If You Don't Interpret... Don't Judge, What Is Your Discovery Right Now? - 18th September 2020

Thank you so much. I just feel by the moment there's nothing else to say, just listening to you and completely empty.

Completely empty of all positions, all conditions, all notions is to remain in the unborn. It is to remain in the emptiness that Guruji is pointing us to. And it is not a repression or a suppression of any notion from coming up, you see. It is just not valuing it enough to make it true. What is belief? Belief is the power that consciousness has to take a notion—which is just an energy construct proposing an idea about what is, you see, an idea about what is—and consciousness has given itself the power to take that to be a valid representation of what is it now.

All that we are doing when we are letting go is not valuing the notional idea more than our own being, more than our very existence, our very self, you see. That exchange is never useful, no matter how glorious the words may sound, no matter how humble the words may sound. The words can never be greater than your very being, your very self that is aware of this being given. That is the mind's game. It's playing a battle game saying, 'You exchange what I have, you see, and you exchange what I have for what you have and we'll make it a fair exchange.' But it never is an equal exchange.

The only way to play the game of limitation, the only way to play the game of limiting the being—although it never really gets limited—the Leela of limiting the being is through defining it through some mental construct. Reality is so vast, so broad, so beyond anything that we can convey in words. And you can see how the mind struggles because the mind, in its design by consciousness itself, is designed to grasp that reality and try to define it in some way, you see. So even our spiritual definitions that it is unlimited, it's an attempt by the mind to grasp. But it's not like limit doesn't apply, so it's neither limited nor unlimited. Time doesn't apply, so it's neither timeless nor timeful. Space doesn't apply, so it's not spacious nor constricted. All our attempts to define this are futile.

So, don't encapsulate your discovery in any definition because it will no longer remain a discovery; it will become a concept, it will become a new prison. And where is that discovery for all of you? It is right here, right now. If you don't encapsulate, if you don't interpret, if you don't judge, what is your discovery right now? If you're forced to communicate about it, then what is it you can say? You can say, 'Ah, I am.' You may say, 'I am here' or 'I am aware of even I am.' But that's only if you're forced. If you're forced by a master to say, 'Tell me, what is it you're finding?' then to just point to the discovery. But even those words don't actually capture any reality.

Okay, someone who's new. I will come to the ones that have been here for a while in a bit. I see the raised hands, but I just want to talk to those who are a bit new. One says, 'There is a jump that describes by Kundalini Yoga from third chakra where there is intellectual clarity, peace, to the crown chakra where there is nothingness. What needs to be done for it?' What if your starting point, you see, was that which encompasses all of this? And if you let go of the trying, if you let go of the attempts, then effortlessly what needs to open up just opens up.

And Bhagavan has spoken about this very clearly. They said that many who are doing self-inquiry, they find that this whole energetic system seems to open up for them sometimes. And how does it happen? Without any such intention, without any such goals. So that which comes and goes, or that which can come and can go, if you keep that aside for a moment—just a moment, you can pick it up again—then in that, what is missing? What needs to happen? That nothingness—isn't that your very natural state? If you let go of the mind's ideas about 'but it can't be that simple,' you see. How can it be that easy? People are trying for hundreds of years sitting in caves and doing various practices. You're saying even the three was perfect, even the one is perfect. It's just be something before you hear the click. Don't be nothing before you hear the click.

So, notice the one that grasps at the discovery post facto, you see. That one is not your reality. That one is the one that is the grasper, the mind which wants to make the seeker into an awakened being, which is never what happens. It is not the seeker that becomes the free, you see. It is that the seeker is let go of and the free one is found as the ever-present. So, what is your attempt, all of you? What is your attempt? Is it to succeed? Is it to make enough progress in this? Can you progressively make yourself into the unchanging? It is a contradiction. If you could progressively make yourself into the unchanging, then you would not be the unchanging. So, it must be an intuitive discovery, a non-perceptual discovery, because everything in perception is changing, you see, of the reality. And letting go of the one that is changing, the one that has progressive steps, and that is progress.

It's funny this question came because for one in the sangha, this kind of thing happened spontaneously just the other day. This kind of thing happened just spontaneously just the other day and I got a call from her saying that this has happened, 'But I didn't want this, you see. I didn't ask for this, you see. And it's a bit troublesome actually because it gathers all my attention and you know, I want to be empty. I didn't ask for this.' So then we had to have the opposite conversation saying, 'It's grace, it's prasad, it's auspicious, you see. Welcome it, enjoy it. It's not going to get in your way in any way. Whatever has to show up will show up if you let go of a false doership or individualized idea of doing and not doing.'

Which way is the sun? Is it to the left or the right? Which is the sun? We have to say that it depends. It depends on where we locate ourselves, you see. So depending on where you locate yourself, you can say, 'Oh, it's to the left' or 'It's to the right.' Now, it is the same for everything phenomenal, everything relative. The answer is also relative. Answer is also relative. So for some, the answer may be yes, if you are clear you want to awaken your Kundalini and that's what you want, then the enough pranayamas and all the yogi practices are very well described and defined. So devote yourself completely to that practice.

For another, you may feel like Kundalini for you is a stepping stone to where you want to get to, which is ultimate freedom or to the absolute discovery of the Self, you see. So then I would say, 'Hey, let's—can we look at the Self first? And then if Kundalini needs to happen, it can happen,' you see. So it depends. Another could just want to achieve a lot of selfish desire through this kind of energetic awakening. They want siddhis or they want just a materialistic experience of bliss all the time or something like that. For them, a master could say, 'You let go of this selfishness because divinity and selfishness don't go hand in hand. You just let go of all of this.' They renounce all this desire.

So there's no real answer for a question like this in the kind of expression that we are used to sharing. The pointing is always to that which is beyond all experiences, all perceptual experiences, but it is not an opposition to anything that has to arise or not arise. But there's not so much feverishness about the achievement of that. Good. One says, 'Namaste, seek your blessings always.' I like this kind of request. It's much easier because many times it is 'seek your blessings for this' and we never know. Like I've had situations where, 'Please Ananta Ji, may I please have your blessings? I'm starting this new relationship,' you see. And then two weeks later the same one comes and says, 'Please, please may I have your blessings? I have to be free from this relationship.' So we can never say. You can never say for the—so many times we just say, 'My blessings are with you for the most auspicious. Whatever is the most auspicious, may that happen.' But that's like saying that what is going to happen is always grace anyway. So okay, let's hear what you have to say.

So I seem to have invested belief in some mental representation and I'm beginning to think that this might be—there might be some truth to it and I wanted to share it with you. And it was something like this that I was writing that blog post that I sent, you know, that blog post. So I'm writing something else and this had to do with, you know, the relationship between mental representations and reality. And I was arguing that mental representations belong to an internal drug called mind and reality is an external realm. And then I went about critiquing it by putting forward another view which was Kant says that, you know, everything that—I mean, in the previous video, what is the thing in itself? Yes, yes, yes. In the previous view, the demarcation, the border between the internal and the external is the body. Anything within the body is internal, anything external is reality. But according to Kant, it's like everything that—the so-called external is also, you know, filtered through the mind. And just as wearing glasses changes your perspective, similarly the sense organs and the mind, they also alter reality in ways which we can't say. So to him, everything observable is internal and what is external is unknown and that's inaccessible. And then I came to the Advaita view—I didn't call it—I said idealism and one school of it. And according to that, we just do away with the...

Everything that the so-called external is, is also, you know, filtered through the mind. And just as wearing glasses changes your perspective, similarly the sense organs and the mind, they also alter reality in ways which we can't say. So to him, everything observable is internal, and what is external is unknown and thus inaccessible. And then I came to the Advaita view—I didn't call it that, I said idealism and one school of it—and according to that, we just do away with the external reality concept and say that everything is mind and there is no mind-independent reality. And when I was arguing like that, then suddenly I felt that everything is internal to me and everything is within me, but that within is within the mind rather. And, uh, it's like it's been there for some time, but I'm not sure whether this is, you know, the discovery that you talk about or whether it's too mental. So I wanted to ask you this.

