All of This Is a Dream Made up of Consciousness - 27th September 2017

So actually the invitation is just like this. You know already, you followed the invitation and you are here. You get the train of the mind will keep learning something. You actually where it is being pointed is your original state already right now. Now what is happening is there when your motion comes up, the past devotion comes out, the future something comes about. Something I have been saying so often last few days: don't make something out of anything. So the mind is always trying to make something out of something. It's giving you a notion; it wants you to make something out of it. Can you remain empty of that?

See, it is something I try to be you. This is the seventh quite effortless, but in this flavor of identity is where—so there is a flavor of heritability ever meets quality.

So this quality is perceivable exactly. The sense of being is also perceived. The sense of being is flavor of identity. The sense of being is before this. So into being there are all these various flavors that come. The invitation is to not be concerned about the flavor. Now when you say identity, that means that there is a concept that has been picked up. Can you have an identity without a notion? A notionless identity? So, so tell me how it goes. You just hear and then what happened? How do the flavor of identity that is perceived in sense?

Yes, but even with the production of this flavor, there are some mechanics then.

Yes. See, now identity is something with needs constrict oxygen. See, so detachment is coming, that means oxygen has been withdrawn tonight. So identity, you can see there the ashes of the identity. Not even flavor as there is a detachment, the flavor of identity is time doing. So as there is attachment, there is more and more identity. As there is just detachment, not feverishness about anything, it stuck with what is. Very good. If the question is appealing to you: what is aware of being? Most auspicious. What is there? A conceptual stuckness? What is the trouble?

So let's do some experiments with you. So you say, 'I get stuck with the question: what is aware of my being?' So now it is here there. The body-mind is not aware of to be clear. So that which you used to refer to yourself is not aware. And it is also clear that it is not twisty, it is not joy. In fact, compared to saying it is tea which is aware or joy which is own, it is easy to say 'I am aware.' It's just that the nature of this 'I' can seem a bit confusing. It cannot be seen as an object and yet it is you. It's neither you that you considered yourself to be among, and neither is it somebody else.

So we have stepped out of that previous equation of me and another because here that does not apply. And yet if I say I'm saying, okay, say you just making this up, it's not true. Even if the master tells you it is not true from the notion of my existence. So there is this very intimate one, more than intimate, intimate one which is aware of your existence. Now there is only 'I'. Now the conclusion is because we have used 'I' in another we was so long that it can seem like difficult to use 'I' in this way. Why are we so obsessed with missiles India? Because the complaint is that of suffering.

See, if the complaint was not that of suffering, those who say that 'I am not finding that contentment, I'm not finding that longing peace,' and ultimately the question 'Who am I?' itself seems to be the bug that we have caught, then how to be rid of this something where it is only suffering for a spiritual suffering that we cannot suffer unless we misuse the 'I'? Now the 'I' itself takes on the project of not misusing the 'I'. Sense of if the 'I' itself takes the position it, why are we so the 'I'? It is love the ego. Many times we get in satsang and it's a valid question. I need to come and say find you one of the so relentless this chopping the ego, and it's a valid question. It's not an invalid.

All I'm saying is that what it is proposing, what the mind is proposing about you, is what the truth. I am not saying that it's not an aspect of consciousness. Everything in consciousness has its opposites. As there are Sadhu, there are the complete liars. Is a term for that. Now you say other, but you can do that. Aspects of consciousness, those who are lying to me and getting me addicted to all kind of—stay away from those who are offering addictive substances to you. So not good food. So in the same way, they stay with that which is proposing an identity which is not true. And without that proposition, by believing that proposition, actually we don't lack anything cool.

I think to be concerned about all the grievances, resentment against specialness, all is the fruit of believing this one. Okay, all of this is what suffering made use a generic term. Suffering will be fine. All these things reject suffering. Only way to get these flavors to go through this one. Now I completely know that is also because an aspect of consciousness which is the mind in the game of the game mode some. It is the Baskin Robbins do suffering, you know this. If you go to this mining, oh, so that is why you don't walk into this. But to see, 'I don't want suffering anymore,' and yet I keep walking into the suffering shop is a contradiction.

