Be Completely Dependent on His Presence - 10th January 2024

Then pointing to the same question as: Can you stop being? Can you not be right now? Just try to not exist. Huh? Can you try it?

Sometimes even trying seems difficult because we're trying to resolve it as an understanding.

So I want it to be moved away from an attempt to intellectually understand to really, like with the innocence of a child, we have to do it. Now if you tell a child, 'Just stop playing with that rattle,' they may not listen, but they understand the instruction. Here, when I say try to stop being, you really have to just try to not be. Don't exist. Or a simpler way to look at that is just in this instant fall asleep. Don't be awake. Are you still awake? What is that wakefulness, aliveness? Where are we? Is it like that? Is it like that, that it's something but I can't really place a finger on it? Is it like that or is it just words? Just that. So try to, as ineloquently as you like, tell me a little more about that. What do you mean by that?

Difficult to describe it, but there is a some of a wakefulness feeling.

Wakefulness feeling, yes. It's like it feels like a feeling, but it's not like the other feelings of anger, joy, peace. It's not like that. It's not really a feeling feeling, and neither is it energy. That's why I keep calling it a living being, so that we don't take it to be like a feeling, a force of nature, like energetic. To dive into that, remain with that. Because in Maya, that is the only real doorway to God. Everything else takes you outwardly. But to meet that which is—why is it ungraspable? Why can't you really put a finger on it? Because it is not fully objective. It's not fully like an object, and neither is it completely non-phenomenal. You realize what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Because if it was completely non-phenomenal as the highest, as the Absolute is, as awareness is, then for most it just sounds like a word. The meeting of the Absolute seems too far-fetched for most. If it is completely phenomenal, then you would have just idealized it or made an object out of it or a thing out of it and said, 'Ah, here it is, close to my heart there's a tiny object which is the being.' And then it would just be another object which is perceived and then will be unperceived. But because this is neither phenomenal nor non-phenomenal, or both phenomenal and non-phenomenal, it is a doorway into that which is beyond the realm of perception, beyond the realm of Maya. That is why to come to this is very important.

So at least we are at a point where you can say that there is something. I don't really know whether it is the same that he's talking about, is it just my imagination? You may be—the mind may be doubting all of these things, and that's fine. Use that to dive in deeper because to come to this Atma Darshan, to come to this Atma Gyan, is very important. It is the most important project. If you lived a life and never came to your Atma, then in my eyes you haven't lived at all. So it's not—it doesn't always seem easy because forever we've only taken Maya to be real. You've only taken the world of perceptions to be real. So the switchover of the instrument from the perceptions and mind and intellect to your intuition where this is palpable seems a bit strange.

So where do we recognize this presence, or with what instrument do we recognize this presence? Is it like other sensory objects? Is Atma like this? This also looks very holy, white. All the ideas we may have about it, maybe here you see. But is it like this? Like something like this is inside you? Then what is it? Then what is it? What is it? Sometimes it's so hard to distinguish because perfume is connected with it, but even when the perfume is not there, it's there.

So easy, yes. Easy to get mistaken by the perfume. But what is the source of the love? What is the source of the peace? Where does it come from? And how is it known?

Father, just turning back to what you were saying when you wake up in the morning and what is the difference between being asleep and awake. I think the single biggest difference is just thought. As soon as a thought arrives—and to answer your last question at least personally—you feel that when there is absence of thought, but you still feel a presence in the absence of thought. And that's the closest thing to knowing there is something else.

And yeah, there's no—let's go slowly with your answer. So when we wake up, instantly you feel like there is thought?

Depends on the day. Some days you wake up and it's boom, can be. And on other days it takes a while, you're just feeling.

So what changed between you being asleep and the first thought coming? When we say it takes a while, where the mind becomes more involved in producing the thought?

Yes, yes.

But I'm saying that in that interval between you being asleep and then we wake up, and then we say in on some days it takes a while before the thoughts start coming—so in that interim, in that while, what is there that shows you that you are awake and not asleep?

I would say awareness.

Yes, awareness. Awareness. But now suppose that you're perceiving this hand. Now this hand goes away. You're perceiving that. Now suppose sleep is the state where the hand goes away and waking is the state where the hand is there. If the witness was not there to see that the hand goes away, then could we ever say that there is a sleep state? You couldn't. Because even the absence of being, the absence of everything, has to be witnessed; otherwise we could not say that it goes away and then it comes. 'I went to sleep and I woke up.' Even the awareness is aware even of that. So awareness has to be the constant independent of the four states of existence. So awareness is going to be constant whether you fall asleep right now or you're fully awake. Awareness does not change.

So then what arrives and you say that 'I woke up'? What is that presence? Being, you see. And whose presence is that? Who wakes up? Whose being is palpable? Because this is prior to identity, isn't it? Prior to us making 'I am somebody, I am Ananta' out of it. It is just 'I am'. Has it become theoretical now?

No, I think you're saying it's the presence within the awareness.

Yes, exactly. Exactly. So there is the presence of a living being within our Self which is awareness, and that presence is the most important because it is Atma, it is the Satguru presence, it is the Holy Spirit. It is only on top of this that we build even our identity. So we will not be able to say 'I am Bala, I am Achal' without the sense 'I am' first. To which being are we giving this identity? To which presence? So to come to God's presence, the only requirement which we can fulfill is to be empty of ourselves. The rest is His grace. To leave the 'me' is important for us.

I love this thing Ananta said: Maya means the 'my' comes. When 'my' comes, it is Maya. And 'me' comes, then what happens to God? Forgotten. Seems unreal, theoretical, conceptual. What happens to God then? 'Me' goes. And if it is His grace, if it is His will, then God is an alive presence, palpable, tangible, the substratum of all of this experiencing.

So when Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi asked the question, 'In whose light do we even experience the light of the sun?' that's another pointer to your being, to your presence. What is making all this experiencing happen? What is making all this experiencing happen for you right now? Who is hearing this voice? Who is perceiving this room? Is that inert, or is it an alive presence? I love also what Dr. Ji told me. She said in Vedanta it is said Maya has two jobs: first is to obscure the truth and then to give you a replacement version of it. So this Maya, which is the taking 'me' to be a reality, 'me' to be what I am—a limited body-mind to be what I am—when that is taken to be reality, then the presence of God seems just like a nice idea. Hopefully nice.

Father, just a related question. Why does—and I know this is a question from the mind—but why does Maya even exist? Why? Because there is awareness, there is presence, we all should just be there, be happy. Why are we fighting this?

Okay, I'll answer the question if you can tell me why anything. Why is there presence within awareness? And the classic philosophical question: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do we exist? Why is there existence? Why is there a waking state? So the sages in the past realized that 'why' questions can't really be applied to God's will. But still, they realized that, 'Okay, we will not accept that,' so we need more palatable answers.