The interpretation, of course, is always mental because the discovery is far beyond any such interpretation. Because it may sound real, but actually it's very absurd, no? What we can represent it as, when we see—the moment we say everything is within me, then there is no concept of within and without left. Yeah, you see? Can we say everything is within me and still have a without? That is absurdism, no? That is just your nonsense. Even to the intellect, it doesn't make sense, you see? So, at best, even these—so whether you go with Hume or Kant or any of these guys, all of their philosophies—the point is that at best, and if you see the later writings, especially somebody like Nietzsche, you will see that by the end he was coming to similar conclusions as we are coming in satsang, which is that no matter how we try to put it, the truth of what is can never be encapsulated in representation.

So if you read, for example, Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche, you will see that he's saying the same thing: that go beyond those conceptual representations because it's not captured. And he's talked about all forms of philosophy there as well, and he basically blew the Kantian view to bits. He's taken him to the cleaners, he's all of that. But then what happens is many times then, because in philosophy what can happen is that the whole game is to sort of make a proposition and to debate that proposition and convince everyone that that is reality. Then what happens is that sometimes the greatest philosophers also get into the trap of saying that, 'Okay, but I am truly, truly certain that I can't say anything certainly,' you see? Which is again absurd, isn't it?

So my advice to you would be that don't make a strong attempt to become a philosopher. Let whatever philosophy has to show up through you, through your mouth, through your hands—let it show up and accept that as a pointing to your true insight, to your true discovery. But don't use that as a limiting condition, and don't be so attached to it. Because you know what happens with every philosophy, isn't it? After a period of time, it gets blown to bits by newer philosophers. Then some newer philosophers will come and say, 'No, no, he was right actually.' So people are still debating whether Socrates and Plato were right, you know? And there comes a generation which says, 'Oh, all wrong.' Then another generation comes, 'Oh, they're all right.' Then they're all wrong. So don't get caught in that roller coaster.

And the same thing has happened in Vedanta and Buddhism and all forms of philosophy, because no proposed notion is what I have found and what you are finding capturable. It is not capturable because we may say nothingness, emptiness, and yet it is the ultimate I, ultimate Self, you see? So all of these at best point. But in reality, what are we saying? How can empty be all there is? And yet that is your very discovery.

I don't know about empty being all there is, but it's like a dream, nah? Everything that happens—there are living things, non-living things, autonomy, free will, good, bad, and laws of nature, all of that—and it could all be internal. Are you saying that you're buying into all of this categorization, or you're saying that all these categories have been proposed and then disposed of, and then proposed again and then disposed of again? No, I've been—it's more than I am arguing the Aristotelian view of living and non-living and then categorizing things as sentient and non-sentient. And all of this has been proposed and disposed of many times in the history of philosophies.

Yeah, now what I'm trying to get at is all these categories—okay, they are fine by themselves—but what is reality? I mean, is there some correlation between reality and these concepts? And when you pursue reality, then you have to cross this obstacle or this roadblock about internal and external. And so if you come to the point that everything is internal, is it the same pointing that is—I mean, is this characterization of everything being internal the discovery that I talk of? It seems like an intellectual one. Is this it? I mean, I'm more concerned about realizing the truth than about, you know, becoming a philosopher or all of that. So I've come to some kind of insight. I don't know whether this insight is the same insight you talk of, or if it's too intellectual.

So the insight that you have, you see, is your proposition in terms of what it implies. Or the meaning of that insight—is it purely conversational, or do you feel like it's a pointer, or do you feel like actually it's a very valid representation of my discovery?

And that's the thing. I actually feel it's a valid representation, so I need to be shook out of it.

What is the valid representation of your discovery?

Everything is internal. There's only mind and there's nothing beyond it.

You see, that sounds a bit like what you would call solipsism. But solipsism, actually, if you're going to become a philosopher, don't become a solipsist because people loathe solipsists more than anybody else, right? So the point is that do you see the absurdity in that—that everything is internal to myself? You see, and if then everything is internal to yourself, how can there be an internal anymore? Yeah? So how is it a valid proposition? Because you could then say everything is, because the boundary of internal and external is not there. Because if it applies to everything, then it no longer leaves anything out.

Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that. That's also part of this representation. That's what I meant.

What you are saying, yes, yes. So it is these things, you see, when we try to represent these—like how do you represent both together? You see, that's where you'll realize that no matter which way you cut it, your words are unable to capture this. Like you want to say something that you have discovered, that there is nothing outside of you, you see? But then the idea of inside and outside is no longer relevant. So then how do we say? Then when we start saying, then it starts sounding like satsang, no? We can just say everything just is, or is not even everything, because the thinginess of it—we have not confirmed that there is a substance or a thing besides the one thing which is my witnessing or the observing of it. That we are never able to confirm.

So look at the Descartes view. You're never able to really leave anything undoubted except your very existence, except your very awareness of even the doubt, you see? Everything else is doubtable, isn't it? So the thinginess of everything we can't really confirm also. So then as you start removing things which you can't really confirm, then you start seeing that your words become very much like satsang. And then you think, 'This just is,' because you can't say 'everything' anymore. You say, 'What is, just is,' or 'This just is.' And then you come to the same point, you see, that we share in satsang.

So but it's a good—I feel like it's a good attempt going at it in a very scientific way, which I respect in a way. So keep looking at it, but don't settle. Don't settle, because the minute you say, 'I feel like I'm getting a valid representation,' then question every aspect of it. Don't get attached to the baby that you deliver through the mind, no? So don't get attached to that and really question and say, when you say 'everything,' what does that mean? Is there more than one thing? Is there one thing? How can I confirm the multiplicity or the oneness of things?

So even your starting point, 'everything is internal'—then you can come to 'is' and say, 'What is is?' See? What is 'is'? What does it mean to exist? Philosophers have been grappling with that question forever. Metaphysics they've been trying to do for centuries, and yet they don't have a valid conclusion about what actually is. So what do we mean by 'everything is'? Are we talking about an existent beingness, an existent existence, you see? And then especially when it comes to words like internal and external, then your statement itself is self-contradicting. So if everything is internal, then what you're saying is that there is no external. Then you don't need to say internal.

So don't—that's what I mean by don't settle. Just keep deconstructing and don't let the empty of words inside, which you're getting very organically through your inquiry, through coming to satsang—don't allow that to be scary in a way that you feel like you are lost without being able to communicate what you discovered, what you found. Because the idea is not really to be able to communicate it. That may happen organically or not. Good, but good contribution. Thank you.

Thank you, Father. Thank you.

Okay, let's see what Niranjan is saying.

Father, namaste Father. How are you?

I'm good, I'm good.

Actually, I wanted to ask something which sounds strange also and contradictory also. For the last few days—not last few days, but last few weeks I would say—I, you know, I am experiencing the same repetitive suffering, but in the early morning phases, like before just fully waking up, like, you know, half-waking kind of, you know. So it's like about maybe—I don't know, I'm not aware of the time, but maybe half an hour or an hour or so something. So those old patterns, you know, the attachments, you know, the old attachments which I used to suffer, they are coming up like in those half-conscious kind of states. And many times inquiry also arises in those states and, you know, and there is like an attempt to be free from them in this dream-kind-of, dreamy-like state, you know, where you are not fully awake.

So it feels like many times, you know, mind convinces me that I am again suffering from the same things. And that is one point. And second is when I am faced with the similar kind of situations which I used to suffer, right? So when those situations come—like when many times you say, 'when the rubber hits the road'—like so that kind of situations, I tend to, you know, I tend to, let's say, use the word 'forget,' you know. I tend to forget my original Self and again, you know, I go into those old patterns of thinking and feeling, those kind of—means that old pattern of suffering, let's say, in total.

So maybe I want to ask a practical solution, but you just—I'm using the words because I know you would say there is nothing like practical. So it's not that I am not clear about the truth or reality. I have that clarity, but sometimes along with that clarity there is suffering, you know? Both are present simultaneously many times. That also happens. So I just wanted if you can say something about this.

