Before Any Posture, This Just Is-17th November 2018

But now, yeah, but the idea that it will go away or it doesn't stay... and we were talking about this also, how we know any of this. See that it will go because it has happened, you see. How can we confirm that any of that is true or valid? Can't really. See, it is our certainties which keep us trapped in our ways. The one that is here, has something ever happened to it before? No. You want to solve it for the mythical one. Without any version of truths, without any should or should not, is there naturally a distinction present? Is duality inherent originally in this, whether eyes are open or eyes are closed? Without the label, appearance and reality, is there such a dichotomy?

Even the labels real and unreal. The duality is suffering. And Maharaj said something very beautiful. He said you are not experiencing suffering, you are suffering your experiencing. So I'd like to take that further and say that you are not experiencing duality, we are interpreting it as dual. You're not experiencing distinction, you're judging it to be separate. You're not even experiencing time and space, it is just the judgment you are making. It's a conclusion. You're not experiencing a me and another, it's only a conclusion, a notion. You're not experiencing a body and a world, you're judging your experiences to be body and the world. You're experiencing, but you're labeling that as body and outside the body. But where is the space of experiencing? Have you ever experienced anything outside of you?

See, but even these statements can be used to make distinction. Yesterday we were talking about, and it's still a bit up in the air about whether it's Photoshop or what, you talking about chameleon, you see. And what changes the colors of the chameleon once it's in a different environment? Is it thinking about it? 'Okay, I'm on green grass, let me become turn green. I know this is color green, come on green, not blue, green come.' The bird is flying in the winter toward the north. As it's flying away, is it 'I hope I'm flying north, I hope I'm flying, I hope this is not west, I said north, north, I tell you.' Is it? But somehow we feel that unless we hold these ideas, we decide that this is it, this is true, this is untrue, this is right, this is wrong, this is how I should be, this is how I should not be.

You feel like this life cannot function. If your heart had to stop, what notion could you have that will keep it pumping? Or let's say kidneys. So something is functioning on its own in a very beautiful way, and it continues unsupported by and uninterrupted by our concepts of what should be and what should not be. Like this child was saying the other day, 'Ananta, how many times do we have to go through this roller coaster?' Because we see clearly and then something seems to come back and that seems real, and then we see clearly nothing has ever happened. You see, these kind of how many times up and down. So I said this complaint, 'How many times does this up and down have to happen?' is also part of the same roller coaster. In a way, it is part of the same unfolding.

Sometimes it looks as if you're trying to solve it. You just feel like boom, and it's okay to try and solve it because a tired intellect is very auspicious for you. Get tired of the hows, the whys, the whens, the whats, the whos. 'Who am I?' is very good, of course. Doesn't need my endorsement because your discovery or your recognition, you will never be able to put that into an answer. You will never be able to capture that with your intellect, never be in a way able to understand it, because what we call understanding usually means that we feel like we have a valid concept about it. That is my understanding of it.

So as this intellect gets tired, why, why, why, why, why, and you never find a valid answer to this why. You get some placebos from time to time. 'I think this medicine fine.' There is no real why, just like there's no real when, just like there's no real who.

Don't understand what do you mean real when, like there's no real when.

Like I was saying the other day, I don't, maybe yesterday please. Okay, I got it. The question was, how do you know this is not a memory? How do you know this conversation which seems so alive at this moment, it itself is not a memory? What can we really say about time? I was expecting more of a question about 'I don't get what you mean when you say there is no real who.' That's what we after, no, the real who. I was expecting a complaint about that, but when is also good.

I have a complaint about space.

Space, space, yeah.

You said there is no space. You can fit a few more. I don't understand what...

Okay, let's see. What do you mean by space?

I assume that there is some space between the bodies.

Yeah, you assume it, yes. That's all I'm saying. So what is it? How there is no space between those two objects? Let's see. If I put a special lens on your eyes, okay, just speaking, I'm not speaking in these terms but just to illustrate. I put a lens in your eye and I project through a computer some images on that, is it? And they're just images on your eye and you're actually seeing two people, you see. But because they're so nicely done, you feel like two people are sitting in front of you, which just lensed up in your eye. So what is the space between those two people and your eye?

So everything appears on the screen, right?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, that this is to illustrate metaphorically, you see. But we can't even conclude that this is what is happening, like there is a screen in that way. Like when you wake up from the dream, do you think that the dream was projected on like a screen, is it? Also where was it? How much space is there between you and the dream, or a big mountain in the dream? How far from it is you from you, is it? Imagine a tree right now which is really far. It's becoming further and further, yes?

Okay.

Okay, and how far is it actually now?

Now if I open my eyes...

No, even then. So although it might seem like visually, perceptually to get further, see, can we conclude really? What is the basis for a real conclusion that yes, there is space? Because where is the tree? How far from you was it? Even though it might seem to get smaller, smaller, really far, where did it go actually?

I don't know. I don't even know where in me a dream appears.

