Contemplation on the Ashtavakra Gita Ch. 20, Vs. 10-14 and Q&A - 20th September 2017

So when you see your greater reality as this unchanging, in a clarified way, this is the greater reality. If there are two, and one just comes and goes and one is eternal, ever-present, then which would you say is greater? So that is why it is the greater, in which that which is coming and going is also there; there is an awareness of that coming and going. So what is your greater reality? Do you come and go? Are you still attaching your identity to that which comes and goes, or do you see for yourself that you are the unchanging? So that identity, if it is attached to that which comes and goes, that is what we call the person. The idea of there being a 'me' who is something which is not eternal, which is subject to birth and death, which has likes and dislikes, which has desires and aversions—all of this is what you call the person.

And this has been a constant conditioning. Consciousness has believed itself to be this person through this value system of what you must be attached to, which you must now not be attached to. Everything latches on as a condition, as an identity. What is the person but just a bundle of identities, just a bundle of beliefs? So if you don't believe anything about yourself, you don't believe anything about yourself, can you still exist? And then see the ultimate question: where is this existence? So at some point, like Maharaj, can we be bold enough to say even something like 'forget about consciousness'? Even that seeming forgetting, of course, is a play within consciousness. But what is your greater reality? That which is before 'I am.' That 'I am' comes and goes. What is it to you?

In reality, we've gone too far by saying all these states come and go—waking, dream, sleep. All these states are coming and going, and you remain the eternal witness of this coming and going. How does this appearance in one of these states make a scratch on you or a dent on you? Can something that happens here touch awareness? It will remain untouched. Where is the illusion, where is existence, attachment or non-attachment? Where is the person? Now, the funny thing about the person is that at least for phenomenal things you can say, 'Okay, computer, here it is. Body, here it is. Sofa, here it is.' Bodies are there, but the person—is it even a phenomenal appearance? Not even a phenomenal appearance. You cannot identify the location of this person. Where is this person? Second-level illusion, which means that it's just an imagined sense of separation.

What is the ego? Just an imagined concept of separation. There is a 'me' which is apart from everything else; that is the notion. Presently, there is a 'me' which is apart from anything else. Now, unless you think about it, can you believe such a notion? Can you really experience such a notion of a person? It needs a thought to believe something. Is it your experience that there is a 'me'? Sensations can be there. The body sensations can feel very intimate, but can you distinguish between your body sensations and the sensations of this world, and the sensations of the sound from the road, the sensations of the breeze from the fan? Unless you define a boundary for 'me' which is based on thought, all are appearing in the same space of your existence. If you did not exist, would these sensations be experienced?

Now, many have misunderstood this imperative, that this is something speaking individually, saying that all of this is in the mind of the individual. I'm not saying that that is what is called solipsism. We're not saying that. I'm saying that the misidentification is about who you are. I am referring to you as consciousness. I am referring to you as beyond even that consciousness. I am not speaking to you as the body. If I was speaking to you as an individual entity and then saying all of this is your play, then that would be a misunderstanding. You are this. Their existence is the light of this consciousness. Only from this place can you say that all of this is a coming and going. I am the eternal, unchanging. How can you say, 'I am the one solitary witness of all there is,' or you can say very sweet words which are, 'I am wonderful indeed, beyond adoration'?

All of this comes from that. No person has ever become special. There is no enlightened person. Enlightenment is the discovery that there is no person, the recognition of your existence beyond personality, beyond personhood. What we are talking about: where is the person, where is God? I am awareness. So now, depending on your definition, of course, some refer to God as this sense 'I am,' which is how I usually refer to it. Just as all the same 'I am,' you know, the ultimate reality of what I am. Even this consciousness is a coming and going. And those who are new to satsang, the statement 'I am God' can sound very arrogant or special. But here, what is being said? We aren't even God. What is a coming and going for me? Depending again on your definition, of course, if you say consciousness is God, this presence is God, this existence is God, then you are even beyond that.

Let me refer to this: the Self, the Absolute itself, is not to be confused by definitions. This is what is being spoken about. 'Where is God? I am awareness. Where is activity or inactivity, where is liberation or bondage? I am timeless, indivisible. I am Self alone.' So when the activity or inactivity is about doership and non-doership, what am I to do and what not to do? Where is liberation or bondage? So, is awareness bound? Can it be bound? Can I build a chain strong enough to bind awareness? So the concept of bondage itself does not apply. So what liberation can I give to that which is not bound? You see that liberation is the discovery that there is no such prison that we want liberation from.

