Can You Ever Lose Natural Awareness? - 21st January 2019

Then he says something beautiful. He says to notice what is there when all of these things are kept aside. All these layers—let's call them layers of our existence for a moment—are kept aside. Then what is there? Notice. Now the question is, how to notice that? How will we let go of them?

Inquiry?

By inquiry. Inquiry, okay, very good. Then?

Noticing the one which is trying to notice. What is noticing?

Inquiry. This is inquiry. To find the one that is noticing the noticing, this kind of thing. How to let go?

Let the attention rest.

Let the attention rest. Resting of attention. Okay, resting of attention. It is there, not in the movement, you're saying. Any other method? Not the movement, not in the arising. Not in the arising, only in the resting. Okay, then?

The attention on 'I'. Try to bring the attention on 'I'.

You see, what is this 'I'? You'll try to bring it on being. It's that knowing, being, knowing. Bring the attention on that. Suppose I was to say that nothing was needed. That nothing was needed. Not in the way attention has to be, not any prerequisite, you see. And the letting go which you said—what if I said that is already available to you naturally? It is already gone. Whatever needs to be let go of is naturally gone. Not one step, not one movement. And irrespective of whether movement is happening or not, there you will find it. Too strange, huh?

You see, so what did we see? We saw that, okay, it's not in the objects. It is not in all these perceivable energetic constructs, you see. And okay, so what is there when all of these are not bothered with? You see, not bothered with. When is the best time to find this?

Now.

Here and now. Because here and now, you don't start being bothered with anything, actually. So this is very direct, you see. Very direct. So what is here now, irrespective of what objects you may perceive or not? We already saw that a perceivable object will not be able to define it, and a concept will not be able to capture it, you see. Now when we don't rely on these, you see, are we lost? You see, because the mind will tell you that story. 'Because I don't know what I'm holding, I don't know what I'm thinking, I'm so lost,' is it? But then you know what you're thinking. You're thinking that you are lost, is it? It is just a thought.

But if you don't hold on to any of that, let it come and go, don't push anything away, what is naturally here and now? Whether attention is on an object, or attention is on being, or attention is on that which is witnessing—even that which is being the non-doer, the non-enjoyer. Yeah, the non-doer, the non-enjoyer is apparent, huh? Cuts off everything. Whatever is left, yes, is that apparent? Like just naturally, little bit, little bit. It is in our grasping that we get confused. It is our trying to get or push away that we get confused, see? Because we invent the limited notion of self in these positions, either trying to get or trying to push away.

So if you don't invent anything at all, what is here and now with no precondition? Not even—Bhagavan will forgive me for this—but not even inquiry for a moment, is it? No precondition. And if it is naturally here, you see, then what is the meaning of trying to hold on to it? If something is naturally here, would you want to hold on to it? What would the holding on mean anyway, is it? Are you holding on to the ground on which you are sitting? Like, 'I'm holding on,' but you can give yourself the idea that you are. See?

Good. I know as we haven't had a full week of school since you started school, so happy. Can you sleep? Some sleep? No, I can't. What? Oh, also start... I am... So that which has no requirement, you see, that is not functioning in time, you see, then how can something be the cause of that? Only that which is an object in time can have a cause and can be an effect, or can be the cause of something, is it? To create an effect. So that which is beyond time and space, that cannot be the result of some action or inaction. See, this is how Bhagavan's upadesha actually starts—that this reality cannot be a function of action, some doing.

It is simpler than sitting exactly where you're sitting right now. What is simpler than that? You see, then you say to be, being is simpler. To just be. But simpler than that also, you see. Even to say 'I am'—not even to say, but just to be 'I am'—first you have to be 'I'. Prior to 'I am'. Anyway, don't bother with that. So simpler, simpler, simpler than having to take one step in any direction or having to avoid any step in any direction. Neither having to, nor having not to, you see. And you cannot understand this. You cannot understand this and you cannot perceive this, and yet... So if knowing so far is meant like a mental understanding, then you cannot know it that way, you see. But there's a provisionally, let's say, there's a greater Knowing, capital K, let's say. You see, it is completely clear right here and now, huh?

Is this a function of attention then?

No, that's what I'm saying. Not even attention, because then also it would become a subject of time. It would be subject to time if it is the result of something, even the movement of attention, then it could not be it.

But then the one sitting behind the attention, that's what you're saying?

Yes.

Is that not apparent?

No, it is not. I mean, it is theoretically, but how can I tell you that it is not apparent if I don't know that?

Okay, good. So that's why we're here. So I already said that if apparent means that it will be perceivable, then that's not going to happen, you see. I already said that if apparent means that you will have a concept about it which will be true, then that also will not happen, you see. Now that you exist, or you are aware of your existence, is it? Does it need attention to go somewhere? So if attention is on the hand here, you forgot you existed? It's not even a question of memory, not that you forgot. It's just like, are you not aware of yourself? You see, you might not remember which body is here. You see, like few moments after waking up, you might not be clear which body it is, you see. So then you open your eyes or some memory comes, then you may remember this is the body. So even that may be forgotten.

But your very awareness, you see, how is that lost? Even if attention is completely on something, you see, can you ever lose where awareness is actually going naturally? So who has the leash of attention, is it? Who has the leash—what am I saying—who has the leash of attention? That does not need to be remembered and it cannot be forgotten. If it needed to be remembered, it is not it. If it needed to be perceived, it is not it. If you needed a concept of it, 'Aham Brahmasmi', it is not it. See? So all of our effort this way, all this way or this way, attention way, you see, are not it.

You see, sometimes the attention one is useful only to the extent that because all of our attention seems to be on one aspect of our existence, which is the manifest aspect, you see. In fact, that is the function of attention, to bring the manifest to life in a way, you see. So when we say we take the attention to its source, actually it is coming to the dissolution of attention, is it? Because attention implies perception. When there is a dissolution of attention, you are still aware of yourself, but there is no phenomenal perception going on. So sometimes we encourage that to introduce yourself in a way to this which is empty of phenomenal perception and yet is, is it? So in that way it is useful. But that which is, is not subject to attention being that way. Got it, is it?

But so there is a contraction or there is a focus around attention and the one who's who is the eye of I, but how can you retract? I'm trying to... I'm again, I'm trying to understand your language, how it goes and rests.