Actually, the early morning thing is something that I used to notice often as well in the so-called spiritual journey here as well—that the mind seems to grab us first thing in the morning, no? And we are half asleep just, and then—my knee in the sangha like this, there's one sangha member who gets a serious anxiety.

Sometimes along with that clarity there is suffering, you know? Both are present simultaneously many times; that also happens. So I just wanted if you can say something about this. Actually, the early morning thing is something that I used to notice often as well in the so-called spiritual journey here as well, that the mind seems to grab us first thing in the morning, no? And we are half asleep just, and then...

In the Sangha, like this, there's one Sangha member who gets a serious anxiety thing early in the morning. Like, I'll wake up in the morning and I'll see some 20 messages from them at 4:00 a.m., at 5:00 a.m. coming, because that's what happened. The mind uses that opportunity before we are fully awake in that way to really sell us the story that it has. So it's good you spotted it. It's good to notice that that's what it attempts to do. And your noticing it itself is, of course, very helpful because then next morning again you say, 'Ah, this is the mind's play, you see. It's morning time, I'm just getting out of bed and this is what it's doing.' And it may seem to grab us at this time quite often, but the good thing is—and you're aware of this—is that the minute you come to your emptiness, the instant you come to your openness or clarity as you call it, you see? So the co-existence of clarity and suffering is only when you make yourself linear, when you make yourself have a history of past, present, and future. But in that moment of clarity, all past, all this apparent suffering is gone, isn't it? Can you contain identification which you had 10 minutes ago just organically in this moment right now? No, definitely not.

Let me try and answer again more completely then. The only way to represent or make that kind of report that 'I am both clear and suffering' is to stretch yourself out in linear time and say, 'In the morning time this is my state, in the afternoon this is my state, in the evening this is my state,' you see? Then this is what happens. So we stretch ourselves out in that way, but that is the story of the mythical one. That is not the story of your reality. It is the story of your mind's reports about what your state is. So the instant you come to clarity means that instant you have left this universe of time and space, you see? And 'left' means that you're no longer identifying with just an object within that time and space; you're looking at the entirety of this play of time and space as just an aspect of your existence. So if you don't make that limited reference to yourself objectively, then this seeming idea of being completely clear and yet suffering at the same time—although it sounds very beautiful and Zen to me as well—but the point is that that is not really our discovery, isn't it? Because now you are out of this. Then the notion of suffering means that you're constricted, you see? As you let go of the notion of being objective in time and space, then the idea of suffering needs that initial objective idea first, isn't it?

What I meant by that, Father, was like there is suffering in the foreground and yet at the same time there is peace, you know, peace or clarity in the background. So in that way I meant that both are co-existent. So it's like some of my remnants...

Can we break it down a bit more so that we are on the same page? So let's look at appearance. An appearance is not suffering. An appearance at best we can call pain, isn't it? Identification with that appearance is called suffering. You see that 'it is happening to me,' that 'this should not be what it is for me'—that is called suffering. So appearances can be; suffering is identifying with that, you see? And clarity is not identifying with that. And as we don't identify with that, we see that I am that substratum on top of which all of this play of appearances seems to play out, you see? So what I will admit is that in the non-identification also, any appearance can come, you see? But to make them into suffering you have to use your head a lot, you see? Suffering is not something organic that happens in the realm of appearances, you see? Suffering needs a lot of mental work. Like pain can appear in existence, but to suffer you have to think about it, you see? And when you think about it, you see, that is what we call the absence of clarity anyway, you see? Not that the reality of this goes away in any way, but we take that cloud of dust to be our real nature and it seems like we forget our reality, you see? So if you are speaking about appearances appearing, they can appear, but we are talking about the absence of using conceptual thought to really represent them; then it is no longer suffering yet, you see? The minute you start applying yourself mentally to it, only that is suffering, you see? And in that representation, when we buy into that identification, then it seems like the truth of what we are. It no longer seems like it's always in the background, and that cannot just be a part of the representation again, so it seems to be forgotten, isn't it?

No, I would say, Father, it's not completely forgotten, but you know, some sticky remnants of 'I' that I used to take myself... those sticky remnants which are seen in the foreground and which cause this suffering, and yet I am not completely lost, you know? So that kind of thing.

I feel like we're coming to the same page, so good. I know, and I have no disagreement with that. That sounds okay. Now, what is the antidote, right? What is the antidote to this? Now suppose the patient comes to you and they say that 'I have something like that, give me the one pill that will sort it out finally,' you see? And you will say, 'No, there isn't such a pill, you see. I will prescribe a plan for you, you see. So breakfast, lunch, and dinner have this pill along with that.' That is the best that you can do. So the mind says, 'Give me an antidote which is like forever, I want to be rid of it again,' you see? But the only antidote is that breakfast, lunch, and dinner you remain empty. So sometimes you'll forget the dose, and what will the doctor say? 'Okay, you forgot it. Now forget about the fact that you forgot it. Continue our dose properly now,' you see? Isn't it? The doctor will also say, 'You can't go back into the past and change that. What can we do? You see, take your dose now.' Then the patient will say, 'But oh, I keep forgetting it, I keep forgetting it,' and the doctor will say, 'Okay, you keep forgetting, there's nothing we can do about that. You remember now? Do it now.' It's the whole Satsang conversation again and again. It's okay, it's okay, you see? So it's good in a way. It's good in a way because it doesn't allow us to become arrogant. It can feel like, 'But I got it,' and 'Oh, it's back again,' you see? But the 'I got it' guy can also be just a spiritual ego. So it's good for it to be dissolved in this way because many who are coming to Satsang are having this experience of beautiful insight and then they see the mind come back, and they're not suffering so much from the mind coming back, but they're suffering so much from the notion that 'I was meant to be free of this by now,' you see? 'How could it come back?' So they're suffering more from the concept that they should not be suffering anymore than from the organic notions which the mind is giving them, you see? So it's a one-two punch, you see, from the mind.

Yes, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for, Father. Like, I want to be completely free from this suffering. That's what I am asking, and perhaps that is what's causing more suffering.

That's it, you spotted it yourself. The one that wants to be completely free from suffering is the voice of suffering itself. And it will say, 'But I was there three weeks ago, you see? I don't want to come back to this.' And it's a thief, you see? It's saying all of these things; itself is causing the trouble and saying that 'I want to be free from the trouble.' In clarity, did you find that there was such a 'me' who was the sufferer? But now there's a 'me' left who is now free from suffering? Was that your discovery?

No, no, Father. It cannot happen simultaneously. You saw that it's all like if you are on this side or on that side.

Ah, but that's a good point and that's very valid. But I'm also saying that it is not as if there was a sufferer that now became free from its suffering, you see? It was just seen in that which we call clarity that the notion of the sufferer itself was fraudulent and can be let go of, you see? So when we pick up the idea that 'I want to be completely free of my suffering,' it is the pose of the sufferer, which is completely non-existent because you know very well that if I ask you who is that 'I', you will in a moment see that there isn't such a one.

Yes, Father, that's true. And it is also seen many times here. But that is perhaps the toughest part here, what I feel, to let go of that suffering identity, you know? And many times I see that although it says 'I want to be free from the suffering,' it itself wants the suffering many times. It feels like that, you know? It doesn't want to leave that suffering and also it's saying 'I want to be free from the suffering,' you know? It's like that Catch-22, what we say. So that's also many times it's spotted.

Yeah, you see the dog chasing its own tail and going down. So take the dose now. That's all we can do. Take a full 100 mg of emptiness. The mind resists the symptoms of the instruction because what happens is the mind will use all the linear story about how there was a time where it was all clear and then you don't want to go back to a time where it was all blurry and all of that. But all I'm saying is take the 100 mg of emptiness.

And Father, what I also have noticed is this disposition towards the mind or intellect, you know? Like again and again, you try to see the world through that, you know? Like what you say, 'Don't play in the mental playground,' that example that you give, you know? That intellectual disposition again and again, like you try to see from that point of view or you try to see from that sufferer point of view, you know? So like a habit, you know? So that's also...

