BOOKS BY ANANTA Welcome to Satsang with Ananta

Quite a few have been asking me ‘Why are you always pushing us towards awareness?’ For contemplating. Maybe sometimes because just to say ‘It is the Truth’ is not enough …, because the question ‘What’s in it for me?’ can still be strong.

That it is why it is also important to point out that even in this realm, the best existence is for those who have come to this realization. There is nobody that I have found (in my outside satsang life) who can claim that they are not suffering, who can claim they are fully content, beyond misery. If you ask any of them, they’ll say ‘I want money because then I’ll be happy/ I want this relationship because I’ll be happy’.

It’s like this old Zen story of these two farmers, one of them is being very lazy and sitting around. (I’m not advising that, by the way. [Laughter] I’ve gotten into a lot of trouble; because it sounds like I’m advising laziness.)

One of them is just sitting around and the other one comes and says:

“Why are you just sitting? Why don’t you go work in your field?”

So he says “Then what will happen?”

“If you work in your field, you’ll be able to sell your crops, then you can build a bigger house.”

“So then what will happen?”

“Well, if you have a bigger house then you can get married, have children, you can have a beautiful family.”

“Then what will happen?”

“Oh, then you can expand, you can hire people to work for you, get more and more money.”

“And that will happen?”

You see where the story is going. Ultimately he says:

“Then you can just sit and be happy.”

He says “But that’s what I’m doing already.”

[Laughter]. This that is Here Now is enough for us to be happy actually. That is why, irrespective of circumstances…, like some have millions and millions of dollars and are extremely unhappy. Some have no money and are extremely unhappy. So, it’s not that it is either way. Some can have money and be happy; and some can also have no money and be happy. Some can have no relationship or terrible relationship and be happy; some can have the best relationship and be unhappy.

So, it must be clear by now, that there is something beyond material possession, which links to this end of suffering. Please hear me carefully. I’m saying that it is not contrary to material possession. In either situation, it is possible to suffer or not to suffer. So what is that distinction?

If I was to consider myself an object, then other objects would be important for me, of course. If I am just this body, then this body is dependent on so many things; where I live, [etc.] If I were just this body then all of these things become more and more important.

But am I an object? Am I an object? And if I’m not an object, then what importance do objects have for That which is not an object?

Looking at it now, I would say that if most of humanity has this belief [that ‘I am the body’] and most of humanity is not living in this state of contentment, peace (irrespective of the state of the body and the phenomenal material that the body has to experience) that itself should tell me something.

The definition of a wise one is one who can learn not just from their mistakes but from the mistakes of others. And even if this body, this present experience, is all that I have at this moment, even then, to experience this moment in its complete-ness is all that I can do. So, whether body or not-a-body, I see that I am definitely not this imagined entity which is just a figment of our imagination.

To contemplate this gives us some clarity about what we want. If it feels true that ‘I am this body and there is no such thing as a non-phenomenal existence’ …, if there is no pull toward that emptiness, then our spiritual search (especially in direct satsangs like this) will become a struggle, it will become a pain. But if it feels true that ‘I am this Awareness, I am the Self, unchanging, unmoved by phenomena’ …, if it feels more true that this is true (and yet, there are times, of course, where my conditioning can play out, that we seem to get stuck in some ideas) then satsang is the place for you to be.

But what will be the most suffering will be to be in satsang and say ‘What about my body, what about my material things?’ and to be outside in the world and to say ‘But what about the Truth? But what about the Truth?’ That’s what I feel many of us end up doing. When we’re in satsang, we’re concerned about ‘Okay, but what about my phenomenal life?’ and when we’re outside satsang, we’re concerned about the Truth. Either way, the mind has found a way for us to suffer. When we’re doing phenomenal activities, we’re not getting joy from that because we’re saying ‘Okay, but this is not True. It is feeling meaningless’.  And when we’re in satsang, there is too much concern about the outside world, outside life. This can happen. And we must be able to look at this:

What is it that I truly, truly want?

And my feeling is that all of you who have been in satsang for such a long time, to me it seems pretty clear what you want. Yet somehow, for some of you, it doesn’t seem as clear.

Then I have said: Okay, there is no real dichotomy. The play of life can continue. But at least when you’re in satsang, allow yourself to be pointed in the direction in which I am pointing. That will make it very simple.

The only prolonging of the spiritual search, the only frustration of the seeker identity can be this sense of being close to looking at where you’re being pointed to. So, all of these things (the notebook, the wanting you to contemplate, the asking you questions) all of these are just attempts to get you to look at where I’m pointing.

[Silence]

Many times the trouble can be that all of you want to be Frank Sinatra [Chuckles] ‘I want to do it My Way’. (How does the song go?) And that’s part of your fun. I know that. At least the expression will come to this in your own way. I’m just sitting here going ‘Come, come, check’ and you’re like ‘No, we’ll go that way’. [Arms flailing] [I say] ‘I’m here!’ [But you say] ‘No we’ll go that way’. [Chuckles] It’s all part of the game like this.

So, if we were to make to make it a little bit systematic (because the mind needs some systematic paths to follow) then the first question we would ask ourself is:

What is it that I truly want?

Options? ‘I have no desires left, I’m done. I have no desires, I don’t want anything’. Option 1.

Option 2? ‘I only want freedom, I only want the Truth. All that is untrue has now become allergic to me. I have an allergy to that which is untrue. I want only the Truth’.

So, it is those that get in the most trouble; those that say ‘I want a little of this and a little of that’. [Laughs] ‘I want to play this way, but I want freedom’. That’s fine. You have to have integrity and say that. And some will say ‘All of this? I was in this only for that; so that I could get some particular benefit or some better relationship’ or something like this.

So, when Bhagavan [Ramana Maharshi] said ‘Integrity’ this is what he was talking about; to be clear about what it is that you’re after. Then when it is pointed to you that ‘The Truth is this no-thing-ness’ then you can check and say ‘Okay, the resistance comes because I don’t want this no-thing-ness. I want something which is material still’.

[Silence]

In your notebooks, if you can write for tomorrow: What is it that I really want?

[Silence]

It will make my life simpler, if nothing else. [Chuckles] And I feel the contemplation itself will give you a lot of clarity.

What are the desires that are still at work?

[Silence]
What is my utopia?

What is my definition of my perfect life in the perfect world?

[Silence]

It’s like ‘Mind 101’. What is ‘Mind 101’? I say ‘Write down what you really want’ and the mind comes and says ‘But…, do I really have a choice?’ [Laughs] And when I say ‘You have no choice. You’re not the doer. You have no choice in anything at all’ the mind says ‘Okay, what should I do with my life? Should I go here, should I go there?’ Don’t fall for these tricks.

~ ~ ~

[Later in satsang]

If freedom meant that you had to give up on everything, what is it that you would be unwilling to give up?

So, the first question is about desire: What is it that I really want?

The second is about: What is that I have (attachments) that I would be unwilling to lose?

So, if freedom meant that you would have to give up everything, what is it that you would be unwilling to leave, even for freedom?

When we look at this, we find that no senses can help us with this. If one by one all the senses were to leave and the eyes were shut, no hearing was happening, no sense of touch, no smell, no taste, we would still know ‘I exist’. How is it known? When we move away from sensory experience, we find that the Knowing of existence still remains. Before that there might be this false notion that (that which is phenomenally perceived through the senses) only that is. Or that which is mentally known (intellectually known as concepts) only that exists. But when we are pointed inwards, we find that there is a knowing of existence which is not sensory, it is not mental.

So, then what is it? This is the key point in Satsang because this Knowing is the primal Knowing. This Awareness is the Self.

What is it that Knows of our existence, my existence? That ‘I exist’ is undeniable. And it is simply very easily seen that none of my senses are needed to know this. Even other inner perceptions (like memory, imagination and other sensations) are also not needed for me to be clear that I exist. I don’t need even a concept, I don’t need to have studied any scripture, I don’t need to be religious to Know that I exist. So, it is independent of sensory perception, independent of mental conceptualization.

With what power is this known?

What kind of Knowing is this?

If it is not mental, what other Knowing is there?

This sense of existence doesn’t need to be remembered and can’t be forgotten; whereas mental knowing can all be forgotten. So, what type of Knowing is this? That which knows even existence, that ‘I Am, I exist’ IS this Knowingness.

Is this Knowing changing in any way?

Can this Knowingness diminish or increase?

Can this Awareness become tired or feel energetic?

Can it be fearful, can it be joyful?

Is it aging with time?

Does it have a location in space, pure existence?

And who Knows of this Knowingness?

Who is aware of Awareness?

What you are recognizing now is what all of these scriptures are about. The sense of existence, the sense ‘I Am’ is a portal; it is that portal which Awareness itself uses to experience Itself as if it is something.

So, the play of something starts with this concept ‘I am something’. I Am-ness Itself is the primary phenomenal appearance, but the game truly begins when it believes the idea ‘I am something’.

The one I, this Awareness, is ‘I Am’ then playing as if it is something, [as if] ‘I Am something’. The Unlimited is playing as if it is limited, the attribute-less is playing as if it has attributes.

So, to play game of ‘something’ is to keep attaching attributes to this pure sense of existence. This or that, something or another, becomes the basis for conditioning, basis for the experience as if there really is a person here, as if there is an individual me here.

