Audio Satsang - 22nd February 2023

No.

What is it?

No.

So, you're empty even of that label. But can you confirm that you are without the mind? You, without a thought telling you that you are—it is not apparent to you? Is that what you're saying?

I need the mind to say that I am atheist or not.

Yes, but what about to see that? And see not in terms of science, but like an inner sight or an inner knowing. We'll worry about how you say it later, but to recognize it. Don't worry, we'll go slowly. You may be right for the moment saying that to convey that I exist, I need the labels from the mind, isn't it? But what about to know that I exist?

Probably because I can't believe... probably because I have a body and a mind, therefore I'd say I'm existing.

Yes, but did you need a thought to confirm that? Like right now, are you here? Are you here?

Yeah, I don't have to think about it.

Exactly, exactly. You don't have to think about it. So, what is that knowledge which is primal, more primal than thinking? So, this is already very beautiful. You say to confirm that I exist, even though the words may be coming from a mental place, but the recognition is independent of my thought. I don't have to think, "Is it I am?" I know that I am. You see? What mode of knowledge is that?

Because of the experience of the past that I know that I existed and say without thinking.

Yes, but in what way do we know? Most of our knowledge is perceptual or conceptual, right? Which kind of knowledge is this? Verify for yourselves now. Are you... do you exist now? Now, you see? And if you want to go deeper into the experiment, say that suppose hearing left you, taste left you, touch left you, smell left you... at which point did you lose the self-knowledge that 'I am'?

I hate what you're saying.

Don't go to the place where you're going for the answer because you feel like you're a bit like on the spot or something like that, or you need to know. Don't worry about it. It's a very relaxed conversation. We made beautiful headway already. You said to confirm at least to myself, or to recognize that I am, I don't need to think. You see? Then we said, "Okay, is it perception?" And I'm questioning, saying if all this perception was also not there, would you still confirm that I am, I exist? Or you tell me, with which perception are you confirming it? Is it sight, sound, is it smell? It's like asking somebody, "Are you breathing?" You know? You know that you're breathing. You don't notice, know your breath is going in and out to know speaking. So, it's okay. Are you breathing? And you took that question sincerely. What would you do? You will check. You would check the perception of it, or you would just think and say, "What kind of absurd question is there that I am breathing?" So, at least you would need to think, or you would need to check the perception of it. Now, for your self-knowledge that you are, which one are you using? Neither of these. This is very beautiful. So, there is a mode of knowledge which is beyond perception and beyond conceptualization which confirms your existence to yourselves. So, this one that is here, in the same mode of knowledge, what can we say about it? So, this conversation now is no longer basic; it is almost the final question.

I don't know how to describe it. You're saying something which is beyond perception and conception. What is this? How do you know?

I am saying that you already confirmed it. You said, "I am," isn't it? It doesn't confirm the existence of a neighbor or a friend, one sitting next to you. You are sure it is you. You see? Now, this you, what else can you say about it? Does it have likes and dislikes? It's okay, take your time. Don't revert to the mind. You're doing very well. Take your time. I am tempting you to not relate to the mind and give me an answer. So, you're encountering two tempters right now. The mind will tempt you with knowledge, saying, "I have to do some inference, some logical conclusion," and I am also tempting you, saying, "Don't go there. Let's see if you can discover another mode of knowledge." Already we are in very absurd territory because you're already confirming something which is not perceptual or conceptual. To the world, that sounds like Hocus Pocus business, and maybe to anyone who's an atheist also a few weeks back, you know, like that. So, already you're in territory which is mostly uncharted in humanity. You're confirming something which you cannot see and you don't have to think. Now, this one that is being confirmed, does it have a quality, a color, shape, size? Is it in time? And you said that this is you. It is you. And if it doesn't have a yesterday and tomorrow, you cannot have worry, regret. We can also do the other exercise to say, "Okay, if this one doesn't have a past and future, and none of the thoughts we think about really apply to this one, then who is the one to which they applied?" Can you find such a one? Timeframe? So, one, the ego does not exist and therefore cannot be found. The Self and this manifest aspect, the being, is all that exists. And also, it cannot be found perceptually or conceptually, but it can be known. And this knowledge is Atma Gyan. This knowledge... and this is the same knowledge where you know love independent of the emotion you may be experiencing at a particular time. This is where true insight is.

Is it experienced at the moment like a presence, or what is it? Experience like pure emptiness, or is it like a blank? One of the tricks of the mind is to produce a blank and then say, "Ah, that blank is me." Is it like that?

So, can you try to stop being right now? Is it different from the one that exists, the one you confirmed earlier? Certainly, we're going really fast. We can slow down. Do you have a problem here? Is there a problem, like any sort of problem or worry? Is the world continuing to function? And what I mean by that is that everything that perceptions have to bring to us are still perceived naturally. What question can I mean after this one? Because you said you have a lot of questions.

Yes, yes. What would clarity mean? Like, what would clarity look like?

The process of recognition and the process of making that an understanding—were they the same, or were they two different ones?

So, now it's clear to me, the understanding. It was not there before that, yeah.