And the other reason is that in the play of consciousness it must play this way. Why? Because every flavor is available to here for us to tales. So if almost everything outside is obsessed with excusing the 'I', then there must be some which appear to tell you who are obsessed with getting you not to misuse it just to equalize everything. This is made up of consciousness, must be here. So if you have your individual, where do I get to?

So you say, so there is awareness of being and I know that there is awareness of being. Now you say, 'Where do I get to?' because of this is complete. You see, show me tact who made this discovery. Is it apart from that knowingness itself? Is there a 'I' who made a discovery of this too, or is it the being itself which is coming to the recognition of its own sports field linkage? If there is a conclusion about what you have found—'I found this awareness of being, I, it's a wedding recipe' or something like that—then that is identity. Now you identifying it correctly, there is some identification with that whatever insights are happening, not happening. But the one that is making the conclusion 'I am finding this,' they go. 'What should I be now?' is still this one.

What if you heard that you get nothing? Is it bad news or good news? Good, that's good. That's a sign of maturity to say it is good news because why? Because we invert so many things in the past and all things in this realm wither away. See, and if you get attached to something, then it only leads to suffering. So as a result of this discovery, if you got something, even that something would have to on the other hand the things which are false they you will find that actually the following. We don't get anything but use the—the usually parts which you thought you believed to eat you and yes, yes.

For those who are wondering, then I have to save it as you remain on a—to concept when it is not true that all this love restoring also is zero you fragrance of that but not with a expectation the vision as I really have no turban using this existence enjoy. What is the problem? That cleaver that case this is the joint get the taste of this trifle just regular. And yet I have to say that my experience day-to-day is that my drawing here I could cut into pieces and distribute it to all of you, it would still be like there is more to keep.

What is then an idea of what should happen or to discover how to drop this feed like the practice of not believing that makes Empson dropping the identities? But then when situation arises it feels like—can you not be in the next one? Take an example of a part which has to be believed in a practical situation. I'm sitting in class and I have to solve a question. So and I've been practicing this since morning, so that keeps look it feel good.

Can the thought solve the question that is holding or not? Solving is happening. The writing of it or the not writing of it is happening. But in reality who is doing it? This beingness my intense that thought. Why do I say don't believe that home or recently, more recently doing fixing your presence for just a thought right? Because a thought is not you're saying the coconut is doing today. No hope, the cart is not saying just the coconut is leave. It is telling you about the relationship that you have with that. 'I like green cooker, I hope it is P,' something like that. So the 'I' is invented in that way which is the limited one. The thought is not you saying two plus two equals four, although the same way that the fool can arise as thought, the four can also arise the movement of the hand. So it is not just giving you ideas about the phenomenal world but also it is creating the 'I' believe you and it moves our tax payments and if you start of your limited existence everything the mind.

The relationship that you have with that—I like 'green cooker,' I hope it is something like that—so the 'I' is invented in that way, which is the limited one. The thought is not you saying two plus two equals four, although in the same way that the 'four' can arise as thought, the 'four' can also arise as the movement of the hand. So, it is not just giving you ideas about the phenomenal world, but also it is creating the 'I' belief in you, and it moves our tax payments and if you start of your limited existence. Everything the mind says is because it only understands the phenomenal world. The mind can only fathom the phenomenal. To go beyond the phenomenal into the appearance, if you try to carry this 'I' with you, the whole time-limited 'I' with you, the gates of your recognition—the gates of heaven, to use the word—then you will find that heavy, heavier.

If you drop this concern about what happened to that one, what is there, what if there was no outcome, but there was no causal effect, what would change in your reality? How can I ask this question? You see, you came to satsang, you came to a very super recognition today, and this awareness, untouched by anything phenomenal, moves. I work, oh, he loses more radiance. No fancy words at all, but it is like the author was writing the story of the 'me' and suddenly the pen ran out of ink. So, they will trouble with that. 'Oh, come on, she could have achieved so much greatness, she caught the answer to the ultimate question.' There was no glorious ending to the story of the seeker. The seeker did not end up becoming a sage. If the seeker was building a building, building up to 'I'm getting to my sageness,' but basically nothing, nobody recognizes it, nobody sees you as anything. You still have to take your exam. We'll play with that because you see that you are that which is, which has always been untouched by any of these things. These are the false attachments that we have picked up because of our limited identity, limited identification.