So one of the popular ones is that this is all Chid Vilasa, which means the play of Consciousness. Consciousness apparently was bored, or God apparently was bored, so to play with Himself in Himself, He created this manifest. So that is one. If that appeals to you, you can take that. The other one is that God wanted to experience Himself in a manifest form. That which is purely Nirguna wanted to experience itself in phenomenality, you see, a taste of Himself, so to speak. So that is why this manifest world is created.

Then there are more sweet-sounding answers, which are: because only once there is a sense of separation can we enjoy the true taste of love. So that is the third option. The fourth option is that it's actually an evolutionary process of Consciousness itself. Consciousness itself is learning and growing in this entire process. This is fourth. We can keep making these, whatever appeals to us. But the fact is that our intellect is too small to grasp the mind of God. Why did He make this? We can call this in the modern world, instead of saying Maya, we can say, 'Okay, it's like a computer game simulation, simulation, simulation.'

Love, so that is the third option. The fourth option is that it's actually an evolutionary process of Consciousness itself. Consciousness itself is learning and growing in this entire process. This is fourth. We can keep making these, whatever appeals to us, but the fact is that our intellect is too small to grasp the mind of God. Why did He make this? We can call this in the modern world, instead of saying Maya, we can say, 'Okay, it's like a computer game simulation, Simulation Theory,' all of that. But the fact is that the 'why' of it can never be truly resolved. It can only be known in the heart. But the heart answers like 99% of what you know in the heart; there are no words to explain, isn't it? So intuitively everything is known, but not everything comes to the surface of expression, doesn't come to becoming explanation. So it's usually best in satsang to leave the 'why' and focus on the 'who.' You focus on the 'who,' but the mind doesn't like the 'who'; it prefers the 'why.' Just one letter difference: W-H-O versus W-H-Y. And most of the intellect, the design of the intellect, prefers 'why' instead of 'who.' We can't actually even answer whether any of this has happened and what does 'to happen' actually mean.

Father, to B's question, I just wanted to add because when I read 'Who Am I?', the one thing I've never really kind of—I've just accepted it completely at face value—is a part where Bhagavan talks about Karma. And he does talk about, you know, he says nothing that happens in the presence of God affects God. Like when the sun rises, life starts, flowers bloom, and creation takes shape, but it doesn't affect the sun. But he says the souls all play out in Maya by the law of Karma, and then he talks about, you know, divine principles. I never really... but I just thought in the context of 'why is there something?' like some other... I mean, what are your views on Karma? And is there some kind of, you know, divine logic which is related to, you know, good and bad judgment, redemption, something like that?

So, Karma as a notion is, and for me it appears as, it is an attempt to make an understanding of that which is ununderstandable. And then if you really investigate the attempt, if you really look into Karma—and of course Bhagavan is absolutely right, but right in the sense of we need an answer sometimes to just take the question away so that we can just be in the presence. Because the intellect's pestering with the questions which are unanswered then can keep us stuck over there. So I feel like Bhagavan's attempt to call it Karma could be that way. Because if you really investigate Karma, then God Himself must have given the initial momentum, no? If what you sow is what you reap, how does that whole cycle start? So something has to do that starting, you see. This is happening because you did something yesterday; what you did yesterday is what you did because of something you did the day before, and so on and so on and so on. But where would it start? So the initial karmic momentum or the flick of the dominoes must have happened by the causeless cause, or there must be a causeless cause to even put that principle into play. And our interest must be in that. Our interest must be: what is that source that makes all of this seeming cause and effect, causation, even happen? What has designed all of this? What is that first cause, or that which is prior to all causes?

That is the first thing. The second thing is that Consciousness, being fully alive, intelligent, and present, and all-powerful and all-pervasive, sometimes in our attempt to understand like predetermination or Karma theory and all of that, it sort of makes even Consciousness seem like a bit inert, you know? Like the author has written the piece and now the author can't do anything about it. So if you just... like in a way it's reassurance. Okay, when I'm suffering, we say to ourselves, 'It's my Karma.' So that helps because we say that rather than blaming the world, I just take responsibility and say I must have done something; it's my own Karma that I'm facing. But also that then puts God in a very limited box. And as often I have said, God is fully alive, present, and all-powerful, which means that past can be changed, present can be changed, future can be changed by His will. So for my taste at least, the Karma theory seems too limiting as far as the All-Powerful One is concerned. That's why I hardly ever refer to that.

Sometimes we use terms, we use answers just so that the more important points can be made. So often I will say all this is a Leela, all this is Maya. But if you were to really question me and say, 'Do you really say this is a Leela?' I say, 'No.' 'Is this Maya?' 'No.' It is something which is unfathomable. But for the sake of communication and getting the main point across, we paint some constructs in which we try to express those points. Because if everything's answer is 'unfathomable,' then we may miss the way to point to that which is unfathomable but most critical to meet. All the construction that happens in satsang in using of terms is only so that we can go beyond those terms and to that which is beyond understanding and perception. Maya is that which does not exist, and then we are asking the question, 'Why there is something which is existing? Why it is existing which is not existing?' Maya is both real and unreal. But what will you make out of that?

In your journey, when did the presence become more apparent than the phenomenal world, mind, and things? You may remember I shared... you shared two or three instances, like meeting Guruji or riding that rickshaw and realizing what is being. But I just wanted to ask that question again.

So it is that rickshaw story for the being, where you know the backstory also, that I was reading 'I Am That.' I was done with all the guru... this is before meeting Guruji. So through, because of some experiences, I was done with the guru stuff, like, 'No gurus for me, I'm just going to learn by myself.' And I was reading 'I Am That' ferociously for years. I was just reading it and it was like my book-guru, that book. But it used to be very frustrating because 'just be with the sense I am,' 'just be with the being'—he kept saying that. He said, 'My master told me be with the sense of being, and I was just with the sense of being for three years, just three years, and I was free,' he said. And that was very irritating because I couldn't find it for three seconds, three minutes. He's saying three years you have to be with the sense of presence.

So I was having a mini tantrum with God when I got into the auto-rickshaw. And it was a very short ride. I was going from here, Casablanca next door to where my house was, to my office in Diamond District those days. So in that auto ride, I was grappling, grasping, tantruming with God, saying, 'What is this being? Why can't I find it? Where is this?' like that. And then it was apparent. I was like, 'But this was here earlier also. It could have just come.' So it was just like, this is so simple. This is what I was struggling with, you see. So I realize the frustration also because I've been there, you see. I've been frustrated for a long period of time. And then I realized the apparency also because you see, 'Oh, this is what I was searching for.' It's so obvious. So that was the experience in that way where it became palpable. But because of that, my false identity, my conditioning, all of that didn't really change too much as far as I remember. Only after I went to Guruji and sat on the hot seat with him, in that process of conversation, did that sense of fully dropping away happen, where that which is aware even of this presence became so simply obvious. So all credit has to go to my Master for whatever happened in this case.

