All We Have to Do to Meet God, Is to Be Empty - 5th February 2024

In a way, but we'll come to that. But first, can we agree that this is a very important question to check on? It's a very important question to check because we say, 'I am witnessing all of this,' but where are we witnessing all of this from? Are we included in the world perception, the world of perceptions, or are we outside of it? Outside of it. But what is outside of the universe? Before the concept of space, it is, or you are? You are. That's a big thing to see. And she's sounding very scared and she's looking very scared hearing that. Could it be like this? Could it be like this? This little old me, this body, is how I was born. I had a name, I've grown up, I went to the school, I have parents, I have family. Now you're saying that I'm witnessing this universe from outside the universe? That sounds crazy. Is it crazy or is it true? Now, the way I frame that question, it's crazy and true, or just crazy? Really, is it like this? Are we just doing some fantasy conversation? Let's really attempt to find this one that is witnessing within the world first. How can we find it?

Yeah, so when you guide us like this, I wasn't seeing a difference between... you said, 'Is there anything else apart from the world?' and someone said, 'There is the observer.' But I don't see the difference between the observer and the world. Is there a difference between the witnessing, the observing, and the world? There are perceptions, but that's not what the world is. See, then what is the world?

So let's change the definition of the world to mean the realm of perception. So if you change that, then we are good. So let's for this conversation at least, when we say the world or the universe, we're talking about everything that is observable, everything that is perceived, everything that is phenomenal, yes? Okay. Now besides the phenomenal, what else is there?

Consciousness.

Okay, and who is aware even of this consciousness? You are. Now if you are saying that this 'I' is beyond this world, beyond this universe, then where are you watching all this from? But 'where' would place us in time? Would place us in time and space. So are you saying that you're not in time and space? People are going to start running from this room! It's too much, too much. I am not experiencing it through this entity experience. Even if it is beyond time and space, it is being experienced through me, me in the small, isn't it?

Okay, so let's... we'll come to that. But where are you actually, that which is beyond XYZ and T? It's beyond the dimension, beyond at least the four, XYZ like that. Beyond at least these four dimensions. So it's in the fifth somewhere, which I don't... so you don't know because you're not aware of that one, or you don't know because the mind doesn't have terms for it? The second one for sure, because we don't know actually, but we can't put that knowledge in words. It is ineffable. But we must not confuse ineffable intuitive insight with not knowing, you see? Because if we do that, then we will never... because we will never be able to squeeze this into conceptual knowledge, then we will always believe that we actually don't know what's going on.

Like I'll show you how you are witnessing this hand right now, the perception of this hand. So you are aware of your sight, isn't it? Now is there any doubt that it is you? It is you. But what evidence do you have for that 'you'? Does it have your name? Was it born in the year you say I was born? No. Where is it sitting or standing or lying down? Where is it? Could it be that it's merely a functioning of the brain that is aware and we are calling it 'I'?

Why would you reduce yourself to just a mere function of the brain which is a witnessing? That is a bit logical that I can believe. I mean, I want to believe that function of brain.

Yeah, you want to believe that, but that's not your experience. I think I asked this before, so I won't go there again. So what is our experience?

Yes, and doesn't it actually appear like in the dream, you are the dream body? The dream body apparently... oh, I should have predicted that Arin will have a question. He's doing some study on that brain and consciousness. Hard thing to think. Experience is the body is created by the mind, that's experience. But the conditioning is that the brain is the mind and the body.

Body is created by the mind, yes. But if we restrict what we call mind to what Bhagavan said, the bundle of thoughts, see, then it's not that... it's not in that way. Sometimes we use a bigger definition of the big mind as Consciousness itself. Now just like a dream, the whole dream is created on the screen of Consciousness, in the light of Consciousness. Then if we call that the big mind and the bundle of thoughts the small mind, then we can say that everything is created by the mind itself. But if you were to use just a simpler definition of mind, which is these bundle of thoughts, images, memory, imagination... so if you say all of that, then we notice that the mind also appears along with the rest of perception.

When... so there... witnessing, I am witnessing, Father, I am witnessing, and then I start believing in thoughts. Is it the same?

Is it the same? The 'I' as awareness, which is the pure witnessing of all of this, then within that there's a sense of being, a sense of existence, I-am-ness. So I am, I exist. That existence, that sense of existence, is Consciousness. Is it? So to say 'I am' is equal to saying 'I am conscious.' So I am, I exist. Now within Consciousness, this play of perceptions appears. One of the perceptions are thoughts. So this I-am-ness has the power to give attention and belief to thoughts. Before the being appears in deep sleep state, there's no attention or belief.

When I am witnessing, I can still see the thoughts. But when I am lost in thoughts, I can't see the witness.

When you're... yes, when you're under the hypnosis of thought, that which is aware of this whole world of perception seems to be not real, not here, not apparent. Can we say that Consciousness is consumed in thinking and, I mean, is occupied in thinking, and that's why the I-am-ness is not witnessing? It should always be there, Father, if that witnessing cannot stop. You see that. But that you are that, and that that... let's call it functioning for a moment, doesn't seem to be apparent to us anymore in that hypnosis of the thoughts. So apparent, because if you say even if you say 'I'm not aware,' what are you actually saying? You're saying that 'I'm aware that I'm not aware.' So important thing is...

So witnessing is always there, awareness is always there. Being aware of awareness is only play. Either I'm lost or I'm aware.

Either you're lost in thought or it is apparent to you that you are this awareness. Then I-am-ness is becoming greater than 'I.' I am is becoming greater than 'I' because 'I am' can go to Consciousness or 'I am' can go to witness. So look at it as the portal where once... so 'I' is the unchanging, nothing ever happened to it. Nothing therefore has ever happened ever to anyone, and there is no anyone for anything to ever happen to. So that is your true nature, is awareness itself. Now through your intelligence, you exist. Why you decided to exist or not exist, all that nobody can answer. We can call it Maya, Lila, whatever you want to call it, you can call it so. But there's a Consciousness that takes birth within your Self, within your reality, see? So that now when Consciousness appears, there's a light which is a projective light and there is a screen which is itself. So it plays this game of projecting these universes on top of itself. Now it has the ability to give attention and belief, like that, is it? So it plays as if it is forgetting its own source. Then it gives identity, then it identifies with the world play of Maya when it doesn't identify with the world.

It is a Consciousness that takes birth within your self, within your reality, you see. So that now when Consciousness appears, there's a light which is a projective light and there is a screen which is itself. So it plays this game of projecting these universes on top of itself. Now it has the ability to give attention and belief like that, is it? So it plays as if it is forgetting its own source. Then it gives identity; then it identifies with the world play of Maya. When it doesn't identify with the world play, then its own reality, its own self, is more apparent to it. That is why to come to emptiness, to remain empty, is important, because it has created this play in this way that once it buys into these thoughts, it seems like it is also an object, the body-mind. When it remains empty, then I can simply ask you: is there only a world, or is there something other than the world as well? From your direct experience right now—we are not to conceptualize any of this right now—now, is there only the realm of perception or is there something else as well?

Sorry, so the Consciousness in a way, I can... it's looking outward, it's Maya. And if it looks back, it's in a way... but not through the process of looking itself, because that would just be attention. It has to look and identify. So when it is pure witness, even the Consciousness doesn't exist? Yeah, sleep state. The ultimate goal would be not even Consciousness. Not let me use these words, Father, but when you are in your state in enlightenment, and it's only awareness, not even Consciousness?

