Being in Service to the Highest, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, Most Graceful One – 9 Oct. 2023

How many of us feel that God is a reality but He is unattainable? Unattainable in terms of His Darshan, His presence—not that you will capture God or own Him. Everyone feels that He's attainable, His presence is attainable. So if you really felt that, then how is that not on the top of your pile, not priority number one? Because if God is attainable, then what else is of value? And when I'm talking about God, I'm talking about the God to whom a trillion universes like this are just tiny fireflies, tiny playthings. So if His reality can be found, shouldn't that be project number one? And never buy the mind's idea that there is time. I have shared the past few months a few times that we had very close ones leave the body this year, and I feel certain that both of them would have felt that they had time. Neither of them would have said, 'No, no, I want to live and die a Godless life and I have time.' So the battle really is for time.

Every day there is something to waste our time on. And I'm not saying nothing should be done, we should become all sadhus and you see, just leave everything, renounce the world and just search for God. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that can we not make ourself available wherever we are, whatever life situation we are in, to meet God? Having lived like that for many years, I can tell you that a Godless life is not worth it, because a Godless life is a life of mental oppression, mental slavery. We don't realize it yet because we think the mind is me, you see. So it feels like I'm living on my terms, I am deciding, I am picking what is good for me. No, but it is just a tiny aspect of yourself which is called the mind. There is a greater reality to you which is your heart. And I'm not speaking emotionally, I'm not speaking physically; I'm speaking about the presence of which the core for most of us will appear as if it is the heart, the presence of the Satguru himself.

So therefore, then, for those who are open to the possibility of God must make that their top priority in life. And those who feel that they have come to the presence of God must learn to rely on that presence, on His will, on His light, on His love for everything in our life. And the responsibility maybe is even higher for those who can claim to have found His presence, because after finding God within yourself is when the mind will try to tempt you with every possible trick. It will still try to make your life about the non-existent ego, you see. So contrary to popular belief, it is not, 'Ah, just come to God, have a tathastu, finished, I'm sorted, I'm enlightened, I'm free, where are my devotees?' Doesn't work like that. Because an experience, an awakening experience to find the light of God, is just the starting point of this journey, really. We've only just started living.

Yeah. So I'm saying God is a reality. It's not a figment of our imagination. He is not a concept in our head. He's a living being. In fact, He is the living being. All of Consciousness is God. And this reality can be discovered, it can be lived in, it can be loved. It can be a guru within ourselves, and all external gurus are just representations of this holy guide within ourselves, the Satguru presence. Only instruments to share His words while His presence is not directly apparent to us yet because we are so attached to name and form.

So what should our next question be? I've done this long enough to propose what you should be asking now. I have said what I have said: God is a reality, He can be found. Your question should be, 'How can I find Him? You're making us a great offer, it seems great at least to start with, and then you... okay, how can I avail this offer? How can I find God?' So can I start with how not to do it? Because I've seen that most are doing it wrong. So let's start with how not to find God, no? So don't try to find God using perception, because perception, Vedanta 101, is what? Everything that you perceive comes and goes, and that which comes and goes is not reality. So we can discard the realm of perception especially.

So that's the second part. There's one special perception which is called mind, which is called notions, concepts, a collection of conditions which conveniently we've given it a name called the mind, you see. So you can't think and think and think and think and come to the truth. You may think and think a hundred thousand times, but you will not come to the truth. So your highest thoughts will not get you there. Your highest notion of God will not get you there. Just conceptually knowing that God is everywhere, He is everything, will not get you there. So not through percepts and not through concepts. This is how not to do it. This is why most of you will lose me, okay? So just I'll try to go slowly. With me so far? Not through perception and not through concept.

So then what is left? Is there anything left to provide us self-knowledge or knowledge of God? Atma Gyan or Brahma Gyan will come from where? Not perceivable, then is there something in us that can recognize the unperceivable? We're taking huge quantum leaps today, but this basically makes a foundation for what is being shared. Is there something in us where we can recognize that which is beyond perception and beyond concepts? So we're not looking at conceptual understanding, saying the Earth is spherical although perceptually it seems flat, you see. So that is beyond perception, but beyond even concept.

Okay, let's keep focus. So is there something in us which can recognize that which is unperceivable? Yeah, I mean there's a sense of an 'I-ness'. So what are you saying? That if I ask you who is aware of the perception of this hand, I would say, you would say that 'I am'. But can this 'I' be perceived? No. Is it just a concept that 'I' must be perceiving the hand? Obviously the brain must be functioning, all the neurons must be getting fired, you see. But is that your experience, that you needed conceptual understanding to conclude that it is 'I' which is witnessing this realm of perception? So what color is that 'I'? What shape does it have? How old is it? The mind doesn't like this. The mind doesn't like this. It wants to weigh everything, it wants to grab everything, it wants to capture. It's too much for the mind.