So that's why I asked this question, because I knew you would say this, that inquiry in itself does not bring us to the presence; it is the Grace that brings us to the presence. So just because it played in one expression in this way, we must not make that a template and say this is what will happen for us also, something like that needs to happen for us to move in that way.

We must... all of you will come to it in different ways. And hopefully ten years later, when all of you ask this question, you will all have different answers to give, isn't it? So we must in the meanwhile not become too fixed in our head about how it is going to happen, how it is not going to happen. We must keep following. We must keep following. So in the process of reading 'I Am That,' there was a lot of inquiry, a lot of really as if I was in satsang with him. So that inquiry, that longing for God, all of that may have played a part. Who can say? So it is important to just keep following even when it seems difficult or when it seems like there is no end to this, 'When will I ever really come to this?' That's why I appreciate questions like he said, 'I don't really know whether this is God's presence. Am I really coming to it? It seems quite difficult.' So I've been there. And if you want to use this life as a template, use it as an example of someone who is very bad at spirituality, is very inconsistent, all over the place, spiritual shopping, all of that he has done. And yet by His Grace, something... He has made His presence apparent here. So use this one story as a story of hope more than anything else.

It also means if Grace is not the only solution and you should put some effort towards it... I mean, is effort just being in contemplation, in meditation for more the number of hours put in? Because in my case, in the morning half an hour or one hour is the time when I think about this. But once you go to work for ten hours, which is a big part of the day, it is gone into not even having even one bit of a thinking towards it. So is it the more effort you put towards this, more contemplation you do or more inquiry you do, is that the path towards it? Or do you leave it to Grace to happen?

Yes, and this is again one of those confusing questions in spirituality. What will really make it happen? Is it effort or Grace? Sometimes the Guru says, 'Put all your effort, your effort will do it.' Sometime the Master says, 'No, no, why are you putting so much effort? It's all Grace.' And that all depends on the situation of the disciple, the situation of the devotee. Sometimes the direction has to be 'go that way,' sometimes it has to be 'go that way.' But what is the real answer? Is it effort or Grace? We can't really say. But the question really is: which part of it do we feel like we have something to do with? Like, we can't produce Grace for ourselves, but we can do effort, isn't it? Or seemingly so. Let's, as long as it feels like 'I have a choice to do work, I have a choice to do other things,' we can also make every desperate effort, full-hearted attempt to meet God.

In terms of how to deal with the situation of work and things like that, if I say, 'Just remain open and empty no matter what comes,' that may seem like a very useful instruction, but I've noticed over the years that most of you have trouble just following that. You can't just be open and empty because many times the mind has convinced you that you're very open and empty, but it is just an idea that you have. So I would say we must find an anchor for ourselves when we start the day, you know? So like I said, don't leave your bed firstly till you come to God, or till you... in your case, if it seems very difficult to come to God's presence, then at least give it a full-hearted attempt whichever way you can. You can do the Atma Darshan, you can do the inquiry, you can do the invitation, whatever has helped you. You can hear some devotional music, you can do whatever from your experience has brought you closest to being centered. You start your day like that and don't start your day in an egotistical fashion, because it is not going to be fun for you and it is not going to be fun for those around you, you know, if you just wake up.

If you want to feel God's presence, then at least give it a full-hearted attempt whichever way you can. You can do the Atma Darshan, you can do the inquiry, you can do the invitation. Whatever has helped you—you can hear some devotional music, you can do whatever from your experience has brought you closest to being centered. You start your day like that. And don't start your day in an egotistical fashion because it is not going to be fun for you, and it is not going to be fun for those around you. You know, if you just wake up and you are in the ego mission mode and things like that, then it's basically living a hellish life and introducing that hell to even those that we engage with moment to moment.

So at least carry the intention. Now, whether it happens or not, again: effort versus Grace. So our job is to carry that intention and to make whatever effort. Now, whether His blessing, His Grace, His mercy makes His presence palpable or not, it's up to Him, and He knows best. So start your day like that. Then if you, for example, use the Atma Darshan or the prayer, then throughout the day you can keep chanting it, keep doing the prayer. But if your job is very involved, you may find that, 'I can't do the full prayer, you see, but I can do the arrow prayer.' For example, if your arrow prayer is 'Ram, Ram, Ram,' you could say 'Ram, Ram, Ram.'

Now you may say that, 'My job is even more involved, that I can't be in this constant chanting.' So then every ten minutes, every fifteen minutes, whenever you recall, whenever it comes to you, then remember God. Bow down to Him in your heart. So just use whatever anchor. Some of you may feel it easier to use the anchor of love, you see? So just use that moment. Love God with all your might. But if you have this intention itself, it itself is good, because I've never met anyone who has had the intention and then the way did not come to them. You see, the way will come to you. It is important to really say that, 'My life is for this,' or at least, 'It is the most important thing for me in my life.' Then the ways will come.

But like that, then what may happen is that you may find it easier and easier, because you're listening to Satsang so much, to remain open and empty most of the time. But sometimes the mind is feeding you some very subtle messaging, you see? So then also it helps to just break that flow of the subtle messaging of the mind by saying the prayer or asking yourself the inquiry. The mind is saying, 'But I have to make sure this is done,' or something like that. Just catch it in that moment and say, 'Who is this I? Who am I?' If your temperament is more that way, that you want to inquire rather than pray, then use the inquiry and say, 'Who am I?' whenever you recall.

There are many days which you have just written off, like ten hours you didn't do anything. It's fine. But the next day you may have one moment of remembering, then the next day you may have two or three. It all builds up. If you have the intention, then all of it will build up. It will happen. What happened in this case—and maybe because a seeker asked about some history—what happened in this case was the reverse. I used to go to work and I'm telling my employees, 'Okay, leave that for later. How do you know that this is not a dream?' And because they were my team members, they couldn't even say, 'Shut up and go, let us do our work.' So other than getting fully immersed in the work, I wanted to just ask everyone, 'So, are you not contemplating? How do you know this is not a dream?' And when the question was not interesting for them, I would think, 'How is this not so important to ask?' So it kind of takes a life of its own once you start inquiring.

Father, is this the difficult path? Because keeping awareness on Self and then again the thought will go, or there is a thoughtless existence or high feeling... and then is this the highest, difficult path? Or this particular looking inside or self-observation or Atma Darshan is the difficult, difficult part when compared to what, like Bhakti or Yoga? Or is that the comparison, or no comparison? I am asking among the sadhanas or whatever techniques, is this the difficult path?

Because I feel like this is the simplest. I feel this is the simplest, but it all depends on our temperament, what we resonate with. But in God's Grace today, everything is so freely available because of YouTube, internet, all of these things. So we must find something that really resonates with us and we are able to follow and find ourselves coming to His life, His Grace in some way. So whatever makes you less full of ego and more full of love for God, that is the good path.