Doesn't have to rest. That's what I'm saying. It has no precondition, you see. So abidance for me only implies don't believe something which is not true about yourself. It is not to keep your attention in a particular way, you see. Because when you meet the sages, they are not, you see, naturally eating, you see, tasting the food—all of that life is being lived very naturally. They are not saying, 'My attention is only one,' you see. It's not, you see. So if it was a function of how or where attention is, then we would say, 'Okay, so this one is, he's perceiving his hand, that needs attention. You cannot perceive without attention, therefore he must have lost the Self. He's not abiding in the Self,' is he? So abiding is not that. Abiding is not to pick up a false notion about yourself, to pick up the limited idea of yourself.

So this, if you can clear up a bit, because many get stuck in this. Because in satsang as you inquire, as we inquire together, for you it becomes very clear that, ah, not just this manifest, there's a greater aspect of my Self, you see. And then the thought comes and says, 'Now you have to hold on to that,' you see, 'otherwise you will lose it,' you see. But it cannot be lost, you see. Your discovery is that it cannot be lost. And if it depended on your attention only being a certain way, then the sages would come to the discovery and then would never let their attention out, you see. So then there would be no sharing of satsang through the mouth of any sage because to participate in this world, for this world to appear, needs attention, you see. And if the Self was done with the play of this world, then it would not manifest the waking state. The waking state is a function of attention. You cannot confirm the existence of the waking state unless your attention is on it. So a sage is not abiding using his attention in that way, forcing his attention or her attention to be only on the Self, which is actually the dissolution of attention, but is allowing a free flow of all things including the power of attention.

The world appears; it needs attention, you see. And if the Self was done with the play of this world, then it would not manifest the waking state. The waking state is a function of attention. You cannot confirm the existence of the waking state unless your attention is on it. So a sage is not abiding using his attention in that way, forcing his or her attention to be only on the Self—which is actually the dissolution of attention—but is allowing a free flow of all things, including the power of attention. But when the notion comes that you are just this, who is the doer, who is the desirer, who is the subject of duality, these notions are just allowed to come and go. You cannot lose yourself if you try. In fact, this is the practice we should do more, you see. Instead of trying to get the Self for a few moments, try to lose the Self. Like, don't be yourselves. Anybody who does it gets an award from me. For one moment, don't be yourself. Keep yourself aside. Easy.

So what is that knowledge? It shows you so naturally that this is ludicrous, you see. This is a simple thing which is just so clear. Even to say 'I am' is to say too much. It's that clear. Like, why would you need to even assert 'I am'? If somebody came to you on the street and said, 'I am, I am,' you would think they are of Satan. What are you saying? Of course. So it's not a big deal, actually. That's why this is not the highest stage of evolution; this is the kindergarten preparatory class for how to be in this world. Because for everyone else, to be is very natural, but we made a big thing about being. Okay, I'm just going too far in the metaphor, but so that I'm aware of my existence is no big deal for anybody, except that when we become super Advaita types, 'Oh, I am aware of my existence,' you see. Then you go and talk to your family and what did you find? 'I am aware of my existence.' Yeah, everybody is. So nothing very grand or special; it's just very natural and simple, you see.

Of course, on the other side, if you speak to most people who are not in satsang, they will add on things on top of that. Which means that what Bhagavan said, that till 'I am' there is no trouble, then you make it 'I am something,' then all the trouble starts. So in the world, that is what most are doing. 'I am' is still clear, but they add on this notion that they are something: I am man, I am body, I am human, I am father, I am mother, I am sister—all of these things, you see. So when that notion, whatever it might be, you see, it is the picking up of a limited idea of the Self. And Consciousness is strong enough that when it picks up an idea, it is strong enough to believe it to be true.

So how to come to this finding yourself? This is what we are discussing, isn't it? So we saw we cannot find it this way, we cannot find it this way, we cannot find it this way. We cannot find it any way because there is no way even to sit where you are sitting already, and yourself is more intimate than that. Now your objection could be, 'But how do I see it? Like, I haven't seen it. You seem to have seen it, you see. How do I see it?' Now I already told you, you will not see it this way through sight. You will not hear it through any of the senses, taste, or none of this, you see. And you will not do all your inquiry and self-recognition and end up with a beautiful concept, you see. That is not going to be the end of the search. It's not going to be about coming to a concept or about a perception, you see.

Now how many are with me so far on this one? So no more waiting for perception or concept. No more waiting for perception. Finished. Satsang is done. Now this, which is not a perception or a concept, this is apparent to you not through your senses and not through your mind. It is more primal than that. It is just apparent. It is very natural to you. Now whether you call it the Absolute, you call it awareness, whether you call it Buddha nature, whether you call it Brahman, whatever you call it, it is so, so, so apparent to you that we seem to feel like we miss it, you see. Just like that which is so under our nose, we seem to not find it, you see. That obvious. It's like when you say it is not an object of perception, it feels distant. It's closer, actually. But it is the other way. Just like your specs are not the subject of your perception. Are they distant or closer? If I were to move them away, then they would become visible, you see. But they are so here, you see, that you can sometimes forget that you're wearing specs. If they were visible like this, then they are further apart, you see. So even more intimate than your existence, your being, your sense of presence about your existence is it.

You are existing, no? Is it believe in the idea is not another idea? Believe in the idea, yes, is another idea. Believe in the idea is an idea, yes. Yes, some I saw this identification with the body and the story, yes. And the next moment I like, 'Oh no, I need mix it, I need change it.' And that moment I have this, maybe just this story is another idea, yes. And I don't have life, it's just one...

Wait, so good so far. Good so far. Good. No, I mean good that it is an idea is also an idea. Yeah, okay. So don't get stuck in that, you see. And don't get stuck in, don't get stuck in, you see. Like it's just like we thought, okay, what's a better way? We feel like we had to find it on a roadmap, you see. A map. You open the map, then you say, 'Is it in India?' No, no, no, it is not in India, you see. Then, 'Is it in Europe?' You see, I see. 'Oh, but Europe is also part of one world or something like that,' you see. Not in that, you see. And then you say, 'It's not in India or Europe, here it is,' you see. But it's not there also, you see. So it is not on that map at all. It is not in our conclusion of 'is' and 'is not,' you see. It is not in our assertion and denial both, you see.