So, when we walk outwards through this portal of ‘I Am’ then countless, myriad ways to play as an individual are available. ‘I am an artist, I am a doctor, I am guilty, I am so proud’ …, countless number of attributes and conditions we can believe.

But when this ‘I Am’ Itself drops all these ideas about Itself, and the urge within this ‘I Am-ness’ is to recognize the ‘I’ …, where it came from. That is called turning inwards. In this way we walk through this portal in the other way. Instead of attaching attributes to this ‘I Am-ness’ we are now looking at the true nature of ‘I’ itself.

Who am I? That is the point of Bhagavan’s [Ramana Maharshi] question.

Let the play of existence play by Itself, leave the play of Am-ness/Beingness, and just look at who is this ‘I’ itself.

It brings us to the same question: Who is aware of this existence?

To see that it is I, all you have to do is ask yourself: Who is aware even of this awareness? You see that I am self-aware. That is my true nature.

This is the path of Advaita Vedanta. To walk through the portal of ‘I Am’ in this way, leading to the ‘I’.

There are many other paths, but mostly the true paths are those which have different prescriptions about what to do with the appearance of existence and all the phenomenal appearance that comes after that. But in terms of the Reality they are pointing to, they are the same (although terminology may be different).

In my experience, this is the most direct path to see what is it that is prior even to existence. What is it which is the eternal, timeless, unchanging reality?

So, the prescription about what to do with the phenomenal appearance changed from path to path. Some will say ‘Love everything, hug everything that comes’. Some will say ‘Just let everything come and go; neutrality’. Some will say ‘Avoid sense experience as if it is poison, know that it is fundamentally unreal and untrue’. So these are prescriptive about what to do with phenomenal appearances. But irrespective of this difference in paths, the true path must point to this unchanging Reality. Whether they use the term Self or non-Self, it doesn’t matter. It is undeniable that there is a Knowingness, this ‘I’.

Is it possible for us for a few moments to not be concerned about anything that is outwards from this portal ‘I Am’? Everything that comes after ‘I Am’ [is a play] of my Being, that which Knows of my existence.

What if this was all that was being pointed to in Satsang? Don’t focus too much on that which is after ‘I Am’. Look for that which is before ‘I Am’. That is exactly what the Sages of the past have done. And don’t worry about that which is changing.

Where does that bring us?

What is the unchanging ground to all that is changing?

What if we could allow any fear, resistance (all of it) to play out, but we just look at that which is the unchanging Reality?

You will not lose anything. What could we possibly lose by recognizing where the root of our existence comes from? There is no reason to fear.

What is aware of your existence?

Don’t settle for any answer.

May all of you find this. May the Satguru’s grace open your inner insight into this Truth about who you really Are. In your expression, may you learn to value this Reality more than that which changes. May all of you become the perfect instruments of my Master’s voice.

A: It’s a very beautiful contemplation, where you ask yourself what is real. But to find what is real, first we need to define ‘What do we mean by real?’ So, what is real? What do you mean by real? And it’s not a straightforward question, but it’s very important. If you are looking for the Truth, the Truth must be real. So, what is that which we are defining as real? What could be real or what could be Truth? What must be the conditions that reality must satisfy, versus unreality? That’s what you are saying, isn’t it? What must be true about reality and not true about unreality? So, can we take an example?

Q: We discussed before; something first which is always verifiable, which I can verify and second it never changes, remains as it is.

A: So, this is very good. So, when we look for the Truth, then I said that, if we said that ‘The truth is that the fan is on’ then that is not the Truth that we are talking about. The Truth that we are talking about is the unchanging Truth. Because we are moving from this realm of instability, constant change, into that which is stability. So, if we are pursuing something, we are pursuing eternal happiness. We are tired of the ephemeral or the changing. So, the Truth, when it is spoken spiritually, we are talking about that which is the unchanging. To find that which is unchanging (does not come and go) is that which we are looking for.

Now, we can say ‘God is the unchanging Truth’. We can just say a statement like that. ‘God is the unchanging Truth’ But is it still the Truth? It still remains only conceptually. So, it must be verifiable; and by verifiable it mean it only helps us if we are able to check for ourselves if this is True or not. If I say ‘On Venus, they found a water body with fish in it’. It won’t help because it is not verifiable. It is not your experience, it is just a concept that you heard.

So, what is happening in satsang is that you are hearing some concept from a credible source, which you can have some trust or faith or devotion in, but the point of that trust and faith and devotion is so that we can check for ourselves whether this is true or not. So, that is the Truth we are looking for.

Like you said ‘Unchanging and directly verifiable’. That is what we are looking for. Then, when we are looking for reality, if you apply these two filters, then what remains? This is the point. You see? So, if you apply these two filters, which is [1] that which remains unchanging and [2] that which is directly experienced, then what can we say about the Truth? We can go layer by layer. Outward realm, changing; so discarded. Body discarded, inner sensation, emotion, pain, pleasure, these sensations also changing; kept aside. Thoughts coming and going, changing; left aside. Then where do we come? After we look through all of this, what is it that remains then?

Q: It is just a feeling of existence.

A: Just a sense of existence. Very good. This one…, is it our experience that this also comes and goes?

Q: It goes in sleep.

A: So, ultimately even this, in our experience, also comes and goes. So, what now remains which we call the unchanging and verifiable Truth? [Silence] Is there something that didn’t change or doesn’t ever change? [Silence] That which is permanent?

Q: [Inaudible]

A: So, let’s look at this. (And this was the contemplation I posted in the group also.) That which knows of your existence, who is that one? Because before this you said that even the sense of existence comes and goes. Is that your living experience? Yes. So, when the sense of existence goes, what Knows it? What Knows it is gone?

Q: I do.

A: This ‘I’…, is it the changing ‘I’ or the unchanging ‘I’?

Q: Unchanging.

A: So, this I…, does it meet our criteria for reality or the Truth? You say ‘It is unchanging’. Second is whether it is verifiable. So, is it verifiable? Is it your direct experience? Or no?

Q: Yes.

So, if it is unchanging and it is direct experience, then this has met your criteria for what is True.

Does anything else meet it?

Q: No.

A: No. So, if this is seen to be true and seen to be the one constant, unchanging, directly verifiable ‘I’ …, and everything else is changing or just conceptual, then at least (according to this definition) we can say that this is the Truth. Everything else is false. At least according to our definition, isn’t it?

This is the meaning of coming to the Truth of who we are; coming to the recognition of the True Self.

So, once we see the distinction between True and untrue, reality and false (which is called Viveka; the ability to discern or distinguish between what is true and what is false) then what would it make sense to do? Should I now be interested or attached to that which is changing? Or to that which is unchanging? Whether we are able to do it or not we will come to later. But just using logic itself: Does it make sense to be attached to that which is constantly changing? Or to that which is unchanging?

Q: But attachment comes only when you are wrongly identifying ‘You’ with something which you are not.

A: So, that which you are not, is that the changing one? Or the unchanging one?

Q: That which I am not is always changing.

A: Yes. So, attachment (you say) is only being attached to that which I am not. Then attachment itself seems logical to drop. Isn’t it? So, the dropping of conditioning, the dropping of these conditions or tendencies, is the dropping of attachment.

And we have the master key for that. Because we see that once we have inquired into who we are, then we see that the only way to give rise to conditioning or tendencies is to nurture these thoughts and concepts with my belief.

Therefore to remain unattached, all I need to do is to not give them my belief. Because it is not real, it is not the Truth. That’s why I have often said that it is only the false which needs our belief.

Q: Anantaji, could you speak more about the verifiable part? How do we verify what we are seeing and what we are now is the true place?

A: This is very good. So, in all the satsangs we hear that we are the Self, we are Awareness, we are Brahman (whatever terms you want to use, it is the Truth) But it just remains in mere words and concepts unless it becomes a direct experience. So, when we say ‘Self-discovery’ or ‘The discovery of the Truth’ it cannot mean that ‘I picked up this very nice concept’. It must become something now which is my living experience.

So, what is the way to verify that this is true? We already went through one way which is the ‘Neti, neti’ which is to say ‘It is not this, it is not this, it is not this, it is not this’. Then what remains? What is it that remains that we cannot say ‘Not this’ to? (The simple explanation of neti, neti, isn’t it?) You can say ‘Not this, not this, not this, not this, not this’. There comes a point that we cannot say ‘Not this’ to what I am. So, that is the first way.

Then as Bhagavan [Ramana Maharshi] said ‘Who am I?’ The inquiry points to the truth of who I Am. So, when we look at this we see that it is not the inquiry ‘Who am I?’ which is leading me to a concept of who I am, but it is a pointer to the Truth; a verifiable, direct experience of who I Am. And it is a very, very important point to discuss. Because most of those who come to satsang (after a point of being in satsang) have picked up all the concepts of what is True. But many of them have not had a clarity of recognition. So, to pick up the concept of ‘I am Awareness’ is not the Truth; not yet. But to see that ‘I am this Unchanging One, which is just prior to any conceptualization’ (and Awareness seems like a nice way to describe it, but not completely). Just like we say about love, isn’t it? That we can read lots of books about love, we can write the best poetry about love but unless you taste it, we truly don’t know it. It is not in the description that the Truth is found. And neither can we explain it to someone. We can keep pointing to it but the Truth cannot really be explained.