Now, we mustn't misunderstand even this, because even this—that I need no freedom or any more liberation—can be picked up as a concept. And conceptually, in our basket of concepts, we can still maintain our limited identity and add to that this concept that 'I am God, I don't need freedom.' This conceptually is not enough. It must be a reflection of your true insight of yourself, because all concepts are shaky. You can keep saying 'I am God, I am God.' Many times people have these kind of things where you start saying that, and very soon that will be replaced by 'I am in the hospital.' It's mental to be like that. Just identity trying to hold on to the identity, trying to hold on to some idea of godliness. And you can find that that is actually a very shaky ground because even when life comes in its day-to-day life and something happens where Mom says something to you, then that whole 'I am God' thing goes in seconds.

You've got to be in the doubt, and I put in this conceptual but not the result of true realization, the result of true insight. All concepts are changeable, removable. At least agree for yourself what you are cannot be replaced. 'Where are principles and scriptures, where is the disciple or teacher, where is the reason for life? I am boundless Absolute.' And I see that we all know what this is. We looked at all of these aspects of 'where is existence or non-existence, where is unity or duality? Nothing emanates from me. No more can be said.' 'Where is existence or non-existence, where is unity or duality? Nothing emanates from me. Nothing more can be said.' Such is the last verse of the Ashtavakra Gita.

The only existence—where is existence and non-existence? If I am nothing, can truly something emerge? Can truly there be reality which emerges as an appearance, as a byproduct of that which is nothing? So that which emerges then must only be the idea that there is a snake, the idea that there is 'me,' but actually there is the rope. The idea that there is a mirage, but there is just desert. The idea that there is silver in mother-of-pearl. So this is really saying that nothing is ever—the appearance is just an appearance. Nothing actually emerges like this. So once you see there is no snake, so that which was seen as the snake, you see only as a rope. Once you see that you are the Self alone, then all of this that is seen is just an appearance. It's not real. So when you say it is not real, can you say...

It is me, but actually there is the rule, the idea that there is a mirage. But there is just desert. The idea that there is silver in mother-of-pearl. So this is really saying that nothing is ever... the appearance is just an appearance. Nothing actually emerges, you see? So once you see there is no snake, so that which was seen as this thing, you see it merely as a rope. Once you see that you are the Self alone, then all of this, the seen, is an appearance. It's not real. So when you say it is not real, can you say something actually emanates? If it was just a seeing, an appearance? So it's like, okay, you're seeing this snake appear and it goes. In seeing this world as an appearance, like this snake, it never really appeared. Something never really emanated, but you just see the dynamic aspect, as we call it.

Ultimately, we have to say that even all of this Maya, illusion, never really happened. We don't every day talk like this in satsang because then we can get into some sort of a conceptual denial of the appearance. But we are now looking at the last words, saying that if I am truly the unchanging, then has the changing actually ever happened? Is any of this true? What is the reality of it? This is the distinction between the real and the unreal. The rope and the snake, which is the most popular example or metaphor in Vedanta. Then we start to see, although it might appear to be that all of us are here having this conversation, in reality, only awareness is.

So, where is the snake when it appears? Where is the water in the mirage that appears? And yet it can be perceived as if it is, but does it have a tangible reality? So appearance is an appearance, but if it is just an appearance, what came? Nothing really. An appearance is not real. If something real emanated from me, then I would say, 'Yes, this is how it was, the display of two-ness.' Now we go back to this: but if it is just an illusion, an appearance, what really emanated out of it? It only appears to have emanated. We put it like that. This snake only appears to have come, and once you see it in the light, you see that there is no snake, there is only a rope.

So from the perspective of awareness, what really happened in the coming of the waking state, in the coming of the sense of existence? What really happened? I think the idea which is clear is appearance. If you want to say that a non-real appearance seemed to have been perceived, you see like that, because even in this, this conversation can only happen in that seeing, yes. But the nature of this as real or unreal produces... if the definition of real is clear, that the unchanging is real, with the changing defined right in the beginning, then what would you say about this? Is it similar to the mother giving birth to a child, or is it similar to the appearance of the snake?

