Can Any Concept Truly Represent What Is? - 7th Jan 2019

Okay, so what can you see? I know it's there, but what can you see? Let me see if we can go together. No, we can walk together hand in hand. We see whether we check whether what you see—whether it's true that you don't see the truth. So, what do you actually see?

Yes, we can silence.

Yes, this is good. So, you see the silence, isn't it? Isn't it so? This 'you' that sees the silence, you are aware of it or no?

I'm not aware of it, but I know there's something seeing the silence, and yet it is you, yes.

Is it so? You are not unaware of it, because otherwise you would not be able to confirm that it is you. It's just that you cannot perceive it, isn't it? The struggle is just that we cannot perceive it, is it? So, this not finding is actually the finding. Okay, this is not just word games. Okay, this not finding because I cannot find it perceptually, I cannot perceive it, you see? And yet I cannot deny that I am perceiving the silence or I am perceiving the world or whatever we can say, you see? So, we did not find it using our senses, and yet it is clear that it is I, you see? So, this clarity independent of perception, you see, is the recognition of the Self, you see? You will never recognize yourself as an object, you see? You will never recognize yourself through perception, you see? You will just look like this and you will see, 'I am witnessing and yet I'm not witnessing this I, I'm not perceiving this I.' And yet I cannot deny it. How does that happen, you see? So, this is what I would say: you are aware of it, you see? But if you are saying you are not aware of it, you are possibly speaking that you are not aware of it as a perception, yes, you see? But actually, you are aware that you are witnessing, you see? So, this 'you' that is witnessing, to see that 'I am witnessing, that I am aware' without a perception of it or without just picking up a concept that 'I am aware', you see, is self-recognition. There is nothing else but this. So, there's an idea that self-recognition implies any other byproduct or some other perception. It is not that. Those could be the fireworks on the side or not fireworks on the side, you see? So, don't worry about those, you see? So, that is why I've been asking: who perceives this hand? You see, you cannot perceive that one, and yet you cannot deny that that one is you, isn't it? So, this non-perceptual recognition is it, which is beyond your senses, beyond anything the mind can—is the only self-recognition, see?

When you first time I said be a statue, then I knew from where I was looking, which was not clear at all. At all.

You knew from where you were looking?

Yeah, I know from looking. Unless that happens, you know, in your presence or with your help, you help us and you push us there, you know, and then you know from where you're looking. And it always doesn't happen like that because, you know, this habit to—

But can it happen now? It can happen now. So, forget about 'always'. You are so caught up in—I said to someone that this perceiving is not captured every time. This is the thing: you will not be able to push the one which has a history, which has a story, into freedom. No, you cannot. It can't have. You can't go to the past and say that, you know, I've been doing that also. The future—

And the future, okay, so past and future gone now. What is there now? But see, how long did I have to say—

Long is gone, no? Huh? Long is gone. Past and future is gone. I'm telling you, I'm telling you, for those who have not—for those that which is so evident has not become very clear in your presence, by grace it has become clear. But it is not happening all the time, I can tell you. So, I have to make an effort.

Ah, I'm seeing, I'm seeing. Because caught up in perception, caught up in perceiving content, content, you know, that's what's happening. So, the Self is recognizing the Self, you see? The Self is not in time. So, that's why when we want to keep something always, then we are already picking up the idea of somebody in time, you see? I know that what you're saying to you sounds very valid. I know that it sounds very valid that this is how it is, this is what happens in time. I'm telling you, time is a fraud. Yes, there is no such thing as time. At that time, there's no time. No, no, not at that time there is no—because if there was no time only at that time, there would be time. Yeah, looks like, you see, then there would be time if only there was no time at certain times. It's not riddles. I forget about to say—I have to say awareness aware of itself. Awareness aware of itself is the highest accomplishment and yet no accomplishment, no accomplishment. So, awareness is aware of itself. So, I'm not caught up in the content, I'm not the marketplace, I'm not seeing this, that, that, seeing that, and you're not caught up in time.

I'm not caught up in time, but it's not happening all the time.

See, what will it take to lose this notion of time? You have to pick up a notion, yeah? Is it? So, when you say that it is not with me every time or not my experience every time, what do you become in that story? You started by saying awareness is aware of itself, you see? Now, when you say it is not my experience every time, are you still speaking of awareness?

Then I'm talking about the play, the play of Consciousness, you know, going to the marketplace and seeing everything.

