Beyond Assertion and Negation - 14th Jan 2019

So the attempt to own it or the attempt to stand aloof are two sides of the same coin. Ideas. We're dancing the dance of getting and not getting, of being in the state and losing the state. If you forgot all this education—that this is good, this is bad, this is true, this is false, this was right, this is wrong, I had it, I lost it—it is not releasable to, and it is not about these words. If these words are just taken as words, then they are complete nonsense. If there is a point to these words, it is only to back all motion. It is only to back every notion out of you, including the notion's backing itself. To see that even to know one thing is to know too much is to mean Shiva. Okay, that's a notion, forget it.

How do you consider yourself to be in time and space? Don't try to leave time and space. Tell me how you consider yourself to be in time and space. Think about it. And what is that? What is the basis of all of this fruit listing here? If you decide "I have to leave the I-thought," then it is not leaving that at all, is it? If you say, "Now that I see that subtle is that I have to leave the I-thought," that is not it. Something more immediate. Make no reference to "I," either absolute or personal. Make no reference to "I," either absolute or personal. And who's doing it? Who's making no reference? Nobody. That is under friends. We're not making a little, not even nobody, because we can have an idea of what nobody is; it is still a reference. So it can sound very complicated, but it is simpler than how it sounds. So we try to solve it like this. You can, but in actuality, it is simpler. Before you hear the key, did you find yourself taking a position like that or like this? It's not that. Even that, it can become very subtle like this where even these can be positions: "I have to hold my attention" or "I have to let go of my attention." Attention doesn't have to be this way or that way. Always is on. The concept of ease can go.

But who's seeing? If you forgot that this body has a nose, for example, you forgot that the body has a nose, then you could use your hand to confirm, "Oh, so that is it." Move your attention to its own source and see where it comes from. Okay, but after you see that the nose is still there, you have to keep holding it, apply it as the nose? So then abidance would only mean that you don't pick up the notion that "I lost my nose" because we checked, checked again, checked again, check, check, check. No, it's clear. So attention plays that function like this. But to be the Self does not mean that I have to keep my attention only in the unchanging reality, because if that is how the Self wanted to experience itself, the waking state would not come in the first place. So this world is a play of attention and that's okay. It has nothing to do with myself. If it seemed that I forgot who I am, then it is useful to check. But coming to the truth is not a remaining in the withdrawal of attention or something like that, is it? Attention this way, that way—it doesn't matter. What is here naturally?

And you see Guruji, does it look like he is like [meditating] and then he is talking? No, he's very much... attention is very much with all of this as well, but the Self is not forgotten. It doesn't need to be remembered in this way. Going back to when my attention is on my thoughts, for instance, it seems that this girl... but in the appearance of thoughts, not in the mirror of feelings of thoughts, it isn't. Yes, the belief is the veil. It's not... see, if it was when attention is fully withdrawn, then there is no question of any appearance, including thoughts. So all appearance means that attention is on that; that is what we call appearance anyway. So just by the mere appearance of thoughts, is it? It doesn't matter. It is when I take myself to be what the thought is referring to me as—that is the I-thought. That I am that which the thought is representing. Is he the I-thought? Is he the thought that "I" is being represented through this energy construct? That is the veil. And if you take yourself to be that, just like if you take yourself to be anything at this moment, if you give belief to it, then even this identity which you feel like it's so strong, you will start to lose that. What seemed as tangible... you close your eyes and start imagining that type, you're sitting next to a mountain or something like that. If you start believing concepts about it, it was not part of belief. So it is not in the appearing of these appearances, but in our taking our thoughts to be valid representations of who we are as an entity. When the thought claims to represent "I," that is the I-thought. See something which you think is true about yourself, that "I" it represents an "I" which just isn't there. So when we lose that reference, the truth is here.