Moving you to the most traditional and oldest debates in Advaita, Adi Shankara says that this Maya is neither real nor unreal; it just appears to be. That's why it is called the 'indescribable.' There are the parts when you say that this Jeeva which appears, this sense of existence, is as much Ram as Brahman itself. So these are two very traditional approaches to this. Now, either are fine, but what appeals to your heart the most? Whatever you feel the most intuitively inclined to is completely fine here. Ultimately, I have to say that I have to agree with Shankara, that awareness is true, and everything else that has been an appearance has just been like the illusion of silver in mother-of-pearl, the illusion of the snake in the rope, the illusion that this world really happened. But truly, I can't explain the two.

It has to be on the basis of your insight, whether you feel that consciousness, this existence, has some reality. This weighs from how you define reality and what your intuitive experience is. Because ultimately, the sages said if we think that the changing, everything that comes and goes, is not real, then how is this? I don't know whether we even want to make this publicly available, but the fact is that on that definition, even existence does not stand up to that test. It doesn't stand. Sometimes Nisargadatta Maharaj was very strong when he said all of this problem is because of this 'I Am' infection. Okay, the word 'I Am.' Nothing ever has really happened. This is what sages like Ashtavakra say.

Now, why I don't usually share like this is because also when you have to take this idea that nothing has ever really happened, and clearly there is identification with some limitation, then you take the concept of 'nothing has really happened' and you can use it to hide. Look, here we are on the fringes of our insight, the limits of what can be found in this recognition. Once I find myself to be the Self, then is it true in reality that something has happened? Time and space, wherever you look, it's just an appearance. It's so actually... I don't mind if you say either of these. You see, I see that I am this awareness, and this birth of my child, consciousness... or you say that I am awareness alone and this play of consciousness is just an appearance. There is no 'I Am' really, because even that is changing. I have to reach the stage where neither arises nor immediately like that it was seen that was taken on us and it was picked up that was not true. I've seen what is real.

I don't feel so different from this. Let's see if I can understand or see the truth, and so I'm looking.

Yeah, because thinking that you're going to reach a stage where thoughts neither arise nor... it's based upon the idea that you're an individual, yes. And even if a thought arises and it's believed, can the thought be said to have arisen really? And as we've already seen, anything that comes and goes has no basis in reality. From here, then, it's definitely able to exercise in the truest position. Is there anything that is really some of you in your contemplation? And it's happened for centuries, so I don't feel like teaching. Some of you in your contemplation will come to an insight in which you will make a conclusion like: consciousness is like the waves on the ocean, they have the same material reality as the ocean itself. And some of you will come to the conclusion that consciousness is like the snake in the rope; it never really happened.

Either of these, you are beyond the realm of personal suffering. You're not identifying as something which is changing. You're finding that ultimate reality within which, whether you say that consciousness takes birth and dissolves back into it, or you say it never really appeared, never really happened but appears to have been so, I'm okay with either of these positions. In fact, it's a beautiful contemplation. But in this contemplation, you will find that we really clarify for ourselves what we mean by 'real.' If we really agree with the sages' definition that everything that comes and goes is not real, and it is the appearance of the seeming, then if it is unreal, did it ever really happen? It's not real.

All of these are next-level contemplations. What is real is here. And do we agree with this? When I say there are two filters to what is real: one is that it must be our direct insight, and second is that it must not be changing. What lives up to these two filters? As our direct insight, direct experience, and it must not be changing? What lives up to these two filters? Only awareness. Only this Absolute. These two filters are typically... even consciousness does not apply. So you see, any time in the last few years, where is existence? Where is consciousness? The simpler approach is how we take it in satsang, to say yes, it is a dynamic aspect. We don't get into some sort of a denial. Look at the end, all this instead, every time existence... we want this in my reality. There is a seeming appearance of something, and I saw that nothing is.

So stay with the question: what is it that I mean by 'you'? What is it when I say 'I'? What is it that you mean by 'real'? Is there a difference in your definition? Try to work it out. If you include something which is changing as also the real, then we will come to a different conclusion. We will come to that conclusion that everything emanates out of the real. If you see the fact that which is changing never really happened, then we will come to this conclusion: this entire play of consciousness is just an appearance, like the movements of the snake that never was. In Indian spirituality, very popularly, this is like the son of a woman who never gave birth. This is what the Rishi is pointing to. This world is the child of a woman who never gave birth.

Well, now at the finality, in the last words of the sage, he is saying not this person, but the entire universe, even existence, consciousness, 'I Am' itself. Even I, who likes to share everything with everyone, even I would like to say that it is a small circle, because the potential for misunderstanding, the potential for confusion is immense. Because it is throwing away everything that we even speak about in satsang. I think it is needed, more pointing. Nothing. I am myself alone. I am pure awareness itself. But you will find the truth in that. What is the definition of real? And if something changing is included in real, then it is different. But if you are clear that everything that changes is unreal, then you have to count in this Maya, this consciousness, this existence which is the play of appearances.