So, the question is very subtle. Let me repeat it. So, the recognition that you are, or you can confirm or recognize that you are independent of thought and perception—is that the same as what you're calling that "I have the understanding now"? Because what I want to guide you is to say that only stay in the recognition, not in the understanding. You see? The instant we make an understanding out of this, then it becomes conceptual again. We are very subtle trick. So, mind will say, "Ah, good progress. You understood this now. Or be like that." But notice that recognition, the instantaneous recognition, is independent of that whole conceptualization. So, the mind will tempt you back into its version by saying, "This is how it is," like that. So, don't worry about that. As we go along, you can ask any type. Beyond time is you. What's young? You have to check, my dear. Very difficult to speak about these things. So, that which you are, can you find any duration about it or some age about it? Is it undergoing the process of change? Like, time is only inferred through the perception of change, isn't it? Like in these movies, they say time stops, means everything stopped changing. So, we say time must stop. So, time is the inference based on some change being perceived, even if that change is a thought itself. Beyond time is timeless. There is... like, the notion of time is absent. Yes, but don't infer that. I hope you're not inferring that. And you don't have to rush into these insights. You see, when they come from here, they're meant to just see something in you, but you have to wait for the insight to sprout within you intuitively, with the reassurance that how is it that all those who come to this say the same things? Because otherwise, the mind will attack you very strongly. Already, if you're saying that "I am beyond space" is apparent to you, that already is so beautiful. It's like more of the further ones, yeah. You cannot try intuitively because that's like saying grasp on. You can only try to grasp at the concepts; you cannot grasp into it.

Gender's question is gone. Say something. Yeah, because yeah, something bothering you or yes. It's about what I spoke, and thank you. And yeah, just very bad, I don't know, emotional. Maybe I went through here without the feeling that I want to... if he was speaking about timeless, I want to give the time here to clarify with you, even if it takes one minute or two minutes, I don't know. So, this is to have the issue of time somehow right now, and if it's possible, I don't know if it's possible.

But what does God want? Is it because between not wanting to hurt someone and not wanting to miss an opportunity, you're getting crushed between these two things? But you all will either way is unimportant. What does God want? What is the way to meet God's will? Hmm? You have a sense of this because... yes, yes. What is that we need to go meet God's will? One, to meet it moment to moment and allow the presence to unfold naturally—that is the very, very simple, straightforward one. And the second is, if you feel guided from the heart by the holy whisper, by the Satguru presence inside, then follow that. If the second is not there, it has been the first. To be in God's light is to also be in God's will. It's not two separate things like, "Okay, now I'm in God's light, now what do I do to follow it?" If you're in God's light, that is words with God. Light is only possible when self-will adoption... and self-will is a fancy word, basically I'm saying ask yourself, "What do you want?" What do you want that is helpful? So, be empty of that. I've been kind of choppy about this one where I notice a lot in spirituality also many of us get stuck in that. "No, no, I don't feel that I feel..." But what is it? A true intuitive feeling, or is it a conceptual idea? And anytime we s—

If you're in God's life, that is only possible when self-will is absent. Self-will is a fancy word; basically, I'm saying ask yourself: what do you want? What do you want that is helpful? So, be empty of that. I've been kind of choppy about this one where I notice a lot in spirituality also, many of us get stuck in that: 'No, no, I don't feel that, I feel...' But what is it? Is it a true intuitive feeling or is it a conceptual idea? Anytime we start to couch our words in the terms of 'feel' instead of 'think,' we have to be very careful about that. So, can you become empty or remain empty as you are in this moment? Empty of this way or that way? That needs some trust. What is trust or faith? It is the absence of self-concern. Whatever, good to have you back, really, you see. Oh yeah.

Do you have to be empty of self-concern? Yes. Are you able to hear what I'm saying? Because many times when the mind is attacking us, we are not able to hear. Yes, good. So, empty of will—like individual will. Because on one hand, what is individual will? You don't want to hurt her, you also don't want to miss the chance. So, what does God want? And when we can't see what God wants because we haven't heard it intuitively, then our only option is to live moment to moment in the light of God.

Okay, there's a fear. That is also... what is living moment to moment in the light of God? I'm booking my tickets back to Italy, then I feel like I miss the chance. Yeah, and then if you say, 'Oh, just moment to moment,' I spend five years in India, my partner wants to kill me. Then that can be fearful.

So just be empty of both those conditions. You don't know what any of this is, and you don't know what all of this is meant for, how it will turn out. You don't know any of that, and you can't know unless God has told you here. So let go and be with God. Saying anything about the reason is... it is that living in presence. If you're in no-mind, if you're in the Unborn, if you are open and empty, yes, anyway it will be the God you know. Whatever reasons, anticipating in it... yes, I don't know. Definitely no point speculating.

Let's make it simpler. So, if I told you to find out what your wife wants, what would you have to do? You have to go close, come in her presence, and say, 'What do you want?' In the same way, to understand what God wants, you have to come into the presence of God, isn't it? To come into the presence of God is impossible under the hypnosis of the mind. By one thought, and you're not taking yourself to be that; you're taking yourself to be an object in the world. So God's presence is out of the window, isn't it? Just not seemingly; in reality, we can never leave. But the seeming is what satsang is here to fix. Reality is unchanged. The seeming idea of a limited self or distance from reality is what satsang means to come into the presence of the truth for.

So, how to find out what God wants? The mind may say, 'But even to find out that, you need me.' It is not possible to come into God's presence with belief in that. I'm empty of that. God's presence is apparent now. Whether you call it God's presence or, to look at a child's question earlier, whether you look at it as I-amness, which is boundless—which is just another way of saying God—it's the same thing. Yes. And what is there to do? We always use the mind. So how do you get cleared and then do something? Like, you notice that your hands are moving just now. Did you think about moving them? How did that action happen? Right? Empty of thought. Like your head was nodding, empty of thought. Also, movement happens externally. What intelligence does that? It's the same intelligence which is running the millions of processes, apparent processes, in this body.