That's why I started satsang by saying that it is not that the truth has to be found; it is only that the false has to be let go of. What is the false? Primary falsity is in this I-thought, the limited notion of self. For this "I" to be gone, don't be... look, it's gone. It is only in the picking up of belief it can seem like the whole tree came back. He thought it's a harmless leaf, but he thought that in one condition, all the conditions are inherent. You cannot leave it to zero. Curious all things above, it is all unborn. But let me give birth to just this and I still keep the unborn you? It doesn't work like that. I-thought is there, I can hang on with this tiny sliver of identification with the notion. But the problem is not as hard as it may seem because from the level of the mind it is unsolvable, but for you it is done. So which way will you want to go? If you're trying to solve it like an equation, figure it out, that is impossible, isn't it? Will you wait till you have the right perception of something? The experience that will not last. What is beyond these experiences and concepts? So you ask yourself, what are you waiting for? Is it an experience or concept? Because I can go on and if not experience or concept, which we can keep saying, "One day I'll have an experience of that." Not experience or concept—like, what is it you're waiting for?

Or if you are waiting, waiting not done on either to be able to notice when the thought suggests concept of an "I." Yeah, it's only after some actions take place from that identity that in retrospect I think, "Oh, I was caught in identity." It seems I'm growing idea that I would like to notice then I am caught up in "I."

You don't have to notice at all. You will start to suppose that very quickly. Rock is built into the situation already, so you don't even have to this thing. It is to be in denial of the alarm ringing. You see that we have to stop in a way when the poking comes of the limited identity. When we try to Advaita it away by saying "I am just the Self," to use more notions to get rid of some notions which are bothering us, you see that is to be in some sort of Advaita denial or something like that. So you don't have to do anything to notice when individuality is picked up; the poking starts almost instantly. It is going to say, you know, whatever notion you might use, even though very popular by new Advaita concepts—and I'm not going to outline because then it sounds like I'm taking a ticket—if you're using a concept which is about one of the notions, another concept is the individual building her house of content. It is not that. If there is a concept which you are using which removes everything, that is fine. That is only one that we can use. But if you just say, "I'm suffering with..." so you don't have to do that activity, that is inherent in this system. So then that doership also goes on. You function in this world without their identity, yes. And called itself this body, this mind? No. This body? Yes. But the second part can be anything. It can be Bhagwan calling themselves Ram, so with Kamala calling himself this beggar, that doesn't matter. Do you stay apart from identity that somebody else has you? And just like the way to communicate, if you're talking about that, how do we communicate about the activities of this particular body?

So then, do ships also go on? You function in this world without their identity, yes? And called itself this body, this mind? No, let's party. Yes, but the second part can be anything. It can be made from Bhagwan calling themselves Nirguna Brahman, so with Kamala calling himself this beggar, that doesn't matter. Do you stay apart from identity that somebody else has for you? And just like the way to communicate, if you're talking about that, how do we communicate about the activities of this particular body? Some can continue to call it 'me', you see. Some can call it the name of the body. Some can call it some other term; that doesn't really matter. It's just a label for this one. It is seen that it is not me. And yet, if you say, 'Okay, who in this room is wearing a blue shirt?' you did not mean, 'Is way and I'm very' or this foolish one. Nor would you know what you can see. I am. So there's no problem in saying that, as long as you see this is available for your using. Originally, to get rid of the identity to me, see, there's a person called me. No. The only obvious 'I' you need, the only Sadhna you need, is just to remain motionless in that. Then how the body is referred to by this mouth is really not so much of a concern. In fact, most of the activities just happen this way, and even if they're not necessarily preempted by thoughts, we just think that 'I first thought, then I did.' Like your blinking eyes, your nodding. I didn't think, 'Left, I'm going to nod my head,' you see. This hand keeps moving like that or nothing. So it is those which seem to get us, which have these thoughts, idle post-facto, de facto.

So you can participate in the world fully as a non-person. But even in that, there's an identity of what you mean by using the world. The entire world is you. How are you participating in it? By your very existence, the world is. Now, if you say, 'Okay, so how am I to live my life?' then this 'me' comes in posing as the body again. And that's what I'm saying: all this functioning is happening, and we think that there is an idea of individual control or individual diversion. Best attempt with babies, no? Yes, they are not deciding anything; things simply happen. Oh, examples are everywhere. These birds, sometimes not even in our group of migratory birds, it's bird season changes, it knows which direction to fly. Did it have a thought that 'I will go west, I'm getting late'? They're looking at the Buddha sitting and wondering whether the time is ready to fly. Body intact. Baby is born; they have to think, 'Okay, now what are the first job I had to do? Cry. Okay, how to find milk? Oh, there it is.' You can tell how things... yeah, how do they know? You like so much of it is dependent on this sense of control and knowing.

