[Segments posted as separate transcripts are all combined here: From Day 1]
~ ~ ~
Knowledge with a Capital ‘K’
~ ~ ~
[1.1] Janaka said: Master, how is Knowledge to be achieved, detachment acquired, liberation attained?
~ ~ ~
We were talking about the instruction on Self-Realization, which is the first chapter of the Ashtavakra Gita, where Janaka said ‘Master, how is Knowledge to be achieved, detachment acquired and liberation attained?’
What is this Knowledge with a capital ‘K’? It must be pointing to that which is true, the truth.
What is it we can truly say is the truth?
What can we define as the truth?
Because this is the only kind of Knowledge which will point directly. So, that which is unchanging, timeless, and verifiable. What is the point of that which cannot be found directly? If it is not direct, verifiable, then it is just like saying that the Earth is so much distance away from the sun. We cannot directly verify it; at least right now without the instruments.
So, this ability to find this true Knowledge for ourself must be important. So, we’re moving away from conceptual knowledge with a small ‘k’ and moving toward direct recognition of the truth, coming to the Knowledge of who we are in the most direct way.
So, this is Knowledge. This is Knowledge which I’m presuming that Janaka wanted.
.
~ ~ ~
Attachment and Detachment
~ ~ ~
[1.1] Janaka said: Master, how is Knowledge to be achieved,
detachment acquired, liberation attained?
~ ~ ~
A: ‘Detachment acquired’. Who can speak a little bit about detachment?
Q: It feels like detachment is allowing everything to come and go.
A: Yes. So, what would attachment be?
Q: Attachment is when you believe what the mind is offering as an alternative to what already Is.
Q: Yes. Very simply I describe also sometimes in satsang that attachment is to believe that something that is appearing in this realm is ‘me’ or ‘mine’…, to say that ‘this is me’ or ‘this is mine’ (which, even to say ‘mine’ implies that there is a ‘me’ first to be able to call it ‘mine’).
This must be attachment, to say that ‘This belongs to me’…, the sense of ownership; my life, my family, my relationships, my money, my spirituality, my freedom.
So, attachments can be possible only when it seems something can be mine.
.
~ ~ ~
What Must This Liberation Be Then?
~ ~ ~
[1.1] Janaka said: Master, how is Knowledge to be achieved,
detachment acquired, liberation attained?
~ ~ ~
A: So, he [Janaka] said: ‘How is Knowledge to be achieved, detachment acquired, liberation attained?’
So, what must this liberation be then? We’ve said Knowledge which is the direct Self-recognition, and detachment which is the letting go of all our attachments. And we’ve spoken about this in satsang often, isn’t it?
To recognize the truth AND to drop the conditioning; both imply liberation. Because recognition, a momentary recognition, sometimes is not enough to drop all conditioning.
And at least I have not come across a case where conditioning can be dropped without the recognition of what is true. Some conditioning can be dropped, but not all; or a majority of it cannot be dropped unless there is a valid recognition.
So, it seems like the first two are the pre-requisites for the third. ‘How is Knowledge to be achieved?’ which means the direct Self-recognition to be found; and ‘Detachment acquired’ which is the dropping of the conditioning.
.
~ ~ ~
Awareness is the True Reality of What I Am
~ ~ ~
[1.3] Ashtavakra says: You are not earth, water, fire or air. Nor are you empty space.
Liberation is to know yourself as Awareness alone—the Witness of these.
~ ~ ~
A: [Ashtavakra said]: ‘You are not earth, water, fire or air. Nor are you empty space. Liberation is to know yourself as Awareness alone— the Witness of these.’
So, he jumps straight in. No? He’s saying ‘You are not earth, water, fire or air’. In Indian education, in our Indian tradition, the Earth is made up of these elements; earth, water, fire and air and space. The sage is saying ‘You are neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air’.
Then, the mind has this tendency (many times in satsang also) that we start imagining some empty dark space or black space, or some room full of white light is what we are.
So, nor are you that empty space. It’s important that he mentioned that line very clearly. So, I feel we are very clear that we cannot be the elements of this realm, and neither are we the empty space.
‘Liberation is to know yourself as Awareness alone – the Witness of these.’
Very good. So, even this space (many times we visualize a space when we’re in the inquiry) but who is That which is aware of even this space?
This Awareness is the true reality of what I am.
So, when we ask the question ‘Are you aware now?’ it brings us here: to See that this Awareness which is here, which is just the Witness of all of these elements but is not made up on any of these elements.
It’s important to read also that ‘Liberation is to Know Your SELF as liberation alone’. This is what I’ve been pointing to the last few weeks, that sometimes we come to the discovery of Awareness as if it is something external to us. ‘Oh, nothing is happening to Awareness, but what about me?’ [Pause] ‘I have seen this Awareness, but what about my life? Will it get better?’
So, still sometimes in our inquiry, in our satsang, it can be that we come to a recognition of this Awareness, but the mind still keeps alive the sense of a separate identity which is coming is coming to the discovery of Awareness. You see?
So, it’s important to Know: ‘Liberation is to Know Your SELF as Awareness alone’.
That’s why I’ve offered you this question: Who is aware even of Awareness?
And this I feel like you cannot truly escape, the discovery that:
I am this Awareness, even prior to ‘I Am’.
I Am This Awareness.
So, ‘…to Know Your SELF as Awareness alone’. He’s not saying ‘Come to the discovery of Awareness’. Many times in Advaita satsang, this is what’s happening. We come to it as if it is another experience.
You must be able to find that it is ‘I’ which is this Awareness; the ‘I’ before the ‘I Am’, The ‘I-I’
This ‘I’ is the ‘I’ that remains, as Bhagavan [Ramana Maharshi] said.
.