But can we confirm that at least in our experience—and we may be completely wrong in our experience—but at least in our direct experience, I am the witness of all that is we call this world or this universe. But this 'I' itself we cannot find perceptually. Yes? Huh? Lost me somewhere? You can ask me to stop and repeat. The mind enough, you can do that. And don't feel that they've all got it and like that. Some of them may be with me for twelve years and things like that, but maybe at the same point. So don't worry, because this mind is the great blocker. Like just in the minute of insight, you see, especially of that Sakshi Nirguna aspect of Brahman itself, it will come. So first we'll go to him. He's been... then you have the mic. But his questions from there are very different from his question from... I'll come there. Shall I come? Let's see. Let's get the tone first, yeah.

No, when he said that it cannot be perceived or something, you said, 'No, it cannot be perceived.' The perception is about perceiving the physical or the created objects, phenomena. So every time I wanted to ask you this, whenever I hear or read this, because Self is there, it's not... it's not there, it's there. So even if it is not phenomenal perception, somehow I have to know it or see it. See, again, it's not perception. Somehow when you knew, or when all the masters finally know it, saw it—saw, in that word I'm using something—it may not be the perception at this level of phenomenal perception, but something they saw it, right? So is... again, that's a confusion. Is it a...

Every time I wanted to ask you this, whenever I hear or read this, because Self is there—it's not not there, it's there—so even if it is not phenomenal perception, somehow I have to know it or see it. See, again, it's not perception. Somehow, when you knew, or when all the Masters finally know it, they saw it. 'Saw'—in that word I'm using something. It may not be the perception at this level of phenomenal perception, but something they saw, right? So, again, that's a confusion. Is it a perception, or is it something which we cannot talk about at the level of this phenomenal creation or in the words of intelligence? That was the thing which—

So we call it sometimes, we call it recognition as opposed to perception. So it is important to come to the Self-recognition or Self-realization. So what is that? Is it—what is that to confirm to yourself that you are the one that is aware of this perception? The hearing of this voice—who is aware of it? Can you say?

Repeat?

Hearing of the hearing of this voice. Who is aware of this hearing?

I am directly hearing. I am not aware of hearing in like two stages. Just, I am hearing.

So you're hearing, you're seeing, you're tasting, you're touching, you're smelling—I forgot the last one. So that which you're doing with seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting is what? Is it different? Like you're doing something differently with sight because sight is different from hearing, yes? You see, tasting is different from smelling, you see. So the modes of perception—there is no actual thing like 'perception,' no? It is just a word that you use to put all these in the brackets inside, isn't it? Yeah. So when you say perception, we are saying it could be hearing, could be seeing, could be smelling, could be touching, could be tasting, could be any of these things, see? So we call that perception. Now, is hearing different from smelling? The activity of hearing is different from smelling. The activity of hearing and smelling is what we call perception, isn't it? Now, where does this activity conclude in me? Who is aware of that activity?

It concludes in me.

In you. And is this 'you' found by hearing or touching or tasting or smelling?

Without them also, it's there. I am here.

So it's independent of all these modes of perception. Let's call them phenomenal modes of perception. The reality of me, like you said, the reality of 'I' is independent of all of these modes of perception, yes? So is it independent and just like inert? Is it independent and inert like a rock sitting somewhere?

I cannot really answer this question. I don't know about what it is.

Does perception come to it as if it is something dumb?

No, because in that sense, it's a—see, the entire perception is given life by me.

Exactly. Very good. So this 'I' which is independent of all perception and is also the source of all life, you see, this 'you'—how do you know it?

Without 'how' I know it.

Yes. And that 'without how' we call intuitive, yeah? You see, because 'without how' sounds lame or 'just like that,' yeah? Or it just is. Maybe it just sounds like, 'What's the big deal in that?' So to make it sound nice, we call it intuitive insight. Sounds nicer, no? That 'I came to Satsang, I got intuitive insight' instead of 'just like that.' Okay, so let's use 'just like that.' So, just like that, what else do you know except the reality of that which is Nirguna—qualityless, shapeless, sizeless? Is that all that you know just like that?

Just like that, I don't know anything else.

You don't know anything else? That you are? That 'I am'?

Like if, okay, if you were to extend it to say 'I am here,' how do you know that which is 'I' is independent of even the sense of being, isn't it? Just try to meet it. Don't think about it, okay? Just meet it. The 'I' which is aware and not inert—in fact, it gives life—that 'I' is the source of, or is independent even of, beingness and not beingness, yeah? Because 'I' is not feeling 'I am.' 'I' is not feeling 'I am being.'

Exactly. So this I-amness is known through what?

I-amness is known through a sense of being, Self.

Yes, but that sense is known through what? Is it a perceived sense?

It's not perceived, but it is something which is known as 'I am.'

Yeah, correct. So can we also say 'just like that,' huh? Isn't it? So intuitively you know also of the presence. Okay, now anyone that you love, are you always experiencing a feeling of love towards them?

Not always.