Because what can happen is that when we spot that, okay, belief in an idea is an idea, inquiry 'Who am I?' is also an idea, you see, all of these are ideas. Then we get stuck in the idea which is, 'Oh, but that is also an idea,' you see. So don't get stuck in that. Opposites also. So just empty of either of these positions. This is what I call the box of the intellect. Because the box of the intellect works this way, which is that if X is true, you see, then Y, which is its opposite, must be false, you see. Or if X is false, then Y, which is the opposite, must be true. You're getting what I'm saying? So because we float between assertion and negation, we take the truth to be as if it belongs here or here, you see. But it is in neither and both, you see. You see that it does not apply in the sense that it is not exclusive or inclusive to any of these two positions, is it? So this way, this way, this way, you see. Not this way, this way, this way. Both are not it and both are it, you see. So we cannot capture it in a sound, logical statement.

Yeah, that is the trouble with the sharing of satsang, that whatever assertions are made, those also have to be negated because the truth will never be explained to you in a sound, logical statement, is it? You cannot say a squared plus b squared is equal to a plus b squared, something like that, you see. It will not, no matter how you frame it, you will not capture the truth in that, you see. Because it's beyond these opposites: assertion, negations, positive, negatives. See, we try, sometimes I try to fool around just to show us how limited our intellect is. I'll say, 'What I'm saying is neither true nor false,' you see. What will you do with that? Huh? It is, then that would be to say it is true is false and like... but he also is just like you can't take a position with regards to it. So it's just like this. Like she said something beautiful that day. She said, 'Every word out of my mouth is a lie.' So she said that every word I can speak is a lie. I said, 'Is this true or a lie?' So this is the thing. So this we cannot capture in our box of positives, negatives, true, lie. It does not conform to the truth; it does not conform to these just straight line, linear notions.

So we will not find the truth in that way, saying, 'I found this statement which said that all is Brahman and that truth is there.' It is not in that, because to say all is Brahman means the possibility is that it may not be. Otherwise, why do you need the assertion? And if it all was anyway, then why you needed the statement 'all is Brahman,' you see? So it cannot be the figuring out, you see, that this is or this is not. So it is not a function of your intellect, neither is it the function of your perception, you see. So it is not in the claim or the disclaim; either of those positions cannot really define it, you see. It is much simpler than all of this. Now we are like those, you know, guys who making the pyramids got used to such heavy work, but the truth is just here naturally. You feel like, 'So will I see it?' because we are used to this work of perception. 'But will I be able to share the truth about it?' because we feel like in having the concepts of it, then that is the certificate for it. But it is not in that. It is simpler than that.

Is it the fourth state, Turiya?

Yeah, it's a state, yeah. But that is the state which is called the substratum for all the other states. So is that when you get self-realization? I'm saying that's... I'm saying just the opposite, that you don't have to worry about whatever comes and goes. If you're not worried about whatever comes and goes, for me that is Turiya.

Like in deep sleep you don't have an identity. Yes, you don't even know 'I am' or even 'I.' Yes. And dreams, it's like an active thing like this is a combination, huh? Like you're awake and still sleeping.

Yes, in a way you can say like that. In a way you can say like that. To discover that, you see, which was present in the sleep state while you are in the waking state, in a way can be called self-recognition. So but this Self, you see, never was actually forgotten. See, like sleep state was there, waking state came, you remained what you were, no? You see, with the arising of this manifestation, you did not change in reality. You remain what you were, but you now had the power to identify as something limited in your manifest reality, in your manifest appearance. So satsang is to come to that recognition that I don't need to pick up this identity, is it? Because I am naturally the same one who was in sleep also, dream also, in this so-called waking also. Who went to sleep last night? Very easy. Good, very good. And who woke up this morning? See, and to see this transition between sleep state and waking state, you see, you were there. Because if you say, 'I woke up this morning,' then you saw that there was sleep and now there is waking.

Of course, in waking all this drama is there. It seems much more like looking at a blank screen and now suddenly it's full of images and time and space and all of this stuff, you see. So it can feel like, 'But I didn't... I was not there in my sleep state.' But listen to what you are saying, you see. It's your sleep state, no? Neither is it like you have a time lapse. If sleep state was just... it was 9:30 or 11:00 p.m. and suddenly it's 6:00 a.m., you see, then you're like, 'Sleep state? What's that?' It's just a crazy world where one time in the day the clock switches from 11 to 6 or something like this. You're like, 'But you went to sleep now.' Then you say, 'What are you talking about?' This is like I came and told most of you, but you had Turiya. You're like, 'What?' You know, it's not like that. Whether you went to sleep and what time did you wake up, it makes sense, you see. But because there was no object to put in our repository, is it, of objects of prior experiences that which we call memory, that's why we say there was nothing there or 'I can't say I was not there in my sleep.' You see, how you know something called sleep? Why don't you question it like you question Turiya? If we feel like we didn't have the experience of Turiya, so we say, 'I don't know what is Turiya,' you see. But nobody says, 'But I don't know what is sleep.' Out of the four states, and only two, waking and dream, you see? No, he says, 'Okay, sleep is there, dream is there, waking is there, what is the Turiya?' you know, like that. So nobody says to me, 'What is the sleep?' because you witness your sleep. But even your...

Not there in my sleep, you see. How you know something called sleep? Why don't you question it like you question Turiya? You see, if we feel like we didn't have the experience of Turiya, so we say, 'I don't know what is Turiya.' You see, but nobody says, 'But I don't know what is sleep.' Out of the four states, and only two—waking and dream—you see, no, he says, 'Okay, sleep is there, dream is there, waking is there, what is the Turiya?' You know, like that. So nobody says to me, 'What is the sleep?' because you witness your sleep. But even your very presence, your being, has dissolved back into you, so there is no phenomena to report on. So, so, so here we are trying to discover that one who did not sleep, who was there. Everything else dissolved, but it did not dissolve in the sleep state, isn't it so? And I'm saying to you that that one is apparent to you right now. And that one cannot be perceived and it cannot be conceptualized, but yet it is apparent. And that's why we have these pointers.

