Anything We Cling to Is Just a Thought - 24th Nov 2018
Saar (Essence)
Ananta teaches that liberation is not a future achievement but the natural state of remaining open and empty in this moment. He encourages dropping all conceptual labels and the need for mental control to reveal inherent freedom.
In this moment as you are empty, you're as liberated as the sage.
To cling is bondage; to be unclingable, which is your natural state now, is freedom.
We have never actually known mentally what is going on.
playful
Transcript
This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
You keep equivalents. Nice day and welcome again to satsang today. Jai Ram Ji. I'm happy to look at any questions.
Okay, some question that coming: Father, I think you mentioned a few days ago that practice is the same as liberation. Could you elaborate? What do you mean by practice here? Because after we played the game, it's just a thought, and the object of the game was what? Just remain fully open, fully empty. But is something... and a lot of thoughts also to come and go. Now, all thoughts also to come and go, but if something you feel like you do cling on to some notion, some concept... because if it is true that all things are perfectly resolved, known, gone, then when we find that we cling on to some notion thinking that this is useful, that is going to help in some way, without realizing that the source of the motion itself is the same supreme intelligence which is running this like a Leela. So when we cling on, we believe this idea of separation, of limitation, that I am just an object in this world of time and space. So the game was to expose this thought which, if you like, is still meaningful, is relevant, is important for me to expose this one. Then as the game go to work, there was a tasting for many of you, this openness of this effortless appearance. And it is at that point, it is at that thing, it is in this openness, this emptiness is the same as liberation. It is not like a badge of honor or something like that, you see. In this moment as you are empty, you're as liberated as the sage. So this is what I meant when I was talking about practice and liberation being the same. So it is not about the activity, but about just the being, complete, still, not resisted, fully open. And in this also, the truths which presumably we are seeking is completely apparent. That is where it was Dogen who said that there is no distinction between truth, freedom, and practice. So that this is to remain endowment, will remain open, coming natural, effortless. So if that is the case, and this is freedom, to cling is bondage. To cling is something to hold on to, notion, research, and to be until then, which is a natural state now, it's freedom. So in the moment that I am until egoic belief, I am free. In the moment I'm holding on to a limited idea of myself, which is the ego, that is the same. It's already a useful game, and I want to call it game because look at it more like a play. I don't want to make it come to be very serious because then you start judging yourself in how well or badly you're doing the practice. Rather than practice, I'm happy to cover the team, it's a game. And you cling, cling, cling, and I'm do this open, open, open. But as you get used to the taste of remaining open in this way, you will find that more and more natural. Let me just look at all the questions and then we can get to the game.
That's how it plays out. How to deal with the fear/anxiety of forgetting something important? I was forgetting some important work and is to be done. Mind uses this trick when I try to live in the present moment or now. Although I know mind, some part of this anxiety or fear seems real. We speak of this often where innocence appear then becomes that real. Atma, surrendering everything to you, but just make sure you don't forget the important stuff like doing the most important thing right now.