I don't know exactly how the question goes. I want to see something and check something. I'll include a little bit of an example because it's easier, but it goes on a bigger picture. For example, this inner... it's like inner energy that guides. For example, I feed dogs on the street now, or I did in big numbers, and I was quite dedicated to this. But that was just... it was like something inside that has to be done. And when I oppose this, it's even worse. It's like I cannot oppose; it's like it has to be done. But I don't want to participate anymore. And then the second part is I could just simply go sit in an ashram and just sit there and be with God, you understand? And I cannot oppose to also that. It's not like... it's just something that has to be done. And it's a struggle because I don't want to participate anymore in anything. I'm getting really irritated because I see so much cruelty and then I think to myself, 'Okay, but if I sit and I'm just like that, isn't that more selfish? Isn't that more... isn't that worse than not to do anything?' And I'm really going into this kind of dilemma of battling myself inside because I can't find actually... I'm getting more and more upset over humanity. I'm seeing too much of this and I want to withdraw completely, but I can't.

So what is your life for, exactly?

What is my life for? To serve. To serve otherwise, to serve God. To serve in any way that can be good, yes.

And how will we know what is good?

Because it's from God.

Okay. So is God not telling you, or what is happening? If your life truly is to serve God, which means that to serve for the good, and all good is only that which comes from God, then what is the dilemma? If God tells you... and what you said for the first one, usually I found many times mostly it is the opposite. When we oppose God's will, initially it seems like we are rewarded in Maya. It can seem like, 'Oh yeah, this is so much simpler. I don't have to sit and inquire all day or pray all day, just do your work,' you see? Do the thing. Krishna has said in the Gita—apparently that one passage really made a misunderstanding out of the Gita—but, 'Just keep doing your work, everything will be fine.' So like that. And it seems to pay off initially. You're just like, 'Yeah, it's so simple, I'm just doing my stuff and all this inquiring, praying, having faith in God, being humble, all of this stuff, just leave it.' It can seem to become much simpler. But that ease doesn't last, because when we make 'me' the center of the story, then what happens? As you well know, it is suffering. It is trouble, issues, relationships, so much duality, and everything is bound to lead to suffering.

So maybe all that you need to do is just be guided by Him moment to moment instead of creating like a plan for life. 'Should I sit in an ashram or should I serve the poor animals who have not been fed?' Decide moment to moment. You don't have to make something out of your life. It's a very strange thing, of course, to say, but it is completely contrary to the world's idea.

Because then I'm also exposed to so many other factors when... yeah, and then I get sometimes it just gets...

That would be lovely. It is lovely. I'm inviting you, inviting you in here. It's all trouble, it's all lovely. So you can live there and here can happen.

I understand and I know, but when it's too... sometimes it's just too much.

When it's too much, again, nobody ever complained that there's too much heart. Everybody only can say there is too much head. There is too much heart, too much intuition, too much love, too much guidance, too much reassurance, too much feeling at home. That's our true home. And when this seems unreal, when God's presence seems unreal, then you are in Maya, you see? What is Maya is not a change of location. The location can be this only, but where you are really can change independent of this location. You can live in God's heart wherever you may be in the world. And there is no power—no matter how convincing anybody is, I will never be convinced that there is a power in the world that can take us away from His presence, His light, on its own. Nothing has that power. Just it's not possible. And make it moment to moment. This moment go, this moment go, this moment go.

I guess I just... I'm going in such deep lack of understanding. Like it's like I'm really... I understand to understand, but it's just sometimes it's just I don't even want to understand. Why am I the one to understand? No, I don't want it anymore.

Just leave this 'I'. How else to tell you? I know that you're fully wholehearted and you are deeply in love with God and truth, but whatever narratives the mind still sells you, we must have the courage to even leave them. You may say, 'Enough, I've done this for so long,' you see? But we can't ever say that we don't know how long is too long. If the job was to climb 10,000 steps to the Temple of the Heart, then how do we know how many steps we climbed? Maybe you give up at the 9,999 steps saying, 'Enough, enough, I'm done with this.' Can we say? Really can't say. That's what we need: deep courage, deep faith. Because every obstacle will come on this path. There is nobody who has come to Him, to His truth, and said, 'Oh, that was so easy, that was just a cakewalk, man.' That's... has anyone said that? No. They may be, of course, humble and not talk about the obstacles they faced and the things that happened. They may not like to get into all of that. But nobody has ever said it's going to be a cakewalk for you. That is what needs faith. If it was easy, easy, then why faith? Why courage? Why patience?

So don't ever conclude in terms of how far you've come or not come. God only knows. Every moment is here or here. That's the simplest way I can explain this. If you make it into a span of time, then it becomes all complicated and difficult and story and all of that. Right now, right now. Use my pointer: that if God's presence is not seeming real to you right now, then you're in Maya. You're in the wrong place—not physically, but inwardly—with the illusion, the world play, the Leela.

So is it done that the presence kind of needs to be stronger always over the mind?

No, it is always stronger over the mind. But being aware of it, yes. But you can always pick. You can always pick. You can always pick between head and heart. Don't think about it, just pick the heart. Pick not to think just now. Recently... okay, for a moment don't understand anything. That is to pick the heart. What's the problem there? Don't get the past in. Do not understand anything. Don't understand anything this moment. See, you're still trying to understand like that. Don't close your eyes now. Exactly. See, I looked away for a moment. Understanding is love. Like with the love you understand. Highest pointer I have: you look meditative on the outside, usually understanding on the inside.

You said to pick. You said to pick.

Yeah, to pick is to be empty. Yeah, but there are some cases when... forget some cases right now. Okay, is God real? Okay, I'll give you... maybe you missed that, but I said recently that if you're following heart guidance, heart understanding, then pure perception is not interrupted by it. So you don't... usually when we play that fresh, fresh, fresh game, then after a while everybody becomes good at looking all empty on the outside but just thinking on the inside of something. But if you notice for yourself, by thinking, your pure perception is always interrupted. It gets blurry. You may not, after a few seconds of thinking, you may not even realize you're in the room.