Guru Ji says the tree is not deciding where to go with its next branch. But what I'm saying is beyond like these ideas of deciding and not deciding, doing and not doing. We got Kabir Ji who jumps over the moon of their intellect. You feel like our concepts, our notions, may help us, but until it is constricted, seen to be constricting, what can you say for certain? But also, he's dead, that we can... you did see this all the way. What is the distance between alive and dead? With the best part of this not being the person, yeah. First, that personality dies only when you're invested in it. The distance between any two notions that we might have, as real as they may seem, is just a thought. The difference in life and death is just a notion, a thought. Being and not-being is this most money. This is what you're having a bit of dishum-dishum about, that you know, I say, 'What can you say for certain?' and you may say that 'I can say for certain that I exist.' Of course, we've said it for a long time, but can you really? And by the way, don't get into that trap of the opposite being true. I'm not saying that you don't exist, but I'm not saying that you do. But the existence itself, Maharaj said, is a little... literally not true. Forget 'ultimately'; it gets in the way, then you can postpone it saying 'ultimately'. Hey, we're not truly saying it. 'Not I am' is also not true. 'Here I am' is the first condition. He also calls it an infection you're suffering from, the 'I am' infection. Guru Ji says find that which is before 'I am'. If 'I am' itself was a lieutenant, then I would say before 'I am'. By word Marathi, 'I am' section. Why would Papaji say, 'Who is the one that wakes up?' I become. Don't touch that. I only say these kind of things, you know. There is a small self and a big self. There's no duality; therefore, they must follow be easy. If there is no duality, it means that there is no... the small and big are just representations, but they're not two representations. They never really happen in a small cell, exactly. And then we might get invested in the big one. I am saying throw all investment, right? That's why, again, what Bhagwan said is that knowledge doesn't need to have to be... what is that? The false has to be dropped. So you talk to small cells, then you don't have to pick up the big cells.

Now, there's the sense of existence itself prior to the sense that 'I am'. The body is the suffix you can attach, you see. So it forms the basis for all of these suffixes to come: 'I am the body,' 'I am a woman,' 'I am this way,' 'I am good,' 'I am bad.' Ha ha. The disease is 'I am,' and the basis of 'I am' itself is 'I'. See, now if you don't make any reference to 'I', including reference of being, if something is true, does it need you to make a reference? No. Does it do you? Again, I'm saying Bhagwan said only the false has to be dropped. See, totally naturally there. So it doesn't need your assertion of it being true. In fact, assertion only ends up being the veil. Assertion and negation are the veil. The veil, as we don't allow me to make this foolish assertion, you drop it. Blue, the blue cat. Do you not thought different between W and V? The one less person to talk. I used to... I think the problem comes because of it and you say you drop the very top on the missions. Looks like that you have to do something. Yeah, no, it's not that. That's right. Get over this party. That's a notion. He's looking to support. Game over. Let's party.

Father, what to do when the concept keeps reappearing persistently all day? The concept of me and my relationships.