Let's say, okay, let's break it down. So let's not even talk about existence. Let's make it very, you know, real as the mind likes to call it. We like to make it very easy or according to the mind, so more something. But let's presume for a minute, so suppose that that is important work to be done by this body. There is important work to be done by this body. What is the most important thing? Breathing. The heart should be. The body has to be allowed for some important action to happen. Who's doing that? It must be supremely intelligent. Don't even have to say God, whatever is doing it. This is only religion. Do you think it seems to be quite consistent with the heart? Millions of classes in the body, this looks... let's stick to being the bottom, you see. So all of this is happening and there seems to be a supreme intelligence which is driving all of this, running all of this. Now if there was some intelligence to surrender to, would it be to this intelligence or would it be to some localized version of material sort of conceptually intelligence? Now look around in the world, look around in nature, look around at the Sun, the planets, this entire existence. Are they all thinking about it? The Sun is saying, 'Today I shall rise from the West.' Laboratories saying, 'Today I should exert a force of acceleration which is this strong.' Electricity saying, 'Okay, my electrons are a bit tired today, I'm going to sleep.' Everything in nature just unfolding beautifully. Now it is this extremely human condition, maybe if you like, we need to understand all of this, get all of this, and then make it run the way we want. And this is a short-lived fallacy. Usually my favorite was me, very recently was this one: God got to fly, man got to ask himself why, why, why. Thank you. God got to sleep, boy got to land, man got to tell themselves he understand. So it's very, very long, this was this sense that I must know what I'm doing, I must do it in this way, and that is what is right. And what happens when you allow life to unfold? A lot of things unfold. When you have to look at a beautiful mountain, you're just looking at a beautiful mountain. And presumably all this important work has to be done so that we can come to some secure place, some peace, some joy. But when do these moments actually happen? Anyone listen to look unless until evolving. So in a way, it is like the story of those two farmers. One is just sitting, the other one who is very ego, you know, we come to that. 'What are you doing?' 'Just sitting.' 'Why don't you do something?' 'So what should I do?' He says, 'Go sow the seeds, now till and Quran says.' 'So what will happen then?' 'Then when the time is right, you can harvest them and not red. Then you can sell all of your produce and make a lot of money. Then you can have a house, then you can get married, have children. Then or tribal, then you can just come to a point where you're done, you can just sit in peace.' So this man says, 'What I'm doing that now.' So what is important, or do we give importance to now? Again, don't make that classic mistake of saying, 'Okay, therefore now my work is unimportant' or something like that. Divesting it of the label 'important,' we are not giving it the new label 'unimportant.' The same story could have been told about somebody who's working in the kitchen or chopping wood or staring at the spreadsheet. It has nothing to do with the content of what is the kill. It is our idea of what is right, what is wrong, what is the what is wrong, what is what we want, what we don't want. The most important work even at the body level is being done for you. Do we have enough gratitude for that to start with? Thank you, Lord, for breaking my heart. Thank you. Don't consider yourself the body. What is the world? Just to exist, just to be. Who is doing the being? Who's holding up this being? Because if this was not that, the waking state will not be. Then how do we do the world if being itself did not arise, if consciousness did not come now to do good and give time and space? How to do the world? What work can we take into our sleep state with us? And you forget about that. That's even tonight, reboot sleep. And actually, every time you go to sleep, there is no guarantee that you will wake up tomorrow as this and that is what will wake up tomorrow. But still we cling like something so important is there to do. As I sometimes say, but even more important is to figure out that one that does not go to sleep or wake up, that is not born and that is not time. Or do that, you gotta move on now. That seems too difficult to read around, but the simplest way to come to that is not through figuring it out. It is by dropping all that we think is true but actually is just limited. It is just essential. Mind uses this trick when I try to live in the present moment or now. Mind uses to convince you that some important email has to be sent and dust and these kind of first-world problems that we have. What's the important work? Also for most of us, it is not a question of even survival of the body. Usually it is more in terms of some idea of progress. And usually it is like you saying that just when, if you like, I can just be open, empty, effortless, the mind says, 'Oh, but that important email has to be sent right now. I think the world will stop spinning.' And this is anything. And you might leave this whole thing and decide to start your working, you might forget about the email. See, then that's fine. Don't know mind is not saying this is so important. So it's good to see that you see that it's a trick. It's already good. Live with this note: label anything as important or unimportant. Don't swing there like the pendulum. Let the mind do that, that's fine, and see how life unfolds. The mind will leave this click on you and say, 'But I'm just going to become passive. I just lie down like a vegetable all day' or something like that. There is no guarantee like that. Sometimes I feel like the old master said: before enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water; after enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water. But we feel like we can agar or not. This one is to say: Father, if there is conceptual emptiness, should there also be no perception? So once you come to this conceptual emptiness, then even perception is not behavioral. Perception is not to be known as perception. The rest you have to say good as you have to say because it is not in that bracket of yes perception or no perception. The girl you saying we have to be that these opposites using inside, outside of yes, no, true, false, like it, wrong, they're a tiny box, maybe a lintel, a tiny metal box, see, and the distance between the opposites we just adopt this. So when you step back from this paradigm of opposites, yes/no paradigm of duality, that's right. Advaita, non-duality. All of this is duality when all the labels are wrong and assertions and dismissals no longer that meaningful. And I'm willing to hear your opponent.