So, from when you get used to this living from the heart, then you will also notice yourself saying, 'Let's have a satsang on this day' or 'Let's not do this.' First, we have to get used to being empty, you see. And that takes some faith because the mind will scare us: 'In zero, nothing.' So, especially if you feel like 'I am doing a lot,' this can seem a bit difficult initially to let go. What do you feel like? Everything will fall down like a house of cards or something? But it may seem like a strong reminder, but death is coming. All this is going to stop anyway.

I went through this. Yes, it's like... trying to describe this... it's like this sense of undoing or feeling...

Do you mean the sense of, or the thought of, assuming how what it feels like? So, in the presence of God, it doesn't seem strong. It's just an appearance. What does it appear like? Like, does it have a shape?

What is more appearance? Meaning that my location becomes observing of this movement which is approaching during the thinking, talking.

Your location, when you are in God's presence, becomes that of the Observer. And when you're not in God's presence, what is your location then?

There is sounds like, 'I'm gonna do, I'm gonna pick this up, I'm gonna save this.' There is this sense and it feels real.

Yes. Try to have a moment and see if you notice any moment where it seems real without the hypnosis of a thought. This really is the master key. And the mind will tell you, 'No, no, it's just energetic,' but it's not. Because there's no problem in any pure perception except under the influence of belief in a thought. The seeming individuality, the seeming of the limited self, is not possible without belief or identification with a thought which comes after it, which says, 'Oh, this is how you were.' Interesting, yeah. And then the thought and the imagery which may say, 'Ah, this is how you were,' but you may talk to a friend later and they may say, 'No, you were fine.' So memory is also a very unreliable instrument.

For example, like during satsang to say something, 'I'm gonna move my hand like this.' Yeah, it doesn't seem as solid as one, let's say...

Yeah, not in that time. Yes. Try to make that not seem, or make it seem solid outside satsang without a thought. You can't speculate about this. You must make a note at that moment. Send me a WhatsApp message or something: 'I did it.' Yeah. Especially because you're so attentive right now, it won't happen. No. So when you see and you feel like something like that is possible without a thought—you took yourself to be a limited entity just because perceptions were a certain way—then you send me a message and say, 'I did it.' It was quite an issue for me with this one. Yeah, so it would be a strong number, right?

Strong. But let's say the recognition of no, none of them, and not just the words but an experience. And then the next moment might be with the same sense, 'Oh, but there is still this desire over there.'

Okay, let's look at it. Tell me the difference between pure perception, you see, and the recognition that 'I am none of this.' The difference in pure perception is perceiving everything openly without labeling, versus what you're calling the experience that you recognize that you're not any of this. Is there any difference? So the only determining factor about the seeming to be some of this or a part of this versus not is only that. Because what is pure perception? It means uncontaminated by identity or belief in thought. So what we are trying to—and correct me if I'm wrong—but what we're trying to conclude is that besides identification with the thought, also is there something else? Something like this: besides the identification with the thought, is there something else which can also limit me in this?

No, but it seems like the desire comes, let's say for any worldly desires, from the same place where the recognition came that I'm none of this.

Okay. Does it come from the same place, or does it come from the place where we looked earlier? Where do you see that you're none of this? Is it conceptual, experiential? In what way? Intuitively or perceptually? It's because that whoever is speaking... it's very important, my dear. Because to know that 'I recognize that I'm not any of this changing,' or you may even recognize that you are all of this changing—those are just conceptual differences. It is intuitive. But the desire is not from the same place. It is mental. Intuitive desire we would call that God's will, you see. That we must follow. The desire that comes from your heart, uncontaminated by the mind, is the holy whisper or the satsang for yourself that is arising from your heart. You must follow. But if the desire is from here—and most of you have been with me long enough to recognize when it is from here or here—so this is important to identify. When you see that there is no difference between a recognition that 'I am not that' versus a desire that I may have taken myself to be this body-mind, just see if you can recognize that to be true or false.

So try to not... try to not conceptualize right now. See if your words can come intuitively.

What's coming up is maybe that I cannot describe it and it's not the true problem it's saying, but it is something wants to try to describe it.

Um, okay. Let's go. Let's have a solid question about it.

So it's probably the sense which I was... I'm trying... whenever I'm in that sense of... it's not here now, so yeah, it's difficult.

So I want to clarify one thing: that what we call the sense of identification is the same as saying 'under the hypnosis of the mind.' It's not two different things. Because identification with what? How? How can you identify with the body? Try to do it. Have a sense of identification with the body. How will you do it, you see? Or a sense of identification with your partner, you see? Try to do it. Or anything. So yeah, have that sense without a thought. Identity or something, yeah. The boundless being or a limited entity. Try to have that sense without the thought. And I know it may be difficult, but I'm saying even outside satsang. But the fact that it is difficult in satsang also should tell you something. Exactly, exactly. Because if it was true, it would be easier, not difficult.

I could relate to this in a way because without a thought... so I can see where preference is born. It's born, but it hasn't necessarily taken a name yet.

Are you... would you like it? No, no. This is because many times—and you are always someone that says there must be a fact—and so where I feel many times, I see preferences and they haven't taken a thought. That's... I could actually trace it's more... it's due to preferences.

What do you mean by preferences?