Yeah, so are you in the play?

I'm not in the play.

Are you in time?

No, I'm not in time.

Then what changes for you with time? That doesn't change, but the attention is moving here, there, everywhere. Attention is the mother of time in a way, you see? So, that's what it's meant to do: give birth to time. So, don't worry about that, you see? So, are you caught up in it? Are you caught up in where attention goes? Can you be?

I'm in a state of hypnosis when I'm caught up with content.

And who now? Who is this 'I'? Awareness gets hypnotized? No, only Consciousness. Consciousness gets hypnotized. Okay, say it gets hypnotized. What is the hypnosis? Hypnosis is it's going towards the crime scene all the time. That is what you're speaking of: attention. Now, what is the hypnosis you're speaking of? The identity it takes itself to be something that it is not, yes? Does it ever have any truth? So, if we keep saying that the untrue is a problem that we have to solve, then the untrue will be given more truth than it deserves, isn't it? You see? But I want to stay here. This one is not you. This one is not—this one is, you see, the one that wants to stay is not the one that naturally stays. Because you cannot want what you already have. So now, this what you're taking to be your true voice is not your true voice. The one that wants to stay is not a true—it is the voice of the made-up one, you see? You bought a doll in the dollhouse, you gave it all these attributes and qualities and believed them to be true, you see? Now this doll wants to become God. What can we do to make it God? Easy home, stay here, stay here, stay here. Easy home, don't leave. Not like that. Outside distracting, you know? So, if I tell you and you hear it like a baby, that inside and outside are not true, will you hear it? Yes, yes, is it? Because in all of these representation and my headphones—so the minute we introduce any notions, you see, which are in the realm of opposites—got it, missed it, inside, outside, true, untrue—then again we seem to be caught. Now, I know that it can sound like I'm denying what is your experience. It can sound like that, that I'm denying what is your experience, but actually I'm not denying your experience. I'm denying your interpretation of your experience, you see? Because if this truth was that flimsy that it actually came and went because attention is here or there, then this truth would not be worth it, you see? If it came and went depending on the whims of attention, then it would not be a worthwhile truth. So, this one that is aware, as you say, of awareness itself, is it—what change is it undergoing? Bring your attention to whatever you like and see if this undergoes a change. It doesn't, you see? You're still holding on to somebody who is owning this. This is the thing. And that one, it is just made up. So, that one will always say, 'Yes, yes, here it's easy, there it's not easy.' This is what changes. And you laugh at this. You laugh at this because who is it referring to? You, as you said, for awareness nothing changes. Inside, outside, all of it is just sensations, appearances coming and going. Then for whom does it change? Now, what is your allegiance to this made-up one? Had enough or no? Enough? Then forget it. Don't try to feed anything to this made-up one.

But what will happen when I leave?

So, do you have allegiance to that one that will leave? You have allegiance to that one that is sitting here? Sitting—nobody's sitting and nobody will leave. So, then this doubt when it will come from the mind, 'But what will happen when I leave?' That is talking about no one. For clarity is not enough sometimes. There's so much clarity, see. Clarity is not there.

It's a made-up one. 'I had enough' or 'not enough'—then forget it. Don't try to feed anything to this made-up one. But what will happen when I leave? So, do you have allegiance to that one that will leave? You have allegiance to that one that is sitting here. Sitting? Nobody's sitting and nobody will leave. So then this doubt, when it will come from the mind, 'But what will happen when I leave?'—that is talking about no one. For clarity is not enough sometimes. There's so much clarity. See, clarity is not there now. Clarity is a state. Clarity is a state. You are not subject to state. Whether it is clarity or it is blurry, both are perceived, isn't it? Everything that is perceived is a state. See, whether it's A or Z, you see, both are perceived. Don't make a preference of one over the other. Make no distinctions. No distinctions. Distinction means concept. Concept means conceptualizing mind. Conceptualizing mind means a false representation. That's what we started with: Can any concept truly represent what is?