The 'Cat's to Me'—I've said it the last three, four years. I said it at least a hundred times, and many, I feel, have heard it tens of times at least. So, one day I said to someone sitting there, 'I don't think that means what the Cat's to Me many, many, many times now, so why don't you share it?' We started looking together. I said, 'Can't be, who heard it so often, can't be that you can't tell the story.' So then they attempted to cobble up properly together some to reality. Somehow it is not so palatable for the memory. Okay, it goes like this: Suppose you were born in a world without any mirrors. Born in this world which has no mirror. Then what happened is, when you were born in this world, then you had these very intimate people around you who said you're a cat. Not only these people, but also there was a voice seemingly in our heads which is saying that you're a cat.

Now, the cat voice or the people around us then keep giving ideas of what is the next bowl of milk for you to get. I was saying that you have to be happy, and to be happy we need the next bowl of milk. So, you told education to be a bowl of milk. If you're well-educated, parents tell us this, 'If you get a good education, you will always just be happy in life.' Education. Then something missing is that you know that you have a good education, then we tell you within that time, but after you have to get the next bowl of milk, which is a good job. Good job, which means good money. The bowl of milk kept changing. Then find a good life partner, then you'll have it. Education, money, house, partner, your Sita. And then all these things they come, something still feels like, 'When is that contentment? Where is that promise of eternal happiness?' Then they say, 'See, see, see, now you have come to this level, but if you want that ultimate happiness, you have to create that final bowl of milk.' And this milk is the nectar of enlightenment.

So then we went off, started off in the same way searching for that bowl, wanting to change things, getting to it, relearning things, climbing the ladder to get to this. How we went about this ultimate divine bowl of thing called enlightenment. Then you say, 'How do I get it?' So they go to the masters. We get this final master says this: 'Up and down eight times every day, do this, do that.' Feels like some peace is coming, some joy is coming, so I must be getting to that unchanging thing. Peace, an ending peace must be coming. We've gone through all the spiritual methods and practices. We're looking the way we expected it to, then we keep searching for this bowl of milk which is unending, just naturally. Then we come to a sage. 'I have nothing to give you, but I do have a mirror.' And you say that you're a cat, but are you open to looking?

Now, the problem is that because we believe ourselves to be the cat for so long, the usual response to this question is, 'Okay, okay, if I look, then what will the cat get?' But are you open to the idea that there might not be the cat in the first place? 'Okay, I'm open to the idea.' But we like it. The peace is all coming from this deeply conditioned cat identity. And even upon a very innocently, he also asked the same question, 'Okay, I'm finding this, there is awareness of peace now, how do I get that here?' Also very rightly identified, it is to the cat. Okay, got it. So now it is all about—there was no whatever I think here we had about what should be there at the start of the journey is also why do we clean them? So now enlightenment or the promise for the cat, that was the marketing. I mean, but history is, according to me, it's like you've signed up for a backpack timeshare. You know the timeshare holidays? You subscribe and you create some money, I'm trying something like that.

So I saw that in America there was an ad called timeshareexit.com because once you sign up for this timeshare, it's not so easy to exit them. You start with your investment, you don't get in front, then you have to keep paying them. So there are now specialized teams of people who specialize in the legalese to get you to exit from that. So that's a mirror, isn't it? So timeshare exit. A lot of this identity, and we need some help to exit it because everything for the cat is the bowl of milk. Everything for the person is the return on investment. I have a friend at work who calculates everything based on ROI, return on investment. There's a fund called Meetup and it works on that. So we spend one hour at that last meeting, what if we give, what is the return on that investment? Oh, one asks you to come to certain more of them. We spend hours every day with the idea has become this: 'What do I get? I see this ultimate truth, that which is aware even of me.' So then what's in it for the cat? Is the cat here now? No.