I recently realized that if you're following heart guidance, heart understanding, then pure perception is not interrupted by it. Usually, when we play that 'fresh, fresh, fresh' game, after a while everybody becomes good at looking all empty on the outside while just thinking on the inside about something. But if you notice for yourself, by thinking, your pure perception is always interrupted. It gets blurry. After a few seconds of thinking, you may not even realize you're in this room anymore. But heart guidance doesn't interrupt your perception. That's why if you are with sages, they are always with you, even in the world of perception, and yet they can be communicating and talking. They're not interrupted by the mind. And that is the satsang you go for. We go to meet that because in the world, how do we meet people? We ourselves are halfway there, they are halfway there—half thinking, half with you, half somewhere else. You come to satsang for such a meeting where someone's fully with you and still communication can happen. You notice this? It just came the other day as I was sharing that understanding. All of us have noticed this. Have you noticed this? That if you try and think or understand something and perceive at the same time, what happens? Notice it gets blurry, you know, because attention is so limited. But when He lives in His life, the world continues to be perceived, actually much deeper than before, and yet all understanding, all guidance, all words, everything comes from here. So our life doesn't become so scattered. See, most of the time we are living in our head and we are trying to be with people in the world; none of that really happens well because of this way of being. Yeah, so just something just draws all attention to itself. The presence is just Father.

Such a Grace, Father, to be in satsang. I don't know why even I'm eligible to be here. Really, really good Friday we didn't have satsang, Monday I could not join, and I can really see the absence. I can feel the absence of not being with Sangha and Mother. It was so difficult to be with God for just missing a couple of satsangs. I don't know what makes us to be here, Father. Thank you. At the same time, there is so much of fear that what will happen if we don't have satsang or what will happen? My being with God is so much dependent on the presence of you or in satsang. So that fear is also creeping up, and then the mind comes to say, 'What spineless you are, can't do anything without him. Why are you not doing it yourself?' and so on.

I have to say that thank you, such a beautiful report, and I love you so deeply in my heart. Thank you. But also I have to say that especially I've seen with the boys, no, you have to be very careful of that voice. So it tells you, 'But you must be able to do it yourself now. You see, he can only get you so far.' And I'm glad you are able to say that because be very careful of this one. I trust His Grace that that longing which must have been in your heart to find Him, whether recognized or unrecognized, brought you to satsang and is flowering so clearly. We also take care of the rest of it. That which, like you yourself said, it's pure Grace because I don't know what we did. Like, I don't know what I did to have beautiful children, beautiful Sangha like you. So some Supreme Intelligence is taking care of all of this. So it is not possible that you continue to have that deep longing for His love, His light, and if something happens to this body, then it is not possible that you will be left without guidance or without a refuge from the temptation of Maya. So trust that Grace, trust that faith. And anyway, I'm not going anywhere till you find me deeply in your heart. Yes, yes.

Somebody was saying this morning, that's why I said we have to be careful especially of that idea that, 'Okay, now I got everything that I needed, now the rest I have to do on my own.' It is said that—I'm not saying this in any correlation to you, I'm just saying it just came here, I got reminded of it—it is said Alexander wanted his father to die soon because his father was already conquering the world. So he said that if my father conquers everything, there will be nothing for me to conquer. You see? So somewhere I've noticed in the conditioning, especially of boys—maybe it's a generalization—but I've noticed this, that somewhere we get that thing: 'No, no, now you must be independent. Now you must do this on your own.' And what is my attempt? My attempt is to make you fully independent, but not prematurely. To make you fully independent is to make you completely dependent only on God's presence within your heart and on nothing in the world, including this bunch of flesh.

Another child also told me this morning that she said, 'If I ever just go gallivanting somewhere, go off, please slap me and bring me back.' But it doesn't actually work. I didn't have the energy this morning to share, but once you're gone, you've already built so many barriers. And we've seen this over the years with so many, that you build so many barriers that it's not possible to really get through. You become very... so that how it feels like when you're in the heart of satsang, you can say, 'Bring me back, come no matter what.' So many have made this deal, but so many have also gone, you see? But when they go, they're just like, 'No, no, but I know better where I should be, what is good for me.' So then you just have to wait for Grace to resolve it. Because you see how the mind can work? At some level the heart is feeling so much gratitude and love and Grace, but at the same level the mind also tries and says, 'But, but, but this... you must be independent by now. Are you going to be always dependent on Father?' It sounds like a scary idea in the world. 'You must be on your own.' Just make sure that 'on your own' is not the false one.

So there is a question. Namaste, my dear. Namaste. Thank you, thank you. So the question is: 'So I have no choice but to wait, pray, and hope that Grace finally has mercy on me?' Yes, you have no choice. But as if you go with the words of that statement, it sounds very oppressive, you see? But the way I read it, it sounds so beautiful. You see, suppose God's not shining on you yet, His light is not—which is not possible actually, no, it's only as a result of inhaling this Maya too much—but suppose so. What are we doing? We are praying, we are inquiring, we are serving in humility, we are loving with all our heart. So isn't that much better than what life would have been otherwise anyway? So let's take the seeming worst-case scenario. Suppose His mercy, His Grace never comes in that way that His presence is felt as alive, and yet our life would be so much better because we are praying, because we are inquiring into who we really are, because we are loving, because we are humble, because we are faithful, because we are grateful, because we are so deeply longing for Him. It sounds to me like a much, much better life than all other templates available in the world.

So it is not a question of 'So I just have to...' and it may never reach a conclusion which is satisfactory. But even that life will be much more worthy than a life chasing falseness and a life full of ignorance. Most of our brothers and sisters will never recognize ignorance, Avidya. Most of our brothers and sisters will never recognize their own pride. Most of our brothers and sisters will never contemplate that God is a living presence to be found, to be discovered, and to be lived in. So not only must we live this way with all our heart, with all our mind, but in doing that, we may inspire those to also come to His presence. So the question then really is: is this as drastic a difference as I say in satsang, or am I just being exaggerating and strong about it? Is it really the difference between life and death or no? Firstly, then, we must—those who have been introduced to life must not choose death every moment, you see? Firstly, that is incumbent upon us. And then we must have love in our hearts for those around us and also especially for those who are open, to introduce them to this possibility. Not to sit here, but you can do the Heart Temple movement, you can talk to the loved ones. If it is true that this presence is life and life without it is a life full of suffering and a zombie life, then because of some fear of 'Oh, how will they react? What will they see?' that seems strange. Or you say that there's no difference actually, a little bit difference; living in God's light is 3% better than living in the mind. But you must argue with me then. You must say, when you say it is zombie life versus true life, then I want to take it up with you. What do you mean? It's not like that. Is God real for you now? Is His presence alive for you now? If your answer is no, you must go to your heart. If your answer is yes, you must go to your heart.

I want to expose something. It's a place that I feel a deceptive power and it's still... I would like to explore it with you. And it's in kind of being aware, being aware, and how in God's presence a lot of times there's this simultaneous perfume that comes with it. And you know, it feels like in the explorations of being in God's presence, sometimes the mind takes it on as an activity and it starts looking for that perfume and it doesn't feel it. It feels like my heart knows that's the mind's activity, but I get engaged in it and it's just this really sticky place where... okay, so leave all that. Okay, now let me ask another question. Maybe what does this sound... just let me, one question. In a time where it's very turbulent and there's no perfume of God, that presence is still there?

If the presence is still there, then there's no turbulence because that is the most steady anchor.