What distinction do you have to make for what's the discovery now? The truth is here or the truth is missing? Can the truth go missing? The label itself appears. The label itself does what? Trying to call it truth or not truth itself is a label, you see. Itself is a label. So, having seen through that, then that doesn't also bother us. Having seen through that, then that also doesn't bother us. But you have a sense of what is being asked is open and empty. Yes? Okay, you accept that premise. Then don't make anything difficult. Open and empty is the same as make no distinctions, is the same as to remain in the Unborn, is the same as don't believe an exhaled thought. It's all the same stuff, just put in different whatever seems not true. The same as to remain in your notionless existence. It's the same as God now versus me now. All these pointers are the same. Tell me something which is true. It is always here, always here, always here. Okay, truth is always here, or 'is' is always here, you see. So 'is' because it just is. So what else could be needed now?

The absence of things—it's not necessarily, confirm if this is what you're saying—it's not necessarily the absence of the appearance of thoughts, you see. It's just the absence of us treating them to be valid representations of reality, isn't it? So that is why we can inquire into them or surrender them, whatever still feel like they are valid representations, you see. So how about we start with this one? You see, because 'I must have come to the absence of thoughts itself' is also a thought. So we start with this one. You see, this one is gone, then let you stop believing. Yes? Okay, give me three that you want to stop believing in.

I told you, 'I am a human being.'

That's it. That should cover it, actually. It's the root, huh? It's the root. The root, yes, is the root. Is it? I-am-ness is what we call being. To add anything on top of being is to create separation. Because if you say you are just a human being, then you're saying you're not the existence of space, you see. You're not the existence of everything else that you perceive. There is separation between you and the rest. But being is this that is right now. Is being, is it? So this beingness has no trouble when we draw any line, you see, that makes separation. And it is conceptual. It's always conceptual. Now, these concepts have been thrust on us, see, thrust on us in this play. These conditions have been believed so much that it can feel like when they show up again, it can feel like, 'Yes, this is true. This is familiar.' And that's why it can feel like, 'Yes, this really still means something,' is it?

So when this notion comes and we say, 'Yes, this is true,' you're saying that 'I know this is that. I know this. This is fact. I know this for a fact.' But if you start examining those things which you think are facts, you see that you'll struggle to find a single fact. So whether we look at it this way—Who am I? or Can the perceiver be perceived?—is it, is it, or we remain open and empty? Both are the same because in both cases, truth is apparent. You only suffer from something that you think you know. Try suffering without knowing anything. Suppose you had a best friend and you wanted to play a prank on this best friend just to make them suffer and laugh at them as real, like these game shows do. Could you do it? How would you do it? You have to make them believe, huh? In something. You have to make them believe, isn't it? Something. I have to make them believe something. Without that, you can't make them suffer. You can give them pain, but suffering cannot happen. For suffering, you need a notion.

What is this? April Fool's Day pranks? Or when we were growing up, we used to have these before there was caller ID. So you just call your friends and just pretend to be, you know, somebody and say, 'You need to go there with your ID for something.' You know, some pranks you can come up with. If they don't believe it, they can't suffer. So you try to sell the story more and more, saying, 'But it's true, you have to, it's urgent.' The mind is like this prankster best friend. What is the prank? For me, the prank—the existence of the limited self—is the greatest prank you pulled on yourselves. The belief in the idea, the notion of the limited self, is the greatest April Fool's Day joke. But it depends on your belief. What is the... the other day somebody told me, 'Believe, believe,' and what does it say, the full thing? So everyone hears... I don't believe in... no, somebody said to him, what did they say? In an interaction he said, 'I don't believe in believing.' Now you have to suffer notionlessly. And if you succeed, tell me. Yeah, even that can be the notion. So many spiritual seekers are suffering from this notion. Suffer without a word. What happens sometimes in life? Tears come without a word. They come, you see. What do we call them? Oh, happy tears. For what did Papa say? To be happy you need nothing, but to be unhappy you definitely need a thought.

Tell me something which is not a notion. Is the one that comes after birth? But 'I'm aware that you are aware' is also a notion. At best, it's a pointer. See, even this is not the truth. Even truth, even the notion 'truth' is not true, you see. At best, they are pointers. At best, they are thoughts. Sorry. So fundamentally, the false, the con, or the trick is this 'I' thought, isn't it? Is it the 'I' thought? It's okay for now. Does 'I' have to refer to something? Say it to yourself. Say 'I'. Who is it referring to? I. I who? Is whatever is most primal in your language, you see. Whatever language your mind speaks in, say 'I' in that language. Who is it referring to? Who's making the sound? Who's making the sound to say 'I'? What is making? What does it mean, making? Making means cause and effect, yes? Like a production process. What are the raw materials for this making? If all is 'I', then the product is 'I'. But we see this, like even these ideas that something is making something else, is it? Where does it come from? Everything is in time, all of these motions.