If something keeps reappearing, like if the concept is 'Why isn't my relationship better?' or 'Why does he this?' whatever the concept around the relationship might be, and if you find that it is super persistent, you see, then you can use that as very good fuel for your inquiry. Only for these persistent thoughts, you can then say, 'Okay, whose relationship is this?' Ask yourself with honesty. Not as a Sadhna, not as an exercise, not to be free from this. You would ask yourself honestly, 'Whose is this? Who is this I that I'm speaking of?' And then when these concepts come, 'Then will I be free from this? When will I be free from this?' Ask yourself, 'Oh, who has to become free? Who is this I?' And I usually recommend that if these persistent concepts are there, and inquiry is part of your temperament, if it doesn't feel too alien to you, then don't leave the inquiry until the notion becomes laughable. At least laughable or nothing. And this is not, again, not about the constant reappearing of them. What I'm reading in your question is that when they appear, you end up believing them. You end up believing the limitation of yourself. Only for those, this is coming in. Boy, we see that even the love comes from the I-D's appearance about Tom. No fantasy 'I'. In what way? What comes from the 'I'? Love, laugh, I got put in what way? License? Oh, that's another notion you're using. Yeah, you can leave that. Like what you're using is a notion, then another notion of what you're usually using, and like this kind of thing. But sometimes a more spontaneous laughter inside. Papaji used to say that you can't laugh and think at the same time. Inquiry sort of doesn't... yeah, those must be looked at as a sentence that if you put... you just like use the inquiry again, only power of that temperament which is ideal to think where all of these instructions only for do. If you use inquiry just for things which you know... okay, I thought I'm a coconut, but who am I really? Quasi-nautical. Come, do is right. 'Why can't people understand me? Why can't people understand me?' Look into who's this 'me' that people can't understand. And the mind will keep telling you that the problem that has to be solved is on that side. Nothing that has to be solved is with the people. 'I have to explain to them,' or 'People themselves are bad,' or something like that, you see. Some conclusion to stop inquiring. And again, all of this, all of these recommendations are only for those notions which we end up believing and they seem like they are so true, so potent, and we don't remain in our motionlessness. So all these motions especially we can use as fuel for our inquiries.

A belief is something that we take to be true. Something that we take to be true is the belief, and a person is nothing but a bundle of beliefs. So to be rid of this personhood, all our belief system has to be thrown out. And if you have the special beliefs which we hold close to us, that's where a limited idea of ourselves will hide. And I think that in Satsang, what is revealed to us is that we don't even realize how much we still know. What do you take to be true? So start with that. There it is so much. You start with that. Whatever app you start with them, just see that that's just a notion, just a thought. Then what else would you take to be true? That you are... haven't thought your big heart. So forget that yet. All this, even concepts, unborn appearance of 'I' and the veil. What do you take to be true? What I'm saying is we step back from these ideas of solving and not solving them. So don't fall into either of the opposite because you don't have to solve anything. And it's like you can take a new position, you know, 'Hey, I have to solve something,' comes in with that, you see. But empty of either of these positions, then the wrong... in any case, this instrument is moving on its own, you see. The power that animates it is not individual as you think it is. Just like the waves are moving by the power of the ocean itself. But it seemed like the wave has to do something to move; it has to go this way, that way, high enough, low enough. This body, which is the waves of the ocean, and those answers that 'I will have to do like that' or 'Now I don't have to do that,' it is still making itself the doer. I do lotion. Got it? That's why do we... if it doesn't bring you to emptiness, then it's still a notion. Whatever I'm saying, if it doesn't bring you to radical openness, radical emptiness, then it is a new construction of the limited identity.

Very radically, yummy. Not believing the notions that arise or becoming totally motionless. Or as gurus are, not believing. I will do the thoughtlessness part for you. Do you allow the mind to come and go? I will do the Maharaj for you. Dean, do you sing? Be like the ocean. But what if these leaves of creative things come up to solve some problems, you know? Why does it not cause? Yes, it's absolutely fine. All right, this is your creation. I mean, the motions are your aspects as the Self: the creative part, the preservative part, and the destructive part are all aspects of you. Did you play in this video? All this is metaphorical, then. Don't let me take it too literally. These are just representations because we have to point at these things that I found level point in time and say, 'Okay, this is creation, this is preservation, this is destruction.' There'll be some change in the behavior. The faith looks like you're losing all the references before you hear it, before you hear that you... because there you cannot meet it as 'me' because the 'me' left the key. There is no ego now. I want to pick that mascot, then you cannot resolve God pretending to be 'me' wanting to find God is not it. Leave effort behind and leave known as work. Leave these monitors' idea. There is no such thing as doer. The truth that I'm pointing to is not subject to the opposites of true and false. Is he still in that game of asserting, negating? I know for a while it can seem like this is the only way that we can function, only through our intern.