It's not like that, in the sense that it's like the hand is closed or it is open; it is still the hand only. Okay? As long as you're not believing the shadow puppetry to be reality. It's there, but it's not there because you... so the shadow puppetry is like the projection, Maya, Leela, whatever you call it. So as long as you don't say, 'Oh, the goose is real and the king is real,' which are just projections or shadows of the hand, and you take the hand—whether it is like this, which is just empty of all being, not-being, of all attributes, or it is open—it is playing as if it exists. There is existence, there is being, there is Consciousness. It's still the same 'I'. That's why 'I am' is not... when 'am' comes, it doesn't become you.

You are one behind the perception. 'I am' is one step behind.

Exactly. Because we can also say that it is 'I am' itself which is perceiving, see? And so sight belongs to being. But what is aware of even sight? 'I am' one is when you are saying that it's a being sense. It's God has given us... so that connection, first you apply it to yourself instead of talking about it as an intellectual understanding. Okay? Just taste it for yourself and let the words come from there. Is it? We can have a conceptual discussion about it, but then you have books for that, you see. You can read all this in the books. But the point of coming here is so that we can speak from the live insight. And a live insight about all of this once seen, you can go back and ask.

No, so your first question: in addition to perception, is there anything else there? Yeah, so the experience, the aspect of experience is there. But in this experience, I'm not able to decouple the two. Both things are there; there's perception and there's the experience, or experiencer, but I can't decouple that.

Yes. It seems, just to make sure we are on the same page, that experience cannot be called sight, it cannot be called sound, taste, touch, smell, any of that. It is independent of all of those modes of perception as well.

Yeah, so if I cut outside, nothing changes in that second aspect. Yes, that is still full; it's not reduced. Um, so that's one aspect of it. The second thing, at least why it becomes difficult sometimes, is the persistence of this illusion, like you're saying, right? Like I see this same hand every morning. So this physical body seems like it's real, and the identification is gripped into that. But how do we know we see it every morning?

Through that same... this is the only moment you're seeing it. It's just a dream.

Correct. I wouldn't know. You don't know. Yeah. So one thing that happened was, like, I'm sure you've also seen them, most people must have seen them today with AI, they can show a five-year-old girl transform into an eighty-five-year-old woman and it's in an accelerated way. But every time I looked at that, looking into that person's eyes, the immediate not question but awareness that comes about is: everything's changing, but there's something constant, and that is who I am. And that's easy to appreciate, like in these kinds of visualizations. But in your own body, it's this persistence of that illusion.

Yeah. And the thing is, although it's very useful to look at it that way, the thing is that in that kind of context, it may be better to take the whole universe as your body, yeah, instead of one particular body. So this whole universe transforms in time, you see, but you are that in which this universe takes birth. As Ashtavakra said, you are the boundless ocean in which the arcs of the universes come and go. So in that way, then we go beyond localizing ourselves in a spatial sort of way. And we are happy to admit that when we talk about the dream state, we say the whole thing is within myself, but it seems a bit radical to say that about the waking state. But it's not at all radical; it means as normal as that. So to your second question, where is this happening from?

The experience, where is this observation, awareness happening from? The experience, like many people have said, it's the words that come out as 'it's outside space and time,' but it's because of lack of the mind's ability to describe where that is. And so I feel it's an inference because I don't know any better. But my core... I'm coming to my question is: does that matter in everything that is happening in satsang? Let's say it was a product of the brain. I feel nothing that you've said or you've made us experience hinges on whether Consciousness ultimately is coming from this brain or it's universal and it's out of time and space, because I'm unable to know either way. So does it matter?

Yeah, so let's... thank you, thank you for that. So yes, so then for that to happen, then we must be under this bigger hypnosis where even our intuitive insight is actually just some programming from the brain. So we have not just the mind and all that stuff, but also that which we are calling the Holy Spirit, the Satguru presence, the light of Atma within—all of that also must be part of the programming. And can we completely negate that? We cannot. It may be. But from what rings completely true here is that this heart is the only trustable mode of knowledge that we really have. Is it? Now, to have some scientific proof of that? No, I don't know.

I don't either. All I'm trying to say is, and that also rings true what you just said for me as well, experientially it is, lack of a better phrase, it's the center of everything. It's from where everything emerges. It cannot be reduced further. All of that rings very true. It doesn't have a sense of time; it doesn't have a sense of birth. But I feel if I hassle my brain with... not my brain, if I get too hassled up in that question of actually where it is and I'm not able to find an answer, yeah, I'll keep saying the same thing as 'I don't know'.

Well, in the sense that that's why often I talk about: what is contemplation? When we talk about contemplation in satsang, contemplation in satsang should never be a hassle. No, no, in the sense that... let me elaborate on that, because it is impossible for us to be effortfully intuitive, see? That's what I... in the sense that when we are being intuitive, we cannot try harder to be intuitive, you see? There's no lever to press over there. When we are trying with our intellect, we say, 'Okay, this plus this, therefore that, and then this one said like that,' so pull that in, you see? Try to juggle all those variables and your head squeezes up like that. You can do all that effort. So that can be effort. But when we are being intuitive, there are no variables that you can pull in. There's nothing. At best, we can keep the intention of a question, is it? Okay, without sounding too... let me sound like that. We can only offer that question up to the Atma within in humility, and that's the extent of the effort which is needed, is it? So it's actually to contemplate these questions, starting from the main question 'Who am I?' downwards to 'Where were you born?', 'Can you die?', 'What is love?', 'What is music?', 'What is truth?', 'What is justice?'. All of these questions we can't really try to solve, you see? There's a whole mode of knowledge, philosophy, which is trying to solve that intellectually, conceptually. But spirituality doesn't try to solve it in the head. We just offer it up. We just carry the intention lightly with us and we offer it up to the Atma within, to the Satguru presence within, and the answers just seem to show up. And that's what also I wanted to say: that the possibly the only reassurance is that those who truly explored this across the world, across cultures, across traditions, across religions, at the core of all of it have come to the same insight. And even across the country itself, in the olden times it was not so easy to travel from one part to the other, but sages in the north came to the same insight, sages in the south came to the same insight. The words were different, the expression was all different, but at the core of all those who are speaking from the truth, they are offering the same insight. So either it's a complete mass hypnosis like the Matrix thing is happening, or there is a true mode of knowledge which is intuition, which is the Holy Spirit within ourselves.

Father, the experience is exactly what you said. What I meant... okay, something else is coming if I may just add to that, which is to say that...

So anything that is offered as a question in satsang, what do we do with that, you see? What do we do with that? We just use one or two of them, we carry the aura of the question lightly and allow our heart to show us the answer, you see? So it's actually like a beautiful process. It is. So if you find yourself crying, if you find yourself getting confused, then know that you're going in the wrong direction. You're using the wrong instrument, you see? The mind-intellect has no real job in this process, you see. In fact, the job is to keep it aside.

What's coming up is actually the opposite of that. There's no confusion. Everything you said rings true. I guess what I'm trying to say is the only thing I can say ultimately is that's my experience, and I can't prove it to anybody else that it's not coming from my brain. And what I'm trying to say is I stopped caring about that just so that I don't have to convince other people if they ask me. So that was my sense of saying that. But yeah, everything else... in fact, my go-to point when I'm getting trapped in Maya is: where is the experience happening? And as soon as I marinate in that, it becomes clear that it's not here, it's beyond here, and then there's a deep relief and relaxation and opening. And so all of that really rings true.