Well, in that state of presence when the person and movements come and you're staying that as the witness...

You see, too fast for me. So, okay. Can the person come without thought? The residues that are felt can still arise. In the pure perception of the residues, is there a sense of individuality? I agree, some residues, some energy which doesn't call itself residues, just experience, you see. Where it's okay. So it's... I think this is where identification happens. They're so close that, you know, when identified, the perception and the label... is that what you mean?

What is close? The interest and the disinterest. Interest with attention or belief and interest like that.

What do you mean? It's good to really zoom in, okay? Because without zooming in, it can seem very broad. So when you say interest, so there can be an interest like, you know, where attention seems to get fixated. We may call that interest. The other times they're like, 'What is this? Oh, five fingers must be in hand,' you know. So that is a different sort of interest, to try and understand conceptually. No, pictures of attention with attention. Okay. So with full attention now, how can we identify? It's good to experiment. Suppose your attention is fixated on a sensation, maybe we call it a contraction. Fully fixated, okay. So as soon as it seems to leave, 'No, no, no, wait,' this attention is on it then. Okay, attention is on it. And yeah, there are two routes: either I relax the attention to have faith in the moment...

Okay, so only... who relaxes their attention? Who is... who does... whose attention under the command of is? Grace. Grace, whatever you call it. But it's not a person. No, it's not. So Consciousness releases its hold.

Experiment: suppose your attention is fixated on a sensation. Maybe we call it a contraction. Fully fix it, okay? So as soon as it seems to leave, no, no, no, we wait. This attention is on it then, okay? Attention is on it. And yeah, there are two routes. Either I relax the attention to have faith in the moment, okay? So, who relaxes their attention? Who is it? Whose command is attention under? It is Grace. Grace, whatever you call it, but it's not a person. No, it's not. So Consciousness releases its hold on that particular perception. Yes, yes. So that may happen. Or suppose it doesn't. So then the alternative: supposing it doesn't, there is this pursuit. Pursue. Attention is on it now. How do you pursue? The attention is on it.

Yeah, identity. How... what do you mean? Identity goes towards... what do you mean? Identity seeking? No, what do you mean seeking? That means from description, not explanation. No, the difference between description and direction? Yeah, because explanation means that you already figured out what it is. What I want you to describe to me is what is actually perceived.

So let's come back. Attention is fully... everybody there? There's one route, yeah? No, we don't deliver this right? That's one route. What's the second? Where somehow attention... this is it, just forms. And there's this... there's a wanting to attention. There's a want to change. So, okay, let's ignore attention form. So, wanting. How is it possible in just looking at it? How is it possible to want?

Well, there's interest at this point. That is what you're saying. The attention fixation, not the conceptualization, right? So now the interest is being felt because the attention is situated on that. Now, produce a wanting. How to do a wanting?

So you're saying without the conceptualizing? No, no, don't jump. Just follow me now. You said that the wanting may happen. Tell me if it's possible. How is it possible? Let's produce a wanting here. This is desire. How is it desire? How does it come? Your attention is on this now. Something else is coming in attention. What are we saying? Something else is coming in attention because perception is possible only with attention. So then what are you saying? Attention is fixated on this. Okay, so you're saying it's not that much interesting, but no, it is in this case, in this example. Okay, so let's fix it. Then how to want now? Because attention is fully fixated like this, how will desire come? What is this? And how does desire... is it possible without a thought? Like, desire something now in pure perception without a thought. Was it... there's a preference?

What do you mean? What is that? What do you mean? What is perceived? What is pursuit? That we may call that a preference. Extreme unfuzziness and interesting, but that's here already, you know. This was the contraction. Okay, now preference. How is preference coming? Or desire or wanting operations? How is it coming? How can you confirm its presence? The presence of wanting or desire?

Because there's something formless that's witnessing a subtle form. Okay, that's where we are. Okay, then. So that subtle form hasn't taken on like a full-on conceptual thought, but no, that's where we are. So now what happened next? You need to help me. I'm proposing, you know what I'm proposing? I'm proposing that without identification with the thought, you cannot say there's a grasping, desiring, preference, none of that. So if I'm... the mind will rush you, okay? You have to go really slow, really slow. I don't want to see the mechanics of identity. It will make it obscure to you, whereas it's fully apparent to the Master who's telling you that only with attention mixed with belief does identification happen.

Yes, my dear, but the minute you see... seems like you see the instant we say 'seems like' we're already confirming it is false.

Yes, but I'm just saying how, and the mechanics of that seeming. So this is the difference between what all of us are saying. I am seeing the mechanics of the seeming are not possible in pure perception. They need a thought. And you're sort of saying that the mechanics of the seeming—whatever limitation, contraction, individuality, identification—it is possible without a thought. Because this is what I'm talking about. The mind is the thief which will say, 'I am not the problem. It is that energy. It is that thing. It is that person. It is that event. It is this pain. It is this whatever.' No, the thief is that one which you're onto, and it tries to get you off the trail by distracting you. And many people get distracted for years, maybe lifetimes, just trying to fix the energetic something and this, that, and all that stuff. The trickster is only this one. That's why I just go really slow. That's how you checkmate the mind, you see? The mind wants to explain, explain it. 'Of course, our desire comes, you see.' No, no. How does it come? What do you mean a desire? Slow it down. What's the problem? It's really slowing it down, you see? Because when you slow it down, you will really see through this seeming. That's what I mean by describe and don't explain. Because when you explain, you've already explained it away and bought the mind's version to be true. I want you to have your direct experience about it instead.