Exactly. And this is what I'm saying, that we cannot know in this way. And so I know our attempt is always to go from first standard to second standard to third standard to graduation to all of these things like that, is it? But the thing is that all that is important is that we become uncertain about these and not, we don't need to come to new certainties. So we don't need to be able to conclude that okay, that is a dream and that is where it happens. It is enough to say I don't know where it is actually, you see. You see, because, and I know that is more uncomfortable if you are replacing one certainty with another certainty. Great certainty: 'It is all in Consciousness.' You like like that. Like, 'Where is the tree? Just in Consciousness,' like that.

But if I say just allow yourself to remain uncertain about it, and in a way this is what Maharaj was talking about when he said integrity. We have so many certainties, but when we start investigating them, we actually start to get a bit uncomfortable, you see, because it feels scary to us to not know. Like, 'I don't even know,' you see. If I tell you okay, you're not the body but you are this, you see, and this could be whatever nice label you: Consciousness, God, Self, the Absolute, you see. But if I say to you you're not the body but and what you really are you cannot conceptualize, there seems to be some stress in that, like some stress in that, the stress of being uncertain.

And if there's such a term I can use, this is an auspicious stress. It is an auspicious tension because there's nothing that does a nice cleanup job like this one does. If you start looking at your certainties and just investigating them with full integrity, you will see that it's all made up. Even the great... this all I started to lose were my certainties. To the mind it's like crazy, see. And all those scary images that'll give you, that you will become a crazy person who is begging on the roads, but you're not certain about that also. If you were certain that that was the case, you could create some contingency and say, 'Come on, in two years I will be like a crazy beggar on the streets, so just guys take care.' But you don't know these things. Even these things you cannot be certain about.

So openness, surrender, or in a way what Bhagavan used to call this dry gunpowder, you see, a ripeness in a way. It's just this: can you stand being uncertain or you have to rush to conclude? Even like a conclusion like, 'Yeah, I'm good with uncertainty.' You want to play like this? All of you can say one thing that you feel you're completely certain about. Maybe I should have started like that.

So, just guys, take care. But you don't know these things. Even these things you cannot be certain about. So, openness, surrender, or in a way what Bhagavan used to call this 'dry gunpowder'—you see, a ripeness. In a way, it's just this: can you stand being uncertain, or do you have to rush to conclude? Even like a conclusion like, 'Yeah, I'm good with uncertainty.' You want to play like this? All of you can say one thing that you feel you're completely certain about. Maybe I should have started like that, and then a lot of spiritual certainties would have come up. You see, even now my feeling is if you just play like this, my feeling is a lot of spiritual concepts will come up.

All I can say is that I am here.

Yeah, like that. 'I'm just certain I am here.' This 'I' is who? 'Here' is what? And what is 'am'? What does it mean to be? Not one word we know. And this short certainty, 'I am here'—see, are you certain you are in a room? And then you check: where am I? I'm not an object, and a room is a big object which contains other smaller objects. How can an object contain a non-object? You see? So, because of spirituality also, we have a lot of spiritual dichotomies. You see, are you in this room? Yeah. But okay, so who are you? 'I'm not an object; that much I've seen now many times.' But this room contains only objects. Is it too much? Then you say, 'Ah, the objective aspect of me is just a part; it is a part of me.' Okay, what if it is a part of you? It must connect with you in some way. How does it connect? What is the point of connection?

So, any of our concepts, as beautiful as they might sound, when investigated, they fall. If the phenomenal aspect, as we ourselves have called it for many years, is an aspect of you, therefore a part of you, how does something phenomenal connect with non-phenomenal? So, we don't know these things. The usefulness is just to the extent of shaking you out of your existent certainties. I keep referring to that beautiful passage we read the other day—and I might be completely misquoting it or paraphrasing it badly—but this is what I feel to say at the moment, which is that we are so used to rushing back to our nest of intellectual and mental certainty that it doesn't feel good when we are out of it. You see? Push beyond it. But actually, that is the most auspicious; that is your opportunity.

So, if you come to Satsang and you just feel, 'But I am not understanding anything, anything. What is he even saying?' Are we used to taking these things as bad news because we hate to be in a classroom like that? Just sitting in this class and he's going on saying something, but I'm not understanding anything. But you're giving yourself some time to be empty of a mental understanding, which itself is a rarity in this world. Before you rush back to your intellectual nest, you see, your resting place which is in your mental conclusions, use at least this opportunity which is in Satsang to float, even if it feels like falling or flying. Whatever, doesn't matter. Observe the tendency to try and hold on to a branch, some branch, something.

Yeah. How is that different from the attitude of giving up?