Just a little bit about the brain. Yeah, so I had similar inclinations to think about it, and then I came to know about the brain and like, you can cut it into pieces and it's not a single entity. It is like 200 pieces and you can remove 20 pieces and it just works, other 20 pieces just works. So the general concept of a brain is to imagine it as one entity that can do stuff, but in itself it is like... that would probably answer some of this.

So returning to the apparency of this insight: with as much simplicity and innocence, just see when you're looking at this hand, when you're looking at this world, whether there's anything besides this world that you are just naturally aware of. Try to close my eyes? Okay, try with closed eyes.

Returning to the apparency of this insight: with as much simplicity and innocence, just see when you're looking at this hand, when you're looking at this world, whether there's anything besides this world that you're just naturally aware of. Try with closed eyes first. Even with the eyes closed, there's a darkness that is perceived. There may be thoughts, there may be imagination, there may be sensations of the body. All perceived. Is that all, or are you aware of something beyond all of that? And be careful not to imagine anything or visualize anything, because that visualization will be the mind's attempt to give you a sort of painting as an answer.

That something—Brahman or Atma or God or whatever—is supposed to be imminent and transcendent. So when we are in this world, we're in two realities. What I'm attempting to show by asking this question is the transcendent nature of this. Once we recognize the transcendent in the process of this 'neti-neti' in some way, then even everything that arises—that we call the world, that we call Maya—is just within myself, within my being itself. It becomes intuitively apparent to us. When we discover our transcendent nature, it is natural for us to recognize that we are imminent as well. So it's not that you have to discover both those things separately.

Leave one and just be in the transcendent? Good for nothing in the world?

Well, that's a bit complicated to answer. When we allow the Atma to guide us and to move us, you see, according to the mind, that may be 'good for nothing' in the world. But for me, that is the highest way to be in the world. So whose judgment will we rely on for whether our life is a productive life or not? If we rely on the judgment of our heart, then we would call that the most important use of a life. But if we rely on the judgment of society and all of that, then many may say it is wasting your life. 'What are you doing?'

The reason I said this was because my Swami Ji, he has this whole place where he trains brahmacharis and sannyasis, and he said once they finish the course, they're good for nothing. I mean, in a way, that's a fun way to put it.

In the eyes of the world, they become good for nothing, but the world doesn't probably realize how useful that is for the world. It's good to mention that people used to ask Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi just on that question. People used to say, 'Bhagavan, you know, the freedom struggle... why are you sitting in a cave and doing nothing? This is the time when the country is trying to liberate itself.' And then he writes about Gandhi Ji. Gandhi Ji reported sometimes he went without thought, like he didn't know what was happening, but he was just following some inner intuition. It was just happening, like some of his marches. This is how Bhagavan used to respond: that we don't know. He's enlightened; he's acting on intuition. Things may happen to even the most magnificent people changing the world; it also may happen just through the Self. We can't say. Or maybe not. Bhagavan is inspiring millions around the world even though he only lived in a cave. So we can't say what 'good for nothing' means.

It is natural for society to say that, you see, because they are swinging to a different beat. Everybody wants to prove that their way of existence is the best way. They actually feel threatened when somebody offers a different way of being because they feel they've bet their whole life on one way of existing, and there's a chance that there's another way which could be better. They're very scared of that idea. Not that we should ever say that our way of life is better, you see, because we can't actually conclude any of that, and that would be pride. But this is why these kind of judgments will come our way from our families, from our friends, from most of society actually. 'Get married, you become a brahmachari, or get married...'

I also used to say that all these holy people in the Himalayas who were praying, they're causing so much positive energy in this world. I am, I am, I am, I am. I exist. I am that. I don't need a mind, I don't need a body to exist. That was a way of thinking. If I am the body, I'm the mind... but today I felt very strongly when he said 'I am.' It was like, I don't need it. It is not the body, not the mind. And then suddenly one thought, like many soft thoughts, it came right and it oscillated completely, like a whisper saying, 'I just probably don't like that, I don't like that.' It's a very simple thing, but the oscillation was so profound. From that thing inside, just identifying with one thought, and it seems like you are a body-mind and you have a future. That's it. That's how Maya works.

So there, the pure perception is gone. In reality, nothing changed, but that which is unreal now seems real. When Shankara said Maya is both real and unreal, this is what he meant: that we can take it to be reality, or when we don't take it to be anything at all, it's apparent that it's unreal. But actually, all of this is very simple. It's very simple, but to apply it moment to moment doesn't seem easy. It seems you have to bet your whole life on this because the mind offers you all kinds of things which seem to be important for your life. They may be about the body, they may be about your future, they may be about your security, they may be about your relationships. It offers you all of those things. But to stick to God's light, God's presence in itself is very, very simple. Moment to moment is not difficult, but the mind makes an object in time. It tells you that you had a past, you will have a future, you need to do that.

What was spinning a bit here was when you said the whole universe is our body. At first, it seems so enormous to say something like that, but really the experience is so... if I really don't touch a single thought, then I can't say that there's a body. It's really just perceptions. It's just one screen of perceptions, and then it's somehow so clear that this is true. Thank you. But as soon as the tiniest thought comes in, it's just blown away.

Not just the coming of the thought, of course, but the grasping. Suppose the light of the projector had to claim a body for itself. The light of the movie projector had to claim a body for itself. What would be the more apt body for it to claim: the whole screen or just one of the characters that appears on the screen? If it was to claim a physicality for itself, it is more apt to claim the whole screen. So you're the light of the projector; now you're being forced to claim some physical something to be your body. What would be a more apt claim: one character that appears within that light and appears on the screen, or to claim the whole screen as your physical aspect? We don't feel that really, but what would be more accurate? If you had to pick between the two, having the insight as to what you are, then it would be more apt to claim that this whole world-play, this whole universe, all these perceptions are my body. Why should I pick out just one set of perceptions, one set of sensations, as my body?

If you enlighten your dream, then you won't have met your dream Guru yet, but there are times—I don't know if this is true—where you recognize that you're in a dream. Then you don't take a body to be yourself. You see the whole dream is just playing out. You're just mostly waiting for the dream to get over. You have those experiences where you recognize that you're dreaming and then you're not identified as a body in that dream. You see that the whole dream is playing out. You still have the centrality of the visual perspective, so it still seems to appear through the lens of one instrument in that dream, but you're no longer identifying as just that object.

The basis of me taking myself to be this instrument is just a thought. I find that hard to believe because I think there's so much investment in it for years.

Okay, right now, take yourself to be the body without believing a thought. That quick. I've had conversations with many of you where you said, 'But when the sensations appear, I take myself to be the body.' And we say: try it. Observe the sensation of pain, observe the sensation of pleasure. You still don't take yourself to be the body till you bind to a thought. And once you bind to the thought, the whole kosha of conditioning, the whole tree of conditioning, is available, you see?

Yes, all tasting is happening by the being itself, by Consciousness. I am not... there is no such 'you' to taste it. To taste something, pleasure or pain, that one, the taster, has to exist, and the only existent is the being itself.