Because the moment after the key, there is no ego. Now, I want to pick that up. Then you cannot resolve God pretending to be me wanting to find God. It is not it. Leave effort behind and leave known as work. Leave these monitors, ideas. There is no such thing as doership. The truth that I'm pointing to is not subject to the opposites of true and false. Is he still in that game of asserting and negating? I know for a while it can seem like this is the only way that we can function, only through our intellect. These are nothing for you recently. So come inside, believe your mind don't. It's a good... the additional stories in the invitation make jumpin' that dumb site. Believe your mind don't too much. Being is not just about that. And just focus on the stillness. All of those cuts, all of us poking the green, not a penis. And even this is piercings, yes.

And the end of this question of if you want a violent kitty, right us? But you know, there are things to be solved, problems to be figured out. Is it best to just let everything reserve for spontaneous action? Because normally when we act, we act out of memory and conditioning. So every moment of freshness... so someone says something and you make a decision, it's always a deductive thing, even an intuitive thing. It always comes as a product of conditioning and memories forever. And I don't think loving what is... so you're completely there and this is the next moment. If you want to shoot someone, you shoot someone. If she gives, she said someone asked, 'What if you know all this stuff is fine, but what if you're walking on the stage and some robber comes and grabs your daughter and steals her?' What's important? Would you say, 'Aha, everything is good'? The 'you' was the friendly face. She says no, spontaneous action that could be shooting them, was cursing it, or just whatever happens. But it comes out spontaneously out of no memory. It is what you keep pointing us to. Every moment is finished. This is just a building, but it's a good guide for me about spontaneous action, spontaneous solutions without conditioning.

If that is what children do, they make a data sometimes between this is not a spontaneous only produces about returning to that innocence. There you call it averts Jesus, who says only the babes will enter the kingdom of heaven. Or this is an Zen master who says come to your beginner mind. It's empty of all of this baggage, all our judgments and interpretations. He amateur, he might feel like I'm emptiness from interpretations. What is it that is not an interpretation? I see how much we have layered on top of what is. I have let the primal interpretation that 'I exist' itself is the primal interpretation. And that culture is not there are ways exactly. But you don't even have to reason your way out of it. You don't have to reason your way out of it because it is. It's fine at a certain point, but now what I'm telling you is more direct, more immediate.

Initially, it is okay. Come find that which is unchanging and stay with that. That is fine. But now I'm saying that even the idea of existence is just notional. Then the idea of existence is just notional. That this implies existence, that something implies existence, is just for a baby. There is no being in Lodi. So leave all these dualities behind. Better Advaita, all these opposites: cause and effect, time and space, something leads to something, something is happening or not happening, somebody is doing or not doing. Even 'I exist' or 'don't exist,' even here and there, up and down, good and bad, true and false—everything is just a trap of limitation. All this duality is just limited. And don't you make knowing out of not knowing. I don't even know that you don't or you do.

I don't believe in belief. I know that you are it, but speaking phenomenally also, I have to say that I come in these days and I find all of you very... where you put an empty. I don't know how it is outside, somehow or something like that.

If I was to speak phenomenally in a worldly way for a moment, I feel very, very happy with how much of how much you have... how much that you considered to be true until now seems to lose him through a lot of it. Yeah, that's speaking the worldly view for another. Okay, it's yes. One of the teachers I went to used to say that if you gather together with this openness in your heart, my presence is always there. See that any time then we gather, we also feel like, okay, let's use this as an opportunity to let go, to share things which you know about Sangha or about the Master or about any notional thing. Anything in the world is double its own. You can... this is a benefit of having a Satguru. Then it shows a motive as if it becomes some gossip session. The main thing when it can be this concept, we can be that. So as you meet, as you get together, treat it like that. Isn't it worth it? Instead of... because life has so many opportunities for the rest of you too. But if you call yourselves the Sangha, then immerse. Feel like with the meeting of some guy happens, that's why that is a Sangha to which you can say that Sangham Sharanam Gachhami—that I go in the refuge of the Sangha. That into something. This is the support of Sangha that you are talking about.

