Back to Basics - 19th January 2019

So, perception is out. Then what about thoughts? What are these thoughts? Another form of perception only, isn't it? But what is unique about thoughts as opposed to other perception? Shapeless. Some perceive it as a shape, some can perceive it as language, or they can perceive it as audio. This shape can also, in a way, be not solid, but the imagination is also perception in a way. If you imagine a green Martian, it is not solid, and yet it is a perception.

So, tell the story. Okay, this is a good point. So, what is this? So, if you are perceiving this—and I'm not using the label for the reason—if you're perceiving this, then is there a story inherent in it? Is the story inherent in an object of—let's use the term provisionally—pure perception? In pure perception, is there a story inherent? No. So, when we say believe or don't believe, is it possible? No, absolutely not applicable. Because there is only a certain form of perception, a type of perception energy construct that we call thought, which carries this story or message. It is the interpretation, the subtitles of the movie.

So, how is that perceived? And each of you may perceive it differently. When you perceive a thought, we use it. I say to you, 'Wait for the next thought to arise and tell me what it is saying.' Now, it might seem very floaty, and yet you can see the arising of it and you can report what it is saying. Or you might seem to hear it. I'm not saying what I'm saying, see, I'm using the term broadly. So, if you refer to this energy construct of thoughts, can it represent something which is without qualities, that which does not come and go? In the greatest concept that you can think about—what is the greatest concept you can think about? Brahman, Absolute. What else? The Self, God, pure consciousness. You think concepts, all these. What are the models? Emptiness, my creation, time, audio.

So, this is the greatest concept. And what is the smallest concept? Person, ego, selfishness, identification, even some phenomena. So, we looked at all of these perceptions, and now we are looking at all the labels which are possible. Now, when we say even Brahman, you notice that the mind tries to paint a picture of it, a visual of it, to say that, 'Yes, I know what he's talking about.' Or if you say 'lunch,' then the mind can give you a picture effectively. Now, all of these labels are something which are for things that you can visualize or represent. So, from the smallest to the greatest.

Many times when you talk of awareness or the space or even of emptiness, the mind gives us a visual of a dark empty space, some room full of white light or something like that, you see? And we mistake that visual to be it. But that is also what? There is still perception. It is just the perception. So, in these labels, in these representations, they are only trying to represent or interpret something which you can visualize or imagine or think you can have a perception of. So, we found that in all these perceptions, they do not fulfill the criteria of the unchanging. And all of these thoughts only represent something that we think that we can perceive. And even if the thought is saying that that which cannot be perceived, even if the thought is saying that, 'Okay, the thought is of that which cannot be perceived,' actually this is still using a perception as the reference. You're using a perception as a reference.

So, Maharaj said—he was asked by someone, 'What is the reality of who you are?' He said, 'It is nothing that you can think about or perceive.' He was not being insulting to the questioner. It is not like that you think, but it is beyond our concepts and beyond our perceptions. So, if these two are gone, then our methods of knowing, in a way, are gone, isn't it? Our methods of knowing are gone because how do we know things now? Since we're going through the basics, let me go through this also very smoothly.

If you had a blindfold on, see, if you had a blindfold on and somebody came and told you, 'There is a cliff a hundred meters away,' you see? And it was a credible source, so a voice that you recognize. So you say, 'Thank you for warning me. Now I know that there is a cliff a hundred meters away.' Now, after a few minutes, suppose a more credible voice came, your parent came or a teacher came, somebody that you trust a lot, okay? And they say, 'What are you doing? There's a cliff fifty meters away.' See? So you knew it was a hundred meters away, but now you know it is fifty meters away because you heard it from a more credible source.

Now, something happened and you were able to remove your blindfold and you saw that actually it is just ten meters away, you see? So you trust that perception more than these concepts which you heard from other credible sources. And now you have a perception of the cliff which is ten meters away, so you trust that more. So when the sage is saying that it is not possible to know the truth through these concepts that you have heard, even though they might be from outside or they might be from this mind, you see, it is not to be captured in the concept or it cannot be an object of your perception, you see? So if it cannot be based on what you hear about it or what you perceive it to be, then these two methods of knowing are gone. Then what is left? The one who perceives it. How is that to be known? As what?

So, slowly. So even the sages said, 'Find the one that witnesses you.' That is another clue that the sages give, another clue. So what was it? We looked at first: it does not change and it does not come and go. Another clue is: it is that which itself witnesses everything, see? It is the primal witnessing itself. So this is the second clue. And what if we investigated? Can you find it as something that you see, hear, taste, touch, smell? Can you find it as a concept? So if we are looking for the Self, we are here for Atma Gyan, self-knowledge, then how is this type of knowledge to be gained? In fact, this is the first verse, in a way, of Ashtavakra Gita. King Janak asked his master, 'How do I get true knowledge, liberation?'