It's like it's not so significant for seeing, as we're already on the topic of this. I'd like to have this opportunity to just kind of clear it up. It's really helpful that we're talking this way now because sometimes there has been like a small doubt or something that's arisen. Because I feel that sometimes in my own experience, there's like a contradiction to what Guruji says. Because sometimes Guruji talks about being in the body, and it's very common amongst the Sangha that we still talk about the body and we still... it's common to say that we're still in this body. But that is not true of my experience. It would be more true... I know it seems so crazy, but it would be more authentic of my experience to say that it more honestly feels like what body I was seeing, that just seems to appear. Body sensations, the visuals of the body, part of that of course is in no way different from anything else that's perceivable.

So that's why some things seem more natural at a particular point. You see, to a child, you tell the truth that the Tooth Fairy will come. 'Being in this body' actually... besides, this entire universe is in this Being. That is the truth. But that's not the question. Except say when somebody's coming, or if there's a roomful of people, at that point of time, other than sitting in this body...

Yeah, that was my feeling, that it was sort of a concession.

In truth, every day we make concessions because actually no pointing is true. The only truth I can speak is 'I Am.' Ultimately, even that is not true. So we also have to come into this denial of 'I Am' at some time. So it's just different strokes, different forms, and intuition knows very well how to speak to a particular audience. If you just say that you are not in the body, you cause more confusion. Stay with your insight. The point of the pointers is to lead you to direct insight. If you feel just like this, this is good. When you say, 'Ananta, you said this, but it's like this inside is really different from that,' how do you feel about those questions? Because then you're looking. I'm looking: what is the most simplest, direct way to share this? In your sharing, can you be a hundred percent accurate? No, you're not. I can't really explain it. Nobody can truly ever explain. But what I am doing is...

The point of the pointers is to lead you to direct insight. If you feel just like this, this is good. When you say, 'Ananta, you said this, but inside it's like this, and this insight is really different from that,' how do you feel about those questions? Because then you're looking. I'm looking for what is the most simplest, direct way to share this with you. You're sharing of the looking. Can you be a hundred percent accurate? No, you're not. I would really explain it—nobody can truly ever explain. So what I am doing, because it is very experiential usually, is what is happening when questions come. Then I find that I am doing the contemplation thing that is picking up the answer. It's the point of satsang to come to this recognition for yourself, and the master, the teacher, is there for this kind of clarification work. So we say we do so like this, my experience is like this. We should be full open.

Another question in the chat there says: 'All that you see is so clear, yet this sticky identity with person still remains.' Actually, it is the non-stick frying pan because it cannot stick. Did it? Why the previous moment? It actually didn't, unless you think about it. No identity can survive even for a moment, actually. Automatically, now you are empty of it till you believe the idea that you are not, or you believe some idea. But here with me, so notice right now, you will have to first latch on to some concept to feel that you are still identified. Right now, you're empty of it. So actually, that's why I say that you are the best cleaning lady at your service. Who is that cleaning lady at your service? It is God. Cleanup is happening completely. In this moment, you're fresh, brand-new like an infant.

And here, what it can seem like, it is like you take a bite from the apple and this entire world of identity seems to appear. We pull a leaf from this tree of conditioning; we pull at one thought and it can seem like, 'Oh, the person is back.' But without picking up this thought from the conveyor belt of the mind, show me that identity. That is a very good way to look at it. Now, there is another way to look at sticky identity, which means that which has been nourished a lot with belief in the past. So those are sticky. If we've nourished a particular identity—be it a spiritual seeker identity, a parent identity, a partner identity—and thoughts come like that, then when they come, they seem more attractive to our belief. Why does that happen? This is the meaning of interest. Why it happens is because the icon has been nourished in the past. Yeah, the habit is going to smoke that particular brand of cigarette. So when it comes, it seems attractive. That is what I mean by stickier identity.