So, now at best we have come to these very direct pointers: ‘Are you aware now?’ It is very difficult to escape from this pointer actually. You have to have a very skillful mind to escape from this. And when I ask you ‘What is your basis for saying ‘yes’? Did you see something phenomenal?’ And you say ‘No. This awareness is prior to any phenomenon, it is that which knows all phenomenon; that which is aware of all phenomenon’. And when we come to this point it becomes our verifiable experience of the Truth: Awareness is here.

At this point, the mind will come and play one more trick on you to say ‘Yes, yes, you saw Awareness’ and still try to create some distinction between you (I) and Awareness. That is why I have given you one more question which is ‘Who is aware of Awareness?’ Who is aware that you are aware now?

Very few now come up with a counter to this question. Usually they buy some distraction from the mind. It says ‘Yes, yes, but what about my life, and my family, and my things?’ Anything to escape this question, the mind will throw at you. But I want to say it is very important to just look at this very simply and keep that which is changing aside.

Who is aware of Awareness? If it is ‘I’…, this ‘I’…, is it separate from Awareness? Is it distinct from Awareness in any way? And you will find that it is not.

These are not just thoughts which you are picking up. It is not ‘I am aware’. You don’t need these thoughts. You see for yourself. Starting with ‘I exist’ then going to ‘I am aware of my existence’ and going to ‘I am aware that I am aware’ and this ‘I and Awareness’ are one. All of this becomes your direct, living, tasted experience (although it is not a phenomenal experience). This is Self-recognition. This is verifying the Truth for ourself.

That is why the Sages have said that ‘To hear the Truth is good, it is important. To contemplate on the Truth is a thousand times more important’. So, you hear satsang, then you contemplate questions like ‘Who am I? Am I aware now?’ And to come to this direct experience of the Self and to remain in that (without picking up false beliefs and concepts) is a thousand times more important than even the contemplation.

That is all that is being asked of you: Come to satsang, immerse yourself in the Truth, in the pointings to the Truth. Whenever you feel (very naturally) the inclination, contemplate into what is being said. Use some transcripts, look at any paragraph, look at one or two sentences even that appeal to you and contemplate. Just look at them and say ‘What are they pointing to?’ And as they lead you to the experience of the Self, just stay with that. Don’t rush to distractions. Then you will find that your naturalness is being revealed (although initially it seems like a bit of effort). Then we move from that which was conceptually heard (in the hearing stage) to that which becomes a direct experience and ultimately becomes a living Truth. So, this is what we mean by ‘verifiable’.

This is the only way in which Truth is useful. Because if it remains only conceptual then it has no use, no point.

Q: Father, I feel I have no need to know ‘Who am I?’ …, because I am because of you. You are always here in my heart. Always put your hand on my head. Always at your feet, Father. Love you.

A: This is very beautiful. Because yesterday when I was sharing I said that if you can just say that ‘I have let go of the mind, I have disposed of the mind, and handed over my life to God or Guru’ then that is it. Then even what you want or don’t want is the Master’s problem. What interests you or doesn’t interest you is the Master’s problem. Then we don’t make any statement about ‘What I want or don’t want’ because we don’t know. Next minute, it might be the Master’s will that this [topic] is what is being contemplated. A life becomes open and fresh and completely surrendered.

So, surrendering means that we don’t have any conclusions or judgments about ourself; we are completely open. In this way, the ones who have surrendered also remain open. And you might find that some interest comes; some contemplation happens on its own. There is no need to label ourself as something, one or the other. If you say that ‘I have just surrendered to you’…, ‘I am because of you’ (you say, which is very beautiful), then Your existence is My existence. Then you really can’t have any conclusions or a sense of what you want in life, or how you are in life because you don’t know.

This simple letting go is enough.

These scriptures are meant to bring us to contemplations about who we Are in reality; especially these scriptures like Ribhu Gita, Ashtavakra, Avadhut Gita. They are not speaking at the behavioral level at all. Every verse is meant to be just contemplated and bring us to pointers about the reality of who we Are. So, it is unconcerned with the outward actions, the behaviors, the functioning of life. There are others who can be prescriptive about how to behave, whether to have friends, what are the attitudes to cultivate but these are talking about just that, and their purpose is for contemplation.

Now, if we start using them as if they are behavioral guidelines (‘I must not have friends nor enemies’) then how to do this? They are usually so non-prescriptive in terms of behavior. There is no strategy you can make to neither have friends nor enemies where you can just say ‘Okay, if I meet someone I am just going to sit, and not talk or something but I’ll have a smile on my face so they don’t think I am an enemy’. [Chuckles] These are impossible strategies to have in the behavioral realm. So, not to be taken as behavioral advice and how to behave in the outward functioning. Just the advice is to allow the functioning to happen as normally as it can while using this to point to That which is the Truth of what we Are.

He [The Sage he was previously reading a quote from] says ‘I have, in reality, no friends nor enemies’. And in the functioning of the life, there will be some friends and enemies. So, then the point of the verse is just to check ‘Who is that here that really has no friends or enemies?’ Just to check like that. This primal Witnessing has no concept of friendliness or resentment or grievances. So, that is what we are looking for.

Q: Father, really I don’t know what I really want or value the most.

A: Yes, it is an important question, because I was telling someone else the other day also that you make a journey out of this simplicity if you seem to oscillate between the things that we want. Because if everyday the wall that we want to climb changes, or the well that we want to dig itself changes, we start to realize ‘I am not getting anywhere. I climb one step over here, then I come back and climb a different wall one step; and I start digging one feet here and then next day I am digging somewhere else’ and it seems to prolong it; if you have first not truly contemplated this question.

That is why Guruji [Sri Mooji] just asks someone, he says ‘If you had a genie and the genie gave you one wish, what is it that you would really want?’ And I know that it is not always that there is great clarity about this, but it is good to at least ask yourself this question. This is what Maharaj meant by ‘integrity’.

This world is for us to enjoy, to enjoy the play. And we can play with these desires and aversions and all of this. It is when this urge to play it starts to settle down, then we come to the point of dropping. No reason to feel guilty about anything at all, just contemplate: ‘If I could have one wish, if God appeared in front of me now and said ‘What is your wish, my child?’ what would you really ask for? There is nothing wrong in playing life in that way. There is no real pushing from here that you must only want what is being shared here. If you have said that ‘This is what I really want and I am willing to let the rest of the world burn if it has to’ then the words of satsang can point you directly to that.

That is a very good contemplation. Just there is no reason to pick up any sort of unworthiness or guilt or anything about it. We’ve just got to have some clarity and integrity about what we want.

Q: So Father, if some belief comes (and when it comes it looks very real) so basically when you want to confirm your position of what you really are, what is the way?

A: Yes, it is very good. If the belief seems very strong and the concept seems very strong and seems to get our belief, then we must inquire and see ‘Okay, what is it that I really am?’ Especially those which seem to get us over and over again, then we must inquire. That is what I mean by pulling them into your inquiry. But you will find that most of them will become light and just go. But the ones that are sticky will seem to be very strong, and those you can pull into your inquiry.

Q: Just to clarify: ‘Pulling into inquiry’ means seeing what I am or…? If you can elaborate a bit on that?

A: So, (for you, for example) if the identity is the work identity which is strong, you can pull that identity into inquiry by saying ‘Who is it that works?’ or ‘Who is it that wants to work or doesn’t want to work?’ Any of these questions. You will find that there is nobody. All of the movement here; that is happening. But you find that there is no individual employee, individual worker, individual doer of anything at all.

So, when the thought comes next time and says ‘Hey, but you must find some work. All this is fine for now, but you must get your life in order’ (these kind of things) then they become more and more laughable every time you look at it. Every time you looked, you have said ‘That instruction is for nobody’. It is like saying: If you had a favorite toy when you were a child and the thought came ‘Oh, you must play with that toy. When I go home I am going to play with that toy’ (these thoughts). But once you have grown out of it then that favorite toy is not so attractive. Are you with me? Once you have grown out of it then the favorite toy is not so attractive.

So, when you inquire into it and you see that there is nobody here who can decide to work or not work, there is nobody here who can decide to make money or not make money; all that so-called decider or the doer is just a figment of my imagination’ then when the thoughts come and say ‘Okay, what about your work?’ [You will wonder] ‘But who are you talking about? Who are you talking to?’ This has nothing to do with whether the work happens or not happens. It is just that there is no ground for that thought to land; there is no glove for this thought to be caught with. So, it is just allowed to just come and go.

So, in this way the inquiry helps. And these strong-seeming conditions, they seem to become lighter. And you will find that the distinguishing factors for everybody in this human play is only on the basis of their conditioning. You see? So, why is somebody else not so interested in work? Because they don’t have that conditioning. But they might be interested in something else. So, based on the texture of our conditioning, based on what we believed about ourselves, the expressions seem to be playing out and the play of this life seems to be playing out.

And everybody has a unique set of conditioning. Everybody has a unique fingerprint. And that is why everybody is unique in their expressions in this play as well.

Q: Father, just to clarify on this. You said that whatever interest, it’s conditioning. Something is like resisting on it and I’d would like to just discuss this. As an example: One is singer or dancer that is like her expression. Consciousness wanting to express in that particular way. She enjoys. So, is it conditioning or is it like some movement of Consciousness in a certain way?

A: Everything, including conditioning, is a movement of Consciousness. Conditioning is not happening without the will of Consciousness, which is Consciousness Itself playing in these conditioned ways. So, if we see that everything is a movement of Consciousness then we can forget about the concept of conditioning; because that is surrender. Nothing is mine. All of God’s doing, God is the doer, God is the experiencer and we don’t need to worry about anything. All is dropped.