So, because it's a conundrum, if you apply the filters that the sages have provided, then to know this seems impossible because my means of knowing—my concepts and my percepts—now you can't apply those. Then what is left? It is so. This understanding, can we investigate? We remove this, the pointer itself that you say, and the thing which cannot come and go, yes, cannot be true and stays always discrete. So we use that as a pointer. We can exponentially understand that, 'Oh yes, it is true,' because in the beginning when we start looking, we have to rely on someone. And presumably, we rely on those who have found this that we are looking for, you see? So we follow.

It is as if you're going to Spain and you're looking for travel advice, then you will ask somebody who's been there, isn't it? In the same way. So in the same way, when we are looking for self-knowledge or the truth or freedom, then we ask those who presumably are there, at least they have the game that has been there. So what do we refer to? We refer to the scriptures, we refer to the Masters, all of these which are the seemingly credible sources. So then they are saying, 'Find that which does not come and go.' Now, before you start saying, 'But why should I look for that which does not come and go?' see, exclude whether it is worthwhile or not, you see? Because actually you are the one who went looking anyway. Nobody came to you and said, 'Find that that does not come and go.' You said, 'I want to find the truth. I want to find freedom or liberation.'

So when you found what you feel is a credible source, then first investigate whether their advice actually takes you to it, you see? The fools think, 'Why should I follow your advice?' but you are the one who came. So, look at the efficacy of the advice first. And if it doesn't work, you see, then you can say, 'But I've tried. I tried to look for that which does not come and go, but your advice doesn't work.' That is a different conversation. So because you said we're looking for the experience of that, so that is what we must then look for. But now the trouble is that what we have called experience of the past has been again our perceptions and our concepts. So if it is not in these, then what else do we have left?

So we said we did 'neti neti' and said, 'This is gone, this is gone.' Now what is left? Nothing is left. But is it a perceptual nothing in the sense, is it like a dark empty room? No. So this is also perception and this will also come and go. It came and it will go also. So it cannot be that. So even this, it is not. Now, if you are open to exploring this, which the mind will find very irritating, suffocating, and constricting, then with the openness it is completely possible. But if you want to convince your mind about it, you see, then it is impossible because the mind cannot understand really. You can only have concepts of it. It is like if you want to make Siri see the light or Alexa see the light, it cannot actually be. You can have a concept of light and tell you the speed of light, it...

So it cannot be that. So even this, it is not. Now, if you are open to exploring this, which the mind will find very irritating, suffocating, and constricting, then with the openness, it is completely possible. But if you want to convince your mind about it, then it is impossible because the mind cannot understand, really. You can only have concepts of it. It is like if you want to make Siri see the light or Alexa see the light; it cannot actually be. You can have a concept of light; it can tell you the speed of light, it can tell you all kinds of things about the light, but it has no ability to actually experience this light. The same way with the mind: you can have a lot of concepts of it, but because it cannot have the experience of it, then it will not be satisfied.

So first, see that it is not about trying to convince the mind about it, trying to convince this energy construct called thoughts about the nature of reality. It is about something beyond the mind. It is about something beyond concepts and perceptions. Why I want to go through the basics today, really, is also because many of us actually have been in satsang for a long time, but we still use the term 'mind' but we are not yet completely clear on what it represents. You have not even explored this enough to see what a thought is, what is the taste of a thought. So it's good to go really slowly and then see, okay, what is this mind? What is the perception? And if anyone feels that they're not clear about it, here I am happy to take as many days as needed to really go through this because the rest of it actually is easy.

It may seem like before we get to the good stuff, you know, about awareness and consciousness, all of that, let's jump to that. That stuff is pretty easy. If it becomes clear to you what perception is being represented by what, or using the term 'mind,' then truth is not difficult. But if it is not clear yet, so I say, if I say to you, 'Keep the mind aside for a moment and see what actually is,' and you still refer to the mind and say, 'Okay, what do you think about what actually is?' then the conversation could seem to go on for years and years and years. But if you have a sense of what is being said, because it is a habit, you see, the mind is a habit. So don't go to the mind for answers about this truth which is being shared in satsang.

Even when you hear something like this, what is your real response? Many times, what you could still be doing is this: I said, 'Don't go to the mind,' and you say, 'What do you think about that?' Yeah, because our mind will only give us answers like this kind of stuff. We still go to the mind because we feel like that is the only option that we have for any knowledge. For any knowledge, we feel like that is the option that we have. Or we are expecting to find the perceptual experience, an experience which will be some chakra or some shining light or something more, at least some do. So if you don't go to it, what happens? If you don't go to this construct called thought and you don't bother about any perception, now what is here? Now we can add some serious tension to this mix, some serious stress.

Just that the Masters have also said, I guess, be watching again. So he said Buddha nature is always apparent here and now. The truth is here and now. He said, 'Okay, I can't find it in any perception, you can't find it in concept,' but it is also said that the truth is just apparent. But what the mind is saying is exactly what I'm saying: don't bother with that one. Okay, the mind, or look at it, okay, look at space, space, space. Don't go to what the thought is saying. Let the thoughts come and go, not replacing anything. We don't go toward any percept, what any perception is, you see. Now the sages have made this provocation or invitation saying here the truth is completely apparent. That's how you are aware of the searching. It's like a contraction for grasping. What is it? An object of perception? Or you have a concept of it? Or it is perceived and then on top you have a concept of a subtitle of it? So whatever that is, leave that also alone. Don't worry about any of these perceptions and any concept of them. What is apparent to you that is not a concept and it is not a perception?