To be true, you check for yourself. Explaining how some things that are more subtle... but maybe this is my paraphrasing, but this is how I came in and I really, I really relate to that because maybe I think my vocabulary... everything that you hear from the Master's mouth also, you must make that your lived experience. So show it to me. You will find this thing. There'll be times where you will not be able to even decipher what the thoughts... yeah, like that. But we'll come to that now. Just tell me the now or the non-exceptional times. Let's look at those as exceptions and it just gets over. But suddenly you're just like that.

That's okay, we'll come to those. But what about the usual? Don't go with any belief.

Yes, I think I'm trying to make along with... but sometimes the identification is beyond the scope of control of Consciousness itself.

Is it? But it has to be automatic. Is that what you're saying? That you have concluded that it is automatic. Now, if it is not Consciousness, then who's doing it? Is it like that? Who wants it? Consciousness plays. That's why this is Leela, Maya, whatever you call it. This Consciousness who wants to play the computer game and spend 20 hours of no sleep and play it, and then who says, 'I'm getting too tired, I have to stop playing this.' You know, I grew up as a kid, I used to play. My son just told me he's playing Civilization. I said, 'Stop it,' because it's such a time sink, you know? You get into a game like that, like Age of Empires or Civilization, you can spend days in your building this virtual... so who wanted to play it? He did. Who wanted to stop it? He does. Hopefully there's nobody else there. Like, what is the option B? This is a multiple-choice question. Option A is Consciousness. What is option B for any of the 'who' questions? What are the multiple choices? Suppose my throat is very tired today and I say I don't want to give any full answers. You give me the option, I'll pick one.

So one is Consciousness, two is that... so can I do not add it? So in both the states, say somebody who is witnessing their Consciousness, yes, awareness, they are both the same. One is nominal and the second is phenomenal, but it's just oneself. It is I which is I am. It is not two.

I'm still presented, of course. Yes, in a way I'm saying that as you're empty of the mind, open and empty, then this is apparent to you. How to be that? So if I say yes, that's how I want you to be, your next question should be or will be, 'How?' So I can say open and empty, or live in God's light, or to let go of all self-will and self-concern, or whatever based on the resonance I'm getting at the moment. When I'm aware, it means aware of awareness. There's no change over there. Consciousness can be identified or it might not be identified. State, yeah. Till 'I am,' 'I am' is what? Consciousness. Till 'I am,' there is no trouble. The minute it becomes 'I am something,' it is all the trouble. That's why I said earlier, I don't know if you heard that, all of Satsang is to fix this seeming only, not a reality. But let's not rush into calling it a seeming, because when life slaps us, we feel slapped. You may not call it a Leela too early or Maya too early. You can only call it Leela or Maya when the slap doesn't feel like a slap. Otherwise, we can quickly jump into like a conceptual Advaita: 'Nothing, nothing happens.'

Okay, let's slow down. I will come to you. Only today is seeming like a bit of a press conference after many editions. Let's take a few moments. The front two is the key. We don't have any questions? I'm looking at their faces, yeah. Okay, let's go.

So when you were guiding us, I mean, yeah, to the mind to find... if I'm not saying directly recognition to make it an understanding... so just following whatever then I... and I see when I'm trying to figure that this process now is recognition or understanding, it's understanding. That's exactly what he was... the guidance was to stay with the recognition and not the understanding. And we want to understand that also in some ways.

Don't need to do that. Just recognize. Like, if you understand, next time we'll do it better. Yeah, that's the fraud. That's the trick to still give conceptual value to that which is nothing. It seems so sincere. They need to understand because we feel like that's what clarity is. I was asking him earlier, what is clarity? We feel like we'll come to a perfect conceptual notion or a framework of everything and that is going to be my freedom. I'll keep it like that. But nobody ever comes to that. It is not possible. It is the leaky roof which will always leak no matter how much you plug it.

I don't need you to be either convinced or confused. Yes, I'm confused. Actually, confused is better. It gets confused, it means that you're not so... you don't have that much allegiance to your mind. If you're going to pick between the two, confused. Appreciate. Freedom is inherent in us as Consciousness. You can notice that. Isn't... you can't notice it like... yeah, you notice it intuitively. That's what I'm just saying. Understood it.

Can I bring you back to this place? Your attention is here because there's some pull, some magnetism that you can't just relax into God's light. Wait, wait. So God's light is experienced with attention?

No, it's that... it's when attention just relaxes. What if it is fixated? God's light is absent? It's subtle, because sometimes it does feel like there's a perceptual quality to the presence, which is fine, like the primordial vibration. But even when attention is fully on something, it is still apparent to us. And God's light... there's a point where God's light is obscured. Obscured without thought? It might... so in what you're saying is there must be thought?

There has to be. I am saying there has to be. So a thought... so here again, how do thoughts come? Okay, this is not good. You need to get out of this. You are stuck. Whatever. But, okay, so what I'm saying is maybe it doesn't speak in words that I... okay, let's make a deal. You get rid of the ones that speak in words, I will take care of the wordless ones. Deal? So there are wordless ones that you will take? None of them. I'm just trying to make sense of how I experience, because I know what is happening is that the mind is telling you that it's not just me, it's not just me, it's not just thought. Why are you so keen to convince yourself about that? Good question. Maybe just like... I must have a past understanding which I'm afraid... like, it's very dangerous to the mind. You see, what I'm saying is very dangerous to the mind. Because if you zero in on that one, you see, and you're not buying into this one—that energetic, this wordless, this stuff, you know—then it has no chance. So you get rid of the one you do. All the other stuff—energetic, wordless, all that subtle attitude—this is the difference, that you are in a state of Consciousness or outside and you're engaged in any activity. Are you...