Now, as part of the play, in the play It uses this concept of conditioning (means a basket of beliefs, a bundle of ideas which seems relevant to us). But if you see that everything is just Consciousness then there is the simple dropping of all doership. Then nothing to worry about; even including the dropping of identity, In fact it does not get picked up because you see that everything is God. That is surrender.

To inquire into it and say ‘Who is here which is that?’ is the inquiry. Both so-called seeming paths lead to the same Seeing that there is no individual doer, all there is is Consciousness which is playing in this way and I am That which knows or am the Witness of even this Consciousness.

Conditioning only means that which I attach to this ‘me’ which I attach to this pure Consciousness. It’s the condition that I seem to attach with my belief (‘I am this way, I am that way’). God is not this way or that way.

Q: So, if I understand correctly, it is like something is referring (I Am-ness is always referring) or has a kind of attraction to certain traits or certain movement which we identify with. And if it is not questioned, then it feels trapped in it; then it reacts. So dropping of that belief system is what it is?

A: Consciousness is always reminding Itself that in the play it seems to be working out in a world which is full of suffering and individuality and egotism; and yet it is all part of the play of Consciousness and this game of reminding goes on within Consciousness Itself. And something in the play says ‘Yes, this is unreal, this is not the truth of who I Am’. And there can be a dropping of all of these conditions.

I have also said that the good news is that Right Now they are dropped. But some things which come to lure you in back into it can seem attractive because of our prior belief in that, our prior interest in something.

So it is all inter-relative; what we have spoken. Because it is the same as openness. To remain in this openness, allow all this luring of the tempting mind to go, is to remain open. Just to let it go. And that is surrender. This letting go is surrender.

Then once you find that ‘Okay, this one seems to be picked up very often over here’ (and as part of the play itself, of course) the suggestion from the Master has been ‘Okay, look at this particular identity and inquire into it. Pull that into the inquiry’. And we see that there is nobody there with that identity. Then when the messages from the mind come for that identity, there is nowhere for them to land. It is like a deleted e-mail box. Then the mind will get a message that no such mailbox exists. So, the dropping of all of these individual attributes (seeker identity, worker identity, family identity) is the dropping of conditioning. Same thing; which leads to what? Openness.

Now, is it a bad thing to have conditioning? No. Depends on how you want to play. That is why I keep asking these days: ‘How do you want to play?’ If the urge is to play in a certain way (like if the urge is to play as a successful business man or something like that) then there is full freedom to walk down that path. But if you say ‘My urge is freedom!’ then I will say ‘Okay, drop all the conditioning and let life play out in itself’.

See, that is why to define it as a play makes it lighter. That is why I keep saying it is a play. Because even if you are identified for a long, long periods of time, nothing is happening inherently to the Truth of who you are it is just that the play seems to be continuing. Just like that character in The Matrix who is sitting there and said ‘Yes, yes, I know all of this is not real but I enjoy my steak and wine. I want to play some more’. So, nothing stops us from playing. But if we are done with the play, we say ‘We want to get out of the matrix; show me the way out’ then satsang is for that.

The beautiful part is that even within this matrix, to come to the dropping of the false identity leads to a lot of lightness. The heaviness of our untrue beliefs is dropped away. When we lose interest in the matrix, it doesn’t mean the matrix has to vanish; the matrix can still continue to appear.

That is why all the expressions are there; some are Janaka, some are Jesus, some are Ribhu. All these various expressions are of those who have dropped the conditioning. And yet, in their world, their expression continued to move and function. How do they remain? They remain open. And as we are not resisting ‘what is’ then that is the end of suffering…, except momentarily

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (13.1 -13.2)

~ ~ ~

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.”

So, we looked at this one, let’s go to the next one.

[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.”

So, this is Janaka speaking. Janaka is now speaking of the perspective of having seen the truth, the reality of who he is; the solitary Witnessing, this Awareness. And if you look at this verse, it’s crafted very beautifully because it goes through various levels of existence, as well as practices which have been prescribed for those levels of existences.

So, we look at this level of identification and it is seen. We looked at doership the last few days. ‘What do I have to do if I am already That?’ But if I’m identified with the body, then I identify as if I am the body; and with that, some practices could be useful. With that idea of who I am, I see that doing these spiritual push-ups are not real. So now they are let go of. But let go of does not mean that we are in some passive state in the body now. It only means that the idea, the concept of doership is dropped. No doer. I Am. And just like this entire world is always changing, this body is always changing also. This hand is moving, this mouth is moving but there is no doer. That much is clear.

Also the Sage looked at this aspect of ‘right action’. There are these three levels of good behavior which are prescribed by some scriptures. Right action, right thought, right speech. Now, after the Self is realized, after the Self is recognized, it is seen that all actions are happening on their own. The concept of right action had some value, seemingly, at some point. Now it is dropped.

‘The tongue tires of scripture.’ This was a time where learning and chanting of scriptures was very important.

“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.”

Let’s see; if we want to be detached from all of this, can we try and figure out how to attach to all of this? Most of you have been in satsang so you know that the body is an appearance. An appearance of what? An appearance of some sensations and the appearance of the visual perception of this body; speech is another appearance, audible appearance. The movement of the tongue is another appearance. The mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts. Another appearance, isn’t it? A set of appearances; imagination, memory and thoughts all appearing. Janaka is saying ‘I am detached from all of this and I live as I am’.

So, are we attached to all of this? If you wanted to, how would you attach to an appearance? If you decided to really try. Outside world; pick something which is nice that you want to be attached to and say ‘Okay, I will try and attach to this appearance’. It could be an object, it could be a person. How would you create this attachment? How to do it? It is an appearance.

So, first attention must have gone to it, otherwise it will not appear at all. And then? …

Q: So, first, attention goes, then thought must arise; either the thought arises that ‘This will make me happy’ or ‘This is the cause of my unhappiness’.

A: Now, take a real example; her, right in front of you. How will you attach to that?

Q: First, I must believe that she is really there. If I don’t believe she’s there, maybe I won’t get attached. But the funny thing is, first I have to believe that I am also there.

A: Yes, that is more important; that ‘I exist as an entity’. And then…?

Q: Then first I must see that ‘I am here as an entity who has likes and dislikes and can be attached’. So, I have to have this belief, this subtle belief. Then I have to see ‘Okay, this is another entity like me sitting there. And whatever actions or whatever she does, then I can like them or dislike them, or have a story about them basically.

A: So, take a story. Do it lightly, okay? I don’t want you to get obsessed or something with her. [Laughs]

Q: No, but I’m getting obsessed with firstly what I just found myself saying, that ‘I must believe myself to be a person first to begin with’. Can I go back to that?

A: Yes, so, let’s take that very slowly. The appearances are all appearing. No person is here yet. How do you presume yourself to be a person now? [Silence] Suppose the thought is coming only about the appearance? ‘Oh, she’s a very good singer. I want to be friends with her’. So, this thought is coming. In the buying of the thought itself, it didn’t have to specifically tell you that you were a person. The presumption is always sold on that; that there is an entity here who wants to be friends with her because she’s a very good singer. So, not only did this thought create the presumption that ‘I am an entity’ it also sold you the idea that that appearance is a separate entity. But these thoughts will appear. The thought came. Everything that is appearing, the usual state of humanity is that the interpreter mind is sitting over there and giving us ideas. So, the thought will appear. Just by the appearance of the thought, are you attached?

Q: No, not by the appearance. Just by, like you just said, if a feeling is coming that ‘I am a person’ or something…, just now a penny dropped that it’s just another thought and it doesn’t need to be bought into. It can be witnessed. If you patiently wait and see, it will go away.

A: Yes.

Q: But the reflex is so quick, it seems like just natural; the story and then the other one. I think they both arise together, coming at the same time.

A: Exactly. So, if you were a real spiritual warrior with lots of spiritual muscle, then a Sage might come to you and say ‘Just let go of all your thoughts’. Finished. You have disposed of the mind. No attachment is possible.

And when the sharing started here, also the pointing was ‘Let go of your thoughts’. Then what started to happen was that people would come and say ‘But I’m not able to let go’. And I would say ‘What do you mean, not able to let go?’ Then they would say ‘Oh, my attention is still very attracted to these thoughts. I cannot divest my attention from them’. So I said ‘Okay. Let’s make it even simpler. Let go of your next thought. Just the next one’. Then they said ‘Now you’re trying to trick us, because thoughts only come one by one; so it’s the same thing’.

Then I said ‘Okay, let your attention also go to the thoughts if you want, just don’t give them your belief’.

If the thought comes ‘I am a pink elephant’ attention can still go to it. But just because attention went to the thought ‘I am a pink elephant’ we don’t believe it.

So, then the pointing changed to ‘Don’t believe your next thought’. That is simple, isn’t it? Simpler. But you see that it is only through belief in this presumption (which is sold through the thought) that there is separation that actually happened, that I can attach to the outside world.

In the same way, we attach to the body. Actions are happening in the body. A thought comes and says ‘You should not have done that’ or ‘Oh, good that you did that’ or ‘Maybe you should do that’. And it is just a presumption that the movement is being controlled by the appearance of this measly energy-construct called thought. This doership is completely false, and doership plays a strong role in this sense of body-identification (‘I am the body’) because it sells you a lie that the body is moving to your instruction. Actually the movement of the body is just happening.