I do how many came here? What I'm saying, put a thumbs up. Just maybe, maybe Nancy has some room with audio. Crazy, crazy talk. You mean crazier than you do? Inclusive as in like a fight has a secret sequential, not so this expression was found saying, or is it as in every living being it is Monica? Those are interesting. This go to the octagon. Sequential means you—yeah, I understood as in, I'm honest, it was a whole week a recap he responded, but because one strand versus person did this, what about if one lifetime you place it in our lifetime? We all here, guess which one happening together? Hands not secretive inches. The sequentiality of it is just a way to explain, explain the immortality of consciousness to the regular people.

Actually, time and space do not operate like—time and space are both completely dependent on what consciousness wants to pay attention to. So I should say things like this, but based on attention, every single possibility can be traversed from this moment on, either seemingly forwards or backwards. To put simply, one reality, the seeming reality that can be traversed, is this hand going this way. Reality, who is navigating all of this? Which is consciousness playing with attention. It seems we're making this space and this movement of every same. But time, before consciousness, is there such a thing as time? There is nothing, no thing. It is not even time. You can have the idea, 'I slept for eight hours.' You slept endlessly, and your birth gave birth to the idea of time. So past, which a life, all of this is based on how attention or sleep it is.

Some of these things might sound crazy to you, and it's okay, that's fine. These insights have to come to you on their own. But my feeling is that if this so-called way or forward time, if our experience was just the opposite, where things seemed to be moving backwards, and if you got so used to that existence, then the seeming forward existence would seem strange. Forward movement of time would seem like a strange concern. That's only how consciousness wants to play it. It's very valuable, time also, like space. Simple examples are given to you. Of course, I've said it, seeming half an hour in this realm, we have an entire lifetime country, which is like space is valuable too. Potent out is replaceable things simply. We so-called dreams in the morning, he went, so much happened, only five minutes, good as gone. Alarm clock rings, we wake up, and then somebody comes and so much happened. Nothing, nothing concrete about time. Vegas right around, but just a thought came in, then you realize it's more scriptures say self-view, are the cycle is broken, his own cycle. So it's not just human for Europeans, answers are they don't scream.

The feeling of being an object contained in space and the feeling of being an object contained in time, they're both in the building. You are not in it. Simple example with the consciousness wants to put on the DVD, another lifetime, or doesn't want to entertain itself in that way. But the red lifetime seems to be prior or few to millions of years in the past, millions of views long as you see. We're seeing here is that, yeah, yeah, you can't explain it. Mind likes the idea of 'I cannot land upon to any identity' and there is one-leanness today. Good point. Nancy says the mind likes the idea of non-dual, she doesn't like the idea of non-non-dual. And I'm glad that such subtle things which are shared also being similar. So here you happy about that, we can say like that, that most in spirituality, most minds like the idea of bondage which seems to take a burden out of us. But then I mean people, if you tell them you are not the doer, actually a strong fear: 'I have no control.' It can almost seem like, almost gets like fear, 'I have no control over my life.' So to be like that.

Now, the mind is not like not applicable. I usually do, or the non-dual does not apply directly in terms of life because they cannot fathom it. You must be it. It seems to be opposite to its mission personally, because mission is to convince you about your phenomenal limited existence. This is not applicable, is opposite contra-mission to it. And the second is that really it is like saying, asking the mind to confirm where its grandfather was born. Where is your grandfather born? 'I have been told what I think from credible sources, this is where he was born.' But has it been your own direct answer? Did you, were you there at the moment? So that is why searching for mental confirmation of the thing which I shared in satsang is like—and cannot really want to do what it tries to, and every attempt it makes, it tries to bring you back as if you're something amazing. 'Area, I'm happy, happy to see you're not the not-doer, I will do this.' This can come only as an insight that you have about yourself, that which is unchanging.

Like they're doing not-do, that which is qualityless, being is an expression of moving, is just the contrary expression to that, and which is empty of qualities. Like it's even more subtle than saying, 'What is the space?' And tell the space you want to do it. Now it is not making today, 'I will not touch my work.' So that said anything, and I said okay, you must continue to chop wood and fetch water. You know what they said is from a different place, but it has been heard by many in that way, that you must continue with—you must continue to your duty. Not saying that you say that this may happen in the legends anyway. Don't try.