Dear Ananta, there is a kind of certitude felt in the process that truth always embraces me, a conviction growing day by day. Any alertness to be kept around this? Let the truth embrace you so much that there is no 'me' left. See, take a dip in this Ganga so much that you don't come out. That the one who presumably took the dip does not actually return. Because the truth actually has nothing for this 'me', you see. The truth has nothing for this 'me'. So let it embrace you completely and see if you can let go of this embrace. Is it even possible for the truth to leave? It's just that we stop giving credence to the pretense of falsity. We stop believing in the notion of the 'me', see. Your only struggle will be when you want to hold both hands. Now you want to stand on both truth and 'me'. So anything that needs any sort of knowing to be kept alive, let go of that. Reality cannot go. Once all notions of reality go, reality cannot go. But what goes once all notions go, that is called false.

What notion are you scared of losing? 'My life.' It's a hilarious idea, actually. Big one, big joke. My life. Either you don't know anything about this 'my' or you don't know 'life'. We don't know. And yet as a combination, we seem to know. 'Me'—we looked, we can't find. 'Life'—what is life? Can anyone tell me what is life? That we don't know. When you put it together, 'my life', then it's just become that fairy tale, that story. It started there, then it became this, then it became that. I wonder what will become next. This is what I wanted to become. All of these stories come, you see. But deconstructed, pulled apart, it's nothing. It just sounds. This 'my' is who? This 'I' is who? It's just a sound. It's nobody, you see. It's nobody. It is just a noise, 'I'. And then so much conditioning has been put on top of this 'I'. I am this, I am that, I like this, I don't like that. So it seems to have become the protagonist. So then what we try and do is we move, we try to move it away from the false 'I' and try to bring it to the true 'I', you see. But to bring it to the true 'I' actually means to drop all references to 'I'. As long as we still have this notion that 'I was the false, now I'm the Absolute or truth' or something like that, that is still a version, is it? It's still only a representation, you see.

When Guruji leads us to the 'I-ness', he says, 'Are you separate from this?' and we say no, because genuinely we're not. I don't feel I'm separate from this. So when he says, 'Is it separate from you?' No, I'm not separate. And yet that 'I' which is not separate, where would you point to that? Would you say it is bound or unbound, limited, unlimited? Nothing, is it? So it loses all references.

It's true. Just... I still use the 'I' feeling because I feel it's me. It's not separate from what I am.

Yes. So then is it a feeling? Let's dig. So let's see. Is it a feeling? This which is always here is kind of... what do you mean by that? Let's look. It's okay. Yes. So what is always here? I cannot say it's a physical feeling. It's not a physical feeling. Is it a feeling of any sort, like with a quality? I would say that if I had to put a quality on 'I', I would say to be aware, or to know. To know, you see. But to know, you see, is it like... does it have any taste? No. Not a mental... yes. So this undeniable which we said you cannot... unperceivable but undeniable, is it? Now this, does it have any like notion of absoluteness? No. Does it have any notion of anything like any... it? No. It's true that I couldn't even say 'I', you see. You can't even say 'I' about it. And yet you cannot deny that it is you. Like if you had to use some term, then that it is 'I' or it is 'you'. See, it comes naturally like that. But even that, you see, is like a stretch because you have to say something about it. So it's a stretch. So you have to say, 'Okay, this is...' You see, that's why so many actually struggle because you say there is no 'I' there, but then I have to say, 'But aren't you witnessing?' Is it? Then you say, like, 'Who's witnessing? There's no I there,' you see, because we feel like we're still representing the ego as 'I' or something. But then if I said it is a third-party information, you say, 'No, no, it's direct,' you see. So it is you, and yet this 'you' does not have a reference, is it? And does not have any... it is not making any distinction between even witness and witnessing. All of these also then merge in that, isn't it? All of these. There are no distinctions left in this. It is not 'no', 'unreal', 'real'. It's not saying like that. These were tools that we use, provisional truths that we use to get us to see this that makes no distinction. So any conceptual representation of this 'I' does not match up to the truth of it. So now you say that yes, it does not refer to this or that, and yet it is undeniable, see. So that's what I'm also saying. That's what I'm also saying. That it does not refer to this, that, anything in our intellectual conceptual boundaries, you see, does not actually capture it. And yet it is now. Suppose the...