A past understanding which, I'm afraid, is very dangerous to the mind. You see, what I'm saying is very dangerous to the mind because if you zero in on that one, you see, and you're not buying into this one—that energetic, this wordless, this stuff, you know—then it has no chance. So you get rid of the one; you do it all. The other stuff—energetic, wordless, all that subtle attitude—this is the difference: that you are in a state of Consciousness or outside and you're engaged in any activity.

Are you saying that if thought is involved, you're no longer... if belief in thought is in all this, it is a seeming as if I am not? And the seeming is very important. It's also possible that you are in a state of real bliss by blessings, having an interview, but I'm simply observing a thought almost there.

Exactly, yes. Thought is involving. We can be involved with the thought only in two ways: attention and belief. And the exact point I'm making with everyone is that with attention alone, it is not involvement or identification. There's nothing else we can do with the thought. It can get our attention or it can get abused—usually both—but without belief. So, you're saying...

So is there a difference between belief and engagement of thinking about anxiety? It can build on itself. I'm trying to understand.

Yes, yes. Let's also move this to an experiment rather than theory. So try, wait for the next thought to come. See in what way, besides attention and belief, is there another way to engage or observe this? See the mechanics of this for yourself so that it doesn't just remain as a conceptual understanding. Can we try this? Wait for a thought to come. You want me to look away? Then make it easy. What is he saying and what could you do with it? So obviously you perceived it with your attention. Is there anything else you could do with it? So more thoughts could come about it, but just in your attention, or something else is also possible, like an engagement which is deeper. So that is what I call giving it assent or truth value.

So this power is there with you inherently as Consciousness, that you can take any narrative, any language, and you can give it—either deprive it of all truth value or give it truth value. That is called belief. So what I'm saying is that independent of how many thoughts come—you'll be bombarded with thoughts usually, it doesn't happen if you're not giving belief, but even if you are—but unless you log in, as Guruji says, it means believe or identify, we cannot be shaken from the apparency of what you truly are. Sorry, it sounds complicated even as I said it. So, shaking from the recognition of your reality only happens under—and this is what I call the hypnosis—the belief in the thought. Then it seems like you can do the reverse experiment, you see. Try to believe a thought while still holding on to the Self being apparent to you. Try to do that. Believe it.

Or if we do this, okay, let's stretch it out. So right now, forget about everything, huh? That you are is apparent. That you are is apparent, and that you're witnessing this 'I am-ness' is also apparent. Don't complicate it; it's very simple things, just apparently. Now try to get into a belief about a thought, but hold on to the apparency of this self-knowledge. All right? Don't do the opposite, which is be open and empty, but don't let go. Buy into it with your attention and belief and still be clear that you are the Self. Your beard is white, yes? And who are you in that moment of belief? So I'll do it again. Who are you in that moment? Who are you in that moment in the grasp, in the grip of belief? Identification is bound to happen. Empty of belief, you cannot lose self-knowledge.

That's good. I love these experiments. And what exactly is called the Self?

The Self is both. Self is all there is. Brahman. This is the way at least I use it. It is Brahman, which is Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. Now remember that these are not real categories; in fact, there is no real or unreal. But that which is aware of my being is empty of all attributes but for being itself as the primordial vibration of beingness. And within that primordial vibration of beingness, all the other vibrations are also perceived. So that is the Saguna aspect.

Okay, yes. Pure awareness, as we call it, as empty of all attribute. Is belief, yes?

The thought by itself doesn't have much power. So the thought could come and say, 'My house has a pink unicorn in it,' you see. So it crosses your head and you don't give it any value. Another thought comes and says, 'I'm just not getting this.' What you do to that which is different from what you do to the first? Is it just about attention? If it was just about attention, both would just come along. The other is grasped. In what way? Even if it came only once, okay, although it does happen that you rethink it, but let's say it only came once. Is there another thing we think? Giving value, you see. So if you do just about attention to thought, everybody's attention is the same, no? So if a thought came across your mind saying, 'I am a horrible mother,' yeah, it's gone. There's no other. Still, but if there's a mother here and you get the thought 'I am a horrible mother,' that may have... you see, it's not just about attention because both give it attention. What did the lady who's a mother give to it which you did not give?

It's worth exploring because in this simple mechanics, you see, which we don't really look at, we should start to look at this at a much younger age, saying all of us experience these thoughts. Attention is the light of perception, but what differentiates one thought over another for me? So if you have a particular line of business and a thought came about that, 'If you just start this, this will happen to it, it may become much bigger,' then that may be attractive to you. But for one who's like a sadhu, that thought crosses the mind—the thought is the same, attention is the same, but what is that? You see, it becomes part of her. So what we're calling interest mostly is that which has already been nurtured by our belief and it becomes part of a persona. When thoughts come about that theme, they seem to be more attractive for our beliefs. But most of us feel like we are not doing anything with our thoughts except give it attention. Not just with our attention; you may stare at the thought, but just by staring at it, nothing happens. This is worth exploring. The seeing is what I call pure perception. But think, no? So you think, meaning believe, huh? That's what I'm saying. So you may perceive it, you see, like the perceiving process of drinking. I'm just putting the label so that I can communicate. All can happen in your perception. I don't need to say, 'There's a cup with the...' and then... so life can unfold very naturally in that way.