Not always. Many times it's anger, frustration, you see. And yet if somebody was to ask you truthfully, 'Do you love?' you see, you say, 'Yes, my children.' You see, many times they're not doing their work or they're partying till very late at night, so I'm not always feeling so much love for them. But if somebody asks me, 'Do you love your people?' I say, 'Of course.' You see? But how do I know that? And you say, 'Does that love have conditions?' I say, 'No, I love them unconditionally.' So this unconditional love, how do we know? Although the feeling may be irritation, how do we know? It's just like that. So I'm going to again provoke you and say that anything that is truly valuable is only known just like that—intuitive, through the heart knowledge, as we call it. How many times you've said, 'I'm irritated with you, Father. I didn't want to come to Satsang, but my bike brought me here.' Many times. 'My bike brought me here.' So are you really saying the bike brought you? No, you're saying that a different source of knowledge actually pulled you into Satsang, see? So that is also intuitive because you were thinking, 'I'm not going to go. I can't make sense of what he's saying, you know. And I listen to the others, it doesn't really compute. All those contradictions come. I'm not going to go.' But you get on your bike and something draws you to come here. That is also 'just like that.' So that which we recognize 'just like that' through this heart, through this heart knowledge, that is called intuitive insight. That is called intuitive insight. That is the source of all true Knowledge with a capital K. Sometimes the word knowledge is used with a capital K and sometimes it's used with a small k. So true insight which is known intuitively, we capitalize that. Love, we capitalize. Self, we capitalize. Being, we capitalize. Knowledge, we capitalize because it is known from a deeper source of truth than the fluctuating waves of the mind. So to come to the presence of God, to live in God's life, to make our life in the way of the heart, not in the way of the head—one of the steps is to rely on our insight rather than a concept.

Thanks. I was remembering from last time you asked us to meditate on, you know, the space between thoughts. And that was the first time—it's a very fleeting moment, but it happens sometimes. And that's how I was thinking when you were saying—you know, that kind of made me feel like our identity, whatever, it's just a collection of thoughts. And since there is a space between thoughts too, so that is just a, I guess, incomplete or whatever. Almost like you could say that we are a figment of our own imagination. But whenever that moment happens, when I try to—very loosely, it's not like I consciously try to do that—sometimes you are in this space. And I really liked your inquiry, the method of inquiry. Whatever you can observe is basically not you, right? Like you try to—so that's where I'm at. Like, you observe that space between thoughts. Yes, but since I'm even observing that space, that space is also not me. But at least it's a bit formless, because thought in itself is sort of a form, right? So from there, what would you—and it definitely counters the notion that I'm just my mind, because the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts.

Yeah. And you see that between thoughts you remain as a witness, isn't it? So even when the thoughts are not there, you are witnessing that emptiness between thoughts. So you can continue to ask, if you have been asking, or start to ask: Who is the 'I' which notices this space?

That's—I don't know what's going to happen after that. But as far as thoughts are concerned, it was fairly intuitive to me, honestly. Even before that, I didn't really like the idea of a certain identity. It just seemed very tedious to maintain. But this part of space between thoughts is—sometimes I observe that, but nothing beyond that. So I don't know what to do.

Yeah. So when you ask yourself, 'Who is aware?' or 'Who is aware of the perception of the space?' or 'Who notices the space between two thoughts?'

Then I don't know, because my mind is a little bit visual. It tries to make it—it can be visual. It's like a—when you say you're kind of like plugging out, it's like a lot of layers plugging out, out, out. It's kind of like you're inside kind of like a shell, but then after that, basically blank.

So whatever the visual may be—sometimes a visual may come from the mind or a thought may come—your job is to then ask: What witnesses this? You see? So who witnesses the visual?

Don't know. You know it is you, but you don't know. But which 'you' it is? Who is that 'you'? Can't catch it, basically. Should I try to catch it? It's—

Yeah. So either you can delve deeper into: How do you then know it is you if you can't catch it? How can you—how are you confirming it is you?

It's relaxing, though. Yes, feels relaxing. Doesn't feel like doing much in that space, honestly. Doesn't happen so—