Try and look at everything through the lens of the intellect, you see, so that it can be assimilated. We feel like in a digestible way by defining it in certain boundaries and constructs. But the minute I ask you, 'Tell me something which is true,' then because you've been in Satsang, you will see that you cannot answer that question through the same intellectual box at all. And yet all the representatives are proposing what they are saying is true. So because there is no absolute truth there, because there are always theses and hypotheses, you have antithesis for everything. So it can play only into extremes: either this way or that way or maybe in between, but it cannot play beyond that. And all those spectrums are relative. You can say they are relatively true, but perhaps there is no truth in them. It's just a way of looking at things.

We can never say something is relatively true, you see, at least from the paradigm of speaking that we share in Satsang here. Because in Advaita Vedanta we define true as non-relative; it does not change, it does not come and go. So 'relatively true' is a contradiction in terms. And yet we have to use these terms to communicate and point. But nothing is absolutely relatively true. Yes, conversationally true maybe we can say. We use actually many times... I feel like professionally many times I feel that we are very much stuck in the language actually. We have taken the language or the conversational things to be the truth and perhaps that also causes trouble, you know? Like conversationally we speak, 'I am talking to you' or 'I went there' and...

Very true, it is a contradiction in terms, and yet we have to use these terms to communicate and point. But nothing is absolutely relatively true. Yes, conversationally true, maybe we can say. We use 'actually' many times. I feel like professionally, many times, I feel that we are very much stuck in the language, actually. We have taken the language or the conversational things to be the truth, and perhaps that also causes trouble, you know? Like conversationally we speak, 'I am talking to you' or 'I went there,' and you take the time to be the truth, so you are stuck in the language, in the words.

Exactly. That is the human condition. Language games—Wittgenstein called it language games. We're talking about all the philosophers today because she's reminded me about the philosophers. True, true. But of course, when we ask what do we know right now which is absolutely true—you know, like what you are sure 100%—like right now, what I can say? I am not sure of anything, you know? And to the maximum provisional, I can say that I exist.

Very true. Even to say that 'I am' or 'I exist' is also not sure. I am not sure of that because we don't know what 'exists' is. We don't know here in the mind. We definitely don't know in the mind what 'I' use, but the true 'I' that we see, that cannot be spoken. You cannot put it into—it cannot be spoken. Maybe like you can point to it, but that's also far from it.

And that is what is missing in most philosophy, at least that I found: this intuitive insight of the seeing without attention. You see, this discovery which is absent of perception or attention, this discovery of the self-knowledge of the true self-recognition which is independent of all that can come and go—independent even of attention, which seems to be the light of all perception, isn't it? So we can say that something is perceived when the light of attention is on it, or we can say there is no distinction between perception and attention, you see. But this Self, you see, it doesn't matter where attention is. Attention could be on anything, but Atma Gyan is independent of that. And that's why I want to steer this conversation a bit back to this pristine self-discovery, this pristine self-discovery.

So, what are you able to discover without having to use attention? For all of you, what is your discovery without needing any tool whatsoever? So you don't have to even divest your attention from the phenomena. Trying to bring your attention into the non-phenomenal is an absurd statement anyway, because the minute we say attention is on it, it's objective; no, we've objectified it. So what is your discovery? And all of you can answer on chat or you can raise your hand, because this is what I want to talk about or hear from you. What is your discovery which is without any condition, without any tools, without any time, without any effort?

That's the whole point of satsang, Father. That's the Self, what you call.

I'm getting a lot of beautiful responses on the chat as well. Very nice. It doesn't matter. And even, Father's... because many times we talk about philosophy and things like that and everybody goes to sleep, so I'm happy to see that most of you are still awake and listening to what's happening, my love. Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you, thank you so much. You, the one says, 'Anantaji, I lowered my hand because the dungeon exposed what I was going to expose. What happens as I am transitioning from sleep to awake in the early morning, I see the mind playing right away. As soon as I awaken, it's all caught up in these old habits I'm not even invested in. It's just so loud. Then I see the checker guy trying to get rid of the noise. I know him as the checker guy because it feels like effort. It's clearly seen. It's seen because I'm here.' Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Very good. Now the checker guy, the checker guy is my arch-nemesis. He is my arch-nemesis. He is the Joker to my Batman. So, how is it the arch-nemesis? Because many times, and in fact always, if you're able to represent it this way, that even to say 'it is the checker guy,' this is the checker guy. Ah, see, that is the checker guy playing up. Who is that? That's the checker guy, you see. That's the most sneaky nemesis we have in satsang, because it will take everything that it hears—even the notion of the checker guy, the checker guy will use, you see. So the only way out of this game is 100 mg of emptiness, because there is no concept that the checker guy cannot use. It will use all the spiritual concepts also to make a report about the non-existent you. Let's see, well, let's see if you can come up. I'm happy to hear from you. How am I staying to G? Now it's turning. Can you share fresh again?

Yes. And all week between satsangs, questions arise, and I'll ask you questions during the week. And then this morning this happened where, as I'm waking up, like waking up to so much mental chatter, and I can see the one who doesn't like the chatter, who wants to get rid of the chatter. And then it's like self-inquiry like comes in like a steamroller. It does not feel peaceful. Like, 'Okay, who's making all this noise? Who doesn't like this noise?' It's like part of the habit. It's like the inquiry becomes mentalized. And to be able to see that, you know? And then there's, okay, and I can feel constriction in the chest while this is going on as I'm waking up. And there's some kind of knowing, like this is all it, this is all unfolding. And whatever, you know, like I just don't—I hear you, like this is not it, this is... and somehow just to be. I can't really put words into it because I'm sort of still in a half-sleep, and just to know, like, okay, I'm here. And it doesn't feel particularly—it's not like even that it's a relief. It's not even so much that it goes away. But maybe there is a little bit of relief, maybe there's just a little bit. Like, I can't do any—I don't even know what to do about it because I'm half asleep, right? There's nothing to be done.

Yeah, yeah. In, you know, and just exposing that. Like, if this is to go on, and it can go on. And I just felt to expose it, to say that this happens.

This is good, this is good. So, like I was saying, that the only antidote is right now. The only antidote is right now. So, we can't ever truly say that 'this is what happens' anyway, but in this construct, it's good to share a report like this. But the solution to all ailments in satsang is emptiness. Remain in the unborn. And not then, because you can't go back to early morning and say, 'Okay.' It's only right now. It's only right now. This is a very important tip which I keep mentioning to everyone: that don't try to fix it for a past you or a future you. You just fix it for yourself right now, which means what? Remain empty. Remain in the unborn right now. The past is over, you know? It's finished anyway. For the future, the Satguru presence will take care of the future. Allow yourself to remain empty of all of these ideas of past and future just right now.

How do you know anyway that it is the same you that woke up this morning? What is common between that you and this you? It's just imagery from a storehouse that we call memory, isn't it? A repository of seeming past experiences that show up and they say, 'This is what happened,' you see. And how much can we trust those images? They are completely doubtable, and their purpose is that the mind will interpret them and make a linear story about yourself, about you that is so much beyond linear time. It will insert you as if you are a character in this time-based thing and convince you about your objective nature, you see. The 'you' for whom this happened, you see—where is that one now? It's just thoughts, isn't it? And we can't even say that actually it is in my half-awake state; it could have just been a dream. What's the difference anyway?

And the idea is not to say that it was a dream or it was not like this or it didn't happen. The idea is just to loosen up our conviction that 'this is what happened,' and especially the idea that 'it happened to me.' In this moment, you see, in this moment you're empty of all of that and you're in the presence of your own being. Then, even if you give credence to the concept of linear time now, because in this moment you are so deeply immersed in the presence of your being, we can just be grateful for everything that has happened in the past that seemingly got us to this moment. There are many, many ways to look at everything. Many ways to look at everything. And if we are not able to come to a place where we are able to look at it from no position, positionlessly, or from the unborn, at least we can play around with the representations a bit and see how we can put some gratitude and beautiful things into the representation.

