck between a rock and hard place. But you will find that because one voice is just pointing you to what is naturally Here and apparent … and the other voice is constantly just giving you stories and ideas … you will end up seeing that one voice is just pointing to what is Here and True, and the other is asking me to consider myself to be something that I am not. Then the interest in that voice, in following that … all of that will not be so much when it comes with its offers.

This is the seeming paradox, isn’t it? You might say ‘Ananta, if you say I am free Here and Now; then why do you keep saying ‘Keep coming to Satsang?’ It is so that you keep hearing: ‘You are free, Here and Now.’ And when the offer comes and says ‘But you are the limited one; you have to find freedom’ or something like that, those offers will not have meaning for you.

[Silence]

I feel like this is a good sort of wrap-up Satsang for this year and that we captured most of the main points of what is shared.

You say there is coaster in my hand because you have the experience of it. You say ‘I’m experiencing the coaster.’ What is your experience of the ‘I’ to be able to claim that you are the experiencer? To claim the coaster is in my hand, you have to have the experience of it; the yellowness or whatever, the roundness. But you say ‘I experience this coaster.’ So, what is your experience of ‘I’ to be able to claim that it is you?

S: Somehow, it’s hard …

A: No struggle, my dear. Just more open, more playfully.

S: No experience.

A: There is no experience. Then how do you claim it? Now, if I tell you that ‘There is a coaster in my hand.’ [Holding nothing in hand] … what will you say? Be honest.

S: It is no.

A: No. Why you say no? I am saying ‘There is coaster in my hand.’ You say ‘I have no perception of it.’ But for this ‘I’ why do you use the opposite principle? You have no experience, yet still you claim it.

S: It sees both presence and absence.

A: It sees both. But how do you see it?  What kind of knowing is this?

S: It is not experience.

A: It’s not experience.

S: It was always there.

A: As?

S: It cannot be defined. It was always there. Before that word ‘I’, it was there.

A: ‘It was there’ was what? And what was that? ‘It’ implies ‘I’. Now, what did you see of this ‘I’ to claim that?

S: This, in my experience, when I clearly check, there is nothing to perceive; like there is no perception or perceiver something like that.

A: Okay. Then what is there?

S: There is no perceiver but perception which happens.

A: No perceiver. So, you are not perceiving anything?

S: Because I am not claiming that perception to me….

A: Not the perception, but you are claiming that ‘You are the perceiver’ na? Are you not perceiving this yellow coaster?

S: Yeah, perception is happening in ‘me.’

A: In ‘you’

S: Yeah.

A: So, this ‘you’ is which one? Even that claim that ‘It is happening in me’ is on what basis?

S: That I can perceive.

A: I, yeah.

S: I perceive that…or I’m perceiving. [Smiles]

A: Yeah, but this ‘I’ … how is that perceived?

S: It is the English language. [Laughing] But I don’t think that my perception is …

A: Jo mein dekh raha hai. [Hindi language, meaning ‘What me is seeing?’]

S: Mein to hai hi nahi. [‘I am not there’] Perception Is.

A: Perception Is.

S: Yeah.

A: So, it has nothing to with you.

S: No, I cannot claim it as ‘me’ It’s just…

A: So, if I were to say that ‘You are not perceiving this’ would that be a valid statement?

S: See, ‘I’ as in ‘I think of myself think as an individual.’

A: Yeah, that one definitely is not. That one is out the window the minute the question is asked.

S: Yeah, it is not that ‘I’

A: Okay, then which one is it?

S: It is something…

A: But that one … I hope it’s out the window because that one is still sitting around and complaining a lot.

S: Why?

A: It still sits and complains, like ‘Why am I not getting this?’ or ‘What is Father doing?’ You know, this kind of thing. It would be very nice if we just said ‘Who is perceiving this?’ or ‘Where is the perceiver of this?’ … that one left and said ‘Okay, it is time for me to go. I will come back later.’ [Chuckles] But it doesn’t leave you alone even then. It is like ‘Zung, zung’ or something. It’s like that. It keeps saying things. It doesn’t mean that the question become less worthy to ask or that we should miss the opportunity to check. Because when the limited one seems to complain more, maybe it’s a better time to check.

So, you cannot deny that you are perceiving it and yet you cannot confirm that you are … because this ‘You’ is so apparent and yet so unfathomable.

Now I’m giving you all the clues possible. So, don’t tell me later ‘Father, you didn’t give an answer.’ [Chuckles]

It is completely apparent and yet completely unfathomable to the mind.

A: This ‘I’ … what is the distance between this and that Awareness?

Q: There is no distance. There seems to be mind-chattering and running around and there seems to be a distance in that.

A:  That’s fine. That is an object of perception and there seems to be a distance. But between you and this Awareness, is there somewhere where you are but this Awareness is not?

Q: No.

A: Or Awareness is and you are not?

Q: No. It’s just like the sky; it’s all encompassing. It is there.

A: Okay. And is there any other ‘you’?