Father, here anxiety makes me thought-locked on body and mind is like a lot got knots, panic sensations, etc.
Read more (50 more paragraphs) ↓Show less ↑
I say the more you see in your openness, because it is in these times that all our learned knowledge goes for a toss. All of Atma Gyan goes out the window. But as you start to give store open natural effortlessness and all these things like anxiety, no, what we met with complete openness, not with an ideal feel about it even, maybe until even the level because the never experienced the same thing twice. So meet it fully without necessarily calling it this or that and those to indulge ourselves and don't judge what is arising.
Father, exposing this as has itself as it surfaces when you say 'as liberated as a sage.' Ramana says the one who fell into some or even other Ganges after asking for water came out of it years later asking for water. So there they were still vasanas. The thought comes there must be lifetimes more still for this one who is nowhere near the state of even Samadhi. Then ask who is even here? Who does this pertain to? And guru prefer kevalam and there is no way this mind became awakening so that... so that's a good part of this. I am Bhagavan says it causes the feeling that there must be more I should be doing, but at this point there is no one here to do anything. So some anxiety comes surrendering.
Yes. Now, that's how many times I say, therefore for some time let me make the claims for you. So even this claim that in your opening empty you're as liberated as the sage, let that be my claim on your behalf. You don't hold on to this concept because this concept itself can be quite a strong emotion, may in fact be a super solid motion which has some great level being shaken off. So you remain as open, as empty as possible. Let all the claims and disclaimers come from me for now. What I mean to say when I'm saying that you're as...
I say there for some time, let me make the claims for you. So even this claim that in your openness, empty, you are as liberated as the sage—let that be my claim on your behalf. You don't hold on to this concept, because this concept itself can be quite a strong emotion; it may, in fact, be a super solid emotion which has some great level of being shaken off. So you remain as open, as empty as possible. Let all the claims and disclaimers come from me for now. What I mean to say when I'm saying that you're as liberated as the sage is that there is no more to go and no more to do. That's it. So all these ideas of what should happen and what should not happen—even the best way to deal with these conditions, the necessity for them is to meet them with full openness. So it's all about just this right now. There is no more to do. The truth is apparent, although wordless. Full freedom is here, although maybe empty of special experience.
And you're free-falling into this conceptual battle that's really attached to your Father. When the negative, depressive, 'I am worthless,' self-blaming thoughts are appearing, being open becomes elusive. Thoughts like 'Why me? Why again?' become sticky and painful stories. It reaches an unbearable state. Please shower your grace, Father, on all my personality. By the way, when I write an email or talk, it feels like I write faster than I can think of what to write. Same when we talk; it feels like the writing and talking happens, but the mind takes credit for all this and worries or judges or regrets or pats itself on the back, etc. It's based on whatever the result is. Is this what is happening? I write so that the mind takes credit for both factors. What is happening? Is this happening?
But what happens is that if you start judging this stuff too much, if you want to come to like a conclusion like this—which basically also has some fear hidden behind it, which is that, 'Oh, my work can happen productively, my life will go on'—then it might show you this and that sometimes, you see. So don't try to make some conclusion about this for truth's sake. Surrender for surrender's sake. And I know the mind looks to say, 'Easier said than done,' but actually, it's easier done than said.
Someone offered the idea once, when it's realized that control is very important in this one's life, there is this belief that the loss of control is necessary to be free. There is also an attempt to control that. That is also an attempt to control, yes. So, am I relaxing with control or no control? I guess, can you say something more, Father? Like, we have many tactics and tricks like this, and when we realize that one tactic does not work, we try the opposite one. You feel like, 'Oh, my attempt to just sort it out in this way did not work, let me just give it up,' and then that will go.
So sometimes I'll talk about this when I say, 'Is that right?' and you see that I think the ego does not work. You say, 'Okay, I'm going to love the ego to death,' but it's just a tactic if you still want its death. What kind of love would that be? Sometimes I hear things being said like, 'Embrace your shadow self' or something like that, but you already called it 'shadow.' It is not an engagement to say it is the shadow; it is not a full embrace. So these ploys, these tactics that we still feel like—this distinction we feel like, 'This is not what should be'—but we try to make a method to try and outsmart it. We have a smarter technique, a smarter tactic to get beyond, you see, the mind or ego. So these things, they are all about distinction still. It's like the same as saying, 'Just be,' and the minute you try to 'just be,' you're no longer being. Somebody says, 'Just be natural,' and naturalness is gone.