So it's very nice to meet and sing bhajans. To disturb it, it becomes about having modern notions about each other and how we are, how we're not, and discounts that is no longer a Sangha meeting. Do you say to people, 'Two or more people gather in my name and I am right between them'? In fact, a very good Sangha gathering will be if you would play the game, it's just at all other than meeting. And if they just talk to anyone and everyone together, that's true, that's helpful. We can be supportive in that way of each other also, reminding each other of our just notions.

This is chapter 26 of the Ribhu Gita. I shall explain the existence-consciousness-supreme bliss which is ever joy by its own virtue. It is by itself the core of the essence of all the Vedas and the Puranas. There is no difference, duality of pairs of opposite characters, no difference and nothing devoid of differences. This alone is supreme Brahman, afflictionless, unattainable by knowledge. This verse itself is potent enough to drive away all ignorance. There is no difference, duality of pairs of opposites, no difference and nothing devoid of differences. This alone is supreme Brahman, afflictionless, unattainable by knowledge. There is nowhere anything as 'this alone am I.' Nothing that is decayless, nothing beyond the beyond. This alone is supreme Brahman, afflictionless, unattainable by knowledge.

And this knowledge is what? It is not conceptual knowledge. It is that truth which is apparent as the empty of notions. What is this self-knowledge or Atma Gyan? It is not to pick up a lot of concepts. It is freeing yourself of notions and seeing this true knowledge, capital K, which is just apparent and it never comes and goes. There is no outside, no inside, no 'I,' no will, and no form. There is no outside, no inside, no 'I,' no will, or no form. This alone is supreme Brahman, afflictionless and unattainable by knowledge. Pick one of these and accept it. Accept that there is no outside. One time it is enough. Please be open to it. So here, because it's good hearing directions at a train station, not as if you're hearing some kind of physical... like you asking where should I go? Anything. There is no outside, inside.

There is no truth, man who has renounced, no accounts, no corruption of values. There is no truth, man who has renounced, no accounts, no corruption of values. This alone is supreme Brahman, afflictionless, unattainable by knowledge. There is no quality, no qualified statement, no mental certitude, no japa, no limitation, nothing for wielding and unreal foods. There is no quality, no qualified statement, no mental certitude, no japa, no limitation, nothing for wielding and unreal foods. There is no guru, no disciples, nothing fixed, nothing auspicious or inauspicious, nothing uniform or of different form, no liberation and nothing that binds. There is no guru, no disciple, nothing fixed, nothing auspicious or inauspicious, nothing uniform or of different form, no liberation and nothing that binds.

There is no meaning for the word 'aham' or the word 'that,' no senses nor the objects, no doubt, nothing trifling, no certitude nor anything named. There is no meaning for the word 'aham' or the word 'that,' no senses nor the objects, no doubt, nothing trifling, no certitude nor anything named. There is nothing of the form of peace, no non-duality, nothing above nor below, no trade, no sorrowful body, no pleasure and nothing fickle. There is nothing of the form of peace, no non-duality, nothing above nor below, no trade, no sorrowful body, no pleasure and nothing fickle. There is no body, no sign by the cause nor the absence of cause, no sorrow, no conclusion, no 'I,' nothing mysterious and no transcendental state. There is no body, no sign by the cause nor the absence of cause, no sorrow, no conclusion, no 'I,' nothing mysterious and no transcendental state.

There is no karma that is accumulated nor that that is yet to be realized, no truth, no you or I, no ignorance, no knowledge, no dance and no conduct. There is no karma that is accumulated nor that is yet to be realized, no truth, no you or I, no ignorance, no knowledge, no dance and no conduct. There is no base hell, no conclusion, no liberation and nothing purified, no craving, no learning, no 'I,' no knowledge and no deity. There is no base hell, no conclusion, no liberation and nothing purified, no craving, no learning, no 'I,' no knowledge and no deity. There is no sign of the auspicious or the inauspicious, no death nor life, no satisfaction, nothing enjoyable, no undivided unitary existence and no non-duality. There is no sign of the auspicious or the inauspicious, no death, no life, no satisfaction, nothing enjoyable, no undivided unitary essence and no non-duality.