Q: No, that is the final thing.  That would be it.

A: So, is this an inference, or…?

Q: No. When I’m silent, I can see That is All-There-Is. But when I’m interacting with the world, then the mind starts taking over and talking.

A: Okay, when the mind starts, what happens?

Q: It listens to judgments and decisions and …

A: Yes, but what happens to that Awareness?

Q: That gets ignored.

A: By?

Q: By the mind. Mind becomes the master; powerful, you know.

A: It becomes central to your attention.

Q: Yeah, it can’t be ignored.

A: Yes. But where is this attention still reporting back to? Even if the mind is very noisy (‘Blah-Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah-Blah’) … even if it is like that, who is holding the leash of this attention? The content might change. It might be silent attention, very peaceful, where there is no activity in the content of attention. Or it could be ‘Blah-Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah-Blah’ (loud, loud) but where is this attention reporting back to? Does that change?

Q: No, there is nothing. There is really nothing. Silence; if you can say something.

A: Yeah. Can that Silence be interrupted or touched?

Q: Yeah, if something catches the attention.

A: Yeah, that’s what I am asking. If attention is on something which is very loud … but it’s still reporting back to that Silent one? This is worth exploring a little bit. Independent of whatever content is coming, That to which it is coming, That which is aware of even perception, is it effected by the noise or silence? And if That One is You, then are You in reality affected?

Q: No.

A: So, if you are not in reality affected, then it is again the mind playing its own trick; setting you up for a failure, in a way, by convincing you that if that changes, only then you will be free or it will be done or something like that. But what you’re finding YourSelf to be is naturally just free. So, suppose that nothing has to change in terms of the content because the content can be whatever but the Self remains untouched.

Q: It is the Self.

A: Yes. And we start to see that ultimately there is no distinction even between Self and content. But it’s just that all of our attention, all of our focus (like we were saying earlier) has gone so much into the content of things. That’s why it is good sometimes to switch it up and see: Where is it actually going? Who is aware of all of these perceptions? Not to make a final distinction or something like that, but a provisional one … just to enable us to look, to focus; looking in a different way. That’s why that ‘nithya-anithya viveka’ [ability to discriminate between the real and the unreal] is not to actually make a distinction finally and say ‘This is maya and this is Self’ or something like that. These are provisional things which help us to then look at what is beyond these perceptions … and then just drop all of these distinctions. Because as long as we consider ourself to be just an object within our perception, it is good to try and see what else is there. But once you see what else is there, that Self is untouched by what the content might be or may not be and it is not making a distinction between its unmanifest nature or its manifest nature of the noumenal and phenomenal, you see that it is not making a distinction.

What are You, Here and Now? What are You? Where are You? Who are You? I’m happy to hear. I gave a simple exercise yesterday, which was to check: Where are You looking at this hand from? Anything, any object, where are you looking at it from? Don’t imagine, just See. Don’t paint any pictures, just check: Who is that One?

Your mind may say something valid actually, for a change. It might say ‘What does That One have to do with me?’ It doesn’t have anything to do with you. The ‘me’ that you think you are is a myth.

Just hear it, as if it’s not fancy words or even some pointer or something like that. Just hear it empty of trying to put it anywhere. The ‘me’ that you think you are is a myth. Whatever you think you are is a myth. Even if you ‘think’ you are Awareness, even that is just a thought. You cannot think of the Truth; just like you cannot use a weighing scale to measure space. It’s a different unit of measurement; the mind cannot fathom it. It’s like saying ‘What is the time between here and here?’ [Pointing to himself and to someone in Satsang sitting across the room] You see? It’s a different unit of measurement, isn’t it? In the same way, this mind, these thoughts, cannot encapsulate Your Reality. So, having the most glorious ideas about yourself or the most terrible ones is not going to help you; neither of them are.

So, first leave this one behind. Empty yourself from all these notions. Now just check, notice, observe: Who am I? [Silence]

It is not that the discovery is difficult. The discovery is the simplest. The recognition is the simplest. What can seem difficult is to let go of your ideas, to let go of any idea that you have about yourself, to let go of any conclusions that you may want to make. To not pick up the bag from this conveyor belt of identification can seem like the challenge.

So, for a while, if it feels like you have to [folds his arms across his chest so as to restrain] The conveyor belt is going. ‘That is my bag. That looks exactly like my bag. This is the Samsonite I bought from the shop. This is about me.’ [Keeps his hands folded across his chest] The Master has said ‘No’. [Chuckling] For a while it can feel this way; it can feel like effort. But if you look at it now, even rationally, you will see that the effort is what? The effort is to pick up the heavy bag, isn’t it? But I realize it can initially seem a bit like that [Grabbing at the imaginary conveyor belt] because the habit is to claim. To just let it come and go can seem like effort because the saying sounds very simple ‘Thoughts are visitors, let them come and go but don’t serve them tea’ (that’s the only instruction you need; it sounds very simple) but because you have been this server of tea, it can feel like ‘But that’s who I am. That’s my job.’