So this natural openness, this self-recognition, this freedom cannot be strategized, cannot be controlled. And our attempt to drop control sometimes is to get control only. 'If I drop control, then I will become free.' We are still attached to an outcome, still want control, like trying to get there or progress faster or something like that. I think the best way to do that is to talk to me. So if it is still about ploys and tactics, then it is really not the truth yet; it is still in the conceptual boundaries. Is that doing okay?
So shall we play the game for a bit before you go out for the Sunday? The rules of the game are: one area, that you remain as open and empty as possible. Let everything come and go. Then you find that this thought you cannot let go, you have to cling to it. So you're basically identifying the source of your suffering, the source of egotism. Or it will be a thought which you think that you're just definitely right about. 'I know what is happening and this is what it is.' So clinging to any notion like that, which we feel like is a valid representation of reality, is a thought. No thought ever is. We have never actually known mentally what is going on. I need to be right, of course. He is sharing that we hate him, that we'll never be mentally right about him.
So anyway, to the point of the email, just when you cling on to that and you feel like, 'This I cannot let go of,' expose that lovely treasure. So don't judge yourself on it, whether you're being good or bad. Nobody is to judge. Whatever comes out of your mouth, just playfully, naturally. You got it? Let's be open, empty. Whatever it is, something we feel like is the value, you can expose that. And somebody said the other day that I have the best role in this game, which is to point out to you that it's just a thought. When children are not sure, we're scared of them. As soon as I found out that I might cling on to you, you can also say so. Just whatever it is, why it is this one. Allow everything to unfold naturally. Treat it like an infant child. Don't claim to understand what it is. If the innocence of a baby meets your life, and whatever it is showing now, all parts to control... but if some judgment, some interpretation causes this loss of innocence in a way, then you expose that. And just enjoy yourself like a baby.
'When will this burning stop?'
'When will this burning stop?' is just a thought. 'I think I'm very good with not making a conclusion. I think I'm doing well by not making any.' Not making a conclusion is just a thought. 'I've been in a long time' is just a thought. Okay, right. Doing it right. You don't want to get me started. Like, knowing which direction this life is going—it's not this apart, it's two. And the pain...
Which is, it shouldn't be there, or it's not that good. The other thing is, I think this is the one you're referring to. Okay, so what's wrong with 'the coconut is green'?
It's just a representation of some phenomenon. Firstly, we have no real idea of what actually it is. Our perception is giving us validation, or it's just a memory or imagination. We don't know any of these things, whether this is just a dream; you don't even know that. Secondly, like you said now, which is that very quickly we'll start making judgments on 'green is better.' You see? 'I want it already green,' or 'I don't like green' comes in very quickly, even though the initial bit might be just, 'I'm going to represent something very phenomenal.' But you find that your preferences, your likes and dislikes, and what you are—the limited one—and what you should do about it like a limited person will follow as soon as the label is there. Every label is a thought. This is my 'me-ness.' Is that like you? If you open the 'liking,' you find inside just a notion: 'This is my... this is what I like or dislike.' Because who is the 'I' being referred to there? Liking and disliking is a thought or something else?
And so you say, 'I like lime green coconut' or 'I like that word,' but it's not a fact. Like is not a thought.
And what is it? I'm asking you. Is it a thought or belief or no?
This belief, this is what they believe me. Well, just because of what I say, what I see, and what I know. What I say, 'I don't like this in your hand,' it's a different thing. A total non-liking is... I'm just trying to make a point on my extremes that I don't see that it's a thought. I'm not understanding.
How about if you say, 'Okay, let's define what do you mean by thought?' The energy construct, the meaning which is appearing, which has a particular message about it, is what we call the thought, isn't it?
Yeah.