The ability to perceive is the best. The ability to perceive.

How is that? How do you make that claim that that is there? Okay, so activity is perceived and you're saying that the ability to have that perception, you see, now are you inferring that? Yes? You mean like the thought is saying, 'Because the activity of thinking is happening and I perceive this thinking activity, therefore I am'? But that's an inference. But are we speaking from inference? Are you putting two plus two together and making the claim? Is it? Or are you accessing another type of knowledge in a way which shows you that this witnessing is there? The conscious of the witnessing, conscious. Now don't imply anything. Let's stay with what is apparent. You say, let's say it simply, who are you? Saying witnessing is apparent?

Yes.

So witnessing is apparent. What are you calling witnessing? Okay, let me simplify. Closer to the mic. Something wrong? If others can tell us with the Lord, use article or one is not able to hear. Oh, question arises. So this witnessing, is this an object of perception? I was going to take an example, same example nowadays. Do this, you see there is a blue coaster on the couch, yellow coaster on the couch. Is it because it is perceived you say there is a witnessing? Because given your sight making meaning, no? So is there a yellow coaster on the couch?

Yes.

Why you say that? You perceive it, you see. Now you see there is a witnessing which I can confirm as apparent, you see. Now, do you perceive this witnessing? Is it? Is it just a concept, this witnessing? How do you claim this witnessing? Don't get into any inferring. This is the question, simpler than that. You say witnessing is apparent. Now I say to you, what is the color of this witnessing?

No color.

Then how do you claim it is there? If I say there is a colorless coaster on the couch, would you say there is a coaster? Then maybe you don't want it. So how is there a different standard for this witnessing or this that which witnesses? Because even if we were to say just witnessing, that is like almost not a right way of talking. But if I say to you, you are witnessing, no? Are you about to testing me? You are witnessing this. This 'I' itself which is witnessing, can that be witnessed? Then how do you make the claim that it is there? For a yellow coaster, witnessed, perceived, you need to claim there is a yellow coaster. This 'I' that witnesses, witnesses these sensations that we call the body. These various bodies have been experienced, various states: waking state, dream state, sleep state, other states we all experience. Now you say, 'I witnessed all of this,' but this 'I' itself, what is your experience of that? I mean, an idea of that place, thought?

You look very good.

So you see that all ideas fail in relation to it. The 'I' that we are looking for, all ideas fail in relation to it. All perception fails in relation to it. Now there's another notion that you use called 'me.' There's another notion that we use which is called 'me.' Now, do all ideas fail in relation to this 'me'? Specific ideas which are found to beliefs. So this 'me' is made up of beliefs. But when we actually look, we find that this 'I,' the only 'I' which I can claim with, I mean, truth value, you see, does not conform to any ideas. It does not conform to any ideas. But what I claim about myself is full of ideas. The 'me' is full of ideas. So what is true? The 'me' which is full of ideas, or this 'I' to which no idea seems to reach?

Okay, definitely not the me idea now.

But all ideas only tend to be about this 'me.' No idea reaches this 'I.' So if I ask you now, are you aware? Now this is an atomic question because the 'yes' comes to you naturally. But you have, what is your experience of this awareness? How do you experience something quality-less? If I say to you there's a quality-less coaster on the couch, how can you perceive quality-less? Perception means we perceive a quality. But for this awareness, simple question: are you aware now? You see, yes. If I say to you this is the truth which is apparent, I guess not. But suppose, suppose it is apparent but without a perception of it. Would it pass this test or failure that 'I am aware'? You see, you have no perception of this awareness and yet it is apparent that you are. Anything else you can say in the same way that you have no perception or concept of it, yet it is apparent that it is?

Yes.

But are you inferring that or you continuously, you're certain?

Yeah, yeah, I get you. Have no piece of an object, no taste, yeah, with no anything, forget yourselves.

Yeah, but I am that I am. Yes. Now this 'I' that is aware, yeah, is there an 'I' which is separate from aware? Because anything 'I am aware,' so for them to be separate means one of them has to have a quality. For anybody, everybody with me so far? Tired of all? You don't think about your question, just follow for a moment, work for the himself. So we say 'I am aware.' We already explored this awareness and we said there is no concept of it. I am not just regurgitating learned knowledge. I am saying, well, I ask, 'Are you aware now?' You said yes. I said yes because not that I saw it and I'm not answering from something that is learned knowledge, something fresh. Said yes and it is apparent now. Now we are digging further into that and we're saying, you said 'I am aware.' We saw, we saw that for awareness there is no quality, you see. Now for there to be two, 'I' and awareness, only a quality can distinguish, isn't it? Yeah. So when we say 'I am aware,' what separates the two? It's not no formal quality and separation is possible without finding one moment we live with form and quality or concept.