And which is empty of qualities, like it's even more subtle than saying what is the space. And people tell the space, 'You want to do it now? It is not making today. I will not touch my work.' So that said anything, and I said, 'Okay, you must continue to chop wood and fetch water.' You know, what they said is from a different place, but it has been heard by many in that way—that you must continue with your duty. Not saying that you say that this may happen in the legends anyway. Don't try to come in resistance to that. That would have been silly enough to say something very important. We can say: chopping wood before enlightenment, chopping wood and fetching water; after enlightenment, chopping wood and fetching water. Our impertinence to act that or not is important because otherwise, one might think that 'I am truly going to be free only if I continue to do what I was doing.' And sometimes you know, 'No, I am free only if I stop doing all of this. I must renounce the world.' It is not applicable, you see, either of these things. Whatever has to happen will happen, you see. That you are on that is the wreckage to the mind. You can like either position; it just wants you to take a position, actually. Ultimately, it comes to this point where it doesn't mind, just take any position. Just think at least, you know, you're setting a boundary for setting. So don't try to be a bit early social. Take it step by step.

First, you understood you can't stop you. Now stay here. Now don't try to put away any kind of mental idea. Then say, 'How can you say I am God?' So arrogant. This is a very popular concept is: how can you say I am God? And yet it's so clear to see how God is everywhere. If I am God, everything is God, God is everywhere. Not 'I do the same things.' What you might want to see is God is everywhere, but we were this tiny little thing and there's a greater force. So don't try to become too obstinate. Don't try to become too special by saying that. And it plays the opposite inside. You're feeling, 'Now a person, I'm a person, I'm a person.' Outside you're saying, 'I'm Brahman.' All along, you're giving yourself a position. The mind is happening. We're saying, 'I don't know what I am. Where was my start? Every life, do I exist or I don't exist?' My awareness, my consciousness... I don't... from you might hit at the end all concepts have to be dropped, including awareness. Because awareness also ultimately is a very tiny word for this long qualitative reality of, you know, Brahman dreams. We are trying to take that even that position. There is no further connection. You hear me?

Yes, yes, my dear. I've had a few moments where everything has disappeared. Even the world has disappeared. And then there's this sense that every object—I mean, you know, the water bottle, the computer, my body—that solid stuff is just a memory. It's a compressed memory. That's what the feeling was, not a thought, because the thought is more flimsy, but sort of a compressed thought. The way I thought of it, maybe a memory is a little more condensed. And as long as I'm in distance of the... I mean, it's absolutely realistic for a moment.

Because I don't know whether it was your connection or mine, but you can hear what you were really saying. You said I got to till there are moments where everything disappears, then some fragments of memory or, did you say, remnants of memory? They come back, like the water bottle or something, right? Then the sense is that everything that I assume is real and exists and is solid, it's just a compressed memory.

The other distinction was that it's not a thought, because to me a thought is more flimsy. But the best I could rationalize it was it was a compressed form of thought, and I just thought of it as a compressed memory. And as long as I'm sitting in this throne of 'I', 'me', this is all real. But as I step back from the deeper vantage point, this is all just material and solid depending where I'm, I guess, looking from, where I am feeling from. So the question was: am I just hallucinating another hallucination of my own mind, or is this actually it? Does it have validity, you know, from that leap?

Okay, very good. Let's look at this. So you say there are moments where it seems like my phenomenal reality, all these phenomenal appearances, they just disappear. I still AM. Therefore, there must be something which is beyond this phenomenal existence. Whatever might be the makeup of that, the simplest answer to the makeup of that is that it is consciousness. And consciousness plays with all the trillions of energy constructs—the energy constructs which we experience as mind, which is the energy construct of thought, energy constructs of imagination, of memory, of feeling, of sensation, of body, of the seeming outer world with gravity, magnetism, and electricity. All of these, light and sound, you see, all of this is what? Consciousness. All of this.