So when we look at these identities, if there is a recurrent thought you seem to buy over and over again—like you might have this thought that 'I'm just not getting it, I'm somehow not getting it'—then you pull that thought into your inquiry and say, 'Can I find the one who is not getting it?' If the thought is 'I'm still stuck,' the 'I' again is a limited notion about yourself. So pull that into inquiry: 'I'm stuck. Who is still stuck?' And when you take this into your inquiry, then persist with it till the idea that 'I am still stuck' becomes laughable. How do we know when something is not sticky anymore? When it becomes laughable. So when the mind says, 'Oh, I am still stuck' or 'You are still stuck,' does it have juice?

Can I speak? Making the inquiry, what are my options for this answer? Suppose I'm a bad student and this question has come. So they asked, 'Who is the one who was making the inquiry?' Can you also provide the choices so I can pick from?

So okay, let me work with even providing the choices. The first option: the person is doing it. Is that plausible? Now, the person is doing the inquiry—is it a plausible option? Why? Because if the person does not exist, then how can it do something? If the blue cat is not there, how can it have drunk my bowl of milk, isn't it? So person is not an option. After person, what is there? This consciousness is there. I exist. So is the play of the inquiry part of another part of this play of appearances which appear in the light of consciousness, isn't it? Ultimately, even the inquiry or any practice is also part of the play of appearances.

So if we're saying that consciousness is the light of this world and consciousness is all there is, no person has ever come, then we are comfortable to say it is consciousness itself. It deludes itself to be supposed as if it is a person, and consciousness itself is coming out of this personal delusion and coming into this freedom. So God has been playing this game. God has been playing this game of playing as an individual. And you see that there are many levels of recitations of this game even in this world.

Now, suppose you went for a movie. You went for this movie and suppose you could not relate to the protagonist, not identify with the protagonist. Mostly you will not enjoy that movie. You will say, 'Who are these people? What are they doing?' I just want to relate to the characterization. Just like that, this movie, to extract this kind of juice from this world of appearances, consciousness has given to itself this power of belief, this power to pretend as if it is something material. And then when it is done with the play like that, it wants to get the joy even of dropping the false personal notion. That's why usually it doesn't happen in fingers. Now you're not the cat. All the masters continue coming to satsang till the master itself tells you that you don't need it anymore. Consciousness has been right because only consciousness is, only consciousness exists. Existence itself is consciousness.

So all of this play... that's why I said that in the Self comes the appearance of the sense 'I'. In the 'I' comes the appearance of the sense 'am'. And this 'am' has been projecting all this universe around it and getting stuck, taking here. Now it is consciousness itself turning inwards and coming to the recognition of its own source. Nothing happens to the source. The hand is always doing the hand. This finger is also always only in the hand. This is another way to look at the last words. Has the finger ever happened, or is it only in the hand, always? In that way, we can look at that.

But bringing it to a simpler level, you see, it is consciousness, being, is what I am. This 'I am', no, this being, this consciousness, has been saying 'I am something' and lived there on the body. This 'I am that', a spiritual seeker. So that 'I am something' is what is it? What procedures of God? No Deva has actually been gone. It is the pretense of 'I am' itself. 'I am something.' And when the 'something' is being dropped, there is only 'I am'. It is me, 'I am', which has been playing as 'I am something'. And it is 'I am'. So how do we get to even before this 'I am', beyond 'I am'? Like this story you said, 'God, I am higher than that.' That which is beyond God, that which is beyond 'I am', this is the higher Self which is always being the 'I' alone. The appearance of the finger, appearance... so the 'I am something' has been trying to make sense of spirituality, has been trying to do the inquiry. But the inquiry reads 'something'. 'I am something' inquiry done truly, 'Who am I?' question asked, one is rid of the idea that 'I am something'. 'Something' drops away and I just am.

So everything has been a play of consciousness itself. There never happened two. There's only ever been this hand. This hand playing as this finger, then saying 'I am something', which is a projection of the light of this finger itself. So that's what... and it is created, consciousness has created itself for itself, this tool of the mind. It convinces it that this 'I am' is personal, is something. What is the meaning 'I am something'? I am 'I am something' personal. Only God has lived here. Only God is having this conversation with God, beyond 'I am' inside. So when the finger recognizes that there is the source, has been the hand itself, then does the finger come to the conclusion that there is still a finger? Another way of saying the same thing again: always only been the hand. There has been no finger, although it had appeared as if there was.