And it is possible. For every story, there is no story that can play out in existence, you see, which is so compelling that we can't be empty about it. But if that seems tough, there is no story about the past that we cannot be grateful for. And all of you can experiment with this again: to take up our most horrific-sounding story and really see, 'If I was to look at this through the lens of gratitude, can I?' And you say yes, you can, because even to be in that position where you can ask yourself this question, you see, you must be grateful for everything that got you there. It's so nice, no? In the sense that it's like a huge bucket of Play-Doh, this universe. We give it all the shape, and then like children, we also give it the representations that we want to. And the game of suffering is that we start disliking our own representation and say, 'This should not be like this.' And somehow that seems to give some fire to this game, which is fine.

But then the Play-Doh representation of a Master can come: 'Ah, but you're looking at it this way, my child, and crying about it, but you can also look at it this way, you see. Also look at it this way.' And then you yourself realize that nothing in itself has a true representation. It's all the representations that we make about it. Like I was saying to someone the other day, that if you were told that you wake up tomorrow and you must experience a lot of pain or a lot of suffering, you see, and if you experience a lot of suffering for those fifteen or twenty minutes, then you will be free forever—our expectation will be to experience that suffering. And we make it very difficult for ourselves to experience suffering then, because when we are anticipating it, you see, and we are open about it, it's really a struggle to suffer because it's the opposite. Openness is the opposite of suffering, is it? So we may suffer from the non-suffering. We have gone too far; it will come back.

A Guruji says beautifully: nothing in the world has inherent meaning. It's always the meaning that we give to it. Suppose we say, 'If my mind is super active in the morning and it fires all the shots in the first ten minutes, then it'll leave me alone for the rest of the day.' That's not a bad deal, you see. There are hundreds of ways to look at the same thing. Very good, very good. Then one says, 'I like what you say. No notion, thought, or belief is greater than being. The mind still wants something to grasp, even if it is subtle.' Yes, so everything needs to be disregarded constantly. Even this, even this, because this is also an idea in time. Also the one who disregards needs to be disregarded. Yes, very good. 'But even this, it still feels mental and like it's a process.' Exactly. Good, good you spotted it. It's good. 'Let me be open beyond open.' Very good. 'And allow grace to move through this being.' Very good. Let grace take over, you see. Beautiful. But even this, although it sounds very holy and beautiful—grace is already in charge. How can grace take over? 'I cannot do this.' Everything, everything, everything. I know we've all heard this in satsang and it's beautiful words, but now we come to a place where everything has to go. Everything has to go. Even the conclusions about the mind, you see, like 'my mental processes do not work' is—

Be open, beyond open. Very good. And allow grace to move through this being. Very good. Let grace take over. You see, beautiful. But even this, although it sounds very holy and beautiful, grace is already in charge. How can grace take over? I cannot do this. Everything, everything, everything—I know we've all heard this in satsang and it's beautiful words, but now we come to a place where everything has to go. Everything has to go. Even the conclusions about the mind, you see? Like 'my mental processes do not work' is also just a mental representation. Come to full nakedness, full, full openness, and even beyond the words. Very good. But very good, very happy, and very happy.

Beloved Father, I am using my head a lot. Suffering this morning, then trying to fix it, justifying, troubling. Is all the spiritual knowledge what is troubling me? Is all the spiritual knowledge I have picked up? Yes, yes, yes. Seeking your blessings to not fix or run away from this and trust the inside.

Very good, very good. We've spoken a lot about this since the question was posted, but of course all my blessings are with you. Very good.

Father, what is the difference between awareness and attention?

Ah, so I have an experiment for you. Close your eyes. Bring your attention to an image of a tree, also an image of a banana, and also make sure that you're clearly observing the next thought that comes to you. The tree must be very clear, not blurry. The banana must be very clear, not blurry. And also the thought that comes must be completely clear. Who can do that? Nobody can do that. Nobody can do that because attention in its nature is limited, you see. The minute we start to say, 'I am going to really look at an image of imagination clearly' or this imagination which we call external world clearly, then you cannot. You cannot look at something in front of you, you see, and think a thought completely clearly and keep your attention on that, you see.

And for most parents, of course, we know if you have more than one child, you know how attention is so limited because when both the children or more than two children are asking for attention, we have to tell one to shut up, no? So we realize that attention, although it has a lot of similarities—so I know where the question is coming from—can seem to have a lot of similarities because it is colorless, it is shapeless, you see. But the fact is that I call it the phenomenal twin of awareness. I call it the phenomenal twin of awareness. And the only way to gauge that it is phenomenal is to see that it is limited, as opposed to my awareness, you see, which—it doesn't matter how many perceptions are coming and going—I never run out of awareness. I only seem to run out of attention. And awareness doesn't seem to have any boundary or limitation, but attention seems to have that.

So you can experiment with this a bit and it will become clear to you. And then you can ask yourself this question: Who is my attention reporting to? You see? Who's my attention reporting to? You can experiment with this question. And finally, you can also experiment with this question: What can I find without having to even use my attention? Independent of where attention may be, is there a discovery which is apparent to me? Beautiful. Good, good contemplation questions.

Father, as I follow the invitation to freedom, I started perceiving the subtle imagination of the self I was having in my earlier invitation meditations. So even though I could acknowledge there is a seer, I cannot say anything about it. I felt like I hit a roadblock.

Okay, is that the end of the report? Okay, I'll just speak to you in a minute, my dear. I'll just come to you and just catch up with the rest of the chat for a moment.

The mirror of satsang, even without words, is a direct way out of this ongoing need of self-questioning, doubting, and confirming. Yes, it is not conceptual but experiential by the grace of the actual presence of the master that we do not doubt.

Very beautiful report. Very beautiful. Good.

Father, there was a constant process going on: 'What may I ask or write to Ananta?' It has vanished and silence has remained. Wanted to share because I was not aware it has taken so much space and it sustained the 'I'. Yes, thank you.

Very nice.

Amazing, Anantaji. Thank you, my love. We are so grateful for these interactions and your responses. Thank you, thank you.

What is checking in? As Guruji says, that is how to leave the checking guy behind while checking in.

Oh, we can look at this a bit. So when we say—let's use the term contemplation for a moment—in the world, if you ask somebody to contemplate, most of the world will think about it, you see. Then they say, 'In my contemplation, this is my discovery.' It's mostly that they thought about it for some time and they looked at the thoughts that came and, you know, went through the process of thinking. Now in satsang, when we say contemplate or check in, we are saying just look, you see. But that 'just look' also is a confusing statement because how to look?

So one way to look is with our attention. This is in front of me, this is seen, you see. This is seen, so I cannot be this. So we can do anything with our attention: 'Not this, I cannot be this because it is seen. I cannot be this because it is seen,' you see. So this is as far as attention can go. We can look at all that is perceivable. So it can be the vibrant universe to going within, then you see the body sensations, the emotions, you see the pain, the pleasure, all of these sensations. Then you may come to even the sense of presence of being. You may feel like attention goes there, and then you see there's nowhere for it to go. At best, it may just look at like an empty perception, like a dark empty space. And because that is the limitation of attention, that it can go to that extent, many times the mind will interpret attention going to this dark empty space as a discovery of awareness, you see, which is not it, actually, you see.

But that is as far as attention can go. You can look at all of these possible perceptions. Now when we say, 'What do you find without your mind?' or 'Are you aware now?' or 'Who is aware of your existence?' or like as I say, 'Are you aware of this? Who is aware of the perception of this hand?' now instantly—which is not even an instant in time—there is a recognition which is independent of attention. Independent of attention. You don't need attention to move from anywhere to anywhere to make the determination that it is I that is aware, you see. So this is the most beautiful contemplation.

So we've gone from like a mental contemplation to a looking which is using attention and being able to determine that 'this cannot be it, this cannot be it,' you see, to that which is independent even of attention and yet we sometimes call it a looking or a seeing or an insight, you see. So it's good sometimes to deconstruct these because many times spiritual seekers can get stuck in the first two, you see. They can get stuck in trying to figure it out mentally, that 'I just am not able to determine what is myself or convince myself about myself.' Secondly, 'I'm not able to bring my attention to myself. I'm not able to have the...' How many of you feel like 'I'm not able to come to the experience of myself. When will I come to the experience of myself?' And that is just a simple fallacy, that you feel like your self is going to be an experience that attention will bring to you. It's never going to be that, you see.