Now say, I'll say, 'I am seeing a glass.' That is the thought. That is clear. Now, what I see, I'm representing its name. Now, that is what? Water? Because what I see, yes, but are you really representing? Okay, represent this room as is. This is a glass. Okay, so isn't that the label? 'Glass' is something that you've given to this, but it applies to just a water concept, like everything that is made of a particular material, and within that is all the notions about material. So the entire... like I talked about the dictionary, when one word, the entire picture is there with every word opposed then to all the other words. In itself, what is it?
But then how does that representation of... is it obstructing my openness? And just christening the glass and understanding it's a glass, how does that stop my openness?
Because it gives you the foundation, the fertile ground on top of which all judgments are built. Just like that story about the baby or a plant or bird. A baby is not thinking, 'Okay, now time to cry,' or 'Time to drink milk from the mother.' Yet all those activities happen. When we start representing it in these terms, that's when we start saying, 'Okay, this is what should be, this is what should not be, this is what I should do,' instead of just a simple allowing of all of this to unfold. Then this limited 'I' thought is picked up. Centered around any thought is the limited 'I' form. So even a very simple thought like that story about this green coconut... what could be now in that? I'm saying the coconut is green because just around these simple terms, you will make an idea of a representation of time and space, which again you cannot really testify to. You have the concept that you have a shape, but unless you have the base concept itself, you see that this is what it is, 'I am representing reality.' Oh, what is that? You see that all these claims... there's nothing wrong with saying it's a glass, saying it is a green glass or a transparent glass, or 'I like it.' You know what it is? Some of it is involuntary or conditioning.
It is conditioning and it is not affecting the Self. Why should it matter?
It starts to affect the moment you judge whether it's green or black or whatever it is, right? That's when we start to judge. So unless you have the label, you cannot make a... even if it's a glass.
So what if it's got a label? If it doesn't affect the Self, it doesn't matter. We are the Self all the time.
It's so true. If it's lying there, not just not doing anything. Well, if you split it and say, 'I mean, if you can identify the glass as separate, then it's two things.' Then it's, 'Yeah, this is a glass and me.' Inherent in the representation that 'this is what it is' is the idea of separation. Yes, immediately giving you... not to spend a minute on it. The minute you said, 'Okay, that is there and I'm here,' exactly this distinction gets made in that way. So if there is full recognition in this, it doesn't matter whether it's a glass or not a glass, or transparent or whatever. But there's no need for... and we're using 'glass' as a representative example, but our life is full of this. 'That is another person, he is doing this, she is doing this, I am sitting here and I'm this one.' All of this distinction, all of this separation comes from this because we think we know. And how the baby doesn't know the whole thing is not something they are existing in. So why did Maharaj say that you are not experiencing suffering? The suffering you're experiencing is because we think we know what it is. We think we know what is what, what something represents, and that is at the root of all suffering. Without a description, without an objective description of each other, people who come to these kinds of conclusions... I have no conclusion, but experientially, yes. So you would... all this is an objective fact.
The whole thing is not something that is existing. So why did Maharaj say that you are not experiencing suffering? The suffering you're experiencing is because we think we know what it is. We think we know what something represents, and that is at the root of all suffering. Without a description, without an objective description of each other, people who come to these kinds of conclusions... I have no conclusion, but experientially, yes.
So, you would say this is an objective factor in our discussion from the third part? Again, language, but this discussion is an object. It is needed. And how can you say it is not me?
So, I didn't say the glass is not me. I am saying that if the point of satsang is to come to a mental understanding, then that understanding is not valid, like all other understandings. The point is to push you out from this conceptual box and for you to see yourself. You know, what are we right now? What is happening is that you might say there are twenty people sitting in the satsang hall, and that's what's happening. What is that?
But you said that your perception changed. So, if you and I have never had the discussion, and I had a different perception of all this, after a discussion there is a cognitive shift. Now I say, 'No, I'm sorry, it's not a lady, but it's more of a perception in here.' Yeah, back with them.
So, let's then find where to meet, which is there. Okay, you tell me what is now and I will tell you what is then. What is the apparent dream now?
Okay, I don't know how to explain or claim that I can right now. So, you want me to go inside? Is that it? Or what I suppose... will you move in? You go and sit inside. I perceptually feel right now what I can tell you is this 'I' that perceptually feels.