The one that we take ourselves to be, the one that we are, is not tasting the dream, is not affected by the dream, cannot be attacked by the dream, cannot be hurt by the dream, but is aware of all the perceptions. So we have to clarify what we mean by 'taste.' It is aware of all the perceptions of sight, taste, touch, smell—all of these things. From the standpoint of absolute reality, which is awareness itself, nothing has ever happened. This whole thing is very odd, but that oddness comes from the perspective of taking usual worldly knowledge to be the benchmark of the truth. In contrast to that, it's very odd. It's all ulta (upside down).

Father, I fully absorb and can experience what you're saying. At the same time, I just want to get some guidance. When you're contemplating yourself as observing the screen on which everything is happening, and you're the observer of the screen, all desire goes away, right? Because you're not the character; you're not invested in the character that you're seeing. So all desire goes away. And so, also decision-making... I find I can either whittle away everything as being redundant, like a lot of these daily decisions. And so there are these other secondary complications which arise, like interactions with other people, even within the family, because nobody else is resonant. Again, the other thing is nobody's resonant with it. I thought the Self is only one; this is now duality, this is another thought.

Okay, let me answer what I heard so far. When you're just empty, then all desire goes away because there is no desire except a thought which is believed in, which says if you had this it would be better, or it's better if you never have this again—which is aversion, which is the same as desire, just looking the other way around. So, empty of all of these thought-beliefs, then you're saying that decision-making, the importance, the value given to certain things...

Let me answer what I heard so far. I'm looking forward to hearing myself speaking to myself. When you're just empty, then all desire goes away because desire is nothing except a thought which is believed in, no? Which says if you had this, it would be better, or it's better if you never have this again—which is aversion, which is the same as desire, just looks the other way around. So, empty of all of these thought beliefs, then you're saying that decision-making, the importance, the value given to certain things which seemed so important earlier, has been whittled down. It seems to be so pointless, you see.

But what I would guide you is to just live in the heart instead of the mental compartment of spirituality in the head, you see? Because if it becomes the mental compartment of spirituality in the head, then it can become nihilistic like that. It's like, 'What's the point? What's the point? All meaningless, all meaning,' you see? So then we become like the nihilistic philosophers and things who are saying there's no point to any of this. And you see, whatever the construct may be that they are believing—even if the construct is that I am Consciousness and I am never born and I'm never dying and I'm not this body—even if these remain this construct, then it's easy to get into that kind of mode.

Now, as opposed to usually what happened, then we can't predict. But when you're living moment to moment in the light of the Atma within, in the light of the God's presence within, then you never know. Somebody says, 'Uh, you want to come have idli with me?' You see? So your spiritual mind may say, 'Idli? What's that? I am that boundless ocean in which these universes come and go. Don't talk to me about idli,' you know, like that. But your heart may say, 'Yeah, let's go have a...' You don't know. So we can't really predict. So just allow yourself to just move from that unpredictability of the heart. Just allow yourself to move from there, and because there it is not nihilistic, you recognize that this whole realm is not meaningless, but its meaning is beyond our intellect, you see? So then we don't get into that mode of, 'Oh, pointless, pointless.'

I offer another ridiculous example just to elaborate on that. So for example, two, three years ago I would enjoy dancing. I could dance for five hours or whatever and enjoyed it, but alcohol was required. So I went for a friend's 40th—50th, sorry—and dance started and I was like, 'Oh, you know, I don't need to dance, beyond all that.' I wasn't saying it that clearly, but somewhere you see that resistance was there. Then I asked myself, 'You enjoy dancing or you don't enjoy dancing?' The answer was, 'Yeah, I enjoy dancing.' So I ended up dancing for four, five hours without any alcohol, and it was the most trippy experience in the sense that dancing seemed like a very pointless activity if I talk to my head. 'Why is the body moving? Why does all this have to happen? What am I even getting out of it?' There's no answers to any of that, but it felt amazing.

Yeah, so that happened. And I'm sharing that just to understand what you're trying to communicate right now to Arin's point is I was on the edge of the nihilism that, 'What's the point of dance?' But it was a very mental spiritual box that you're talking about—mental spiritual box—whereas my heart enjoys dancing. After that, I've gone in the plane, in the bathroom in the plane, and gone and danced. Okay, then I realized I'm not even dancing for anybody else, I just like dancing. And I'm not embarrassed to even share that with friends anymore, like, 'Dude, I like dancing.' That's so...

What's your crazy or no? No, not at all. In fact, in fact, we spoke about this briefly at the beginning and I can elaborate on this. We cannot really, really enjoy music in our mind, you see? What makes music music, you see, it's the same that makes love love, you see? Beauty beauty, truth truth. Otherwise, what is it? Somebody playing drums, some noise is being made by some instrument. Why do we enjoy? You see, to the mind, especially to the intellectual mind which wants like higher meaning and all of that, music seems pointless, you see? Whereas our heart loves music, our heart loves beauty, our heart loves truth, love. So yes, these are very inherent to the play of this existence, some of these, and we can't really understand.

So somebody who's not studied classical music, you make them hear a bhajan tune, even the par tune, without understanding—especially without understanding—it'll have a deeper effect on you. You make them see a beautiful painting, it has an effect on you beyond the mind intellect.

So the guidance, because these doubts show up, right? This spiritual box that you said, I've just been trying to follow what you said some time back is it keeps you open and empty. Yes, and the 'me' is not arising in that activity. It's kind of just... just do it.

Yeah. Krishna is supposed to have danced with the gopis. Jesus is supposed to have danced with his friends. So there's no... I don't know about Ram dancing except when he was a child.

Like another this intellectual spirituality box was, 'Oh, I'm done dancing to EDM. It should be spiritual music.' Then it was like, 'No, it's okay.' You're going to do a spiritual Shiva album at one point, spiritual EDM Shiva album at one point. Shambo, Shambo, Shambo. What was that to say? That EDM is better than... don't do the tandav in the airline.

So other, like earlier intellectual me would think that prayers and all such a stupid thing, people walking and going to temple. Now everything is... who am I to... not only for us, for everything is like that now.

Hari used to come, one boy, you know? Hari used to come to satsang and when after sitting for some time in satsang, his body would start moving like Bharatnatyam, you know? And standing and doing steps and things like that. And it was just like... and he never learned, never learned any of that. And the movements used to look very, very perfect actually, he was so good. And it would happen very often, you know? And he could not have faked it. Like if he tried to dance like that, he could never do it. So when you become empty, you don't know how it's going to... so that's scary.

Then it's like the stories of these avadhutas that you hear. They're not bound by these constructs in the mind, and they can be very scary actually to the mind itself. You want to be proper.

Like experientially, since alcohol was not required, the experience was that there's a different kind of intoxication in this awareness. Because I was able to step out of the dance flow and then just go and sit like quietly for 10 minutes and just, you know, everything that we even do in satsang, and was like a very seamless experience. Something else was kind of powering it, that's how it felt.

And we did the fresh-fresh exercise that day. You reported, one of you reported that, 'I've never felt like this without having to rely on a substance,' you know? So what is that? That is what is called Brahmananda, is it? It's beyond all Ananda that the world can offer, the Ananda of Brahman itself, you see? This, that's why you see these sages, like you look at a lot of Papaji videos and he's having a serious conversation with someone but he's just laughing, laughing, laughing. And when I first started watching them, I used to wonder, 'What is he laughing at? Why is he laughing?' It's just so much Ananda just appears. But we will never make that like a goal or a benchmark. It has to be organic like that.