So when I ask you, 'Are you aware now?' what becomes apparent to you? And I ask you, 'Are you aware now?' what is apparent? Are you aware or no? Yeah, don't intellectualize the question. It's more innocent than that, you see. It's not... you are aware, you see. So this 'yes,' this 'yes' is your self-recognition. Not the 'yes' itself, but the recognition, you see. The recognition is your self-recognition because did you see an object? And I can deconstruct it further if you say, 'But I'm saying yes only because of what I'm aware of,' because sometimes I get that reaction saying, 'I am aware of world, I'm aware of couch, I'm aware of body, that's why I can say aware, that's why I'm saying yes.' But this is not true. If you were to examine, you will find that if you say, 'I'm sitting on couch,' you see, you know what sitting is and what couch is, you see. You don't say, 'Oh, because couch is there, I must be sitting.' See, in the same way, when you say, 'I'm aware of the world,' you are aware of what 'aware' is and you're aware of 'world,' you see. Otherwise, you could be saying anything of word. 'You aware' is a term that we are using that has a certain meaning that has been given to it, and that you are clear about, you see. It is not just because something is appearing. You know what 'aware' is and what 'world' is. This is like you're sitting or standing, you see, or you're walking on the street. You know what walking is and street is. Same way, you know what 'aware' is and world is. So these are just trivial mind objections; don't worry with them. But when you say, 'Yes, I'm aware,' did you see something? Did you see this awareness?

Can further deconstruct and go to the... Descartes used to explain, 'I think, therefore I am.' And then I used to say, 'Descartes...' So this one also is a misunderstanding of this poor philosopher called Descartes, who's been badly maligned, especially by Indians like me. So you see, so he's very misunderstood by people who have not read him properly because they just heard this one term which is 'Cogito, ergo sum,' which badly translates into 'I think, therefore I am,' you see. Now what he was doing is saying the same way, in a very Neti-Neti way, he was saying, 'What can I not doubt?' You see, 'What can I not doubt?' So he said, 'I cannot not doubt this world because it could be a dream. I have many dreams at night.' And he was a Christian, so he had these ideas of the devil. So he said, 'Maybe the devil possesses me, so he's projecting this world, but I can't really say that this world is as it seems. So I can completely doubt this world,' you see. So this world is doubtable, and this body is part of the world, emotion, everything the same way, you end actually. And then he said thoughts, everything. But he came and stopped here where he said that there is thinking happening, 'I cannot deny,' you see. 'And I can see this thinking is happening, therefore I must exist.' He did not say that 'I am a product of my thinking.' This is a misconception, you see. He was saying just... he was making that final inference, you see, saying that there is thinking happening and I perceive it, therefore I must exist to perceive it, you see. So 'I cannot deny myself because I perceive my thinking.' This is what he was trying to convey. And he said, 'I think, therefore I am.' Now the way that just that sounds, you see, sounds like he's saying that it is because I think, that's why I exist, like my existence is a product of my thinking. But he was not saying that, you see. He was saying that 'I perceive thinking and I must be there to be able to perceive my thinking,' you see. So, so little bit I hope you can clarify this poor Descartes who gets very often maligned on all social media saying, 'The stupid Western philosophers, what do they know? They said...' you know, this kind of thing is very popular for us to say, but it's not... that's not his contention at all. So, so in fact... but if you were in Advaita satsang, or at least this kind of satsang, then I would say don't even make that inference. Don't even use that inferring, you see. See, see more than infer even there.

So, so... that is what was... that was that what we were saying? So coming back to this: so when I say, 'Are you aware now?' this awareness is confirmed through what means? Physical means, intellectual means, reasoning? How is it a direct knowing?

It's a direct knowing, you see. It is independent of the concept even of awareness, isn't it? If you forgot the term awareness, it would not be dependent on that.

So it is more direct than using a term, you see. Or when you say direct, are you implying that there is no... there's no perception of it? Checking. Check. Good, good, good. It's good. Mostly I ask questions which are loaded in the sense that you already know which way I'm saying the answer is, but sometimes I have to ask like that. So it's a bit... okay, I better check this then. You're saying direct, are you implying that there is no perception of it?

If you extend the term to include this awareness, then yes, I can seemingly perceive.

Okay, so if you had to exclude, then what would you exclude?

The senses.

Okay, so it's not... you're saying it's not a sensory perception?

Yes.

Okay, then what type of perception is it?

It's like an inner perception. Like you see, if I see... imagine a football, you can see football.

No, it's not imagination.

Not imagination.

Then it's not a logical conclusion.

Not a logical conclusion.

Then is it... does it have any sort of shape, size, color? Is it black space?

The knowing of the knowing. Yeah, that which you're confirming. 'Are you aware now?' This awareness is what... what is the shape of it?

No.

The best attribute I can associate it with is it's me. It's I am.

Yes, good. 'I'm aware.' Yes. Why are you being sheepish about that? Because I... when I use that, so mixed up with this 'I' which is the personal 'I.' Yes. Atma Gyan removes the 'I' and yet remains 'I.' So it'll still be you, but not the 'you' that you can think about or you can perceive in this way, you see. And yet, so after we've made all that chopping, chopping, chopping, chopping, then in the final leap you also have to then say, 'But there is nothing outside of it.' So even our perception is included in that, even our conceptualization is included in that. The world is also that, you see, because it is not making a distinction. You cannot find a boundary between that and this, isn't it? It's not like the Yin and Yang how it is represented, like half is manifest, half is unmanifest. It's not like that, isn't it? It is making no distinction.

You mean it... the perception reports...

What I'm saying is that after we used all these tools to really check on what it is, you see, then all these tools are thrown away. And what are the tools? All the conclusions and distinctions that we made along the way: even world, consciousness, Absolute, yes, you see, all these distinctions also then thrown away. Yes, you see, then no two. That is Advaita, non-duality. It will not be non-duality if it is like, 'I saw that there is a world, there is a being, and ultimately there is even before I am which is witnessing that being, and this is the actual structure of all of this.' It is not. These are just devices that we are using to investigate and throw away everything that we can think about reality, to throw away everything that we can think about reality, not to make a new conceptual framework of reality and say, 'This is how it is,' you see. This is also where we get stuck very often, and then we get into this kind of thing that, 'No, no, that is not how it is; how I think is how it is.' Is it? But these were just tools to make us look more broadly at our existence, is it? Now we looked at all the layers of our existence. We looked at our world body, we looked at our pain body, pleasure body, then we looked at our thought body, we looked at our emotional body, we looked at our presence body, and we looked at the body which seems to be the substratum for all of this body. Now that I've said all of this, now forget all concept of all of this, you see, because we were so caught up in that world and physical body, that's why these terms were needed to make your perspective broader, throw out your limited ideas about yourself. Easy. But if you hold on to even this sheath-type model, which is very Vedantic in a way, you see, but even then if you feel like, 'Okay, that truly represents reality,' no, reality is not that small that you'll be able to represent it in a model, you see.