When you go inside, what will you move? Because that's another label, you see. When you say, 'I go inside,' you're visiting inside the body. You know, you're descending. How can you explain? The point I make is that what is cannot be explained in words. Okay? These labels are at best just like some sort of photocopies of what is. And what is phenomenal, isn't that not important for this revolution to happen and to really take me to the point where the words may not matter?
But at that point, what will matter?
It is only important to the extent that you have these pre-existing conditions that you take to be true. When you are empty of them, then no conversation needs to happen. It's like if you've gone to the right and you need to be pushed to the left till you come to your neutrality. So, the object of the conversation is not to create new conditioning, but to see that the conditioning that we hold on to is not valid. And here I am, empty of that. Bhagavan said that coming to the truth, so coming to true knowledge, is just the dropping of ignorance or dropping of that which is false. It is not to come to a new conclusion that 'this is the truth.' Then who said that? I want you, in a way—I am paraphrasing—to be rid of the duality of even 'I am Brahman,' you see? Because even in that assertion, 'I am Brahman,' is the possibility that you could not be this. The duality is inherent in all statements. You see, the words of the Satguru, sometimes I call it a special brand of nonsense, a special kind of nonsense, because it has a dilutive effect on all the other nonsense in the world. But I understand that now, beyond all of this understanding and what you may not understand, what is this conversation? It is beyond what they call my feeling, no conceptual box of understanding. Yeah, and whatever might even seem like a world really of understanding, all these opposites, beyond this duality.
What I had... looking at what you said, I had this thought that you said just be childlike. The action should be whatever, wherever it likes it should go. You don't control it. So that point got me. What does a child know? Nothing. It's just my attention. It's an example.
It's not for some time, but one popular example that I've been taking recently is that the bird could be newborn, a few months old, but the season changes and it has to migrate. Now, it's not thinking about what is north, because it hasn't had to migrate yet, but it finds itself flying. These notions, these ideas... and even exploring some of our most common ideas, we're saying that even the motion up or down is with reference to what? You have to place yourself in the limited reference point of the body and give yourself a limited boundary before you can even say up is up and down is down. Same for inside and outside. It's very popular for us to say, 'When I go inside and check,' but where do we go? We don't even know that. What, the body? They go inside. But when I come outside, I get stuck. What is inside? Where you are visiting your flesh? Very good. So, even this very fundamental construct of opposites, inside and outside, is seen through, or at least can be admitted that 'I don't know.'
But isn't that practically required to function?
Yes, in practical... no. Practical, when it flies, it migrates. It just doesn't know what it thinks, but I know what can be changed because I can see that and I can really act like... well, I think so. I can tell you from that perspective.
Yeah, I mean, that's why it manages to make its... no sense. It doesn't know or want to know. It doesn't want to. Its opposition manages, as you rightly pointed out.
Any similarity you see between those ages and the children, you say that is not correct. You right now say, 'No, no, this is not right.' Isn't that it? Okay, isn't that it? Isn't that something experientially that came to you and you understood? Understanding is a little afterwards. Open things say, 'No question, this is not right. This is not appropriate at this moment.' To see that it is not right is not to hold the opinion which would be to hold the opposite of it. If you were to claim the opposite also, I would say, 'No, even that is not right.' So, can we do this? Automatically, what happens to us is that if left is asserted to be false, then we presume automatically the right must be true, right? And that is what you would call an opinion, yes. Yeah, what I am saying is neither this nor that. You are positionless.
I just... yes. So, it is empty of this.