Just stay with that. Stay with that. Relax. Watching. So just to explain to everyone: So from this Nirguna Sakshi, the Nirguna witnessing, emerges the Saguna beingness, Consciousness, which you call 'I am.' This I-amness is unique because it is called the primordial vibration. But actually it is beautiful because it is both beyond perception and the subtlest perception we can ever have, yeah? It's on the cusp of the non-phenomenal and the phenomenal. So you notice, and this is called 'I am.' It is called Om. It has been given many beautiful names to signify the holiest being. So if I tell you, 'Try to stop being. Don't exist for a moment,' what will you say? But you have to actually try it. Don't just think it's impossible. Try it with the innocence of a child. Experiment with it. Like, don't be. Anyone succeeding? Succeeding in not being? So you can't succeed because what is here? What are you not able to turn off? When you try to not be, your mind will say, 'But I can go to sleep'—all that, no. None of that. I'm not looking for speculation. Just try to not be right now. Now, you see? Don't be right now. Then what can't you turn off? I-amness. The beingness. Everything else you can tune out. Anything else can go. And you can even speculate about it and say, 'Okay, if my sight goes, then what remains? If my hearing goes, then what remains? If my taste—like, all of these things go, then what remains?' You still notice that there is a beingness, I-amness, which is just naturally here. What is the boundary of this being? Where does it start and stop? If you really look, you would say it is boundless. But some of you will say, 'But I experience it in my heart.' So you experience the manifest aspect of it, the subtle vibration of it in the heart, but you also know that it is boundless. The boundlessness you know intuitively, and the subtleness of the vibration you know perceptually. So that's why I called it on the cusp of the non-phenomenal and the phenomenal—both the unmanifest and the manifest. The problem is the way we've just explored it makes it lifeless and scientific. 'Oh, there is a consciousness over there, there's an awareness over there.' You see? So I can choose. I sit like this in awareness, I can sit like that in consciousness, see? But this consciousness, this presence, is a living being. And that information should shake us up, because there's a living being inside you. Did you know that? Did you know there's a living being inside you? Still not a trick question. There's a living being inside you. I said the other day, no? Like if somebody told you that Casper the Friendly Ghost is inside you, then would you just be like, 'No, no'? Why? If somebody told you the spirit of a Zen cat is inside you—no, I want to find out more! Explore, explore. But our entire life—

Presence is a living being, and that information should shake us up because there's a living being inside you. Did you know that? Did you know there's a living being inside you? Still not a trick question. There's a living being inside you. I said the other day, no, like if somebody told you that Casper the Friendly Ghost is inside you, then would you just be like, 'No, no, why?' If somebody told you the spirit of a Zen cat is inside you, no, I want to find out more. Explore, explore. But our entire life we've heard that Atma is inside you, and now you're coming to the darshan of it because you're finding the presence of this being. This being 'I am' is the same as saying Atma. I-am-ness is the same as Atma-ness, myself, my being. So it is the same thing whether you say Holy Spirit, whether you say Satguru presence, whether you say Atma, whether you say I am.

So when we just make it about consciousness and awareness, then we feel like we are some scientific observers with a microscope, and some part—the inside part—is a bit like that, you see. But don't allow that to make the discovery into something tepid and lukewarm. You're finding the presence of God within yourself. Or even if you can't confirm it's God yet, at least there is a living being within you because you're saying beingness. What you're saying actually is that there's a being whose being is that, whose presence is that. Who put it there? Where did it come from? Where will it go? The sages have told us weird things. They said, 'Is that this? Is this what he was talking about? Is it?' So we must explore this. Could it be that this presence is Ram? Could it be that this presence is the Atma to which the Vedantin said that there is no distinction between Jivatma and Paramatma? How do you go? Jiva Brahma na para. So 'na para' means there's no distinction between the Jivatma and the Paramatma. Brahman, the Absolute reality, and the presence of His being within ourself are not distinct. That is the fundamental of Advaita, that there are no two.

So are we just going to let it be like that? Are we just going to be? It's important now. The nature of Maya is to keep us away from this being and involved in this stuff. Just keep us involved in this stuff. Keep giving projects: working, working, working, or whatever; playing, playing, playing, whatever. Just keep us involved in this. That's why it's called the Leela. Play, play, play here. Neglect or don't give any value, importance, focus, attention to what is really going on. And Maya keeps spinning. Maya keeps winning. And who is the lawyer of Maya? It is the mind. Focus on this, do your responsibilities, do your work, make a meaningful life, and then die. Makes complete sense to most. But is there a possibility of finding that which is eternal life? Yeah. And if there was a lottery for eternal life, how many tickets would you buy? You know that there are billionaires trying to do it the wrong way. They're trying to make the body immortal. Some of them even trying to find ways in which they can store up their consciousness that can be injected—in all sci-fi stuff—so injected in other bodies to keep themselves immortal. What if you didn't have to do any of that, and that life which you are discovering within yourself, your being, is eternal life? It is a source of eternal life.

So Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that if you were to drink the water which I have for you, you would find a living water which is significant of eternal life. What is the living water he's talking about? So he said that the water you will give me from the well will quench my thirst now, but what I am offering is a living water which will forever quench our thirst. What is he talking about?

So forgive me for this against sin, Father, but this is a mind question a little bit. So till now, being has a flavor of me, my, and I. The being still has that flavor. So Father, if you know about my being, is that a conceptual knowledge for you, or you know it, you can feel my being also? But for me, it's nothing beyond me, me. Please help me.