Giving up? Just because in giving up, you know that you've given up. Being indifferent to it, yeah. Because indifference and giving up is a conclusion. It's like, 'I tried and I give up.' It is still a conclusion. What does it mean? Suppose you made that conclusion. What does it mean? It gives you a position. 'I give up' means, 'I'm not going to understand anyway. I'm never going to get this freedom thing.' So, although it can feel like it is empty of conclusion, it's full of conclusion: 'I'm not going to get it. I'm never going to understand.' You see? So, it becomes a comfortable resting place also. And for many, it has happened in Satsang over the years, either that 'I got it' or that 'I give up, I will never get it.' You see, both are just branches. Okay, so let me say it another way. What's happening with you now?

Just... are you certain about that? That all that is happening with you is that you're perceiving things? More than just...

Okay, are you certain it is more than that, not less than that? You see, this is this example I'm taking illustratively to show how we feel that we must have a conclusion, like, 'What's happening with me? I must know what is happening actually.' And if you were to do this for one hour also, we can look through all our conclusions and we say, 'No, I can't really say that. I can't conclusively say that.' You see? I can say that, but it doesn't really capture the entirety of Truth. You see? You want to try again? You see, it's just like this. So, what would giving up mean? We don't even know. Like, we have an idea that it would mean this, that now we would stop coming to Satsang. But you don't know. Once you give up, maybe you are just naturally finding it easier to inquire because you're not burdening it with so many expectations, or you will fly to California or something. We don't know. And we are not even certain about being uncertain.

How do we get this tool called intellect to not be our sole representative lawyer for reality? What else can you refer to? What else can you refer to to represent reality? Let me help you.

The heart.

The heart, yes, yes. What is the heart saying?

So, this intuitive insight, I was going to say...

Okay, let's start with perception. Does perception represent reality completely? Then all that rope and snake, mirage in the desert, silver and mother of pearl—all these examples. Then perception... many things are perceived, many realms are perceived, many experiences are had, but we also label them this and that: a daydream, memory, imagination, dream, waking, all these things. What are other tools we can have to represent reality?

Okay, represent... represent... give you an accurate version of it would be a form then.

It would be a form. A form, a form. And reality cannot be a form?

Huh? Huh? Nitya... anitya... the changing cannot be real. That's what you're referring to.

Changing cannot be real. So why can't it be real? You said that it is just form and therefore you were implying that that cannot be real. So I'm just prodding a bit further and saying, what are you referring to? Why a form cannot be real? And often I say that it's okay, I'm not debunking the conclusion, I'm just prodding further.

The question is gone. You would have to have a reference for you to say it's real.

Yes, because you're implying something is unreal.

Yes, yes.

Even to imply something is real and unreal, as we often do in Advaita Vedanta, but I'm just questioning: what is that reference that we use? And can even a reference like this be worthy of a claim like this is like an ultimate truth or something like that? We don't know. You're not certain. And it's good to see this because otherwise, like for centuries, the Vedantins themselves have debated among themselves about what Maya is, whether it is real or unreal. So they have some fifteen different schools in Advaita Vedanta, all debating whether Brahman, Jiva, and Jagat... what is the actual qualitative distinction between them? It is the Absolute, the seeming individualized consciousness, and the appearance of the world. You see? What is the substantive distinction between any of them? There are so many different schools of thought about this. You see? And just the fact that they've been debating this for thousands of years, that there is... it is not easy to draw a conclusion.

A debate in form?

Huh? Maybe it's a form. Yes, yes, yes. Whether form itself is real or unreal. So, Vivartavada, Ajatavada, and Abhasavada—these are just three of the schools, but you also have Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. You see, there are many other schools all debating about the Absolute versus this that seems to appear. Now, even this distinction, if you did not refer to your intellect, how would you make it? That's why I'm asking fundamentally whether, inherent in even your perceptual experiencing, there is any distinction.

Yes.

Is this distinction—'I' and 'this is what I'm perceiving'—is this inherent in the nature of perception itself, or in you? Or even, is this distinction even valid? You see, is this object saying, 'I'm separate from you, I'm separate from you, I'm separate from you. You are perceiving me, you are perceiving me'? You see, what is the inherent distinction? Like often I say, you have to make it exactly how you make it to see that in your seeing of it also, it is not made. That's in your perceiving of it also, it is not made. In your labeling of it, it is made. Like a child is seeing—is he saying, 'I am in these hands, but I'm not in the space between them'? You see, it is only our mind full of knowledge we make these kind of conclusions. So even in the natural—and some sages have called it the pure perception—this distinction is not made. It is only in our perception mixed with our labels, our interpretations, our judgments, that seeming duality seems to arise.

Can you use the word perception?

Yes.

Referring to the senses, sight?

Yes, yes. I'm including these, but not just the activity of labeling. I'm not labeling that as part of perception at the moment. Is it? So you can try it out. Like, perceive in this room without labels, and don't worry for a moment or two on, 'Oh, but the labels happen automatically.' Don't worry about all that. Just naturally perceive everything. Where are you not? Or where are you? Where is your boundary in natural perception? Is there something like that? The notion of boundary is not there. Thank you all so much for being in Satsang today. Satguru Baba Guru, Mooji Baba, Jai. Thank you, Ram Ji. God bless you.