Yeah, precisely. Very good.

So therefore when we say 'I am aware,' it's just like saying 'aware is aware' really, or whatever is whatever. No separation, isn't it? Because there is no qualitative distinction to be found. You see that? So this 'I,' do you find any separation from this awareness? You find them and no separation. Now this is already apparent using any of this that we've discussed so far with this concept that you heard from me, or you followed along? So are you aware or no? We don't know the answer to the definition, which is good. That is also good. Tired or doubtful because we are coming to that words. But for now, from whatever you feel you think you know about awareness, you say yes. Did you have an experience of this awareness? Yeah, I. So is there any difference between what we called perception earlier and what you are putting awareness? So what are you calling perception as you were calling that awareness? There used to be second, not the way we use it in satsang in the same expand the scenes you have. We will calculate because you said find that which sees sight, find that which hears hearing. So in a way it is that which is aware that there is sight. So eyes open, sight is there. Eyes closed, still sight is there, but the objects of sight are not there, isn't it? So that which is aware that sight is there, is that sight? No, that's this one's right. That's not sight because it is also aware of sound, hearing. It's also aware of taste. So this is what we call awareness: that which is aware of sight, aware of hearing, aware of taste. Now this awareness, does it itself have an attribute or quality? And yet, are you aware? One, yes. Possible to this question even financially because even if you were to say no, you see, what you would actually be saying is that 'I am aware that I am not aware.' See? So that question cannot be answered with a no, even with inferences. That's why I only ask you don't infer attention. Yes, from what you think you know, from your checking. Yes. Now this that you checked on, you see, it does not have a color, shape, size, and yet your common reality not denying, is it not? For everything else, when we don't find color, shape, size, age, then we deny, let's say, permanent existence. Yes, we have permanent existence. For now, we use the term existing, within existence can also be confusing. This language is very tough here. The language is designed for phenomenal, you see. It is not designed for this, and yet to point to that, what do we...

You know from your checking, yes, now this that you checked on, you see, it does not have a color, shape, or size, and yet your conviction is reality. You are not denying it. Is it not that for everything else, when we don't find color, shape, or size, then we deny? Let's say a permanent existence. Yes, we have permanent existence for now. We use the term existing, but within existence can also be confusing. This language is very tough here. The language is designed for the phenomenal, you see. It is not designed for this. And yet to point to that, what do we have? The tools we seem to have is like with the first presence, which does most of it, but in this play of sharing verbally, we use only language.

So now everyone is together. Get your doubts out because then, you see, something about yourself. When were you born? Are you a good person? So all of this, are you like a party guy or you like being at home? Maybe these kind of things are all about the domain. 'I am very honest. I am spiritual. I am not so ambitious.' You know, all of these things can be about somebody that we are referring to as a 'me.' Now the funny thing is that even that is not perceived. See, even this 'me,' nobody has ever perceived the 'me' that had money in the bank account, that has a manager at work. I don't know those who have not perceived it, and yet somehow this bundle of concepts seems to get all our allegiance. And yet this Self, which is not perceived and yet it is undeniable, seems to be ignored.

So, person not found. Not found in any way at all. Self not found perceptually or conceptually, but not missed. Cannot be denied. Cannot be denied. Are you witnessing your own sight, your own perception? Of course you are, easily. So it is undeniable. But this person, which we have no real evidence of except this circumstantial evidence, seems to get all our visions. So when we spoke of thought, it is thought which you are referring to as with a limited entity. So that is what we call the 'me,' the notion of the limited self, the ego. It is not real, but it can seem like it is the center of the story. Is it a hero of a story? It is a 'me.' This nobody has ever met, actually.

So this is the beautiful explanation. How do we affirm this awareness or this witnessing, primal witnessing, whatever you might want to call it? But we don't have the sight of it, we don't have the smell of it, the taste of it. There is no color, shape, size, or duration. Okay, what does the term 'body' represent? Yes, but what is it? What is it referring to? It is referring to a set of sensations, a set of perception and sensation. So this is what it is referring to. Now this one, this physical form, what does it have to do with your bank account? Okay, tell me what your last concern was. So if it is about work, bank account, relationship, you see, all of these things, even concern about the body itself, whose is that? The body is not feeling concerned about the body.

In fact, if you were convinced that you are the body, what is the reason you would come to satsang? You see, if you were convinced you are the body, you would want to at least sit on a comfortable couch like this. Why would you want to sit on a floor, as they said, come hunched up together? If you're convinced that you are the body, you would want to be something for the body. But what do you see? No, I come to satsang even though it might not be the best for the body, most comfortable for the body, but I am searching for truth or something like that, isn't it? So already you are not convinced that you are the body. I cannot have a satsang conversation with somebody who's convinced that they are the body because they won't come. You can grab the waters here for the body for them to come. No denying that. I'm just saying that we spend a great percentage of our time considering ourselves to be the body. Now this is neglect. This is unfair.

