Is it Possible to Work Towards the Improvement of Situation From a State of Acceptance? -24 Aug, 16

Father, why it always was down with a mind that says the only mind? But it can be seen in nature. In nature also, I will give you a very clear example. That river is flowing, and suppose a flow gets obstructed by something. There's a movement then. We have seen in nature that sometimes the river, the flow, the stream has to cut through even mountains to pass through and make a new way out of it.

Yes, now very good example. So in the same example, now if this river was like flowing, but you could communicate with it, okay? Now the river is telling you that, you know, at Lakshman Jhula, there is a big obstruction, you see. The river is telling you at Lakshman Jhula there's a big obstruction and I want to cut through that. You can see Lakshman Jhula, you see that there is no obstruction there. The Jhula is on top, it's not obstructing the river in any way. So now will you tell the river, 'You work harder, cut the obstruction, do it,' or you say, 'Can you just see that there is no obstruction?' You see? So the mind is saying you must work through it, make sure it happens, cut this way, cut that way. This is the way it works. The other rivers are coming—Yamuna and Saraswati—everybody's coming saying, 'This is how I did it, this is how I did it.' But you are sitting and saying, 'I see no obstruction.' So what will you tell the river?

I don't see how denying any appearance will be of any help in it. Did you go fishing with more males? But the appearance is not there at all, isn't it? In this case, the obstruction is not there. The person is not there. I am not saying deny the appearance. Can you as a person appear to you? What items is the person made up of?

So that's what I said. Why is it always on mind and person? It could be simply a natural movement of life.

You show me the person, the appearance of the person, I will cease to be in denial of it. Isn't that scientific? Or should we go with the presumed ideas? The presumed ideas have been many which have now been overridden, isn't it? The world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe—all these were presumed ideas, you see. So what are we? Can I only be that which cannot be experienced directly or that which is not appearing? Even this realm of atoms and molecules. That is what is called openness: do not go with the presumption that something must be true unless it is our direct experience.

Is this acceptance? I just can't understand how. I say it's simpler because maybe something complicated is being made. I am saying that the mind is telling you that you are from Mars, you're actually a Martian, and these are your likes and dislikes, this is what you want to do visiting this planet, you see. I'm saying that there's a slice in your head which is convincing you that you are this. I can see that you're not a Martian. I am just saying that why are you believing this mind? Just see for yourself what you are. Would you call that denial?

So to have a self-knowledge or to see what I am, does it mean that I will let everything as it is? I won't seek a way out of any situation, any movement? Like if there is a pain, I won't seek a way out of it? I won't take medicine? As the, you know, this is not so. I hope even engage in that part because many times are you interested people during medicine.

So what will be seen is that 'I' as a presumption is not real. The recognition of the true Atma will be here and then all actions—taking medicine, not taking, the movement of this body-mind—there will be a simple allowing of that. Your idea of allowing seems to be that it will be a very passive spirit, you see. I am saying that allowing means that anything could happen. You could be that in your state of allowing. Do you want to eat? Energy is there for you to create, do a great initiative which will bring peace and light to the entire universe. Why are you allowing have to mean, 'No, I just sit in my bedroom, not take medicine'? Why it has to always be like that?

Which part? Can you make it very specific? Like a very simple logic that if you allow something or you accept something as it is, then why would you wish or intend it to be any different than it is? If you allow things to be as they are because they are as they are, isn't it? That is the reason to allow, yes. Then why will you invite? There can be this play of this energy, this urge to act in any way—that can also be allowed to flow. I do not feel that there is anyone even operating personally who's been able to make a real difference without first the clear acceptance of things as they are.

I see many actually who are in delusion. In my family were some who, because life has not been very kind to them, you see, they still feel they are building the Taj Mahal. They refuse to accept the play now in the heart, you see. So in that mental delusion of being in that veil, you see, the appropriate actions are not seemingly happening. So anyone who's even made a difference in a seemingly personal way, if you were just to speak like in a non-satsang way, you will find that they had a very, very objective assessment and acceptance of things as they are first. That is what I mean by acceptance, you see.

So what is it that when we are open to accepting things as they are, what do we find? One has to look at the phenomenal realm and say, 'Okay, this computer's like this, this is like this.' But isn't there a deeper way to see things as they are? To see there is no existence of the separate entity, you see? What is wrong with that? Same point: avoid illusion to be just the presuming of something which is never found, isn't it? Acceptance doesn't mean passivity. Acceptance just means to see things as they are and not to be in denial of that. In fact, it is the opposite of denial.

I cannot accept if you are in denial. There can be some fear about accepting the muck which seems to appear in this world, you see. There can be some fear about it that if you become open, then all the pain and grief which the world is experiencing will be yours to see naked. It can seem very raw, it can seem very naked. You may be that—that can be this thing. So we had rather live in a mental concept of myself and the world using a very romanticized version of what is, you see. That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that there can be an acceptance of this realm as it is appearing, and from there if there's some movement happening towards changing it in a certain way, that is also allowed.