See, when you're dreaming and you get up and you know you're awake and that was dream, yes. So this is what happens when you get the reality: you know that was a dream, not real, and now you're in the reality. You feel that what you considered yourself to be, you see, an object in this world, you see that... that it feels like that was a dream experience. And then that you feel like you contained in this object, is it? You think that you're contained in this object and then that notion goes away and then you feel like you are as much contained in that object, this object, this object. In fact, it seems more clear that these objects are contained in me than for me to be contained in any of them. So that is the... if there is kind of like a shift, then that is the shift, you see. But don't try to get to the shift, you see. Don't try to get to the shift. You just let go of all that is false, then the shift is apparent. Like whatever that so-called shift is, is just apparent even right now.

Dream... you keep saying this is the dream, this is the dream, this thing, this the dream, like those who are practicing lucid dreaming or something.

Yeah, so, so negation with the feeling to come to a broader space of existence, and then in that broader space of existence, even the negations are thrown away. So you're not coming to some Advaitic version of reality, because it is not so tiny that you will capture it in a version. So then at that point you have to say that the term 'body' is nonsense, the term 'consciousness' is nonsense, the term 'awareness' is nonsense, everything is nonsense. Throw it away. Every word of satsang is nonsense, and nonsense is nonsense. Like many times we can get into that sort of 'is nonsense.' That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that neither of these positions... because it's very easy to get into sort of a nihilistic mindset that, you know, everything is meaningless then, you know. But that to say something is meaningless is to give it too much meaning. Do you hear this part? Because many times we get stuck in this kind of thing. If to say it is meaningless then... and it is empty even of meaninglessness. Either meaning or meaninglessness don't apply to it, you see. To say it is meaningless is also to give it meaning. So to say in the same way to say it is truth or nonsense is also to give it meaning. But I'm just negating the idea that you might have that it is captured in... there is truth in the words of satsang, you see. At best it is pointing, at best. With me? Yes, good. So, so then no need for the notion that this is true and no need for no notion it is nonsense. So they just serve as negation to each other and dissolving themselves. See, now nothing you can assert, nothing you can deny, nothing that has to be asserted or denied, and all assertions and denials are just movements within that. Doesn't matter, see. So the world takes on an added...

It might have that it is captured in there. There is truth in the words of satsang, you see. At best, it is pointing. At best. With me? Yes, good. So then, no need for the notion that this is true, and no need for no notion. It is nonsense. So they just serve as negation to each other and dissolving themselves. See, now nothing you can assert, nothing you can deny. Nothing that has to be asserted or denied, and all assertions and denials are just movements within that. It doesn't matter, see. So the world takes on an added power, or colors are brighter, everything is... or it's the dream-like quality, or both. It's like a more vibrant dream because what happens is—and why more vibrant I'm saying, because I usually don't say anything like this which like something has to change or something changes when you see the truth about yourself or something like that, because I know it makes these benchmarks.

So I'll give you the simple thing that I found here is that because attention is not so dissipated, you see, between what is being perceived and the 'mahamantra'—what's in it for me? Am I understanding this? Am I getting this? Is he a nice person? Is she a... you see? And then do this: okay, look at this hand clearly. Put your attention on it. Now think three thoughts without the hand getting blurry. You see? You'll notice that as your attention goes to those thoughts, you see... so although attention is like the child of awareness in a very pure way, it has one thing which sort of distinguishes it from awareness, which is that it is limited, you see. So if you try to fully see it with clarity and then you try to think of a tree or something, you know, or some thought, and you start to see that this starts to blur and this becomes in view. And most of our lives have been like this, you see. Half here, half there, half here, half there. Not really tasting the candy in this world also, you see. Just so caught up half the time in trying to get more candy that we never taste it when we get it, you see. So it's like that, really.

So just, you see, so that vibrancy changes because your attention is not getting now dissipated doing 'what's in it for me? Can I keep this? Will she leave me?' You know, is there all this kind of nonsense thing that we go on with. It's just... it's being perceived. Don't even need the label 'hand', you see. It is just perceived. So that's why the vibrancy seems to go up, you see, because the attention is just flowing so naturally. You're not trying to own it, grasp it, you know, trying to push something aside. And yet it is clear that this does not contain you in that way. It is still like a dream-like... it is contained in you. It does not contain you and it does not confine you. Let's put it that way.

Father, there is this practice called mindfulness, yes, where it's suggested to be aware and to be present, but to be aware of the thing that you are doing. So by being focused on the experience, we get more aware of our own awareness of... yeah, when attention is just on the object. So they say when you eat a grape, just eat the grape. When you're walking, just walk. Like that thing.

So what happens is that it's like a sadhana, isn't it? Like a spiritual practice. So 99% of spiritual practices are about trying to master attention in some way. But here, because I tried most of them and I was terrible at them... I tried this mindfulness. When I'm walking, I'm just going to walk. And for two, three minutes it looks very good, like winning, you know? And then it's like, back to 'Am I doing this right? Will I soon become a sage? What is going to...' you know, all this kind of stuff can come, you see. So I was terrible at these attention-controlling stuff.

And after you try, work?

Yeah, exactly. So, so here actually what I'm saying is more like surrender. Is it? What I'm saying is more like surrender. It's not really a sadhana sadhana, it's more for giving up. Just let go. One surrender, of course, is to say surrender, you know, 'Guru Kripa', that is surrender. But this is like a surrender which is like 'I give up. Stop.' Ah, it's like when you're like this, 'be mindful', like that, it's just... feel like this and then you're just like, 'I give up', you see. So that seems more direct to me, like to not make it a product of this practice or that practice, doing it this way, doing it that way. Just to see all. But before any of that can happen—which I'm okay with, like many of you are more natural with staying with this 'I Am', you're natural with this mindfulness, you're natural with these things, it's completely fine.