So you can use 'body is part of me.' How much time do you spend with you? So the only rule is that if you spend all your time considering yourself to be the body, you are bound to suffer. And if you are okay with that, then... if you were just the body, then why would you be concerned about this? This is funny, no? Depth, when it can be approved on the spot. And you said, but who do you consider yourself to be? See, what if you really, really consider yourself to be this? Then what is this care about the amount of plastic or amount of paper you have in your wallet? It doesn't matter to that one. See, to this flesh and blood, all those things are irrelevant. Is this body also concerned about yesterday or tomorrow? There's no concept of it also.

So who is that one that has a yesterday, that has a tomorrow, or it has relationships, it has security issues? It has all of this stuff. This 'me' is nothing but a collection of ideas that have been picked up. Oh, you know, the body itself is not just a memory, though it was an idea that we can use and say, 'I perceive the world through this body.' But really, in the dream also there is a body. What are you perceiving the dream through? The dream body. You cannot really say this kind of thing, although it seems what we have been taught, what you have been conditioned to believe. I am saying the body itself, whether you call it these perceptions or sensations, is the self of perception, and various bodies we perceive. Now it is convenient, now of course in this state, to call that of 'me.' Is it Janaka's story? Am I the king who had the dream of the butterfly, or am I the butterfly who was dreaming that it is a king? That question was asked thousands of years ago, still no answer for it. So it is a butterfly, some say, but girl, it is whatever game you can have this.

So the end of suffering is to come to that which is the unchanging service, because that should be fairly obvious by now. Yeah, what is the nature of this world? Even if you weren't spiritual, I feel like by the time everyone is a bit older, they come to this understanding that attachments lead to trouble because they see that everything in this world is changing. You see, now if I just try and hold on to something that is going to go, you see, is that going to bring peace? So sometimes jokingly, it is like tying yourself to a drunken donkey and expecting to sit in quietude or something. It can't work like this. It's going to shake. Whatever is here is going to change, go. So now stability can come from that which is unchanging, does not come and go.

Now where to find such a thing? We said it cannot be found in the realms of perception or conceptualizations. Intellect cannot do it, and sight and perception cannot do it. Now the clues are being provided to go beyond because we relied so much on these methods of knowing that we feel like, 'Oh, besides that there is nothing.' Yes, what is apparent to you if you don't use your senses or your concepts? Nothing. It comes quickly, isn't it? Like nothing. But I am trying to introduce you to this nothing. Meet it. You meet it and you will realize that it is not nothing, although it is nothing. So when the sages say the truth is to be found in the space between thoughts, what is in the space between thoughts? To the mind, nothing. But what is this nothing? It is not the nothing literally, in fact, this part of satsang to the mind is no fun because to the mind, nothing is the worst insult.

We like somebody comes and says, 'You are nothing.' Don't you know who I am? Somebody treats you like nothing, it's the worst deletion. So we don't really enjoy that. We want to claim, 'But I am this, I had done this, I have had this award and this experience.' This to be thought of as nothing is the worst nightmare for the mind. So here it starts to resist to be something. 'I thought I was coming to be a very special enlightened one and you're making nothing out of me.' And we have very fancy ideas about spirituality. It's the last rung of the ladder after you've evolved through all the rest. Even in things for the truth in spiritual texts itself, it is written like after you had some 84 lakh, 8 million 400,000 lives, then you will come to this life searching for the truth of what you are, this kind of thing.

But we can doubt that notion very much because maybe this is just kindergarten, or this world is a preparatory. There, you know, you can't really play with because the ones who come to satsang usually suffer much more from the world than those who are just normally... I'm not saying it is so, but over here at the top promenade, they are only after money and the things we are after, God-kind of specialness. When you come to satsang in your life, but you can't even find yourself, you see, what will you become? You will find that you are nothing. 'But I came here to become a special cat. I wanted freedom so I could be a cat with a halo.' And now there is no cat, and I'm looking also not finding the cat. So it's not helping me at all. And whatever certainties I had, even those have been taken away from this.

So these are the frustrations that come. And in that case, then satsang does not feel like it is fun. And whether we use big words for it and call it the dark night of the soul or whatever we call it, it is only resistances to 'me.' All our glorified versions of this 'me,' all of this getting in the way. So now whatever you think you know you are found, now that does not represent this reality where we are speaking of. Correct or no? Think you know, like you know, again concepts and percepts, you see, that does not represent reality. That you are aware now is not a concept and it is not something that you experience as a phenomenon, and yet you cannot deny it. So what needs it to be known now so that you can come to the truth? Nothing. Because nothing is to want, then no further words are needed.