The mind will come and say ‘No, I’ll show you. I’ll move the body now and show you’. And many times when this thought comes, this belief, the body also doesn’t know. But sometimes it does move and the body comes and says ‘See? I told you’. [Chuckles]

It’s just a series of random happenings. As is it said in the Yoga Vasistha, the bird came and sat on the branch of the coconut tree and the coconut fell. The story that is told by the mind is that these are a series of connected events; one is the cause of the other. That’s a popular fallacy, that just because something proceeds another thing, it is the cause of that thing. Then you ask the mind ‘So, do you know how to move your hand?’ It says ‘Yes, yes, I’ll move it and show you’. So we say ‘But how do you do it? Do you know how to fire a neuron? Do you actually know how to do anything, even energetically?’ It doesn’t know. If it doesn’t know, then why do we give it so much credit, that it is doing these actions?

So, to believe ideas about doership is one [way to be attached] about the body is one; and to believe ideas about sensations happening to this individual ‘me’ (the body sensations being experienced). Look at the sensations now and tell me:

How these are your sensations?

Who is the ‘me’ that is experiencing these sensations?

Who is the personal ‘me’ who is suffering or experiencing these sensations, either of pain or of pleasure?

[Silence]

Don’t interpret. Just look. Find the sensation in your body. And find out in which space it is being experienced. See if there is a person there in this space, if there’s an entity which is suffering from this experience, whatever the experience might be. And just like you cannot find the entity that wanted to have a relationship with the appearance of another outside (seemingly outside) you cannot find the entity who is the experiencer of this pain. There is no individual entity. [Silence]

See if you can find a ‘me’ entity.

What are the attributes of this one?
What is the size and shape of this one?
What is the location of this one?

Know that because we say ‘entity’ it means that it must be located within time and space.

[Silence]

Find out whether the space in which these sensations are being experienced is limited in any way.

See how the sensations which seem to define the boundaries of your body are actually not your boundaries. These sensations are experienced within your own space of existence, of Being.

How do we attach to these sensations? Only by believing an idea about them, by believing the subtle story that ‘I am this body’. But I am not.

Just like traffic on the street, these sensations are also appearing for you. Appearing and disappearing. The space in which they appear is untouched by them.

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (13.6 -13.7)

~ ~ ~

Chapter 13: Happiness. Janaka said:

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

We have said that the maha mantra of the ego is what? ‘What’s in it for me? What’s in it for me?’ So, that’s the second line. We want to attain something in world, we want to get something. ‘What’s in it for me?’

But the first line is the most important. ‘I do not lose by sleeping’. This is not making an excuse for being lazy. [Chuckles] This is saying ‘What I Am remains even in sleep state. What is it that remains in sleep state? If you can recognize This in the waking state, that is an awakening. If you can recognize ‘What is it that remains even in sleep state?’ if you can recognize that even in the waking state, that is called waking up in the waking state. What is it that remains even when I go to sleep? Who is there to see that I woke up and the time was 7:30? Who was there to be able to distinguish the difference between sleep and waking? Where did the concept of sleep come from if it is not our direct experience? Even if the direct experience is that there is nothing there, who is experiencing this nothing.

This is very, very beautiful and powerful…, because it will wake you in the waking state. To See that That which I am continues, irrespective even if the whole world disappears, then there is nothing that this world can take from me and there is nothing that I want from this world. If you can recognize Yourself to be This Self, which is unchanging; even though the state is changing from waking to dream to dreamless sleep. What is that which is constant? Who says I experience these three states, including that state in which nothing is?

So, the question ‘Are you aware now?’ is pointing you to This. Am I aware?

[Silence]

What is the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘Aware’?

[Silence]

That which is aware, is that Awareness Itself?

[Silence]

‘I do not lose by sleeping nor attain by effort. Not thinking in terms of loss or gain I am happy.’ I see that I am unaffected by any of this. Anything which is lost does not truly apply to Me in reality. Then this whole world is just a movie, a game; and the leela becomes fun. As it is said in The Course in Miracles, this life is experienced as a happy dream. That is the usual experience.

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

They’re again looking deeply at what we were saying about the sensations of the body. And we saw that the appearances of these sensations are just appearances. When we attach it to the ‘me’ thought, then we say they are ‘my’ experiences. They are very intimate. I’m not saying that they are not intimate. But intimate as they might be, they do not touch the reality of You.

If you’re able to just bring yourself to look at the sensations of pain and pleasure, you will find that they are not being experienced personally. They’re just part of the same universal experience that Consciousness is having. Because we cannot find that individual entity which we have presumed to be the experiencer.

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (13.2)

~ ~ ~

So, what have we seen now? We’ve seen that there is no ‘me’ that can attach to an outside object. There is no ‘me’ which is the owner of this body or is the body itself. There is no such ‘me’. And by now (if you’re new to satsang especially) many of you will find that your mind is screaming, saying ‘Yes, of course, there is me. It is me. It is my body. What are you talking about?’ So, look at even this. Look at even this. Outward appearances we saw. Body experiences we saw. Now, look at the mind. Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi has said that ‘The mind is a bundle of thoughts’.

So, look at the appearance of your next thought.

Notice how you perceive it.
Do you perceive it as a sound?
Do you perceive it as a visual?
In what way do you interact with this energy construct called thought?

Your first level of engagement is using this primal tool called attention.

Attention is what brings phenomena to life.

That which attention goes to seems to exist phenomenally.

But there is another primal power, called the power of belief.

Because attention can go to all thoughts,

But not all thoughts are believed.

The power to give relevance and meaning,

The power to pretend to be something that we are not,

Is the power of belief.

And every single thought is selling you the story of your separation, of your individuality.

Now, if belief has gone to this thought, then that is the basis for an attachment, which is called conditioning. Once we believe a thought, that becomes a condition.

We have attached an idea (seemingly, in the pretense) to the pure Presence I Am.

This ‘I Am’…, now we have attached an idea to it, saying ‘I am right, I am wrong, I am truthful, I am happy, I am suffering’. All these are conditions which seem to get appended to that which is fundamentally unattached, this pure Presence of Being.

The only, only, only way to attach to an appearance is to believe an interpretation, a judgment; basically to believe a thought about it.

Because what is an attachment? It is to label something which is just an appearance ‘me’ or ‘mine’. To say that something which is just appearing and going to disappear, that it is ‘me’ or it belongs to ‘me’ …, that is the basis of attachment.

The Sage said “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.”

So, if you’re not attaching any concept or anything to the pure Presence ‘I Am’ then that is what is called unassociated being, unassociated Presence. And that is the point of satsang; to drop the ignorance that ‘I am something’, to drop the idea that ‘I am something’…, which is the mantra of the world, isn’t it? You must become something. [Silence] Nobody says ‘You must become nothing’. [Chuckles] ‘Just make sure you become nothing, okay?’

So, in this simplicity of not attaching to anything is surrender, is openness, is non-resistance. And ego is another name for resistance.

If we just allow everything to come and go, then it is a most natural existence. Without the fallacy of a separate entity, without the fallacy of an ego, I exist.

That’s all that’s needed to be said actually.

So, why is it that if this is true, then why did the Sages suggest meditation, why did they suggest reading of scriptures, why did they suggest practices? Did they want to just mess with us? [Chuckles] Did they just want to fool us? No. It is because not many can actually see this just in the simplicity of what it is. I have said ‘Don’t believe your next thought’ or ‘Let go of your thoughts’. If this is just heard without resistance; no trouble. We were talking yesterday and saying that usually there will be a ‘but’. Saying ‘Yes, yes, it seems alright, but … what about my day to day practical life and my work, what about my career?’ This ‘but…’ will come. So, it is in response to this belief (which is the opposite of surrender) which is actually saying that ‘If I just let go, then I don’t know; maybe God will make a big mess out of my life. He doesn’t know how to make money. I’m the expert at it’. [Laughs] ‘He can maybe move a few planets here and there, a few trees, but how does he know how to take out money from the ATM in India?’ [Laughs] ‘For that I need me; me. I have to do it’.

So, that is why when we buy into these fallacies that ‘I have to intervene in my life’ the Sage has given the question: Can you inquire? Find out who you are. This one which you call ‘me’ …, which one is this one?

So, if surrender doesn’t work, if letting go doesn’t work, then a practice is offered. And the practice can be very beautiful because it helps to look at the basis of this conditioning, the false conditioning and see that there is nobody there! Who am I? There is no person here. I cannot find it. It is just a big myth. Without labeling this appearance, I find no separation. All is One.

So, if inquiry doesn’t happen (we were saying yesterday also that if inquiry doesn’t happen) you say ‘I’m not able to understand this question. Of course, it’s me. What is the point of this question? Of course, it’s me! What are you asking really?’ then the Sage might say ‘Okay, for some time, find a way to give some peace to your mind. Meditate’. And a meditation technique will be taught to you. Then if a meditation technique is taught, and it takes a hold on you, then later when the question is asked ‘Who are you?’…, ‘Who am I?’ it seems to be a real question. It seems to be an important question. And we’re able to check, because the mind is not so rampant with thoughts.

But some of us, we’re not able to meditate. We say ‘I sit and all the distractions come; all the emails I’m supposed to send, all the WhatsApp messages I’m getting, I don’t know what the Prime Minister is announcing, I want to know. He has a special address at 8:00 tomorrow night’. You see? The whole mind is distracted. ‘I’m not able to meditate, and the meditation technique that you’ve given me is not working’.