Here, because I could not sustain my attention on these kind of things in spite of trying for a few years, you see, I just noticed that when I give up, I just saw what is. So this is a simplistic way of explaining surrender: just giving up, you know, just like... but not giving again, not like holding on to the idea that 'I give up', you know, then you're not giving up. Like give up on everything including giving up, you see. Like when you say 'I don't know', and many people confuse it to know that 'I don't know', you see. Like they get empty of everything else and then fill themselves with the notion 'I don't know', you see. And anybody come and say, 'Which way is Manipal Hospital?' 'I don't know.' 'But you can see it over there.' 'I don't know.' Then it just becomes conceptual. 'I don't know', you see.

You have a sense of this. I know that for the intellect it won't make any sense what I'm saying, but to not hold on to even 'I don't know' is 'I don't know', see. To not know or not know, not in that box at all is the 'I don't know' that I'm talking about. It's not a position of knowing or not knowing, see. All of this is dvaita, you see, duality. All of these opposites is duality. We are talking about Advaita, non-duality. Literally no distinction, no prerequisite, no cause and effect, no time and space, no nothing at all. Not even Brahman. Not to... this can also be confusing. It is denial of the assertion of Brahman. It is only a denial of the assertion of Brahman, see. Because if it needs an assertion, then it cannot be it. It itself is independent of the assertion or negation, see.

So when I'm denying and I'm saying 'not even Brahman', I'm denying the term Brahman and the assertion of Brahman, you see, not what it actually points to, because that is independent of the assertion of it. Basically, I'm denying any notion about anything. Words, words, the term, the terms. Because distinction comes with terms. One term gives rise to the world of distinction, you see, because we don't even understand a term independently, isn't it? If I say 'tree', what is a tree? A plant. What is a plant? It's a form of life. What is life? You see, so many words. It's not like the tree... it's not enough. Like if it was just a term where you could say 'tree', that's all I want, done, you know? No, but everything... you pick up the entire dictionary when you pick up one word because it's all circular. Everything points to other terms. All terms point to other terms. So I'm just denying this entire box of terms. I'm the denial of them because I'm not like a denier, you see. And just denying the denying also and the terms also.

This question has been coming in the last few weeks. Now this is a thought, but it seems like the setup itself was leading to...

See, anything that you start like that, you say, 'I know it is just a thought, but...' It's just a thought. A thought. Either then a special thought came to you which finally became a true representative of reality, which no thought has been able to do so far—so I'm a bit curious now—or it is enough to say it is just a thought. Either this one was a final one which actually found a way to represent reality, you see, that's... 'I know it is just a thought, but this one could be reality', you see, which is just a thought. The thought was... but before you share that, what is our belief? Our belief means to say that this is a valid representation of reality. Yes? That thought is a valid representation of reality. Yes? Is it? That is to give it truth value, to give it assent, to believe it. Exactly.

So when we look at it, the thought... now all of these thoughts come with that claim, you see. When I say they audition for our attention, this is what they're claiming: that 'I am actually real. I know those ten million ones that have gone have been all fraud, you see, but I am the real deal', you see. So auditioning that way, you see. And for us to give it an entry or ten more points is to give it our belief and say, 'Yes, you could actually be a valid representation of reality.' So when we say 'It is a thought, but...', you see, I am giving it the position of being a representative of reality because it is saying something meaningful.

Which was now that the experience of the one that self-realized, yeah, is that everything is included in that Self itself, meaning there is no separation. So it seemed like a negation had to be done to achieve that experience.

Okay, so if negation is done to achieve the experience, then the idea there was an individual experiencer also has to be negated. It was an achievement. The achievement, the so-called achievement, achiever, you see, individualized consciousness, experiencer, doer—all that also has to be negated, isn't it? So we have to negate fully then. Yes. So nobody is in the enlightened state, is it? Yeah, because if there were still like somebody there, then that would not be enlightened, you see. What does it mean if there was somebody there? Only the idea that there is somebody there. Yeah, the idea has to be presented to someone who is not aware that they're believing in ideas. That's why the word exists.

And you know what the silliest trick the mind can play is to say this kind of satsang is very intellectual. Actually, it is not intellectual at all. It is telling you that the box of the intellect is not enough, you see. Now if you want to put that into the box of your intellect, then of course it can seem intellectual. I'm just saying drop it all, you see. If that sounds intellectual, drop it all. Three words: forget about it. One word: forget. When you say, 'Okay, forgot about it', but then the rest of the words are needed, you see. But usually it begins with a sense that there is a person that has an actual issue, and then the issue has some ideas that I have to believe in, and then all thoughts are proposing the notion of your limitation. Even the greatest thoughts.

So then in place I like this, have this recognition, and then nothing else is needed. And then it's some... yes, this 'I' is born again. Some thought is born again. Resistance must be experienced and then again it flushes and then it just plays like that, perhaps.

Perhaps is good. Perhaps is good. Because if you make a conclusion, then you see, you're buying a limitation. Yeah, you see, to say... this is what I was saying actually. To say that something is... to say something is this way or that way is to claim to make an assertion about isness, isn't it? Yeah. So it is like that or it is not like that is an assertion about what isness is, see. But no thought can come close to either an assertion or denial of isness. And we feel like when we know these things, they will actually help us, you see. But they actually don't, you see, because life is so free that it'll show you that all your assertions are false, is it? And the mind will keep saying, 'But this one, come on, this one', you like that. And really, or when the mind convinces you, 'But have this because this is helping you', you see, what does it make you to be? Even in that story, it makes you limited. No? It makes you a limited one. It is not saying it will help you, the Absolute, if you have this. Yeah, it's still told you the story of your limitation even in the seemingly helpful assertion.

So we don't know how anything is. We don't even know whether that which I'm claiming my past actually happened, you see. We don't even know whether this is waking state, dream state. We don't even know whether this is just my attention visiting some memory from ten million years ago, you see. We don't know anything. We don't know where we are. Anyone can tell me where you are? Have some idea?