And then I say the truth needs to be seen, heard, felt, experienced, all of that. And what concept you need to have? Do you need a new concept? You see, that 'I am the Brahman' or something like that? If the answer is truly nothing, if you did not have this need to know, need to figure it out, need to conclude, even to conclude that it is done... see, even this like, 'Oh, now I can truly give myself a certificate, I have done it.' But in that itself, in that conclusion making, we make a limited version of ourselves because who is done? You see, who are we talking about? God? Awareness? Who are we talking about? Who is done? So of course, joyfully, playfully, of course we can share like that. But the point is that we sometimes take those certificates and claims also very seriously, that that also becomes a representation of the 'me' itself. That is called the spiritual ego.

The masters you will find are very, very hard on the signs of it because if it is allowed to develop, then you will stop listening very soon. You see, if this spiritual ego is allowed to develop, then you will become so full of your spiritual identity so soon that your ears will be full of wax. You will not hear anything in satsang. You will say, 'So grateful to Ananta, he brought me to this, but I feel like I am done.' Like that. So everywhere when it is noticed, your master says, 'Okay, this dream is being formed, so let me stop because only this one is going to stop listening and we will have to meet, I don't know in which life.' Don't bother with this. The point was to notice, are you fine as you are? I think I'm good. I'm good. So what needs to be known now to confirm the truth? There's a pointer to something, something, yes. Is that the question asked? Yeah, pointer, yes. It's nothing because this, it is not just nothing because it is the absence of all things. Not just nothing because it is just the absence of everything. It itself is nothing. It's like, it's not like it's empty. I would say, what is in this glass? You would say there's nothing. It is not that nothing because if it is that nothing, we would call it the absolute dumb one. Not alive, but it is still. So what is to be known and how it is to be known? You keep it in your heart. There's nothing to be known, but don't make a knowing out of that because that is another result the mind can also play. Now I need to...

It's like it's not rocking like it did. Lots of empty. I would say what is in this glass, you would say there's nothing. Mmm. It is not that. Not because if it is that nothing, we would call it the absolute Brahman. Thus, I'll give it last. You got it? Come on. Not alive by the head still. So what is to be known and how it is to be known? You keep it in your heart there. There's nothing to be known, but don't make a 'knowing' out of that because that is another result the mind can also play. 'Now I need to know nothing.' Why? 'You know so much, I know nothing.' Because then you feed yourself up easily with the notion that 'I know not.' You know too much that 'I know nothing.' Like activity, but also position. This we go from 'no, no, no, no' now to the new position: 'I know nothing.' Very good. And that is why I am something like that. So both of these are still in the intellect, yeah?

So, like the 'don't know.' When I say to know even one thing is to know too much, it is not so that at the end of the day you can claim that 'I know nothing' because even that you know. And that is so much. Is he still with me here? I know that all of you follow very well, but this part is where something starts to become very confused because the intellect cannot grasp it. So I say to you, to know one thing is to know too much. And then if you were to conclude, 'Yes, I see this now, I know nothing,' but that is also to know one thing. To know that you know nothing. Although already the ones who claim 'I just know nothing' were called the wisest ones, like Socrates. 'I just know nothing. I only know that I know nothing.' Already they were given the crown of being the wisest ones. They reveled in it, but I am pushing you beyond that because you don't want to be the wisest one.

I'm still stuck with that. Yes, the point is what you suggested. We have to see that. Exactly, yes. The way to make it clearer is to try not to be... don't be aware. Tell me when you're done. The problem with me is awareness comes as a blob to me. I'm going to chop it, understand what it is.

But that is not our approach because that is the approach that we use as scientists. But the approach which is being suggested is that if everything appears as a blob, find out who witnesses that blob. And that is not fun. And it's okay. Admit that is not fun. It's okay, but don't be scared to meet it. So don't fall for the same trick. Now you say that if I am not able to dissect it, but it is not dissectable. It is not dissected. Find out what witnesses this. Even the need to dissect, what is aware of that? And you will not see it as a perception. And you will not, even if you get the greatest concept of it, the truth is not in that.

Somebody's existence. So awareness for me is something of... so it's if I'm aware of you, that means I can... you exist.

Let's see. Let's use the same line. You are aware of your existence?

Yes.

That which is aware of your existence, what can you say about that? Is it that which we just established that we call as a witness that is aware of... no, are you inferring this?

Yes.

Yeah, don't infer. So you are aware of your existence and I say don't infer, which means don't rely on some past knowledge and don't compute or equate anything. You thought, 'I must be aware because this...' Do you exist or no?

Yes.

So that which is aware of this existence, what can be said about that? Can't really say. It is, it is, it is, it is. Unless itself, anything can't be said. But unlike a twenty-color rainbow, yeah, I can't say anything about it because I have never perceived it. We cannot deny it, isn't it? That is the beautiful thing. That although you have no perception of it, you cannot but affirm it. So that which is independent of any quality, independent of any change, independent of any excitement or grief, that is what satsang is pointing to. Now for this, you check this. These are pointers. Does it come and go? Does it undergo any change? Does it witness all perception and all objects of perception? It's beyond any boundaries of space and time. And does any of that boundary concept apply to it? What is its location? What is its age? Good.