So your being doesn't have the flavor of your individuality in the sense that being itself doesn't have it, but it has these tongs, grabbers—what should we call them?—with which it can hold on to notions: 'I am a man,' 'I am a woman,' 'I was born here,' 'I'm going to live a life like this,' 'I'm very honest.' So everything after 'I am' is not inherently a part of 'I am.' It is the conditions or the avidya or the vasanas, whatever you call them, that are attached to the being through the process of identification, through the process of belief, you see. Now, I don't have any such superpower with which I can guess what that aspect of consciousness which is playing as Amogh over there has held on to as identification. If my heart or intuitively I give to when I say something, it may come to the surface like that, but I can't say, 'Okay, what you're actually hiding is this aspect of your being that you're attached to.' That is why the concept of achinta is very important. So although it is one being, it is playing in distinct flavors and varieties.

Can I just paraphrase what I... now I don't want to make a mistake in the here.

Yeah, make all the mistakes here. No, no, I mean in the sense of what you're saying and what I'm receiving.

What did you hear? So this livingness, I mean this livingness which animates the body, you know, I mean which is animating this whole world, yeah, is that's what you're pointing to as the beingness, as that eternal life which is not going to die? I mean, which we call Atma, which will not... I mean, it leaves the body, the body leaves it, it leaves the... it's what, you know what I'm trying to say?

So just to be technical about it, the being is the source of the life energy, Prana, and the Prana animates this body. And then when it... what leaves is the Prana. What you're doing is that that beingness, that livingness is here, and that is more my truth, the truth of who I am, than who I'm imagining with the same livingness is imagining itself to be. And that's why I can say it's a living being and not a rock. That's why I can see it's not an object. But when you meet it itself, it is apparent to you it's a living being, isn't it? You don't have to infer that this is more true than that, therefore it's a living being.

You see, so then you can just discard it as the mind. That is a clear showstopper for the mind. But as we come to subtler places, then I've given everyone three tools to determine whether it is coming from the heart. The easiest tool, but not completely foolproof, is the presence of unconditional love. If you're feeling as the guidance is coming, if you're feeling or noticing the presence of unconditional love, then 99% you can trust it. And I'll tell you why I'm saying 99%. So that is the first test. This unconditional love is one of the most subtle things you experience, but in terms of our subtlety, this is the grossest way to determine your heart's voice. So that is it, but it'll work; mostly it'll be fine. You can follow that guidance if it is accompanied by the presence of unconditional love.

Secondly, subtler is the being itself, the presence of the being itself. I've been calling it the primordial vibration. If that is apparent, you see, and guidance seems to be flowing from there, then more or less—let's say I don't want to quantify, but say 99.9%—you're fine. But the most foolproof is if the truth of what you are in the Nirguna way, you see, which is the reality of the Self, which is beyond all perception, is apparent to you. That means you're fully exercising your intuitive muscles, you see. So when that is apparent, your Self is apparent to you and you're receiving this guidance, then that's the most foolproof because we in the human condition don't really have the capacity to juggle our intuition and our mind that strongly. So you'll be quickly able to notice where it is coming from: unconditional love, the presence of your being, the Atma, or the reality of your Nirguna Self.

Subtler, subtler, subtler. And initially, it can seem more difficult, more difficult, more difficult, but it'll become easier. But the good news for all of us is that if truly our intention is to follow God's guidance, then even if we get confused or tricked by the mind, His grace will take care of us. So we don't have to make it a battle, you know, or like something to feel guilty about—'Oh, I must have followed my mind, I got tricked.' You know, all of that stuff is not needed because what did you want? If you truly wanted to follow God in your heart, you'll be taken care of anyway.

Because I've read it so many times: 'Go with the flow, go with the flow.' So then, does that mean that you go with the flow because then you're not giving your mind the time to think? Could be. And is that coming from...?

But many people have many ideas of 'go with the flow,' yeah. So some are saying, 'I just go with the flow, man, I just go with the flow,' basically saying, 'I just want to do whatever my mind wants.' That is the idea of freedom for them. That is the idea of living a rebel life or going with the flow or something, living spontaneously. Many feel it is that, you see. But going with the flow really is to be empty of oneself, to be open and empty, and then allow God to move you, allow God to move your life. That is what it is to go with the flow. And that's a very important thing, that many times God's voice is silent. His voice is silent, but we can, when we hand over our life to Him, He moves our life the way it is meant to move, you see. So that is also to follow God's will. In fact, mostly we will follow God's will in that way, by remaining empty and allowing Him to move our lives. And mostly when we get used to living like that, then we may start getting the prompts or the messages from within. So that is how we live a life of servitude, of obedience to God's will. Are you here for a few days or you go back to Pune?

I go back on Wednesday.

All right. So, all clear so far? Yes. Okay. So if you leave the part about following God's will and how to follow out of it, mostly what we've discovered or discussed today is the inside part of spirituality: how to come to that which is called Brahma Gyan, the knowledge of Brahman itself, and Brahman's relationship with the Atma, and how the Atma plays this Leela of the appearance of this world, the dissolution of this world. So all of this is the insight or the Gyan part of spirituality.