There's a buzz. The buzz is there. There's an anchor in what perceptually it's like a calling to come. Like the mind is tempting you.

Yeah, but then if you get tempted, then the presence is gone. But this is very important: that although presence is always there, when we are in ignorance, when we have gone with the mind, then it seems to have gone. Is it? The presence seems to go. So you cannot say either that the presence is there but the mind is, because if the presence is there, forget the mind. Or you cannot say, 'When I'm in the mind, the presence is still there,' because we are just talking conceptually. The tasting of it is not there. That is the whole point. That is the whole distraction: that the world of perceptions, which the mind uses, is evidence for its claims, you see? When the claims are bought, then God seems to get hidden in the absence.

Maybe the question is, in the absence of perfume, if it still feels that I'm grounded in presence, is that the mind fooling me, or can presence be independent of any perfume?

Yeah, forget about perfume. Just make it about between presence and mind. Don't make it a factor to consider at all. Just be careful of that habit of the mind which will take your pure insight, heart insight, and then make categories out of it, make a conceptual understanding out of it. Just stay. I remember when this one was younger also, he had an attraction towards that which sounded more like Absolute, you see? It's just like, 'Oh, but that's the Absolute, stay in the Absolute.' And then maybe you used to consider this Being, this presence, as like a midway step or something like that. It's just not true. How would you take the hand of God to be less real than God? The tip of the iceberg is also the iceberg. First, we must recognize where the categorization is coming from. And if it is coming from the intellect, the mind, then recognize that the thief will not help you catch him. So don't fall for that. But if it is heartfelt, then I'm happy to explore more.

Yeah, maybe just one more. I think it's happening much less frequently, but in the past I used something, this really uncontracted state, as an arrow or anchor, and have come to see how that's...

So the iceberg is because first we must recognize where the categorization is coming from. And if it is coming from the intellect, the mind, then recognize that the thief will not help you catch him, so don't fall for that. But if it is heartfelt, then I'm happy to explore more.

And yeah, maybe just one more. I think it's happening much less frequently, but in the past I used something—this really uncontracted state—as an arrow or anchor, and have come to see how that's really actually been a hindrance. And sometimes that still plays in this approach, or when things are really coming, the just with so...

The false 'I' can never use this as an anchor, because when the 'me' is there, then this cannot be. And when this is there, then the 'me' cannot be.

I'm sorry, can you say...

Yes, because to come to the presence of God cannot happen in egotistical circumstances. So if the 'me' is alive and kicking, then the presence will not be palpable at all. But if God's presence is there, then there's nobody to use it. So the attempt to use it by one like the mind would never make this attempt truly anyway, because it doesn't want its own dissolution.

When you say 'stop being,' is it the same as like, drop?

Oh yes, just don't be awake. First time I said today like that: just fall asleep right now. Maybe I'll meet someone who can actually do it. Maybe it's a simple sounding one. Are you awake or asleep? Huh?

Awake.

Awake. So how do we know that? What is here which is not in the world that shows us that we are awake? He's almost asleep. Is it only because the world is here we can see? Like, Page had this story, no? He woke up one night in Sahaja. He had gone for the meeting—you were there—and there was literally no perception. There was no sound being heard, there was no light to see anything. It was literally nothing. What is that? That's your example of realizing we are awake even without perception. That actually came true. When you wake up, suppose you wake up and there was no world, you still know that you are awake. Yes? So okay, so there are sometimes where you're sitting in satsang and you fall asleep; then you know you fell asleep. There are some other times where you go into some deep meditative state; even then the world dissolves, you don't hear my voice, but you're not asleep. Sometimes in satsang you're just wide awake and listening. So independent of all of this, there is a witnessing that is aware of all of this. But that which changes with wakefulness versus sleep versus some deep meditative state—what is that? What is changing while awareness remains unchanging? Is it like that?

No, inwardly. If completely inwardly, and if just staying inwardly...

Yeah, inwardly. You stay inwardly and what is this? So the world is being... what is this wakefulness, aliveness?

But in that inwardly, it's like complete ignorance to the world, in the world's eyes.

Yes, but inwardly, the one that you meet is the Supreme Intelligence.

But it's like I have this—probably coming from the mind—but for me it's the feeling, it's like shutting off the world. It's not shutting off, it's like almost like a selfish... it's presenting itself lately as a selfish thing.

That's the classical... that is the mind. That is the classical debate between the Karma yogis and the Gyan yogis. Karma yogis say, 'I'm doing so much for the world,' and you're sitting and inquiring 'Who am I? Who am I?' And the Gyan yogis are like, 'You are sitting in Maya trying to do all this; it is not going to lead to anything. Find out who you are before it's too late.' So don't get into any of those debates. What is the highest Karma that we can do? Therefore, what is the Dharma? The Dharma is the highest Karma we can do. Okay, maybe wrong audience. It is said we must always do our Dharma, you see? So then that Dharma must be the highest Karma we can do. So what would that be? How to find out what it is? If it is coming from God, if it is God's will, it must be the highest, you see? So how can that be ignorance then? That is to follow that is Adharma. Therefore, there's no real distinction between the Karma yogi and the Gyan yogi, because the Karma yogi wants to do selflessly that which is the highest good. Can that be found in the head? No. We must come to a meeting with God and then the guidance will come from there. So when it is said we must follow the will of God, the command of God, that is his pointing to us. Or when Jesus said, 'You may call me Lord, Lord, but I will not listen unless you follow the will of my Father here on Earth.' So...

Okay, so it would be like absorption of as much suffering as possible and then that's it?

But the thing is, it is not possible to suffer in God's light. To go in on our own terms is the door to suffering. Our own terms means our mind's terms. What are the two options? We go with God's will or the mind's will. Is there a third? Any other source of knowledge that we can rely on? And all the sages, all the teachers, all the prophets, everyone has told us to follow the will of God. In every religion. In Hindus, there's Hanuman who is famous because he followed Ram's will unconditionally. In Muslims, a true Muslim is one who follows God's will. Nobody can say they are a true Muslim if they say, 'No, no, I just follow my own way and I don't follow God's will.' To follow Islam is to follow God's will. In Christians, it is said, 'Thy will be done here on Earth as it is in Heaven.' But we cannot just presume that 'I think I'm right, therefore I must be following God's will.' That is literally the definition of post-fall Adam, no? Isn't it? What was the fall of Adam? He took on the job of determining what is good and what is bad for himself. So that is the biblical representation of the human condition. When we take on that job in our mind/intellect instead of following God's will, then that is to leave His presence. It is to leave the Heaven, leave the Garden of Eden. All of these stories are the same. So these are the very, very deeply conditioned ideas in the human conditioning saying, 'But that just sounds like ignorance. That just sounds like ignorance, just going away from what is needed, from doing our responsibilities, from doing our Karma.' But I have not said any of that. We are just presuming that God's will cannot make us work or cannot make us feed the children, feed the dogs. But why go with these presumptions? Why don't we ask Him, 'What do you want me to do? What would you have me do?' if you want to sound Shakespearean. Because if we don't have faith, you know, that there is God really, or we don't have faith in ourselves that He would answer us... that's why I keep saying, if He's sitting in front of you, then most of these questions will vanish. You could just ask Him. But He's sitting more intimately close to you than in front of you. But that needs faith to trust that faith which you have direct insight about, but it is still not like visible objective reality. So it seems difficult because I'm saying bet your life on that. I'm not saying do a little bit of this and a little bit of that, get a balance. I'm saying bet your life on that. That is the only way balance will happen.