You see, now what can happen then is that most ideas of 'something' in the world lead to perpetuation of the dual idea that 'I am the doer'. You see, 'I am something', most popularly 'I am the doer'. When you put that 'I am something', 'I am the doer of my...' but it is only something like this direct inquiry. They might start off with the feeling 'I am doing the inquiry,' but in this doing, the sense of doership dissolves. It's a rare gift from Bhagavan, from the sages, from your Guru to do the inquiry. Even if it feels like you're doing something, it feels like it is effort, do it. Why? Because it is the inquiry which gets rid of the idea of the doer itself. So as Guruji says, the end of the inquiry is the end of the inquirer. The one that started the inquiry is finished by then. The one that started satsang is finished by then.

So is it a powerful idea that only Advaita is immediate, whereas Dvaita is actually woven in some moments? We use it in every moment, but only in many moments there can be this idea that it is not true. The free thought is the pretense, you see. First, a mask. The person has only been a mask and all the conditions we have. Yes, then even 'I' have not existed. But if you remove the centrality of consciousness, that perspective, and speak as awareness, what has happened?

Yeah, yes. So the play of appearances happens, and by the very nature of calling it an appearance, it itself means it is not real. Yeah, in the transcriptions, really big man's forces. Actually, one day for those who are interested, we'll announce a special satsang. We'll see it seem like, 'Oh, Ananta is one with Vedanta.' Actually, there's Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta... yeah, there is no Dvaita Vedanta. That is, we shifted. Bheda is Bheda, Abheda is Abheda. All of these variations are there. Some of you will study to do all these things.

So what is this? This is what it is. So I just take a minute on it, and most of you get super bored when I speak about these things. So there is pure Advaita Vedanta—I'm forgetting the term for that right now—where they say that Maya has never been, the appearance has never been true, which is not made up of Brahman. And because it's never really existed, you must not give it any idea of reality, like this for the snake and the rope. Then there is Bheda: from the one Self rises the sense 'I am', but there is actually a difference, either there's actually a difference between this Atma and among the cells and the consciousness 'I am'. Then there is Abheda, that actually it might appear to be so, but no qualitative difference actually has ever come. Absolute is also in Bheda-Abheda, which means it is neither different nor same.

But the good news is, the good news is that in all of that, whatever type of Advaita Vedanta you're following, no credence is given to the reality of the person. So that is the important thing. And if I like to see like that, if I have a job to do, my job is to show you that no person has ever existed. But for Jivatma, person is there. Myself with the idea of a person, 'I am something', is the idea of limitation. So traditionally, it might not be a person because whatever limitations... even to say that 'I am something' and that something is something that takes up the size of this whole room, it's still a limitation within consciousness. See, you might say, 'I'm a soul which touches all the others in this room,' so you're not limiting yourself to the body alone, and yet it is a limited notion of yourself. So all limiting notions of yourself, I put it in that basket of personhood. Some might say only the identification as the body-mind should be called personal, but I don't agree with that. Any limitation, let's put it in that same basket.

So nice in the way I use it. The dreamer... so many... so that there was not the attacker, but that person is that you meet them so neatly to put it someplace as if it still feels that...

So you're not limiting yourself to the body alone, and yet it is a limited notion of yourself. So all limiting notions of yourself, I put it in that basket of personhood. Some might say only the identification as the body-mind should be called personhood, but I don't agree with that. Any limitation, let's put it in that same basket. So, nice in the way I use it. The dreamer is so many, so that there was not the attacker, but that person is that you meet them so neatly to put it someplace is if you still feel that you are an object within the dream. Using this, making still, then better not to say things like 'nothing will ever happen,' better not to get into a denial of consciousness. It is only from your true place as awareness, even knowing to live whether the infrastructure for the same only within consciousness. In the dreams, the same or not checking, you are working the king-like conscious intently, conscious habits. I am one who's ready engineering that terms, but anyway, the way I hear conscious intention is the will of consciousness. If only the will of consciousness happens, yeah.

So even see, suppose we take conscious intentions, but idea, I almost do things with attention, which is consciousness. What is the 'I' which is looking there? Yeah, so that suppose is that 'I' one day to day that this answer comes, we tell me this automatic man. Now when you make these actions, I did not decide to exactly, she's not a conscious decision. So that's not where even if this the play of the decision would is nothing, there is no guaranteed action wouldn't happen. You know, the play of the decision-making happen, there is no guarantee that the action would have happen. And in spite of no decision being made, many times actions have been happening. It's always beautiful. Same in Yoga Vasistha: the bird flew and landed on the branch of the coconut tree, coconut fell. The mind says it is because the bird landed there, but actually there is no way to say that. Is he finished? Yes, without them the... yeah, what is going on?