These were tools that we use, provisional truths that we use to get us to see this that makes no distinction. So, any conceptual representation of this 'I' does not match up to the truth of it. So now you say that, yes, it does not refer to this or that, and yet it is undeniable, you see? So that's what I'm also saying. That's what I'm also saying: that it does not refer to this, that anything in our intellectual conceptual boundaries, you see, does not actually capture it, and yet it is. Now, suppose the task was the inverse. So, suppose that when you refer to 'I,' you're supposed to refer to the truth. How would you do it? I represent the truth as I am. How do you do it? Just by being. Nothing special to do, you know? Yeah. Is that a true representation of 'I,' the same one that we were speaking of? So, can the level of activity or inactivity in this appearance lead to some false or true representation of 'I'?

No, I feel that everything that is going on is part of this.

Yes, so there's no distinction. Now, if you had to refer to it, the truth one, how would you do it? See, you've seen all the false claims: 'I am body, I am mind, I am good, I am seeker, I am husband, I am wife, I am this, I am that.' All of these we've seen are false, ephemeral ones that come and go. Now, what is the true representation of it?

'I am' is true, huh? What is, is true. What is this true? What is, is it? What is 'am' be to be you it? But this 'am' is also just like 'I am husband, I am wife.' It also comes and goes, does it?

Yes, it does.

I choose to be. Everything else comes and goes within it, but it's also a lie ultimately. Yeah, I just choose to be these things, roles and yes, and I'm none of these. None of these I could be, but I can—I'm really not. I could.

So, yes, that's how it's usually done. It is defined in the negative, yeah. You see, 'not this, not this' is the usual way to point to 'I.' But what is a positive definition, a positive reference to 'I'? Actually, if you discard 'I am' also, then there's not much else you can say. You see, that's why I'm saying, though it has no reference, then you see, when you don't refer to 'I' as anything at all, then 'I' is the truth, is it? Once you make a representation of 'I,' even in the most primal I-amness, you see, we got into the realm of the comings and the goings. Then you step into the golden cage.

Oh, as soon as you say 'I am'?

Yes, but if you want to be the sky, then forget about 'I am.' Yeah, just Papaji said to one who is the one that wakes up, and this one said, 'I wake up,' referring to the sense 'I am waking up.' See, Papaji said, 'Don't touch that I now. Don't touch the one that woke up. Don't touch the one that will go away and sleep.' Now, what distinctions can survive?

I think the label 'I' itself creates some kind of—the way we use to...

Yes, yes. Use the term 'I' is when you say 'I,' it's created separation already. All this baggage comes with it, like with any term. You see, we say 'banana' and all our experiences with bananas come, you see? Like we, 'Oh, the taste was like this, last time I had it was like that, I used to like it as a kid,' you know, all these kind of things. So, because this 'I' is so charged with identity, you make a reference, it can seem like, 'Oh, it's back,' you see, its limited nature. So, it's a supercharged term in itself. But it's losing its charge in satsang as you're seeing that there is no such limited entity. Then it'll become as playful as light.

On one side you want freedom, okay, this one wants freedom. On the other side, you don't want to give up on your insecurities. Like, you want to have a secured life, you know? Like, you want money, you want family, you want to get married. How is it possible to have both? Both or like, like this one wants freedom, yeah, okay, but you don't want to give up on your—like, you still want to play it safe.

Okay, it's good, it's good. I can understand what you're asking. So, you're still not giving up on your insecurities, or you want to have a secured life. Yes. So, what will give you the more security? So, if you have a house, secure? What if an earthquake comes? Is it still insecure? What can you have that will give you the more security? Right now, it feels like you should have a stable, you know, you should be employed, you should be paid well. But like, there were times when you give up, like, 'Okay, let everything just...' It still happens, you know? But still, you don't want to give up on that.

Yeah. What if I said that freedom is to not take a position this way or that way? You don't have to give up, give up. You don't have to hold, hold. Is it? That's a bit like wobbly for the mind, you see? Like, 'Tell me, should I or should I?' like that, you see? Because these are the opposites that it understands, you see? But somewhere you're hearing me when I say it is neither, neither hold, hold, nor give up, give up. Ease. So, you stay like that. Let this object move around, do whatever it has to. If it is going to, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Possible or that's a very easy thing. Like, you know, when you don't hold up to positive or negative when you're—I'm glad you say it's easy, but then you tend to catch either the positive or the negative. Like, then it's not so easy.