It would be really cool if that was all that was needed. I'm sure all of you would be relieved. 'I see, I am done. What is there? There's only one. What is there? I can just live peacefully, be happy.' But this one who wants to use the insight to now have a peaceful life is the remnant of the troublemaker. It's the remnant of the troublemaker. And if this remnant is allowed to roam free, soon it will become Raavan. Raavan has been allowed to roam free, make all the claims, make all the proclamations: 'I am the Self, I am this, I am the king of the universe.' All these things are true, but not for this one, because this one is just a notional identity. But when it is allowed to take belief in all of these, it's like oxygen.

So then that Advaitic teaching or heart pointing which brings us to true insight, you see, when it is taken to be conceptual, belonging to a 'me,' that gives birth to the prideful spiritual ego. And that part we must not neglect or just live in some presumption that that can't happen here. And life shows us that very clearly if you're living with eyes open. If you're noticing some suffering in your life, know that it is not possible without pride. Without pride, it is impossible to suffer. So when we come into a sort of Advaita denial of the existence of the 'me,' which still wants to live a certain way now because it came to the insight that 'I am the Self' or some knowledge like that—which are pointers, holy pointers to bring us to a true insight by the Satguru's grace—when those very pointers are used by the mind, you see, as if it knows something, then it becomes proud. It takes itself to be special. It wants to teach and not learn, you see. All these are the symptoms: that it wants to be elevated and not head bowed down, it wants to be seen and not ignored. All of these are the symptoms of this pride.

And this pride is the same in all spheres of life, but when it plays spiritually, then it seems as if it has got some extra license. And anybody countering that, you say, 'I'm not the doer, I am only the Self. This must be appearing to you in your Leela as if I'm doing this, but it's not true. You need to inquire more.' It'll have all the weapons for battle ready. So it uses knowledge not as an umbrella to shield ourselves, but as a sword to attack others. You see? So I'm giving you the flavor of how the spiritual ego operates, how it tries to prove that 'I am right and others are stupid or wrong, not evolved enough, not spiritual enough, not truthful enough,' whatever.

And there are tin examples throughout history. Raavan is a very safe example to openly say and to remind everyone of, because his knowledge was terrific. Everybody knows he was saying the right stuff. He even made beautiful compositions like this Shiva Tandava Stotram—amazing. But he took it to apply to the wrong one, to the body-mind, and not to the reality of presence and that which is aware even of presence within himself. So he started to say that 'I am as great as Ram. Why should I bow down? If He's Vishnu, then I am also Vishnu.' He was not wrong, because in his reality he was, but the way he was applying it was to himself personally. So it is very important for those who are coming into the light of presence to be extra vigilant about pride. It's really important to come into servitude.

That is why Bhagavan said that this bird has two wings. The first wing is Gyan and the second wing is Bhakti. What is Bhakti? A combination of love and servitude is Bhakti. You may love someone deeply, but you don't want to serve them; so then it is not Bhakti, it is just love. Or you may serve somebody because you have a job, but you may not love them, you see; so it's your service, but it's not Bhakti. So when love and servitude are present together, then that is called Bhakti or devotion.

Before you start, I also feel that the other day in Satsang, the metaphor of the drop falling into the water came up organically, and I feel that's a very good one also, you see. So I feel I heard it from Guruji first, where he said that as we are merging into the Self, you see, it's not a one-time process. So if you've seen any YouTube video of how does the drop actually fall, we notice that there is some force of energies and they play out. So what happens is the drop, a part of it submerges in the water and a part of it bounces back. Then it falls, then it bounces a little less, and it remains a little less, so it becomes lesser and lesser and lesser and lesser. Like that. So when we are coming to dissolution of the ego into the truth, then the process looks like that.

I paraphrased that beautiful metaphor and I've said: if that drop takes on the identity of the water, you see, the notional ideas about the water, then it doesn't fall like that, you see. Then it becomes 'super drop' and wants to fly and, you know, it feels like it's superpowered and got all the yogic powers and siddhis and everything it wants to use to its benefit. But remember that the notion that it uses to become super drop can seem like a very humble expectation also. It can just seem like, 'I've come to the discovery of the Self, now my life should be this way. It should only be fun, it should only be nice.' Even the subtlest notion like that—which actually we don't realize the specialness—just because we are coming to the discovery of God by His own grace, we have come to this. What does that entitle us to? Nothing. But we feel like, 'But this is a quid pro quo. I have given this, so I should get this.' It's not like that. We are not entitled. In front of God, all has happened by His grace.

What are the elements of servitude? Exam time.

Humility. Faith.

Okay. Who says what is faith? Crazy belief? Yeah, in a way, but it's not belief really, you know. Belief is an atheist idea of what we are doing in spirituality—that we just pick up a lot of irrational beliefs and concepts and we just believe them deeply. But faith actually is to trust your intuitive insight more than you do the other modes of knowledge that we discussed. So you take your intuitive insight to be truer than what Maya is showing you or what your mind is telling you. That is faith. So faith shows us God's reality and the fact that God is here, whereas in the world, actually, there is God. What is God? So have faith in what your heart acknowledges, and to live in that faith means that you live as if God—in whichever aspect you relate with God, whether it is God or whether it is Ram, Krishna, Jesus, Allah, whichever way you look at it—you live as if He's right here, and not in a belief that 'I believe He's right here, so I should behave properly' and all of that. In the insight that He's right here, see, that is the difference between faith and belief.