Me wondering whether they doing no surprised. I'm very happy that a group of all of us put together, and if I click yourself and the people here and talk about these things, it's a very rare thing in life. A few places in the world, in fact at this very moment, they might not be doing a conversation like this happening. The seven billion that are there in this world, a handful of sages, the conversation is happening. This is could connect like this and keep things like this, you know. This is coming and going with it and that when we type otherwise university you were singing now coming from test two in the rat. Yes, I like that becoming so PhD token you rising the scripture. I feel like it is from this innocence, from this place of not knowing anything, the scriptures ever risen. That is why for all of you who come to that open mind, coming to that innocence, and you read now Ashtavakra Gita, reboot it a little to get them all these scriptures which for centuries have been kept almost secret only for the most advanced seekers. And you, not from any idea of arrogance, from the simplicity, you will not be shocked by the words. You will not see, 'Oh, it is too difficult or too abstract,' because everything is a rule to point you to your own direct insight. That's why with this question was important: is it who has to come to that insight? Consciousness. Why? That is the design of the period. It doesn't have to go like that, but that seems to do the design, seeming design. Otherwise, why would I say this Satsang is consciousness speaking with consciousness?

So what are we going to do now that it's not hard to clear them? Please take a little boo-boo starting reading another book, say they transcripts and highlights genius. All this beautiful schema that you've been doing and also thank you all in jail for the last two months and I've seen some of you in there every day, every day. Travel concession, I know that the blessings of the sky, Ashtavakra, which all of us, which is all of us, and we will continue to spread the holy light. This big shout out to the team. I feel like I start thanking in it, I feel like I'm missing so many who made set beautiful contributions to sharing this light. So know that my heart... so I'd like to do this girl for you this hopefully expression now might not always have the best voice for it. I might remember to love and gratitude. Diana says no to the gray campus and only keep up this beautiful not anything. How many are joining the retreat online? See some show of hands or you can type it over there. Not lineage only this maybe. Okay, you see how we'll keep it light and easy. More transcripts? Oh, highlight or transcripts. I definitely feel to give them a break because we clearly easier they working hard clearly along with the transcripts team. I don't know, I feel like sometimes if we don't need to subscribe everything region, just maybe five minutes, six minutes, whatever you feel little bit for the next few months pick out some points because now yes thousands of YouTube videos and thousands of transcripts. Something for me, my feeling is that more people have downloaded or bought on she's been speaking with consciousness than they have downloaded, read, or go onto the website and this got for free. The first Maya says yes, we were going to shift only some superpower get poignant transcripts and highlights because we have quite a need of a briefcase full great for a few months.

The question on the retreat is I mean yes, so and on weekdays Monday to Friday this room is always available for we retreat. I have received a ticket also this tea will be getting a computer and she's not a ticket and you would use here in Bangalore as you know I'm not allowed to share it on Zoom or something like this has to have a like a broadcasting for some people. You can't do that. We're in Bangalore definitely will come to come here in the model they are meeting at 11:00 or 11:30 and they will watch the full session come tonight. Weekend, weekend what happens? See based on how many are coming somebody somebody will offer to make some space available and if you just us in one session is 1:30 if I'm not mistaken. The live session bonding session is India time 1:30 and the second session what they usually do is watch it next day morning. I can just leave this quality is also pretty awesome. Do you actively call them and say increase give me a small increase my data? I can activate in 30 minutes. I'm not using it so much in that leave this can I hear the exhaust will you have the password? It's your name you will come to you. I turn the box so I'll get the box you didn't send. I'm using I have my bands back since morning have missed three blank lights up another one at 9 p.m. Let us see this time I'll buy the ticket when I land at the airport. We still too much money in the basket.

Santa says has it been discussed about the retreat in November or December? HT good send me some data on the fool taken over by 13 January. I said what it teaches we can add you to this group we have a group called the heart altar. We are talking about the retreat where we either go to Tiruvannamalai, we go to the same place Ooty. I feel like to do we have a retreat and most likely in January now. I was looking into six or seven deals yeah one more would show Murad which is January. She said I have to change locations and plan a flight from Boston. This is great, Jan is perfect. They take a little bit of organizing but count me a happy you can come on let's go on to visit once once I am fine to travel maybe retreat will close. Can you are just going to joke with everyone and start over? I saw something start over before myself in low power after before looking through your messages. So some of you wow so many I responded it's amazing. So some of you might not know what we are talking about but he said that you wanted to make a small booklet of the clothes from that Ashtavakra Gita on which there's a big book coming about the comment about just the very direct clothes. And I am here gave everybody a homework assignment saying that as you read through the verses of Bhagavad Gita then say which clue take what is being prompted act in that particular words. So I feel like it's a very beautiful project. Brendon all of you have sent in your clothes I'm so surprised pleasantly surprised very grateful that you do this. So I'm just going to Christie's.