Yeah, this is not easy. Okay, so don't pick up either position that you have to renounce or you have to get. You're not really like that here and now. Meaning, what comes—I mean, what is meant to happen will happen.

Yeah, if that helps, it's fine. That's also like a form of grasping in a sense that it's like saying, 'Yes, I will give up on it, but as long as you tell me it'll be fine.' If there was no guarantee of it working out or not working out...

It's okay, it's okay. There's no guarantee. Because then we can have—otherwise we have an idea of what is fine and what is not fine. And actually, in our life, you can't even recognize what is good for us and what is not, is it? You never recognize. Doership is very strong.

Yeah, so that is this position that 'I have to do,' you see? Because so my life can be secure, so my life can be this way or that way. And I know that at your age, everybody's pressure must be about that also. I can understand. We all grew up with this thing. Can I?

Yeah, of course.

Personally, if you like—we are broadcasting—but if you like now, or if you like know someone there, you know, you're a very restless and agitated person. That's the reason you're finding satsang peaceful. This just—that's the reason you find satsang because you are restless and agitated. That's why you find satsang peaceful. And they are very peaceful, peaceful as it is. So, it is like that. What is the contrast? I don't know. So, if you were already peaceful, then you would not find satsang peaceful. Yeah. So, it's something nice, peaceful. Peace is something nice, that's why you're liking it, you know? It's comforting. And that like hit me really hard because...

Which part? I'm not getting. What is the—is it like a put-down in a way, or what is it?

Is it like you go to satsang just to comfort, like, you know, it's nice, like a holiday, but and freedom doesn't happen to everyone. So just...

Do they have some credibility in this area, or they just randomly speaking in some spiritual...? There, it's more of mind, how to make your mind strong. And whatever I say is like a big opposition, and how can you drop your mind, you know? That's the only thing you live with. For me, it's like...

And the mind that they are speaking of is the same as what we speak of? Because many times the debate comes because of how the term is used also, is it? Because Buddhism, for example, has capital 'M' Mind, which they refer to as pure Consciousness or the beingness itself. So, but when they are trying to make a stronger mind, they're trying to what, manifest and things using mind or this kind of...?

It's like, 'I'm very stupid, I'm telling you. Awakening doesn't happen to everyone. It's only the chosen ones.' You get what's the odds, percentages.

So, once you did like that, is that if the odds are 0.1%, which is pretty small odd, that doesn't happen to everyone. One in a thousand. 0.1 is one in a thousand. So, what is seven billion divided by a thousand? Who is good in math? It's a pretty big number, yeah. Seven million or something. Seven million. Seven million. Why can't you be one in seven million? So, even if it is 0.01, it's 700,000, seven lakhs, you see? You can be one in seven lakhs. Even if it's 0.001, you see, then it's 70,000. You have a chance in 70,000. How many people are in satsang right now in this moment? Right now, it can't be more than 70,000 everywhere in the world at this very moment. So, this is a chance.

Gautama talks about this. He says when you hear that freedom is not for everyone, and you hear that it's just one in a thousand or one in ten thousand, instead of saying, 'But then it's impossible for me,' you say, 'Why can't that one be me?' So, what is the criteria of these chosen ones? I feel like if they are open, if they are humble, if they are not so egoistic, not so sure that what they know is true, this would be very good criteria. The ones who are most certain are the ones that are least likely. Certain about how things are, that they have to be this way or that way. You cannot get it, you see? So much certainty is there.

And what you're saying is actually very unfortunate because most spiritual movements, people go but they don't have the sense that, you see, if you go for Ashtavakra Gita class, it is not the sense that the sage is talking about reality of me. It is from the sense of, 'If I keep hearing this, then maybe after ten, twenty lifetimes I might have a chance.' So, what the sage is saying immediate, right here and now, is speaking of you. You are freedom itself, is it? So, that is why having a master helps. So, if ten thousand people came and told you something and a master comes and tells you something, what would you believe? You know, the ones who are giving you advice to how to be, how to have a better life, how to be free from suffering, then they must themselves be free from suffering to give you that advice.

Completely stuck, then all messed up.