So, then the Sage might say ‘Okay. Here is a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. Stand over there. Read the scripture’. Because you are there, engaged in the energetic Presence of this beautiful scripture, and in reading the scripture over and over, our mental concepts are hammered by the words of the Master, the Satguru speaking as Consciousness, as Krishna (whatever word you want to use). So, it is in the Master’s compassion in response to a sincere request (in the play of this leela) that the Master might say ‘Yes, you study this scripture for a few months’. And in the study of it you might find that now the mind is not that active, thoughts are not so rampant. You’re able to sit in some stillness. And then you might find that as you’re able to sit in some stillness, you’re able to inquire into the question ‘Who am I?’ and it might lead you to some recognition of the Self, which is attribute-less. Then to surrender these thoughts…, the thought will come and say ‘But I have to do that tomorrow’ you will see that ‘I am that attribute-less, non-phenomenal Awareness. All doing is happening as a play in front of me’. Then it becomes easier not to believe the voice of this mind.

But for some of us, even to read a scripture is not possible. So, we say ‘Come to satsang and just sit; even if you’re not getting anything, even if it’s all sounding like blah, blah, blah (this abstract stuff) just come and sit’. And in the energy of satsang, something starts to open up.

Then some will say ‘Even that is not happening. It’s boring beyond measure!’ [Chuckles] ‘I’m dying here. Give me something else’. The Sage would say ‘Okay, here is a mantra. You chant it. One hour every day; half hour in the morning, half hour in the evening, chant it’. Find some peace.

If even that is not happening, then the next is some body practices. Do some hatha yoga. Move your body this way, this way, this way; breathe in this way, this way. Then you might get some peace of mind.

Now (as one who has gone through all of this) you come to the point of this simple Seeing that: ‘Hey, I’ve always been This Awareness, the Self. What have I been doing all of this for?’ From that point, you can say these words:

“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.”

So, those who have had this clear Seeing can speak these words with authenticity. And they are True. Because in the midst of all of the play of separation, nothing really happened to Awareness.

So, it’s all ultimately about (this entire play of satsang and freedom) is about two things:

One is the authenticity of the Self-recognition. And the second is the dropping of this false voice called the mind.

Very simply, dispose of the mind and you are free.

But even this is handed over to the mind. ‘Dispose of the mind? Oh, that’s impossible. How will you…?’ Gone.

Bhagavan used to say actually that some of you are so dry, firewood, that a spark can burn you. So dry. You just hear these words: ‘I Am That …, I am Brahman Itself’. Boom. Gone. Clear. But these (in the worldly appearance) are rare. So, the rest of it is just drying the firewood so that it can be burnt; to light the fire of Self-recognition and to burn the false conditioning. If no drying is needed, then no practice is needed; no inquiry is also needed. How to tell whether drying is needed? You know. In your heart, you know. In your heart you know whether the sense of being a separate individual with a sense of individual suffering; whether the individual sense of desire and aversion still remains.

And Bhagavan has given the most beautiful sword to deal with this non-existent personal entity, which is the inquiry. Ask yourself ‘Who am I?’

And once it is authentically Seen, and suffering seems like an alien concept, then even this stick you can throw into the fire. Not needed.

Another very nice litmus test is to see if there is resistance of the inquiry. If there is resistance to the inquiry…, why would there be? If it seems like ‘No, I don’t want to do the inquiry anymore. I’m done with all of this’ then what are we speaking as? Because I can tell you from my experience at least (and not presuming that this has to be everyone’s experience) but here there is no resistance to inquiry. Inquiry is not done in the same way maybe, where you sit and you say ‘Okay, who am I?’ But that active looking is very beautiful, and continues here. Just like we were joking the other day and saying ‘Sometimes just ‘who?’ is enough’. Sometimes just ‘wh’ is enough. [Chuckles] That’s inquiry; done. We’re not saying ‘Do a half an hour’ or ‘Make it a point to do this’. But why would you not want to look? It’s so glorious what you’re finding. Why would we not want to look? If we are coming to this direct Seeing of the Self , Awareness aware of Itself and Consciousness coming to this recognition, what is there to resist? It’s more beautiful than any experience you can have phenomenally.

So, what resists is only the idea that ‘I don’t need this anymore’. Because it feels like work. And if it feels like work, we must be able to check whether some concept of doership still remains, is still alive. Because it is most effortless actually. But it wants to take everything. It wants to take everything from you. Every single concept of freedom, also it will take.

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (13.3-13.5)

~ ~ ~

Chapter 13: Happiness. Janaka said:

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

What does this mean? ‘Realizing that nothing is done, I do what comes and am happy’. Once the concept of doership itself is dropped (and we’ve been stressing this point) it doesn’t mean that you have to go and lead a passive existence in a cave. It just means that there is no doer, but in the light of Consciousness, this movie is still playing. The next scene is appearing. The movement of this body continues; just like your breathing continues, your heart continues to beat. All actions can continue. You might become a missionary, the same like Shankara, or you might become a recluse like Ashtavakra. We don’t know any of these things. We’re just watching this movie play out. But because I don’t identify with doership, I remain happy.

[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.”

‘Preach either effort or non-effort’…, so this is talking about the various schools of practice and various schools of jnana, in that if you’re saying ‘You have to do this, this, this, this’ then you’re still referring to me as a separate entity. Now all of this is gone. ‘I neither dissociate nor associate’…, I just remain as I am.

So, this is the continuation of abiding in the Self. What does that look like? As we are letting go of these thoughts, effortless Presence is here and effortless Awareness of this Presence is here; and I see that I Am This Awareness. From this point, I can say ‘I am not concerned with any of this, either effort or non-effort’.

[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.”

This reminds me actually, Katie had said something (Byron Katie) that ‘All we are basically doing is standing, sitting or lying down’. [Chuckles] And all the rest is just minor. So, he says that in the movement of this body, there is standing, walking or sitting down; what happens to Me as Awareness? It remains unchanged, unmoved. What will I get by extreme effort? Will I become more Awareness? If I’m just lying on the bed all day, will I become less Awareness? No. Awareness is just aware. None of this movement or actions of the body really makes any difference to the reality of who I am.

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (12.2)

~ ~ ~

Continuing 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. Even the Self is unperceived. The mind is free, undistracted, one-pointed. And here I am.’ So, we’ve spoken about this often where once belief is taken away from the interpretation, even attention becomes very natural. The Sages sometimes say their vision is global, universal. What does it mean? Very simply it means that when we are not afflicted with this constant ‘What’s in it for me?’ which is coming from the mind; in the past we’ve looked at every situation with the mantra ‘What’s in it for me?’ That’s the maha mantra of the ego. Everything, everything it comes to. Even coming to satsang, it is constantly saying ‘What’s in it for me?’ It’s doing an analysis. ‘Is this more worthwhile? Is that more worthwhile?’

So, when this is not believed and everything is seen as a flow within Consciousness then attention also becomes very natural; and you see it for what it truly is. Because we feel that attention is only going to the content. We don’t realize attention is bringing content to what? To the Self Itself. So, it’s seen in its whole way. That which is bringing content and that to which it is bringing content. Otherwise, if you look at attention now, it might just seem like attention only is the content; but actually it is not. It is the bringing of this content in view of the Self. So, in that way then the Self is not lost. It doesn’t feel like attention is moving away from the Self. Many of you will have this complaint. Isn’t it? That ‘I’m not able to keep my attention only on Awareness’. But that would be sleep state. When attention is not there actually it means that it is dissolved into the Source itself or has not arisen from the Source itself. That is the true dissolution of attention back into the Source as Awareness itself.

So now, as we are not believing the constant chatter from the mind, you’ll find that attention becomes so natural and it doesn’t feel like you are ever leaving the Self.

When we say ‘My attention is leaving the Self’ the trouble is that ‘I seem to be leaving myself, I seem to be going to the world, I seem to be getting distracted’. So, it’s so beautiful that with this simple dropping [Laughs] (it seems simple now) the simple dropping away of the mind and belief in the mind, then attention also becomes very natural.

This is the Sahaj way, the natural way. There are many other ways that are much more complicated. Most spiritual sadhanas actually are meant to give us some control over our attention: ‘Keep your attention on the breath, keep it on a mantra, keep it on the movements of the body’ trying to control attention. But at least here I found it very, very difficult to do any of those practices of trying to control attention and keep it at particular places for long periods of time. Even if there was success in that, very quickly when other outward distractions came it was lost.

So here, as we are chopping off the conditioning, you will find that attention seems completely free to go where it is, but in the freedom to go where it is, you find that it is naturally resting in the Self. So although the content is perceived, you don’t feel like attention is really moving out of you.

‘Even the Self is unperceived’ …, means what? The Self is not a phenomenal perception. That’s why we make this distinction between phenomenal perceiving and awareness. You are aware of phenomenal perception. You are aware of sight, you are aware of smell, you are aware of taste, hearing. And ultimately this phenomenal perceiving is also made up of Awareness (because everything is). But qualitatively there is a distinction. That which is aware of sight is not sight. That which is aware of taste is not taste.

So, when we see that this awareness remains untouched, then you find that this awareness actually…, are you seeing it like sight? Or are you smelling it like smell? Hearing it like sound? None of these. That’s why when we ask you the question ‘Are you Aware now?’ That looking is not this looking. Is not looking of sight, of phenomenal perceiving. That Knowing is not a mental knowing.