It is not just an irrational belief. It is beyond rationality, but it is not without basis. You trust what you have found intuitively in the light of the Satguru's presence, the Holy Spirit. You trust that more than you trust any concept or perception. And that's why I've been prodding all of you: how is it that your life is not a celebration? Because if I ask all of you, 'Have you found God's presence now?' Not so many have, but others... have you found God's presence now? Because you know what's coming. So if you found God or His presence, which is the same, then why is your life not a celebration? Why are you not rejoicing in Him? Why are you not relying on Him for everything if He can guide you? So what are the possibilities? Either we've not found Him—we've not found Him and we just don't want Ananta to feel bad, so we say, 'Yes, yes, yes,' we're like that—or we don't really have faith. We don't trust our intuition that this is really God's presence, God's light, you see. So we may feel like it's some biochemical reaction or some brain thing or some imagination or something like that. And if that is the case, then dive, dive into it more. Find out what it really is. Stay with it more. Because if Ram was sitting next to you, you would not waste time thinking about yourself. You would celebrate.

Just don't want Ananta to feel bad, so we say, 'Yes, yes, yes, we like that.' Or we don't really have faith; we don't trust our intuition that this is really God's presence, God's light, you see. So we may feel like it's some biochemical reaction or some brain thing or some imagination or something like that. And if that is the case, then dive, dive into it more. Find out what it really is. Stay with it more because if Ram was sitting next to you, you will not waste time thinking about yourself. You would celebrate Him, you will rejoice, and you would be in awe that your life is full of such Grace. Where in most spirituality also, they talk about the discovery of God as if it happens like much later, maybe in many lifetimes later. And if you say that I'm coming to the realization of God, is it not like that? No, you found God, isn't it? But our life has been graced with this reality, and if not a reality, at least a very potent possibility. And all we have to do is remain empty of the false self to set the table for God's light to come.

So, how to come to God if God is reality is to remain empty for God because the lane is too narrow; it does not have the space for both God and me. So every time you focus on 'me,' you're giving the 'me' the chair for the chief guest. You're giving the 'me,' the ego, the chair for the chief guest. Then where should God sit? And when it is 'God for me,' if God should come so that He can help me, then who's sitting on the chair? Then God is the one in servitude to you. That's what we all want—that we find a way in which God becomes in servitude to us. That is the ego's max goal. Wouldn't that be nice? But that is just pride.

But those who have come to His presence, I feel—and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong—that those who can claim that we have found His presence are still living more in the 'me' than in Him. And that's why spirituality is so shaky. The smallest thing happens, then we go, you know, something somebody says at work, somebody says in the family, and we shake. So the shakiness is because still our eyes are on the 'me,' not at the Lord's feet. All is good and fine as long as the 'me' doesn't seem attacked. 'Don't ask me to risk anything. God is there, it's fine. Don't affect me, don't affect my life in any way,' see? So this is our weak faith, see?

So I feel that if, like a class teacher, I was to do an evaluation of my children, of my satsang, I would say we are quite good in terms of insight. But I feel like if you look at servitude, faith, humility, obedience to God, gratitude, prayerfulness, and so on, I would say that on those fronts, we all have a long way to go, including the teacher. On that front, all of us are a work in progress.

Father, I want to share something from a Narada Bhakti Sutra commentary. So in that, it is said that, you know, have an uninterrupted sharing with God. It's like being indifferent to everything else, like people on the street. When you're walking and going, you don't, you know, care about people on the street, right? We are just walking. So it's like everything else, you know, be just indifferent and just focus on just one thing.

What you said is very beautiful, and if I may extend on that: if you keep the lane empty for God and if you live in God's life, then actually you may—your outer expression may also change where when you're walking on a street, you may bless everyone that you come across. So when you focus on Him inwardly, then He takes care of your outwardly. And I'm not speculating about any of this; this much I can definitely confirm: that with the eyes set on Him inwardly, outwardly it's all taken care of. That's why as a teacher in satsang, I never have plans or notes or anything like that. I have just one job: to stay in my heart temple in His presence, and then He moves His mouth, He moves this body the way it is meant to, and I have no judgment about how He's doing it.

So the mind will scare you with this notion that, 'Oh, if you make your life about God, but you're still young and you have responsibilities and you have to do so much and you must do things in balance.' And God is not a slice of the pie in a pie chart. I have seen pie charts like all of us have: spiritual life, emotional life, mental life, physical life—have the full balance and you have the perfect life. Who has been able to juggle all this? Nobody can. So there's a mistaken notion there that if you become spiritual, then God cannot run your life. It is a mistaken notion because you are not even contemplating: how is your life running right now? Who is running it? Who is beating your heart? Who is breathing your breath? Who's holding this body together? You feel like, 'I am doing, I am doing so much.' If you stopped doing for a moment, finish. In one moment, finish.