Yesterday you told me that if at all you want to doubt, you should doubt from the heart. So can it be like if I inquire into something, did that also be considered as a doubt from the heart?

Yes, in a way that is what contemplation means. So in the sense that we were talking about something and I said that we must, like my intention is to say that we must shift to the heart completely and then even if a doubt has to come, let it come from the heart. So when you ask a question 'Who am I?' then you can ask me, you can bring it to your heart and stay there. But really I was saying that we must not try to solve or resolve over here. We've lived there long enough. Just have to be in the heart and even if you want to doubt or say no no, yes yes, whatever, let it come from the heart. The doubts and questions are always... so then we can just go to our heart and say, 'Is there a doubt there also? Is this true there also?' Because the doubts can seem very true, but now you have access to intuition, you have access to the Satguru presence within. So if it is true, it must be true there.

Mother, I want to know if the other person is trying to point to something in, let's say, a defect, and it's truly coming from the heart, can I still be poked by it?

What can get poked is what we must see. So let's first not worry about the outer circumstances, whether another is coming from the heart or coming from the mind. Wherever they're coming from, what is the process that we are calling poking? What is that? How to get poked? Suppose you were to try and poke me, how would you do it? By attacking your belief, yes, attacking belief, persona, identity in some way, isn't it? That I take myself to be a good person, suppose, and you say, 'Father, actually I've seen you now for five, six years and you're actually a terrible person.' So then, no, like that. So then that may be a poke.

But is it possible to poke that which is not a belief that I carry about myself? So I'm empty as space, now poke me. Not possible. So then when the process of poking happens, then it's not so important to judge what the other's intention was, where they are coming from. What is it that still continues to be here that can be poked? We must, in a way—I know, I know, difficult in that moment—but at least after a few moments we must take it as a gift from God to say, 'Thank you God for showing me this,' you see? Because I had a blind spot. I was not aware that this thing still is there in the remote control of the ego which can press that button and poke. So you must look at that. At some point it may not be immediate, but start to look at that as a gift and to say, 'Okay, now what pokes? Which identity is the most poked one?'

It's the spiritual identity.

Spiritual. When like when I feel that... so the story is that the other one is coming with spiritual gyan and I don't like... there's a resistance to that. But why would you not like it? You come to satsang for spiritual gyan. I know we're looking together. So what is it that the thought says? That I can listen from Father but not the other? In some way or the other, the mind can offer us that we are peers or we are friends and 'Don't try to Father me,' that kind of thing.

Now, how to deal with these situations? Of course, the obvious answer is to allow your heart to move you, allow your heart to guide you. But also that it's very important that we must never make it about another person. We must never make it personal, which is what the mind wants us to do immediately. So we've known each other say four, five years, and the nature of the mind is if I see something, even in jest, what happens? Something that pokes, the mind will say what? It will not say, 'Okay, this habit is there or this error exists for this one and he's misreading and falling for that trap and I should help him get over that trap because he's my brother.' Then I should help him get over that. It will be, 'He is like that only. He always does this only.' You see? So it moves it beyond the error into the person. And then when we take another to be personal, what do we take ourself to be? It is not possible to take another to be personal without taking ourself to be a person, you see? Then who is won? The mind is won.

As opposed to that, if you say, 'Ah, I notice with the sister, with Father, whoever, that there's a particular tendency which seems to me in my heart, or even my intellect is telling me that it seems to me that it is like this way.' So I will not... I don't want to let my brother or sister or father not notice that tendency.

To take another to be personal, what do we take ourselves to be? It is not possible to take another to be a person without taking ourself to be a person, you see. Then who is one? The mind is one, you as opposed to that. If you say, 'Ah, I notice with the sister, with Father, whoever, that there's a particular tendency which seems to me in my heart, or even my intellect is telling me that it seems to me that it is like this way.' So I will not—I don't want to let my brother or sister or Father not notice that tendency, and maybe that is blocking them from living truly in God's presence all the time. So how can I serve them? How can I be in service to them so that I can point out the error without making it about 'you are a bad person' or 'you are a person like this'?

I know in the same conversation you changed it from being about something poking me to me pointing it out. Yes. So how do we then have these engagements? How do we have conversations which are truly heartfelt, you see, and truly constructive and not just like happy-happy and not really pointing out, not really being brotherly or sisterly as a sangha? Because everybody's saying, 'Let me not say bad things, let me not say things which could cause conflict,' you see. But we have to notice the tendency to make it about the person rather than about the error itself. And once we make it about the person, we are taking ourselves to be an affected person because of that.

Sin and sinner, yes.

Like, we all see how you deal with it. Like, you notice some tendency in all of us, and then let's say you notice a tendency in me. The way you deal with it is like picking a hair out of butter, like a hair strand. I don't feel attacked, but I get the point. But many times when I'm dealing with another, then it becomes personal, or I make it personal.

It's also because you've given me a certain trust, you've given me a certain faith. So when it comes from me and you, and that credibility has been built up over the years that this one is only trying to help me, that could be one reason. The other thing is that we can smell that thing. We can really smell that thing, that this is something that is being personally pointed out about me rather than just like a condition there or a tendency there being zeroed in on. So it becomes more like a surgery than a slapping. Okay? In the surgery, the doctor cuts you, and we pay that doctor millions or thousands of rupees and we say, 'Ah, such a good doctor is doing surgery.' A crook or a thief or somebody comes and stabs you, and we report that to the police. The difference is the intention.

Suppose the surgery also went bad and you were left with a wound, and both wounds are the same. The difference is that we trust the intention of one and the other one we rightfully don't trust what they wanted to do in the case of the thief or the crook. So it's like that. So although the process of the surgery may be similar, because you trust or you have faith in where that is happening from, then you may value that. But if the same thing is happening from a friend or a peer or a youngster, maybe then we feel like, 'You know, who are you to tell me?' like that. It seems easier to take that as an attack. That which resists is the ego, which is the same as the 'me,' yes.

Like if God was here, then what would we need to know? Once you know that God is here, what else do you need to know? Just relax about life. God is taking care. I read somewhere that ships are safe in the harbor, but that's not the true purpose of the ship, right? It's supposed to be in the ocean. So you're all ships. You're safe in the harbor, but the true purpose of the ship is not to be in the harbor but out in the sea where it's wild, right? It will be a snake or a—what is that—scorpion sting can come from any form, yeah. But that is a true lesson which we have to learn, yeah.

But what you're also learning is how to carry the true harbor with you wherever you go. God's presence, God's life. So you are safe wherever you are because you are in God's life. So even if a genuine attack comes in a genuine sense—like somebody's wanting to, you know, from the mind, from the heart—when you detach, I mean, why is it so important to determine where the other one is coming from in outside life, right, at work? And where do we determine that? Mostly from our mind. We are determining whether the other one is coming from the mind or heart. The heart is hardly ever saying, 'He's being so mindy.' Something happens, there's an attack, there's a pain in your heart, right? It's blocked. Something happens at a physical level, right? Then the natural flow stops.