So when the Sage says ‘Even the Self is unperceived’ it’s not that the Self is unknown. The Self is the Knowingness Itself, the purest Knowingness.

Everybody got this now? ‘Unperceived’…, like ‘Are you aware now?’ Are you perceiving this Awareness? That’s what you have to look at. Or it’s a simpler Knowing which is prior to any sensory perception; even any inner perception in the form of imagination or memory.

So that’s why it’s so direct, this question: ‘Are you Aware now?’ How do you answer it? It’s not on the basis of some phenomenal perception. And this is unique in that way because everything else you answer. When you confirm the presence or absence of anything else you rely on phenomenal perception.

Clear? It’s very, very important (this one) because otherwise the journey is frustrating because we feel like’ I’m not finding the Self’. I’m not finding the Self because we are expecting to see it as if it will be an object of experience.

Q: And being aware of being aware is enough.

A: Yes, exactly. Being aware of being Aware…, or of anything which is phenomenal. You are right.

So, in this subtle point a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of frustration, a lot of trouble can be taken away. Because you will not say ‘No’ when I ask you ‘Are you Aware now?’ That means that the Truth is already Known. It is because our expectation of the Truth is different that the frustration comes. We expect to find the Self as if it will be an entity, as if it will be an object. But that cannot be, because all phenomena has a start and an end; has limitations. And the Truth of what You Are has no limitations. The infinite one, it has no attributes. Where to find that?

Roaming about in the phenomenal world will not help you find the infinite one without attributes. Because all phenomena has attributes. Where do I find That which is prior to attributes, which cannot be born or die, it has no size or shape? Can it be perceived through sight? It has to be the most natural insight. But not even the insight in the form of intuition; not even the insight in the form of inner memory, imagination. It is the purest insight. The purest looking at the Self.

It is the simple question ‘Are you Aware now?’

And even better ‘Who is aware of Awareness?’

Why even better? Because many times when the so-called experience of the Self happens then we label it as ‘Oh, that is Awareness. Of course, That is untouched, That is not concerned’. And in the saying of ‘That, that, that is Awareness’ the mind suddenly creates a distinction between ‘I’ and ‘Awareness’. So when I ask you ‘Who is aware of Awareness?’ You say ‘Awareness itself.’ But is it not I?

And a lot of resistance can come because in spirituality you’ve learned that you have to get rid of the ‘I’, you have to get rid of the ‘I’. How can Awareness be ‘I’?

Then who is it? Is it your neighbor? [Laughs]

It is I, but not the ‘I’ we have misunderstood it to be. It is the real I.  That is why it is Self- realization. It is not Awareness-realization. It is; but it is referred to as Self-realization. If it was the discovery of a new continent (supposedly like Columbus) it is not a voyage in the way that Columbus discovered something outside of him, which was a new continent. It is the recognition of what always has been.

Q: So, being aware of being Aware is not a happening.

A: Exactly.

Q: It is going on happening.

A: Yes, it’s prior to all happening. It just Is. Effortless. Yes.

‘Even the Self is unperceived’. That’s why we must hear these words in satsang. Otherwise what will happen is that if we read a line like this that ‘Even the Self is unperceived’ you may say that ‘Oh, that means that I’ll never find the Self. It will never be clear to me. I will never recognize it’. If you don’t know what is being talked about then it can be very confusing. It can feel like okay, this is why many sages said ‘Okay, drop the search because it is futile’. [Laughs]

It is not futile. That is not the reason. It only means that you will not perceive it as it is some phenomenal experience.

So, if any of you still have this idea that you are not recognizing the Self, you are not finding your Self, that it is not your experience; it is not true. It is your constant experience. You are never unaware. Even when it feels like attention is distracted to a hundred different things, who is aware of that? You are never unaware. This is your constant, unchanging truth. You are That.

This pointing that ‘You Are That’ is for whom then? Isn’t it important to ask? If I’m always aware, never unaware, unchanging, what is even satsang for?

In the play, the pointing that ‘I Am That’ or ‘You Are That’ is for Consciousness Itself; Consciousness recognizing its own Source: ‘What am I made up of? Where do I come from? Where will I go?’ This is good news? [Laughs]

So, when it is seen that this is the reality of I, which is the ultimate witness, the ultimate Witnessing, then automatically the stories from this mind start to feel alien. (That’s why so many alien examples in satsang.) [Chuckles] They start to feel like ‘The mind is talking about who? Some alien. Non-existent, but just some imaginary entity’. That’s why it’s a virtuous circle. The recognition of the Self makes the stories of the mind seem alien, of honey. And the dropping of the mind, the letting go of the next thought make the recognition of the Self more clear, more effortless.

So, when the Sage says ‘When the mind is free, undistracted, one-pointed’ he is speaking of the attention just being left free. And as it is left free then it becomes so global, so universal that it doesn’t feel distracted at all. For many the practice of one-pointedness initially is helpful, so I’m not putting it down in any way. If you feel attracted to a practice like that, then it’s fine, it’s helpful. But it’s not a prerequisite.

The most fun, the most effortless, is to drop the concept of doership, which means having no concept of what to do and having no concept of what the outcome must be; even the concept that ‘I must get joy from this’. That to operate from that place of neutrality is very, very beautiful. So, that is what is being pointed at here.

Now, if we speak phenomenally, then I would say that follow your intuition as to what to do. So, if a mild sense of doership still remains and the question comes ‘So what should I do?’ allow this intuitive voice, intuitive Presence to guide you. And it will…, if you are not impatient. Impatience makes us go to mind and ideas of what the mind is selling. If we are just patient and we allow intuition to reveal the next steps to us, it will reveal; either as a voice which will be heard or a series of events which will make it very clear what needs to happen or just a feeling or an urge which seems to come from a deeper place.

So many fall into this trick of not being able to distinguish between intuition and mind. And I’ve said that mind is always operating from a place of need, from a place wanting to grasp onto something, from a place of ‘What’s in it for me?’

The mind is always in a rush. Intuition is very, very peaceful (in the sense that it’s not needy, grasping. It’s not concerned about outcomes. It’s not rushing you). The Presence of love and openness and space is experienced. You don’t experience that kind of thing [gestures with clenched fists] with the mind. With intuition it is just more open, more peaceful.

So, whatever mild doership still remains, then we can go to our intuition for guidance on what to do. And if there’s no audible voice or there are no visible signs of it, just a surrender to the intuition will make things unfold in an intuitive way anyway.

Now, some will feel like even this intuition they are not able to really grasp, and all that is telling them what to do is just the mind. For those then it’s prescribed that you follow your peace, you follow your joy. What is it that gives you more space, more joy in the world? Follow that. That is completely fine.

So, speaking phenomenally, it is best is to go with our intuition because intuition can be actually counter-intuitive; in the sense that intuition can say ‘Go jump in that fire’ which is not joyful at all. So, it can be counter to following our peace, our joy. It can seem like that. But is leading to a greater peace and joy. But if intuition is not yet clear then we can follow peace, we can follow our joy. As it starts to reveal itself more and more, we can follow this intuition which is not fearful, which is spacious, which is not in a rush, which is accompanied by love.

There will come a time when you will say that even to use intuition for this sort of personal guidance feels like using a very subtle instrument to chop a tree or something. [Laughs] You’ll feel like this intuitive Presence has just made room (in the sharing of Truth, in the availability of its Presence) for the rest of the world to experience its Presence. I don’t find myself saying, ‘Okay, dear Satguru, tell me what’s the next step I must take’ or something like this. I just let go of that sense of doership. Then whatever is unfolding is His doing anyway. So, we will come to that. And then, as satsang starts, we invoke the Presence of the Satguru when we say ‘Sri Moojiji ki jai’. That means we are handing over the words which are going to come through this mouth to the Master’s Presence. And that seems to be the most beautiful intuition…, using the body-mind rather than something trying to use intuition. So, the intuitive Presence which is the Satguru itself is now using this instrument to convey, to share the pointings of the direct Truth.

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (12.6)

~ ~ ~

Chapter 12: Abiding in the Self. Janaka said:

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

Doing and non-doing are both conceptual and a product of ignorance. What ignorance? – that I exist as a separate entity who is the doer of my actions, who is the speaker of my words, who is the thinker of my thoughts. Once it is seen that this belief in this separate entity itself is ignorance, then you see that doing and non-doing are both just fallacies. Everything is just happening as a movement within Consciousness, within the play of Consciousness.

So, the concept of doership itself is a big fallacy. And once you start to see, in these experiments, when you let go (like she was saying very beautifully) actions are still happening; I still go to the ATM. It does not necessarily become a passive existence but there is no concern about whether activity is there or not there. Both are seen and the Seeing remains untouched.

So, ‘Doing and not doing both arise from ignorance’ means that concept of doership itself is dropped. And this clarifies a lot; because many times when I say you are not the doer it can be taken to mean that ‘I must do nothing, that I must just become passive, or just sit around’. And if that is happening, that is happening; or if movement is happening, then movement is happening. I am saying that what you consider yourself to be is not doing anything because it doesn’t exist. That which does exist, That which is existence itself, Consciousness, is the one doer.

‘I know this and I am here’. ‘I know this’ means ‘I have dropped this false ignorance of doership and therefore I am not believing myself to be that which is false, the ego. I am abiding in the Self’.