I keep getting into some sort of like a debate in my head. Like, I know in my heart that it's not God, it's a mental projection. There are voices that try to prove that that is the way.

Yeah, you should think about it. This is exactly... I go to believe in them.

Exactly.

That is the core human condition, you see? And all of us are afflicted by that. Do I live 100% in God's will? I don't, because sometimes I just go with my idea of right. And that is why it's a work in progress. All of us are afflicted with that. But at least we must recognize it. We must not brush it under the carpet like you're doing now. It's good to expose it and say, 'This is what happens,' you see? And nobody does anything thinking that we're doing wrong. Even the biggest villain is a hero in their head, but they have determined right and wrong wrongly in their heads. So this is... again, it'll sound oppressive, but it is not. It is actually a true way of living, which is to commit to live by God's will, in God's light, in His love, and to go like that, to live like that. But then to fail, you see? To go with the mind. It offers something; it seems so correct, it seems so right, it seems so rational that we get tempted by it. Or it just seems so attractive, you see? Just you see you and it just seems so attractive, so you go, we go with that. And then because of satsang, because of your anchor in your heart, you may recognize that. And what to do when we recognize that? The mind will offer solutions even for that, you see? It tempts you and then it offers you solutions for that also. So when you're tempted, you say, 'See, you must not do this, you know, you must do like that, like this.' So it's more and more 'see,' and then the checker: 'See, you're doing it again, you're just not worthy, when will you get this?' It just goes on and on and on, and we keep hoping that there will be some end to this, but it doesn't happen. Its rambling is continuous.

Like get pulled into the fight.

Yeah, of course, all kinds of things. Therefore, there's no point. Who was I saying it to in satsang the other day? Saying don't get into any debates with your mind. Maybe Sanjukta. Don't start debating it because it will have its rationality, all of that stuff. Just transcend it, leave it. And nobody can take that power away from you to leave it if you really want to. If you want to juggle and say, 'I'm half interested in that, half interested in this,' then our life seems to get all stretched out and difficulty. But if you commit and say, 'God, God, God, come with me,' see, then we still fail half the time, but at least it's half the time.

But like you're saying, pick. Yes, pick. Yes. But there are moments when it's...

Leave those. The rest of the time you pick. When I'm in that moment, leave it. Right, right off. Yeah, have bad debts in every balance sheet. You can't leave the good moments because you picked wrongly in the bad ones, no? You see, that's what we're doing. We say, 'Okay, now I picked wrongly,' and we may not admit also it is wrongly; we may justify it and things like that. And then we keep living in that rationalization. Now it is right to try and make a bad deal go right. We spend all our time instead of just returning home. That is literally the story of the Prodigal Son, isn't it? What is the story of the Prodigal Son? It's a metaphor for this, no? We fall for the trip and then we try to make it true, happen, work, come watch me. Then we feel unworthy to go back home. We feel Father will never forgive us, all that stuff. But all that is a metaphor for this. Then don't try to make it work. Recognize you went to the wrong place, just return home. Because the more you try, the more time you'll waste. If they give me a job as a biblical preacher, will they give you? Yeah, yeah, you have to speak louder. Very true. Have you heard this one? He is a very powerful speaker, you know, Billy Graham. I don't think he's in the body now, but there were millions coming to see him and he was such a powerful speaker. What? Picking the right thing? Or at least this much we must have clocked by now, that it's not possible here. No matter how hard we try to squeeze the truth in here, it just doesn't fit. No matter what we do, it doesn't fit. You try to say yes like that, like that... it just doesn't fit. Something will always be. But that can't be like given a statement from a sage like 'Maya is both real and unreal.' You may say, 'Oh yeah, Maya is real and unreal,' but what have you understood as a result of that? Nothing. It is like literally nothing. It's just a pointer to leave that and to meet it here. Because in your heart you can meet that. And I say presence is phenomenal and non-phenomenal. It may sound like something very nice for your head to grasp, but can you grasp it in the head? There's no chance. This is exactly like I was saying that day, that when we start collecting the signboards instead of visiting the town, that it's not going to do anything. Suppose...

What have you understood as a result of that? Nothing. It is like literally nothing. It's just a pointer to leave that and to meet it here, because in your heart you can meet that. And I say presence is phenomenal and non-phenomenal. It may sound like something very nice for your head to grasp, but can you grasp it in the head? There is no chance. This is exactly like I was saying that day: when we start collecting the signboards instead of visiting the town, it's not going to do anything. Suppose you love a particular ice cream and you're just collecting the ads. You're just taking the pamphlets from the paper, you're photographing the images from the social media, and you get all the ice cream photos. Will that be satisfactory for you? You have to taste it. You don't come to God's presence if you don't live there, if you don't encounter all the temptations and the difficulties that we encounter in that. If we are just building our conceptual knowledge, then nothing will happen with that.

You had something else you were saying. There's this gap between to bet your life on God and then almost touching fear on the presence. Two, okay. So you said that seems to be a gap or distance. But I mean, it's like they are one first step. Ah, so which one is the first step? Maybe it is to bet your life. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe it's both go hand in hand. I don't know, really. Because if you were to ask me conclusively, do I have to bet my life, have faith, and completely commit to God before I can meet His presence? Maybe. Or do I have to meet His presence so that I have a sense of it and then I can bet my life on it? Maybe. I don't know.

Okay. Because I feel I bet my life, but I feel like is it just it also? No. And I feel it's... yeah, I feel like this. I feel like call can very... yes. So insight, servitude, love—we can never say this is first and this is second. To be a true servant of God, we must bet our life on Him. Yes.

I, uh, we discussed something about... I do this, you should do this. Three questions. Um, I mean, I would like again to go with those three questions with you, if you allow, right now.

Of course. So can we do that? Are you talking about: Can you stop being? Are you aware now? What is the third question? The third question... so the first was how to stop suffering is to not believe your next thought. So I don't recall a question there. So what I used to say when all of you used to come was that if you look at the human condition, when we turn to spirituality or we turn to religion, it is basically for three things, isn't it? First is: rid me of suffering. I don't want to suffer anymore. So then I would say, just to come to the end of it, don't believe your next thought. That's really it. And I just... I was so naive and stupid, of course, at that time, that I felt like with this simple instruction, everybody will just be able to follow and, you know, not suffer anymore. And then there was... I feel like in that stupidity, in that naivety, there was some sweetness. So I find that boy very sweet in some way.