So the first clue was that which is the witness of all things and all these verses you found like the verse which says you are not earth, water, fire, air, nor are you empty space. Liberation is to know yourself as awareness alone, the witness of these. You have no caste or duty, you're invisible, unattached, formless. You are the witness of all things, be happy. Then the favorite one: you are the solitary witness of all there is, forever free. You are Self, the solitary witness. You are perfect, all-pervading one. Seeing there is no universal body, by grace the Self is revealed. Not seeing Self, the world is material. I am wonderful indeed, beyond adoration and everything thought or spoken, and have nothing. Seeing all things as threefold suffering, say it becomes. That was the first clue.

Then let me just now read off only the truth. Second clue is that which means I'm changing the way I can read one word semantics: you are unconditioned, changeless, formless. You are solid, unfathomable, cool. Third clue: that which is beyond limitations or boundaries. I have unbounded awareness, only in imagination do I have limits. In the limitless ocean of myself, the wings of the wind while the myriad waves of the world. The fourth thing: that which can only be found in the present or now, it does not come and go, it is not subject to time. The verse is: you are now and forever free, luminous, transparent, still. The practice of meditation keeps one in bondage. Okay, but you have to hear my commentary.

Clue five: that which has no desires or aversions. One of the verses is: you are the Self, the solitary witness, you are perfect, all-pervading one. You are free, desireless, forever still. The universe is but a seeming in you. Clue six: that which is beyond doership, beyond action and inaction. That which is beyond doership: the thought 'I am the doer' is the bite of the poisonous snake. To know 'I do nothing' is the wisdom of faith, be happy. In reality, knowledge, the knower, and the knowable do not exist. The great soul witnesses his body's actions as if they were on others. How can praise or blame disturb him?

Clue seven: that which is beyond separation and union, beyond both the concept of separation and union. Meditate on this: I am awareness alone, unity itself. Give up the idea that you are separate, a person, that there is within and without. I am neither free nor bound, the illusion of such things has fallen into disbelief. Clue eight: that which cannot be found by the mind. That which cannot be found by the mind means that which cannot be described or caught by concepts, judgments, or inferences. The mind is complex, let it go, nor the peace of dissolution.

Clue nine: that which is your direct insight beyond any phenomenal perception. Direct insight beyond any phenomenal perception: that which has form is not real, only the formless is permanent. Once this is known, you will not return to illusion. In reality, knowledge, the knower, and the knowable do not exist. Clue ten: that which is the source of your being. That which is the source of your being, which in its unassociated form is consciousness and its associated form appears as if it is very ego. The universe appears within me, but I do not touch it. The universe arises from you like foam from the sea. Or yourself as one into the peace of dissolution. I am infinite space, the universe is a jar. This I know, no need to renounce, accept, or destroy. I am a shoreless ocean, the universe makes waves. This I know, no need to renounce, accept, or destroy. And the mother-of-pearl, the universe is the illusion of silver. I am the mother-of-pearl, the universe is the illusion of silver. This I know, no need to accept or destroy. Then the final clue, you wish to add some more after that, but clue eleven...

Like foam from the sea, or yourself as one into the peace of dissolution. I am infinite space; the universe is a jar. This I know. No need to renounce, accept, or destroy. I am a shoreless ocean; the universe makes waves. This I know. No need to renounce, accept, or destroy. In the mother-of-pearl, the universe is the illusion of silver. I am the mother-of-pearl; the universe is the illusion of silver. This I know. No need to accept or destroy.

Then the final flow. You wish to add some more after that? But the act which is discovered by following the guidance of the Divine Presence, or what is also called the intuitive presence of the Satguru, that itself is Atma Gyan. So there might not be his direct closing, no doubt about that. That itself is enough. Okay, yes.

Tomorrow morning, so tomorrow we gather. Why doesn't this do something for the next few days? This one and you read from is... sure. Amma has an idea. She says, 'I always enjoyed greatly silent sitting with them.' Okay, my dear. Tomorrow. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Bhagavan Sri Ashtavakra Deva Ki Jai!