So this realm is also like that. When you are inside, seemingly inside, other experiences in the dream, it seems like the dream has ideas like this. The dream body seems as real as this body. So it is made up of the same stuff, just consciousness stuff. Simpler to put it that way, because once you start to get into, 'Okay, what quality of consciousness is this made up of?' then that becomes another aspect of phenomenal knowledge that we can become like Buddha or something. What is the true nature of particular objects versus other objects? So we can get into that kind of scientific exploration. In fact, that's where science also began, trying to understand the makeup of things that I experience.

More importantly, it is to see that whatever the makeup of these objects is, their perception happens only when I exist. And this 'I exist' has been taken to be 'I exist as a body-mind.' Once you see that I don't exist personally, I only exist as existence itself, as consciousness itself, then all of this, the play of this world, you see, is just projections of your light. Whatever their phenomenal makeup might be, as long as it was becoming clearer and clearer to you that you are not an object in this world, that you were not an appearance which is coming and going, that you are not a compressed memory—some terminology—then all the insight will come. You will recognize that actually there is no fundamental difference between a memory and imagination or a dream. It's all just projections on the same screen of consciousness.

So these insights very naturally will come to you more and more as you are finding the reality of you, which is untouched by whatever the phenomenal appearance might be. Otherwise, what has happened so far is we are so busy grabbing and ducking phenomena. Grabbing that is that which we seem to like, and ducking that which we seem to avoid, that we've not had that space for these insights to come. Now as there is more spaciousness about it, okay, whatever might come can come. Am I really touched by it? Am I really scratched by it, hurt in reality or not? So then that whole grabbing-ducking thing goes away, and very naturally you're coming to the recognition of even the aspects of your worldly nature.

It is from this space that it is like, oh, she should have written the Upanishad. They said this world is nothing but the son of the barren woman. Was it special knowledge that they studied? No, it is just those insights which are coming from your deep recognition of who you are. And Ashtavakra can say, 'I am that shoreless ocean in which the arcs of the universe come.' And who did he study about the universe? Scientific understanding of the universe was very different in those days, and yet from the space of insight, from the space of self-recognition, then you're starting to see that even materiality, or at least the impermanence of this world, exists. So this, we in this field, then you will be able to say that anything that appears and disappears, comes and goes, is not real. It might seem real for a bit, but you will see that everything that is appearing and disappearing is like the sages have said.

The definitions of reality are two: one, it must be direct through direct insight; and second, it must not be coming and going. What passes through this filter? That continues to be the most relevant question. Only that is of interest to us for some time. What is it that is my direct insight, that which does not come and go? Very good. Ashtavakra said that this clue, like this, is the reality itself. What is real itself? The great pointer to the Self. What do you consider to be real? And is it just coming from a belief system, or is it coming from what's inside? And are you still calling that which comes and goes as real, when fully well that it will not last? Can there be a reality which is not ephemeral, which is permanent, eternal? That reality is the true and ultimate you.

And 'eternal' means eternal. This body is not enough for me for things like speeding. These perceptions coming and going, the recording senses, thoughts, and then here is the 'I', the sense of doership. Murad was watching all this, all this is impacting her. And then here is the witness, which is not without, just the eyewitness. And these are all happening simultaneously. And then somewhere here is not even that, it's just whatever the games. But my reality as consciousness is here. It's playing as the witness, it's playing as Murad, the 'I' mean, it's playing as all the perceptions. And when I sit where I occupy, that is my reality. If I'm here, I'm stuck in the mundane whatever. If I'm here, stuck there, then I'm, 'Why is this happening to me? I'm doing it,' the doership.

There are moments where I'm here, where this is all the same and it's coming and going. And then there's a sense of, I don't... I know I am that, but I don't inherit that space yet. There's a sense that even this is just not, you know, it's just ephemeral compared to what that is. And it's not I get a sense of it, I know I'm that, but I don't occupy that space. But it's all happening simultaneously. And it's a sense of when I buy... it's not stuck, but with one who I occupy, what space am I occupying in that sort of perception? And I'm sitting in just watching.