And you may try many gymnastics to try and control your attention in various different ways and have these ideas of inside and outside and try to keep it on the inside, and many, many, many of you will then come to the determination that that looking, coming to like a darkness, is your discovery of awareness, you see. But can it be like that? If all that the discovery of the Self was just the same experience that you would have if you go into a room without lights, then we would just send you to a room without lights. Maybe that's why people used to go to the caves. Well, you see, it can't be that, no. It's not an experience in that way. There is a non-phenomenal insight and non-phenomenal experience, you see, which is this immediate. You see, what brings you this clarity that it is you that is witnessing all of these perceptions? This voice right now—do you have to focus your attention back and look at who's really listening to these words right now? Is it me? Is it I? Is it I? No, you don't have to do that. It's apparent to you, you see.

But because this discovery is so simple and so apparent and independent of any perception or conceptualization, we seem like we haven't got it because to the mind that seems like the only way to come to a discovery, or these seem like the only ways in our head or in our perception, you see. That's why self-discovery seems so difficult, because it is so simple. But you cannot do it through the wrong instruments. You cannot use the instrument of perception to come to the discovery of the Self and you cannot use the instrument of mentation to come to the discovery of the Self, you see. And if you stop relying on these two instruments, there is no way that you can miss yourself. That's the master key. The instant you are not trying to see it or to think about it, what is there? In that instant, you are. And this is clear to you even in those instances where you are trying, it is you, but that doesn't seem as clear then.

So in your notionless existence, you see, not only is the manifest—like Bankei said—all things are perfectly resolved. And obviously he's talking about resolution in the realm of the manifest; there's no problem in the unmanifest, you see. So not only is the manifest completely fine, but also your self-discovery, your self-knowledge, is completely apparent to you. So it's super simple. But what doesn't seem simple in the human condition is to drop our effort to understand or to visualize or perceive. And if just this part of satsang went into you today, you will save yourself many lifetimes of struggle trying to find yourself. Okay, good, good.

Seriously, Father, 'phenomenal twin of awareness'? Please admit that you have invented the term to drive the seeker crazy.

Everything I invent is for that. It is to drive your thinking mind completely out of it. Very good. Okay. Long one, let me have some water before that, before I jump into that. Actually, can I put this into gallery? And if you can raise your hands if there was some resonance with what I just said, because that is very, very important, you see. That's very, very important if there's some resonance with what I said about not trying to get it here or try to have a perceptual experience of it and to come to the apparency of just the simplicity of this natural insight, you see. If there was some resonance with that, I'm very happy. I'm very happy because this is the point that needs to be emphasized and it takes the path out of this journey—all the long-minded struggling and suffering through the journey. Because the suffering in the spiritual seeker is only because we are using the wrong tools to discover the Self, you see. Using a thermometer to measure the size of space, and then what do we do? We say, 'Ah, 98, very nice,' you see. 'Oh no, today 100,' you see. But what are you measuring? You're measuring at best the byproducts. This is the byproducts, phenomenal byproducts like we were saying last time.

And that is a good metaphor, I feel. You're saying that don't go with what the dog is smelling, you see. So if the dog is attention and a lot of content is coming in front of your attention—so let's call it the dog is smelling these things—don't go with the smells the dog is getting. Go with who is the owner of this dog. Discover that. And the dog cannot discover that. It is only the owner that can discover itself. So your attention cannot go. So don't try to contain the content of the smell, only take it to rose gardens or something like that. That won't help. Stop being concerned about the smell so much and see who is the owner of this dog. That's very important.

Front of your attention. So let's call it the dog is smelling these things. Don't go with the smells the dog is getting; go with who is the owner of this dog. Discover that. And the dog cannot discover that; it is only the owner that can discover itself. So your attention cannot go—so don't try to contain the content of the smell, only take it to rose gardens or something like that. That won't help. Stop being concerned about the smell so much and see who is the owner of this dog. That's very important. And I've explained to you that you cannot see in traditional ways of seeing, which is perceptual seeing or conceptualization.

How many of you feel that without conceptualizing or perceiving you are lost? Anyone feel that way? Be honest now. Okay, good, good. Because that is the fear that is, in a way, the primal fear. Because you feel like, 'If I cannot rely on my concepts, and now he's saying don't even rely on my percepts,' you see, my perceptions, 'then what do I have left?' You see? But trust me. Trust me on this one. I ask for your trust only on this one. Everything else I will explain to you, but on this one I ask for your trust. Trust me and let go of your reliance on perceptions and conceptualization. You will not regret it. You will not be lost; you will be found.

Okay, let's read this report. 'Pranam Father. First thing, I would like to thank you with all my heart for showing me what it is to be. Very good. A few satsangs back, I had this moment, a glimpse of truth, I guess. I'm not sure how to describe that in two words, but for like a fraction of a second, I was me again. I'm not sure how do I describe it. Very good. I have a very good sense of what you're saying. Very good. But not sure how do I describe it, but it had a huge impact on how I see things. All I know is just that it was amazing and I had never been like that before. Very good. You showed it to me very easily, which I have never been able to see before. The only problem now is that I am not sure how to persist with that. Not sure how to persist with what I had in that moment. I have tried, but no matter what, I am not able to get it back.'

You see, now, in a way, I answered the question before the question. I just answered it just now. What we spoke about is exactly the answer to this. How to do it? You cannot do it in this effortful way of trying to perceive it or bring it back in that way, you see. You cannot do it by thinking that 'I have to do it, I have to get it back.' Just remain empty, independent of any such effort. 'I have tried, but no matter what, I'm not able to get it back. I kind of have memory or, I don't know, a little bit of that feel, but I cannot be in that state again. Can you please guide me on how can I persist with it always? I think to put it in better words, how can I always be?'

It happens for most of you. In a way, I've had these experiences where you notice that that which you call 'me,' you can no longer find. There's an absence of any impediment to being. I can feel like, 'Ah, for the first time I'm just being. I'm just being.' You can feel very freeing, very free. Now the thing is that there are pros and cons to everything phenomenal, you know. So the pro, the benefit, is that you can compare what your discovery was and you can see how it matches everything that is said in satsang, everything that is said in the scriptures. That in your reality, you see, there is nothing changing, nothing comes and goes, there's nothing, you see, there's no distinction. All of that you can verify.

But the con is that you think that it is something that happened to you and now you have to get it back. So the spiritual experience then becomes a benchmark or, like you said, a state that you have to regain. And I want to shake that out of you so that you don't trouble yourself with it anymore. Because I can tell you that fresh God is always worth more than stale God, you see. It may be the most, in your memory, the most pristine experience you ever had, but nothing is as pristine as fresh God. Your fresh being is here. Fresh consciousness, fresh God. Nothing is greater than that. Nothing was ever greater than that. It is just your mind using your memory to put you in this sort of state of wanting, of desire.

So let go of that from that perspective and meet yourself now. Nothing true comes and goes. Your memory of what happened, as glorious as your mental interpretation may be, is always incipient compared to right now. And this is for all of you, because many of you beat yourself up like this: 'Two years ago I had this, two weeks ago I had this, last satsang I had this experience,' you see. And in one way, these what we call awakening experiences are very beautiful, but then these same very same experiences can also become your new trap. How many are chasing experiences that they had years ago? Forget about it. Not worth it. Yourself, you know very well that it is the unchanging Self. So how could it only have been in the past? How could it have been a state? A Self is not a state; it is that in which all states come and go. So although I can relate to it because it can seem like a very pristine experience that we had, many times it can just prevent us because we keep looking for that, that, that. Maybe this was meant to be even more pristine, but you're missing this for that. So let go of it. Let go of all expectation to have that and all meaning your mind is attached to that because here and now, here and now, this is it.