So now the best news is that for us to hold on to this, we don't hold on to it with our attention. We don't hold on to it with a concept. So we don't have to hold on to it like that. Oh, you're going to have to hold on to it, say 'my awareness, I am awareness,' like that. To abide, how to hold on to it, only means that we don't pick up a false representation of what we have. And this is what the sages meant. The truth is always this apparent to you, but don't pick up the false one. They said that true knowledge is not something that you will get; all you will do is drop the false. So what is the false? What we already discussed: these ideas of a limited me, a limited version of the Self. So do not take this 'me' seriously, says the sage. And to take the 'me' seriously is the distance between the two. Is this hard? In this moment, you are as the sage. You start now as the sage. Now how you want to play? You have the voice coming. If you want to grasp at it, then it is the consciousness itself. You want to play the game of suffering? If consciousness is done with the game of suffering, then it just allows us to go. Then you come to that beautiful Zen saying which is: thoughts are visitors, let them come and go. Keep the front door and back door open. Let them come and go, just don't serve them tea.

That's what it is not. If we start with what it is not, right, we negate it. Against you don't know what it is. Yes, nothing. We came also to nothing. If it's not, stand corrected. Different, yes. So that nothing which is said in satsang is actually pointing to nothing. So nothing points to that nothing which is a more clear pointer in a way. Nothing which I can perceive in this space. Is it that why it's nothing? Yes, because it is itself unperceivable. Unperceivable, yeah, because only things are... yes. That means what is... let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. When you say 'I don't know,' it means when mental capacity does not reach it, is it? And yet it is not empty to you. In reality, it's just felt like this experience which is not really an experience, which is kind of like a state of being, I guess. Really, I can't really describe it, but it's just like a real deep sense of relief. Yes, and like a really strong happiness that has never been really like... but that's just being there. And it's just... and also like that when you say it's apparent, it's just like, yeah, and not conceptually, but it's just like, yes, it's here like now. And we're both checking. During the checking, it's like... and that's... no, I don't know like the center about it, like what about it? And yet, yeah, there's like the sense of like, yeah, and it's there. And matching stories that have been there like an experience in the flow of life. And it's even like despite, you know, some strong moments or like a test thought, you know, difficult times or whatever, I still like, yeah, and still like a response can come to whatever situation I need it in the moment. That's how I kind of describe it. It's just like that. And convinced it's coming to an end. I mean, it's like it's just kind of like anything you say, it's just like... and even that which you said, that it had never really come up before, but just to kind of... well, they also like, I don't really know why I'm here. I don't really have... there's nothing that I'm like hoping to gain from this or anything. I just, I don't know, it just seems kind of to be happening. But then some when I was into like sort of the reflection started like, 'Oh, but when do you then know that the time has come? Is it still necessary to go to satsang?' So it also doesn't feel like a rejection of satsang, my time talking or something, but it also just like this kind of satisfaction of feeling like it's enough. And then I guess I was going up the mountain one morning, something kind of like strange started to be experienced. And it was like just suddenly, you know, became aware that it was like this sort of feeling of like uncomfortableness. And that is not quite like a foreign kind of... I don't know, just describe it a bit like that kind of feeling like something's not right, other than the problem. So that is usually like total absence. And so as soon as that started being felt, it was just like what was like an alarm bell calling for attention. And it was in that moment that I realized it doesn't focus being believed, but now I don't think anymore. Yes, some sense of like some affirmations or whatever about the clarity. And yeah, and then it's kind of like... and I think also the question arises like, 'Oh, and you know, I don't know.' It's kind of like as soon as it's seen that there's something there, some sort of like holding on to that, not believing in that, it's sort of like an instant that it's seen, it already does not need to like drop it or anything because it just kind of like... because I'm noticing it, using is the dropping of it.

No, yeah. Like and there's no other shovel that you can take. Well spotted, because this is the terrain in which if the notions start to get to you, you see very quickly you get into that belief system. What I was saying in satsang, like in the world it is said that the trouble is we don't know what we don't know. In satsang, what can get in the way is that we don't know how much we still know. And I mean, if you knew that today is exactly ten years since I sat on the hot seat with Guruji today, and I'm still finding out really how much I still think I know. So that is some sort of benchmark to decide this in a different way. It is fresh insight every day. You can never really say like this is ready, that is finished. I'm happy with you caught it. In other ways, it can become such a potent position that we take and we don't even realize it's a position because all of Advaita is backing it up. It's like, yeah, when you come from that position, it is just like we come for confirmation of what we think already we know. This is like... and something comes out of left field. I think he is a bit out of whack there, you know? It's just like because we become so certain about ourselves in a way that we start saying something like that can be so. So that openness, that becomes like a light position. So that's why the Zen master is very beautiful, called the beginner's mind. So it's a return to a beginner's mind, not to accomplish, not to accomplish.