Yeah. So, those who are very much stuck in suffering also enjoy giving a lot of advice to others. It's like, 'No, this is how it's meant to be. Okay, this is the life you have to suffer.' Or it's like, I know, I met these kind of concepts very often. They are very strong. Like, sometimes, 'Oh, maybe they are...' but it goes up. It's like the mind. The mind speaks with so much authority that we end up buying it, you see? The thing is, once you start seeing through the tricks of it, and you don't have to get into that battle at all, that who is doing better in their life, is it? You don't have to get into that paradigm at all.

So, because it can happen because our mind will come and say, 'But they don't know what they're talking about, I'm doing the right thing,' you see? And then we can get into some sort of a spiritual arrogance also, we were talking about the other day, you see? So, presume that this is the first step, but this is where our heart belongs at the moment. You don't have to think that this is some final stage in evolution and 'I'm going to escape the cycle of birth and death.' All of these things can also become very potent concepts for the spiritual ego, is it? So, don't have to believe that you're better off than your friends or anything like that. Just, it's what your heart is drawn to. Just what your heart is drawn to and what feels right in your heart at the moment. Because you're not trying to win or lose or anything like that. It's not that rat race at all.

So, all the conditioning... I keep having these discussions with the person. I just have a look. Whatever it is, we have the grace of having you with us, that's it. That's interesting there. What did she say? I mean, I'm kidding about different temples. Temples, like when we are in the side groups, right? You get those messages of 'There is realized being' and this and this. So, when she tells me that, I know, I just sense that, 'Oh, all those cool things are happening.' We should be happy that we have someone with us, that's it. You just can't understand for...

Let me put it this way for this question. If somebody said to me that, 'I will give you the best that this world has to offer in terms of everything, best things that this world has to offer, but you take back the burden of ego mind, you see, this burden of selfishness back again...'

Of there is realized way and this and this. So when she tells me that, I know, I just sense that, oh, all those cool things are happening. We should be happy that we have someone with us. That's it. You just can't understand. Let me put it this way for this question: if somebody said to me that 'I will give you the best that this world has to offer in terms of everything—best things that this world has to offer—but you take back the burden of ego mind, you see, this burden of selfishness back again,' there's nothing that can make me take that offer. There is memory here of how that used to be, how life used to seem so oppressed and limited under the instructions of this mind. 'Do this, don't do that. What does this one think of me? How could they behave like that?' You know, this was the center of life. Everything was just like 'me, me, me.' And somebody says, 'I'll give you a billion dollars or a palace in Hawaii' or something like that, 'and you just live on the beach the whole day, but you just take this ego back. You live like that but with all the great stuff.' No way. No way.

See, if somebody said to me that to keep this openness, to keep this freedom, you see, you have to go live in the smallest slum in Mumbai or something like that, I say, 'When? Let's go. It's fine.' So this is what, in a way, what Guruji says: nobody that finds this regrets it. You know, 'I want something else, you rather give me that instead.' If I just had this, if you try to make a deal like that, you couldn't convince me with all the good stuff that the world has to offer. Couldn't convince me. This, that, whatever is there. So that shows you that irrespective of what shows up through our senses, fundamentally, that's what it is. What is the experience you will taste through your senses? That's all that all of this play is about. Then that is not so important. To have peace of mind, to have contentment, to have the Satguru's presence with you all the time—these things cannot be bought. These things cannot be replaced.

I could have the best, best things, but what will I do? You see, will I get into all these super spiritual siddhis and all of these superpowers and things like that? What will it give me? If that oppression of the mind is still there, nothing tastes good. Everything is insipid. Everything is so... I don't feel like there's ever been any sage who has said, 'Oh no, take this freedom away. Exchange it for so much money and so many possessions and so much materialistic benefit' or something like that. So the egoic mind goes, and the mind which is there now is a large, creative, much more open—is it much more open? Just very intuitive, just very loving, wishing goodness, yeah, blessing everything, these kind of things. So, yeah, that oppression of the mantra which is 'what's in it for me?'—you see, that goes away. And this, we can feel like our whole life is about that: to get something for this 'me.' But actually, once you lose this idea of 'what's in it for me?' you have so much openness.

And I don't want to speak too much about it because then you say, 'But only when I have all that stuff, then I'm free.' That's starting to put the cart before the horse. So sometimes I have to say like that: that if a genie came or the devil came or a deva came and said, 'This is what I'll give you; you pick up your selfishness again and this is what I'll give you in return,' I couldn't. I wouldn't exchange it for anything.