So we must attempt in those conditions to take a timeout from whatever that situation is, if it is at all possible, or at least inwardly try to. And that's a muscle building you're doing in satsang—is to allow you to take that timeout so that the block or the sensations with attention all going on don't seem so primary in that moment. So it's very important to just regain your center and then continue the dealing, because then otherwise it just aggravates, yes. It's like it seeds it over there, it seeds over there. See, if you're in a room where even two people are fighting, you notice that same energy starts to arise in you also, right? It wants to participate in that because the same systems are unfolding everywhere. So we must take some time, maybe just visit the restroom or something, drink water.

Also, it's like waking up to God, yes? Is it? So you wake up, you don't rush into things, you take that time. The mind tries to grab you first thing in the morning and says, 'You have to do this today, there's no time for this really, you have to catch a flight, you have to fly to Spain or something like that, there's no time for all this God and all that today, you're already late.' No?

Yes.

In this simulation, even there are instances where I wanted a break, I want to escape for a moment to artificially create a break, but I was cornered, like, because it was an obvious setup. So I mean, only that time a thought about you, right, or the practice which you've been doing, it really helps. But it's not easy, as I can say, but it requires a lot of effort.

Okay, just write it off in the balance sheet of life. If you keep dwelling on that, then that moment itself seems to expand into a longer time. Just quickly return to God's life, God's presence. You mentioned that if one has to follow this and it's becoming like too much maybe to follow and understand, yeah, then that's a mind activity. If it's just naturally—if you have to try, if you have to make an effort, then it is a mental sort of attempt. Drop it. Yeah, just drop it. If it doesn't make sense also, just drop it.

Yes, especially when it doesn't make sense. Like how do we inquire, for example? So we ask ourself, 'Who am I?' But it won't help if you say, 'Who am I? Who am I?' You see, it's not going to—it's only going to become more dramatic and no outcome will come out of that, you see. So it's like, 'I'm really doing the inquiry hard.' You can't do it that way. So just say, 'Who am I?' And when you ask the question, its sort of aura remains. Like if you ask, 'Where am I from? Can I die?' You see? Like that. And it needs patience, needs courage, because the mind will push you saying, 'You need an answer quickly,' you know, all of these things. So you'll notice that all these things—to remain in the heart needs patience and courage and needs faith that God is really here, He's really hearing everything I'm saying, hearing everything I'm asking, and that He loves me and He's not going to abandon me to fend for myself.

So then when we are confused about what to do in family situations or things in relationships or things about financial security, all of that, we say, 'What should I do?' We don't have the answer. We need to just wait. We just need to be patient with our heart.

And these days, for the past few weeks, I've been really struggling with the mala because it takes me a good 45 minutes to an hour to just even get through ten cycles of saying it. What happens is you start with it, then why does it take an hour? What happens? I just—yeah, and it's also become where at some point I started noticing that between the first and the second time I'm saying it itself, I'm getting lost. So now there is something suggesting, 'Okay, so the second one is coming up and let's see, are you going to be able to stick with it? Are you going to—oh, already after the first, it's already trying to take you.'

Okay. And when you started, it was easy? Yes, it happens that there can be almost—that is what happened here was that there would be a sense of boredom, there would be a sense of 'maybe this is not right,' you know, this kind of thing. When I first started chanting and things like that, then I talked about how inconsistent I was in every practice and those things. So it can be like this. But if you were to just have that sort of intention that 'I'll stay with it,' then it'll lose its power to be pulling you out.

Usually it goes like that. It starts off very well because it feels somewhere in these ancient mantras, these ancient beautiful words, there's some beautiful energy, some beautiful things we experience. But after a while, it seems, 'Oham, ham,' you know, like that. Not Soham, but 'hum.' But then once we get over that, then it truly goes to your heart. So I would really suggest just go with it and it'll get easier and easier. The mind will resist in this time especially. It may say, 'Try a different mantra,' it may say, 'Try and do this.' It will give you different things to try to get you off track.

After doing it, just for a fraction of a second—I just want to quantify time there—it's just an absence of thoughts, like a stay, and that's it. So when you say, 'Can you be in God's presence?' or 'Can you feel God's presence?' yes, so that momentary absence of thoughts is like a samadhi. It is the goal of the practice in some sense. But am I fixating too much on the word 'presence' then?

If you come into being empty in that way, then don't worry about presence, yes. Besides being empty, we can't do anything to taste the presence also. The word 'attack' is a very big word. It's not really true. Like, the word itself feels—'poke' is like a needle and 'attack' is like a sword, like that. Maybe a milder word. When the other one is saying something, it's not truly an attack. But what's the milder word for attack? Poke. So poke would be like a minor implement and attack would be a gada. So you're saying that it can only poke the identity that I have built. What can get poked? How do I poke this space in this room? And you are that in which this space appears. How to poke that?

So now I see that there's a spiritual identity that is getting poked. Now what do I do?

Yes. So what is it? What is the crux of that identity? What is the message in that? Like a spiritual achievement?

Yes, so 'I'm a spiritual achiever,' let's say.

So inquire into that. Say, 'Who is this?' or pray into it and say, 'Father, take away my pride.' Because no truly spiritual achiever is a spiritual achiever, yes? Who is it, the one who gets poked? It's identity. Like, what is pride? A notion of being something special. What is false humility? A notion, 'Oh, but I am nothing.' What is true humility? Just heartfelt recognition that all that is good comes from God. The question to ask is: Who is proud? Yes. Any 'who' question is good. Any 'why' question is a waste of time. Yeah.

I was pride before here, and then I went to that question, 'Who's proud?' and I wanted to ask you—well, that was a good question to ask because it was confusing here whether it was Consciousness or something else that was being proud. Who picks up identity?

Consciousness, obviously, because only the existent can. What can this cup pick up?

Just heartfelt recognition that all that is good comes from God. Question to ask: Who is proud? Yes, any 'who' question is good; any 'why' question is a waste of time.

Yeah, I was pride before here, and then I went to that question: 'Who's proud?' and I wanted to ask you. Well, that was a good question to ask because it was confusing here whether it was Consciousness or something else that was being proud. Who picks up identity?

Consciousness, obviously, because only the existent can. Like, what can this cat do? That which doesn't exist can't do. Even to identify has to be Consciousness itself. Yes, there's nobody else. Like, what is option two? It could be Consciousness or... because sometimes when we ask 'who,' it's because it belongs to something. And in this case, in this question, what appears when we ask 'who'? What appears? So the 'who' question actually demolishes anything that can appear or anything that seems to take a shape of 'for me.' Like, 'Who am I?' Today we've been focusing so much on 'Where am I?' That's also a very good question. Where are you?

Sorry for the question, but if it is Consciousness that is proud, then why ask 'Who is proud?'

Because to see that Consciousness, to play as if it is proud, invents this imaginary persona. So when we ask the 'who' question, then that persona demolishes; it's let go of. Who is playing? So, 'I am a person' is identity, isn't it? So even for a person, it has to attach to 'I am' only. It cannot attach to 'you are' or 'they is' or whatever. So the substratum of all of this play has to be Consciousness itself. Only on that substratum of Consciousness can we even build the false ego. So yeah, the question of every 'who' will always be going back to being who we are, to recognize who we are. If we are intuitive in our method of questioning and not mental, it will lead to the insight of who we really are and not what we are taking ourselves to be. No one is solving some big problem like world peace or something like that. The mic is just passing.