Thank you. One says, 'I hear you and what you said, and the mind is screaming inside, cramping and so on.' Yes. Yeah, it will fight with all its might and it's okay. It's okay. You continue to be in satsang, you see. It's just the withdrawal symptoms going from the limited way of existence to a broader way of existence, you see. The seller of the limited is obviously going to fight. It's okay. One tip I have for all of you that seem to be undergoing a bit of this: you can feel like the mind is screaming a lot and 'What should I do?' You see, don't try to juggle both or manage both. Just pick a side for a bit. Pick a side. Because what can happen is that it can seem very big if there's some expectation that something or the other will come from the mind which is going to represent the truth in some way and it is going to help me, you see. And then you try to manage a bit of that and a bit of satsang, you see. So then you feel like you're getting all confused and you see there's a lot of thing happening.

Once you let go of all expectations from the mind of it delivering any sort of truth to you—Guruji says it's your interest that gives it life. What does that interest mean? That interest is just an expectation that something true may emerge from it finally. But I can tell you it's not going to happen. The truth is not conceptualizable. It is not going to be able to represent the truth no matter how hard the mind tries. So as you let go, then you will see that although it seems to be loud, compared to the spaciousness of your being, it is not a patch on it. It's not a small insect also on it. And then we don't have to—once it is accepted, then we don't have to use these derivative terms of the mind because that's also ultimately an aspect of consciousness itself.

Okay, quickly, quickly, I'm going to get to the rest. 'Anantaji, thank you. While my body seems to show some constrictions, my mind is lost and does not understand what you are saying.' Good. If your mind is understanding what I'm saying, then tomorrow I'll only have to clean that understanding up. I will only have to empty it. So don't understand what I'm saying. Let your mind be lost. Let the body be constricted. How is your state? Let's not even call it a state. How are you? How are you going to represent yourself? As the confused mind? As a constricted body? Or is there another way that you can represent yourself? You see, not in an imagined way, but from your looking. So contemplate that, because we get so used to our representation coming from the state of the body or the state of the mind that we miss the greatest aspect of our being in that way.

'Dearest Father, many thanks. Since I met you last week, there has been an opening and felt so much grace. I know now what to do with intrusive thoughts and any thoughts. If at all I need to do something, then it is to not pay attention to any thoughts. I clearly know that this understanding will give me everything, both worldly and spiritual.' Did I promise all this? Okay, okay. It's the core of the teachings. Okay. 'Thanks a lot, Father, and thanks to the Satguru.' I'm not laughing at you by any means; I'm just wondering whether this is what the conversation was. 'Please bless that I am able to use this clean-up stick until necessary. If at all there is something to do, it is just do not pay attention to any thoughts.'

Yes. Well, if that comes naturally to you, that you are able to divest your attention from the mind, then by all means, by all means. What I noticed in this spiritual-seeming journey here is that my attention was pretty wild, you know. It was a crazy monkey. So the more I tried to control it, the more rebellious it would get. So I found in this experience that to work with surrender, to work with belief, was a lot easier. So you need both attention and belief to suffer. I am going to share the ATM example after a long time today. But you need both of those to suffer or to take yourself to be limited, you see. So for me, it is okay if my attention is on a thought; it can go with the thought. But unless I take it to be real and, let's say, I take it to be about me, it does not cause any trouble. So that's an example of 'Let all thoughts as visitors come and go; don't serve them tea.' Seemed to be a simpler instruction for this one to follow.

But we cannot generalize it. For some of you, it may be easy to withdraw your attention and to keep it centered on your sense of being or to be centered on a mantra or something like that. Some of you may find that easier. But really, mostly I'm saying surrender or let go. Don't attach so much to these thoughts even if attention is going on them; it's fine. So how many of you—many, many of you are new also. When I started sharing satsang, I used to constantly talk about the ATM. The ATM machine is the Anytime Misery machine, you see. So all of us have access to this anytime misery, you see, and it's unlimited balance there. Unlike our physical money bank account, the ATM machine of anytime misery is unlimited balance.

So how do you withdraw misery? Suppose the project was different. Suppose the project was not to come to truth, but you came to satsang because you're too free and you want to suffer. You wanted some misery because you're feeling too bored of all the freedom. See, what would you have to do? So what you have to do is to go to this Anytime Misery machine, which is the mind. And how do you extract misery from it? First, you put in the ATM card, you see. What is the ATM card? It is Attention To Mind—ATM card. So you give your attention to the mind, you see. But in most countries, just putting the ATM card in will not give you the money. You know what else you have to do? You have to punch in your PIN—Personal Identification Number. I mean, there cannot be a better metaphor. The PIN is the personal identification, which is nothing but belief, you see. The minute you say, 'Yes, what I am giving attention in my mind to actually applies to me as my personal identity,' that is, believe it to be real, believe it to be true, an unlimited amount of misery is available to us.

But both steps have to be done. You have to give the attention to the mind and you have to identify; you have to punch in your personal identification. And this 'you' is who? Because this question will always come. Is 'you' as consciousness itself? All satsang is consciousness speaking with consciousness. So mostly, most spiritual practices in the world and most spiritual paths in the world are about how to withdraw attention, how to withdraw attention. So chant a mantra, do some other practice, keep mindfulness, whatever you may say. If you really explore this, you will find that most spiritual paths...

To identify, you have to punch in your personal identification. And this 'you' is who? Because this question will always come. Is 'you' as Consciousness itself? All satsang is Consciousness speaking with Consciousness. So, mostly, most spiritual practices in the world and most spiritual paths in the world are about how to withdraw attention. How to withdraw attention: so, chant a mantra, do some other practice, keep mindfulness, whatever you may say. If you really explore this, you will find that most spiritual paths and practices are about how to not bring attention to thought. But you will notice that if I say to you, 'Don't think of an orange,' whatever you do, don't think of an orange—you see, it's going to come. Except if some of you are maha yogis or something, it's going to come, you see. So, attention is a difficult monkey to manage.

But if I say, 'Don't imagine yourself to be the orange,' it's much easier. So, to divest—at least here I found—to divest identification that Guruji says, 'Don't identify,' that seems a much simpler way. It just needs some devotion; it needs some acceptance. So, that is a much simpler way. So, even if you put in the ATM card, attention is going to the mind; don't plug in your identification. Don't put in your belief. And without belief, it cannot get you. You cannot suffer. We always found that this was a useful metaphor to share. Okay, last couple of questions I feel like I'll take.

Dear Gurudeva, as you are aware, in this journey with you as my Satguru, surrender came easily. I know who this one is. There's not been much attempt to understand or contemplate or anything like that. In hindsight, it feels like if you had had satsang in a language I didn't understand, yes, I would have still—it would have still led to this clear and simple seeing. That's how little there has been a mental or logical following of the pointings in satsang. Yes, that's the best. Except perhaps the most simple, simplest of pointings like 'Don't believe your thoughts,' 'What do you find without the mind?' etc. Yes. And yet, when you say everything is resolved in the unborn, there is a clear intuitive understanding that is not mental, theoretical, or explainable. At your feet, Gurudev. Thank you. Good to see you live for a change. Very happy.

Yeah. One says, 'Father, as you speak, I feel more and more like a small child that knows nothing. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I still cling to gratitude. Is that okay, or shall I jump?' Huh? I didn't get the alternatives. 'I still cling'—oh, you mean you still cling to gratitude, and is that okay to cling to gratitude? Yes, it's okay. It's fine. That branch, you can hold on to it. I rarely say stuff like that. One is asking about if anyone's from California. I'm sure there are a few in the Sangha; I'm not sure whether any are here today. Okay, last one. Let's see, let's see.

Hello, Father. Thank you. There's always a small voice at the back of my mind telling me that I have to be, that I have to be, and doesn't let my mind get through. And being empty process, this small voice just does not even work on a regular basis. How to wipe out this juggling and shouting? Okay, at your feet. How to wipe out this juggling and shouting?