There is no will, no world, no wakefulness or serenity. There is no will, no world, no wakefulness or serenity. Not even a trifle of the defect of equality or whatever, no delusion of counting the fourth state. Not even the trifle of the defect of equality, whatever, no delusion of counting the fourth state. There is no all or impure, nothing adorable, no morality, no worship, no world, no plurality, no admixture of other scenes. There is no satsang or lack of satsang, no Brahman, no inquiry, no practice, no speaker, no ablution and no holy waters. There is no satsang or lack of satsang, no Brahman, no inquiry, no practice, no speaker, no ablution and no holy waters.

There is no merit nor there is sin, no actions causing defects, nothing related to the self, nothing related to the physical, nothing related to the divine. There is no merit, nor there is sin, no actions causing defects, nothing related to the self, nothing related to the physical, nothing related to the divine. There is no birth or death anywhere, no states of waking, dream and sleep, nor realm of the earth or the netherworld, victory or defeat. There is no birth or death anywhere, no states of waking, dream and sleep, no realm of the earth or the netherworld, no victory or defeat. There is no wretched, no fear nor sensuality, no quick death, nothing unthinkable, no one's guilt nor the delusion of sacred law.

There is no quality such as the stream of the active or the excessive darkness, nor share wisdom, no Vedanta, no sacred duty, no sacred study nor the related interest. There is no bondage nor liberation either, no whole sentence, no characteristics of identity. There is no bondage or liberation either, no sentence, no characteristics of identity. No female form, no male form, no condition of being neither male or female, no permanent state. There is no praise, no slander, no hymns, verily no eulogy, nothing worldly, nothing pertaining to the Vedas, no scripture nor any commandment. There is no drinking, no emaciation, none of this, no joy, no arrogance or the absence of it, no more or the lack of it, no caste, no name and no form. There is nothing outstanding, nothing is, no prosperity now.

At the stage of our liberation, there is no sentence, no characteristics of identity, no female form, no male form, no condition of being neither male nor female, no permanent state. There is no place, no slander, no hymns, verily no eulogy, nothing worldly, nothing pertaining to the Vedas, no scripture, nor any commandment. There is no drinking, no emaciation, none of this. No joy, no arrogance or the absence of it. No more or the lack of it. No caste, no name, and no form. There is nothing outstanding, nothing is. No prosperity, nor verily the opposite of it. No blemishness or excretion, no individual soul or control of mind. There is no manifestation of peace, nothing attainable, no peace, no restraint of senses and mind, no sport, no part of existence, no transformation, and no defect. There is nothing whatsoever in the least. There is nothing whatsoever in the least. Nothing of the 'I' anywhere, nothing of what is called Maya, nothing associated with Maya, no righteousness anywhere in the least, no persecution of the Dharma.

There is no youth, no boyhood, no senility, no death and such. No relatives, no one unrelated, no friend and nobody. There is all, there is no all, nothing in the least. No Rama, no Keshava, no Vishnu, no Shiva, no guardians of the eight cardinal directions. No experiencer of the waking state, of the dream state; there is no experiencer of deep sleep or the fourth state. No Brahmana, no Kshatriya or the highly learned. This is indeed supreme among the afflictions, this nectar of knowledge. There is nothing that is reborn, nothing to manifest to the future. There is no manifestation of the worldly lives. There is no appearance of time, no 'I', there is no reason for dialogue. There is no above, no inner faculty, no talk of just consciousness, no duality that 'I am Brahman', no duality that 'I am just consciousness'. There is no above, no inner faculty, no talk of just consciousness, no duality that 'I am Brahman', no duality that 'I am just consciousness'.