There's very beautiful reporting. So you see, on the side there is this play of the ephemeral, the play of the world in the reserve. So let's put it like this: the play of the perceptions of the body and the perceptions of others in the world; the play of the conceptual Murad, not even perceptional actually, just conceptual—'I am doing, I am working, I am understanding, I am not understanding.' This conceptual Murad. Then you see there is the same source existence, just being unconcerned really with whatever might be the content of the perceptual play or the conceptual play. I just AM.

Then you say that even perception, conception, all of this is an aspect of this 'I am' who is perceiving this world, 'I am' who is conceiving all these ideas of Murad. I am, I am, as well as this consciousness itself, see? So this is the line that we draw. I'm glad you also made this posture, for the first time I'm seeing somebody else do it. This is the line that we draw. Now you see, I have some insight into that which is prior even to this, and I do not occupy, but I do not seem to settle into that space or occupy that space fully because this one is recognizing its own source.

So then the 'I' is shifting from this one who has been identifying this way, this way, this way, this way, to seeing that this entire one—see, this 'I am' itself, consciousness itself—is nothing but an aspect of the true 'I'. So it is not that this ultimately will occupy that space. This too... this is metaphorical, okay, so don't take it too seriously, but this will come to recognize that this is just an arm of the entire body. The rest of the body is not phenomenal. That's why I said it's metaphorical, so you can't take it seriously. And this is the moving part, 'I am', see? So it is not that the hand has to occupy the body, or the hand sees that it is just an aspect of the entirety of 'I'. And the greater, which is the unchanging, the non-phenomenal. How can anything phenomenal, even the primordial vibration, occupy the non-phenomenal? It cannot. The occupation is only...

Come to recognize that this is just an arm of the entire body. The rest of the body is not phenomenal; that's why I said it's metaphorical, so you can't take it seriously. And this is the moving part, you see? So it is not that the hand has to occupy the body or the hand is the body; it is just an aspect of the entirety of 'I'. And the greater, which is the unchanging, the non-phenomenal—how can anything phenomenal, even the primordial vibration, occupy the non-phenomenal? It cannot. The occupation is only the recognition. The abiding is only the recognition.

What is the abiding? And the question can be that 'I am not abiding in it.' So, abiding in it does not mean that it loses its phenomenality. Abiding in it only means that it is no longer identifying with limited notions of itself. As long as the arm will show up, the arm will show up. It is not for the arm to vanish now. When the play of the arm is done, it also goes away. It's like that. So, don't take on the project of trying to abide in the Self, because you are already abiding. That is the original state.

But if there is a project to take on, the only project to take on is: don't buy the false identification about ourselves. In fact, that's why usually I ask you—you say, 'I cannot occupy that space.' I say, 'Leave that space.' And so, even for a tiny millisecond, you cannot do it. So then, to try and occupy that space is also like a fool's errand. It has been an idea, a project given by the mind saying, 'Only if you can do that, then I will give you the freedom certificate.' These are the subtle tricks of the mind.

Just as you are recognizing for yourself what you are, you see that this moving aspect has much scope for identification. But where I truly see, I am none of them. In fact, what I see is that I am made up of something which is beyond phenomenal. This primordial vibration, 'I am', Om, is the source of that which is beyond even this primordial, before we can even say that. Now, you don't have to stay there in some physical way. Anytime we may hear the series pointing 'stay there' or 'abide in it', we are using an old dictionary to mean stay or abide. But what is that which is beyond? It is not phenomenal. How to stay in something which is non-phenomenal? It only means: don't pick up that which is false. Thank you, very beautifully.

Thank you. Father, how is it that other than my own claimed existence, it does not claim itself? Please throw some light on this.

Other than my own claimed existence, it does not claim itself? Just existing is its own claim to itself. 'We exist' is claiming existence. The claim 'I am that I am' is not the important thing; that is just the way to communicate what I am. The claiming, the being, is to stay claim over existence itself. 'I am I', which is independent of even 'I am'. Just 'I am' is to stay claim to the entire universe. I don't need to add another word to it or later. You don't need to add 'my own' to it. Existence does not need this 'my' or 'own'.

We missed a chat. God wanted to... yes, yes. What do you say, my dear? Your father came? Yes, my dear. Good to see you, man.