You know, like the 'why' question is like the most astounding. If what is, why? The 'why' exploded. What is 'why' by definition? It implies cause and effect. This, therefore this, then that is the 'why.' The answer to 'why' would be 'this leads to that,' you see? But if the truth is beyond time and space, the ego would say it for me: 'Why me? Why does this happen to me?' with this kind of 'why.' And the notion that we can figure this out. The notion that we can figure this out... as I looked at Kurt Vonnegut's words very much, he says: 'Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, man got to ask himself why, why, why. Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, man got to tell himself he understands.' So this need to build the conceptual boundary around reality and say 'I got it now in my box' is a claim to power, actually. But it is really for delusion because reality cannot be captured in our box with concepts. We looked at: what is your greatest concept? 'I don't know.' Did that contribution set up? So you come on itself, or do the smallest concept: ego, person, lunch, chai. So between chai and Brahman, what is the distance? It is just a thought. It is nothing. And this whole box is very tiny for you. I can't help myself but to keep reiterating this point. If we feel like the truth is just to go from chai to Brahman, then we're still in that box, yeah? The point is to leave this whole box. And then when we hear the truth is apparent...

The latest concept, I don't know did that contribution set up so you come on itself or do the smallest concept ego person, lunch, chai. Him. So between chai and Brahman, what is the distance? It is just a thought. It is nothing. And this whole box is very tiny for you. I can't help myself but to keep reiterating this point because if we feel like the truth is just to go from chai to Brahman, then we're still in that box. Yeah. The point is to leave this whole box. And then when we hear the truth is apparent, this truth which is apparent is not in that box. What is the isness is not in the box of being Brahman or something. You might, for communication purposes, then call it that, but if you are still from that in the box of opposites, in the box of intellect, then the intellect will promise many things. But it is still like juvenile. I came to power, but I understand. What do you actually understand? What understanding is there really? You just like feel like you can add up two plus two, therefore we know something. But nobody really can take this 'therefore that,' this kind of intellectual reasoning. Very popular. But the claims we end up making, not only are they committal, how long are they going to last? We took this knowledge, but when this body goes, in fact, which of these knowledges will you take into your sleep state tonight? You could have solved using quantum theory or something, you could have come up with a better version of the theory of relativity, but you go into sleep state, then you know what it is. So this intellectual knowledge is not the center of your reality. As far as the worldly play is concerned, I have no trouble with any of that. I am just saying that don't consider it to be the ultimate truth because looking before that's fine. But if you consider it to be something which is beyond your using life and death and waking and sleep, if you consider it to be like an unchanging reality, then know that you can have just as easily wake up in a state where two plus two is not four. I know it sounds crazy to you right now because our intellect box is designed like that. You can very easily experience a realm where if a cow is there, it can easily fly away. And the question, how will you make it escape in mountains? And just like in this realm, it doesn't make sense that how can it escape? Okay, maybe I am going too far out.

Is it a thing? Is that what defines all this? Is just you?

If I see that, yes, that is it, and you know that is not it. And if I say it is not it, that is also not it. See? So you come to a place where now, like, words don't have much purpose. And so I don't want to either give you an affirmation or a negation because you're not playing in that box now.

Not playing in that box. Not a good belief. It's still subject to conviction and non-subjective, right? Maybe you are actually implying that it is not in that box of convincing and not.

Yeah, I give you a certain Lord nothing. That is good, you see? Completely to reckon about nothing. Complete certainty and yet complete uncertainty. Maharaj said that freedom is the coming to the end of all certainty.

But you seem pretty certain of that.

So, so this what you're saying, that what you're speaking always like a clear, seems like a conviction born from what is just apparently. But don't make a certainty out of it. I learned some things. Did you get what you want? Let me give them. And so I'm just like paraphrasing. They say, let's just say that you have been to a restaurant and you've like eaten and you're like completely full, like a child, and then you walk out on the street and then a friend is passing glances. Okay, I'm just absolutely ready. It's like, are you satisfied? Are you full? Like in that way. And then the question had to say like, no, no, like I would still be like, yeah, let's go eat.

After hearing all this, do you know? So at the beginning of Satsang, I requested your intelligence sharing some of the basics when I said that. And there, I'm aware that all of you are very advanced because you are so intelligent. So if there has been resonance with what is being said so far, let me speak to you now as most advanced seekers. I just want to tell you: make no distinctions, take no positions. I mean, claim to knowledge is the position. Don't even take the position that you don't know. Find out what is apparent here. What is known when you know nothing? Now all the provisional truths that we use as pointers to point to the greater reality also are seen as provisional. Here there is no absolute, no 'no,' no 'left,' all that, no 'right,' no master, no disciple, no 'no,' also no 'no,' no 'yes.' Here your reality is not in this box of opposites. You have not found anything, you cannot lose it. Or like transit time to do with expressing my deepest gratitude to a beloved Father, Satguru Mooji Baba, for all his clear, formless presence. His holy light continued to shine on all of us and may we forever be at his lotus feet. His grace bless us all. May it keep us away from all right arguments. May all come to peace. May all beings come to this truth. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti. Thank you all so much for being in Satsang today. Satguru Mooji Baba Ki Jai.