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (12.3)

~ ~ ~

Continuing 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, he is stating something which is our experience. The mind itself fights this sometimes. We see that once we have got caught up in this maze of the mind, caught up in the stories of the mind, in the quicksand of the mind, then it is perceived that some sort of effort seems to be needed to step back. It feels like an effort. Just like if I had carried a load of rubbish on my head it would feel like I had to make some effort to throw it away. But the rubbish on the head will keep saying ‘No, no, no. See now, that is effort, no….’ without telling you the truth that it is the carrying of this rubbish which is really effort.

So, when the Sage is saying ‘Effort is required to concentrate the distracted mind superimposed with illusion. Knowing this, I remain here.’ Means what? I abide in the Self; which means I don’t fall for that trick at all, or I am not believing my next thought itself. I remain here, empty. Because once I have picked it up then I have to inquire, I have to do something, I have to become ‘mindful’. So, this is the ultimate short-cut; ultimate short-cut. Go Right Now. Freedom. If you don’t buy any story from the mind, the pretend bondage cannot come, and knowing that if I pick up a story, then it will take a sword to cut off the story. I don’t get involved in the story at all, which is the same as saying ‘Don’t believe your next thought’ because once you buy into the story you will have to throw it away, seemingly.

The ultimate short-cut is what?  Don’t pick up the perspective of conditioning at all and see that you are free right now. Effortless short-cut.

At this point, faith might be a little bit helpful. Some Shraddha, some faith will be a little bit helpful because it will help you to check that this is true. Because this is what the mind will resist with full might. It will say ‘But no…, are you really free? Maybe that is his experience but mine….?’ Really, it will come like that. The first story itself gets bought. I am saying faith might be a little helpful. So, if you think ‘If he is saying there must be something to it, can I just check this?’ Not blind faith. ‘Can I just check this for myself? Do I have that much faith that allows me to at least be open to this possibility that I could be completely free of conditioning right now, in this moment?

Reading and Commenting on the Ashtavakra Gita (12.7-12.8)

~ ~ ~

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.”

So, this is an assault on just thinking about spirituality, thinking about Advaita, or settling for thought-based conclusions of the truth, interpretations of favorite ideas of spirituality. That is why I say that to drop the idea ‘I am a person’ and replace it with the idea ‘I am Awareness’ is not the Truth; is not the end of suffering also. It must become our direct experience, our living experience.

‘Thinking of the unthinkable One’ …, a very important term: ‘unthinkable One’. Because what can we think about nothing? Can we visualize nothing? No, we will visualize a still, dark space or white light; but nothing…, transparent beyond transparent. What will we do? We cannot.

So, thinking of the unthinkable One then becomes the same game of interpreting that which is No-thing. And we fill our heads up with it; what the Sage says ‘Unavoidably conjures thought’. See? So again, to fall into that same trap of picking up thoughts, thoughts, thoughts.

‘Thinking of the unthinkable One unavoidably conjures thought. I choose no-thought and remain here.’ The Truth does not need to be thought about; only the false needs the crutches of thought. The Truth needs no belief; only the false needs belief to keep the pretense alive. So, basically he is saying the same thing: Right Now you are free. He says ‘I choose no-thought and remain here’. You are free. If you choose not to go with your next thought, you are just here. Even otherwise, you are here; but it doesn’t feel like that in our living experience.

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

So, those who are surrendered. ‘By nature’ means automatically surrendered. To come in the Presence of a Master; the Master says one or two words, one or two phrases to them…, dropped.  Devotion has this kind of power. So, the power to surrender. If it is natural to them; blessed.

But first he says ‘Blessed is he who attains this by effort’. Because many times it does not feel like that. It feels like ‘I have to inquire. I have to let go of my thoughts. I have to ask ‘Am I aware now?’ and ‘Can I stop being now? and Who am I?’

To see the reality of what You Are, whether it happens in the effortful way (through inquiry) or it happens as a natural surrender, both are beautiful blessings.  [Silence] Beautiful chapter.

Continuation of the reading and commenting on Ashtavakra Gita 12.5)

~ ~ ~

Now, that’s why scriptures like Ashtavakra Gita were not shared with ‘so-called beginners’ earlier, because very quickly they would hear all these things. I mean, he’s put down meditation quite a few times already [Chuckles] in the scripture. But it depends on where you are. So, many times we can get a very early skepticism, even about the things that might actually be helpful at that stage. So, if it is not our authentic, true discovery that ‘I am the Self’ then we must not prematurely give up the inquiry, prematurely give up whatever the Sages are pointing to.

But if it is clear ‘I am the Self’ and there is no ‘but…’ then there is no ‘but…’

As we were saying yesterday, all of it is like a flow chart. You are the Self. If there’s a ‘but…’ there is a suggestion. If there is a ‘but…’ to the suggestion, there is another suggestion. If there’s a ‘but…’ to that suggestion, there’s another suggestion. [Chuckles] It’s just like that.

So, like the Sage said ‘All that is needed is dispose of the mind and See that You are the Self’. No ‘but…’ Usually there is a ‘but…’ like ‘But how do I dispose of the mind?’ Then we break it down and say: Okay, mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts. A thought is nothing but an energy construct. We use two powers to engage with this energy construct. One is the power of attention; second is the power of belief. I know that attention is more difficult to try to manage. Belief is simpler. So let me make it simple for you: Don’t believe your next thought. That is the suggestion. If no ‘but…’ then nothing else to be said. It is surrender. It is everything; everything has happened in ‘Don’t believe your next thought’.

But, there is usually a ‘but…’ You say ‘But when it comes to thoughts about my family or about my relationship, it gets to me. I seem to give it brief automatically’. So then, what have the Sages said? If there are these sticky ones then you pull them into your inquiry; pull that identity of family or relationship or whatever into your inquiry. Those thoughts will give you the most stickiness or trouble, pull them into your inquiry. ‘Who is it that is struggling?’

If there is no ‘but’ nothing further to be said. Usually there is a ‘but’ like ‘I’m not able to focus on the inquiry. I’m not able to inquire because I get too caught up in all of this’. Now, at this point, it can segregate into various sorts of prescriptions that Sages have given. Some will say ‘Meditate, become mindful’. Some will say ‘Chant a Japa, chant a Mantra’. Some will say ‘Read a spiritual text’. Some will say ‘Come to satsang and just hear satsang’.

That’s what all of this is for. So, depending on where we seem to get stuck, the suggestions are prescribed.

Now, the trick in that is the mind sometimes offers up a solution, which is to say ‘What is the ultimate? The ultimate is that I am the Self, and I am not the doer; nothing to be done, that’s it’. It is true, but it cannot just be this mental conclusion. ‘I’m tired of all of this (satsang, inquiry, same thing who am I? Who am I?’) [Laughs] It gets very tiring, and I can understand that.

Then if you hear someone like a teacher who comes and says ‘But what are you doing? There’s no point of the inquiry? You are The Self. So what if you’re suffering? It’s okay’ …, it can sound compelling. I can sell it to you actually. If I want to I can sell this to you completely. It’s very compelling because you’re already tired; the seeker is getting tired. So when this comes like this that ‘Inquiry is a waste. There is no Awareness. All there is this experience right now, that’s all there is’ then I can actually sell this. [Chuckles]

I know this is very compelling because someone who is tired of seemingly walking on a road, if somebody comes and says ‘But this road goes nowhere. There is no Self, there is no Awareness, inquiry is a waste of time’ or something, it can feel like ‘Oh, this is good! Oh, wow. It’s a relief, I can rest’.

And sometimes in that relief it can also happen that we just let go so beautifully and completely that all sense of doership is dropped. So, it might even lead to an authentic awakening, an authentic feeling of liberation. I’m not saying it’s not possible. It is completely possible. But usually it just gets stuck as a mental construct, that ‘I am the Self, there is nothing to be done, there is no Awareness and inquiry is a waste of time’. And then life seems to play out again full of the same old misery, suffering because it has just remained as a mental conclusion (usually).

Sometimes it can happen that, in that sense of relief,  that ‘All of this self-realization was a sham. Bhagavan [Ramana Maharshi] was lying when he said you must do the inquiry’…, all of this, you see? It can come as a big relief, I know. [Laughs] And in that relief also sometimes we can drop all doership. But that is not the usual programming of the play.

The usual programming of the play is that it just feels like the dropping of the search is too premature and we feel like we go back into the worldly ideas of ourself, the worldly conclusions of personhood; and that momentary relief seems to go away and we seem to get back into this whole world of suffering. And when we get back into the world of suffering, the need to be right is still so strong that we don’t admit that ‘Maybe I was premature in my conclusions’. And we give ourselves much more suffering because we say ‘Yes, yes, okay, suffering is coming but there is no sufferer. Oh, [pretends to wipe tears] there is no sufferer’. [Laughs] That kind of just mental Advaita denial; crying, crying. [Pretends to wipe tears] ‘Oh, my life is such a mess, but nobody is suffering’. [Laughs] That is what usually it leads to. That is why all the Sages have said ‘Don’t be so quick to drop, to remove, to throw away the thorn which is helping you to remove the other thorns’.

Q: The sufferer becomes tired. [Laughs].

A: Yes, but now what happens is we have the need to be right. So, it seems like suffering is coming ‘I’m suffering so much’ but something is trying to Advaita it away, saying ‘No, no. The sufferer is not me. But something is suffering.