I could have the thought of you, the doctor, and so in this case maybe just the belief that they're so low that it doesn't... it doesn't seem to obscure. But the... but yeah, with the mildest hypnosis of belief, the mildest gets you, you know. In the mildest, we get to take yourself to be an object, okay, limited in some way.

It's done. Don't repeat that. The moment takes care of it. You start open and empty now, and then the offer comes again: take yourself limited, whatever it may be. Saying the offer is to take yourself to be limited—you don't do that. The mind is itself in God's creation, designed to seem like God's creation. God's light is non-existent. It's like any good game programmer or a movie producer will try to make you forget about yourself and relate to the character in the game. That's why the narrative is there in the game. Suppose the game started and there will be some characters there and you don't know which one you are, what you're meant to do, what your mission is—nothing. No value in that. What it tells you: you are a secret agent, your job is to rescue the ambassador of Britain or something like that. And is that game fun if you buy none of the narrative?

You need your intellect or your brain to solve that.

Yeah, try, try doing it intuitively. That's how you'll become like a Ramanuja. That's right. Okay, so if you switch over to your intuition, then the mystery of how... this is a big mystery, you know, about Ramanuja's mathematics. Like, he didn't have access to the best teachers, he didn't have any tools, nothing, and he was solving things where people were marveling at his technique. And he said he's just doing it empty, empty. So same with the same with Einstein. He said that you may try and try and try and try; it's only when you let go that the greatest discoveries come to you. And then even the Archimedes, they just went to the water, which I said... yeah, I'm not saying use this, I'm not giving these examples so that you find a true cheat code to life. That's very cool. It doesn't work that way. You can't use it like that. But everyone, the best sports people, they'll say, 'I'm in the zone.' What does it mean, 'I'm in the zone'? I was not thinking, I was just meeting it as it was. It was sometimes...

It's best we forget about everything I just said because everybody wants to become like the best mathematician, sportsman, scientist. It's not for that. What is the highest that you can come to? The discovery of the truth, which is beyond that which comes and goes. If you want to use it, then use it for that. Try to use it for them. Or identifying with the thoughts. Everybody else trying to think, and then this was one state of one thing and that's the other state, like too much involved in it or so much involved that even the thoughts identify with God is also a lot now. I think too much. You're trying to solve it for a non-existent one. Who are you trying to help in this? Let me use five seconds, okay? I try to use these memes, okay, because I am not comfortable but I want anything. So I zoo... and just right now, open and empty. Don't try to come to an understanding of it.

We've tried it how we... for a long time. Something mustn't have worked that brings you here to this absurd sort of place. So now try it my way a bit. Don't use your now-new accounts. The little knowledge is the way to make my way work. 'My whole life will make sense now.' That's not what this is for. It is to deconstruct you fully. And that is what... if you get frustrated in satsang, that is the tension at work. You're trying to fix the final piece of the puzzle, you know, but the master keeps contradicting himself and the voice speaking from here is trying to make you empty, die to yourselves. So these opposing impulses cause the frustration and stress as we are in satsang.

Why not give this? Yes, exactly like this. Actually, you are trying to sharpen your conceptual, but finally you have to feel that God's light. What do you do? Go out of the sun and you at home or at other places... I mean, this is just brainstorming and conceptual thinking. You're not actually practicing being in the God's light, or you want maybe. But your moments here, what do you advise that when you go back home, already like for you actually practice this?

Yeah, just be like that, open and empty. That the thoughts come about remembering that and make the habit kind of. If that helps, it can feel like effort initially. Like you may say that... I took that example with you earlier also. I've seen that if all our life you've been a porter at the airport lifting bags from the conveyor belt and suddenly we were out of a job or we retired, then because all our life we've done it, it may take some effort to try and stop, remind yourself, 'No, I retired.' You see, I retired from this. So for a while it does feel like effort for most of us. And as long as it feels like effort, we must put that effort in consciously. But remember that putting that effort does not involve feeling guilty or unworthy for the times that we have failed, you see. Otherwise, many times we get into that ramp because then that's further lifting the bags from the mind's conveyor belt. 'I was not supposed to do that,' then we lift there. 'I will never succeed with this, this is too difficult,' you know. All these things we keep lifting. So the minute you stop, you spot it, you stop it. Our silence also this...

Put that effort in consciously, but remember that putting that effort does not involve feeling guilty or unworthy for the times that we have failed, you see? Otherwise, many times we get into that trap because then that's further lifting the bags from the mind's conveyor belt. 'I was not supposed to do that.' Then we lift there. 'I will never succeed with this. This is too difficult.' You know, all these things we keep lifting. So the minute you spot it, you stop it.

Our silence also, this thing, or it should be done while you are doing your routines, whatever life brings to you?

As you open and empty, you cannot identify this such a one who is there who has a routine. All of that is—we cannot fit this into a template of any individual's life. It's not a one hour of meditation you do and get into it. It's not. If you find—I was saying the other day—don't leave your bed till you come into God's presence, you see? So it means that in your case, the translation could be: don't leave your bed till you find yourself open and empty. So if you feel like something else, listening to a Bhajan helps, or whatever makes you feel open. Thousands and thousands, you know, spiritual techniques. If you feel like you need something because it is natural, don't leave home without it. Don't leave home without it because you'll cause trouble for yourself and everyone around you. You should leave home as God's light. Now you can drink, yeah. No, work with this in this moment to let go of your next thought.