~ ~ ~
Abide in Awareness with no Illusion of Personhood
~ ~ ~
[1.4] Ashtavakra says: Abide in Awareness with no illusion of person.
You will be instantly free and at peace.
~ ~ ~
A: Then he says: ‘Abide in Awareness with no illusion of person. You will be instantly free and at peace’.
How does one abide in Awareness?
The sage says ‘Abide in Awareness with no illusion of person. You will be instantly free and at peace’.
So, for me, I would read the second one very importantly, which is ‘with no illusion of person’. I feel that abiding in Awareness is our natural state anyway. The only delusion or the only play is this play of being a person.
So, how do we play this play? We play this play only by believing ourself to be an object within this realm; believing ourself to be a separate entity.
‘Person’ means what? He’s not saying ‘with no illusion of body’. He says ‘with no illusion of person’. Because the body illusion or reality (whatever you like to call it) can still appear. So, what is this person? This is a pure imagination, it is a pure construct made up of our beliefs.
But to ‘Abide in Awareness with no illusion of person, you will be instantly free and at peace’.
We can actually just stop here. [Chuckles] Because he says ‘You will be instantly free and at peace’ if you were just to not fall for being a person. And already, being in satsang, we know that to abide in Awareness is just happening on its own. Can you be un-aware? You cannot be. So, abiding is the natural part.
Many of us make this mistake of trying to become the Awareness, trying hard to become the Awareness. ‘Can I get myself to be the Awareness?’ But in that, we already picked up the illusion of personhood.
So, the dropping of the illusion of the person is already the abiding in Awareness because you are aware now. In fact, it would be impossible for you not to be aware. So, if I was to say ‘Abide in the un-awareness’ that would be impossible. To abide in Awareness is the most natural state.
But we have the power, as we know, we have the power to believe ourself to be a person. This is the illusion of personhood.
So, he says to ‘Abide in Awareness with no illusion of person. You will be instantly free and at peace’.
So, what about conditioning then? We’ve spoken about this. Isn’t it? What about conditioning then? But even to pick up conditioning requires this: the illusion of person. Without picking that up right now, can you pick up any conditioning?
Very often we’ve said in satsang that it’s all about the ‘Right Now’. Even right now, if you don’t tug at a leaf of the conditioning, a thought about yourself as a person, then the whole tree has no power over you. You see?
So, in this moment, right now, you are free. This is what we say in satsang every day. Right now, you are free. You start free. Freedom is not a destination that you’re going to.
I read something very beautiful from Adya[shanti] today, where he said ‘What are you going to do right now to pretend to be un-enlightened?’ (I’m paraphrasing.) What are you going to do right now to pretend to be un-enlightened? That is the real question. What are you going to pick up from the conveyor belt of the mind?
.
~ ~ ~
What You Really Are…is Invisible
~ ~ ~
[1.5]: Ashtavakra says: ‘You have no caste or duties. You are invisible, unattached, formless. You are the Witness of all things. Be happy’.
~ ~ ~
A: ‘You have no caste or duties. You are invisible, unattached, formless. You are the Witness of all things’.
We’ve discussed the person, so unless the person was a reality, it is not possible to have a caste and then the duties of that caste.
Then he goes on to describe what you really are; and he starts with ‘You are invisible’.
[Smiles] Is that a big help? [Chuckles] For those of you who are new to satsang [might be thinking] ‘If I’m invisible then how do I find myself? Because I am looking for my Self and you are saying I’m invisible’. So this must be a contradiction, isn’t it?
So, who can tell us? (Also in the Hangout (online) you can tell us something). Why is invisibility not a contradiction to finding your Self?
I’m just reading this [Comment from hangout typed]: ‘Because the Self is invisible’.
Yes. But if it is invisible, then is it possible to find something which is invisible? We’re looking for the Self, and the pointer is that we are invisible.
And then Amba said ‘Because you are your Self’. Yes, but what does this mean? If I’m Janaka right now.., ‘But invisible, then how do I realize this Self? How do I realize my Self?’
Q: I feel like it’s such a beautiful pointer because it completely knocks the mind right out of the park, right away. Like you just have to leave it.
A: Yes. Very good. [Chuckles] It’s a very beautiful pointer because I say ‘Please imagine something which is invisible’. Can you do it?
Q: Space.
A: Can you imagine space? Only if you put a room around it. [Laughs] You see, it is not part of the functioning of the mind. Even if you were to imagine space, you would imagine a dark space. You cannot imagine a colorless space; you cannot imagine something which has no attributes. Can you do it? Actually take a minute and do it. [Chuckles] You can’t. Something which has no attribute whatsoever; can we think about it? Can we report something on it?
So, this ‘invisible’ actually doesn’t mean…, (I don’t know what the original Sanskrit was but) invisible doesn’t just mean invisible in that sense of, you know, the invisible man. But more in the sense of no attribute at all. ‘Invisible’ could still mean that it has some weight, it has some mask. Here we are talking about that which has no attributes.
Q: As soon as you said ‘invisible’ what came to mind is that it’s not anything that you are perceiving, on any level.
A: Yes, exactly.
Q: Because that’s really, for me, I would say that as much as believing thoughts is also the just basically identifying with vibration or sensation or something like that which gives way to the personhood, the sense of personhood.
A: Yes, but the good thing is…, Ziya posted a quote today which said that: ‘Even with sensations, if they’re just sensations, it is impossible to identify with them’. We must put the label; we must say that this is happening to ‘me’. There must be at least some subtle interpretation. Because the Witness of a sensation is not identified with a sensation. The sensations will still appear. But the identification is possible only…, identification itself means that ‘I have a concept about this sensation’. It is impossible to be concept-less about the sensation and yet be identified. You can then only be the Witness actually.