This is the reason it's been about seven years since I started sharing satsang. And except for this time where there's been a lot of work, like the work-work in the body-mind play of this one, there's been satsang almost every day. Because I realize the conditioning that we have and this voice's constant assertion about your limited identity. So many times I would—so when I started sharing, I would share once a fortnight, you see. And many times it would feel like at the end of Saturday, I would look at everyone and say, 'Wow, see how open, how empty, how free,' you see. And then I would see them again after a fortnight and be like at the beginning of satsang here. So then I felt like this has to be repeated a little more.

So we started doing every week, every week. Then what happened is that I started getting so many messages, and I felt like I have to answer every message in those days because it was still manageable like that. Then I felt that what we have to do is have a daily one-hour session broadcast. And we used to use a tool called Ustream or something at that time, and that's how the sharing of online satsang started, where I felt like instead of answering questions all day typing, typing, you could just meet everyone during that one hour. Then I could go about my regular work through the day. And that satsang, which started for one hour—I remember when Jeya came here, I was here in the beginning. We used to be very—like, she was sitting in front of me. She was the first one that came, at least from abroad, and she came and sat with me.

But what used to happen is satsang used to start, I used to come dot on time, and the minute time was over, I would leave. I would give you a hug and then just go, you know. It's only as time went on when satsangs have become so long—two, three hours we sit and chat, and then after the broadcast is over, we just keep sitting around sometimes for a long time. So, it all started because I noticed that the nature of the mind, you see. So what used to happen is that Monday to Friday used to be the satsang, and that's the deal I have with the family, right? So the weekends belong to the family, and then weekdays for a few hours every day I'm allowed to share satsang—allowed, quote-unquote.

So, what would happen is that on Friday, when I was saying bye to everyone, I had this greeting that I had invented which was: 'Have a concept-free weekend.' As you tell everyone, 'Have a concept-free weekend.' And because I used to notice that many times on Friday, it would seem like all these children, all the Sangha children, are beyond anything that the world can throw at them. Anything. Nothing can get them after one full day of satsang, a full week of satsang, five days, you know. But I would see them on Monday and, you know, back again. I realized that the two days, so many concepts. The mind—if you do like this child told me once, she said, 'Father, you're just too much, you know. So when satsang gets over, I just have to give some space to the mind because the mind says, "Okay, now you had your time with Father, you have to give me some time," and I have to indulge in it; otherwise, it becomes very strange.'

So this is the way the mind plays. But what is the antidote to this? The antidote is to just in this moment be empty. In this moment be empty. Come to satsang, and anytime that you're not in this physical sort of satsang, have your own satsang of emptiness. Okay, thank you. I've read through all the messages. Let me read one from someone who's fairly new to satsang. 'Father, there is tension in the body and personal identity, and I am here to see it, but it feels as though I am something in between.' Hello, I don't see you yet. Say some more.

It's a strange equipment. Sorry, can you hear me and see me now?

Yes. So you say that you see—can you say fresh so that we don't have to refer to that?

You say, yeah, you were speaking about this also in the satsang very often, so I felt to share. When I look, there's tension in the body, especially because of the satsang; it brings this tension up. And all the people who are like to be in front of other people and—so there's, as you said within the ATM, there's this personal identity. Something is like thoughts—not about like thoughts which judge this tension and resistance—and then this personal identity is there and it's seen. And this, because it's so strongly in the body, it feels as though I'm the one who can see it and I'm apart from this whole happening. And at the same time, because it feels so strongly in the body, it's almost as if I'm still in between. I don't know if this makes sense, but...

So, let's look at that fresh now. So there's some stress in the body or some fear or something showing up. Especially when speaking in front of an audience, it can feel like that, even on Zoom. So you can use that; you can use that in a helpful way. So notice that. And then when you say, 'I am somewhere in between,' what is the quality of this 'I' that is perceived as somewhere in between? Like, does it have a color or a shape?

Now that you're asking, it seems to be more like a thought itself.

Good. So, very good. So the thought is also seen. The thought is coming with the representation of some something in between, you see. But now that you notice it as just a thought, now if you check and say: the one that is witnessing this thought, where is that or what is that?

Yeah, it's here.

So that which witnesses all of this, can anything come in the realm of appearances, you see? Whether it is the tension, whether it is the thoughts or some other emotion, some pain, some pleasure—can any of this actually attack that which is witnessing all of this in any way? Can anything be that strong that it truly is able to attack this one?

No, nothing. Nothing can touch it. Nothing can disturb it.

Sometimes I jokingly say: what can appear in this realm of appearances that can jump back into awareness and give it a slap? So if in this moment you are not identifying with anything other than that which needs no identifying with, but what is naturally seen as yourself, then what can be shaken? Like the stress that is, the tension that is there—who is that tension shaking up?

Trying to find the one who's been shaking up and shaken up, but it's more like this old idea, this old self-image which I called myself for this, yeah, for a long time.

And that's it. So it's just the imaginary shape that has become our habit, no? If we've learned through our parenting, through our mind, how to construct an imaginary shape for ourselves, and for that shape, everything practically—it seems like anything that comes can shake it up, you see. Easily shaken up. Now, but that shape is just a mythical shape. It is just a shape that we have constructed using our ideas, using our thoughts. That is what is called conditioning or vasanas, you see. The shape that is created through this mental thought processes which can last sometimes many lifetimes, but we don't need to bother with that. So that is called the pool or the kosha of all the vasanas or all the conditioning.

But once we see that that which I can intuitively sense is my reality, which is just witnessing all of this coming effortlessly, and it's not possible in any way for this one to be shaken because it has no shape, you see. The more we—when more we come to this recognition, the less and less we feel like we will be shaken, you see. But don't make it a solid benchmark, okay? Because you will trouble yourself with that. Your job is just to come to that recognition, and you will see that the idea of you having a shape will start to dissolve quite effortlessly. And then the notion of shakiness will—the sensations will still show up, or they may still show up, but it will not feel like you in reality are getting shaken. It's only sensations playing with other sensations, and that play is completely fine.

Okay. You were speaking, I was still looking, and you can see that this tension and the pain which is here, and because it's so strongly in the body, it's so easily believed that it comes for me, for a separate me.

And yes, so that idea will dissolve more and more. And I've noticed also for many, we judge ourselves based on what is showing up. We judge whether how spiritual we are being or how open we are being or how accepting we are being based on these things. And the best is to just let it go. Don't make any judgment about yourself based on the content of the experience that you are having, you see. Let all experiences come and go, you see. Just meet them like space. Just meet them as empty space. Let them all come and go and don't say, 'I am not being as open as I should be,' or 'I should be more like this.' You should—don't make any self-incriminating statements based on just this sort of evidence that shows up. Okay, thank you. Very good.

These things, and the best is to just let it go. Don't make any judgment about yourself based on the content of the experience that you are having, you see. Let all experiences come and go, you see. Just meet them like space. Just meet them as empty space. Let them all come and go and don't say, 'I am not being as open as I should be' or 'I should be more like this.' You should don't make any self-incriminating statements based on just this sort of evidence that shows up. Okay, thank you. Very good.

Hey, okay. I feel like I'm done. I'm done completely for the day and I doubt there's anything much left to say because he captured a lot of things today. Hey, good. Only thing left to do now is play some nice bhajans. I can be your DJ for a bit and then we can go. So, requests you can post there if you like. You guys want to hear something? That's not a very smart DJ apparently, and just the guy who plays requests. Let's see. Evening, I used to play it from my computer but now... Namaste.

Too much devotion for my computer, stuck in the middle. Let's try again. Something sucks. So, this is the one. Oh, that's way too short. With the other rocking one, which everyone that... happy. Oh, look at everything in ABC Farms. Okay, five minutes, ten minutes, you've got to finish. Come join me. Okay, okay. I am here. Hey, there we go. Here we go. There we go.

That's the first time I've heard of singing all these years. I've never heard it before. Let's hope it goes well. Hello. Peace. Okay, which is that? This one? This becomes a different type of party. Yes. What it was. Please, Christians. God, yes. Okay, this is... so... honey. Christmas. This. Now. Luxury. Oh, is... I am. Yes. This. My. Now, yes. My. So, thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Thank you.