Absolute, if you have this, yeah, it still told you the story of your limitation even in the seemingly helpful assertion. So we don't know how anything is. We don't even know whether that which I'm claiming my past actually happened, you see? We don't even know whether this is waking state, dream state. We don't even know whether this is just my attention visiting some memory from 10 million years ago, you see? We don't know anything. We don't know where we are. Anyone can tell me where you are? Have some ideas? Which ideas get your assent? You see, only tell me those because I know all these ideas are just... but we still get your assent. Can you tell me where you are? We don't even know something as simple—say we say this is outside and this is inside—we don't even know where that inside is. You don't even know that. If you know where that inside was, you see? Or if I asked most to explain, they'll say, 'But I go inside my body.' But inside your body would be flesh, blood, bones. That's what you would see when you go inside. Where do you go? You leave this realm of four dimensions in this instant, you see? And then you are seeing your own play of how you are able to manifest these dimensions even in a simple... like if you're imagining a coconut, which space is that coconut arising in? You see? Where is that inside?

So this is how the labels get us down, you see? We just labeled it 'inside.' Finished. Now I know what it is; it's inside. What do you know about it? Nothing, you see? Where is this inside? Nobody knows. In India, it is very popular to say, 'Oh, I am the soul' or 'I am the Atma,' you see? But because they have the label for it, they feel like we know it. They don't need to explore. 'I know, we all Indians, we know Atma. Atma never dies,' like this kind. But what do you actually know about it? Nothing. It's just a term. So this is the problem when we confuse having the terms for something to mean a knowing or understanding of something. It is not in that. It is not in our terms. It is not in our thoughts, as believable as they may sound, as accurate as they may seem to represent.

So this is the fruitless thinking that Guruji speaks about. Leave aside this fruitless thinking. You know, trying to assert or deny something about reality is fruitless thinking. We have never been able to say, or we never will be able to ever say, anything about what is this. Then don't pick up on the most popular notion, probably in Advaita, which is that therefore then I must just be silent. See, there are many who are holding on to this notion: 'I must just be silent.' And they are the most egoistic you will ever meet—many, not everyone—because they're filling themselves up with this notion that therefore silence is it. It's still what you think you found, the master key to reality. Just silence. The sages were pointing to silence which was not this, not the term silence, you like this outward silence like that, you see? This is not... you could be believing the most limited notions about yourself but your mouth could be shut. Doesn't make you free, you see? So that silence is not that. Silence is the absence of egoic belief. So because it is not to be found in terms doesn't mean that it'll be found in some sort of an outward silence. It is not an object in this realm at all to be found in these tactics. Cannot use these tactics to find the truth.

For let's catch up with some of the chat also. Seems to be cold in Bangalore. Never saw you with the pullover. So reminding you of SS. Thank you, my dear. I'm well covered, well covered. Thank you. 'Father, isn't the help everywhere? So shouldn't we find it in all thoughts, sensation, our perception if you don't label them?' Exactly. That's what I said, that once we do the neti-neti, you see? If that is the path that you have a temperament for, once you see inquiry, neti-neti, whatever, and then you see something which is untouched by the manifest universe, you also see that it is not separate from the manifest universe. And the label 'manifest' and 'unmanifest' or 'Absolute' and 'Maya' or 'Brahman' and 'Maya'—all these labels, distinctions—they also fall away.

Beloved Father... see, 'Beloved Father, a friend who can't get to satsang due to working all those days/times asks: I am afraid of a kind of social phobia with others and girls. I start trembling, not like when I'm comfortably alone or in my comfort zone. It is very intense. What do you suggest?' I'm afraid of the kind of social phobia... you never know what life will have in store. And many of us have these kind of stories. When I first tried public speaking in the sixth standard or seventh standard, I made a complete mess of it. I knew everything, but I forgot everything after I started speaking. Knees knocking everything on stage, and everybody was like that, you see? So it felt like, 'I never want to do this again. You never want to speak in public again,' you see? And now what has happened? The last five years, half my time has gone speaking in front of an audience like this, and it doesn't even feel like it is public speaking or something like that, you see?

So firstly, don't even use such a solid word like 'social phobia,' you know? Because the term itself is so strong, you see? Like it... you can get a phobia of the term. The word is so strong that 'social phobia'... just like something, turbulence or some sensations are experienced when you're in front of people or girls or whatever. You say you experience some trembling. It's okay, you see? Don't label that as something major or something like that. It's fine. It's fine, you see? And don't push yourself into trying to be too comfortable with it, you see? Allow it to play out. If it is shaking, so don't have to say, 'This has to go. I wish I was not like this. I wish I was more comfortable,' because that adds... it energizes that more, you see? It kind of feeds on that energy in a way. So don't have a fear of your fear. Don't have a phobia of your phobia, you see? So just if it has to play out a certain way, it's okay. Even if... what is the worst-case scenario? You'll end up looking foolish in front of some girls and all of that. That's okay. There are what, three and a half billion now girls in the world? You won't run out. You won't run out of meeting new girls and things. So don't worry about that.

I'm not even saying it... I know it sounds like a joke and thing, but I'm really saying to be a little light about it. I'm not making fun of you in any sort of way. I'm just saying that actually just exposing like the limited conditions the mind makes about us and our life. So don't be scared to look a bit foolish sometimes. It's okay. And as you get more accepting about this, this also might not seem so strong, you see? So you'll see that when you want something to go away, you will see how much of your attention is on that, you see? Attention is so much then directed in that way. That is the way Consciousness plays, you see? When it is believing the notion that 'This is what I want should not be there,' you can feel like, 'But that has become central,' you see? 'I just want that to leave,' and then it seems to get stronger. And so you're like, 'No, I want it to leave.' So just be a little light about it. Don't be so scared to look silly, look foolish. And as you accept yourself in all of these colors, shapes, and sizes, you'll see that all of these will become light about it. And soon you'll be laughing about this thing, you see? You'll be laughing about this thing.

See, laughter is a very good indicator. Laughter is a very good indicator. The instant you're able to laugh at yourself, laugh about these things, you know that it's lost its heaviness. It's lost its burden, you see? Like sometimes I say half-jokingly that if you look at people who are suffering in this world, the ones who seem to be suffering the most are the spiritual seekers. They take themselves so seriously, more than even the ones who are wanting to make money or materialistic things. They're just taking their egoic identity so seriously. 'I want God. I want this. I want...' You see, this 'I, I, I' is so rampant in the seeker identity. So they seem to be suffering so much. And the minute it becomes a little lighter, a little easier, you see? And if you come to satsang also with this like, 'I'm going to get this today. I'm really listening,' you know, you find that, 'What is he saying? Blah blah blah blah blah.' It's just like that because we are so caught up in the box of 'I, I, I.' When we come free, you see, like that little open, then something seems to just get through.