So, the concept which is being used to communicate that, it's just like that thorn being used to remove the thorn, but without attachment of saying that... that's why I said there is a special brand of nonsense. Without attachment to the notion that this is like especially true. So, like Maharaj said, the only truth that can be spoken is 'I am,' but even that is not true ultimately. So, to negate opinions and not go to the opposite of them, claiming that the opposite is true, is to be empty of both sides of the argument. Now, what happens is that—and it's popular also—if you say that, 'Oh, I'm not the doer,' then we can pick up the idea that, 'Oh, that means I should do nothing.' But that is not what is being said. What is being done is that these notions, which we think are representatives of reality, are being seen through. And you think that what they... their claims to being the truth are actually not. And in a sense, why is this shared like this? There's no 'why' really, but in an onion, as part of this play that we're doing in satsang, because it is these limitations which make us believe that we are limited. Any representation that we believe about separation then makes us feel like, 'I'm a separate object.' It's coming from that point of separation or individually based belief, actually. From an understanding point of view, when I say it's a glass, that means it's not about molecules or what is, as I say, but it's not me. So, inherent in all these labels is the idea that it is separate and the idea that I know what it is. Because when you were learning all of these things, we were told by our parents—because we were complaining, 'Why do I need to learn all this?'—'You need this to run your life, to live your life.' But life was fine even before that. But this idea then clung on, that 'I need to know what something is.' But we never know what it is. Like, what is the glass? Is it an object fused together in a liquid or something? On video, you could see it here. When you say, 'Okay, what is an object? What is that?' So, as early speaking, software language, form, sight... when you add that layer of abstraction on top of it, you have that you know what it is, but actually, it takes away from our idea of this is what it is. Of course, conversationally, all this continues to play out with the context. It is about how much we feel like we are tied to our photocopy. And in a way, it is like that elephant story, the elephant with six men, you know, the six blindfolded men trying to decipher what it is. And everybody has their own perspective, you see. So, one is holding on to the foot saying, 'It's a pillar.' Yeah, because I see it's a pillar. Now, somebody who says, 'No, no, it's a rope,' what do you do with that one? If it's clear to you that this is what it is, and when someone comes and says, 'But it is not that,' what do you do? You argue, you debate, and then you can say, 'You could never understand me. How come you never see?' Sitting and taking a different context. So, this is what we have: representations of what we think it is. And these representations are different for everyone. That is where the point of disagreement is. The point of it actually is an avoidance of meeting ourselves in the recognition that you don't know what it is. Like, just to have the label 'glass' is just a representation. What is it actually, anyways? Molecules? Like water molecules? Actually, now if you go that way also, it is nothing. The game... and I just thought this is how it is, this is how it plays out. But this is that... what do you mean? It's just like anything else. It's by design. But see, this is what... this is a very good example of how life plays out and how we say, 'Of course.' When we came to know that we know what something is, do we have to? Because we don't. Don't show me one thing that you actually do. Please, please, I'm late, you know, something just... hey, conversationally, you should not take me back in history. And there's no green trailing friends. There is no way that you can leave. I can't be there. But unless you do, I have an understanding. Well, even that to say it would be to take too strong an opposition, or maybe we can fake it to the women. Kill what is it? There's no template. We can say this or that. Oh yeah, okay. So, thank you. Wanting to make your children, your baby, long enough... it might be all you need to see. So, they're looking to see, but even that is not this. That's one thing that connects unto them. The opposite wire must be... it was very common now to hear it anyway. That means, yeah, yes, sit quietly. But we can't conclude that also. It was outwardly when you're sitting quietly, within me a thought comes in. Yeah, 'I have to fulfill the role of a daughter.' And then the question comes, 'Well, what is the daughter? What is the painfulness?' The implication, the painfulness, is not that it's not healthy to just look at what the term means. The painfulness is that if I see through it, that this concept also is just a head, then I will like this one, my parents or something, or I will not take good care of them. But all this presumption... what I'm speaking of has nothing to do with the action. Go to Adi. This is our attachment to this limited notion of ourselves. Because what is the mind's alternative to being a daughter? Like, 'I am nothing to them.' But isn't being them more intimate than being a daughter? Then why does the mind always sell us these horror stories? 'If I'm not a daughter, then I must be like nothing to them.' But still, from this limited perspective of 'I am the body' and 'they are other bodies,' I am saying that if there is no distinction at the middle of them, just yes, you see? When we say what we decide to like, or saying that it's still like that, I even hear something like that, like 'no guru' or something, it still pinches a bit in. So, but because the mind has its alternative, that means what does it mean? Just this is this. It's okay. If I'm not that, then I must be this street light and emptiness of love or emptiness of empathy or the emptiness of all.