Now, if you look at what it is claiming (we’ve looked at it over the years; how many such claims we’ve looked at and demolished?) tell me a thought that truly is about you. [Silence] Tell me one thought that is truly about you; the you that you can find.

They say that ‘What you know defines you’ and in a way it is true. But what does it actually define? It defines a version of you, not the Reality of You. So, if you make the mistake of coming to Satsang imagining or thinking that you will get to know something more, then it is not that type of classroom. If you can leave yourself undefined for even a moment, if can you leave yourself undefined for just a moment, then I can work with you. Otherwise, I’m only going to become a party to your limitations; I’m going to become another aspect in how you are limiting yourself. Because there is a lot to ‘learn’ even in the words of Satsang, so you might use that to continue to define yourself. But I don’t want to play any part in that. If the words in Satsang can be used (in a way) to pluck out these definitions, these limitations, okay. But no matter how broad or grand they might seem, they do not compare to your Truth.

This realm (and all other realms) are nothing but Your playgrounds. They come and go for You; You do not come and go for them. But the moment you start to consider yourself to be this tiny, tiny object in this tiny, tiny realm that comes and goes, that dances for your joy, then this that you consider yourself to be, seems so far from Your Reality. That is bound to lead to some complications, like suffering.

The Truth is not to be found anywhere in time and space. Now you can use the term ‘go inside’ if that takes you beyond time and space. This is a very good window. You say ‘inside’ but it is not inside anything. So, go to that ‘inside’ and see what You are, in Reality.

Are you caught up there in the comings and goings of this life?

All that you give meaning to, what does it mean empty of time and space?

This power is completely Yours. This is the greatest super-power. But to the mind it feels like nothing. To step back from all limitations is greater than any siddhi that you could have; is greater than any spiritual experience that you might be chasing.

Step away from Your limited mind and taste Your Reality. If you attach yourself to this crazy donkey called the world, if you tie yourself to this, no lasting peace is going to come. That which you are attached to, how long is it going to last? For You that one blink of your eyelid is billions of centuries. (Even that is saying too much.) How long are these tiny things going to last?

This planet, this realm, arises in one of your states. This is your experience, I’m not saying anything esoteric or metaphysical. Plain and simple: You outlast all your states; no state outlasts You. But if you keep considering yourself just an object in this dream, suffering is the reward for this stupidity.

By Guruji’s Grace, I saw here that I am not an object; it was just an idea I had. I saw that all ideas in some way or the other contribute to my considering myself to be an object.

Our habit is just like this, to fill ourselves up with that which we think we know. If I say to you ‘Just remain empty’ then you fill yourself up with [this concept] ‘Remain empty.’ As long as you can see this trick, there is hope. As long you can see that with everything that you pick up, you only contribute to your pride, your self-definition, you are actually limiting yourself even in the guise of freeing yourself.

Are we so scared to meet this moment empty?

You’ve experienced a life, had the experience where you’ve seen how it is when you’re caught up in your mind, when you’re caught up in the notion of ‘me’, caught up in the limitations of ego. I was saying the other day, many times you could be in Satsang for many years and you might still think that ‘It’s for me’ and it can come sometimes as a rude shock that really it is not about you, that which you think you are. It is about You in Reality.

If you have the sense of willingness to jump into this vastness, empty of all limitations [Silence] completely defenseless and open [Silence] then this meeting is worthwhile. [Silence] But I’m not in service to you if these words also become part of your ideas about yourself.

It’s time to taste the food that is being served here.

What is suffering? It is all of these things only.

How do you suffer?

Have you all just ever suffered without any of these?

It is just a term for this stuff.

The Sages must have felt like ‘It is too much to spell it out every time. So, let’s invent a nice word which defines all of this stuff. Pride is suffering, even false humility is suffering. ‘Look at how special I am because of how humble I am’ even that is suffering. Guilt, like ‘Why did I do this, I should not have done this. That is really bad, what I did.’ Regret is similar, remorse is similar. Indecision is buying into the false notion of individual doer-ship, individual existence.

All confusion is about who you are.

All confusion …, you might not feel it is so, but if you check, if you were looking at life from your true perspective, confusion is an impossibility. So, all of this suffering is just confusion about who you are; this so-called individualization of consciousness, which actually never happened.

So, me-less, me-less. Yes? Yes? (The least enthusiastic audience ever.) [Chuckles]

How to be empty of this ‘me’?

If it was sitting here, you would have to pluck it out. Isn’t it? But it is not.

So, just to remain in this openness, non-resistive, non-defensive; conceptually empty … empty of the narrative, the subtitles.

Let them come and go, but the subtitles have not been true for this movie. You have been watching “It’s A Wonderful Life’ but the subtitles have been ‘The Godfather’. Okay? [Chuckles]

If you still think you are Michael Corleone or something, know that these are the subtitles. The ‘me’ is like that; just made-up.

So, let these subtitles come and go. Don’t attach to any of this.