राम
All Satsangs

Checking into What is Here Now - 12th January 2016

January 12, 201612:239 views

Saar (Essence)

Ananta guides seekers to recognize that God is not a distant goal but the undeniable presence of one's own being here now. He emphasizes that the person we believe ourselves to be cannot be found upon direct inquiry.

This I am itself is the only God you will find; this sense of presence is Consciousness.
Instead of asking how do I find God, tell me how you are not finding God right now.
To kill the ego is to just not give belief to the idea that there is an ego.

intimate

presencei amegobeliefconsciousnesssatguruself-inquiry

Transcript

This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.

Ananta

All we're doing is just checking into what is here now. That's all we're doing, just checking into what is here now. Because why would we be interested in something which is not here? If something is not here, then by definition it would mean that it is coming and going, it is only an appearance. So if there is a task to do, it is only to check what is present here. Simple. So in this simple simplicity, the truth can be found. If there is waiting, if there is a sense that 'I will find out the now if I go to the next retreat,' how can that be? So we must have this; there can be the sense of allowing ourselves to just be here now. And what is experienced by us, undeniably experienced, is the presence of God, of Consciousness—whatever terminology we want to use. It cannot be denied. If you check what is here now, it cannot be denied that God is found undeniably so.

Ananta

What is it that we want beyond God? If you're saying that this is not satisfactory for me, either there must be a sense that this cannot be God, or I want something more than God. When we check into what is here now, we find that there's a sense of existence, the sense of presence, that 'I exist.' And this is the only presence that you're truly experiencing: your own presence. Of course, it can seem like when you come into the energy field of Satsang, in the human embodiment of Masters, it can seem like something gets amplified, you see? But what is really happening is that all the other mental and emotional energies are settling, and you come face to face with your own presence more clearly, you see? So then you can say, 'Oh, I feel the Master's presence very strong,' but this Master is your inner Satguru. It's not that you're experiencing the physical body called Ananta, that presence. It's just that in the energy field of one who has realized the truth, you'll find that your own presence gets amplified.

Ananta

When we say Satguru or Atma or Consciousness or being or I am or God, it's all being used interchangeably here. So I have no trouble with the definition; if you want to call it something else, that's also fine. But what's unmistakable is that I exist. In fact, it is so natural that you miss it. It is so natural that you miss it. So instead of asking 'How do I find God?', you tell me how you are not finding God right now. Which God is missing from the right now? So you can check like this: In the right now, can I deny the presence of my own being? Can I say I am not here? Mind is here, yes. 'Yes, I am here, but I'm looking for God.' This 'I am' itself is the only God you will find. This sense of presence of being is the only God that is. This is Consciousness. This is the only Consciousness I know and you will know. All other glorious stories which the mind is painting are just distractions.

Seeker

So who can say 'I am not' right now? I don't exist? I sense something... something is saying I exist, but it doesn't fully make sense yet.

Ananta

Yeah, this can be a trick of the mind. That's why I ask: Can you stop being? And the simplicity of the question sometimes camouflages what is revealed in this question. So if you were to ask, 'Can I stop being now?' No. How can I stop being? This being is what? Whose being is it? Whose presence is it? Is it a personal presence? Does it have personal preferences? If inherently it had some personal preferences, then you would not need a thought to have desires and aversions. You would not need thoughts to have likes and dislikes. But can you have a like and dislike without first believing a thought or interpreting an emotion?

Read more (5 more paragraphs) ↓
Seeker

Body has its own... the body has likes, some more tasty, more... yes.

Ananta

But good and bad taste is also based on interpretation, because when it is tasted, it is just what it is, you see? It is the mind that comes and says, 'Never again! I will never eat karela again!' because it is an interpretation of the mind. What is, just is. Even animals, for example, some it can be that biologically they're driven to certain categories of food. But what I'm talking about is these inferred concepts which are personality-oriented: that 'I'm like this,' 'I like this,' 'I don't like this,' 'I like being around happy people,' 'I don't like being around people who are sad.' All these influences can come.

Seeker

So it's the body has its own memories and tendencies also with which it functions? Body and...

Ananta

Yes, yes. So natural functioning is happening, the way the natural functioning is happening. But you cannot say that this aversion or this desire exists here besides these very spontaneous arisings and happenings. You cannot have these personal senses of liking or disliking something without buying a thought about it. So you can say, 'Ananta doesn't agree with me, so I won't come to Jignasu,' for example. This thought can come, you see? Unless you buy that thought, then that aversion is not created. Those are the kind of things I'm talking about—the personal, the personality-based ones.

Ananta

So to see what exists here, what is present here without employing any labels, without employing any interpretation, and you might come to the conclusion that the 'I' that I believed myself to be, this one I cannot find. I can only find the presence of this Consciousness, this I-am-ness. The question is: Is there any tangibility to the existence of this person that I believe myself to be? Is there any evidence of this person which is not circumstantial, which is direct? If we can't find the person, is there something to do to get rid of the person? I also many times might say it, but in the truest looking, do we find the ego? And if we don't find the ego, then what must we kill? Kill the ego? What must we kill? Just the idea that there could be an ego here. To kill an idea is to just not give it belief. That's the only way to kill an idea. There is one more way, but it's more difficult, which is not to give it our attention. And most of the world's sadhana is based around not giving attention to thoughts. I find it much simpler just to withdraw belief. Then very naturally our existence is here. Very spontaneously, very naturally, everything can come and go.

The Thread Continues

These satsangs touch the same silence.