It is you too, good. So, I'm sorry, I'll mute. I knew it from your values. I have big love for you and the Sangha family, like big, big love. And I've been experiencing it amidst some feelings of loneliness, pulled away from a lot of people, things that weren't necessarily healthy that I felt like I needed to do. Definitely, it's doing... it's been beneficial, but it's been like some strong, strong loneliness. And then we talk about everything that is seen is not as, right? So I question the love that I have for you. I mean, it's like huge. Like, I get so excited, and that's what I'm coming off of work and not getting here, get home so I can get to satsang and stuff. When I can't catch it because of the time difference and everything, and I like seeing everybody there, like on the Facebook pages and seeing everybody hug you and everyone just so happy. I just love the Sangha. I mean, the Sangha. And I wonder if that is... I see an attachment there, and I wonder if that is... I know it's not a problem, but I just wanted to talk to you about it. I don't know, I just want to talk to you about this if it was a problem because it seems as an attachment.

Thank you, my dear. Good question. In fact, we were looking at it in another context yesterday, a similar question. I'm sorry, I mean after satsang, after the broadcast, we looked at somebody and something came here which I feel is quite helpful even in this situation. Many times, and I've been a part of a few Sanghas, and I noticed that every time I turned my attention away from the Master and to the Sangha, although initially it became very nice, after I was like, 'I have a new family and so much love,' then I started to see that, oh, just like everything in the phenomenal, it has its plus side and its downside. It has its hits and its misses.

Those who have been in the Sangha for some time will be able to tell you the benefits and this is the downside. So, as long as our eyes are set on the Master, eyes are set on Guruji's feet, then all that coming together and the sharing of the love, the Sangha, and even on Facebook, the hugging—all of this is very, very good. But we must never confuse the flower and the fragrance. As long as we are tending to the flower itself, the fragrance is very natural and must be enjoyed. In fact, when it becomes about the fragrance itself, then you see that the flower will show you... it's just a metaphor again.

As long as you're with your holy presence, the presence of the Satguru, if you have love for even the outer expression of the Master, that love is pointing you back to your own heart, your own divine presence, you see? As long as that remains the truth, then all this... you know, in Indian temples we have something called Prasad. I don't know whether you're familiar with these terms. Prasad means you go visit God, then after you make the visit, there are always people outside the temple offering sweets and goodies, you know, like candy. So like that. So all of this love and belongingness and feelings of finding a new family, all of that are those sweeties, are the candies of your darshan of God, of your experience of God.

So although the candies are very beautiful, if you stop outside the temple and say, 'Give me my candy,' you see, when it stops being about the Self, stops being about your own discovery and it becomes more about just that, then your fear about it becoming an unnatural attachment is true. But if you say, 'Yes, truly I come to satsang because I come into this being, this divine presence,' my inner citadel where in my heart I find the Holy Spirit or the Guru, and then as a byproduct of that, as the fun part of this play, I also find so much love is here for everyone here—and you see in the room, on Zoom, on Facebook—that is very, very good.

But if it becomes just about that external expression of love and the people that you're meeting and we forget about the spirit, then you know that even this can become a distraction. So many times in satsang it can happen—Guruji also talks about it—that we are coming so beautifully into the recognition of the truth and out of nowhere in the Sangha, you manifest your perfect partner. This is like, 'How? This is Father, this is your gift to me.' I think, 'Okay.' But actually, I prefer if you just stay with your spirit, if you stay with your divine presence for a bit. These things then become difficult to say because we already many times we get invested in that so much that something here doesn't move in that direction to say, 'No, no, no.'

So, just like this, all these beautiful things can come, all those candies can be you, all the sweets can come. As long as our eyes are set on the truth, they will not cause any trouble. Otherwise, just like everything else in the world, if we get attached to it, and then by the nature of the world everything is coming and going, then the suffering comes. So even satsang and Sangha can become part of that play. I hope that provided some clarity. So just to stay with the Satguru in your heart, enjoy all this beautiful... all these beautiful with my beautiful family, all of them so much, but my eyes are always at my Father's feet. Thank you all so much for being. Mooji Baba Ki Jai! Satguru Sri Mooji Maharaj Ki Jai!