There is no sheath of food, no sheath of vital air, or mind of that, all that which is not sheath. No sheath of intellect, no sheath of bliss. As separate, there is nothing of the form of instruction, nothing to be instructed, none to teach here. It is all illusory. There is not to be persecuted, none to persecute. Being illusory, I know no illusory knowledge based on the triads, nor mobile knowledge. There is none to measure, no standards of measure, nothing to be measured, no fruits arising. This alone is the supreme among the afflictions, this nectar of knowledge. This is Ribhu Gita, and somebody needs a testimony. It's too bad because here it will become... it is said here that 'Is there a book while reading which the reader feels increasingly drawn towards his own Self, even if it is the very first spiritual book that he reads? The book which you're holding in your hand is certainly one such.' There is no greater testimony to the unique value of Ribhu Gita than the fact that Bhagavan Ramana himself told one of his little-educated devotees, Sampoorna, 'It does not matter if you don't understand the book, just go through it. It will be of immense benefit to you.' Bhagavan would often say that the recitation of Ribhu Gita is as good as Samadhi and would himself take part in the recitation.

So let us read, chant, and be absorbed in His grace. That one is to always recommend chapter 26 specially. With Ribhu Gita, reading is highly recommended. Everything that was negated is, and all this is on me and Ribhu Gita. It's so beautiful, the exact opposite effect. It's a beautiful device because it first takes you and negates everything, and in it is born the opposition, and both go. The whole chapter could be the exact opposite, but from a whole different perspective, before everything is then written in as me floating here. The essence of it is that we break the bounds of it being this or that, or both, or neither. Because this is what I can call it: the box of the intellect in which there are all of these claims and non-claims, or assertion and the negation. Now I really feel like showing all of you that that is just a tiny little box. It is just a dollhouse in which we think that we actually exist, but actually it is so.

You know, maybe why chapter 26 is so good is because it negates all that as spiritual seekers you have built up. We have built up that 'this is Brahman, this is Shiva, this is Krishna, there is this' and we come to chapter 26 and it says... I mean, a little after saying that this is supreme among afflictions, this unattainable by knowledge, in the Ribhu Gita it also says there is no Brahman. So this breaking this 'this way or that way' construct, this box of the intellect that it is this or it is not this, or it is both this and that, or it is neither—these are all just words we throw into the fire. But you are much broader than all of this. And I feel grateful for any time that an intellect hears these words, because to have anyone open to hearing something like this itself is quite a release.

Because we just feel like, 'Oh, it is this or it is that or it is both or it is neither.' All of that. And it can feel like, 'But what is existence without this?' You just strip away all of these interpretations, all of these notions, and you feel like, 'But then if I can't tell up from down, then how will I live? How is this even helping me?' But our 'me' is made up of all of these constructs. The idea of our individuality is made up of all of these constructs. And in our attempt to grasp at even the words of Ribhu Gita, you will find that we assert or negate. We say 'both are true' or 'both are false.' So it gives you no place for the 'me' to hide, no place for the 'me' to hang from. So it's very, very beautiful to talk beyond these boundaries of true and false, of even existence and non-existence.

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to say, 'Nothing has ever happened.' He was not talking about something and nothing in the way we think of it. When you hear 'nothing has ever happened,' you feel like everything is dark. And it is not that. It is not in those opposites of something and nothing. This cannot be described to you in words. But the best part is, it doesn't have to be. As long as you are willing to let go of your notions of something and nothing, the vibrancy of this play through you seems so natural. You don't need to be able to describe it. In fact, if you are describing it, mostly it is mixed up with some qualities. So just throw your head into it. No need to get it, to understand, 'Oh, what is it? What is it about?' You might feel like you get some Jnana, some knowledge out of it, but it is not that. First admit that you have not understood anything. To come into everything that you think you know, in that, you don't have to know.

Okay, what if I define... you make a knowing out of it, then you're gone. A simple way to look at it is to say that if you ask Siri or Alexa the meaning of life, as far as I know, you support this program that way. The meaning of life is 'Why did the chicken cross the road?' So just go to the mind. If the mind has a good answer, see whether it truly represents some truth or something like that. Thank you all so much for being in Satsang today. Satguru Samadhi Baba Ki Jai. Gurudev Ki Jai.