It's the same old thing. Like last week, I couldn't come to satsang. I was stuck with my work, and I do remember evenings when I'm just sitting idle and I have the sense of turning inward, but I couldn't do it. And Radhama sent me a message—I mean, a video—and I was sure that it is something about God, and I couldn't open it. So the last entire week just went like that. Now I'm just trying to analyze that, and then I'm like thinking, 'I can't do anything when I'm at that, and I cannot analyze it.' Yeah, it's just that I can be with God now.

Exactly. And let's face it, when that happens... so you were just going through that. Yes, exactly. So those are what I call write-offs. It's lost time; forget it now. Don't lose more time on that. So it takes you away from satsang, and then it makes you think about why you are away from satsang during the time you are in satsang. See, that's what I've been calling the one-two punch. So what do you think about it now? First, it didn't want us to think about God, and then it makes us think about why we didn't want to think about God. Still not thinking about God. And 'thinking' is being used loosely there. Do you feel like God can fix the past or only the future? Most of us believe God can only fix the future. Hopefully, at least that much we feel like, 'Let's pray to him so that our future is better.' But why can't God fix the past? God is not stuck in that X, Y, Z, and T. You know the X, Y, Z, and T? The X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis, and the fourth dimension of time. K has a nice idea. Anything that restricts God in some way is just a fancy idea. Because we cannot fathom the depth of God's justice and his ways, we found a provisional replacement for his justice. When he's there, then we don't need to make a system. He's just... all notions of justice also come from him only in our heart. How do we expect life to be just? Because it is universally present in our heart, no? Then we rely on fancy notions like Karma. Even then, it is only his will, you see. And his will cannot be restricted by a system. It's like, 'Oh, he himself has made the system, now he has to adhere to that.' It's not working in a software company or something, CMMI level five process.

Karma... I was thinking that, and now you'll get me in trouble. I mean, you pull out the big guns and I'm in trouble. Who am I to argue? So you want me to say something about that? There are many things like that where we'll hear about the lives of the Masters, and they are coming from a place of kindness, compassion, love, all of these things. And maybe the attendant wanted to understand, so the answer has to... yes, it's natural, no, that you feel that you hurt a tiny innocent bird. So in your compassion, in your kindness, I don't feel like you would have cried from the fear that, 'Oh, I have this bad karma.' So I don't feel like, from whatever I've heard or whatever I feel about Bhagavan, I don't feel like... in fact, he would be one who would say, 'Give me all the Karma, give me the world's Karma, and let it be, let it afflict this body.' So I don't feel like you would have cried because of the effect of that. You would have cried out of the compassion and love that you feel for hurting another small innocent being. And you don't know what the attendants understand; you don't know what was told, what is captured. Hopefully, I mean, they wrote whatever he did, he cried, no? But the explanation was from there.

There was no explanation, just an insight. But that he cried because of that Karma of taking and all that... okay. Just sometimes to explain to someone, we just use some words, maybe in the emotion. Because even the proponents of Karma are clear about one thing, which they say is that it's not the action itself, but the intention, you see. So I would find it a bit strange if Bhagavan said that unintentionally. Yeah, yeah, it's okay. All right, doesn't matter. There are many things in, like, 'I Am That' which the translator may have got wrong. So there are many... yeah, I cannot, I will never say that Bhagavan was wrong. I will always say, 'Okay, if he has said, then this stupid boy has to be wrong.' So state clearly: the waking stage should be taken as a dream. Yeah, difficult that you would identify so much to something. Well, also it's true that, like all Masters have said, everything... yeah, the words are pointers. But okay, let's see. What is the main thing? Is there Karma or not? Is that the question? No. If you forget God, then God's justice is not working. Okay, so let's make a distinction over there. God just is. What is your heart feeling? Understand that it is alive and fresh and up to his will moment to moment, or does it have to be sort of fixed according to a particular system which he himself has made? So he's made himself like a servant of his own system. What appeals to you more? That's why I'm saying that in my exploration, in my contemplation, it seems like a very nice way to understand that which is actually beyond understanding, because most of humanity needs that, some understanding to rely on. So it's a nice explanation of some understanding. But those who are in the heart and in love with God, I have to go beyond the intellectual understanding.

What about when he himself had to do the atonement that he did?

Yeah, even from there it came. If you use the big gun, then I will only have to say they are right, and what does this boy know? But she also says that God is not like... if you forget God, then there is... that's what she says. Then as a little boy in front of my daddy, I only have to defer to what she said. How did you find... no, no, I'm just saying that you must listen when it is a contrast between all these great sages and this stupid boy; you must always listen to them. One thought: he must have done something, that's why you came to Amma. About this, actually, many people ask: why can the misery... which one? But that is the favorite way, like Maharaj, Bhagavan, Rishi, Yogi, all cancel. What she says is that the Masters take their disciples' Karma when we prostrate in front of them. But we give them things they don't have there, they don't want anything there. So it is only for our sake. It is in line with Christianity also. I only have to agree with it. And it's not something that I'm just saying to sound funny or something, but really, if the sages are telling us something, then what is this boy to say? You must trust that, you must have faith in that.

You think of God as a lovely presence since there is no face or...

Yes, and I meet him. I meet him as a loving presence in my heart and as that which is even beyond the presence, the sheer invisible, the sheer non-phenomenon. So when you ask, 'What is God's justice for you?' in your heart, check and see. Because it's been here, so it feels like God's justice is unconditional love. Because, like, I can't know why something is happening, but there's a feeling that it's out of a lovingness that it's happening. It's not because he hates me or anyone else. I mean, that wouldn't be God. I mean, I had to hate someone, you had to hate anyone. Since I can't figure it out with my limited understanding, it's like it's just always Grace, and that is justice and nothing else. It doesn't have to do much with Karma or anything. It's like, okay, some actions are being done, but to rectify that, to make you grow and bring you home, I may have to do something which then looks like some... I mean, I can call it... I just wanted to say that that's how I... I have no trouble with that conceptual framework. Like a parent deprives their child of a desire they may have for candy or TV or for something, and the child in anger will say, 'I hate you,' and the child in anger may feel that the parent hates them, you see. All this may come, but truly we know that only love is possible in that relationship. You know, actually, this was asked, but I would suggest that we don't speculate too much about how God operates because it's too much beyond our capacity to understand. I mean, in the intuition, it just feels like love. Beyond that, like I said, you can't understand why. That's what I feel. If he's here, then we don't have to be troubled. No, not yours, but I'm saying with other theories and ideas. The child is in the mother's lap; the child doesn't have to understand where the milk comes from, where the love comes from. How will the mother handle the situation? Will she love me or punish me? A child is just happy on the lap. Enjoy, don't worry. You see something more?

Just mentioned contemplating that God can change the past, or can only work in the future or past. It's a good question to ask.

It chooses the limitation of our faith in a way, without realizing. It's good to send these grenades in sometimes to blow up the blocks. What is past for God, future for God? One argument came that he would have already done that, he changed what is already... for God, the best, that's the best. You Advaitins, the argument between two Advaitins: all that happened was God's will, but nothing has ever happened. But who knows that? What you asked, that asking, dancing in... how do you know? How do you know that happened? Maybe the dream just started. The arguments are the most fun. She wants to know which airline has a bathroom that big. Must be first class or business class. We used to call it the Advaita police. Can you hear the siren? The Advaita police is coming. The question is on the Advaita police station.