So that is why it is called ego, it is called pride. And that is why to follow God's will is the primary teaching in most cultures, traditions, and religions. You're very reverential towards Hanuman Ji, Lakshman, Bharat, Sita Ma—very reverential towards all of them. Why? Why? This is simple. One, yeah: obedience, servitude, willing to follow Ram's will on everything. Especially with Hanuman: 'Go to that forest and get me that thing.' Even when he couldn't find it, he got the whole mountain. 'Go send a message to Sita, she's in Lanka.' Even Lakshman said, 'I'm also coming. If you are going, I'm not going to leave you. I will serve you.' As a prince, and to live in the forest—they were done with that part of gurukul and all that—but he's willing to spend fourteen years in service to his older brother, but really Master and God.

Abraham followed God's will. He was willing to follow God's will till the last moment, till God Himself stopped him. And he is the founder of the religions which most of the world is following; all the Abrahamic religions are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. And Jesus has said so clearly—and these are very strong words he used—he said, 'You may say to me "Lord, Lord," but I will not recognize you,' means 'I will not help you or serve you unless you have followed the will of my Father.' Man said all that, nothing, it will not help whether you think, whether you love, whether you meditate, whether you—nothing, nothing, nothing. Then when they asked him, 'What is the way out of this delusion?' he said, 'Follow the will of God.' And that is Nanak's main pointing. And a Muslim means that: one who follows the will of God. The word itself means that.

So how to keep the spiritual ego from becoming Ravana is to bring it in servitude of God. And today we've discussed one part of it: that how much, how strong is our faith? Do we treat God to be a reality even after so many years of satsang, or is it still conceptual and imagination for us? Are you trusting your intuition which is showing you God's presence in this moment? Are you trusting what your senses are showing you more? The faith to follow will come once the faith to be in it is done. Everything in servitude will follow if you have faith. Actually, with any of them—you look at faith, humility, obedience, prayerfulness, gratitude—you look at any of them and you deepen in any of them, you'll just naturally pull the rest of it along.

But our ego, our pride, wants to hold on to our insight and not really become servants of God. Even those who have been coming to satsang with me for a long time are strongly resisting this part because they think they know. See the fun there? That which they heard, what they think they know, from that Himself is telling them like, 'No, we know.' This is how pride plays. But till we don't flower in our love, in our servitude for God, our insights are only worth something in your mind. Okay, so let's—I'm going to stop ranting in a moment. This one last thing: do we at least recognize that our life is in servitude either to the mind or to the heart? You recognize it is in servitude either to mind or heart. There is no third will that we are following. No, there's no third coming. 'This is my will'—that is mind, that is heart. 'This is mine'—there's nothing like that. So when we say, 'I want to live on my terms,' we basically are saying the mind's, you see? What the mind wants us to do.

So is there anyone here who's not seen the trouble of mental oppression, the mental slavery? Who has not suffered from it? All of you have. And still we want to continue to serve that oppressive master, whereas we have an option of being in service to the highest, most compassionate, most merciful, most graceful One. I'm done ranting now.

No, I just want... you spoke about knowledge and meditation, right? So it is basically that knowledge and meditation, the Japji Sahib... can you get that thing from there? The whole thing is there, the frame I used to remember it. I know how... can you read it up? Careful, careful.

So you may think and think and think a hundred thousand times, but you will not get it by thinking. That means sitting in silence, silence will not do it. That your hunger will not be satisfied, in Punjabi, you may eat to your heart's content, whatever you may fill yourself, you will not get it. Hundreds of tactics and tricks and smartness you can have, but it's not going to move one thing for you. Yeah. So how do we come to the truth and how do we break the wheel of this delusion? It is said: not this, not this, not this, not this. The only way to break through this is to follow His will, follow His command. Actually, 'hukum' is a stronger word than will. Follow His command. And that is what Nanak has written. So in those days, the author's name would be included in the verses, so then the attribution was clear.

Like in today's world, all of this, it's all about knowledge, meditation, and so many different combinations. Knowledge and meditation basically, right? So do you... I just wanted to ask you, Father...

That's why I'm ranting so much about the armchair spirituality and the lips of spirituality and the 'me, me, me' spirituality and the self-help spirituality, whereas the main—the fire of it, the juice of it, which is to make us into servants of God—has been taken out of it. So it is that line which is about what you are saying exactly. So without that, there is a high likelihood... because I have not met one who did not need to keep his head bowed down and yet remained open and empty just by themselves. And the fact is that we don't need to derive our own conclusions. All the sages have told us, Guruji has told us, that we must always keep our head bowed down. We must always be in gratitude. All the sages have told us, even those with the highest insight.