I think even a lot of us don't realize how great it is. How great it is. How great, how great it is. Great being in your grace. It's like that. Guruji says the story about the celestial... it's all his grace. All with a few friends where they don't understand, in my mind I just say that, 'Look, you just heard their name, that's enough for you.' Ram's name or something. When the time is right, go.

Okay, I'm just going to dive in in a few places in the chat. There are quite a few messages that I have. Let's see what shows up now. 'Father, is there something wrong with staying in bed all day every day?' No, there's nothing right or wrong in it. Right or wrong does not apply to this kind of unfolding, you see. So you don't have to have any sort of guilt. If there's no life force in the body and it's not moving and it's just on the bed all day, you see, that's how it is. But don't also have this idea that it is something right, you see. It is neither right nor wrong. It is just what it is. It's not good or bad; it's just how it is unfolding. Because once you decide this is this way or that way, then we become closed. So you remain open. See, today it is in bed all day; tomorrow it could be running on the grounds. We don't know, really. So don't take any positions about this unfolding. The waves are flowing like the waves are meant to flow.

Good. Thank you for choosing the grace of Guruji's blessing and sharing as you do. Thank you, thank you, my dear Father. I'm so happy just knowing nothing at all. So only now I understand what Guruji meant by this. That's good. Love you, Father. Are you well?

Mostly I'm well. I had a bit of a little bit of some fatigue yesterday, but today I'm quite fine.

A deeper sense of awareness is felt. No concept, just life flowing. At times a kind of conceptualization enters the inquiry, even on a non-verbal level, trying to direct emotions subtly. But even this movement disappears into emptiness at last. Getting convinced that the emptiness wins nevertheless, and it can accommodate everything, anything in it.

Yes, good, good, good. This, I was just looking through something and I found these notes that we had made during the days, and these were the—remember the clues that we had put together? I feel like it's helpful to reiterate from time to time. So I had saved it as the master keys to freedom. So he said: 1. Recognize that one, that which is the one witness of all things, the all-knowing awareness beyond just percepts and concepts. That which is the one witness of all things, the all-knowing awareness beyond just percepts and concepts. That's why to recognize that, it is not to learn these as concepts, you see. At best, these are pointers. 2. And this is all from various verses of the Ashtavakra Gita, we found all the Vedanta clues in that transcript all the few days, okay, this should be the same, right? 2. That which remains unchanged. That which remains unchanging cannot be enhanced or diminished and is forever untouched. That which remains unchanging cannot be enhanced or diminished and is forever untouched. 3. That which is beyond limitations or boundaries of space, which is the shoreless ocean. That which is beyond limitations or boundaries of space, a shoreless ocean. Also, this shoreless ocean is not special, okay? So don't make any imagination about some vast spatial three-dimensional space or something like that. It is beyond these spatial references. 4. That which can only be found in the now is not subject to time. 5. That which does not come and go and is beyond birth and death. 6. That which has no desires or aversions and is beyond attachment. 7. That which is the one doer and experiencer beyond all concepts of individual action, inaction, and suffering. 8. That which is beyond separation and Union. 9. That which cannot be known or described in concepts, judgments, or inferences. Now, that which cannot be known or described in concept, judgments, or inferences. 10. That which is your direct insight beyond any phenomenal perception, your only non-phenomenal experience. That which is a direct insight, but this insight is not a phenomenal or conceptual notion; it is your non-phenomenal experience. 11. That which is the source of all that is manifest in time and space and is all-pervasive. It is the source which itself is causeless. 12. That which has been played with the pretense of being the ego only through identification. 13. That which is discovered by following the guidance of the Satguru, which is your own divine presence. 14. That which is beyond the states of waking, dream, and dreamless sleep.

So of course, quite a bit of it is reinforcing repetitively in a way, but these are the fundamental pointers available in Vedanta, actually, you know, all spirituality. And it's not that you have to become a master in all of these pointers or something like that, or you have to remember them. It's not even that. It's just that as you're reminded to look beyond—because if you look at any of these pointers, you will see that our mind cannot really fathom what it is pointing to. So that's what happens in all of these spiritual teachings: that the pointers take you beyond these limited notions of yourself. And once you're beyond this limited mind, then it is clear that the truth is just apparent, you see. To the mind it isn't, but to you it always is. Thank you all so much for being in session today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Pranam.