So the second was: okay, I'm done with my suffering, but can you show me God? Which is the famous Vedanta question to Ramakrishna also. So, yes, to meet God, you have to try and stop being. Can you stop being? Because the being, the presence, is God's presence.

So when I asked this question, normally I asked this question: can I stop being? Then the next thought that arises is: is it a being that should be tasted? Is it that it should be seen, or it should be felt, or how is it that a being... I say yes, but still I'm not able to say how can I say yes?

This is the beauty of it. This is the beauty of it. That if it was purely objective, then it would be Maya, you see. So if you came to being and you said, 'Huh, this is what it is, two inches from my heart, there is an object there which is perceived which is called the being,' is it so? Then you could transfer it. You could do like a kidney transplant; you could do a being transplant. If it is purely objective, it would be like that. If it is purely non-phenomenal, pure Nirguna, you see, then there's no question of experiencing it or tasting it or feeling it. But your being, your presence, is both phenomenal and non-phenomenal. Because it is phenomenal, we can call it the primordial vibration, you see. And because it is non-phenomenal, we can say it is boundless, because no phenomena is boundless, you see. It is only the non-phenomenal.

So that is why I call it God's helping hand, because we are so used to phenomena, we are so used to name and form, that He has given us the Light within, which is unlike any light in the world. It is like a holy presence, a being, an Atma, which you can meet. You can say it is there, you see. Some may say, if I say 'Where is it?', you may say, 'I feel its core in my heart area somewhere.' Some will say on the sixth chakra or something like that, you see, in my head. Some will say like that. But when I say, 'What is its boundary?', you see it is boundless. So how can it be that it's both in my heart and boundless? That is the beauty of it. It teaches us how to go from an intellectual understanding by introducing us to something which is not graspable in perception or understanding, but graspable intuitively, because you can't deny your own being. I mean, you can try, but it doesn't seem true. Then you know there's something missing in that denial because you recognize that I am.

So it is God, in a way, teaching us how to live where we can recognize our being, because there all truth is found. Even the Absolute is found only there, you see. That's why we must not devalue it, because only in the light of this Satguru presence can the truth be found. That is why the Guru is called the bringer of light. This is the light. He shines the light on the unperceivable; otherwise, without this, the unperceivable will just be an idea. So how is it to be felt? It is not explainable. It is just to be tasted. It is the most unique taste. No, nobody can say it is sweet or salty or like this, like that. We can't say. You say, 'I am.'

So ironic that even trying to find, we cannot find it, but still it exists. I mean, I'm able to find it. I can see that I stay there, but when I try to find it, it's not that.

I mean, any time we go to our head, it is not there. It is there, but it is hidden, you see. All the metaphors are based on that. The finger can block the light of the moon. The speck of dust can block the vision. All of that is telling you that the moon is still there, but we are blocking it because of our avidya. So to be empty of the mind is to give ourselves the chance to live in His light. That's whatever my heart is telling me. I'm just trying to understand. So should I wake up the checker guy here and say that is it just where you are right now? Don't live there, because there we can only operate from the needs of the 'me'. Where you are finding His presence, just stay there. And there you can stay only if you don't want anything from Him. You only want to live for God or be in His service. That's why we spoke so much of the will of God, following the will of God, the emulation of Hanuman, the emulation of all the great devotees who followed His will.

So the next thought comes is: is that enough? Otherwise, you can keep playing this game for another dozen years. What will be the end of this? And dozen, we don't know; it could be a dozen lifetimes.

So the other terms we say this as—the holy presence, Holy Spirit presence—it's the same thing that we call in different terms. Yes: Atma, Satguru presence, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, the Knower within. Whatever term we use, same.

I feel like too much of it's like I'm bored or like it's like too much of tediousness to classify, to understand much. I'm reporting it.

Very good, very good. We must all come to that tiredness. Done with this now. How much will you understand? That's why I'm saying no matter how much we try, we cannot squeeze it here. No. Like most of us must have seen that by now, hopefully, that all our attempts to make God an object of our understanding... it feels He can only be an object of our heart, of our love.

I'm attracted to one more thing that you... the God of waking state, the 'I am'. And we went through one journey together and I did report the same thing as mentioned. So still I'm not able to convey in my words, but can we go again? There is the same thing that I'm talking... the 'can you stop being' is the same as that of...

Yes, there's no distinction between Atma and Paramatma. The only way to Paramatma is through Atma. As I was trying to tell him also, that we cannot say, 'I want the Paramatma only; Atma is just a halfway house' or something like that. So I was just trying to contemplate on one... you asked one question today: that when you wake up from dream state or some slumber, what it is that says that you are awake? That this beingness says that. Exactly, yes. Exactly. Guruji's example, really, right? We went through it. That let's say there was no light, there was no sound, yes, there was nothing, nothing. It was a dark block. And still you wake up, you can say that. Exactly. You know your way. You may not perceive anything. And most of you have had these meditative experiences also where you haven't fallen asleep, but the world seems to dissolve from time to time. So thank you for that sharing because it kind of helped this place where it just helped.

I'll just say, don't have sound, right? I think earlier when I was asking, when God's presence isn't palpable or it's not felt at all, yes, sometimes the memory of it, the memory of this, the quality, the subtle quality of it... in the moment where I'm not in God's presence, I try to use that memory as an anchor and that's where I get into trouble.

That which is purely intuitive, we can't actually keep in memory. And that's why you were saying byproducts, because you may be able to keep like a feeling that emerged as a byproduct in memory, but it itself we can't even... sorry, sorry, no, no. I was saying that that which is truly true, we cannot store in memory. It has to be met fresh. Yes. So you're right that you may try to cling on to the memory of the good feelings that emerge as a result of being in the presence, but the presence itself we cannot keep. Just like awareness, we can never keep in memory. That's the beauty of the non-phenomenal, you see.

There's no mind, there's no... it's like, you know, when we are walking, you don't calculate what is the step going, what you're doing. It's happening naturally. In the same thing, if you question your mind, then you might trip. Exactly. But otherwise you don't trip; it naturally happens. So when it's everything is happening naturally, but if you give it to the mind, that's when the problem. Even when you drive, the same.

Yeah. And as a sportsman, most sportsmen have reported that when they are in the zone, then they perform the best. What is that zone? No mind. Basically, that's no mind. No mind, exactly. But then you would have put in the practice. Correct. And then when you are in that zone, it's exactly... but even in practice, if you are putting in your mind, like if you are chasing the result, then it's definitely not going.