Even though if anyone says, 'What did you hear today?' you might not be able to say. Like Guruji says sometimes, you just feel like you had a bath on the inside. Really, like had a bath on the inside. Something feels just fresh. You don't know what happened, what you heard. And that bath on the inside is worth much more than having picked up three concepts. And sometimes you just come like that, and sometimes it's not always a bath on the inside; sometimes it's like that also. And even that is worth much more than the three concepts you would have picked up, you see? Because at least that resistance is starting to come out now, to vomit out. It's good. Even that is good, you see? But if it was just like, 'He said this. Yeah, I agree with this. These three things he said... no, no, no. So good. I feel like Rupert says that part better.' And then you're like, 'Okay, in my conceptual framework, some Guru is there, some Absolute, some this, some this. This is the perfect painting.' But it's nonsense. All of this is nonsense. Just throw it away. All of us are saying that: throw it away. But you're busy so like that, that 'I am getting the perfect concepts about everything.' That is not what spirituality is.

So if the words are not washing you out, then we are still building up the seeker identity, although we might feel like, 'I'm creating the next framework for... and I'll create like, you know, something which will help the world' or something like this. But it is not it. Okay, I feel like we wandered far from his question, but don't fear the fear. Don't fear the phobia, and let life unfold you. I'm not even saying you have to put yourself in uncomfortable situations, you see? Life will create enough of them for you already. So you don't have to go inviting them on because you don't have to take that on as a mission, you see? That will come. Those situations will come. Just in those situations, be as open as you can, as light as you can, as much laughter as possible.

Thank you, Father. 'So much, Father. Everything gets shaken here today. Such a release.' Very good, very good. There's a message we start here. Don't read loud. Okay, yeah, that's all. This one? Okay, my dear. Thank you. Thank you for bringing back to my attention. Already noticed, actually, but no response or sort of action is arising from here yet to do with that. But we'll see how it comes. Of course, we all know it's nonsense, right? So that is very clear. But let's see how it plays out. Okay, then this one is not... this one can be read. She says, 'Ananta Ji, everything including body is experience. I try to find the Observer, but of course it is not there.' Yes, very good.

So everything including the body is an experience, a set of sensations, a set of perception. You try to find the Observer. Very good. But is it not there, or is it not there perceptually? You see? So dig a bit deeper into that. So don't come to a conclusion that it is not there because then if I say, 'But aren't you perceiving this hand?' you say, 'Yes, I am.' You are perceiving it. If it could be perceived, that would be a part of experience. Exactly. So it's not an experience. It is not a perceptual experience. That's why sometimes I use the term 'non-phenomenal experience.' The recognition of the Self is the only non-phenomenal experience that you will have. 'But still there appears to be a center.' Yes. 'Whenever I do that, there are very strong sensations in the middle of the chest. Sometimes some blockages seem to be there as energy is not able to flow free.' Yes. As you're inquiring, as you are looking in this beautiful way, all of this energy system is going to sort itself out, you see? It's going to sort itself out. And a few months ago I had written, posted, because I...

The recognition of the Self is the only non-phenomenal experience that you will have, but still there appears to be a center. Yes, whenever I do that, there are very strong sensations in the middle of the chest. Sometimes some blockages seem to be there, as energy is not able to flow free.

Yes, as you're inquiring, as you are looking in this beautiful way, all of this energy system is going to sort itself out. It's going to sort itself out. And a few months ago, I had written and posted because I was getting many questions about this energetic movement, so I posted what Bhagavan had said about it. So, this is the beautiful part about direct satsang, about self-inquiry, that whatever energetic movement has to happen, whatever cleaning up, shifting, all that is also taken care of by the energetic presence of satsang and also by the power of your own inquiry, in your own digging into what is real. You see, that itself has a huge impact on your energetic construct that we call this human existence.

So it's good. Trust that this is all Grace. And sometimes you will feel like those blockages are really strong; sometimes they will feel like they're so blissful. Don't worry about either. You just stay with your inquiry. You are finding out who you are. You're after that which is not ephemeral; you are after that which does not come and go. And energetic experiences, as sublime or horrendous as they might seem at times, will not last. So it's good. Take them as Prasad along the way, this way or that way, but you stay with your inquiry. Everything is taken care of.

And in this case also, sometimes you see some in satsang are having some energetic experiences. Don't make that into a thing for yourself, you see? Don't make it a good or a bad for yourself. Like, don't start judging them and say, 'Ah, how much drama they're doing,' you know, this kind of thing, you see? 'Just trying to get attention.' This you don't know. Nobody knows. Don't make those judgments because you don't really know, you see? And also don't say, 'How come this stuff doesn't happen for me?' and you know, 'Am I missing out on it?' and things like that. Whatever the God is, that Chef who is not messing up your recipe, okay? It's cooking you perfectly. So every taste is unique, every set of experiences is unique, every fingerprint is unique, every snowflake is unique. So how you will taste this and what all you will see along the way will be different. So don't judge yourself highly or in a worse way based on what others are experiencing or what you think about what they're experiencing.

So just open, open, open. I saw Amba made her cover photo 'open, open, open' and it reminded me of my desktop wallpaper which just used to have one word: 'open.' Open.

I'm only now observing how many subtle concepts I hold, and even this conclusion, 'Oh, I was holding off to concepts,' even that drops into... it's very good.

Very good. Because I was saying, I've been saying the last few days, that in the world, ignorance is what we say we don't know what we don't know. Is it? How much we don't know. In satsang, it is revealed to us how much we still know, and we don't know how much we still know. See, you might make claims to full emptiness and all that, but I have to say, even here now, every day I'm discovering things which I still thought I knew, but I don't know. Is it? It is only like few months ago that I realized that I thought I knew what 'up' is and what 'down' is, but both are just motion. It was quite a revelation for me, actually. I have to say that I was resting on these notions of up and down, and then I saw that I don't know what up is and down is, in spite of having spoken about space and space being a notion for so long. Still, these very small things can hold on, you see? Like, so clear about what is up and what is down, and I saw, what is up? What is it? I have to limit myself first, make a reference point about what I am, you see, or consider myself to be contained in this object before I can say something is. And even after that, actually, can you be certain that up is up and down is not up?

Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Baba Guru Kripa Kevalam. Pranam.