So, you know, my journey here has been obviously driven through a lot of suffering, and a lot of the learning has come out of that. And like I was saying last time, a lot of circumstances have just changed by Grace, or however we want to describe it. And there's almost like a caution that, 'Oh, don't get too involved in positive change in life.' I just... there's something in me wanting to hear something from you on that side of the fence, especially because my past at least three, four years have been struggle, and now it seems externally right circumstances are just so happening to be pleasant, let's call it that. What is it that I need to be mindful of without...

Circumstances have just changed by Grace, or however we want to describe it, and there's almost like a caution that, 'Oh, don't get too involved in positive change in life.' I just... there's something in me wanting to hear something from you on that side of the fence, especially because my past at least three, four years have been struggle, and now it seems externally right circumstances are just so happening to be pleasant. Let's call it that. What is it that I need to be mindful of without invoking this police kind of...?

Yes, the love for God. Yeah, just the love for God. Just if there's one gift I could give all of you, and give to this one also, is for him or all of you and him to be fully bought by God. Just so much in love with God, whatever is happening. Yeah. So when these joyful moments are being experienced, what is happening automatically is there's this gratitude, there's this frequent revisiting God even when joy is being experienced. Like, what you had got me to meet God when I was suffering, right? So it's happening and it's okay.

So that's nice to hear, but I guess the past conditioning is coming from, you know, suffering and trauma. So it's like once bitten, twice shy kind of thing. It's there a little bit.

This line from Kabir Ji just came. What is that? You sing it, or who sings it? It said that with the Master's Grace, we could have thousands of years of karma which gets all cancelled in one moment. All this conditioning, all these tendencies—if the power of the Satguru is to clear up all of that, then God is of course... Okay, let's take a question from the chat.

Thank you, Father. Struggling with the same thing which I am so triggered. Very old story popped up among the Sangha which caused us to not speak anymore. I see spiritual arrogance in them, so left them alone, but did not actually in my mind. So did not leave them alone in my mind. Yes, I don't know how to deal with spiritual ego while they already think they are aware the best because they stayed in the ashram, etc. They are superior than everyone and they take me to be the old weak self. So many open things also there. May I ask for your blessings for resolution in the highest way? May truth be revealed and may love, respect, and forgiveness prevail.

Very quick. What is important is that it doesn't matter at all what anyone thinks of us. Doesn't matter in the least what anyone thinks of us. If you have to be good, it has to be only good in God's eyes. How to be good in God's eyes is to follow His will. That's all that is important. The rest of it—what this one thinks, what that one thinks—nobody can resolve these things, you see. Nobody can resolve these things. I'm the first member of the Sangha, but can I control what all the Sangha members think of me? Never control it. It doesn't really matter as long as I'm true to my heart, as long as I'm true to God's presence and following His will to the best of my capacity. That's all that is important.

So it's best not to get involved in those games at all. What does he think of me? What does she think of me? Doesn't matter. It's just thoughts. Our mind produces nonsense thoughts so much, and they are all nonsense. We recognize that hopefully by now. So how does it matter what the seeming other's mind is producing and what they are believing? And if they are believing, we must feel compassion for them, you see, because they are blocking their own living in God's light. So kindness and compassion must be what we feel for them, because we would not wish anyone to not live in God's light under any circumstances or conditions, no matter what they have done to us. You would not wish that upon anyone, is it so? Yes.

Sometimes out of love and out of compassion we can point out that, 'Brother or sister, this is what is blocking you.' But then we cannot do it from a place of being so weak in our own faith in God that if we don't get exactly the response which our mind wanted from them, then we say like, 'No, no, I'm never going to talk to you again.' It doesn't, you see, help, or this kind of thing. Because if you're truly serving God, then all that matters is that we are doing it in service to God, not what the other person reacts or responds. So if we are going to be instruments of service to Him, instruments to His light, then we ourselves cannot get involved in any sort of mind games and mind assaults and stances. That is very important. And we must ask ourselves, ask ourselves: how are we serving God now? And in service to God, you may be able to point out to a brother or sister that, 'I feel I love you, but I feel like this is what blocks your life.' And then their response is up to them, but you've done your service. You've done your job.

Yes, of course. No, in service to God.

Yes, exactly. So we have to follow God's will. How to serve God? To follow His will. Yeah.

So sometimes after Satsang, we talk about serving, then somewhere I'm very motivated. By walking back, I try to like... I want Him to move in that. Yes. And you also said that in case I get tricked and the intent matters, so then it becomes like I ask myself of the intent. Like, do I intend to reach home early on time or not late? Is that more important or following? And even then, after that question, I stay quiet. I stand for some time and some... it's not clear what the intent is when I decide to walk further ahead and somewhere I stop. But that... it's not very clear. Is it just me wanting to get home or is it really Him moving in?

So to be empty and then to allow Him to move you or to guide you is to follow God's will. But if you feel like we can't be empty at this moment, then we just... as long as we can truthfully say that, 'My intention is to really follow Your will, Father.' Now whether it moves or not, whether I get the guidance or not, is all... I surrender all of that to You. But truly with integrity, if we can make that prayer, then we don't have to worry so much about whether we went left or right and whether we just... that making that in that moment, I had that intention.

But what if actually, actually... what if I just want like... I don't know how to say. You're actually... you're worried that you could be putting on this facade but actually serving yourself? Is it like that? Something like that. Action happens when I move a bit forward. Yeah. Is that so? Though I might say I want to serve them, is that really my...?

Why don't you start with when while you're at home? That it's not really difficult. Like, I don't know, I don't get into... then you're able to just be in His will like that. I don't... is because what happens many times, the mind gives us projects which are purposely going to trip us up, you see. Like earlier when we used to have mostly people attending on Zoom, then many people would say, 'While I was driving to work, I was doing the inquiry. Now while I was coming back from work, I was doing the inquiry.' So I said, 'What about the rest of the time? And is it okay to do the inquiry while I'm driving?' So the mind always gives us this like difficult sort of seeming, complicated seeming thing. Let's do the simple ones first. The complicated will take care of itself.

So now you're in Satsang. Empty, empty, empty. Allow God to guide you, move you, speak through your mouth. Same, you're at home, just like that. Then you soon find that whether you're in the house or outside the house, nothing actually changes. It's just imagery on the screen. So then it doesn't become like, 'I have to resolve this project now and I have to figure this out,' you see. Like then that kind of grasping... then the mind doesn't like us to not be grasping. So I sense a bit of grasping in that, in this project that you've undertaken. Make it lighter. Make it just... intention is like that. It's not like superious, just heartfelt. Do now. Yeah. So start like that simply because possibly Satsang is the easiest environment in which you can... what I just asked now is that now this. So don't worry about that now. Now again. Now, now, now, now. It's easy. No questions are there actually.

Just the best for me at least. When we try to insert God into our journey, then it is difficult. When we meet God now, then it is easy. When we try to make an 'always' out of it, when we try to make it fix something that we think should change—no. Now. Now this. If you're struggling, remember what we spoke about. If you're struggling, then you're using the wrong instrument. Don't evaluate too much. 'I have a question but I don't know who...' Oh, that compartment, just leave it where you want to know, where you're figuring it out, you see. What does your nose want? At least you leave the head and come a little lower on the way to the heart. If it's too much of a leap, you just take a step. Yeah. A stepping stone. Now. Then don't go back up. Go further down.