Active position of the last moment, that will also come because of your next thought. You can't feel guilty with just pure perception. You may feel angry, you may feel fearful, but you can't feel greed, pride, remorse, regret, false humility without a thought. You can't. Hey, today feels like satsang from many months ago. You're saying that all that was bad, this is better? Okay.

Coming back to that, when he said, 'Your beard is white,' so your perception—but even just saying the beard is this, don't believe in it. It's just—that's okay. So what happens when you believe it? You have to check for yourself. What do you take yourself to be? It may be the mango is green, the coconut is like whatever. Yes, which may seem like so harmless, it doesn't sound egotistical, but notice that as soon as you believed it, have you bought into like a limited identity?

If you notice that you do, but even more so, what will happen is that usually when we start buying into thoughts, you know what happens? 'The mango is green.' 'Oh, I used to love green mangoes as a kid.' Very quickly, the whole narrative spins towards making a person out of us. And if the thought is harmless, we don't need a phone call to come from the mind to tell us, 'Oh, the mango was green.' Perceive it. Why do you need to buy a thought? Your perception is already intelligent enough to convey whatever that scene is telling you.

Seeing that the thought is harmless, what is the harm if I believe? But I'm saying—no, I'm saying the whole premise of the question was: what is the harm if I buy into this harmless, thin thought? First is that it takes you away from a true, from a vibrant taste of the moment itself, you see? Because your attention gets dissipated between thought and perception. Secondly, even if you say, 'Okay, in my experiment I found that I don't feel limited in believing a thought like that,' then you find that you're just creating fertile ground for more thoughts which are more identity-related to come. And in that harmless, thin thought, you have not received any new knowledge, actually.

One of the things that will happen is that your mind will try to separate, create duality in life by saying, 'Oh, this is okay for satsang, but what about practical life? I cannot run my life like that.' But you must experiment with that. This much risk at least we have to take. We want to find God at one level, and we're not willing to lose a little bit of money because I make a mistake at work or some silly thing like that? Then that 'no-risk spirituality' is not possible because the mind will use all these tools to push your buttons, ninja moves. Normal, pretty oblivious most of the time. Okay, what else? I'm just seeing again.

Yeah, well, the only, in a way, one mistake that we can pick up from this line of satsang is that we become very self-serving about it. It can seem very self-serving. 'Oh, am I this? Am I making progress? Am I getting better?' So that is the mind trick which the mind can also play. So don't get into that trap at all. It's not your job to track your progress. None of this is so that you can become something special. All of this is only so that God's light can spread.

Right now, let's say that light of God is here also without you. I'll give you a tip. You don't say God's light is here. What is God's light saying? Hey, that is too far, quote-unquote. You as an instrument, don't rush. Because what you say in God's light will be satsang. What you say in the ego shadow is this mental stuff. So let me hear some satsang from you. So they jokingly say that we don't wait happily for God as much as we wait for pizza. Yeah, even with Domino's we wait happily for half an hour. God not saying anything many times.

So that's why I was saying that coming to satsang like this is helpful because you get a taste of how it is, a reminder of Him. So satsang is helpful if you feel like it is not natural to you to just let go of your thoughts. Many will just find it natural to say, 'Okay, open and empty,' but many won't as well. So you have to find what you feel works for you. Is it some music? Is it some chanting? Is it some meditations, physical? All of that is designed for this.

Say again, if you feel like it doesn't come naturally, then already if I was to ask you, 'Where do you find yourself most peaceful?' then you can contemplate that question. And the best part is that all this will reveal itself to you as you have this in your heart. Carry this intention, in a way, in your heart. The next step always becomes clear. So I think you should see things. Yes, initially it's important in that way to make that effort to find that which makes you open, find that which keeps you empty.

Self-inquiry, or for those who are of atheistical temperament, can also try self-inquiry. They don't have to start with trying to be devoted to God or something like that. The self-inquiry is just to ask yourself, 'Who am I?' Sincerely, 'Who am I?' Yes, somewhat like this. But actually, you can just start with 'Who am I?' and then if a thought comes, then you can ask yourself, 'Who witnesses this thought? Who witnesses this song?' But important is just the sincerity in the question. Do it like you sincerely are asking, 'What is the way to Indranagar?'

Otherwise, people do it with a sort of a pretense about it, like they make it like a mantra or something. 'Who am I? Who am I? Who am I? Okay, who am I?' It's a very important question, and because you cannot find the answer conceptually, it'll pull you into the heart. So that you exist is a sense of existence or the sense of beingness, yes. Now, you which is aware of even that existence? Yeah, I know we're taking a lot of steps today, but it's good. So that which is aware of even that existence, can we call it existent or non-existent? It is beyond being and not being. Seeding all the answers in you so that they flower in your own looking. That which is aware of beingness and not beingness, that which is aware of even the state of deep sleep where nothing is—but it is where not even nothing is, only He is.

One says, 'May I ask for your blessings to have a job, full support of my attending and being in satsang according to the will of God?'

That's it, basically. If I could tell you about this, if it will not be the fifth today. How to tell you? I can tell you about the first: it is true. Tell you about the second: it is false. Tell you about the third: it is both true and false. Tell you about the fourth, which is neither true nor false. But this is what can I tell you? Remarkable.