From the perspective of 'I am the body' in the other bodies, I am saying that if there is no distinction between them, just... yes, you see, when we say what we decide to like, saying that it's still like that. I even hear something like that, like no guru, something. I still pinch a bit in. But because the mind has its alternative, that means, what does it mean? Is this okay? If I'm not that, then I was business. It will be light and emptiness of love, or emptiness of empathy, or the emptiness of all of these things, which is not what is being spoken of.
It is being empty of these notions that we carry as their burden and make this world seem so small and make ourselves seem so limited. What are you without your boundaries? You have to check that in seriousness. If you find, 'Okay, then we'll just become like a nothing, smaller than an insect or something,' you see, then you tell me: who are you in that? And you are in this sort of thing. This kind of thing is a great opportunity to shake, a great opportunity to check what conclusion you're making. And you start scratching and seeing the validity of this conclusion. Therefore, this particular question comes: finally, when there's fear or suffering which arises, explore what is the truth. Because the fear is that, 'But then that will go and it will be replaced with just... you become like casual strangers or something.' But nobody is saying that. This reminds me of Quasimodo's work, a little more than nineteen, but then I become like a Quasimodo version of that. It's all different versions. 'I'll forget who my country is, I'll not recognize that, I'll treat them as a stranger.' As long as I do, because we fear the unknown to us. If I truly explore what is the truth, what happens to all my support system, all the ideas that I've built up over the years? Now, there will come a time where you choose. Hearing stuff like this, you will not use any of this also as a conclusion. You will just empty yourself from your conclusions and you don't... it doesn't need to be replaced. It can be plucked out; it doesn't have to be replaced.
The first go-ahead: if I am not the daughter, then what am I? And something they are like hearing, 'Good, then you are them' or something like that. That is some comfort or some something good. Always fully unnecessary, but through that abuse, that can seem a bit escapist.
It's like, it doesn't seem like... so for example, like 'I'm not that, so therefore I'm not going to send him a birthday card.' You know, there's no 'therefore.' It's like, there's no conflict in that space, you know? There's no 'therefore,' like no causal effect. Because this 'therefore' is... yeah, we were to don't, because this is the cause of that. The only cause, if you have to say it, is consciousness and God. Yes, it says many actions that have happened to the body have not been preceded by the notion 'I am the wife' or 'the husband.' It just happened. Yes, it is not to do with outward actions or the lack of them. We won't stop there. The first towards a thank you, saying no, taking position. I was not born with this, but it came. How? No part of it. We spoke about where we said, what is the problem most of us have when you come across a sharing like this, like 'let go' or in and are more it is? But then how can I run my life? So where did that condition... also, we are not born with it. It was taught to us. And I said when resisting learning this, everyone said, 'No, but you have to know this.' And sometimes maybe it's happening with your child, you say, 'Where is your head?' They point at your head and say, 'Head.' You know your head, because you know for a while this is where you be. Most of your head pops out to the notion. But experience seemingly well-intentioned, this is how you have to run your life. I try now when it's being asked to come back to, in a sense, it's like, 'But how will I run my life?' And then they put, 'Are you running your life?' No, no, let's talk more tactical things.
Like there are two more to this life on this practical level. Father, all day today I have been believing the thought that not sleeping for twenty-one hours... I only believed in the thought that not sleeping for twenty-one hours after three hours of sleep and driving sixteen hours of this twenty-one hours is dangerous. Very reluctantly handing it over. I worry a lot about dangerous things when I struggle not to believe the thoughts around them.
So this is the nature of attachment. It is available now again and we are seeing over and over again that this is not to do with what unfolds through your mouth or your hand. You may hold on to imagery, 'We are not going anywhere,' and you'll see this unfolding naturally. It's not about how actions will unfold outwardly. But in order to check them, why do we really know any of this? And another who is claiming that he knows it is this way or that way, do I know whether he knows why he doesn't know? From the space of allowing, just like checking, what do I actually really know now? So what is it bringing to me? What is it cleaning for me? I can't even claim that because I know this, therefore I am acting this way. I don't know. Who are you? I don't know. Good to be. Thank you all so much for being in assembly. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Guru Kripa Kevalam.